Phew. I've talked one of my friends back round to Leave again. Two more to go.
This is hard work.
It might need a bit more than your 2 friends to be fair. Political persuasion is a futile exercise, people agree with you in order to get rid of you, ask anybody who's knocked doors.
Just tell them Remain will win, and if it's a walkover we're truly f****d. Both true. That's a simple and undeniable reason to vote Leave. Simply rinse and repeat.
'but it is simply nonsense to say it was to do with a difference of determination between her and Cameron' Oh pull the other one Richard. We all know he asked for virtually nothing because he wasn't interested in getting anything, just in cobbling together a few 'wins' he thought he could quickly sell to what he & his chums considered a bored and ignorant electorate. And we know this because the Remain camp have briefed to that effect for months. There has been no effort to hide the fact that the 'renegotiation' process was a sham.
Indeed. It's all happened precisely as Carswell predicted, when he defected. "According to his comments at the press conference, Douglas’ mind was not made up in a Damascene moment, but rather through a series of different events. Several times he referred to advisers from Number 10 telling him they would seek “the bare minimum” of EU renegotiation to convince people to vote In.... This is what I mean by the stupidity of pb europhiles. They expect us to believe this crap, this screed of lies, when the basic known facts prove that they are talking bollocks. It's ludicrous.
Something triggered Carswell into resignation and we all can see that what he thought he heard was what really happened. Arrogant of these "wonderful" advisors to talk so boastfully. It is often a sign of a Govt becoming error prone when arrogance takes over and they keep making mistakes. Sums up where the Govt of Cameron/Osborne/Llewelyn has reached? Time to go.
I have come to the conclusion, quite seriously, that the average intelligence of pb europhiles is about 15-20 points lower than the eurosceptics. A noticeable difference.
It's odd. Out there in real world the sceptics tend to be less educated: the poor and the working classes. Not here.
Intelligence and education aren't the same thing, I know plenty of privately educated dunces, it just so happened the old man had a few quid.
Intelligence is irrelevant in just about every scenario, integrity and good intentions are far more important. Prisons are full of intelligent people.
Some of the worst things have been done by people with good intentions.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - CS Lewis
Character, curiosity, courage and common-sense: those are what I go for.
All of those are subjective, I don't know anybody who doesn't think they have common sense. My point about intelligent people is as a rule they're lazy because things come easily to them.
Intelligence in isolation is not a virtue.
Some intelligent people can be lazy; some not. I think that comes down to character. Often intelligent people can get bored. Intelligence allied with judgment is what you want.
Of course it could be that those who have money - effete liberals are betting on remain whilst those who don't have money or who haven't thought about it (WWC man etc) don't bet.
One bloke sitting in an office in Harrow = all bookmakers?
Gove's ratings are low because he's done challenging work in challenging departments. Boris has not. I'd vote Gove over Boris any day and would expect him to do a much better job.
Gove is very probably a more competent administrator than Johnson, but Johnson comes across more favourably to many people, whatever you or I might think of him. I know people who do not like the Tories at all but who think Johnson is great. That's actually quite something for a highly visible Tory politician to achieve. They fall for the mop-top and "more of a real person, less of a polished performer" crap. They really do.
But I don't think either of these guys will be the next Tory leader. There's a tape of Johnson discussing a plan to have Stuart Collier beaten up, which could be perceived as in a different league from Cameron's record of snorting cocaine, necrophiliac bestiality, smashing up restaurants and having Peter Cruddas solicit bribes for "access" to his office. Oh...wait a minute...maybe not... What are a few whacks with an iron bar, some broken bones, and a few weeks in hospital? Especially when the intended victim worked on the News of the World? But there could be mileage too in the strange history of statements about Johnson's US citizenship, which he does not appear to have renounced. And in any case, the Johnson image has a strain of impulsiveness, and that won't do. Not to mention his adultery, which doesn't play well. If his wife can't trust him, why should anyone else? Interesting that his stepmother's stepfather was Teddy Sieff, chairman of Marks and Spencer, though.
As for Gove, he's been rude about the public schools, and that won't do either. Not that any politician or civil servant will ever really sort them out (hi Roy H!), but that doesn't mean they want some oik sitting in the PM's chair who's got a tarnished record where those institutions are concerned. Many Tories see Gove and what they see first of all is "state school educated". If he's got attitude too, that is really not good. Oiks shouldn't have attitude. They only get it by trying too hard. It's not the real thing. That's how the Tory elite thinks. Whatever, party leadership possibilities keep chatterers happy (Portillo was never going to get it either), and this time they're clearly playing the PR differently from how they did it with Blair-Brown, when no opinion former said "wait a minute, a prime minister's not supposed to choose his successor". This time, sure, "et tu Brute" and Tory traditions, yeah, but Johnson or Gove, no.
In retrospect, that particular craven performance should have been seen as a good signal for how pathetic and dishonest the renegotiation effort would prove to be.
And to be fair, some posters did flag that up - while others (I wonder who?) engaged in various tortuous and unconvincing explanations for why it wasn't a U-turn at all.
Bullshit. That claim was, and always has been nothing but the most inane bullshit imaginable.
Cameron was pledging to hold a Lisbon referendum if he won the 2007 Election. Do you remember who won that election? Oh yes, Brown was frit and cancelled it.
So after Brown cancelled the election and signed the treaty Cameron changed his policy for the 2010 election. No votes had been cast in the meantime as the 2007 election was cancelled and so therefore so it was its manifesto.
Cameron lacking a time machine could not undo what Brown had done and honestly said so PRIOR to the 2010 election. It is not Cameron's fault that Brown cancelled the 2007 election.
That said, Black Swans are migrating around this time of year. Heading for Europe.
I think the migration of 1m Syrians and another million Africans claiming to be Syrians just might have a bigger impact than a few black birds. It remains Leave's best chance.
Uh, that was my subtle, wry and metaphorical meaning. Perhaps too subtle. Or too metaphorical. Or too wry.
Sorry, I must be dragging down the average of these very clever Leavers enormously.
Strictly speaking, black swan events are supposed to be near-unpredictable whereas another migrant tide is nigh-on a certainty. The reaction to that tide is a bit more unpredictable though.
Alternatively, a different black swan might be someone who sweeps in and galvanises the EURef debate by their charisma, transforming the drama and dooming the Remainders to be forever disunited with their true (if well-disguised) love.
The migrant tide is a certainty, but individual events caused by it are not. If we see 10,000 storming an EU frontier, or 30 asylum seeking ISIS sleepers shooting up London, or 2000 going on another German rape spree, this time filmed, or.. etc etc
There are quite a few black swans, which, if painfully timed, could swing the vote back to LEAVE.
Now. GIN. STEAK. DO IT. GET UP.
OK.
Such events could just as easily lead the bovine British public to vote to keep the status quo. It doesn't have to make logical sense (migrant camps in Calais) or hold water (geriatric General's letter) for Remain to use it. The Paris shootings did not enhance the popularity of the FN despite seeming to chime with their arguments.
That said, Black Swans are migrating around this time of year. Heading for Europe.
I think the migration of 1m Syrians and another million Africans claiming to be Syrians just might have a bigger impact than a few black birds. It remains Leave's best chance.
Uh, that was my subtle, wry and metaphorical meaning. Perhaps too subtle. Or too metaphorical. Or too wry.
Sorry, I must be dragging down the average of these very clever Leavers enormously.
Strictly speaking, black swan events are supposed to be near-unpredictable whereas another migrant tide is nigh-on a certainty. The reaction to that tide is a bit more unpredictable though.
Alternatively, a different black swan might be someone who sweeps in and galvanises the EURef debate by their charisma, transforming the drama and dooming the Remainders to be forever disunited with their true (if well-disguised) love.
One possible black swan is that the group of Balkan countries might continue to meet and co-ordinate their responses to this crisis on their doorsteps in a way that indicates that the EU is about to break up. The stresses on the EU from this crisis are immense and we barely see a shadow of them here.
Of course it could be that those who have money - effete liberals are betting on remain whilst those who don't have money or who haven't thought about it (WWC man etc) don't bet.
One bloke sitting in an office in Harrow = all bookmakers?
They are paying attention to the PHONE polls. Are they aware of their sampling problems?
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
Thanks, I refuse to take sides when it comes to pointing out manifesto lies/pledges. On one hand Cameron pledges to get immigration down to tens of thousands then when it rises pb tories say that's a good thing.
This PB Tory always said the pledge to reduce immigration was a bad thing and that the rise in immigration is a good thing - and most importantly a side effect of a good thing, that we have a good economy despite Europe's malaise. Since I'm not Cameron there's absolutely no hypocrisy there.
If you disagree with Farage over something does that make you wrong? Why can PB Tories not have the right to disagree with Cameron?
I disagree with Nigel on various things and have discussed them with him, its called healthy debate.
The difference is that one Cameron asked to be judged specifically on two things: the deficit and immigration, on one of those key issues he has failed miserably and coincidentally, his cheerleaders turn it around to say that a rise in immigration is good after all.
We spoke earlier about intelligence and convictions/integrity.
Of course it could be that those who have money - effete liberals are betting on remain whilst those who don't have money or who haven't thought about it (WWC man etc) don't bet.
One bloke sitting in an office in Harrow = all bookmakers?
We have no evidence of the population sample who are putting their money where their mouth is. We do not know whether it is representative of the UK population or not. All Bookies (from 1 bloke sitting in an office in Harrow, to Ladbrokes) make their money (sorry if this is teaching granny to suck eggs) by ensuring that no matter the result they make a cut of their turnover as profit. So: until we get confirmation of the sample population making wagers, this graph is not worth the memory used to store it as a predictor.
Foreign Office Minister, David Lidington has to be one of the most arrogant Minister's in the government.
For those interested, Boris Johnson made a speech in Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland this morning, alongside Theresa Villiers. I saw it on SKY but no idea if it was shown on BBC.
Liddington was relatively polite with his party until after the negotiation finished. In doing that Liddington buried deep his europhile beliefs but has now allowed his contempt for eurosceptics to break out. A slimy man with an evasive body manner in person. Once at a local Association he praised the MP and said great things were ahead for them. They went on to just one bag carrier role in the last parliament and nothing since.
That said, Black Swans are migrating around this time of year. Heading for Europe.
I think the migration of 1m Syrians and another million Africans claiming to be Syrians just might have a bigger impact than a few black birds. It remains Leave's best chance.
Uh, that was my subtle, wry and metaphorical meaning. Perhaps too subtle. Or too metaphorical. Or too wry.
Sorry, I must be dragging down the average of these very clever Leavers enormously.
