- 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.
There's more here (in German but Google translate should cope if you don't read German)
- essentially the EU has said they won't give an inch before the British referendum, they'd then be willing to talk, but the Swiss would get even less than Cameron because at least Britain is currently a member so there's some willingness to make an effort: for a non-member, why bother?
According to predisposition, one can see this as evidence of the dangers of Brexit (once we left we'd find them tougher than now) or of the obduracy of the EU.
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.
....
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."
Lee was offered the command of the Union field Army but when Virginia seceded he could not bring himself to fight against his home state. His was a common view held both north and south that slavery was wrong but that the blacks were not yet ready for freedom. It was quite a surprise to a number of people on both sides that the blacks were capable of the discipline to fight in the army when allowed.
I learned something today: I had no idea that the Confederate states so explicitly made secession about slavery. Thanks all.
The last 25 years of so has seen a strong revisionist movement to try an eliminate the notion that the American Civil War was about slavery. Its reaction to contemporary Civil War documents saying "Yo dudes, this is all about slavery" is some of the most intellectually dishonest double think that you will ever read.
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.
Careful, though - the exit poll is based on a sample of just 80 people (18% of 400-odd). There's also a poll out today showing Cruz and Trump tied in Texas. The balance of evidence is that Cruz is ahead, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
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.
Precisely my point. Gone with the wind isn't an encyclopedia.
On the subject of slavery (and Liverpool's infamous role), those in the North West might be interested in the other side of the coin, in a new play debuting at the Everyman.
I'm in Kenya, on safari. Yesterday I met a charming, smart 85 year old American multi-millionairess, who is spending the winter months in the Ol Pejeta Conservancy.
Over g&t we fell to talking about the American election. She said she was a neighbour of Trump for many years and knew him, personally, very well.
She said Trump is extremely intelligent, and a great delegator, and would probably be a highly capable president. I have no reason to disbelieve her. She also claimed Trump has no chance of winning. I believe that, too.
Trump's one chance is to somehow reassemble the Reagan coalition. I reckon that's what he'll be aiming to do. He kind of reminds me of a slightly unstable Ron. It is hard to see him spending much time looking at details. He gives the impression of having a very low boredom threshold.
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.
Precisely my point. Gone with the wind isn't an encyclopedia.
Bookmakers who profit from greyhound racing must pay towards the welfare of retired dogs, MPs have said, amid fears a large number are being killed. They said the introduction of a greyhound welfare tax would boost the standard of care available to the animals - if businesses failed to volunteer funding. The recommendations were made by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
MPs were told that between 1,000 and 3,700 dogs are unaccounted for each year.
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.
Careful, though - the exit poll is based on a sample of just 80 people (18% of 400-odd). There's also a poll out today showing Cruz and Trump tied in Texas. The balance of evidence is that Cruz is ahead, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
I think it's relatively safe to assume that Cruz will win Texas. Even if his campaign is going down and Trump has the momentum, Cruz's early lead + local popularity would be enough.
Cruz is dropping very low in most southern states now, Trump is picking up the pieces. In Georgia 42 delegates are assigned proportionally with a 20% threshold, so if those are the results Trump gets all 42 delegates, the other 31 go 2 to the first place winner per congressional district, second place gets 1 per district.
The reality is as Cruz and Rubio fall bellow the thresholds, Trump takes a majority of delegates even in proportional states. Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Vermont have a 20% threshold, those states give lots of delegates.
I'm in Kenya, on safari. Yesterday I met a charming, smart 85 year old American multi-millionairess, who is spending the winter months in the Ol Pejeta Conservancy.
Over g&t we fell to talking about the American election. She said she was a neighbour of Trump for many years and knew him, personally, very well.
She said Trump is extremely intelligent, and a great delegator, and would probably be a highly capable president. I have no reason to disbelieve her. She also claimed Trump has no chance of winning. I believe that, too.
What I want to know is why no-one is talking about the Trump-Goldman Sachs connection.
Donald Trump is a shareholder in Goldman Sachs, and executive Luke Thorburn is a donor to his campaign.
@ScottyNational: News : SNP MP Natalie McGarry detained in Turkey making recordings - Police say the recording sounded like 5 million Scots doing a facepalm
I'm in Kenya, on safari. Yesterday I met a charming, smart 85 year old American multi-millionairess, who is spending the winter months in the Ol Pejeta Conservancy.
Over g&t we fell to talking about the American election. She said she was a neighbour of Trump for many years and knew him, personally, very well.
She said Trump is extremely intelligent, and a great delegator, and would probably be a highly capable president. I have no reason to disbelieve her. She also claimed Trump has no chance of winning. I believe that, too.
What I want to know is why no-one is talking about the Trump-Goldman Sachs connection.
Donald Trump is a shareholder in Goldman Sachs, and executive Luke Thorburn is a donor to his campaign.
"At Goldman Sachs, employees have directly contributed since 2013 more than $94,000 to Mrs. Clinton and more than $199,000 to one of Mr. Trump’s opponents in the Republican race, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, according to the commission.
Records show just one Goldman employee, a financial adviser in the wealth management division, has donated to Mr. Trump — $534.58, to be precise.
That employee’s name is Luke Thorburn. Public records show Mr. Thorburn trademarked the phrase “Make Christianity Great Again” and is selling hats that mirror Mr. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” caps.
I'm in Kenya, on safari. Yesterday I met a charming, smart 85 year old American multi-millionairess, who is spending the winter months in the Ol Pejeta Conservancy.
Over g&t we fell to talking about the American election. She said she was a neighbour of Trump for many years and knew him, personally, very well.
She said Trump is extremely intelligent, and a great delegator, and would probably be a highly capable president. I have no reason to disbelieve her. She also claimed Trump has no chance of winning. I believe that, too.
What I want to know is why no-one is talking about the Trump-Goldman Sachs connection.
Donald Trump is a shareholder in Goldman Sachs, and executive Luke Thorburn is a donor to his campaign.
The thing is that any attempt to say that Trump has support from big business is counter-productive because it cancels out the fear-mongering that he's a loose cannon who won't be able to govern.
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.
Careful, though - the exit poll is based on a sample of just 80 people (18% of 400-odd). There's also a poll out today showing Cruz and Trump tied in Texas. The balance of evidence is that Cruz is ahead, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
I think it's relatively safe to assume that Cruz will win Texas. Even if his campaign is going down and Trump has the momentum, Cruz's early lead + local popularity would be enough.
