No it isn't accurate. And after being proved wrong over the whole EEA accession question yesterday I would have thought you would have kept your head down for a while.
'Proved wrong!'. Once again, thanks for the laugh!
Trump's protectionist agenda might play well in PA and OH.
Is MN a bit different to those two, richer a bit more white collar ?
Only state Reagan didn't win in 84 apart from DC.
No surprise Trump does poorly in Northern Virginia given he is running against DC corruption. Even now polls show Florida isn't even close between Trump and Hillary. Still think Kobach as VP would give Trump the boost he needs in the Midwest and with evangelicals, fantastically smart and could best Corey Booker in any debate.
Just watched Trump's press conference, very impressive.
Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.
Betfair makes very little sense.
Maybe they think the FBI will do its duty and arrest Hillary.
Betfair doesn' think that either, Biden has gone out to 200s.
This move doesn't make much sense. We are moving into the prime Biden window, as identified by David Herdson. Sanders being well beaten helps Biden, and I don't believe the number of delegates Clinton wins will make any difference to the FBI's conclusions.
As Mike says, it's a long shot. But it feels more like a 12/1 chance than 50/1.
I'd agree with that (obviously, given my weekend piece).
All else being equal, Biden's price ought to remain shortish for another month at least. Sanders did do his chances some good last night in case of Hillary being FBI'd: coming out with four states was some way ahead of his not unrealistic worst-case. All the same, after March 15 Hillary will start pulling away rapidly in the pledged delegate count and he'll be seen to have run his race.
On a related note, Hillary can thank her lucky stars that she won those tight races in Iowa and Nevada. Had she not, we'd be talking about last night as another underwhelming performance and questioning whether she could win outside the South.
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
LOL. 10 our of 10 to BSE for bare faced audacity I suppose the message from that poster is that if you are going to lie then lie big.
Utter bollocks would be too polite a way to describe their claims.
I couldn't see what was specifically wrong with those but on the politics, if there's something your opponent is trying to avoid talking about, you can make bold, dubious claims about it. If they don't engage then you get away with it, if they do then everybody's talking about what you want them to be talking about.
The best strategy for Leave is to push Remain onto the defensive by making bold claims about what staying in the EU could mean.
And to then make the vote a vote of confidence in the EU.
Rationally yes, but I'm not sure that works. It's hard to FUD the status quo.
What they really need is a good "hope" story with just the right amount of patriotism, Bold, Free Trading Nation etc etc.
I disagree, I 'll have to do some maths but I think Sanders looks done actually.
Sanders is "done" to a turn.
Apart from the huge disparity in the delegate count, including Super Delegates, the upcoming states are in the main states where Clinton will rack up big numbers.
[snip].
Do you think?
On Saturday, she'll score big in Louisiana but Sanders ought to be looking at Kansas and Nebraska as places where he could at least be competitive.
Then next Tuesday, Hillary will gain another big win in Mississippi but Maine ought to be a Sanders win and Michigan a state where he's within sight at least.
There's no way he can win overall but he does have a bit of an opportunity this next week to dent her procession towards Philadelphia.
I do.
Sanders is "done" more than a turkey after Thanksgiving.
Sanders will continue to pick off some states but this race is finished. Sanders is failing completely to pick away at Clinton lead with AA and hispanics and she is doing sufficiently well with white voters. States with those sizeable minority demographics will pull in further big wins for Clinton.
Reminds me of 08 after Super Tuesday. Clinton did well but Obama effectively had the race sewn up. Hillary stayed in the race but they both began to pivot toward the general election and she steadily began to throw her support to Obama. Sanders will do the same as the Convention looms.
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
LOL. 10 our of 10 to BSE for bare faced audacity I suppose the message from that poster is that if you are going to lie then lie big.
Utter bollocks would be too polite a way to describe their claims.
I couldn't see what was specifically wrong with those but on the politics, if there's something your opponent is trying to avoid talking about, you can make bold, dubious claims about it. If they don't engage then you get away with it, if they do then everybody's talking about what you want them to be talking about.
The best strategy for Leave is to push Remain onto the defensive by making bold claims about what staying in the EU could mean.
And to then make the vote a vote of confidence in the EU.
I think that's right, but they need to be credible claims.
Do they ? Remain seem to have set the credibility bar very very low.
Incidentally, FYI, Switzerland has voted against freedom of movement and is in negotiations with the EU at the moment.