Strictly speaking, black swan events are supposed to be near-unpredictable whereas another migrant tide is nigh-on a certainty. The reaction to that tide is a bit more unpredictable though.
Alternatively, a different black swan might be someone who sweeps in and galvanises the EURef debate by their charisma, transforming the drama and dooming the Remainders to be forever disunited with their true (if well-disguised) love.
The migrant tide is a certainty, but individual events caused by it are not. If we see 10,000 storming an EU frontier, or 30 asylum seeking ISIS sleepers shooting up London, or 2000 going on another German rape spree, this time filmed, or.. etc etc
There are quite a few black swans, which, if painfully timed, could swing the vote back to LEAVE.
Now. GIN. STEAK. DO IT. GET UP.
OK.
Try Silent Pool gin if it's available. My local distillery - expensive but very good.
Thanks, I refuse to take sides when it comes to pointing out manifesto lies/pledges. On one hand Cameron pledges to get immigration down to tens of thousands then when it rises pb tories say that's a good thing.
This PB Tory always said the pledge to reduce immigration was a bad thing and that the rise in immigration is a good thing - and most importantly a side effect of a good thing, that we have a good economy despite Europe's malaise. Since I'm not Cameron there's absolutely no hypocrisy there.
If you disagree with Farage over something does that make you wrong? Why can PB Tories not have the right to disagree with Cameron?
I disagree with Nigel on various things and have discussed them with him, its called healthy debate.
The difference is that one Cameron asked to be judged specifically on two things: the deficit and immigration, on one of those key issues he has failed miserably and coincidentally, his cheerleaders turn it around to say that a rise in immigration is good after all.
We spoke earlier about intelligence and convictions/integrity.
It is a good thing, the economy is booming so we are attracting more migrants. Does that mean he met his target? No. But I for one don't care if he fails to meet a target that I personally never believed in or agreed with. I voted Tory in 2010 despite the immigration pledge not because of it.
Now the country got a chance to judge Cameron on immigration. Last year and they gave him a majority.
Bullshit. That claim was, and always has been nothing but the most inane bullshit imaginable.
Cameron was pledging to hold a Lisbon referendum if he won the 2007 Election. Do you remember who won that election? Oh yes, Brown was frit and cancelled it.
So after Brown cancelled the election and signed the treaty Cameron changed his policy for the 2010 election. No votes had been cast in the meantime as the 2007 election was cancelled and so therefore so it was its manifesto.
Cameron lacking a time machine could not undo what Brown had done and honestly said so PRIOR to the 2010 election. It is not Cameron's fault that Brown cancelled the 2007 election.
Yes, that is a litmus test of intellectual honesty. No-one, not a single sentient being on this earth, interpreted that commitment at the time as meaning anything other than what it quite plainly meant if you read the article, which was that a Cameron government would call a referendum before ratifying the treaty.
What's particularly amusing is that some of the same fruitcakes who go into logical contortions to try to criticise Cameron for not delivering a referendum he never promised also criticise him for delivering the referendum he did promise.
Of course it could be that those who have money - effete liberals are betting on remain whilst those who don't have money or who haven't thought about it (WWC man etc) don't bet.
One bloke sitting in an office in Harrow = all bookmakers?
We have no evidence of the population sample who are putting their money where their mouth is. We do not know whether it is representative of the UK population or not. All Bookies (from 1 bloke sitting in an office in Harrow, to Ladbrokes) make their money (sorry if this is teaching granny to suck eggs) by ensuring that no matter the result they make a cut of their turnover as profit. So: until we get confirmation of the sample population making wagers, this graph is not worth the memory used to store it as a predictor.
The one bloke sitting in an office is Harrow is Ladbrokes!!
What I am saying is that it is misleading to call one bookmaker "bookmakers" and even if it were all bookmakers I'd still rather look at Betfair... which probably shows the same pattern to be fair
I have come to the conclusion, quite seriously, that the average intelligence of pb europhiles is about 15-20 points lower than the eurosceptics. A noticeable difference.
It's odd. Out there in real world the sceptics tend to be less educated: the poor and the working classes. Not here.
Intelligence and education aren't the same thing, I know plenty of privately educated dunces, it just so happened the old man had a few quid.
Intelligence is irrelevant in just about every scenario, integrity and good intentions are far more important. Prisons are full of intelligent people.
Some of the worst things have been done by people with good intentions.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - CS Lewis
Character, curiosity, courage and common-sense: those are what I go for.
All of those are subjective, I don't know anybody who doesn't think they have common sense. My point about intelligent people is as a rule they're lazy because things come easily to them.
Intelligence in isolation is not a virtue.
Some intelligent people can be lazy; some not. I think that comes down to character. Often intelligent people can get bored. Intelligence allied with judgment is what you want.
With respect that's obvious, but judgement is always retrospective.
I'm just saying that some people like to brag about their intelligence, or more specifically other people's lack of it. As you point out, intelligence is essentially useless without other attributes.
People feel secure from having others agree with them, it doesn't make them right or others less intelligent.
Give me an honest bonehead over a duplicitous academic anyday.
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
That said, Black Swans are migrating around this time of year. Heading for Europe.
I think the migration of 1m Syrians and another million Africans claiming to be Syrians just might have a bigger impact than a few black birds. It remains Leave's best chance.
Uh, that was my subtle, wry and metaphorical meaning. Perhaps too subtle. Or too metaphorical. Or too wry.
Sorry, I must be dragging down the average of these very clever Leavers enormously.
Would you mind heading over to Remain and raising both sides' average?
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
Surely the millions of working class that have been uindercut by EU migrants will vote LEAVE? Those horrible racists votes are worth the same as those of the luvvies and the cheap suits
Thanks, I refuse to take sides when it comes to pointing out manifesto lies/pledges. On one hand Cameron pledges to get immigration down to tens of thousands then when it rises pb tories say that's a good thing.
This PB Tory always said the pledge to reduce immigration was a bad thing and that the rise in immigration is a good thing - and most importantly a side effect of a good thing, that we have a good economy despite Europe's malaise. Since I'm not Cameron there's absolutely no hypocrisy there.
If you disagree with Farage over something does that make you wrong? Why can PB Tories not have the right to disagree with Cameron?
I disagree with Nigel on various things and have discussed them with him, its called healthy debate.
The difference is that one Cameron asked to be judged specifically on two things: the deficit and immigration, on one of those key issues he has failed miserably and coincidentally, his cheerleaders turn it around to say that a rise in immigration is good after all.
We spoke earlier about intelligence and convictions/integrity.
It is a good thing, the economy is booming so we are attracting more migrants. Does that mean he met his target? No. But I for one don't care if he fails to meet a target that I personally never believed in or agreed with. I voted Tory in 2010 despite the immigration pledge not because of it.
Now the country got a chance to judge Cameron on immigration. Last year and they gave him a majority.
And as the economic cycle continues and the inevitable downturn occurs, and a large chunk of those people move onto our benefit bill, then what ?
That said, Black Swans are migrating around this time of year. Heading for Europe.
I think the migration of 1m Syrians and another million Africans claiming to be Syrians just might have a bigger impact than a few black birds. It remains Leave's best chance.
Uh, that was my subtle, wry and metaphorical meaning. Perhaps too subtle. Or too metaphorical. Or too wry.
Sorry, I must be dragging down the average of these very clever Leavers enormously.
Strictly speaking, black swan events are supposed to be near-unpredictable whereas another migrant tide is nigh-on a certainty. The reaction to that tide is a bit more unpredictable though...... There are quite a few black swans, which, if painfully timed, could swing the vote back to LEAVE.
Mass deaths on our screens?
While I'm drinking Napoleon Brandy Eating more than enough apple pies. Will I glance at the screen and watch real human beings Drown to death right in front of my eyes?
Thanks, I refuse to take sides when it comes to pointing out manifesto lies/pledges. On one hand Cameron pledges to get immigration down to tens of thousands then when it rises pb tories say that's a good thing.
This PB Tory always said the pledge to reduce immigration was a bad thing and that the rise in immigration is a good thing - and most importantly a side effect of a good thing, that we have a good economy despite Europe's malaise. Since I'm not Cameron there's absolutely no hypocrisy there.
If you disagree with Farage over something does that make you wrong? Why can PB Tories not have the right to disagree with Cameron?
I disagree with Nigel on various things and have discussed them with him, its called healthy debate.
The difference is that one Cameron asked to be judged specifically on two things: the deficit and immigration, on one of those key issues he has failed miserably and coincidentally, his cheerleaders turn it around to say that a rise in immigration is good after all.
We spoke earlier about intelligence and convictions/integrity.
It is a good thing, the economy is booming so we are attracting more migrants. Does that mean he met his target? No. But I for one don't care if he fails to meet a target that I personally never believed in or agreed with. I voted Tory in 2010 despite the immigration pledge not because of it.
Now the country got a chance to judge Cameron on immigration. Last year and they gave him a majority.
And as the economic cycle continues and the inevitable downturn occurs, and a large chunk of those people move onto our benefit bill, then what ?
Or they move to another town or even country where they can find work. Again.
I'm more bothered by our own unemployed who can't or won't find work and don't have any drive to get up and go while the country is booming, than I'm bothered by the risk of people willing to move thousands of miles to find employment being left on benefits in a downturn.
I'm of the Norman Tebbit "get on your bike" attitude to work. These migrants who've travelled thousands of miles to find work, I respect them.
That said, Black Swans are migrating around this time of year. Heading for Europe.
I think the migration of 1m Syrians and another million Africans claiming to be Syrians just might have a bigger impact than a few black birds. It remains Leave's best chance.
Uh, that was my subtle, wry and metaphorical meaning. Perhaps too subtle. Or too metaphorical. Or too wry.
Sorry, I must be dragging down the average of these very clever Leavers enormously.
Would you mind heading over to Remain and raising both sides' average?
Of course it could be that those who have money - effete liberals are betting on remain whilst those who don't have money or who haven't thought about it (WWC man etc) don't bet.
One bloke sitting in an office in Harrow = all bookmakers?
About 20 years ago I won two tickets a private in box for a Chelsea v Spurs game, it was sponsored by Ladbrokes in the Daily Mirror. I got a phone call on the Friday to say I had won, could I come and collect the tickets.
Turns out I didn't actually win but as it was Cheltenham week they had forgotten all about it until the Friday, and as I lived in South Harrow at the time I was the closest to their offices in Rayners Lane.
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
Surely the millions of working class that have been uindercut by EU migrants will vote LEAVE? Those horrible racists votes are worth the same as those of the luvvies and the cheap suits
Why when they don't turn out in regular elections?
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Framing a debate is going to be tricky, as there are different balances from different viewpoints.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
Nick, why are you obsessed with making it party political? You seem incapable of arriving at a decision without first checking who said what.