Cruz is dropping very low in most southern states now, Trump is picking up the pieces. In Georgia 42 delegates are assigned proportionally with a 20% threshold, so if those are the results Trump gets all 42 delegates, the other 31 go 2 to the first place winner per congressional district, second place gets 1 per district.
The reality is as Cruz and Rubio fall bellow the thresholds, Trump takes a majority of delegates even in proportional states. Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Vermont have a 20% threshold, those states give lots of delegates.
Oh FFS. Now Harvard is getting rid of the term Master from job titles because protesters think it is a link to slavery, rather than a derivative of Latin for Teacher: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-35659685
Idiots and morons should be told by places of learning to take a running jump off a short pier, not give in to the doubleplusungood newspeak nonsense.
I'm in Kenya, on safari. Yesterday I met a charming, smart 85 year old American multi-millionairess, who is spending the winter months in the Ol Pejeta Conservancy.
Over g&t we fell to talking about the American election. She said she was a neighbour of Trump for many years and knew him, personally, very well.
She said Trump is extremely intelligent, and a great delegator, and would probably be a highly capable president. I have no reason to disbelieve her. She also claimed Trump has no chance of winning. I believe that, too.
What I want to know is why no-one is talking about the Trump-Goldman Sachs connection.
Donald Trump is a shareholder in Goldman Sachs, and executive Luke Thorburn is a donor to his campaign.
"At Goldman Sachs, employees have directly contributed since 2013 more than $94,000 to Mrs. Clinton and more than $199,000 to one of Mr. Trump’s opponents in the Republican race, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, according to the commission.
Records show just one Goldman employee, a financial adviser in the wealth management division, has donated to Mr. Trump — $534.58, to be precise.
That employee’s name is Luke Thorburn. Public records show Mr. Thorburn trademarked the phrase “Make Christianity Great Again” and is selling hats that mirror Mr. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” caps.
Mr. Thorburn declined to comment."
Trump is on good ground on this.
Goldman Sachs would like Rubio to win the presidency most of all or Jeb Bush if he was still running but they would prefer Hillary to Trump. Trump would only start getting serious donors from Goldman if his opponent was Sanders and in that event most Goldman money would go to Bloomberg anyway
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.
Careful, though - the exit poll is based on a sample of just 80 people (18% of 400-odd). There's also a poll out today showing Cruz and Trump tied in Texas. The balance of evidence is that Cruz is ahead, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
I think it's relatively safe to assume that Cruz will win Texas. Even if his campaign is going down and Trump has the momentum, Cruz's early lead + local popularity would be enough.
Cruz is dropping very low in most southern states now, Trump is picking up the pieces. In Georgia 42 delegates are assigned proportionally with a 20% threshold, so if those are the results Trump gets all 42 delegates, the other 31 go 2 to the first place winner per congressional district, second place gets 1 per district.
The reality is as Cruz and Rubio fall bellow the thresholds, Trump takes a majority of delegates even in proportional states. Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Vermont have a 20% threshold, those states give lots of delegates.
The fat lady is singing.
Are you calling Hillary fat?
She's pretty broad beamed. Those pant suits do her no favours.
@ScottyNational: News : SNP MP Natalie McGarry detained in Turkey making recordings - Police say the recording sounded like 5 million Scots doing a facepalm
Golly, rooky mistake, particularly after Yoons endlessly crowing about McGarry resigning the SNP whip, and the '54'.
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
@theobertram: Worst of all, Labour are now actually *driving* this Corbyn's clothes media cycle. First, the 'shabby clothes' tweet. Now Holloway Road.
@theobertram: We're the Labour Party, not Lembit fucking Opik.
And every time the full clip is shown, the mssage comes across: sing the national anthem.
Besides if I'm going for a job interview I dress appropriately. Corbyn is in a job interview stage for us to determine if he's fit to both lead the country and represent our country on the world stage. I know what I think.
"Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has a "bombshell" hidden in his tax returns, the party's 2012 nominee Mitt Romney has warned. Mr Romney says the billionaire was "dodging and delaying" on releasing his returns, which could shake up the race."
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 .
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series starts with Britain doing just that.
We did turn a blind eye to 'The Alabama' being shipped to
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.
It is worth noting that Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri all remained slave states while staying in the Union. The 1863 Emancipification proclomation by the Union only emancipated slaves in the Confederacy, not those in Union held territory (including occupied areas like the Mississippi delta). Those slaves were not freed until the American Civil War was over.
Obviously slavery was an issue in the war, but it was also an issue over whether state law or federal law should be sovereign. Shades of our own Brexit referendum!
It is slightly ironic that a minority of Republicans seem to back the CSA position, at the time of the War Republicans backed the Union against the Democrat supported CSA.
@ScottyNational: News : SNP MP Natalie McGarry detained in Turkey making recordings - Police say the recording sounded like 5 million Scots doing a facepalm
Golly, rooky mistake, particularly after Yoons endlessly crowing about McGarry resigning the SNP whip, and the '54'.
Now you know how we feel when every Tory miscreant is described as "Tory MP" or "Tory Peer" by the Beeb, whereas the phrasing is often different if it was a Labour member
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.
Precisely my point. Gone with the wind isn't an encyclopedia.
"Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has a "bombshell" hidden in his tax returns, the party's 2012 nominee Mitt Romney has warned. Mr Romney says the billionaire was "dodging and delaying" on releasing his returns, which could shake up the race."
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump Mitt Romney, who was one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics, is now pushing me on tax returns. Dope! 12:34 PM - 25 Feb 2016
"Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has a "bombshell" hidden in his tax returns, the party's 2012 nominee Mitt Romney has warned. Mr Romney says the billionaire was "dodging and delaying" on releasing his returns, which could shake up the race."
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump Mitt Romney, who was one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics, is now pushing me on tax returns. Dope! 12:34 PM - 25 Feb 2016
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
It is worth noting that Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri all remained slave states while staying in the Union. The 1863 Emancipification proclomation by the Union only emancipated slaves in the Confederacy, not those in Union held territory (including occupied areas like the Mississippi delta). Those slaves were not freed until the American Civil War was over.
Obviously slavery was an issue in the war, but it was also an issue over whether state law or federal law should be sovereign. Shades of our own Brexit referendum!