OK then we'll wait and see what the effect on their trade agreements are when they remove it and how long the negotiations take. I'm sure the UK would vote against freedom of movement if there were no consequences. but it doesn't work like that.
I'm sorry but however you spin it I think it will be pretty damning for many LEAVERS when they understand that once they BREXIT they will almost certainly be paying into the EU budget and still have freedom of movement. Up to now LEAVE has had a pretty clear run in having many of its assertions go unchallenged and I suspect many voters will have taken those assertions as gospel and will be in for a bit of a shock
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:.
At least someone is spelling out what the alternatives might be......Hardly REMAIN's job to make them look attractive......
Bring it on. I'd love to be like Canada.
God no.
They've got French minority separatists ruining it for everybody else.
You want the UK to have more Frenchie pains in the arse?
I must question if you truly are an Englishman/Brit?
We all have our separatists.
The only thing that might make me change my mind about the EU is if the French honoured the Treaty of Troyes.
But ours are Scottish, and I like the Scots, the French on the other hand
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:.
At least someone is spelling out what the alternatives might be......Hardly REMAIN's job to make them look attractive......
Bring it on. I'd love to be like Canada.
Do Canadians enjoy the Four Freedoms in Europe?
Better not tell the ±2 million Brits who currently do.......
No it isn't accurate. And after being proved wrong over the whole EEA accession question yesterday I would have thought you would have kept your head down for a while.
'Proved wrong!'. Once again, thanks for the laugh!
Well since you apparently had no answer when I quoted specific sections if the treaties to you and even had some REMAIN supporters telling you you were wrong I am going with that as a strong conclusion.
Laugh all you like. The rest of us are laughing at you not with you.
I'm sorry but you are re-running the Obama/Clinton themes from 08. Many PBers told me that Clinton voters would not swing behind Obama and Dem turnout would suffer. Wrong big time.
The difference for the GOP is that Trump isn't from the traditional base and he represents a wrecking ball to much of the GOP. Most of the establishment will eventually fall behind him but a significant minority will be unreconciled to Trump.
However the biggest problem for Trump are his horrible negatives especially with important growing demographics in swing states. Also "Reagan Democrats" are not enough for Trump - they represents less than half the demographic that the "Gipper" pulled in back in the 80's.
Jack, if you can't see the difference between supporters of the establishment candidate getting behind the insurgent and supporters of the insurgent getting behind the establishment candidate then I'm not sure if this is a discussion worth having. Obama was the insurgent in '08, Sanders the insurgent now. They had/have the backing of the "anti-establishment" types, the party then turning around to them and asking them to support Hillary, no questions asked isn't the same as the other way around. Especially when the opponent, Trump, has the same anti-establishment credentials as Sanders.
Of course Obama was the insurgent candidate in 08. But an insurgent from the mainstream of the party. Sanders is an insurgent but again from within the party.
Trump is the insurgent but certainly not from the mainstream, which is one of his strengths but also a significant weakness for some in the GOP.
The GOP establishment are desperate for the win in November. So why are they equally desperate for Trump not to be the candidate. No prizes for the answer !!
Perhaps the GOP establishment is stupid.
A lot of them are bought and paid for, nothing to do with electability.
Can anyone remind of the name of the guy who ramped mercilessly for Romney right till the end in 2012 and was never heard of again after November? I am beginning to think he might have returned under another name!!.
The GOP establishment are desperate for the win in November. So why are they equally desperate for Trump not to be the candidate. No prizes for the answer !!
The irony is that they'd have had a very good chance against Hillary with a decent candidate, and they started with a field containing several better-than-average possibilities.
Nobody ever lost money thinking the GOP would pick a viable candidate !!
Some people fall for the act and like to publicise Paddy Powers cheeky chappy image... this article reveals the truth
"Concerns about his compulsive gambling were passed up the line to senior managers by betting shop staff, to no avail. One senior employee, in fact, responded to a report that Customer A might be “visiting the shop less frequently” by advising that “steps should be taken to try to increase Customer A’s visits and time spent in the gambling premises”."
I'm sorry but you are re-running the Obama/Clinton themes from 08. Many PBers told me that Clinton voters would not swing behind Obama and Dem turnout would suffer. Wrong big time.
The difference for the GOP is that Trump isn't from the traditional base and he represents a wrecking ball to much of the GOP. Most of the establishment will eventually fall behind him but a significant minority will be unreconciled to Trump.