It has nothing to do with SNP, UKIP or any other party.
The whole thing started as an internal spat in the Conservative Party; as you say, nothing to do with anyone else. However, instead of dealing with it internally Cameron has made it a national issue, so although it will be very difficult to find anyone halfway sensible in any other party for Leave, those of us who want nothing to do with the Tories internal wars need to be motivated to vote.
Nonsense. Labour pledged a referendum in 2005 and then reneged on that. More than just the Tories wanted a say and it went to the country and the country voted for the referendum by a majority.
That's interesting, I didn't know Labour pledged a referendum in 2005, I wonder what was the thinking behind it and why they reneged.
It was why Brown rather ashamedly ended up signing the lisbon treaty in private. Labour loved it because, once signed by all member states, it becomes impossible to have the referendum. The old EU no longer exists, so a referendum would either be about remaining or leaving.
One of the most nauseating things I have ever seen on politicalbetting was Nick Palmer snidely writing about how Cameron will have to back peddle on his commitment now.
Bullshit. That claim was, and always has been nothing but the most inane bullshit imaginable.
Cameron was pledging to hold a Lisbon referendum if he won the 2007 Election. Do you remember who won that election? Oh yes, Brown was frit and cancelled it.
So after Brown cancelled the election and signed the treaty Cameron changed his policy for the 2010 election. No votes had been cast in the meantime as the 2007 election was cancelled and so therefore so it was its manifesto.
Cameron lacking a time machine could not undo what Brown had done and honestly said so PRIOR to the 2010 election. It is not Cameron's fault that Brown cancelled the 2007 election.
Yes, that is a litmus test of intellectual honesty. No-one, not a single sentient being on this earth, interpreted that commitment at the time as meaning anything other than what it quite plainly meant if you read the article, which was that a Cameron government would call a referendum before ratifying the treaty.
What's particularly amusing is that some of the same fruitcakes who go into logical contortions to try to criticise Cameron for not delivering a referendum he never promised also criticise him for delivering the referendum he did promise.
Nope. He wrote this. In The Sun.
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."
He mentions ratification in the next sentence, but he knowingly said this, first. Cast iron guarantee. He's an intelligent man, he knew how this would be interpreted. As a cast iron guarantee.
One more time. He said:
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."
And then he didn't give us a vote, after all. He's only given us one now because he never expected he'd have to fulfil his promise, a promise he only made because he was worried about UKIP, and he always said he'd never campaign for LEAVE, except right at the end when he realised that would sound daft, so he pretended he might campaign for LEAVE even though everyone knew he would never do that.
I mean, please.
There is no one, not one sentient being on this planet who can believe that Cameron has acted with anything but utter duplicity and mendacity throughout this charade of a process. He is a liar. And you are a fool.
Bull quote the whole article. He says in the article that we are about to have an election [ie the 2007 election] and if he wins ...
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
Surely the millions of working class that have been undercut by EU migrants will vote LEAVE? ............. suits
Well, they are not going to flock out to vote for Labour's REMAIN campaign. They have two reasons not to. 1. They dislike immigration 2. They dislike Cameron
Voting for LEAVE or abstaining, Labour's vote I believe will be smaller than most expect.
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
What party ID split would you expect on that turnout figure?
I've got it weighted in favour of Con/UKIP over Lab.
I can see a result anywhere from 61.7% to 52.68% to Remain.
For Leave to win they need at least 60% of Con voters, and 35% of Labour voters.
I would expect about 60% of those voting in the Referendum to be Conservative, UKIP, and DUP voters, compared to 51% in the general election. In that case, probably 55% of Conservatives voting Leave would probably take Leave to victory.
Bullshit. That claim was, and always has been nothing but the most inane bullshit imaginable.
Cameron was pledging to hold a Lisbon referendum if he won the 2007 Election. Do you remember who won that election? Oh yes, Brown was frit and cancelled it.
So after Brown cancelled the election and signed the treaty Cameron changed his policy for the 2010 election. No votes had been cast in the meantime as the 2007 election was cancelled and so therefore so it was its manifesto.
Cameron lacking a time machine could not undo what Brown had done and honestly said so PRIOR to the 2010 election. It is not Cameron's fault that Brown cancelled the 2007 election.
2008 - I believe Ireland were the last of the 27 countries to ratify the Lisbon Treaty making it Law, - one of the most depressing days ever I recall.
'One of the most nauseating things I have ever seen on politicalbetting was Nick Palmer snidely writing about how Cameron will have to back peddle on his commitment now.'
Yep - but with what we know now, can we doubt that Cameron & Co, must have snidely been saying to each other at the same time 'that's a relief we can dump that silly pledge now' or words to that effect?
It is a good thing, the economy is booming so we are attracting more migrants. Does that mean he met his target? No. But I for one don't care if he fails to meet a target that I personally never believed in or agreed with. I voted Tory in 2010 despite the immigration pledge not because of it.
Now the country got a chance to judge Cameron on immigration. Last year and they gave him a majority.
And as the economic cycle continues and the inevitable downturn occurs, and a large chunk of those people move onto our benefit bill, then what ?
Or they move to another town or even country where they can find work. Again.
I'm more bothered by our own unemployed who can't or won't find work and don't have any drive to get up and go while the country is booming, than I'm bothered by the risk of people willing to move thousands of miles to find employment being left on benefits in a downturn.
I'm of the Norman Tebbit "get on your bike" attitude to work. These migrants who've travelled thousands of miles to find work, I respect them.
The bit you miss is that living on benefits is a massively higher standard of living that they were used to before they came to the UK.
You don't have to tell me about getting on my bike, I was the one being slagged off here yesterday by PBLefties for going about and assembling peoples flat pack furniture for £20/hr when I couldn't get work for 9 month during the dotCom crash. Apparently asking for that rate as a free contract with another person was dishonest. The way the market works seems to completely pass some people by.
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Framing a debate is going to be tricky, as there are different balances from different viewpoints.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
Nick, why are you obsessed with making it party political? You seem incapable of arriving at a decision without first checking who said what.
It has nothing to do with SNP, UKIP or any other party.
The whole thing started as an internal spat in the Conservative Party; as you say, nothing to do with anyone else. However, instead of dealing with it internally Cameron has made it a national issue, so although it will be very difficult to find anyone halfway sensible in any other party for Leave, those of us who want nothing to do with the Tories internal wars need to be motivated to vote.
Nonsense. Labour pledged a referendum in 2005 and then reneged on that. More than just the Tories wanted a say and it went to the country and the country voted for the referendum by a majority.
That's interesting, I didn't know Labour pledged a referendum in 2005, I wonder what was the thinking behind it and why they reneged.
It was why Brown rather ashamedly ended up signing the lisbon treaty in private. Labour loved it because, once signed by all member states, it becomes impossible to have the referendum. The old EU no longer exists, so a referendum would either be about remaining or leaving.
One of the most nauseating things I have ever seen on politicalbetting was Nick Palmer snidely writing about how Cameron will have to back peddle on his commitment now.
Nick P's attitude was basically "suck it up" when reminded of Labour's manifesto commitment to a referendum.
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
Surely the millions of working class that have been uindercut by EU migrants will vote LEAVE? Those horrible racists votes are worth the same as those of the luvvies and the cheap suits
Why when they don't turn out in regular elections?
Well one reason may be that this directly affects them, or it least they think it will, in a way that nothing any major party offers does.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Framing a debate is going to be tricky, as there are different balances from different viewpoints.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
Nick, why are you obsessed with making it party political? You seem incapable of arriving at a decision without first checking who said what.
It has nothing to do with SNP, UKIP or any other party.
The whole thing started as an internal spat in the Conservative Party; as you say, nothing to do with anyone else. However, instead of dealing with it internally Cameron has made it a national issue, so although it will be very difficult to find anyone halfway sensible in any other party for Leave, those of us who want nothing to do with the Tories internal wars need to be motivated to vote.
Nonsense. Labour pledged a referendum in 2005 and then reneged on that. More than just the Tories wanted a say and it went to the country and the country voted for the referendum by a majority.
That's interesting, I didn't know Labour pledged a referendum in 2005, I wonder what was the thinking behind it and why they reneged.
It was why Brown rather ashamedly ended up signing the lisbon treaty in private. Labour loved it because, once signed by all member states, it becomes impossible to have the referendum. The old EU no longer exists, so a referendum would either be about remaining or leaving.
One of the most nauseating things I have ever seen on politicalbetting was Nick Palmer snidely writing about how Cameron will have to back peddle on his commitment now.
Not sure the Labour issue is quite as straightforward as it sounds. See CH 4 factcheck:
As an aside, people keep saying that we would need to convince 27 nations of a desire to continue with free trade.
Doesn't it also follow that those who would want to impose tariffs would need to convince the other 26 within the EU?
No. There is a default external tariff that would apply if we left without a trade deal. To not have the default tariff applied would require unanimity.
The WTO - which the UK would have its own seat on - might have something to say about that.
Yes, that is a litmus test of intellectual honesty. No-one, not a single sentient being on this earth, interpreted that commitment at the time as meaning anything other than what it quite plainly meant if you read the article, which was that a Cameron government would call a referendum before ratifying the treaty.
What's particularly amusing is that some of the same fruitcakes who go into logical contortions to try to criticise Cameron for not delivering a referendum he never promised also criticise him for delivering the referendum he did promise.
Nope. He wrote this. In The Sun.
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."
He mentions ratification in the next sentence, but he knowingly said this, first. Cast iron guarantee. He's an intelligent man, he knew how this would be interpreted. As a cast iron guarantee.
One more time. He said:
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."
And then he didn't give us a vote, after all. He's only given us one now because he never expected he'd have to fulfil his promise, a promise he only made because he was worried about UKIP, and he always said he'd never campaign for LEAVE, except right at the end when he realised that would sound daft, so he pretended he might campaign for LEAVE even though everyone knew he would never do that.
I mean, please.
There is no one, not one sentient being on this planet who can believe that Cameron has acted with anything but utter duplicity and mendacity throughout this charade of a process. He is a liar. And you are a fool.
perdix said It would have been totally pointless to have had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after it had been ratified. Even assuming that a referendum would have been held and said "no" to The Treaty, parliament with LibDems and Labour would never have passed any legislation to abrogate the Treaty. Cameron was unthinking in his language - he expected an early GE and a new parliament with an ungratified Treaty. William Hague's speech at Conference was correctly qualified. Typical kipper type logic.
"FactCheck has covered this issue before, and it is not as straightforward as at first it seems. The 'Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe' was signed in October 2004, and it was this treaty to which the Labour manifesto referred.
