'Yes, it is deliberate. An email from Laura Sandys to members of European Movement asked them to use Europe instead of the EU. I believe there is also polling which suggests voters react more positively to the word 'Europe' over 'the EU'.'
...and they have been deliberately misappropriating this term for 40 years.
This 3rd party cycle is simply re-asserting itself now in 2016 - the bitter division between non-establishment and establishment Republicans and the same sort of split on the Democratic side with Sanders and Clinton, plus the possibility of Bloomberg standing under certain conditions........so an abudance of 3rd party activity there! No surprise if you know your history!
But there were also significant third party involvement in 1924, 1948, 1968 and 1992.
This 3rd party cycle is simply re-asserting itself now in 2016 - the bitter division between non-establishment and establishment Republicans and the same sort of split on the Democratic side with Sanders and Clinton, plus the possibility of Bloomberg standing under certain conditions........so an abudance of 3rd party activity there! No surprise if you know your history!
Also, 1992 and 1996, so is there a mini cycle that combines with the big cycle?
This 3rd party cycle is simply re-asserting itself now in 2016 - the bitter division between non-establishment and establishment Republicans and the same sort of split on the Democratic side with Sanders and Clinton, plus the possibility of Bloomberg standing under certain conditions........so an abudance of 3rd party activity there! No surprise if you know your history!
Sorry to pop the bubble:
2000, Ralph Nader 1996, Ross Perot 1992, Ross Perot 1980, John Anderson 1968, George Wallace 1948, Strom Thurmond, Henry Wallace 1924, Robert LaFollette 1892, James Weaver 1856, Millard Fillmore 1852, John Hale 1848, Martin Van Buren 1836, Hugh White, Daniel Webster, Willie Person 1832, John Floyd, William Wirt 1824, William Crawford, Henry Clay
This 3rd party cycle is simply re-asserting itself now in 2016 - the bitter division between non-establishment and establishment Republicans and the same sort of split on the Democratic side with Sanders and Clinton, plus the possibility of Bloomberg standing under certain conditions........so an abudance of 3rd party activity there! No surprise if you know your history!
Also, 1992 and 1996, so is there a mini cycle that combines with the big cycle?
Europe is established shorthand. Leavers need to get over it.
Beautiful irony.
To be fair you wouldn't call a Canadian an American would you? America is shorthand for the USA, Europe is shorthand for the European Union. Get over it and move on.
'Yes, it is deliberate. An email from Laura Sandys to members of European Movement asked them to use Europe instead of the EU. I believe there is also polling which suggests voters react more positively to the word 'Europe' over 'the EU'.'
...and they have been deliberately misappropriating this term for 40 years.
I do shudder when I hear the England Cricket team, the England Football team or the England Rugby team referred to as "England". Terrible misappropriation of language for decades upon decades... Probably deliberate too! Lock 'em up!!!
This thread is turning dafter than a jelly baby curry. *shakes head*
This 3rd party cycle is simply re-asserting itself now in 2016 - the bitter division between non-establishment and establishment Republicans and the same sort of split on the Democratic side with Sanders and Clinton, plus the possibility of Bloomberg standing under certain conditions........so an abudance of 3rd party activity there! No surprise if you know your history!
Sorry to pop the bubble:
2000, Ralph Nader 1996, Ross Perot 1992, Ross Perot 1980, John Anderson 1968, George Wallace 1948, Strom Thurmond, Henry Wallace 1924, Robert LaFollette 1892, James Weaver 1856, Millard Fillmore 1852, John Hale 1848, Martin Van Buren 1836, Hugh White, Daniel Webster, Willie Person 1832, John Floyd, William Wirt 1824, William Crawford, Henry Clay
There is no 51.6 year cycle with those guys.
There's definitely some kind of four year cycle there...
This 3rd party cycle is simply re-asserting itself now in 2016 - the bitter division between non-establishment and establishment Republicans and the same sort of split on the Democratic side with Sanders and Clinton, plus the possibility of Bloomberg standing under certain conditions........so an abudance of 3rd party activity there! No surprise if you know your history!
Also, 1992 and 1996, so is there a mini cycle that combines with the big cycle?