However the biggest problem for Trump are his horrible negatives especially with important growing demographics in swing states. Also "Reagan Democrats" are not enough for Trump - they represents less than half the demographic that the "Gipper" pulled in back in the 80's.
Jack, if you can't see the difference between supporters of the establishment candidate getting behind the insurgent and supporters of the insurgent getting behind the establishment candidate then I'm not sure if this is a discussion worth having. Obama was the insurgent in '08, Sanders the insurgent now. They had/have the backing of the "anti-establishment" types, the party then turning around to them and asking them to support Hillary, no questions asked isn't the same as the other way around. Especially when the opponent, Trump, has the same anti-establishment credentials as Sanders.
Of course Obama was the insurgent candidate in 08. But an insurgent from the mainstream of the party. Sanders is an insurgent but again from within the party.
Trump is the insurgent but certainly not from the mainstream, which is one of his strengths but also a significant weakness for some in the GOP.
The GOP establishment are desperate for the win in November. So why are they equally desperate for Trump not to be the candidate. No prizes for the answer !!
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:.
At least someone is spelling out what the alternatives might be......Hardly REMAIN's job to make them look attractive......
Bring it on. I'd love to be like Canada.
Do Canadians enjoy the Four Freedoms in Europe?
Better not tell the ±2 million Brits who currently do.......
Canada has a massive and rising immigrant population.
Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.
Betfair makes very little sense.
Maybe they think the FBI will do its duty and arrest Hillary.
Betfair doesn' think that either, Biden has gone out to 200s.
This move doesn't make much sense. We are moving into the prime Biden window, as identified by David Herdson. Sanders being well beaten helps Biden, and I don't believe the number of delegates Clinton wins will make any difference to the FBI's conclusions.
As Mike says, it's a long shot. But it feels more like a 12/1 chance than 50/1.
I'd agree with that (obviously, given my weekend piece).
All else being equal, Biden's price ought to remain shortish for another month at least. Sanders did do his chances some good last night in case of Hillary being FBI'd: coming out with four states was some way ahead of his not unrealistic worst-case. All the same, after March 15 Hillary will start pulling away rapidly in the pledged delegate count and he'll be seen to have run his race.
On a related note, Hillary can thank her lucky stars that she won those tight races in Iowa and Nevada. Had she not, we'd be talking about last night as another underwhelming performance and questioning whether she could win outside the South.
Tend to agree but I think defeating Bernie in Massachusetts (the most populous New England state) was significant.
I'm sorry but you are re-running the Obama/Clinton themes from 08. Many PBers told me that Clinton voters would not swing behind Obama and Dem turnout would suffer. Wrong big time.
The difference for the GOP is that Trump isn't from the traditional base and he represents a wrecking ball to much of the GOP. Most of the establishment will eventually fall behind him but a significant minority will be unreconciled to Trump.
However the biggest problem for Trump are his horrible negatives especially with important growing demographics in swing states. Also "Reagan Democrats" are not enough for Trump - they represents less than half the demographic that the "Gipper" pulled in back in the 80's.
Jack, if you can't see the difference between supporters of the establishment candidate getting behind the insurgent and supporters of the insurgent getting behind the establishment candidate then I'm not sure if this is a discussion worth having. Obama was the insurgent in '08, Sanders the insurgent now. They had/have the backing of the "anti-establishment" types, the party then turning around to them and asking them to support Hillary, no questions asked isn't the same as the other way around. Especially when the opponent, Trump, has the same anti-establishment credentials as Sanders.
Of course Obama was the insurgent candidate in 08. But an insurgent from the mainstream of the party. Sanders is an insurgent but again from within the party.
Trump is the insurgent but certainly not from the mainstream, which is one of his strengths but also a significant weakness for some in the GOP.
The GOP establishment are desperate for the win in November. So why are they equally desperate for Trump not to be the candidate. No prizes for the answer !!
Yes. Of course it can be argued that if there were an obvious winner among the other candidates they would already be beating Trump. If you stitch it up for Rubio you are achieving what? Outraging Trump's supporters in favour of someone who came fifth in New Hampshire.
Indeed. But there lies the problem for the GOP.
Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.
The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:.
At least someone is spelling out what the alternatives might be......Hardly REMAIN's job to make them look attractive......
Bring it on. I'd love to be like Canada.