It is slightly ironic that a minority of Republicans seem to back the CSA position, at the time of the War Republicans backed the Union against the Democrat supported CSA.
Because the parties have reversed. The Dixiecrats of old are now Republicans.
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead. Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
I share your concern about the quality of analysis by the polls. The recent ComRes poll Certainty to Vote ( 9 and 10) had the 18-25 age range certainty as 63% and the 65+ age range certainty as 76%. Should it be more than twice the certainty for 65+ compared to the 18-25s?
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
Actually Remain lead 52 to 48 with those who will probably vote and 63 to 37 amongst those who are 50 50. Remain lead only 51 49 amongst those who definitely will not vote. The BBC is as pro EU as the Sun is anti
Back on the issue of the Certainty to Vote assumptions of our pollsters. Are these all based on asking what their Certainty to vote at A GE is rather than asking what their Certainty to Vote at the referendum?
Good to see the BBC gave plenty of time to the Savile Report on the Six O'Clock News. I wonder what scandal they can cook up for the next ONS quarterly migration statistics release.
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead. Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
I share your concern about the quality of analysis by the polls. The recent ComRes poll Certainty to Vote ( 9 and 10) had the 18-25 age range certainty as 63% and the 65+ age range certainty as 76%. Should it be more than twice the certainty for 65+ compared to the 18-25s?
Ipsos post 2015 review claimed that only 43% of 18-24 year olds voted. It was 78% for 65+.
"But while there’s a class component here, it’s not as strong as some might suggest. Trump does well among college and post-college educated voters, too, and the Brexit is suddenly developing support from the sort of political class leaders who used to be pro-Europe. The difference is that the upper-class types have been less willing to show it.
In both cases, it may be that the lower classes are expressing their views more openly because they have less to lose. Express the “wrong” opinions in British or American politics or academia and it’s the (figurative) gulag for you; if you work at a fast-food place, the consequences are generally less steep. But when enough ordinary voters express an opinion, the elites may feel safer, too."
"In his terrific book, Private Truths, Public Lies:The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification, Timur Kuran writes about the phenomenon he calls “preference falsification”: People tend to hide unpopular views to avoid ostracism or punishment; they stop hiding them when they feel safe."
Good to see the BBC gave plenty of time to the Savile Report on the Six O'Clock News. I wonder what scandal they can cook up for the next ONS quarterly migration statistics release.
The news today was Tony Blackburn cooperating voluntarily with the enquiry and protesting his innocence.
Then BBC then dismiss him for non cooperation , Huh?
Meanwhile everyone at the top saw and heard nothing and would not be expected too. Mmmm....
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
Actually Remain lead 52 to 48 with those who will probably vote and 63 to 37 amongst those who are 50 50. Remain lead only 51 49 amongst those who definitely will not vote. The BBC is as pro EU as the Sun is anti
But they are behind when you combine certain and probable voters. Add the tables up.
In the 1920s approximately 10% of the white male population of the USA were in the KKK. It was anti-immigrant, anti-jewish, anti-Catholic, pro-prohibition and against loose morals. It was a social and fraternal organisation for many "social conservatives" of the time.
In the 1920s approximately 10% of the white male population of the USA were in the KKK. It was anti-immigrant, anti-jewish, anti-Catholic, pro-prohibition and against loose morals. It was a social and fraternal organisation for many "social conservatives" of the time.
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
Actually Remain lead 52 to 48 with those who will probably vote and 63 to 37 amongst those who are 50 50. Remain lead only 51 49 amongst those who definitely will not vote. The BBC is as pro EU as the Sun is anti
But they are behind when you combine certain and probable voters. Add the tables up.
Certain to vote is only 52 to 48 Leave so it is neck and neck amongst certain and Probables and Remain ahead including 50 50s
Good to see the BBC gave plenty of time to the Savile Report on the Six O'Clock News. I wonder what scandal they can cook up for the next ONS quarterly migration statistics release.
"But while there’s a class component here, it’s not as strong as some might suggest. Trump does well among college and post-college educated voters, too, and the Brexit is suddenly developing support from the sort of political class leaders who used to be pro-Europe. The difference is that the upper-class types have been less willing to show it.
In both cases, it may be that the lower classes are expressing their views more openly because they have less to lose. Express the “wrong” opinions in British or American politics or academia and it’s the (figurative) gulag for you; if you work at a fast-food place, the consequences are generally less steep. But when enough ordinary voters express an opinion, the elites may feel safer, too."
"In his terrific book, Private Truths, Public Lies:The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification, Timur Kuran writes about the phenomenon he calls “preference falsification”: People tend to hide unpopular views to avoid ostracism or punishment; they stop hiding them when they feel safe."
So you're suggesting there could be a Shy Leave syndrome along the lines of Shy Tories?
Possibly. Possibly not. I feel shy in public stating how pro-immigration I am because being anti-immigration seems so universal, I understand it's not the same in all circles but I nearly started a riot in the pub once by disagreeing with people moaning about immigrants.
Or as I read yesterday, Schrodinger's Immigrants: Simultaneously stealing your job and on benefits as too lazy to work.
Back on the issue of the Certainty to Vote assumptions of our pollsters. Are these all based on asking what their Certainty to vote at A GE is rather than asking what their Certainty to Vote at the referendum?
Nope the BMG poll is entirely on the referendum the general election poll was yesterday
Good to see the BBC gave plenty of time to the Savile Report on the Six O'Clock News. I wonder what scandal they can cook up for the next ONS quarterly migration statistics release.
I think we all know whose side the BBC is on.
Thought Tony Blackburn made a good point that the BBC has closed down whistle blowers. If they can sack me he said anyone can be got at.
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
And yet for all the torrent of negativity re the agreement and the immigration problems remain seem to be maintaining a lead. I would suggest that the disputes on the agreement and immigration may not be playing out in the populace, as they take the much more important view as to whether they feel economically and personally secure in the EU or not. Leave, if they want to win, need to get away from the minutiae and concentrate on proving how we can be, at the very least as safe and secure as we are now or they will lose.
"Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has a "bombshell" hidden in his tax returns, the party's 2012 nominee Mitt Romney has warned. Mr Romney says the billionaire was "dodging and delaying" on releasing his returns, which could shake up the race."
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump Mitt Romney, who was one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics, is now pushing me on tax returns. Dope! 12:34 PM - 25 Feb 2016
What is the betting Jeb Bush and Romney vote for Hillary over Trump?