But it was rejected by France and the Netherlands and thus abandoned. So Labour can plausibly claim that they did not break their promise.
But a Reform Treaty – also known as the Lisbon Treaty – was created instead, and Gordon Brown signed it in December 2007. The Conservatives and others claim that the Lisbon Treaty is sufficiently similar to the original one as to make no difference. So who is right?
The European Union introduced a mandate in the summer of 2007 which said: "The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing treaties and replacing them by a single text called 'constitution', is abandoned."
But a House of Commons research paper states that: "The content of the treaty, though not its structure, is similar in a great many respects to the EU Constitution." Open Europe, a think tank that calls for radical reform of the EU, has calculated that the original Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty are 90 per cent the same.
While technically no promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was ever made, it could be argued that the spirit of the manifesto means that Labour should offer a vote on it. But equally it could be argued that with the constitutional implications of the first Treaty removed, the promise has not been broken. "
Any argument that features the word "technically" really isn't worth the e-paper its printed on.
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
What party ID split would you expect on that turnout figure?
I've got it weighted in favour of Con/UKIP over Lab.
I can see a result anywhere from 61.7% to 52.68% to Remain.
For Leave to win they need at least 60% of Con voters, and 35% of Labour voters.
I would expect about 60% of those voting in the Referendum to be Conservative, UKIP, and DUP voters, compared to 51% in the general election. In that case, probably 55% of Conservatives voting Leave would probably take Leave to victory.
That must be it. I've got only 54% of those voting being those three parties.
Of course one way Leave could win relatively 'easily' would be through a severely depressed Labour/LD turnout.
On my figures, that's where more than half (just) of the Remain vote will come from.
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
That's fascinating. It really is all about turnout. Must give the REMAINIANS a few jitters. They could convincingly win public opinion, be well ahead in the polls, but still lose, because their supporters are so apathetic, compared to the LEAVERS.
... and while the middle class Tory types chat to each other about treaty change, GDP and CAP, Farage et al will be visiting every hell hole in England telling the underclass this is their chance
It is a good thing, the economy is booming so we are attracting more migrants. Does that mean he met his target? No. But I for one don't care if he fails to meet a target that I personally never believed in or agreed with. I voted Tory in 2010 despite the immigration pledge not because of it.
Now the country got a chance to judge Cameron on immigration. Last year and they gave him a majority.
And as the economic cycle continues and the inevitable downturn occurs, and a large chunk of those people move onto our benefit bill, then what ?
Or they move to another town or even country where they can find work. Again.
I'm more bothered by our own unemployed who can't or won't find work and don't have any drive to get up and go while the country is booming, than I'm bothered by the risk of people willing to move thousands of miles to find employment being left on benefits in a downturn.
I'm of the Norman Tebbit "get on your bike" attitude to work. These migrants who've travelled thousands of miles to find work, I respect them.
The bit you miss is that living on benefits is a massively higher standard of living that they were used to before they came to the UK.
You don't have to tell me about getting on my bike, I was the one being slagged off here yesterday by PBLefties for going about and assembling peoples flat pack furniture for £20/hr when I couldn't get work for 9 month during the dotCom crash. Apparently asking for that rate as a free contract with another person was dishonest. The way the market works seems to completely pass some people by.
I don't miss that point as put simply people generally either have a work ethic or they don't. You and I do have a work ethic for example. I never slagged you off and never would for that, I totally respect you for that just as I totally respect anyone else who works hard to better their lot. People who have a work ethic and have traveled thousands of miles to find work are by and large going to continue looking for work not go on benefits instead.
If you say we need to ensure we are attracting the kind of migrants who want work not benefits then I totally agree with that. But I am not bothered by people who want to work, it shows up the delusional lefties who can't or won't find work while others graft hard.
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
What party ID split would you expect on that turnout figure?
I've got it weighted in favour of Con/UKIP over Lab.
I can see a result anywhere from 61.7% to 52.68% to Remain.
For Leave to win they need at least 60% of Con voters, and 35% of Labour voters.
I would expect about 60% of those voting in the Referendum to be Conservative, UKIP, and DUP voters, compared to 51% in the general election. In that case, probably 55% of Conservatives voting Leave would probably take Leave to victory.
The closer it looks the higher the turnout the more diverse the voters
As an aside, people keep saying that we would need to convince 27 nations of a desire to continue with free trade.
Doesn't it also follow that those who would want to impose tariffs would need to convince the other 26 within the EU?
No. There is a default external tariff that would apply if we left without a trade deal. To not have the default tariff applied would require unanimity.
The WTO - which the UK would have its own seat on - might have something to say about that.
Not if the UK is put amongst the default rate that applies to every other nation not in the EU and without a trade deal it won't. If they arbitrarily applied tariffs to us that they wouldn't for anyone else it would.
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
"It would have been totally pointless to have had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after it had been ratified. Even assuming that a referendum would have been held and said "no" to The Treaty, parliament with LibDems and Labour would never have passed any legislation to abrogate the Treaty. Cameron was unthinking in his language - he expected an early GE and a new parliament with an ungratified Treaty. William Hague's speech at Conference was correctly qualified. Typical kipper type logic."
****
You miss my point. I'm saying Cameron was deliberately loose or "unthinking" with his language, because he likes to appear eurosceptic, whereas in truth he is anything but; as we see now, at last, in plain sight.
He's too smart not to realise how the phrase "cast iron guarantee" would be understood by readers of the Sun. They would see it as a "cast iron guarantee". Coz that's wot he wrote. Very Deliberately. Very Thinkingly.
He wanted the eurosceptic vote. But he isn't a eurosceptic. As Philip Stephens says in today's FT, he is, in truth, as europhile as Michael Heseltine.
Cameron is a liar and a fraud and a charlatan. THAT is my point.
He is no liar, he was talking about upcoming the 2007 election. He was not to know that Brown would shock everyone by cancelling the election.
Had Cameron continued to 2010 with the same commitment then reneged on it he'd be a liar. But he was up-front and honest before the 2010 election and became PM on the back of the 2010 manifesto not the 2007 manifesto. If you want honesty, judge him on the 2010 that he went to the country on. He had fully cleared up that the situation had changed long before 2010.
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
Surely the millions of working class that have been uindercut by EU migrants will vote LEAVE? Those horrible racists votes are worth the same as those of the luvvies and the cheap suits
Why when they don't turn out in regular elections?
Well one reason may be that this directly affects them, or it least they think it will, in a way that nothing any major party offers does.
Or that they don't have the ethic to go out and vote and so never will.
Just as some people have the ethic to go out and find work, others have the ethic to vote. Every election I can remember in my lifetime one party or another has tried to appeal to non-voters and other than in the Sindyref where everyone voted it has never worked.
Polls apparently show Clinton could lose New York to Trump.
No they do not, the last poll in the state from Siena College three weeks ago had Hillary beating Trump 57% to 25%. The only figures given in that article are for Long Island which normally votes GOP anyway!
In terms of leadership electiom, Tory Leave supporters would be stupid to vote for Boris just because he backed Leave. What matters is how they will deal with EU in future. They should only vote for someone who guarantees a further referendum if/when the Eurozone federalises.
Given that Boris wants to leave now, I am sure he will have no problem with offering a further vote down the line, when there is an even greater chance of getting an OUT.
Thinking about it, his path to the premiership is now pretty clear. Osborne will be the Centrist, Cameroon Establishment choice. May, Hammond and Javid and the rest have blown it. But Osborne is unpopular in the country, and a REMAINIAN.
There will have to be a LEAVER on the ballot. The party is split down the middle and will tolerate nothing else.
So it's Bojo versus Osborne. And the Tory members decide. And they are heavily eurosceptic. And Bojo is popular in the country, and a proven winner.
No Boris wants to be leader now. He'll happily go native and let Remain stand if it's him going to the EU conferences etc
To get a second referendum we'd need a leader who is backing Leave because of his principles despite his career not one doing so to further his career despite his beliefs.
Step forward Gove.
It's not going to be Gove. And Gove knows it. He's not prime ministerial, not popular in the country (I like his style, personally). He'd be an excellent Home Sec or Foreign Sec in a Boris Cabinet.
Step forward Priti. I think if she was up against Osborne she would win.
And I believe that will mean net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade. Yes, Britain will always be open to the best and brightest from around the world and those fleeing persecution. But with us, our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs. No buts.
Still heading up rapidly
No if's no buts promise not to expand Heathrow
Mr Cameron’s “no ifs, no buts” promise to oppose a new runway at Heathrow came before the 2010 election, when the then Tory opposition leader joined other politicians in buying a stake in a plot of land on the site of a proposed third runway and planted a tree on it.
An audience member asked Mr Cameron to 'put to bed' rumours he'd cut child tax credit, or restrict child benefit to two children.
He replied: "No, I don't want to do that. This report that's out today is something I rejected at the time as Prime Minister and I reject it again today."
... followed by huge cuts to CTC
We could add his promise to
Only freeze child benefit for two years... and then freezing it for four To electrify the Northern railways... and then scrapping both major electrification plans after the election Promising all the free child care in 2015.... and then delaying it to 2017 What happened to that three days volunteer leave ?... quietly dropped Manifesto pledge to cap residential care.... postponed until 2020 immediately after the election
and my favourite, in the manifesto it said
The Conservative manifesto vowed to "continue to make government more transparent".
So obviously the thing to do was to start a consultation to restrict the Freedom of Information Act.
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
That's fascinating. It really is all about turnout. Must give the REMAINIANS a few jitters. They could convincingly win public opinion, be well ahead in the polls, but still lose, because their supporters are so apathetic, compared to the LEAVERS.
... and while the middle class Tory types chat to each other about treaty change, GDP and CAP, Farage et al will be visiting every hell hole in England telling the underclass this is their chance
Who may agree with him but will never make it to the polling station, and will find out they are unregistered even if, in some unlikely event, they do.
Bullshit. That claim was, and always has been nothing but the most inane bullshit imaginable.
Cameron lacking a time machine could not undo what Brown had done and honestly said so PRIOR to the 2010 election. It is not Cameron's fault that Brown cancelled the 2007 election.
Yes, that is a litmus test of intellectual honesty. No-one, not a single sentient being on this earth, interpreted that commitment at the time as meaning anything other than what it quite plainly meant if you read the article, which was that a Cameron government would call a referendum before ratifying the treaty.
What's particularly amusing is that some of the same fruitcakes who go into logical contortions to try to criticise Cameron for not delivering a referendum he never promised also criticise him for delivering the referendum he did promise.
Nope. He wrote this. In The Sun.
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."
He mentions ratification in the next sentence, but he knowingly said this, first. Cast iron guarantee. He's an intelligent man, he knew how this would be interpreted. As a cast iron guarantee.