Do Canadians enjoy the Four Freedoms in Europe?
Better not tell the ±2 million Brits who currently do.......
This is also rubbish. They would be unaffected:
"Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve has claimed that: “EU exit would make 2m Britons abroad illegal immigrants overnight.” However, this claim is not grounded in legal fact, as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 would come into play. It contains articles that are based on ‘acquired rights’, which individuals build up over time and hold despite any changes in future treaties enacted by their nation.
Article 70 states that the termination of a treaty “does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.”331 This is qualified further by previous legal pronouncements, as the International Law Commission told the UN in 1959: “Private rights acquired under existing law do not cease on a change of sovereignty”.
Moreover, “acquired rights” were acknowledged in Greenland’s withdrawal from the European Economic Community (EEC). Under the term “vested rights”, the European Commission said that Greenland should retain the “substance” of free movement rights for workers from the EEC at the time of withdrawal."
Another major crossover between Trump and Sanders supporters is their opposition to the TTIP and TPP. It's actually an issue that a lot of young people get hot under the collar about and where a lot of the Sanders support comes from. Hillary is in favour of both deals and it will be a difficult gap to bridge for people who support Sanders, especially given that Trump is 100% against both.
(1) My email to UKIP policy people and Carswell... The policy people said it was a big social concern for the working class and it should be something they focussed on/would pass on to Suzanne Evans... Carswell didn't reply
" A problem that particularly affects the working class is the growing number of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) in betting shops. I have worked in the bookmaking industry for nearly twenty years, and in that time there have been a lot of changes. The existence of the betting exchanges, namely Betfair, has meant that the bookie vs punter battle is all but over. Bookmakers are unable to compete with the margins that the exchanges bet to, but what they lose in custom they make up for in wages. As the exchanges are the ultimate guide to the betting market, they no longer have to employ as many odds compilers, they just copy the exchange and add a bit of margin. If the bookmaker is out of line with the exchanges, and punters try to take the bookie price, the bookie stops them betting, or limits them to pennies. To all intents and purposes the high St bookie should be dead. They don't take many bets, and they don't let people bet much.
But they are kept afloat by the FOBTs. These are basically Fruit Machines on crack cocaine. There is no edge for the punter as the machines are programmed to win a certain percentage. It is not about skill, they cannot be beaten. Bookmakers now have as many of these machines as possible in betting shops, and staff I have spoken to have told me they are instructed to teach punters how to play them, and stay open as long as possible even when there is barely any sport to bet on. Labour MP Tom Watson has done a great deal of work on the problems of FOBTs. They are a social menace, causing misery to many who cant afford to lose the money they are, and the anger on the part of the player when they lose is often also distressing for the employee, who is usually working alone late at night. The bookmakers that are applying to open shops in High Streets in poor areas (Newham is a particular example) are only doing so in order to pile these machines into them.
A majority of Britons (55%) say they would be worried about what a vote to leave the EU in the 23rd June referendum may do to the value of the pound.
At the moment, the British public is divided on whether the strength of the pound leading up to and on the day of the referendum will be an important factor in how they will vote in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. More than two in five Britons (43%) say it will be important, while half (49%) say it will not be important.
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
LOL. 10 our of 10 to BSE for bare faced audacity I suppose the message from that poster is that if you are going to lie then lie big.
Utter bollocks would be too polite a way to describe their claims.
I couldn't see what was specifically wrong with those but on the politics, if there's something your opponent is trying to avoid talking about, you can make bold, dubious claims about it. If they don't engage then you get away with it, if they do then everybody's talking about what you want them to be talking about.
The best strategy for Leave is to push Remain onto the defensive by making bold claims about what staying in the EU could mean.
And to then make the vote a vote of confidence in the EU.
Rationally yes, but I'm not sure that works. It's hard to FUD the status quo.
What they really need is a good "hope" story with just the right amount of patriotism, Bold, Free Trading Nation etc etc.
There is no status quo. The claims would be based on how the future of the EU would be likely to evolve.
I'm sorry but you are re-running the Obama/Clinton themes from 08. Many PBers told me that Clinton voters would not swing behind Obama and Dem turnout would suffer. Wrong big time.
The difference for the GOP is that Trump isn't from the traditional base and he represents a wrecking ball to much of the GOP. Most of the establishment will eventually fall behind him but a significant minority will be unreconciled to Trump.
