The scariest Trump polling was around 20% of Trump supporters were upset the confederacy lost the civil war.
20% also believed the slaves should not have been freed, and 17% "weren't sure"...
That's very funny.
Not sure if funny is the word.
The sad thing is many of these people probably do know their history, they do know what the South was, and yet they still support it over the union.
Race relations in the US appear to be going sharply backwards.
I think "weren't sure" is funny. How can you not be sure ffs?
I'm not sure to be honest
It's those who think they shouldn't have been freed, but know how bad that sounds so aren't sure of trusting their own opinion. The others either don't realise it sounds bad or don't care.
The first step in being a white supremacist loony is to get over worrying about how bad it sounds.
The BBC a few months ago did a documentary on the current day KKK, was amusing and alarming in equal measure.
We're not talking about the brightest bulbs in the chandelier
Was that the one where their outfits were made from polyester? Not the smartest choice of material when carrying lit torches around and burning crosses.
Yup. They had some very poor knowledge of history.
Some of them have quite fetching green hoods. Elmore Leonard called them "the coneheads' Spring collection."
You weren't sure if they were a spoof.
Obama is a secret Muslim doing the bidding of the Jews was the sort of thing you'd hear.
A secret Muslim who wants to forcibly convert America to Islam, at the behest of the Jews.
The scariest Trump polling was around 20% of Trump supporters were upset the confederacy lost the civil war.
20% also believed the slaves should not have been freed, and 17% "weren't sure"...
That's very funny.
Not sure if funny is the word.
The sad thing is many of these people probably do know their history, they do know what the South was, and yet they still support it over the union.
Race relations in the US appear to be going sharply backwards.
I think "weren't sure" is funny. How can you not be sure ffs?
I'm not sure to be honest
It's those who think they shouldn't have been freed, but know how bad that sounds so aren't sure of trusting their own opinion. The others either don't realise it sounds bad or don't care.
The first step in being a white supremacist loony is to get over worrying about how bad it sounds.
The BBC a few months ago did a documentary on the current day KKK, was amusing and alarming in equal measure.
We're not talking about the brightest bulbs in the chandelier
Was that the one where their outfits were made from polyester? Not the smartest choice of material when carrying lit torches around and burning crosses.
Yup. They had some very poor knowledge of history.
Some of them have quite fetching green hoods. Elmore Leonard called them "the coneheads' Spring collection."
You weren't sure if they were a spoof.
Obama is a secret Muslim doing the bidding of the Jews was the sort of thing you'd hear.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
We've discussed quite a few bits of this poll of Labour members, but it's really an anorak's dream, worth looking at in detail if you're interested - e.g. breaking down who supporters of JC and the ABC candidates would go for now.
http://election-data.co.uk/#/ "Serious Oppo leader talking about the NHS vs the PM dodging into talking about his mum and how people ought to dress".
I think that's wishful thinking. JC tried to have a pop at Cameron saying he should speak to the chairman of Oxford anti austerity committee, this fell a bit flat, because it wasnt immediately obvious what he was meaning, or who he was meaning. I immediately thought he was talking about his aunt, i guess Cameron had his little ace up his sleeve for when his family get dragged into it. Some silly little wag from the opposition started shouting his mum, and then Cameron knocked him down.
It doesnt matter where you are, how rich or how poor you are. Your mum is the one who tells you to tuck your shirt it, straigten your tie and polish your shoes. The old jaded supply teacher look, works if you are an old jaded supply teacher, but not when you are running the country, or aspiring to.
There are some who like his genuineness, his scruffy unshaven look, and it has its place. But he is no longer in that place he is the Leader of HMO.
The scariest Trump polling was around 20% of Trump supporters were upset the confederacy lost the civil war.
20% also believed the slaves should not have been freed, and 17% "weren't sure"...
That's very funny.
Not sure if funny is the word.
The sad thing is many of these people probably do know their history, they do know what the South was, and yet they still support it over the union.
Race relations in the US appear to be going sharply backwards.
I think "weren't sure" is funny. How can you not be sure ffs?
I'm not sure to be honest
It's those who think they shouldn't have been freed, but know how bad that sounds so aren't sure of trusting their own opinion. The others either don't realise it sounds bad or don't care.
The first step in being a white supremacist loony is to get over worrying about how bad it sounds.
The BBC a few months ago did a documentary on the current day KKK, was amusing and alarming in equal measure.
We're not talking about the brightest bulbs in the chandelier
Was that the one where their outfits were made from polyester? Not the smartest choice of material when carrying lit torches around and burning crosses.
Yup. They had some very poor knowledge of history.
Some of them have quite fetching green hoods. Elmore Leonard called them "the coneheads' Spring collection."
You weren't sure if they were a spoof.
Obama is a secret Muslim doing the bidding of the Jews was the sort of thing you'd hear.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
The scariest Trump polling was around 20% of Trump supporters were upset the confederacy lost the civil war.
20% also believed the slaves should not have been freed, and 17% "weren't sure"...
That's very funny.
Not sure if funny is the word.
The sad thing is many of these people probably do know their history, they do know what the South was, and yet they still support it over the union.
Race relations in the US appear to be going sharply backwards.
I think "weren't sure" is funny. How can you not be sure ffs?
I'm not sure to be honest
It's those who think they shouldn't have been freed, but know how bad that sounds so aren't sure of trusting their own opinion. The others either don't realise it sounds bad or don't care.
The first step in being a white supremacist loony is to get over worrying about how bad it sounds.
The BBC a few months ago did a documentary on the current day KKK, was amusing and alarming in equal measure.
We're not talking about the brightest bulbs in the chandelier
Was that the one where their outfits were made from polyester? Not the smartest choice of material when carrying lit torches around and burning crosses.
Yup. They had some very poor knowledge of history.
Some of them have quite fetching green hoods. Elmore Leonard called them "the coneheads' Spring collection."
You weren't sure if they were a spoof.
Obama is a secret Muslim doing the bidding of the Jews was the sort of thing you'd hear.
A secret Muslim who wants to forcibly convert America to Islam, at the behest of the Jews.
Exactly. You weren't sure whether to laugh or cry.
"Trump Support Correlates with Viewership of 'The Apprentice':
Trump runs 20 points stronger among voters who watched "The Apprentice" TV show "almost always" when Trump was the host, compared to voters who "almost never" watched "The Apprentice." Among viewers who almost always watched the show when Trump was the host, Trump leads Clinton by 24 points, 58% to 34%. Among voters who almost never watched "The Apprentice" when Trump was host, Clinton leads Trump by 15 points, 53% to 38%. While there is nothing counter-intuitive about these findings, they are the first mathematical measure of the extent to which Trump has been able to cash-in on his celebrity."
It's possible that the more people watch Trump on TV the more they support him, or feel comfortable with him.
The scariest Trump polling was around 20% of Trump supporters were upset the confederacy lost the civil war.