One more time. He said:
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."
And then he didn't give us a vote, after all. He's only given us one now because he never expected he'd have to fulfil his promise, a promise he only made because he was worried about UKIP, and he always said he'd never campaign for LEAVE, except right at the end when he realised that would sound daft, so he pretended he might campaign for LEAVE even though everyone knew he would never do that.
I mean, please.
There is no one, not one sentient being on this planet who can believe that Cameron has acted with anything but utter duplicity and mendacity throughout this charade of a process. He is a liar. And you are a fool.
I disagree. I don't think he did intentionally set out to mislead. You have to remember the context in which the pledge was made, namely that Labour was about 12 points ahead in the polls and seemingly about to call an election.
I suspect that Cameron never thought that he would be in a position where the treaty would be already ratified by the time the UK election was called (or that the chances were so small it was worth the risk), and he started rowing back on the commitment almost as soon as Brown bottled the election when the penny dropped that the 'guarantee' might not be deliverable.
I might be giving my side an unfair benefit of the doubt but I'd put it down to miscalculation rather than malice.
Indigo: Immigration was a manifesto commitment so is a totally fair criticism. VAT I'm not sure if it was in the manifesto or not, but a relatively fair criticism since the reversal happened while in power after what he said.
The cast iron guarantee was for an election that never happened and that was crystal clear before the 2010 election. That is not remotely a fair criticism.
Judge politicians on their manifesto and what they say when seeking power, not what they say before previous elections (or elections that don't happen) if it is reversed in a subsequent manifesto. The later manifesto always takes priority.
'One of the most nauseating things I have ever seen on politicalbetting was Nick Palmer snidely writing about how Cameron will have to back peddle on his commitment now.'
Yep - but with what we know now, can we doubt that Cameron & Co, must have snidely been saying to each other at the same time 'that's a relief we can dump that silly pledge now' or words to that effect?
It was the Conservative back benchers led by Graham Brady that made Cameron stick to that commitment. If Brady stood I think he could get into the last 3 or possibly last 2 candidate slots to be the next Leader. He has the back benchers respect.
In terms of leadership electiom, Tory Leave supporters would be stupid to vote for Boris just because he backed Leave. What matters is how they will deal with EU in future. They should only vote for someone who guarantees a further referendum if/when the Eurozone federalises.
Given that Boris wants to leave now, I am sure he will have no problem with offering a further vote down the line, when there is an even greater chance of getting an OUT.
Thinking about it, his path to the premiership is now pretty clear. Osborne will be the Centrist, Cameroon Establishment choice. May, Hammond and Javid and the rest have blown it. But Osborne is unpopular in the country, and a REMAINIAN.
There will have to be a LEAVER on the ballot. The party is split down the middle and will tolerate nothing else.
So it's Bojo versus Osborne. And the Tory members decide. And they are heavily eurosceptic. And Bojo is popular in the country, and a proven winner.
No Boris wants to be leader now. He'll happily go native and let Remain stand if it's him going to the EU conferences etc
To get a second referendum we'd need a leader who is backing Leave because of his principles despite his career not one doing so to further his career despite his beliefs.
Step forward Gove.
It's not going to be Gove. And Gove knows it. He's not prime ministerial, not popular in the country (I like his style, personally). He'd be an excellent Home Sec or Foreign Sec in a Boris Cabinet.
Step forward Priti. I think if she was up against Osborne she would win.
She or Andrea Leadsom or Graham Brady or even Owen Patterson. Boris will stand, Gove will not.
"It would have been totally pointless to have had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after it had been ratified. Even assuming that a referendum would have been held and said "no" to The Treaty, parliament with LibDems and Labour would never have passed any legislation to abrogate the Treaty. Cameron was unthinking in his language - he expected an early GE and a new parliament with an ungratified Treaty. William Hague's speech at Conference was correctly qualified. Typical kipper type logic."
****
You miss my point. I'm saying Cameron was deliberately loose or "unthinking" with his language, because he likes to appear eurosceptic, whereas in truth he is anything but; as we see now, at last, in plain sight.
He's too smart not to realise how the phrase "cast iron guarantee" would be understood by readers of the Sun. They would see it as a "cast iron guarantee". Coz that's wot he wrote. Very Deliberately. Very Thinkingly.
He wanted the eurosceptic vote. But he isn't a eurosceptic. As Philip Stephens says in today's FT, he is, in truth, as europhile as Michael Heseltine.
Cameron is a liar and a fraud and a charlatan. THAT is my point.
He is no liar, he was talking about upcoming the 2007 election. He was not to know that Brown would shock everyone by cancelling the election.
Had Cameron continued to 2010 with the same commitment then reneged on it he'd be a liar. But he was up-front and honest before the 2010 election and became PM on the back of the 2010 manifesto not the 2007 manifesto. If you want honesty, judge him on the 2010 that he went to the country on. He had fully cleared up that the situation had changed long before 2010.
There you go with your facts, destroying the Cameron is a liar narrative.
Just like in November 2015 he described four measures he wanted, of which he failed on one, migration. A biggie, of course, but as we know from all the committed EEA-ers, immigration is not something that troubles many Leavers.
I noticed that one of that prize pair of experts on Kids Company was advocating the case for REMAIN this morning. Now why does Osborne & Cameron think Matt Hancock is a good communicator?
"It would have been totally pointless to have had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after it had been ratified. Even assuming that a referendum would have been held and said "no" to The Treaty, parliament with LibDems and Labour would never have passed any legislation to abrogate the Treaty. Cameron was unthinking in his language - he expected an early GE and a new parliament with an ungratified Treaty. William Hague's speech at Conference was correctly qualified. Typical kipper type logic."
****
You miss my point. I'm saying Cameron was deliberately loose or "unthinking" with his language, because he likes to appear eurosceptic, whereas in truth he is anything but; as we see now, at last, in plain sight.
He's too smart not to realise how the phrase "cast iron guarantee" would be understood by readers of the Sun. They would see it as a "cast iron guarantee". Coz that's wot he wrote. Very Deliberately. Very Thinkingly.
He wanted the eurosceptic vote. But he isn't a eurosceptic. As Philip Stephens says in today's FT, he is, in truth, as europhile as Michael Heseltine.
Cameron is a liar and a fraud and a charlatan. THAT is my point.
He is no liar, he was talking about upcoming the 2007 election. He was not to know that Brown would shock everyone by cancelling the election.
Had Cameron continued to 2010 with the same commitment then reneged on it he'd be a liar. But he was up-front and honest before the 2010 election and became PM on the back of the 2010 manifesto not the 2007 manifesto. If you want honesty, judge him on the 2010 that he went to the country on. He had fully cleared up that the situation had changed long before 2010.
There you go with your facts, destroying the Cameron is a liar narrative.
Just like in November 2015 he described four measures he wanted, of which he failed on one, migration. A biggie, of course, but as we know from all the committed EEA-ers, immigration is not something that troubles many Leavers.
"Cameron insists UK will not pay £1.7bn EU bill in full"
"Britain quietly settled its latest altercation over the European Union budget by paying a 1.7 billion-pound ($2.6 billion) bill that Prime Minister David Cameron originally derided as “appalling.”"
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
That's fascinating. It really is all about turnout. Must give the REMAINIANS a few jitters. They could convincingly win public opinion, be well ahead in the polls, but still lose, because their supporters are so apathetic, compared to the LEAVERS.
... and while the middle class Tory types chat to each other about treaty change, GDP and CAP, Farage et al will be visiting every hell hole in England telling the underclass this is their chance
Which is why he'll lose overwhelmingly if he's in charge. As those people don't vote.
It doesn't even make sense. Look at YouGov's graph of where is eurosceptic and where is europhile. Does euroscepticism correlate with being a hellhole? No, quite the opposite, those are the most europhile areas in the country. Euroscepticism is at its highest by and large where the right wing vote is the highest, that is the target demographic to get out the vote.
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
Sean Fear that is a must read article for everyone on here.
Yougov "the over 65s carry more than three and a half times more weight than the youngest (18-24) cohort."
How ComRes can present their last phone poll with 114 (18-25) and just 222 65+ voters beggars belief. Which created a 15 point lead for REMAIN......
Hint 3 times 114 is 342, probably higher as I dropped off the 1/2 since Yougov refer to 18-24 and Comres 18-25.
Exactly if Leave can win these voters who will turn out to vote then they win. Instead Leave's most famous person wants to abandon this demographic to go on a wild goose chase for unregistered non-voters in europhile hellholes.
In terms of leadership electiom, Tory Leave supporters would be stupid to vote for Boris just because he backed Leave. What matters is how they will deal with EU in future. They should only vote for someone who guarantees a further referendum if/when the Eurozone federalises.
Given that Boris wants to leave now, I am sure he will have no problem with offering a further vote down the line, when there is an even greater chance of getting an OUT.
Thinking about it, his path to the premiership is now pretty clear. Osborne will be the Centrist, Cameroon Establishment choice. May, Hammond and Javid and the rest have blown it. But Osborne is unpopular in the country, and a REMAINIAN.
There will have to be a LEAVER on the ballot. The party is split down the middle and will tolerate nothing else.
So it's Bojo versus Osborne. And the Tory members decide. And they are heavily eurosceptic. And Bojo is popular in the country, and a proven winner.
No Boris wants to be leader now. He'll happily go native and let Remain stand if it's him going to the EU conferences etc
To get a second referendum we'd need a leader who is backing Leave because of his principles despite his career not one doing so to further his career despite his beliefs.
Step forward Gove.
It's not going to be Gove. And Gove knows it. He's not prime ministerial, not popular in the country (I like his style, personally). He'd be an excellent Home Sec or Foreign Sec in a Boris Cabinet.
Step forward Priti. I think if she was up against Osborne she would win.
I think if that extra arse on the end of Osborne's nose was up against Osborne it would win.
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
That's fascinating. It really is all about turnout. Must give the REMAINIANS a few jitters. They could convincingly win public opinion, be well ahead in the polls, but still lose, because their supporters are so apathetic, compared to the LEAVERS.
... and while the middle class Tory types chat to each other about treaty change, GDP and CAP, Farage et al will be visiting every hell hole in England telling the underclass this is their chance
Which is why he'll lose overwhelmingly if he's in charge. As those people don't vote.
It doesn't even make sense. Look at YouGov's graph of where is eurosceptic and where is europhile. Does euroscepticism correlate with being a hellhole? No, quite the opposite, those are the most europhile areas in the country. Euroscepticism is at its highest by and large where the right wing vote is the highest, that is the target demographic to get out the vote.