I would argue that there is, yes....but generally the worst splits always seem to be on the Republican side - 1924, 1948 and 1968 were all effectively splits on the Democratic side, Perot was an interesting case - yes he hurt the Republicans proportionately more, but he did take Democratic votes as well when you look at what Dukakis got in 1988 and what Clinton got in his re-election in 1996.
When you see the number of Tory MPs supporting Leave do you regret your disloyalty to the party that delivered the referendum?
Well said. About 140 Leave Tory MPs in Parliament versus 1 Leave UKIP MP in Parliament.
Tories are the only party of Leave.
I think the number of Tory MPs supporting Leave could reach as high as 150.
But that's an absolute maximum. 140-145 is more likely, IMHO.
>300 would support Leave if that was Cameron's position, no?
I think you'd 90% of the Tories with Cameron, 5% against, and 5% abstentions.
So 297 Tories + 8 DUP + 1 UUP + 1 UKIP + 11 Labour = 318 for Leave
I think Remain would be able to (in theory) muster around 315 MPs but, in reality, there'd be quite a few abstentions and absentees so Leave carried the House.
You could sum up the Tories' agony on a single PowerPoint slide. With an In leader 45% of MPs rebel (I know they are not technically rebelling). With an Out leader you estimate (very believably) that 10% would rebel. Tory MPs really need an Out leader, if only for their own inner peace, but they can't seem to get one who will stay Out when in office.
Europe is established shorthand. Leavers need to get over it.
Beautiful irony.
To be fair you wouldn't call a Canadian an American would you? America is shorthand for the USA, Europe is shorthand for the European Union. Get over it and move on.
Would you say leave "America" or leave "North America" rather than leave NAFTA? No, of course you wouldn't.
So, no, I won't get over it and move on.
EU is shorter than Europe. That's the irony of calling Europe 'shorthand'.
I will relentlessly point out that we are voting to Leave the EU, but we love Europe and have no xenophobic agenda and want to partner with it after.
When you see the number of Tory MPs supporting Leave do you regret your disloyalty to the party that delivered the referendum?
Well said. About 140 Leave Tory MPs in Parliament versus 1 Leave UKIP MP in Parliament.
Tories are the only party of Leave.
I think the number of Tory MPs supporting Leave could reach as high as 150.
But that's an absolute maximum. 140-145 is more likely, IMHO.
>300 would support Leave if that was Cameron's position, no?
I think you'd 90% of the Tories with Cameron, 5% against, and 5% abstentions.
So 297 Tories + 8 DUP + 1 UUP + 1 UKIP + 11 Labour = 318 for Leave
I think Remain would be able to (in theory) muster around 315 MPs but, in reality, there'd be quite a few abstentions and absentees so Leave carried the House.
You could sum up the Tories' agony on a single PowerPoint slide. With an In leader 45% of MPs rebel (I know they are not technically rebelling). With an Out leader you estimate (very believably) that 10% would rebel. Tory MPs really need an Out leader, if only for their own inner peace, but they can't seem to get one who will stay Out when in office.
The closer people get to their goals, the more scared they become of them.
This 3rd party cycle is simply re-asserting itself now in 2016 - the bitter division between non-establishment and establishment Republicans and the same sort of split on the Democratic side with Sanders and Clinton, plus the possibility of Bloomberg standing under certain conditions........so an abudance of 3rd party activity there! No surprise if you know your history!
Sorry to pop the bubble:
2000, Ralph Nader 1996, Ross Perot 1992, Ross Perot 1980, John Anderson 1968, George Wallace 1948, Strom Thurmond, Henry Wallace 1924, Robert LaFollette 1892, James Weaver 1856, Millard Fillmore 1852, John Hale 1848, Martin Van Buren 1836, Hugh White, Daniel Webster, Willie Person 1832, John Floyd, William Wirt 1824, William Crawford, Henry Clay
There is no 51.6 year cycle with those guys.
There's definitely some kind of four year cycle there...
There is some correlation with social and economic stability. When there is change in the air you usually see a small party candidate with ahead of time policies or an independent from the previous established order (Bloomberg) rise up.
But in the pre-civil war era you had lots of them because of the slavery issue cutting through party establishments geographically.