20% also believed the slaves should not have been freed, and 17% "weren't sure"...
That's very funny.
Not sure if funny is the word.
The sad thing is many of these people probably do know their history, they do know what the South was, and yet they still support it over the union.
Race relations in the US appear to be going sharply backwards.
I think "weren't sure" is funny. How can you not be sure ffs?
I'm not sure to be honest
It's those who think they shouldn't have been freed, but know how bad that sounds so aren't sure of trusting their own opinion. The others either don't realise it sounds bad or don't care.
The first step in being a white supremacist loony is to get over worrying about how bad it sounds.
The BBC a few months ago did a documentary on the current day KKK, was amusing and alarming in equal measure.
We're not talking about the brightest bulbs in the chandelier
Was that the one where their outfits were made from polyester? Not the smartest choice of material when carrying lit torches around and burning crosses.
Yup. They had some very poor knowledge of history.
Some of them have quite fetching green hoods. Elmore Leonard called them "the coneheads' Spring collection."
You weren't sure if they were a spoof.
Obama is a secret Muslim doing the bidding of the Jews was the sort of thing you'd hear.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
The scariest Trump polling was around 20% of Trump supporters were upset the confederacy lost the civil war.
20% also believed the slaves should not have been freed, and 17% "weren't sure"...
That's very funny.
Not sure if funny is the word.
The sad thing is many of these people probably do know their history, they do know what the South was, and yet they still support it over the union.
Race relations in the US appear to be going sharply backwards.
I think "weren't sure" is funny. How can you not be sure ffs?
I'm not sure to be honest
It's those who think they shouldn't have been freed, but know how bad that sounds so aren't sure of trusting their own opinion. The others either don't realise it sounds bad or don't care.
The first step in being a white supremacist loony is to get over worrying about how bad it sounds.
The BBC a few months ago did a documentary on the current day KKK, was amusing and alarming in equal measure.
We're not talking about the brightest bulbs in the chandelier
Was that the one where their outfits were made from polyester? Not the smartest choice of material when carrying lit torches around and burning crosses.
Yup. They had some very poor knowledge of history.
Some of them have quite fetching green hoods. Elmore Leonard called them "the coneheads' Spring collection."
You weren't sure if they were a spoof.
Obama is a secret Muslim doing the bidding of the Jews was the sort of thing you'd hear.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
Give idiots and racists all the platforms they want. The more people hear them the more they see the idiocy of them.
“I have listened to what has been said by Tony Hall and others today in connection with the publication of the Dame Janet Smith Report.
“I repeat what I told Dame Janet when I voluntary gave evidence to assist her and the BBC. What I said in my earlier statement regarding the alleged meetings with Brian Neill QC and Bill Cotton Junior 45 years ago still stands.
“Given Dame Janet Smith’s concerns of a culture of fear in coming forward at the BBC, the fact that I have been scapegoated for giving my honest account and best recollections of those events 45 years ago - which I felt was a whitewash - what whistleblower at the BBC would ever come forward when they see the way they have hung me out to dry.
“Sadly today’s news agenda should have been about the survivors of abuse carried out within the BBC but, by sacking me, they have managed to take the focus off those who have suffered so much.
“My lawyers are now considering all statements made by the BBC about me today and we will be taking action.”
K I hope he uses them for millions .. the ffing bbc are so two faced its barely credible..
I'd urge some caution on PBers placing too much reliance on Clinton/Trump nationwide and state polling during the nomination phase.
Obama had some poor poll numbers in swing states at this stage in 08 and bagged the lot plus North Carolina and Indiana.
Obama also had charisma, freshness, a motivated African-American vote, hope and change.
Hillary, by contrast, hasn't.
I'd still make Hillary favourite but not by any great margin.
Hilary is going to potentially have a Supreme Court justice to nominate. If the senate Republicans carry through their threat to not hold hearings then it is a game changer for the presidential election.
“I have listened to what has been said by Tony Hall and others today in connection with the publication of the Dame Janet Smith Report.
“I repeat what I told Dame Janet when I voluntary gave evidence to assist her and the BBC. What I said in my earlier statement regarding the alleged meetings with Brian Neill QC and Bill Cotton Junior 45 years ago still stands.
“Given Dame Janet Smith’s concerns of a culture of fear in coming forward at the BBC, the fact that I have been scapegoated for giving my honest account and best recollections of those events 45 years ago - which I felt was a whitewash - what whistleblower at the BBC would ever come forward when they see the way they have hung me out to dry.
“Sadly today’s news agenda should have been about the survivors of abuse carried out within the BBC but, by sacking me, they have managed to take the focus off those who have suffered so much.
“My lawyers are now considering all statements made by the BBC about me today and we will be taking action.”
K I hope he uses them for millions .. the ffing bbc are so two faced its barely credible..
The signature ‘dead cat’ manoeuvre
“There is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout, ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’ In other words, they will be talking about the dead cat – the thing you want them to talk about – and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.”
The geographical playground then matters, Trump could lose a lot of die hard purists in areas like Kansas or Nebraska and it would not hurt him, Hillary can pile a lot of hispanic votes in California and it won't do her any good.
Piling up hispanic votes in California will make little difference to the result there but in the swing states of Nevada, Colorado and Florida it most certainly will.
The problem for the Democrats is that, for all the (valid) talk of how more ethnically diverse the US is becoming, the crucial swing states for now still have higher than average numbers of the white working-class. In all of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota, the WWC population is above the national average.
The only major swing states with a lower-than-average WWC population are Florida and Virginia.
In particular, even if the Hispanics swing more heavily to the Democrats, the problem is they are quite "inefficiently distributed" in terms of the Electoral College: two of the biggest Hispanic populations are in California and Texas, but that's no good in terms of getting extra Electoral College votes since the former is already a lock for the Democrats and the latter is safe for the Republicans.
The fact Trump is already so far ahead in Florida is why expect him to win.
Trump will be running on the economy, foreign policy (bring our troops home and spend the money here is the most popular line ever polled), immigration and DC corruption. All of those he is strong on and are largely bipartisan.
Hillary will be running on experience (whoops her record is lousy), the fact she is a woman (who has been complicit in her husband's escapades) and scaring her favoured demographics.
The GOP establishment is already rallying to Trump and as he starts to flesh out his team people will be reassured.
“I have listened to what has been said by Tony Hall and others today in connection with the publication of the Dame Janet Smith Report.
“I repeat what I told Dame Janet when I voluntary gave evidence to assist her and the BBC. What I said in my earlier statement regarding the alleged meetings with Brian Neill QC and Bill Cotton Junior 45 years ago still stands.
“Given Dame Janet Smith’s concerns of a culture of fear in coming forward at the BBC, the fact that I have been scapegoated for giving my honest account and best recollections of those events 45 years ago - which I felt was a whitewash - what whistleblower at the BBC would ever come forward when they see the way they have hung me out to dry.