The most europhile areas, the ones that agree with David Cameron, are generally those that wouldn;t vote tory in a month of Sundays. Inner Cities, University towns, Scotland, the North West.
If I was Cameron looking at that map, I'd be bricking it. The entire constituency that put me in Downing street is against me.
Bullshit. That claim was, and always has been nothing but the most inane bullshit imaginable.
Cameron lacking a time machine could not undo what Brown had done and honestly said so PRIOR to the 2010 election. It is not Cameron's fault that Brown cancelled the 2007 election.
Yes, that is a litmus test of intellectual honesty. No-one, not a single sentient being on this earth, interpreted that commitment at the time as meaning anything other than what it quite plainly meant if you read the article, which was that a Cameron government would call a referendum before ratifying the treaty.
What's particularly amusing is that some of the same fruitcakes who go into logical contortions to try to criticise Cameron for not delivering a referendum he never promised also criticise him for delivering the referendum he did promise.
Nope. He wrote this. In The Sun.
There is no one, not one sentient being on this planet who can believe that Cameron has acted with anything but utter duplicity and mendacity throughout this charade of a process. He is a liar. And you are a fool.
I disagree. I don't think he did intentionally set out to mislead. You have to remember the context in which the pledge was made, namely that Labour was about 12 points ahead in the polls and seemingly about to call an election.
I suspect that Cameron never thought that he would be in a position where the treaty would be already ratified by the time the UK election was called (or that the chances were so small it was worth the risk), and he started rowing back on the commitment almost as soon as Brown bottled the election when the penny dropped that the 'guarantee' might not be deliverable.
I might be giving my side an unfair benefit of the doubt but I'd put it down to miscalculation rather than malice.
I think you are being too fair to Cameron. Look at his grotesque behaviour and his blatant lies vis-a-vis the deal. Recall his avowal never to leave the EU which he then sort of reversed without actually meaning it.
He is a fraud. I'm sorry. But there it is. It's a shame because he is a decent PM in other ways. I think this horrible referendum will be his epitaph.
He may be a fraud on some things, all politicians tend to be. But he's not a fraud on a guarantee he said was void before the 2010 manifesto. That is just not reasonable.
Other points are more fair. But to criticise a politician for not doing something they said vocally and publicly was not policy before the election is unreasonable.
Indigo: Immigration was a manifesto commitment so is a totally fair criticism. VAT I'm not sure if it was in the manifesto or not, but a relatively fair criticism since the reversal happened while in power after what he said.
The cast iron guarantee was for an election that never happened and that was crystal clear before the 2010 election. That is not remotely a fair criticism.
Judge politicians on their manifesto and what they say when seeking power, not what they say before previous elections (or elections that don't happen) if it is reversed in a subsequent manifesto. The later manifesto always takes priority.
I didn't mention the cast iron pledge. What I said was given a pretty long track record of telling whoppers, he can hardly be surprised if people don't believe him now. Its the old story about the boy who cried wolf.
Several of the whoppers I quoted were in the last manifesto and were walked away from within weeks of getting into office.
All I want of my representatives is for them to tell me what they are going to do and then do it. Clearly certain things are victims of circumstances, but partly they shouldn't make promises which are outside their control (immigration) I mean its not like politicians are not well versed in making attractive sounding noises that don't commit themselves to anything!
The real problem are the "moral compass" issues, telling the voters that you want to open up government, and then within weeks of being in power starting a view to restrict the power of the FoI Act, it just looks bad!
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
Sean Fear that is a must read article for everyone on here.
Yougov "the over 65s carry more than three and a half times more weight than the youngest (18-24) cohort."
How ComRes can present their last phone poll with 114 (18-25) and just 222 65+ voters beggars belief. Which created a 15 point lead for REMAIN......
Hint 3 times 114 is 342, probably higher as I dropped off the 1/2 since Yougov refer to 18-24 and Comres 18-25.
Exactly if Leave can win these voters who will turn out to vote then they win. Instead Leave's most famous person wants to abandon this demographic to go on a wild goose chase for unregistered non-voters in europhile hellholes.
To be brutally honest I would suggest that he is probably serving the Leave campaign best in this way. I still think his message is as likely to alienate as attract many of those key voters and as such having him running around housing estates is probably the best thing they can do with him.
As an aside, people keep saying that we would need to convince 27 nations of a desire to continue with free trade.
Doesn't it also follow that those who would want to impose tariffs would need to convince the other 26 within the EU?
No. There is a default external tariff that would apply if we left without a trade deal. To not have the default tariff applied would require unanimity.
The WTO - which the UK would have its own seat on - might have something to say about that.
Not if the UK is put amongst the default rate that applies to every other nation not in the EU and without a trade deal it won't. If they arbitrarily applied tariffs to us that they wouldn't for anyone else it would.
The rules are quite complicated, although the German business lobby might prove influential in the 2 years that the existing tariffs would apply. And if a spurned EU did resort to begger thy neighbour protectionism out of spite, isn't that another reason for not wanting to be in the club in the first place?
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
That's fascinating. It really is all about turnout. Must give the REMAINIANS a few jitters. They could convincingly win public opinion, be well ahead in the polls, but still lose, because their supporters are so apathetic, compared to the LEAVERS.
... and while the middle class Tory types chat to each other about treaty change, GDP and CAP, Farage et al will be visiting every hell hole in England telling the underclass this is their chance
Which is why he'll lose overwhelmingly if he's in charge. As those people don't vote.
It doesn't even make sense. Look at YouGov's graph of where is eurosceptic and where is europhile. Does euroscepticism correlate with being a hellhole? No, quite the opposite, those are the most europhile areas in the country. Euroscepticism is at its highest by and large where the right wing vote is the highest, that is the target demographic to get out the vote.
Although one could ask how many white van men opt into You Gov's polling pool. I would say those figures are very suspect indeed if you consider where the high watermark of kipperdom fell at the last election. Grotty seaside towns and rundown working class areas (the "left behind").
"It would have been totally pointless to havn early GE and a new parliament with an ungratified Treaty. William Hague's speech at Conference was correctly qualified. Typical kipper type logic."
****
You miss my point. I'm saying Cameron was deliberately loose or "unthinking" with his language, because he likes to appear eurosceptic, whereas in truth he is anything but; as we see now, at last, in plain sight.
He's too smart not to realise how the phrase "cast iron guarantee" would be understood by readers of the Sun. They would see it as a "cast iron guarantee". Coz that's wot he wrote. Very Deliberately. Very Thinkingly.
He wanted the eurosceptic vote. But he isn't a eurosceptic. As Philip Stephens says in today's FT, he is, in truth, as europhile as Michael Heseltine.
Cameron is a liar and a fraud and a charlatan. THAT is my point.
He is no liar, he was talking about upcoming the 2007 election. He was not to know that Brown would shock everyone by cancelling the election.
Had Cameron continued to 2010 with the same commitment then reneged on it he'd be a liar. But he was up-front and honest before the 2010 election and became PM on the back of the 2010 manifesto not the 2007 manifesto. If you want honesty, judge him on the 2010 that he went to the country on. He had fully cleared up that the situation had changed long before 2010.
There you go with your facts, destroying the Cameron is a liar narrative.
Just like in November 2015 he described four measures he wanted, of which he failed on one, migration. A biggie, of course, but as we know from all the committed EEA-ers, immigration is not something that troubles many Leavers.
"Cameron insists UK will not pay £1.7bn EU bill in full"
"Britain quietly settled its latest altercation over the European Union budget by paying a 1.7 billion-pound ($2.6 billion) bill that Prime Minister David Cameron originally derided as “appalling.”"
It's brilliant. Blatant impotence in front of the EU juggernaut.
This is going to be quite common if we stay in, I'm sure. Although I bet we signed up to these rules at some point in the distant past (tying national wealth to EU contributions) and here is the reality.
Is it enough to leave? For sure for some. Is it ideal even if you're a Remainer? Definitely not. You pays your money and marks your cross...
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning..
I'm confident about the turnout figure. ...IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
That's fascinating. It really is all about turnout. Must give the REMAINIANS a few jitters. They could convincingly win public opinion, be well ahead in the polls, but still lose, because their supporters are so apathetic, compared to the LEAVERS.
... and while the middle class Tory types chat to each other about treaty change, GDP and CAP, Farage et al will be visiting every hell hole in England telling the underclass this is their chance
Which is why he'll lose overwhelmingly if he's in charge. As those people don't vote.
It doesn't even make sense. Look at YouGov's graph of where is eurosceptic and where is europhile. Does euroscepticism correlate with being a hellhole? No, quite the opposite, those are the most europhile areas in the country. Euroscepticism is at its highest by and large where the right wing vote is the highest, that is the target demographic to get out the vote.
The most europhile areas, the ones that agree with David Cameron, are generally those that wouldn;t vote tory in a month of Sundays. Inner Cities, University towns, Scotland, the North West.
If I was Cameron looking at that map, I'd be bricking it. The entire constituency that put me in Downing street is against me.
True. To fully evaluate this needs a new model beyond most of our polling companies. May be REMAIN have this model arising out of the GE2015 work of the Conservatives? This could then be the driver for all these dead cat antics from project fear, just trying a new one each day to see what will change the underlying polling? Meanwhile the cr*p LEAVE campaigns muddle along wasting time until one gets designated by the Commission. Farage's destructive tendencies are probably the biggest threat to LEAVE.
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
That's fascinating. It really is all about turnout. Must give the REMAINIANS a few jitters. They could convincingly win public opinion, be well ahead in the polls, but still lose, because their supporters are so apathetic, compared to the LEAVERS.
... and while the middle class Tory types chat to each other about treaty change, GDP and CAP, Farage et al will be visiting every hell hole in England telling the underclass this is their chance
Which is why he'll lose overwhelmingly if he's in charge. As those people don't vote.
It doesn't even make sense. Look at YouGov's graph of where is eurosceptic and where is europhile. Does euroscepticism correlate with being a hellhole? No, quite the opposite, those are the most europhile areas in the country. Euroscepticism is at its highest by and large where the right wing vote is the highest, that is the target demographic to get out the vote.
The most europhile areas, the ones that agree with David Cameron, are generally those that wouldn;t vote tory in a month of Sundays. Inner Cities, University towns, Scotland, the North West.
If I was Cameron looking at that map, I'd be bricking it. The entire constituency that put me in Downing street is against me.
Those areas will vote Remain even if Westminster was shut and replaced by a branch office from Brussels. Cameron needs to get moderate Tories who might have voted for Blair or liked John Major and Ken Clarke and like him out for Remain i.e. around 45% of Tories. A majority of Tories who voted Tory in 2001 and 2005 will vote Leave and some may now back UKIP
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
Sean Fear that is a must read article for everyone on here.