Back on the issue of the Certainty to Vote assumptions of our pollsters. Are these all based on asking what their Certainty to vote at A GE is rather than asking what their Certainty to Vote at the referendum?
Nope the BMG poll is entirely on the referendum the general election poll was yesterday
I'd be curious how pollsters are reporting turnout for the referendum as opposed to the GE. Personally I expect it to be very similar.
AV: 42.2% GE15: 66.1 SindyRef: 84.59%
GE turnout almost exactly in the middle of AV and Sindy which sounds about right for EU Ref.
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
Actually Remain lead 52 to 48 with those who will probably vote and 63 to 37 amongst those who are 50 50. Remain lead only 51 49 amongst those who definitely will not vote. The BBC is as pro EU as the Sun is anti
But they are behind when you combine certain and probable voters. Add the tables up.
Certain to vote is only 52 to 48 Leave so it is neck and neck amongst certain and Probables and Remain ahead including 50 50s
The actual numbers need to be combined, not the percentages, because the groups are of uneven size.
There are roughly four times as many certain voters compared to probable voters.
Back on the issue of the Certainty to Vote assumptions of our pollsters. Are these all based on asking what their Certainty to vote at A GE is rather than asking what their Certainty to Vote at the referendum?
Nope the BMG poll is entirely on the referendum the general election poll was yesterday
I'd be curious how pollsters are reporting turnout for the referendum as opposed to the GE. Personally I expect it to be very similar.
AV: 42.2% GE15: 66.1 SindyRef: 84.59%
GE turnout almost exactly in the middle of AV and Sindy which sounds about right for EU Ref.
In the 1920s approximately 10% of the white male population of the USA were in the KKK. It was anti-immigrant, anti-jewish, anti-Catholic, pro-prohibition and against loose morals. It was a social and fraternal organisation for many "social conservatives" of the time.
Look the KKK are not a typical secret society/social club, especially with their silly costumes and cross burnings, it's more Mississippi Burns than Sons of the Desert:
Good to see the BBC gave plenty of time to the Savile Report on the Six O'Clock News. I wonder what scandal they can cook up for the next ONS quarterly migration statistics release.
I think we all know whose side the BBC is on.
The Savile report is not a distraction cooked up by the Beeb to displace the migration stats. They want to say sorry but it really wasn't their fault! Even Sky spending a lot of time on the report. Leavers should not be so paranoid even though the Beeb gets EU money for some cooked up reason.
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
And yet for all the torrent of negativity re the agreement and the immigration problems remain seem to be maintaining a lead. I would suggest that the disputes on the agreement and immigration may not be playing out in the populace, as they take the much more important view as to whether they feel economically and personally secure in the EU or not. Leave, if they want to win, need to get away from the minutiae and concentrate on proving how we can be, at the very least as safe and secure as we are now or they will lose.
The headline numbers often disguise the reality.
The 9/10 and 10/10 numbers in many pre-election polls with ICM, Opinium etc were showing a big Tory win - but that isn't necessarily the topline figure the pollsters and their sponsors push out.
The BMG poll has around 65% of their sample claiming to be certain to vote. Those people are favouring leave.
Is turnout likely to be over 65%?
Many of the flawed polls pre-election paid too much heed to people who usually did not vote. Some of the headline numbers in circulation are repeating this.
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
And yet for all the torrent of negativity re the agreement and the immigration problems remain seem to be maintaining a lead. I would suggest that the disputes on the agreement and immigration may not be playing out in the populace, as they take the much more important view as to whether they feel economically and personally secure in the EU or not. Leave, if they want to win, need to get away from the minutiae and concentrate on proving how we can be, at the very least as safe and secure as we are now or they will lose.
The headline numbers often disguise the reality.
The 9/10 and 10/10 numbers in many pre-election polls with ICM, Opinium etc were showing a big Tory win - but that isn't necessarily the topline figure the pollsters and their sponsors push out.
The BMG poll has around 65% of their sample claiming to be certain to vote. Those people are favouring leave.
Is turnout likely to be over 65%?
Many of the flawed polls pre-election paid too much heed to people who usually did not vote. Some of the headline numbers in circulation are repeating this.
65% sounds about right yes. Slightly below the GE and in the middle of AV and Sindy. Do you think it will be significantly lower than that? If so, why?
EDIT: Oops misread, you're saying 65% for certain only not overall turnout. My mistake.
Back on the issue of the Certainty to Vote assumptions of our pollsters. Are these all based on asking what their Certainty to vote at A GE is rather than asking what their Certainty to Vote at the referendum?
Nope the BMG poll is entirely on the referendum the general election poll was yesterday
I'd be curious how pollsters are reporting turnout for the referendum as opposed to the GE. Personally I expect it to be very similar.
AV: 42.2% GE15: 66.1 SindyRef: 84.59%
GE turnout almost exactly in the middle of AV and Sindy which sounds about right for EU Ref.
Good to see the BBC gave plenty of time to the Savile Report on the Six O'Clock News. I wonder what scandal they can cook up for the next ONS quarterly migration statistics release.
I think we all know whose side the BBC is on.
The Savile report is not a distraction cooked up by the Beeb to displace the migration stats. They want to say sorry but it really wasn't their fault! Even Sky spending a lot of time on the report. Leavers should not be so paranoid even though the Beeb gets EU money for some cooked up reason.
The Government released it today on the same day the migration figures were released. That was no accident.
The BBC are happy to spend a lot of time on the story.
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
And yet for all the torrent of negativity re the agreement and the immigration problems remain seem to be maintaining a lead. I would suggest that the disputes on the agreement and immigration may not be playing out in the populace, as they take the much more important view as to whether they feel economically and personally secure in the EU or not. Leave, if they want to win, need to get away from the minutiae and concentrate on proving how we can be, at the very least as safe and secure as we are now or they will lose.
The headline numbers often disguise the reality.
The 9/10 and 10/10 numbers in many pre-election polls with ICM, Opinium etc were showing a big Tory win - but that isn't necessarily the topline figure the pollsters and their sponsors push out.
The BMG poll has around 65% of their sample claiming to be certain to vote. Those people are favouring leave.
Is turnout likely to be over 65%?
Many of the flawed polls pre-election paid too much heed to people who usually did not vote. Some of the headline numbers in circulation are repeating this.