However the biggest problem for Trump are his horrible negatives especially with important growing demographics in swing states. Also "Reagan Democrats" are not enough for Trump - they represents less than half the demographic that the "Gipper" pulled in back in the 80's.
Jack, if you can't see the difference between supporters of the establishment candidate getting behind the insurgent and supporters of the insurgent getting behind the establishment candidate then I'm not sure if this is a discussion worth having. Obama was the insurgent in '08, Sanders the insurgent now. They had/have the backing of the "anti-establishment" types, the party then turning around to them and asking them to support Hillary, no questions asked isn't the same as the other way around. Especially when the opponent, Trump, has the same anti-establishment credentials as Sanders.
Of course Obama was the insurgent candidate in 08. But an insurgent from the mainstream of the party. Sanders is an insurgent but again from within the party.
Trump is the insurgent but certainly not from the mainstream, which is one of his strengths but also a significant weakness for some in the GOP.
The GOP establishment are desperate for the win in November. So why are they equally desperate for Trump not to be the candidate. No prizes for the answer !!
You mean the same Bernie Sanders who was an independent until late last year and the same Bernie Sanders who refused to join the party for his whole political career until he had to. He is from within the party? Really, Jack?
Yes.
Sanders isn't seen as loony tune within the party but as a rather endearing semi-detached Democrat fellow traveller. There is no animus toward Sanders in complete contrast to the GOP race.
A majority of Britons (55%) say they would be worried about what a vote to leave the EU in the 23rd June referendum may do to the value of the pound.
At the moment, the British public is divided on whether the strength of the pound leading up to and on the day of the referendum will be an important factor in how they will vote in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. More than two in five Britons (43%) say it will be important, while half (49%) say it will not be important.
(2) My idea would be to make bookmakers who want FOBTs in their shops re apply for a license as an amusement arcade rather than a bookmaker, and remove their ability to take bets on sport in that shop if such a licence is granted. I predict that Bookmakers such as Ladbrokes, Coral and William Hill would baulk at this, but at the moment they are no more than fences for FOBTs anyway. They wont take bets off people who have any clue about betting, but are happy to let the poorest in society lose their wages in a machine which it is impossible to beat. Strange as it may sound, the name Ladbrokes/Hills/Corals adds a cloak of respectability to the mugging that takes place inside their shops. Attaching their name to an amusement arcade would (a) discourage them from applying as it would damage their brand, and (b) give the authorities the chance to deny permission for the arcade. Either would be a bonus for the man in the street.
Because they cannot be beaten, the bookies let anybody have anything they like in these machines
To encourage the existence of a traditional bookmakers, I would offer an tax incentive for those who bet to a low margin and accept large bets in FOBT-less shops. At the moment they bet to very big margins and refuse to take many bets. The betting market in the far east is thriving by accepting enormous bets at low margin, and that is something I feel we could tap into. I have many contacts in the bookmaking game, both poacher and gamekeeper so to speak, and could help pack out a detailed policy if you decide to follow it up."
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:.
At least someone is spelling out what the alternatives might be......Hardly REMAIN's job to make them look attractive......
Bring it on. I'd love to be like Canada.
Do Canadians enjoy the Four Freedoms in Europe?
Better not tell the ±2 million Brits who currently do.......
This is also rubbish. They would be unaffected:
"Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve has claimed that: “EU exit would make 2m Britons abroad illegal immigrants overnight.” However, this claim is not grounded in legal fact, as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 would come into play. It contains articles that are based on ‘acquired rights’, which individuals build up over time and hold despite any changes in future treaties enacted by their nation.
Article 70 states that the termination of a treaty “does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.”331 This is qualified further by previous legal pronouncements, as the International Law Commission told the UN in 1959: “Private rights acquired under existing law do not cease on a change of sovereignty”.
Moreover, “acquired rights” were acknowledged in Greenland’s withdrawal from the European Economic Community (EEC). Under the term “vested rights”, the European Commission said that Greenland should retain the “substance” of free movement rights for workers from the EEC at the time of withdrawal."
If it's correct that all citizens retain the rights currently acquired, does that mean that all EU citizens currently alive will retain all free movement rights into the UK? Seems perverse but I can't immediately see why not.
Some people fall for the act and like to publicise Paddy Powers cheeky chappy image... this article reveals the truth
"Concerns about his compulsive gambling were passed up the line to senior managers by betting shop staff, to no avail. One senior employee, in fact, responded to a report that Customer A might be “visiting the shop less frequently” by advising that “steps should be taken to try to increase Customer A’s visits and time spent in the gambling premises”."