“Sadly today’s news agenda should have been about the survivors of abuse carried out within the BBC but, by sacking me, they have managed to take the focus off those who have suffered so much.
“My lawyers are now considering all statements made by the BBC about me today and we will be taking action.”
K I hope he uses them for millions .. the ffing bbc are so two faced its barely credible..
Unfortunately for Blackburn, the BBC can afford to string him along for months with their own licence fee funded legal team, whilst he runs up a gargantuan bill with his lawyers .
The geographical playground then matters, Trump could lose a lot of die hard purists in areas like Kansas or Nebraska and it would not hurt him, Hillary can pile a lot of hispanic votes in California and it won't do her any good.
Piling up hispanic votes in California will make little difference to the result there but in the swing states of Nevada, Colorado and Florida it most certainly will.
I don;t think its the hispanic dems Hillary needs to worry out. It's the democrats' white vote that may be the problem.
The geographical playground then matters, Trump could lose a lot of die hard purists in areas like Kansas or Nebraska and it would not hurt him, Hillary can pile a lot of hispanic votes in California and it won't do her any good.
Piling up hispanic votes in California will make little difference to the result there but in the swing states of Nevada, Colorado and Florida it most certainly will.
In Florida the hispanics are not mexican they are cuban. Trump going against mexico wont hurt him in Florida.
The problem for the Democrats is that, for all the (valid) talk of how more ethnically diverse the US is becoming, the crucial swing states for now still have higher than average numbers of the white working-class. In all of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota, the WWC population is above the national average.
The only major swing states with a lower-than-average WWC population are Florida and Virginia.
In particular, even if the Hispanics swing more heavily to the Democrats, the problem is they are quite "inefficiently distributed" in terms of the Electoral College: two of the biggest Hispanic populations are in California and Texas, but that's no good in terms of getting extra Electoral College votes since the former is already a lock for the Democrats and the latter is safe for the Republicans.
What's the motivation behind that particular collection of "swing" states?
The states where the Republicans came within 10% in 2012, with 10 or more Electoral College votes.
That's a weird cut-off. You have a wide range and get states that are pretty safe Dem, then lose medium-sized states like Colorado which IIRC was the pivotal state for Obama both times.
"Kengeter to head up combined LSE-Deutsche Börse entity
Deutsche Börse chief executive Carsten Kengeter will likely lead the new entity that will be formed if discussions by the bourse to merge with London Stock Exchange are to materialise, according to sources.
Under the terms being negotiated, the holding company for the combined exchange will be based in London and regulated by UK authorities, with the current chairman of the London bourse, Donald Brydon, expected to become chairman of the new entity, The Wall Street Journal has gathered."
is so depressing. Not the bit about the HQ being in London but about who will lead it.
Talk about rewards for failure...... There can IMO be no effective culture change in the financial sector if those at the top who preside over failures or worse are allowed to walk away without taking responsibility.
You'd have thought someone at these exchanges or the relevant regulators would know what has happened and might ask some questions.
Sometimes in my job it feels like pushing water uphill. Today is one of those days........
The geographical playground then matters, Trump could lose a lot of die hard purists in areas like Kansas or Nebraska and it would not hurt him, Hillary can pile a lot of hispanic votes in California and it won't do her any good.
Piling up hispanic votes in California will make little difference to the result there but in the swing states of Nevada, Colorado and Florida it most certainly will.
In Florida the hispanics are not mexican they are cuban. Trump going against mexico wont hurt him in Florida.
Talking Florida, Rubio is doomed.
I have Jamaican roots. Do you think that means I'm not put off by someone being racist against Nigerians??
I'd urge some caution on PBers placing too much reliance on Clinton/Trump nationwide and state polling during the nomination phase.
Obama had some poor poll numbers in swing states at this stage in 08 and bagged the lot plus North Carolina and Indiana.
Obama also had charisma, freshness, a motivated African-American vote, hope and change.
Hillary, by contrast, hasn't.
I'd still make Hillary favourite but not by any great margin.
Hilary is going to potentially have a Supreme Court justice to nominate. If the senate Republicans carry through their threat to not hold hearings then it is a game changer for the presidential election.
Think it will be even more important in Senate elections. Will destroy chances of people like Kirk amd Johnson.
Ah Mr Dancer - this morning you said "the violation of Yorkshire's sacred boundaries cannot be overlooked". Does that mean you want Middlesbrough back?
I'd urge some caution on PBers placing too much reliance on Clinton/Trump nationwide and state polling during the nomination phase.
Obama had some poor poll numbers in swing states at this stage in 08 and bagged the lot plus North Carolina and Indiana.
Obama also had charisma, freshness, a motivated African-American vote, hope and change.
Hillary, by contrast, hasn't.
I'd still make Hillary favourite but not by any great margin.
A Trump candidacy will be more than enough to energise and motivate all elements of the coalition that elected Obama. Out of interest which states would you see Hilary losing that Obama won?
The geographical playground then matters, Trump could lose a lot of die hard purists in areas like Kansas or Nebraska and it would not hurt him, Hillary can pile a lot of hispanic votes in California and it won't do her any good.
Piling up hispanic votes in California will make little difference to the result there but in the swing states of Nevada, Colorado and Florida it most certainly will.
In Florida the hispanics are not mexican they are cuban. Trump going against mexico wont hurt him in Florida.
Incorrect.
Cuban descent hispanics now make up less than a third of of the demographic. The majority are Mexican, Puerto Rican and from Central and South America.
“I have listened to what has been said by Tony Hall and others today in connection with the publication of the Dame Janet Smith Report.
“I repeat what I told Dame Janet when I voluntary gave evidence to assist her and the BBC. What I said in my earlier statement regarding the alleged meetings with Brian Neill QC and Bill Cotton Junior 45 years ago still stands.
“Given Dame Janet Smith’s concerns of a culture of fear in coming forward at the BBC, the fact that I have been scapegoated for giving my honest account and best recollections of those events 45 years ago - which I felt was a whitewash - what whistleblower at the BBC would ever come forward when they see the way they have hung me out to dry.
“Sadly today’s news agenda should have been about the survivors of abuse carried out within the BBC but, by sacking me, they have managed to take the focus off those who have suffered so much.
“My lawyers are now considering all statements made by the BBC about me today and we will be taking action.”
Poor form by an ex Millfield schoolboy not accepting the umpires decision
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
We've discussed quite a few bits of this poll of Labour members, but it's really an anorak's dream, worth looking at in detail if you're interested - e.g. breaking down who supporters of JC and the ABC candidates would go for now.
I agree with Southam (a sadly rare event these days) that Jeremy's team were chuffed by the "what my mother says" thing - indeed they've posted the exchange on social media. Cameron's remark was one of those snappy Westminster snarks that goes down big with insiders but makes the wider public recoil. "Serious Oppo leader talking about the NHS vs the PM dodging into talking about his mum and how people ought to dress".