65% sounds about right yes. Slightly below the GE and in the middle of AV and Sindy. Do you think it will be significantly lower than that? If so, why?
EDIT: Oops misread, you're saying 65% for certain only not overall turnout. My mistake.
Nope turnout in my opinion should be between the AV referendum and the GE, that's between 45-65%, 50% is the most likely number.
The polls are overestimating again the number of people that will vote.
Back on the issue of the Certainty to Vote assumptions of our pollsters. Are these all based on asking what their Certainty to vote at A GE is rather than asking what their Certainty to Vote at the referendum?
Nope the BMG poll is entirely on the referendum the general election poll was yesterday
I'd be curious how pollsters are reporting turnout for the referendum as opposed to the GE. Personally I expect it to be very similar. AV: 42.2% GE15: 66.1 SindyRef: 84.59% GE turnout almost exactly in the middle of AV and Sindy which sounds about right for EU Ref.
The EC referendum is going to be less of a motivating factor than SindyRef. For some voters they do not care much about Europe (As is often pointed out) so will be less willing to turn out. Labour voters also have a party recommending to Remain whilst about half of them have major concerns on immigration. A voter strike by some of these is plausible. Turnout expectation from the very rough workings, I would guess at closer to 55%.
On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
And yet for all the torrent of negativity re the agreement and the immigration problems remain seem to be maintaining a lead. I would suggest that the disputes on the agreement and immigration may not be playing out in the populace, as they take the much more important view as to whether they feel economically and personally secure in the EU or not. Leave, if they want to win, need to get away from the minutiae and concentrate on proving how we can be, at the very least as safe and secure as we are now or they will lose.
The headline numbers often disguise the reality.
The 9/10 and 10/10 numbers in many pre-election polls with ICM, Opinium etc were showing a big Tory win - but that isn't necessarily the topline figure the pollsters and their sponsors push out.
The BMG poll has around 65% of their sample claiming to be certain to vote. Those people are favouring leave.
Is turnout likely to be over 65%?
Many of the flawed polls pre-election paid too much heed to people who usually did not vote. Some of the headline numbers in circulation are repeating this.
65% sounds about right yes. Slightly below the GE and in the middle of AV and Sindy. Do you think it will be significantly lower than that? If so, why?
EDIT: Oops misread, you're saying 65% for certain only not overall turnout. My mistake.
Nope turnout in my opinion should be between the AV referendum and the GE, that's between 45-65%, 50% is the most likely number.
The polls are overestimating again the number of people that will vote.
In that scenario, the only poll responses of value are from those who are absolutely certain to vote.
All 50-50s and even 6/10 and 7/10 can probably be ignored as they won't actually vote.
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
Actually Remain lead 52 to 48 with those who will probably vote and 63 to 37 amongst those who are 50 50. Remain lead only 51 49 amongst those who definitely will not vote. The BBC is as pro EU as the Sun is anti
But they are behind when you combine certain and probable voters. Add the tables up.
Certain to vote is only 52 to 48 Leave so it is neck and neck amongst certain and Probables and Remain ahead including 50 50s
The actual numbers need to be combined, not the percentages, because the groups are of uneven size.
There are roughly four times as many certain voters compared to probable voters.
Obviously more will turn out than just those certain to vote. Most of the probables and a fair number of the 50 50s will do too
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
And yet for all the torrent of negativity re the agreement and the immigration problems remain seem to be maintaining a lead. I would suggest that the disputes on the agreement and immigration may not be playing out in the populace, as they take the much more important view as to whether they feel economically and personally secure in the EU or not. Leave, if they want to win, need to get away from the minutiae and concentrate on proving how we can be, at the very least as safe and secure as we are now or they will lose.
The headline numbers often disguise the reality.
The 9/10 and 10/10 numbers in many pre-election polls with ICM, Opinium etc were showing a big Tory win - but that isn't necessarily the topline figure the pollsters and their sponsors push out.
The BMG poll has around 65% of their sample claiming to be certain to vote. Those people are favouring leave.
Is turnout likely to be over 65%?
Many of the flawed polls pre-election paid too much heed to people who usually did not vote. Some of the headline numbers in circulation are repeating this.
Most of the recent polls seem to have remain in the lead but we all should agree that polls are not the most reliable barometer of opinion. I still maintain it is the security of the status quo that is leave's biggest challenge
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
Actually Remain lead 52 to 48 with those who will probably vote and 63 to 37 amongst those who are 50 50. Remain lead only 51 49 amongst those who definitely will not vote. The BBC is as pro EU as the Sun is anti
But they are behind when you combine certain and probable voters. Add the tables up.
Certain to vote is only 52 to 48 Leave so it is neck and neck amongst certain and Probables and Remain ahead including 50 50s
The actual numbers need to be combined, not the percentages, because the groups are of uneven size.
There are roughly four times as many certain voters compared to probable voters.
Obviously more will turn out than just those certain to vote. Most of the probables and a fair number of the 50 50s will do too
Good to see the BBC gave plenty of time to the Savile Report on the Six O'Clock News. I wonder what scandal they can cook up for the next ONS quarterly migration statistics release.
I think we all know whose side the BBC is on.
The Savile report is not a distraction cooked up by the Beeb to displace the migration stats. They want to say sorry but it really wasn't their fault! Even Sky spending a lot of time on the report. Leavers should not be so paranoid even though the Beeb gets EU money for some cooked up reason.
The Government released it today on the same day the migration figures were released. That was no accident.
The BBC are happy to spend a lot of time on the story.
That's quite the conspiracy theory.
The BBC released Dame Janet Smith's review today. The ONS released its migration figures on its normal quarterly release date. For this to be no coincidence you'd have to take the view that the Remainians at the top of the Beeb were so desperate to keep the UK in the EU that they were prepared to throw the BBC itself under the bus to save it.
Good to see the BBC gave plenty of time to the Savile Report on the Six O'Clock News. I wonder what scandal they can cook up for the next ONS quarterly migration statistics release.
I think we all know whose side the BBC is on.
The Savile report is not a distraction cooked up by the Beeb to displace the migration stats. They want to say sorry but it really wasn't their fault! Even Sky spending a lot of time on the report. Leavers should not be so paranoid even though the Beeb gets EU money for some cooked up reason.
The Government released it today on the same day the migration figures were released. That was no accident.
The BBC are happy to spend a lot of time on the story.