Yougov "the over 65s carry more than three and a half times more weight than the youngest (18-24) cohort."
How ComRes can present their last phone poll with 114 (18-25) and just 222 65+ voters beggars belief. Which created a 15 point lead for REMAIN......
Hint 3 times 114 is 342, probably higher as I dropped off the 1/2 since Yougov refer to 18-24 and Comres 18-25.
Exactly if Leave can win these voters who will turn out to vote then they win. Instead Leave's most famous person wants to abandon this demographic to go on a wild goose chase for unregistered non-voters in europhile hellholes.
No problem if Farage wants to lead a few off into that territory. Just do not divert 95% of the resources or national media attention on to it. It is true that UKIPs Leadership under Farage failed to understand targetting except the targetting of each other!
'As Philip Stephens says in today's FT, he is, in truth, as europhile as Michael Heseltine. '
Unfortunately this is now abundantly clear. You only need to see the people he has surrounded himself with on his European 'odyssey to nowhere', e.g. Lidington and Llewellyn.
"It would have been totally pointless to have had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after it had been ratified. Even assuming that a referendum would have been held and said "no" to The Treaty, parliament with LibDems and Labour would never have passed any legislation to abrogate the Treaty. Cameron was unthinking in his language - he expected an early GE and a new parliament with an ungratified Treaty. William Hague's speech at Conference was correctly qualified. Typical kipper type logic."
****
You miss my point. I'm saying Cameron was deliberately loose or "unthinking" with his language, because he likes to appear eurosceptic, whereas in truth he is anything but; as we see now, at last, in plain sight.
He's too smart not to realise how the phrase "cast iron guarantee" would be understood by readers of the Sun. They would see it as a "cast iron guarantee". Coz that's wot he wrote. Very Deliberately. Very Thinkingly.
He wanted the eurosceptic vote. But he isn't a eurosceptic. As Philip Stephens says in today's FT, he is, in truth, as europhile as Michael Heseltine.
Cameron is a liar and a fraud and a charlatan. THAT is my point.
He is no liar, he was talking about upcoming the 2007 election. He was not to know that Brown would shock everyone by cancelling the election.
Had Cameron continued to 2010 with the same commitment then reneged on it he'd be a liar. But he was up-front and honest before the 2010 election and became PM on the back of the 2010 manifesto not the 2007 manifesto. If you want honesty, judge him on the 2010 that he went to the country on. He had fully cleared up that the situation had changed long before 2010.
There you go with your facts, destroying the Cameron is a liar narrative.
Just like in November 2015 he described four measures he wanted, of which he failed on one, migration. A biggie, of course, but as we know from all the committed EEA-ers, immigration is not something that troubles many Leavers.
"Cameron insists UK will not pay £1.7bn EU bill in full"
"Britain quietly settled its latest altercation over the European Union budget by paying a 1.7 billion-pound ($2.6 billion) bill that Prime Minister David Cameron originally derided as “appalling.”"
It is amazing that no broadcast media interview has really given a kicking to either Cameron or Osborne and held them to account on this. It is an open goal. Where is Paxman? I know the two avoid Andrew O'Neill. If you are reading, LauraK or Peston, what are you waiting for?
Good evening, just done the competition. I estimated turnout at 62%. Leave 50.6%.
Is that for shits and giggles, to maximise your chances of winning the competition, or are you serious?
I'm confident about the turnout figure. The result itself could go either way IMO.
I don't have the foggiest.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
That's tic, compared to the LEAVERS.
... and while the middle class Tory types chat to each other about treaty change, GDP and CAP, Farage et al will be visiting every hell hole in England telling the underclass this is their chance
Which is why he'll lose overwhelmingly if he's in charge. As those people don't vote.
It doesn't even make sense. Look at YouGov's graph of where is eurosceptic and where is europhile. Does euroscepticism correlate with being a hellhole? No, quite the opposite, those are the most europhile areas in the country. Euroscepticism is at its highest by and large where the right wing vote is the highest, that is the target demographic to get out the vote.
Although one could ask how many white van men opt into You Gov's polling pool. I would say those figures are very suspect indeed if you consider where the high watermark of kipperdom fell at the last election. Grotty seaside towns and rundown working class areas (the "left behind").
It's the white working classes, the less well educated, and the old. These tend to be the most eurosceptic, along with a large tranche of Tories of all ages.
Which is why he'll lose overwhelmingly if he's in charge. As those people don't vote.
It doesn't even make sense. Look at YouGov's graph of where is eurosceptic and where is europhile. Does euroscepticism correlate with being a hellhole? No, quite the opposite, those are the most europhile areas in the country. Euroscepticism is at its highest by and large where the right wing vote is the highest, that is the target demographic to get out the vote.
WTF are you on about? Euroscepticism strongly correlates with WWC areas. The top ten eurosceptic boroughs:
I'm a voter from Warrington South, we have a Tory MP (Warrington North to be fair does not). On a constituency map we are a blue blip in a sea of red.
Now contrast Warrington on the Yougov map with nearby Wirral, Liverpool, St Helens, Manchester, Stockport etc - a sea of green europhile just like it is a sea of red Labour constituencies.
Look at Staffordshire, barring Stoke on Trent and compare with nearby Walsall too. Walsall is entire Labour and Europhile. Stoke on Trent is entirely Labour and Europhile. Staffordshire without Stoke on Trent is very Tory and Eurosceptic
Look at the East too, Lincolnshire, rural Nottinghamshire, rural Leicestershire, Northamptonshire all red for europhile on Yougov or blue for Conservative on constituency maps. While Nottingham which is Labour is Europhile. Leicester which is Labour is Europhile.
Look at all the rural constituencies up and down the length of the country, vast seas of euroscepticism in the same places that are vast seas of Tory seats.
There may be extreme exceptions but up and down the country Europhile correlates with Tory.
Unless there's some kind of GOTV failure for trump tomorrow it looks like he's got the nomination in the bag. He should be somewhere between a 2/1 & 6/4 shot for POTUS.
It is amazing that no broadcast media interview has really given a kicking to either Cameron or Osborne and held them to account on this. It is an open goal. Where is Paxman? I know the two avoid Andrew O'Neill. If you are reading, LauraK or Peston, what are you waiting for?
It the age old problem, the leftie media types love the EU, it gets them their nice foreign holidays and their cheap Polish tradesmen and cheap Eastern European nannies for the kids. They would rather cut out their own livers and fry them with onions that say or suggest anything naughty about their beloved EU.
I didn't realise Varoufakis was actually working for Labour on their economics team... the man that crashed the Greek economy even worse than it already was... what could possibly go wrong!
Exactly if Leave can win these voters who will turn out to vote then they win. Instead Leave's most famous person wants to abandon this demographic to go on a wild goose chase for unregistered non-voters in europhile hellholes.
To be brutally honest I would suggest that he is probably serving the Leave campaign best in this way. I still think his message is as likely to alienate as attract many of those key voters and as such having him running around housing estates is probably the best thing they can do with him.
LOL true, so long as he doesn't lead the campaign I agree. If Leave.EU/Grassroots Out and by extension Farage are the designated lead campaign then it will be tremendously damaging.
As someone currently backing Leave I really hope it's Vote Leave as we could win then.
Again, we see the low watt IQ of the pb europhiles.
Reading them is like trying to have a good time down the pub with a mollusc.
If you're referring to me, you've missed the fact I'm currently backing Leave. I was already temped by Hannan and won over by Gove and Hannan's articles after the deal was published.
Comments
But I don't think either of these guys will be the next Tory leader. There's a tape of Johnson discussing a plan to have Stuart Collier beaten up, which could be perceived as in a different league from Cameron's record of snorting cocaine, necrophiliac bestiality, smashing up restaurants and having Peter Cruddas solicit bribes for "access" to his office. Oh...wait a minute...maybe not... What are a few whacks with an iron bar, some broken bones, and a few weeks in hospital? Especially when the intended victim worked on the News of the World? But there could be mileage too in the strange history of statements about Johnson's US citizenship, which he does not appear to have renounced. And in any case, the Johnson image has a strain of impulsiveness, and that won't do. Not to mention his adultery, which doesn't play well. If his wife can't trust him, why should anyone else? Interesting that his stepmother's stepfather was Teddy Sieff, chairman of Marks and Spencer, though.
As for Gove, he's been rude about the public schools, and that won't do either. Not that any politician or civil servant will ever really sort them out (hi Roy H!), but that doesn't mean they want some oik sitting in the PM's chair who's got a tarnished record where those institutions are concerned. Many Tories see Gove and what they see first of all is "state school educated". If he's got attitude too, that is really not good. Oiks shouldn't have attitude. They only get it by trying too hard. It's not the real thing. That's how the Tory elite thinks. Whatever, party leadership possibilities keep chatterers happy (Portillo was never going to get it either), and this time they're clearly playing the PR differently from how they did it with Blair-Brown, when no opinion former said "wait a minute, a prime minister's not supposed to choose his successor". This time, sure, "et tu Brute" and Tory traditions, yeah, but Johnson or Gove, no.
Cameron was pledging to hold a Lisbon referendum if he won the 2007 Election. Do you remember who won that election? Oh yes, Brown was frit and cancelled it.
So after Brown cancelled the election and signed the treaty Cameron changed his policy for the 2010 election. No votes had been cast in the meantime as the 2007 election was cancelled and so therefore so it was its manifesto.
Cameron lacking a time machine could not undo what Brown had done and honestly said so PRIOR to the 2010 election. It is not Cameron's fault that Brown cancelled the 2007 election.
Best I can say at the moment is that opinions are diverging, largely on age and class lines.
I sense a clustering groupthink in AB professional groups in the south-east towards Remain - who all largely vote - but what I don't know is if there's enough of them to carry it if the rest of England and half of Wales vote Leave.
The difference is that one Cameron asked to be judged specifically on two things: the deficit and immigration, on one of those key issues he has failed miserably and coincidentally, his cheerleaders turn it around to say that a rise in immigration is good after all.
We spoke earlier about intelligence and convictions/integrity.
Now the country got a chance to judge Cameron on immigration. Last year and they gave him a majority.
What's particularly amusing is that some of the same fruitcakes who go into logical contortions to try to criticise Cameron for not delivering a referendum he never promised also criticise him for delivering the referendum he did promise.
What I am saying is that it is misleading to call one bookmaker "bookmakers" and even if it were all bookmakers I'd still rather look at Betfair... which probably shows the same pattern to be fair
I'm just saying that some people like to brag about their intelligence, or more specifically other people's lack of it. As you point out, intelligence is essentially useless without other attributes.