Labour should beware these "chuffed" people who post exchanges on social media. It's less than a year since they thought a fucking great tombstone was an election-winning idea. Their track record should hardly inspire you with confidence...
Ah Mr Dancer - this morning you said "the violation of Yorkshire's sacred boundaries cannot be overlooked". Does that mean you want Middlesbrough back?
One has to remember that Yorkshire is, by English standards, huge (yes yes, 15 Yorkshires would fit into a car park in Rhode Island, I know). As such it contains a representative cross-section of the country in terms of natural beauty and desirability. In brief:
Some absolutely beautiful areas - much of the Dales, the North York Moors, parts of the coast Some meh flatlands that are OK but dull, like Lincolnshire Some, er, characterful post-industrial places Some of the most notorious shitholes in Britain (Middlesbrough, Hull)
Re: Trump, JackW's summed things up well. The GOP establishment don't want him because they know he's a loser and will screw up the Senate and HoC too possibly (the latter bit is mine).
I also think Hillary will be a much more formidable president that many anticipate, so they could well be locked out for a further 8 years because of Trump (that bit is mine too).
That JackW- he may be like some old crusty, wrinkled old codger whose a million years old, but he's got a wise, wise head on him.
The scariest Trump polling was around 20% of Trump supporters were upset the confederacy lost the civil war.
20% also believed the slaves should not have been freed, and 17% "weren't sure"...
That's very funny.
Not sure if funny is the word.
The sad thing is many of these people probably do know their history, they do know what the South was, and yet they still support it over the union.
Race relations in the US appear to be going sharply backwards.
It's interesting that eight years of a black President don't seem to have done anything to reduce race as an issue in the US.
I wonder if this is blowblack over the Confederate Flag issue.
In part. One poll I read suggested 60% of White voters in the former Confederacy were opposed to opposed to removal of the Confederate flag from State Houses, but interestingly, so also were 40% of white voters from the rest of the USA.
It's hard to overstate just how central race is to US politics.
Witness Hillary's full range of empathy on display when confronted by a Black Lives Matter protester who quoted her previous words about 'super predators' who need to be 'brought to heel' back at her.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
The geographical playground then matters, Trump could lose a lot of die hard purists in areas like Kansas or Nebraska and it would not hurt him, Hillary can pile a lot of hispanic votes in California and it won't do her any good.
Piling up hispanic votes in California will make little difference to the result there but in the swing states of Nevada, Colorado and Florida it most certainly will.
In Florida the hispanics are not mexican they are cuban. Trump going against mexico wont hurt him in Florida.
Talking Florida, Rubio is doomed.
I have Jamaican roots. Do you think that means I'm not put off by someone being racist against Nigerians??
In my experience, the contempt held by west africans towards those from the west indies is equalled by very few... Certainly greater than the native white of GB towards Jamaicans.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Far-sighted Liverpool supported them, and was in fact their naval home port, effectively making the 'Pool part of the Confederacy...
I'm wondering if Trump has actually helped Hillary in a way so far...
He has sucked all the oxygen of the media onto himself so far, whereas if he wasn't running we'd have Rubio probably slightly ahead of Cruz but alot more focus on the relatively ignored Democrat race. That may have helped Sanders.
Please discourage David Cameron the Prime Minister of our great country from tarnishing his office by using the despatch box to administer insults to other members of the House of Commons during PMQs.....
....Why is this important?
Having watched PMQs for decades, today, 24th Feburary 2016, underlined what a farce it has become. The Prime Minister has now fallen so low as to mock the way people dress. Although this may be common behaviour on the playing fields of Eaton, it completely debases his high office and our great country.
Despite some wonderful innovations from the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, the Prime Ministers behaviour has worsened, and he continues as he did in 2010 to not answer straight questions to which the British public deserve straight answers. There seens to be a misconception from the Prime Minster that PMQs is a time for levity whereas it performs an essential constitutional function for British citizens to get information directly from the Prime Minister. In short it is time the Prime Minister grew up and lived up to his responsibilities to the people of Great Britain.
If I were Corbyn or one of his supporters I would be delighted by what Cameron said yesterday.
I'm not sure why? Some will see it as a typically affected remark by a supercilious Old Etonian but others will see it as a deliberate joke against his own background and will be impressed by his ability to think on his feet as I was
Please discourage David Cameron the Prime Minister of our great country from tarnishing his office by using the despatch box to administer insults to other members of the House of Commons during PMQs.....
....Why is this important?
Having watched PMQs for decades, today, 24th Feburary 2016, underlined what a farce it has become. The Prime Minister has now fallen so low as to mock the way people dress. Although this may be common behaviour on the playing fields of Eaton, it completely debases his high office and our great country.
Despite some wonderful innovations from the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, the Prime Ministers behaviour has worsened, and he continues as he did in 2010 to not answer straight questions to which the British public deserve straight answers. There seens to be a misconception from the Prime Minster that PMQs is a time for levity whereas it performs an essential constitutional function for British citizens to get information directly from the Prime Minister. In short it is time the Prime Minister grew up and lived up to his responsibilities to the people of Great Britain.
Crickey some people really do get upset over very little. I presume the same people who are signing that would never criticise that fact Cameron went to Eton or poke fun at pictures showing him wearing "funny" getup when he was Oxford?
I get more upset by those that sympathise with terrorists or send us to war based upon a lie.
These same people getting upset find it quite acceptable though to mock those with an upper class accent by making "hawww hawwww hawwww" noises in impersonation. (As on various editions of the BBC News Quiz, for example. Yes, you, Jeremy Hardy.....)
Some of us find that about as intellectually defensible as making monkey noises to black footballers....
The robots are coming...well walking like an 80 year old Grannie. I am awaiting the next next generation where said robots turn around to the guy with the hockey stick and shove it up his arse.
Please discourage David Cameron the Prime Minister of our great country from tarnishing his office by using the despatch box to administer insults to other members of the House of Commons during PMQs.....
....Why is this important?
Having watched PMQs for decades, today, 24th Feburary 2016, underlined what a farce it has become. The Prime Minister has now fallen so low as to mock the way people dress. Although this may be common behaviour on the playing fields of Eaton, it completely debases his high office and our great country.
Despite some wonderful innovations from the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, the Prime Ministers behaviour has worsened, and he continues as he did in 2010 to not answer straight questions to which the British public deserve straight answers. There seens to be a misconception from the Prime Minster that PMQs is a time for levity whereas it performs an essential constitutional function for British citizens to get information directly from the Prime Minister. In short it is time the Prime Minister grew up and lived up to his responsibilities to the people of Great Britain.
Crickey some people really do get upset over very little. I presume the same people who are signing that would never criticise that fact Cameron went to Eton or poke fun at pictures showing him wearing "funny" getup when he was Oxford?