That's quite the conspiracy theory.
The BBC released Dame Janet Smith's review today. The ONS released its migration figures on its normal quarterly release date. For this to be no coincidence you'd have to take the view that the Remainians at the top of the Beeb were so desperate to keep the UK in the EU that they were prepared to throw the BBC itself under the bus to save it.
Does seem odd to claim the BBC are biased towards talking about the paedophilia of its employees over bad immigration numbers for a Conservative Govt
On the polling, if it's cumulative, then 32% are fine with Trump, 12% worried but ambivalent, so making 44% who are not terrified. Of those that are, about 40-44% will be solid for Hillary anyway, so Trump may only face a problem with 5-9% of voters.
What will matter, of course, is how those figures change over the campaign, who turns out to vote (not sure those figures are weighted) and, in any event, those are pretty leading options.
Oh FFS. Now Harvard is getting rid of the term Master from job titles because protesters think it is a link to slavery, rather than a derivative of Latin for Teacher: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-35659685
Idiots and morons should be told by places of learning to take a running jump off a short pier, not give in to the doubleplusungood newspeak nonsense.
Is it not more sensible? Master sounds a bit school-like in any case Luckily the UK outsourced its heritage of African slavery so this is less pertinent
On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
Clinton has a lot of baggage. I could see Trump going after her war on women, emails, Clinton Foundation sleaze, Benghazi, etc. I find her utterly repulsive and would rather anyone but her as POTUS.
Good to see the BBC gave plenty of time to the Savile Report on the Six O'Clock News. I wonder what scandal they can cook up for the next ONS quarterly migration statistics release.
I think we all know whose side the BBC is on.
The Savile report is not a distraction cooked up by the Beeb to displace the migration stats. They want to say sorry but it really wasn't their fault! Even Sky spending a lot of time on the report. Leavers should not be so paranoid even though the Beeb gets EU money for some cooked up reason.
The Government released it today on the same day the migration figures were released. That was no accident.
The BBC are happy to spend a lot of time on the story.
That's quite the conspiracy theory.
The BBC released Dame Janet Smith's review today. The ONS released its migration figures on its normal quarterly release date. For this to be no coincidence you'd have to take the view that the Remainians at the top of the Beeb were so desperate to keep the UK in the EU that they were prepared to throw the BBC itself under the bus to save it.
Does seem odd to claim the BBC are biased towards talking about the paedophilia of its employees over bad immigration numbers for a Conservative Govt
The Daily Mail have a real dilemma about what to run on their front page.
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
And yet for all the torrent of negativity re the agreement and the immigration problems remain seem to be maintaining a lead. I would suggest that the disputes on the agreement and immigration may not be playing out in the populace, as they take the much more important view as to whether they feel economically and personally secure in the EU or not. Leave, if they want to win, need to get away from the minutiae and concentrate on proving how we can be, at the very least as safe and secure as we are now or they will lose.
The headline numbers often disguise the reality.
The 9/10 and 10/10 numbers in many pre-election polls with ICM, Opinium etc were showing a big Tory win - but that isn't necessarily the topline figure the pollsters and their sponsors push out.
The BMG poll has around 65% of their sample claiming to be certain to vote. Those people are favouring leave.
Is turnout likely to be over 65%?
Many of the flawed polls pre-election paid too much heed to people who usually did not vote. Some of the headline numbers in circulation are repeating this.
65% sounds about right yes. Slightly below the GE and in the middle of AV and Sindy. Do you think it will be significantly lower than that? If so, why?
EDIT: Oops misread, you're saying 65% for certain only not overall turnout. My mistake.
Nope turnout in my opinion should be between the AV referendum and the GE, that's between 45-65%, 50% is the most likely number.
The polls are overestimating again the number of people that will vote.
That's very low. Do you seriously think that the AV referendum will appeal to nearly 90% of voters the EU Referendum appeals to?
I wouldn't rule out a turnout above the General Election rate. Like Sindy this is a once in a lifetime chance to make a decisive decision on the future of the country on a simple yes/no question.
Oh FFS. Now Harvard is getting rid of the term Master from job titles because protesters think it is a link to slavery, rather than a derivative of Latin for Teacher: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-35659685
Idiots and morons should be told by places of learning to take a running jump off a short pier, not give in to the doubleplusungood newspeak nonsense.
Is it not more sensible? Master sounds a bit school-like in any case Luckily the UK outsourced its heritage of African slavery so this is less pertinent
It sounds school-like because it is school-like. Because the Latin derived word for Teacher is relevant for both.
"Leaving creates initial challenges over passporting of financial services, and possible loss of euro clearing, but I am optimistic."
Well, that's all right then.
At least he acknowledges the issues and risks, which is several thousand percent better than most Leavers.
What a pity that no work has been done developing these ideas. The trouble is that it's a bit late now to leave on the off-chance that his optimism is well-founded.
Good to see the BBC gave plenty of time to the Savile Report on the Six O'Clock News. I wonder what scandal they can cook up for the next ONS quarterly migration statistics release.
I think we all know whose side the BBC is on.
The Savile report is not a distraction cooked up by the Beeb to displace the migration stats. They want to say sorry but it really wasn't their fault! Even Sky spending a lot of time on the report. Leavers should not be so paranoid even though the Beeb gets EU money for some cooked up reason.
The Government released it today on the same day the migration figures were released. That was no accident.
The BBC are happy to spend a lot of time on the story.
That's quite the conspiracy theory.
The BBC released Dame Janet Smith's review today. The ONS released its migration figures on its normal quarterly release date. For this to be no coincidence you'd have to take the view that the Remainians at the top of the Beeb were so desperate to keep the UK in the EU that they were prepared to throw the BBC itself under the bus to save it.
Saville is old news now and everyone at the BBC was culpable so there's no real risk.
I don't think there's any doubt the BBC has no time for euroscepticism. Even Richard Nabavi thinks so.
"Leaving creates initial challenges over passporting of financial services, and possible loss of euro clearing, but I am optimistic."
Well, that's all right then.
At least he acknowledges the issues and risks, which is several thousand percent better than most Leavers.
What a pity that no work has been done developing these ideas. The trouble is that it's a bit late now to leave on the off-chance that his optimism is well-founded.
What about the risks to remaining? Are you just writing them off altogether?
"Leaving creates initial challenges over passporting of financial services, and possible loss of euro clearing, but I am optimistic."