@SamCoatesTimes: YouGov: Once “undecideds” are excluded, this gives 51 per cent opting to leave the EU and 49 per cent wanting to stay.
@SamCoatesTimes: YouGov: sharp tightening since the start of February when first draft of EU deal published. Then YouGov found a nine-point lead for “leave”.
@SamCoatesTimes: Now 26 per cent think the renegotiation is a “good deal”, up 4 percentage points, while 35 per cent say it is a “bad deal”, down 11
It being the Mail, and given the general response to the deal I've seen, I wonder if I'm the only one who read that as 'Public spit on Cameron's EU deal'.
I'm amazed at the idea people would grow to think better of the deal over time though.
Odd situation for someone to technically still apparently have the majority support of their party, while the overwhelming impression is as though they are betraying the majority.
Very encouraging poll for leave. Hopefully we'll get more polls pointing to leave doing well.....and then lets see how the markets react!
Normally I'm all for encouraging turnout at elections. One of my work colleagues is going to Glastonbury which is being held at the same time as the vote, and there was confirmation today that there won't be a polling station there which I think is the right decision - we want people voting at a polling station next to where they're living after all.....and they've got plenty of time to arrange a postal ballot!
@SamCoatesTimes: Project Fear seems to work: 6-point drop, to 31%, among those who think *leaving* safer, while 43% say it would be safer to *stay*, down 1%
Europe is established shorthand. Leavers need to get over it.
Beautiful irony.
To be fair you wouldn't call a Canadian an American would you? America is shorthand for the USA, Europe is shorthand for the European Union. Get over it and move on.
Would you say leave "America" or leave "North America" rather than leave NAFTA? No, of course you wouldn't.
So, no, I won't get over it and move on.
EU is shorter than Europe. That's the irony of calling Europe 'shorthand'.
I will relentlessly point out that we are voting to Leave the EU, but we love Europe and have no xenophobic agenda and want to partner with it after.
To do otherwise is to play the game of Remain.
America is established shorthand for the USA not NAFTA. And USA is shorter than America but America is still shorthand because single word names roll of the tongue better than acronyms do.
If Texas was to seceed from the USA (it is the only State in America entitled to, part of its constitution and accession agreement) then they could be said to be leaving America.
PS Did you object to me calling them the only State in America rather than the only State in the USA?
@SamCoatesTimes: Now 26 per cent think the renegotiation is a “good deal”, up 4 percentage points, while 35 per cent say it is a “bad deal”, down 11
That is surprising. Dave's deal was supposed to damn him for eternity; people weren't supposed to warm to it on closer inspection. Could be something similar to that old budget maxim: what gets lauded/lambasted on the day, unravels/improves in the weeks that follow.
@SamCoatesTimes: Now 26 per cent think the renegotiation is a “good deal”, up 4 percentage points, while 35 per cent say it is a “bad deal”, down 11
That is surprising. Dave's deal was supposed to damn him for eternity; people weren't supposed to warm to it on closer inspection. Could be something similar to that old budget maxim: what gets lauded/lambasted on the day, unravels/improves in the weeks that follow.
Maybe - it certainly was lambasted enough on the day. A bit soon for Remain to assume a trend of course. Granted, I'm biaised, but while I can see the effectiveness of Fear, I don't know how a deal like this would look better later.
Memo to Leave: Attacking Dave won't win you the referendum, attacking the EU might.
One would hope. That said, it's working on some people - I didn't understand the frothing upset that Cameron made implicit swipes at Boris, seemed like standard political fair to be honest, but had an argument with a chap who thought it very unfair and rude, thought Cameron was way out of line.
The Indy poll,analysed by Prof Curtice indicates 60% Remain ,30% leave,10% undecided.A look is required at the 60+% markets.Could be best indicator yet-National Centre for Social Research poll.
Dave what a politician, lots of him on the telly preaching economic security and the polls move in favour of Remain,
The Tories are screwed when he goes.
That soon?
As PB's leading Cameroon toady, my boy has been under real attack in the past few days, I've got to stick up for him.