I get more upset by those that sympathise with terrorists or send us to war based upon a lie.
These same people getting upset find it quite acceptable though to mock those with an upper class accent by making "hawww hawwww hawwww" noises in impersonation. (As on various editions of the BBC News Quiz, for example. Yes, you, Jeremy Hardy.....)
Some of us find that about as intellectually defensible as making monkey noises to black footballers....
He's just bitter he only went to a Grammar school...
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
Please discourage David Cameron the Prime Minister of our great country from tarnishing his office by using the despatch box to administer insults to other members of the House of Commons during PMQs.....
....Why is this important?
Having watched PMQs for decades, today, 24th Feburary 2016, underlined what a farce it has become. The Prime Minister has now fallen so low as to mock the way people dress. Although this may be common behaviour on the playing fields of Eaton, it completely debases his high office and our great country.
Despite some wonderful innovations from the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, the Prime Ministers behaviour has worsened, and he continues as he did in 2010 to not answer straight questions to which the British public deserve straight answers. There seens to be a misconception from the Prime Minster that PMQs is a time for levity whereas it performs an essential constitutional function for British citizens to get information directly from the Prime Minister. In short it is time the Prime Minister grew up and lived up to his responsibilities to the people of Great Britain.
Crickey some people really do get upset over very little. I presume the same people who are signing that would never criticise that fact Cameron went to Eton or poke fun at pictures showing him wearing "funny" getup when he was Oxford?
I get more upset by those that sympathise with terrorists or send us to war based upon a lie.
These same people getting upset find it quite acceptable though to mock those with an upper class accent by making "hawww hawwww hawwww" noises in impersonation. (As on various editions of the BBC News Quiz, for example. Yes, you, Jeremy Hardy.....)
Some of us find that about as intellectually defensible as making monkey noises to black footballers....
He's just bitter he only went to a Grammar school...
Please discourage David Cameron the Prime Minister of our great country from tarnishing his office by using the despatch box to administer insults to other members of the House of Commons during PMQs.....
....Why is this important?
Having watched PMQs for decades, today, 24th Feburary 2016, underlined what a farce it has become. The Prime Minister has now fallen so low as to mock the way people dress. Although this may be common behaviour on the playing fields of Eaton, it completely debases his high office and our great country.
Despite some wonderful innovations from the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, the Prime Ministers behaviour has worsened, and he continues as he did in 2010 to not answer straight questions to which the British public deserve straight answers. There seens to be a misconception from the Prime Minster that PMQs is a time for levity whereas it performs an essential constitutional function for British citizens to get information directly from the Prime Minister. In short it is time the Prime Minister grew up and lived up to his responsibilities to the people of Great Britain.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
History is always written by the victors.
Slavery was, of course, an abhorrence (abolished throughout the British Empire before the USA), but I seem to remember from my reading of the situation it was more of a pretext.
“Natalie McGarry was questioned earlier today but was released shortly thereafter… It appears that a member of the Turkish Security Forces became alarmed as Natalie had her mobile phone out at a security checkpoint. She was taken away for questioning and it was subsequently explained that she was simply recording the sounds of bombs falling across the border in Syria.”
Please discourage David Cameron the Prime Minister of our great country from tarnishing his office by using the despatch box to administer insults to other members of the House of Commons during PMQs.....
....Why is this important?
Having watched PMQs for decades, today, 24th Feburary 2016, underlined what a farce it has become. The Prime Minister has now fallen so low as to mock the way people dress. Although this may be common behaviour on the playing fields of Eaton, it completely debases his high office and our great country.
Despite some wonderful innovations from the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, the Prime Ministers behaviour has worsened, and he continues as he did in 2010 to not answer straight questions to which the British public deserve straight answers. There seens to be a misconception from the Prime Minster that PMQs is a time for levity whereas it performs an essential constitutional function for British citizens to get information directly from the Prime Minister. In short it is time the Prime Minister grew up and lived up to his responsibilities to the people of Great Britain.
If I were Corbyn or one of his supporters I would be delighted by what Cameron said yesterday.
I'm not sure why? Some will see it as a typically affected remark by a supercilious Old Etonian but others will see it as a deliberate joke against his own background and will be impressed by his ability to think on his feet as I was
Is this for real? Or has 1st April arrived early? The PM can say what he Bl**dy well likes. It is up to the House to hold him to account.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
That's certainly the way the South has preferred to portray matters since and there is *some* evidence for it, of course. But set against that the rhetoric and justifications for secession at the time dwelt on slavery above all. For example, there's only one subject the Mississippi Declaration of Secession is interested in and it's not big government http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
History is always written by the victors.
Slavery was, of course, an abhorrence (abolished throughout the British Empire before the USA), but I seem to remember from my reading of the situation it was more of a pretext.
This is just revisionism. The declarations of independence by the various states that formed the Confederacy openly said it was about slavery. That ain't political correctness. It's what happened.
Mr. Borough, they might also want to consider, more broadly, parliamentary privilege. Interesting there's a petition about this, but not some of Tom Watson's intriguing comments.
I'm wondering if Trump has actually helped Hillary in a way so far...
He has sucked all the oxygen of the media onto himself so far, whereas if he wasn't running we'd have Rubio probably slightly ahead of Cruz but alot more focus on the relatively ignored Democrat race. That may have helped Sanders.
What a fascinating race Trump vs Clinton may well be (I am close to giving up on Rubio, judging by the FL poll).
In one corner, the trained politician, decades of experience, knowledge of foreign issues, policy wonk/lawyer background etc etc. In the other, a rabble-rousing populist who knows nothing except how to make the media work for him without them even realising.
“Natalie McGarry was questioned earlier today but was released shortly thereafter… It appears that a member of the Turkish Security Forces became alarmed as Natalie had her mobile phone out at a security checkpoint. She was taken away for questioning and it was subsequently explained that she was simply recording the sounds of bombs falling across the border in Syria.”
DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM...
Is she looking for the missing donations in Turkey?
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
History is always written by the victors.
Slavery was, of course, an abhorrence (abolished throughout the British Empire before the USA), but I seem to remember from my reading of the situation it was more of a pretext.
This is just revisionism. The declarations of independence by the various states that formed the Confederacy openly said it was about slavery. That ain't political correctness. It's what happened.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
History is always written by the victors.
Slavery was, of course, an abhorrence (abolished throughout the British Empire before the USA), but I seem to remember from my reading of the situation it was more of a pretext.
This is just revisionism. The declarations of independence by the various states that formed the Confederacy openly said it was about slavery. That ain't political correctness. It's what happened.
That's true but for some fighting men it was about protecting house and home. Many were just poor working class people with zero slaves or interest in preserving slavery.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
History is always written by the victors.
Slavery was, of course, an abhorrence (abolished throughout the British Empire before the USA), but I seem to remember from my reading of the situation it was more of a pretext.