Well, that's all right then.
At least he acknowledges the issues and risks, which is several thousand percent better than most Leavers.
What a pity that no work has been done developing these ideas. The trouble is that it's a bit late now to leave on the off-chance that his optimism is well-founded.
Don't beat about the bush Richard, we aren't sure which side you are on!
On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
Clinton has a lot of baggage. I could see Trump going after her war on women, emails, Clinton Foundation sleaze, Benghazi, etc. I find her utterly repulsive and would rather anyone but her as POTUS.
Trump has plenty of baggage himself, financial and personal the Clintons will go after
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
And yet for all the torrent of negativity re the agreement and the immigration problems remain seem to be maintaining a lead. I would suggest that the disputes on the agreement and immigration may not be playing out in the populace, as they take the much more important view as to whether they feel economically and personally secure in the EU or not. Leave, if they want to win, need to get away from the minutiae and concentrate on proving how we can be, at the very least as safe and secure as we are now or they will lose.
The headline numbers often disguise the reality.
The 9/10 and 10/10 numbers in many pre-election polls with ICM, Opinium etc were showing a big Tory win - but that isn't necessarily the topline figure the pollsters and their sponsors push out.
The BMG poll has around 65% of their sample claiming to be certain to vote. Those people are favouring leave.
Is turnout likely to be over 65%?
Many of the flawed polls pre-election paid too much heed to people who usually did not vote. Some of the headline numbers in circulation are repeating this.
65% sounds about right yes. Slightly below the GE and in the middle of AV and Sindy. Do you think it will be significantly lower than that? If so, why?
EDIT: Oops misread, you're saying 65% for certain only not overall turnout. My mistake.
Nope turnout in my opinion should be between the AV referendum and the GE, that's between 45-65%, 50% is the most likely number.
The polls are overestimating again the number of people that will vote.
Nope turnout will be nearer 70% than 50%, at the general election it was 66%
Saville is old news now and everyone at the BBC was culpable so there's no real risk.
I don't think there's any doubt the BBC has no time for euroscepticism. Even Richard Nabavi thinks so.
Yes, but I also think that it's completely barmy to think the timing of releasing this report has anything whatsoever to do with timing of the migration figures.
Get a grip, my friend! Not everything is a conspiracy.
WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knows
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
And yet for all the torrent of negativity re the agreement and the immigration problems remain seem to be maintaining a lead. I would suggest that the disputes on the agreement and immigration may not be playing out in the populace, as they take the much more important view as to whether they feel economically and personally secure in the EU or not. Leave, if they want to win, need to get away from the minutiae and concentrate on proving how we can be, at the very least as safe and secure as we are now or they will lose.
The BMG poll has around 65% of their sample claiming to be certain to vote. Those people are favouring leave.
Is turnout likely to be over 65%?
Many of the flawed polls pre-election paid too much heed to people who usually did not vote. Some of the headline numbers in circulation are repeating this.
65% sounds about right yes. Slightly below the GE and in the middle of AV and Sindy. Do you think it will be significantly lower than that? If so, why?
EDIT: Oops misread, you're saying 65% for certain only not overall turnout. My mistake.
Nope turnout in my opinion should be between the AV referendum and the GE, that's between 45-65%, 50% is the most likely number.
The polls are overestimating again the number of people that will vote.
That's very low. Do you seriously think that the AV referendum will appeal to nearly 90% of voters the EU Referendum appeals to?
I wouldn't rule out a turnout above the General Election rate. Like Sindy this is a once in a lifetime chance to make a decisive decision on the future of the country on a simple yes/no question.
Agree, it will be a more passionate campaign than the general election, if not quite at Sindy levels
Comments
http://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/eu-verweist-bern-auf-die-wartebank-1.18700246
- essentially the EU has said they won't give an inch before the British referendum, they'd then be willing to talk, but the Swiss would get even less than Cameron because at least Britain is currently a member so there's some willingness to make an effort: for a non-member, why bother?
According to predisposition, one can see this as evidence of the dangers of Brexit (once we left we'd find them tougher than now) or of the obduracy of the EU.
It was quite a surprise to a number of people on both sides that the blacks were capable of the discipline to fight in the army when allowed.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/whats-on/everyman-premiere-unsung-story-one-10926856
I've long thought Rushton should have a statue. His is an amazing story...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-29957645
http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-01-01-02-0326
Bookmakers who profit from greyhound racing must pay towards the welfare of retired dogs, MPs have said, amid fears a large number are being killed.
They said the introduction of a greyhound welfare tax would boost the standard of care available to the animals - if businesses failed to volunteer funding. The recommendations were made by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
MPs were told that between 1,000 and 3,700 dogs are unaccounted for each year.
http://news.sky.com/story/1648607/mps-bookies-must-pay-for-retired-greyhounds
Even if his campaign is going down and Trump has the momentum, Cruz's early lead + local popularity would be enough.
Not so in other parts of the south:
http://news.wabe.org/post/wabe-poll-donald-trump-has-strong-lead-ga-gop-voters
Georgia
Trump 42
Rubio 18
Cruz 15
Carson 8
Kasich 7
Cruz is dropping very low in most southern states now, Trump is picking up the pieces.
In Georgia 42 delegates are assigned proportionally with a 20% threshold, so if those are the results Trump gets all 42 delegates, the other 31 go 2 to the first place winner per congressional district, second place gets 1 per district.
The reality is as Cruz and Rubio fall bellow the thresholds, Trump takes a majority of delegates even in proportional states.
Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Vermont have a 20% threshold, those states give lots of delegates.
The fat lady is singing.
Donald Trump is a shareholder in Goldman Sachs, and executive Luke Thorburn is a donor to his campaign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/nyregion/donald-trump-nyc.html?_r=0
"At Goldman Sachs, employees have directly contributed since 2013 more than $94,000 to Mrs. Clinton and more than $199,000 to one of Mr. Trump’s opponents in the Republican race, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, according to the commission.
Records show just one Goldman employee, a financial adviser in the wealth management division, has donated to Mr. Trump — $534.58, to be precise.
That employee’s name is Luke Thorburn. Public records show Mr. Thorburn trademarked the phrase “Make Christianity Great Again” and is selling hats that mirror Mr. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” caps.
Mr. Thorburn declined to comment."
Trump is on good ground on this.