I'm actually a little irrationally forgiving of Cameron myself - I give him the benefit of the doubt way more than most politicians, and something about him just works as PM in my head - if Remain is to win, I'd hope he could stay on until 2020 quite frankly, I just cannot see how he manages that given the level of vitriol that will come his way if he wins, the narrative of liar and betrayer already established.
All note though that I am still the same person who couldn't see how the Tories could win most seats (not a majority, but most seats) ten minutes before the exit poll in May.
Dispiriting for Leave is that there's no obvious sign of a Bojo-effect. I suspect the media circus that surrounded his announcement and and the whiff, justified or not, of ambition and expediency has neutralized matters. Despite what a lot of politicians and journos seem to think, this is a deeply serious matter, and won't be served well by comic capers.
Dave what a politician, lots of him on the telly preaching economic security and the polls move in favour of Remain,
The Tories are screwed when he goes.
That soon?
As PB's leading Cameroon toady, my boy has been under real attack in the past few days, I've got to stick up for him.
I'm actually a little irrationally forgiving of Cameron myself - I give him the benefit of the doubt way more than most politicians, and something about him just works as PM in my head - if Remain is to win, I'd hope he could stay on until 2020 quite frankly, I just cannot see how he manages that given the level of vitriol that will come his way if he wins, the narrative of liar and betrayer already established.
All note though that I am still the same person who couldn't see how the Tories could win most seats (not a majority, but most seats) ten minutes before the exit poll in May.
A few days prior to the election, off site I was discussing the various odds with one of PB's foremost betting experts, he advised me to take the Tory majority at 10/1. I was like, nah not, going to happen.
Dave what a politician, lots of him on the telly preaching economic security and the polls move in favour of Remain,
The Tories are screwed when he goes.
That soon?
As PB's leading Cameroon toady, my boy has been under real attack in the past few days, I've got to stick up for him.
I'm actually a little irrationally forgiving of Cameron myself - I give him the benefit of the doubt way more than most politicians, and something about him just works as PM in my head - if Remain is to win, I'd hope he could stay on until 2020 quite frankly, I just cannot see how he manages that given the level of vitriol that will come his way if he wins, the narrative of liar and betrayer already established.
All note though that I am still the same person who couldn't see how the Tories could win most seats (not a majority, but most seats) ten minutes before the exit poll in May.
A few days prior to the election, off site I was discussing the various odds with one of PB's foremost betting experts, he advised me to take the Tory majority at 10/1. I was like, nah not, going to happen.
Worse, despite my predictions of a Tory Maj, I had 80 quid on at 8s on betfair and yet laid most of it off 24 hours before the exit poll. Just couldn't understand how the polls were so far from my experience on the doorstep. I stupidly believed the polls more than what I was seeing.
Dave what a politician, lots of him on the telly preaching economic security and the polls move in favour of Remain,
The Tories are screwed when he goes.
That soon?
As PB's leading Cameroon toady, my boy has been under real attack in the past few days, I've got to stick up for him.
I'm actually a little irrationally forgiving of Cameron myself - I give him the benefit of the doubt way more than most politicians, and something about him just works as PM in my head - if Remain is to win, I'd hope he could stay on until 2020 quite frankly, I just cannot see how he manages that given the level of vitriol that will come his way if he wins, the narrative of liar and betrayer already established.
All note though that I am still the same person who couldn't see how the Tories could win most seats (not a majority, but most seats) ten minutes before the exit poll in May.
A few days prior to the election, off site I was discussing the various odds with one of PB's foremost betting experts, he advised me to take the Tory majority at 10/1. I was like, nah not, going to happen.
What makes politics so fascinating to me is that there always so much that you don't know. I was absolutely clear in my mind that a Tory majority was next to impossible and I had (I thought!) well-informed, sophisticated reasons for thinking that. And ... I didn't know shit, like almost everyone else.
Remain giving one big fuck you to NATO and the USA. Obviously if the EU is so important to our security we should participate in this EU army that will be created at some point...
Remain giving one big fuck you to NATO and the USA. Obviously if the EU is so important to our security we should participate in this EU army that will be created at some point...
Considering the USA wants us to Remain I fail to see the fuck you.
Remain giving one big fuck you to NATO and the USA. Obviously if the EU is so important to our security we should participate in this EU army that will be created at some point...