This is just revisionism. The declarations of independence by the various states that formed the Confederacy openly said it was about slavery. That ain't political correctness. It's what happened.
South Carolina first state to secede. It explicitly says the cause is:
On the 4th day of March next, [the Republican] party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
History is always written by the victors.
Slavery was, of course, an abhorrence (abolished throughout the British Empire before the USA), but I seem to remember from my reading of the situation it was more of a pretext.
This is just revisionism. The declarations of independence by the various states that formed the Confederacy openly said it was about slavery. That ain't political correctness. It's what happened.
Yes, exactly.
Robert E. Lee wrote in 1856.
"... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
History is always written by the victors.
Slavery was, of course, an abhorrence (abolished throughout the British Empire before the USA), but I seem to remember from my reading of the situation it was more of a pretext.
Curiously, for a long time the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction was written by the losers.
South Carolina first state to secede. It explicitly says the cause is:
On the 4th day of March next, [the Republican] party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
You may be correct, you may not be, but this doesn't make your point. This says that the 'North' announced that a war must be waged against slavery. That announcment is entirely compatible with (indeed essential to) it being a pretext.
- which IMO rightly notes the relationship to potential Brexit talks and the idea that the EU might compromise on free movement (answer: no).
Thanks Nick and all who have commented. I'd seen the links above, but nothing seemed very current, there is little ongoing chatter about progress. On that basis, as you say has to be assumed the Swiss will be asked to think again on a wider deal.
There's a suggestion that the Swiss and the EU are both unhappy with the EFTA bilateral arrangement - the EU because there is no formal recourse either to ECJ or the equivalent EEA court to ensure relevant Swiss law is kept in line, the Swiss by the administrative nightmare of the whole arrangement and the terms of access for, ironically, financial services. Not beyond the realms that Swiss could actually end up deepening ties after all of this - EFTA EEA in all but name.
So what does all that say for Britain:
- More grist to the mill for the second vote idea. However, I still don't think that stacks up in a UK context. The Swiss and the EU both want a way out of the freedom of movement referendum and a second wider vote is their only way. The UK joining EFTA / EEA may be a perfectly tolerable way out for all (negotiating) parties (depending mainly on how Tory power games play out post-referendum) the headache may be contributions, but rcs's note that Swiss import tariffs are collected by the EU as a stealth contribution shows that where there's a will there's a way, and a big EU condition could be that some of the difference could be split (a further transitional period).
- The Swiss model is causing big issues to all, even without the freedom of movement issue and if the UK tries to go down that route there will be resistance.
- Even if out did win, it will be important that no part of the movement has made a strong explicit play for the type of out they want - if they objected to EFTA / EEA that should have formed a bigger part of what they did. (Even UKIP manifesto, whilst objecting to a couple of specific EEA provisions barely made any case here). Given EU has played hardball with Swiss on freedom of movement, it almost certainly stays.
- Out could win the battle and lose the war, and even an out vote could lead to everything being revisited in a few years time and further Tory ructions and stuff for UKIP to campaign about. Perhaps in the back of UKIP's mind, they are not fighting hard for all the way out as it keeps them in a reason for being afterwards whatever the result, but I can't see them gaining much kudos for achieving the wrong kind of out.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
History is always written by the victors.
Slavery was, of course, an abhorrence (abolished throughout the British Empire before the USA), but I seem to remember from my reading of the situation it was more of a pretext.
Curiously, for a long time the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction was written by the losers.
In the popular imagination, but not official history surely.
South Carolina first state to secede. It explicitly says the cause is:
On the 4th day of March next, [the Republican] party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
You may be correct, you may not be, but this doesn't make your point. This says that the 'North' announced that a war must be waged against slavery. That announcment is entirely compatible with (indeed essential to) it being a pretext.
I mean thats the Southern hyperbole. They believed the election of Lincoln was de facto a declaration of war. Actually the South started the war when they attacked Fort Sumter.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
History is always written by the victors.
Slavery was, of course, an abhorrence (abolished throughout the British Empire before the USA), but I seem to remember from my reading of the situation it was more of a pretext.
This is just revisionism. The declarations of independence by the various states that formed the Confederacy openly said it was about slavery. That ain't political correctness. It's what happened.
Yes, exactly.
If you read Shrerman's memoires you will read that the army was cluttered with countless freed slaves, men women and children - whole families were slaves - pressing around them as they marched through Georgia and the Carolinas. Someone must have owned the slaves since there were millions of them. For some individuals it was about States Rights. Pemberton who surrendered Vicksburg was a Northerner with a southern wife. Lee found his loyalty to his state over rode everything else.
Not sure why anyone wants to rake over the civil war - a war which killed over 600,000 people.
The scariest Trump polling was around 20% of Trump supporters were upset the confederacy lost the civil war.
20% also believed the slaves should not have been freed, and 17% "weren't sure"...
That's very funny.
Not sure if funny is the word.
The sad thing is many of these people probably do know their history, they do know what the South was, and yet they still support it over the union.
Race relations in the US appear to be going sharply backwards.
I think "weren't sure" is funny. How can you not be sure ffs?
I'm not sure to be honest
It's those who think they shouldn't have been freed, but know how bad that sounds so aren't sure of trusting their own opinion. The others either don't realise it sounds bad or don't care.
The first step in being a white supremacist loony is to get over worrying about how bad it sounds.
You say that, but there are plenty of examples of the most despicable racist remarks and actions denied as being racist by those doing them, like the rancher chap wondering if black people had been better off as slaves denying being a racist. So clearly some still know it should be bad. It's like obvious dictatorships pretending to be democratic, no matter how ludicrously, showing they at least know other people think dictatorship is bad.
Texas allows early voting and 18% of those polled report having already cast their vote. Nearly half (44%) of these early voters checked Cruz’s name on their ballots.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
History is always written by the victors.
Slavery was, of course, an abhorrence (abolished throughout the British Empire before the USA), but I seem to remember from my reading of the situation it was more of a pretext.
Curiously, for a long time the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction was written by the losers.
Sadly, even Hillary Clinton seemed to have these beliefs. Showing her age I guess that the Dunning School thesis was still being taught when she was at school.
South Carolina first state to secede. It explicitly says the cause is:
On the 4th day of March next, [the Republican] party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
You may be correct, you may not be, but this doesn't make your point. This says that the 'North' announced that a war must be waged against slavery. That announcment is entirely compatible with (indeed essential to) it being a pretext.
I mean thats the Southern hyperbole. They believed the election of Lincoln was de facto a declaration of war. Actually the South started the war when they attacked Fort Sumter.
And as it happened, there was war. Today's 'secessionists' also believe the federal government is out to get them, and it's also likely that if and when (God forbid) any form of armed uprising happens (by no means unlikely), it will be their own craziness and paranoia that is seen to have been the cause.
All of which of course doesn't mean the federal government isn't out to get them - just because you're paranoid etc. etc.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
History is always written by the victors.