People feel secure from having others agree with them, it doesn't make them right or others less intelligent.
Give me an honest bonehead over a duplicitous academic anyday.
This article from Yougov is worth reading, about the gap in turnout between each side.
I've got it weighted in favour of Con/UKIP over Lab.
I can see a result anywhere from 61.7% to 52.68% to Remain.
For Leave to win they need at least 60% of Con voters, and 35% of Labour voters.
While I'm drinking Napoleon Brandy
Eating more than enough apple pies.
Will I glance at the screen and watch real human beings
Drown to death right in front of my eyes?
(G. OSullivan amended)
I'm more bothered by our own unemployed who can't or won't find work and don't have any drive to get up and go while the country is booming, than I'm bothered by the risk of people willing to move thousands of miles to find employment being left on benefits in a downturn.
I'm of the Norman Tebbit "get on your bike" attitude to work. These migrants who've travelled thousands of miles to find work, I respect them.
Turns out I didn't actually win but as it was Cheltenham week they had forgotten all about it until the Friday, and as I lived in South Harrow at the time I was the closest to their offices in Rayners Lane.
8 more seats to go!
One of the most nauseating things I have ever seen on politicalbetting was Nick Palmer snidely writing about how Cameron will have to back peddle on his commitment now.
You've "conveniently" ignored that part.
1. They dislike immigration
2. They dislike Cameron
Voting for LEAVE or abstaining, Labour's vote I believe will be smaller than most expect.
Yep - but with what we know now, can we doubt that Cameron & Co, must have snidely been saying to each other at the same time 'that's a relief we can dump that silly pledge now' or words to that effect?
You don't have to tell me about getting on my bike, I was the one being slagged off here yesterday by PBLefties for going about and assembling peoples flat pack furniture for £20/hr when I couldn't get work for 9 month during the dotCom crash. Apparently asking for that rate as a free contract with another person was dishonest. The way the market works seems to completely pass some people by.
Rubio has drifted out to 6.
Polls apparently show Clinton could lose New York to Trump.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/vote_2010/how+did+labour+do+on+its+2005+manifesto+pledges/3609602.html
Yes, that is a litmus test of intellectual honesty. No-one, not a single sentient being on this earth, interpreted that commitment at the time as meaning anything other than what it quite plainly meant if you read the article, which was that a Cameron government would call a referendum before ratifying the treaty.
What's particularly amusing is that some of the same fruitcakes who go into logical contortions to try to criticise Cameron for not delivering a referendum he never promised also criticise him for delivering the referendum he did promise.
Nope. He wrote this. In The Sun.
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."
He mentions ratification in the next sentence, but he knowingly said this, first. Cast iron guarantee. He's an intelligent man, he knew how this would be interpreted. As a cast iron guarantee.
One more time. He said:
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."
And then he didn't give us a vote, after all. He's only given us one now because he never expected he'd have to fulfil his promise, a promise he only made because he was worried about UKIP, and he always said he'd never campaign for LEAVE, except right at the end when he realised that would sound daft, so he pretended he might campaign for LEAVE even though everyone knew he would never do that.
I mean, please.
There is no one, not one sentient being on this planet who can believe that Cameron has acted with anything but utter duplicity and mendacity throughout this charade of a process. He is a liar. And you are a fool.
perdix said It would have been totally pointless to have had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after it had been ratified. Even assuming that a referendum would have been held and said "no" to The Treaty, parliament with LibDems and Labour would never have passed any legislation to abrogate the Treaty. Cameron was unthinking in his language - he expected an early GE and a new parliament with an ungratified Treaty. William Hague's speech at Conference was correctly qualified.
Typical kipper type logic.
But it was rejected by France and the Netherlands and thus abandoned. So Labour can plausibly claim that they did not break their promise.
But a Reform Treaty – also known as the Lisbon Treaty – was created instead, and Gordon Brown signed it in December 2007. The Conservatives and others claim that the Lisbon Treaty is sufficiently similar to the original one as to make no difference. So who is right?
The European Union introduced a mandate in the summer of 2007 which said: "The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing treaties and replacing them by a single text called 'constitution', is abandoned."
But a House of Commons research paper states that: "The content of the treaty, though not its structure, is similar in a great many respects to the EU Constitution." Open Europe, a think tank that calls for radical reform of the EU, has calculated that the original Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty are 90 per cent the same.
While technically no promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was ever made, it could be argued that the spirit of the manifesto means that Labour should offer a vote on it. But equally it could be argued that with the constitutional implications of the first Treaty removed, the promise has not been broken. "
Any argument that features the word "technically" really isn't worth the e-paper its printed on.
Of course one way Leave could win relatively 'easily' would be through a severely depressed Labour/LD turnout.
On my figures, that's where more than half (just) of the Remain vote will come from.
If you say we need to ensure we are attracting the kind of migrants who want work not benefits then I totally agree with that. But I am not bothered by people who want to work, it shows up the delusional lefties who can't or won't find work while others graft hard.
Yougov "the over 65s carry more than three and a half times more weight than the youngest (18-24) cohort."
How ComRes can present their last phone poll with 114 (18-25) and just 222 65+ voters beggars belief. Which created a 15 point lead for REMAIN......
Hint 3 times 114 is 342, probably higher as I dropped off the 1/2 since Yougov refer to 18-24 and Comres 18-25.
Had Cameron continued to 2010 with the same commitment then reneged on it he'd be a liar. But he was up-front and honest before the 2010 election and became PM on the back of the 2010 manifesto not the 2007 manifesto. If you want honesty, judge him on the 2010 that he went to the country on. He had fully cleared up that the situation had changed long before 2010.
Just as some people have the ethic to go out and find work, others have the ethic to vote. Every election I can remember in my lifetime one party or another has tried to appeal to non-voters and other than in the Sindyref where everyone voted it has never worked.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/raise-vat-tax-tories Oops where did that 20% VAT rate suddenly come from
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-13083781 Still heading up rapidly
No if's no buts promise not to expand Heathrow http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f4f915fa-1fff-11e5-aa5a-398b2169cf79.html#axzz41a717xT7
... and now it's the preferred plan.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/budget-2015-watch-david-cameron-6033885 ... followed by huge cuts to CTC
We could add his promise to
Only freeze child benefit for two years... and then freezing it for four
To electrify the Northern railways... and then scrapping both major electrification plans after the election
Promising all the free child care in 2015.... and then delaying it to 2017
What happened to that three days volunteer leave ?... quietly dropped
Manifesto pledge to cap residential care.... postponed until 2020 immediately after the election
and my favourite, in the manifesto it said So obviously the thing to do was to start a consultation to restrict the Freedom of Information Act.
.... and then he wonders why no one believes him.
I suspect that Cameron never thought that he would be in a position where the treaty would be already ratified by the time the UK election was called (or that the chances were so small it was worth the risk), and he started rowing back on the commitment almost as soon as Brown bottled the election when the penny dropped that the 'guarantee' might not be deliverable.
I might be giving my side an unfair benefit of the doubt but I'd put it down to miscalculation rather than malice.
The cast iron guarantee was for an election that never happened and that was crystal clear before the 2010 election. That is not remotely a fair criticism.
Judge politicians on their manifesto and what they say when seeking power, not what they say before previous elections (or elections that don't happen) if it is reversed in a subsequent manifesto. The later manifesto always takes priority.
Just like in November 2015 he described four measures he wanted, of which he failed on one, migration. A biggie, of course, but as we know from all the committed EEA-ers, immigration is not something that troubles many Leavers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29939774
"Britain quietly settled its latest altercation over the European Union budget by paying a 1.7 billion-pound ($2.6 billion) bill that Prime Minister David Cameron originally derided as “appalling.”"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-03/u-k-settles-eu-bill-once-called-appalling-by-cameron
It doesn't even make sense. Look at YouGov's graph of where is eurosceptic and where is europhile. Does euroscepticism correlate with being a hellhole? No, quite the opposite, those are the most europhile areas in the country. Euroscepticism is at its highest by and large where the right wing vote is the highest, that is the target demographic to get out the vote.
If I was Cameron looking at that map, I'd be bricking it. The entire constituency that put me in Downing street is against me.
Other points are more fair. But to criticise a politician for not doing something they said vocally and publicly was not policy before the election is unreasonable.
Several of the whoppers I quoted were in the last manifesto and were walked away from within weeks of getting into office.
All I want of my representatives is for them to tell me what they are going to do and then do it. Clearly certain things are victims of circumstances, but partly they shouldn't make promises which are outside their control (immigration) I mean its not like politicians are not well versed in making attractive sounding noises that don't commit themselves to anything!
The real problem are the "moral compass" issues, telling the voters that you want to open up government, and then within weeks of being in power starting a view to restrict the power of the FoI Act, it just looks bad!
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.107373419
It's brilliant. Blatant impotence in front of the EU juggernaut.
This is going to be quite common if we stay in, I'm sure. Although I bet we signed up to these rules at some point in the distant past (tying national wealth to EU contributions) and here is the reality.
Is it enough to leave? For sure for some. Is it ideal even if you're a Remainer? Definitely not. You pays your money and marks your cross...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/29/how_to_watch_tuesdays_returns_like_a_data_geek_129814.html
Unfortunately this is now abundantly clear. You only need to see the people he has surrounded himself with on his European 'odyssey to nowhere', e.g. Lidington and Llewellyn.
Now contrast Warrington on the Yougov map with nearby Wirral, Liverpool, St Helens, Manchester, Stockport etc - a sea of green europhile just like it is a sea of red Labour constituencies.
Look at Staffordshire, barring Stoke on Trent and compare with nearby Walsall too. Walsall is entire Labour and Europhile. Stoke on Trent is entirely Labour and Europhile. Staffordshire without Stoke on Trent is very Tory and Eurosceptic
Look at the East too, Lincolnshire, rural Nottinghamshire, rural Leicestershire, Northamptonshire all red for europhile on Yougov or blue for Conservative on constituency maps. While Nottingham which is Labour is Europhile. Leicester which is Labour is Europhile.
Look at all the rural constituencies up and down the length of the country, vast seas of euroscepticism in the same places that are vast seas of Tory seats.
There may be extreme exceptions but up and down the country Europhile correlates with Tory.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/jeremy-corbyn-hires-yanis-varoufakis-to-advise-labour/
Unless there's some kind of GOTV failure for trump tomorrow it looks like he's got the nomination in the bag. He should be somewhere between a 2/1 & 6/4 shot for POTUS.
The like the idea of the plebs being conned by a Tory leader even more I think
As someone currently backing Leave I really hope it's Vote Leave as we could win then.
http://www.rte.ie/news/election-2016/constituencies/dublin-bay-north/