Bottom right hand corner - 'Migrant influx tops 100,000 in 6 weeks'. Wait until the Spring and watch those numbers rocket.
Dave what a politician, lots of him on the telly preaching economic security and the polls move in favour of Remain,
The Tories are screwed when he goes.
That soon?
As PB's leading Cameroon toady, my boy has been under real attack in the past few days, I've got to stick up for him.
I'm actually a little irrationally forgiving of Cameron myself - I give him the benefit of the doubt way more than most politicians, and something about him just works as PM in my head - if Remain is to win, I'd hope he could stay on until 2020 quite frankly, I just cannot see how he manages that given the level of vitriol that will come his way if he wins, the narrative of liar and betrayer already established.
All note though that I am still the same person who couldn't see how the Tories could win most seats (not a majority, but most seats) ten minutes before the exit poll in May.
A few days prior to the election, off site I was discussing the various odds with one of PB's foremost betting experts, he advised me to take the Tory majority at 10/1. I was like, nah not, going to happen.
Worse, despite my predictions of a Tory Maj, I had 80 quid on at 8s on betfair and yet laid most of it off 24 hours before the exit poll. Just couldn't understand how the polls were so far from my experience on the doorstep. I stupidly believed the polls more than what I was seeing.
I wouldn't kick yourself too badly.
I backed ConMaj @ 25/1 ~24 hrs before the exit poll, although also lost big bets on EICIPM.
ConMaj was unlikely. Just not 25/1 unlikely.
In another campaign like that with the same sort of polling numbers, I probably still wouldn't back Con Maj below 10/1 24 hrs before polls close.
Remain giving one big fuck you to NATO and the USA. Obviously if the EU is so important to our security we should participate in this EU army that will be created at some point...
@MP_SE Your logic is faulty but that's not a surprise.
Dave what a politician, lots of him on the telly preaching economic security and the polls move in favour of Remain,
The Tories are screwed when he goes.
That soon?
As PB's leading Cameroon toady, my boy has been under real attack in the past few days, I've got to stick up for him.
I'm actually a little irrationally forgiving of Cameron myself - I give him the benefit of the doubt way more than most politicians, and something about him just works as PM in my head - if Remain is to win, I'd hope he could stay on until 2020 quite frankly, I just cannot see how he manages that given the level of vitriol that will come his way if he wins, the narrative of liar and betrayer already established.
All note though that I am still the same person who couldn't see how the Tories could win most seats (not a majority, but most seats) ten minutes before the exit poll in May.
A few days prior to the election, off site I was discussing the various odds with one of PB's foremost betting experts, he advised me to take the Tory majority at 10/1. I was like, nah not, going to happen.
What makes politics so fascinating to me is that there always so much that you don't know. I was absolutely clear in my mind that a Tory majority was next to impossible and I had (I thought!) well-informed, sophisticated reasons for thinking that. And ... I didn't know shit, like almost everyone else.
I did a bit of campaigning during the election, we'd have a very good morning, or evening, and come home to a poll that had it neck and neck and I thought, are my political canvassing skills that shit?
Thought I failed to spot the Lib Dem massacre, my prediction on seats for the combined Con and Lib Dems seat were right.
When you see the number of Tory MPs supporting Leave do you regret your disloyalty to the party that delivered the referendum?
Funny isn't it. When Carswell left the Tory party he said it was because it had become clear at the 1922 committee meeting that Cameron would go for the absolute minimum in the renegotiation to ensure he could get a win for In in the referendum.
At the time this was revealed it was shouted down by the usual Europhile Cameroons on PB.com. Now it turns out Carswell was almost completely right. The only thing he got wrong was the overestimating the extent to which the public and the party would be fooled by Cameron's dishonest behaviour.
Cameron sought that which he believed he could achieve not some pie in the sky requests. Please explain how Cameron has been dishonest.
Comments
...and they have been deliberately misappropriating this term for 40 years.
Tell it to the judge!
Or should Britain leave Europe?
The FA Cup should leave Wembley
Britain should leave Europe
And take Northern Ireland with it!