French judge upholds decision to demolish Calais camp
Prepare for lots of howling and hand wringing.
Back prices:
Under 40: 24
40-45: 15.5
45-50: 6
Total = 27.28% chance of Leave winning.
So Leave should be 3.66
Overall result market:
Leave 3.15/3.25
Quite a big difference.
@theobertram: Worst of all, Labour are now actually *driving* this Corbyn's clothes media cycle. First, the 'shabby clothes' tweet. Now Holloway Road.
@theobertram: We're the Labour Party, not Lembit fucking Opik.
Idiots and morons should be told by places of learning to take a running jump off a short pier, not give in to the doubleplusungood newspeak nonsense.
People being stupid is understandable, the allegedly intelligent kowtowing to them is not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35662202 51 minutes ago
"Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has a "bombshell" hidden in his tax returns, the party's 2012 nominee Mitt Romney has warned.
Mr Romney says the billionaire was "dodging and delaying" on releasing his returns, which could shake up the race."
Obviously slavery was an issue in the war, but it was also an issue over whether state law or federal law should be sovereign. Shades of our own Brexit referendum!
It is slightly ironic that a minority of Republicans seem to back the CSA position, at the time of the War Republicans backed the Union against the Democrat supported CSA.
Mitt Romney, who was one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics, is now pushing me on tax returns. Dope!
12:34 PM - 25 Feb 2016
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
"a Democratic campaign to disqualify him would seek to make his unfavorable rating not merely alarming, but completely radioactive."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/anti-donald-trump-ads-opinion-213675#ixzz41Cin7NVl
https://twitter.com/kwr66/status/702912125086396417
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/25/donald-trump-supporters-brexit-preference-falsfication-2016-primaries-column/80856410/
"But while there’s a class component here, it’s not as strong as some might suggest. Trump does well among college and post-college educated voters, too, and the Brexit is suddenly developing support from the sort of political class leaders who used to be pro-Europe. The difference is that the upper-class types have been less willing to show it.
In both cases, it may be that the lower classes are expressing their views more openly because they have less to lose. Express the “wrong” opinions in British or American politics or academia and it’s the (figurative) gulag for you; if you work at a fast-food place, the consequences are generally less steep. But when enough ordinary voters express an opinion, the elites may feel safer, too."
"In his terrific book, Private Truths, Public Lies:The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification, Timur Kuran writes about the phenomenon he calls “preference falsification”: People tend to hide unpopular views to avoid ostracism or punishment; they stop hiding them when they feel safe."
Then BBC then dismiss him for non cooperation , Huh?
Meanwhile everyone at the top saw and heard nothing and would not be expected too. Mmmm....
Possibly. Possibly not. I feel shy in public stating how pro-immigration I am because being anti-immigration seems so universal, I understand it's not the same in all circles but I nearly started a riot in the pub once by disagreeing with people moaning about immigrants.
Or as I read yesterday, Schrodinger's Immigrants: Simultaneously stealing your job and on benefits as too lazy to work.
Quite.
AV: 42.2%
GE15: 66.1
SindyRef: 84.59%
GE turnout almost exactly in the middle of AV and Sindy which sounds about right for EU Ref.
There are roughly four times as many certain voters compared to probable voters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXf_GgrLGAM
The 1920's were really hard times, but we shouldn't excuse that today, even if such behaviour was acceptable 90 years ago.
Leavers should not be so paranoid even though the Beeb gets EU money for some cooked up reason.
The 9/10 and 10/10 numbers in many pre-election polls with ICM, Opinium etc were showing a big Tory win - but that isn't necessarily the topline figure the pollsters and their sponsors push out.
The BMG poll has around 65% of their sample claiming to be certain to vote. Those people are favouring leave.
Is turnout likely to be over 65%?
Many of the flawed polls pre-election paid too much heed to people who usually did not vote. Some of the headline numbers in circulation are repeating this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35663225
Yet the BBC newsreels and reporting don't always seem to reflect these subtleties.
EDIT: Oops misread, you're saying 65% for certain only not overall turnout. My mistake.
The BBC are happy to spend a lot of time on the story.
The polls are overestimating again the number of people that will vote.
Texas: Ladbrokes (Cruz 1.53), WH (Trump 3.75)
Mass.: PP
Georgia: PP
Minn: WH
Ark: WH
The only 2 races that will be close will probably be Arkansas and Wyoming.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/24/gerard-lyons-the-eu-is-like-the-titanic-and-we-need-to-jump-off/
and Peter Hargreaves founder of Hargreaves Lansdown
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-3462586/Is-boss-speaks-Britain-started-FTSE-firm-bedroom-proud-pay-taxes-s-backing-Brexit.html
All 50-50s and even 6/10 and 7/10 can probably be ignored as they won't actually vote.
The BBC released Dame Janet Smith's review today. The ONS released its migration figures on its normal quarterly release date. For this to be no coincidence you'd have to take the view that the Remainians at the top of the Beeb were so desperate to keep the UK in the EU that they were prepared to throw the BBC itself under the bus to save it.
What will matter, of course, is how those figures change over the campaign, who turns out to vote (not sure those figures are weighted) and, in any event, those are pretty leading options.
Master sounds a bit school-like in any case
Luckily the UK outsourced its heritage of African slavery so this is less pertinent
I wouldn't rule out a turnout above the General Election rate. Like Sindy this is a once in a lifetime chance to make a decisive decision on the future of the country on a simple yes/no question.
Well, that's all right then.
At least he acknowledges the issues and risks, which is several thousand percent better than most Leavers.
What a pity that no work has been done developing these ideas. The trouble is that it's a bit late now to leave on the off-chance that his optimism is well-founded.
I don't think there's any doubt the BBC has no time for euroscepticism. Even Richard Nabavi thinks so.
UK Remain 52
Leave 48
England Remain 50
Leave 50
Scotland Remain 62
Leave 38
Wales Remain 53
Leave 47
NI Remain 57
Leave 43
ABC1 Remain 57
Leave 43
C2DE Remain 44
Leave 56
Tory Remain 57
Leave 43
Labour Remain 72
Leave 28
LD Remain 85
Leave 15
UKIP Remain 93
Leave 7
SNP Remain 60
Leave 40
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CONFIDENTIAL-BMG-POLL-FOR-EVENING-STANDARD-EU-250216.pdf
Get a grip, my friend! Not everything is a conspiracy.