Slavery was, of course, an abhorrence (abolished throughout the British Empire before the USA), but I seem to remember from my reading of the situation it was more of a pretext.
This is just revisionism. The declarations of independence by the various states that formed the Confederacy openly said it was about slavery. That ain't political correctness. It's what happened.
Yes, exactly.
If you read Shrerman's memoires you will read that the army was cluttered with countless freed slaves, men women and children - whole families were slaves - pressing around them as they marched through Georgia and the Carolinas. Someone must have owned the slaves since there were millions of them. For some individuals it was about States Rights. Pemberton who surrendered Vicksburg was a Northerner with a southern wife. Lee found his loyalty to his state over rode everything else.
Not sure why anyone wants to rake over the civil war - a war which killed over 600,000 people.
Same reason Jews think its important to remember Holocaust. Forgetting or playing diwn crimes of past is first step on path to them being repeated. The Lost Cause thesis is a racist trope to deny that a war was fought to keep millions of black people in brutal human bondage. I don't think slavery is something that needs to be constantly mentioned but I'll damn sure argue againsts revisionism denying it.
Out could win the battle and lose the war, and even an out vote could lead to everything being revisited in a few years time and further Tory ructions and stuff for UKIP to campaign about. Perhaps in the back of UKIP's mind, they are not fighting hard for all the way out as it keeps them in a reason for being afterwards whatever the result, but I can't see them gaining much kudos for achieving the wrong kind of out.
I think they Kippers can see what everyone else can see, that the people making the decisions will be the europhile Tory government, which means if its Leave the government will make it as close to the same as Remain as they can get without getting thrown out of office, which with Corbyn as the alternative gives them an awful lot of room for maneuver. Sure, Cameron might get kicked out, but he is going anyway, to be replaced by Boris or Gove who will go for EEA+Bells anyway.
What the kippers therefore need to do is keep the issue alive and hope that it falls apart badly enough that they can parlay the public annoyance with Dave's bullshit, and the subsequent denouement into votes at the next GE - kind of "Dave's a lying europhile, Jezza is a terrorist loving europhine - vote UKIP" approach and look for enough seats to hold the balance of power. Then the Tories have the choice of do a deal with Farage, or do a deal with Jezza, tricky one.
South Carolina first state to secede. It explicitly says the cause is:
On the 4th day of March next, [the Republican] party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
You may be correct, you may not be, but this doesn't make your point. This says that the 'North' announced that a war must be waged against slavery. That announcment is entirely compatible with (indeed essential to) it being a pretext.
I mean thats the Southern hyperbole. They believed the election of Lincoln was de facto a declaration of war. Actually the South started the war when they attacked Fort Sumter.
And as it happened, there was war. Today's 'secessionists' also believe the federal government is out to get them, and it's also likely that if and when (God forbid) any form of armed uprising happens (by no means unlikely), it will be their own craziness and paranoia that is seen to have been the cause.
All of which of course doesn't mean the federal government isn't out to get them - just because you're paranoid etc. etc.
''craziness and paranoia '' - well you would know all about that
EU ref - over the last 24 to 48 hours, the 55% to 60% band has moved into clear 2nd favourite, relegating 45% to 50% to 3rd favourite.
Also looks as if bands market is moving out of synch with overall result market - there is a big gap between Buy and Lay for the 45% to 50% band but even taking the Buy price and adding it to the Buy prices for lower bands you get a smaller % chance of Remain winning than in the overall result market.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
History is always written by the victors.
Slavery was, of course, an abhorrence (abolished throughout the British Empire before the USA), but I seem to remember from my reading of the situation it was more of a pretext.
Curiously, for a long time the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction was written by the losers.
In the popular imagination, but not official history surely.
Not really. The view that the South had fought nobly but hopelessly for States' Rights (not slavery) and that Reconstruction was a disaster because black people were not "ready" to vote or participate in public life was widely accepted in popular and academic accounts. It was at the centre of Gone With The Wind, of course. It was also bollocks.
The interesting thing about this for me is the issue of free speech. Do you allow these people to spout this cr*p[, or should they be silenced by prosecution, as they would be in Britain.
There is a case (not a moral one obviously) that Britain should have supported the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Had they won, the USA would have been hemmed in by two British spheres of influence, significantly changing the course of world events. The consequences of defeat would have been quite severe - it would have been a gamble.
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to America by the slave traders of Liverpool, and then ended up paying compensation for it to the USA, which was a scandal 'The Alabama Affair' at the time.
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Many Southern soldiers either had no slaves or just one or two, and the some of the big plantation owners played no part in the war.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
History is always written by the victors.
Slavery was, of course, an abhorrence (abolished throughout the British Empire before the USA), but I seem to remember from my reading of the situation it was more of a pretext.
Yes, the pretext was the southern states wanted to keep laves and the northern states did not. Southern politicians would bang on about the necessity of holding onto their peculiar institution. That institution being slavery.
Comments
It doesnt matter where you are, how rich or how poor you are. Your mum is the one who tells you to tuck your shirt it, straigten your tie and polish your shoes. The old jaded supply teacher look, works if you are an old jaded supply teacher, but not when you are running the country, or aspiring to.
There are some who like his genuineness, his scruffy unshaven look, and it has its place. But he is no longer in that place he is the Leader of HMO.
Hillary 48
Trump 45
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=75899aa5-d534-4f73-a00d-5d84f2274ed3
I'm posting it because of this:
"Trump Support Correlates with Viewership of 'The Apprentice':
Trump runs 20 points stronger among voters who watched "The Apprentice" TV show "almost always" when Trump was the host, compared to voters who "almost never" watched "The Apprentice." Among viewers who almost always watched the show when Trump was the host, Trump leads Clinton by 24 points, 58% to 34%. Among voters who almost never watched "The Apprentice" when Trump was host, Clinton leads Trump by 15 points, 53% to 38%. While there is nothing counter-intuitive about these findings, they are the first mathematical measure of the extent to which Trump has been able to cash-in on his celebrity."
It's possible that the more people watch Trump on TV the more they support him, or feel comfortable with him.
I hope he uses them for millions .. the ffing bbc are so two faced its barely credible..
“There is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout, ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’ In other words, they will be talking about the dead cat – the thing you want them to talk about – and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/20/lynton-crosby-and-dead-cat-won-election-conservatives-labour-intellectually-lazy
and the prospects are summed up accurately, if in a biased tone, by the eurosceptic site:
http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/swiss-told-to-vote-again-on-free-movement-except-this-time-the-stakes-are-higher/
- which IMO rightly notes the relationship to potential Brexit talks and the idea that the EU might compromise on free movement (answer: no).
Trump will be running on the economy, foreign policy (bring our troops home and spend the money here is the most popular line ever polled), immigration and DC corruption. All of those he is strong on and are largely bipartisan.