@KennyFarq: Am told #fiscalframework only really motored when Osborne got involved. Met with Swinney on Friday, before and after meeting with Hands, /
I think the number of UKIP MPs supporting Leave could reach as high as 001.
But that's an absolute maximum. 001-001 is more likely, IMHO
2000, Ralph Nader
1996, Ross Perot
1992, Ross Perot
1980, John Anderson
1968, George Wallace
1948, Strom Thurmond, Henry Wallace
1924, Robert LaFollette
1892, James Weaver
1856, Millard Fillmore
1852, John Hale
1848, Martin Van Buren
1836, Hugh White, Daniel Webster, Willie Person
1832, John Floyd, William Wirt
1824, William Crawford, Henry Clay
There is no 51.6 year cycle with those guys.
My Latina girlfriend gets very annoyed with me when I do.
This thread is turning dafter than a jelly baby curry. *shakes head*
In politics there are no cycles, there is only boredom and failure.
Those determine election results and party system stability.
So, no, I won't get over it and move on.
EU is shorter than Europe. That's the irony of calling Europe 'shorthand'.
I will relentlessly point out that we are voting to Leave the EU, but we love Europe and have no xenophobic agenda and want to partner with it after.
To do otherwise is to play the game of Remain.
Of course, he WAS playing the game of Remain at that point...
When there is change in the air you usually see a small party candidate with ahead of time policies or an independent from the previous established order (Bloomberg) rise up.
But in the pre-civil war era you had lots of them because of the slavery issue cutting through party establishments geographically.
Public split on Cameron's EU deal as few expect it to reduce net migration to UK
https://t.co/M1lBGaq6Eg
@SamCoatesTimes: YouGov: sharp tightening since the start of February when first draft of EU deal published. Then YouGov found a nine-point lead for “leave”.
If I make a guess it will be around 50%.
Tony baffled, bless him.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/23/tony-blair-bernie-sanders-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=share_btn_tw
I'm amazed at the idea people would grow to think better of the deal over time though.
Odd situation for someone to technically still apparently have the majority support of their party, while the overwhelming impression is as though they are betraying the majority.
Normally I'm all for encouraging turnout at elections. One of my work colleagues is going to Glastonbury which is being held at the same time as the vote, and there was confirmation today that there won't be a polling station there which I think is the right decision - we want people voting at a polling station next to where they're living after all.....and they've got plenty of time to arrange a postal ballot!
6-point drop, to 31%, among those who think *leaving* safer, while 43% say it would be safer to *stay*, down 1%
If Texas was to seceed from the USA (it is the only State in America entitled to, part of its constitution and accession agreement) then they could be said to be leaving America.
PS Did you object to me calling them the only State in America rather than the only State in the USA?
He explicitly said (more than once) if you are undecided, you should vote for stability, security and prosperity (i.e. remain)
The Tories are screwed when he goes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzUS2tMQ_ic
Voting intention
Con 38% (+1)
Lab 31% (-1)
LD 8% (+2)
UKIP 12% (NC)
Green 3% (-1)
SNP 4% (NC)
Other 3% (NC)
Heath must be chortling in his grave!
Fortunately he is in prime spot to take over
EDIT: This post sponsored by NewsSense™
Attacking Cameron amongst Labour undecideds will work.
Tories need for go for the sovereignty jugular.
Clowns to the left of him, jokers to the right.
All note though that I am still the same person who couldn't see how the Tories could win most seats (not a majority, but most seats) ten minutes before the exit poll in May.
That way, madness lies. Read the thread from this afternoon, if you can take it.
The establishment will not win on sovereignty - all they do is give it away.
Good job we're only leaving the EU, and not Europe then.
Osborne's hoping that the membership don't realise that the man messing up their pensions, is the one desperate for their votes.
I backed ConMaj @ 25/1 ~24 hrs before the exit poll, although also lost big bets on EICIPM.
ConMaj was unlikely. Just not 25/1 unlikely.
In another campaign like that with the same sort of polling numbers, I probably still wouldn't back Con Maj below 10/1 24 hrs before polls close.
Would you?
lol
Thought I failed to spot the Lib Dem massacre, my prediction on seats for the combined Con and Lib Dems seat were right.
A slogan from the last week of the IndyRef