Hillary will be running on experience (whoops her record is lousy), the fact she is a woman (who has been complicit in her husband's escapades) and scaring her favoured demographics.
The GOP establishment is already rallying to Trump and as he starts to flesh out his team people will be reassured.
Trump going against mexico wont hurt him in Florida.
Talking Florida, Rubio is doomed:
https://twitter.com/stevenportnoy/status/702871200314351616
"Kengeter to head up combined LSE-Deutsche Börse entity
Deutsche Börse chief executive Carsten Kengeter will likely lead the new entity that will be formed if discussions by the bourse to merge with London Stock Exchange are to materialise, according to sources.
Under the terms being negotiated, the holding company for the combined exchange will be based in London and regulated by UK authorities, with the current chairman of the London bourse, Donald Brydon, expected to become chairman of the new entity, The Wall Street Journal has gathered."
is so depressing. Not the bit about the HQ being in London but about who will lead it.
Talk about rewards for failure...... There can IMO be no effective culture change in the financial sector if those at the top who preside over failures or worse are allowed to walk away without taking responsibility.
You'd have thought someone at these exchanges or the relevant regulators would know what has happened and might ask some questions.
Sometimes in my job it feels like pushing water uphill. Today is one of those days........
Greece has recalled its ambassador to Austria:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35658776
I pity Greece. It's got a wrecked economy and massive in-flow of migrants.
Cuban descent hispanics now make up less than a third of of the demographic. The majority are Mexican, Puerto Rican and from Central and South America.
http://order-order.com/2016/02/25/hungarian-pm-boasts-well-still-get-benefits-without-paying-in/
Some absolutely beautiful areas - much of the Dales, the North York Moors, parts of the coast
Some meh flatlands that are OK but dull, like Lincolnshire
Some, er, characterful post-industrial places
Some of the most notorious shitholes in Britain (Middlesbrough, Hull)
I also think Hillary will be a much more formidable president that many anticipate, so they could well be locked out for a further 8 years because of Trump (that bit is mine too).
That JackW- he may be like some old crusty, wrinkled old codger whose a million years old, but he's got a wise, wise head on him.
In the Blue corner, @JackW and @MSmithsonPB
In the Red corner, @RodCrosby and @Tissue_Price.
Pre-1974. God's own county boundaries.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/25/black_lives_matter_activist_interrupts_hillary_clinton_speech_i_am_not_a_superpredator.html
It was a tactical error - as Machiavelli teaches, you never strike your opponent unless you're convinced he won't be able to strike back afterward.
Ted Cruz last stand !
He has sucked all the oxygen of the media onto himself so far, whereas if he wasn't running we'd have Rubio probably slightly ahead of Cruz but alot more focus on the relatively ignored Democrat race. That may have helped Sanders.
Some of us find that about as intellectually defensible as making monkey noises to black footballers....
Do not cross JackW- he may be a decrepit old codger, but he's never, never wrong.
The robots are coming...well walking like an 80 year old Grannie. I am awaiting the next next generation where said robots turn around to the guy with the hockey stick and shove it up his arse.
People from that area don;t therefore see it in the politically correct way it is seen over here. They see it perhaps as a fight against big government, against being bossed around.
Asked why they were fighting many Southern soldiers would say 'because y'all are down here'
Slavery was, of course, an abhorrence (abolished throughout the British Empire before the USA), but I seem to remember from my reading of the situation it was more of a pretext.
DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM...
In one corner, the trained politician, decades of experience, knowledge of foreign issues, policy wonk/lawyer background etc etc. In the other, a rabble-rousing populist who knows nothing except how to make the media work for him without them even realising.
It could be a roller-coaster.
South Carolina first state to secede. It explicitly says the cause is:
On the 4th day of March next, [the Republican] party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/fd1752af-cc7a-4b4c-9125-1d26f351cc4a.pdf
"... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
Thank you Nabbers ....
There's a suggestion that the Swiss and the EU are both unhappy with the EFTA bilateral arrangement - the EU because there is no formal recourse either to ECJ or the equivalent EEA court to ensure relevant Swiss law is kept in line, the Swiss by the administrative nightmare of the whole arrangement and the terms of access for, ironically, financial services. Not beyond the realms that Swiss could actually end up deepening ties after all of this - EFTA EEA in all but name.
So what does all that say for Britain:
- More grist to the mill for the second vote idea. However, I still don't think that stacks up in a UK context. The Swiss and the EU both want a way out of the freedom of movement referendum and a second wider vote is their only way. The UK joining EFTA / EEA may be a perfectly tolerable way out for all (negotiating) parties (depending mainly on how Tory power games play out post-referendum) the headache may be contributions, but rcs's note that Swiss import tariffs are collected by the EU as a stealth contribution shows that where there's a will there's a way, and a big EU condition could be that some of the difference could be split (a further transitional period).
- The Swiss model is causing big issues to all, even without the freedom of movement issue and if the UK tries to go down that route there will be resistance.
- Even if out did win, it will be important that no part of the movement has made a strong explicit play for the type of out they want - if they objected to EFTA / EEA that should have formed a bigger part of what they did. (Even UKIP manifesto, whilst objecting to a couple of specific EEA provisions barely made any case here). Given EU has played hardball with Swiss on freedom of movement, it almost certainly stays.
- Out could win the battle and lose the war, and even an out vote could lead to everything being revisited in a few years time and further Tory ructions and stuff for UKIP to campaign about. Perhaps in the back of UKIP's mind, they are not fighting hard for all the way out as it keeps them in a reason for being afterwards whatever the result, but I can't see them gaining much kudos for achieving the wrong kind of out.
For some individuals it was about States Rights. Pemberton who surrendered Vicksburg was a Northerner with a southern wife. Lee found his loyalty to his state over rode everything else.
Not sure why anyone wants to rake over the civil war - a war which killed over 600,000 people.
Texas allows early voting and 18% of those polled report having already cast their vote. Nearly half (44%) of these early voters checked Cruz’s name on their ballots.
My model forecast has him up 13 delegates since Tuesday night.
Half a dozen ST states still have no recent polls...
All of which of course doesn't mean the federal government isn't out to get them - just because you're paranoid etc. etc.
What the kippers therefore need to do is keep the issue alive and hope that it falls apart badly enough that they can parlay the public annoyance with Dave's bullshit, and the subsequent denouement into votes at the next GE - kind of "Dave's a lying europhile, Jezza is a terrorist loving europhine - vote UKIP" approach and look for enough seats to hold the balance of power. Then the Tories have the choice of do a deal with Farage, or do a deal with Jezza, tricky one.
Also looks as if bands market is moving out of synch with overall result market - there is a big gap between Buy and Lay for the 45% to 50% band but even taking the Buy price and adding it to the Buy prices for lower bands you get a smaller % chance of Remain winning than in the overall result market.
Why the hell aren't they polling AL, TN and AR?