@isam - Good stuff. Yes, FOBTs are menace; it's very disturbing to see the number of bookies in very poor areas. They are not there to provide a public service!
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:.
At least someone is spelling out what the alternatives might be......Hardly REMAIN's job to make them look attractive......
Bring it on. I'd love to be like Canada.
Do Canadians enjoy the Four Freedoms in Europe?
Better not tell the ±2 million Brits who currently do.......
This is also rubbish. They would be unaffected:
"Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve has claimed that: “EU exit would make 2m Britons abroad illegal immigrants overnight.” However, this claim is not grounded in legal fact, as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 would come into play. It contains articles that are based on ‘acquired rights’, which individuals build up over time and hold despite any changes in future treaties enacted by their nation.
Article 70 states that the termination of a treaty “does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.”331 This is qualified further by previous legal pronouncements, as the International Law Commission told the UN in 1959: “Private rights acquired under existing law do not cease on a change of sovereignty”.
Moreover, “acquired rights” were acknowledged in Greenland’s withdrawal from the European Economic Community (EEC). Under the term “vested rights”, the European Commission said that Greenland should retain the “substance” of free movement rights for workers from the EEC at the time of withdrawal."
A majority of Britons (55%) say they would be worried about what a vote to leave the EU in the 23rd June referendum may do to the value of the pound.
At the moment, the British public is divided on whether the strength of the pound leading up to and on the day of the referendum will be an important factor in how they will vote in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. More than two in five Britons (43%) say it will be important, while half (49%) say it will not be important.
From the Tory members' survey - we seem to have our heads screwed on, in a general sense.
Which two or three of the following criteria do you think are most important in deciding who should be the next leader of the Conservative party? (the 2 figs are different fieldwork samples, 5-20 Feb and 23-26 Feb)
Someone who would make a competent Prime Minister 69 67 Someone who has the best chance of winning the 2020 election 52 56 Someone who will be able to unite the Conservative party behind them 46 44 Someone who has good policy ideas for the country 45 45 Someone who will broadly continue the direction and policies of David Cameron 19 19 Someone who campaigned to leave the EU in the referendum 19 20 Someone who will be a clear change from the direction and policies of David Cameron 5 3 Someone who campaigned to remain in the EU in the referendum 4 4
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
I don't know what others think, but it's not obvious to me that Canada, Norway, Switzerland are worse off than the UK, as a result of not being in the EU. Last time I looked, they all had higher incomes per head than we do.
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:.
At least someone is spelling out what the alternatives might be......Hardly REMAIN's job to make them look attractive......
Bring it on. I'd love to be like Canada.
Do Canadians enjoy the Four Freedoms in Europe?
Better not tell the ±2 million Brits who currently do.......
This is also rubbish. They would be unaffected:
"Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve has claimed that: “EU exit would make 2m Britons abroad illegal immigrants overnight.” However, this claim is not grounded in legal fact, as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 would come into play. It contains articles that are based on ‘acquired rights’, which individuals build up over time and hold despite any changes in future treaties enacted by their nation.
Article 70 states that the termination of a treaty “does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.”331 This is qualified further by previous legal pronouncements, as the International Law Commission told the UN in 1959: “Private rights acquired under existing law do not cease on a change of sovereignty”.
Moreover, “acquired rights” were acknowledged in Greenland’s withdrawal from the European Economic Community (EEC). Under the term “vested rights”, the European Commission said that Greenland should retain the “substance” of free movement rights for workers from the EEC at the time of withdrawal."
If it's correct that all citizens retain the rights currently acquired, does that mean that all EU citizens currently alive will retain all free movement rights into the UK? Seems perverse but I can't immediately see why not.
This is all moot.
obviously Germany are not going to deport 300,000 Britons overnight; nor are they going to be able to stay indefinitely (if they aren't already).
Some people fall for the act and like to publicise Paddy Powers cheeky chappy image... this article reveals the truth
"Concerns about his compulsive gambling were passed up the line to senior managers by betting shop staff, to no avail. One senior employee, in fact, responded to a report that Customer A might be “visiting the shop less frequently” by advising that “steps should be taken to try to increase Customer A’s visits and time spent in the gambling premises”."
I also wrote to Ukip manifesto writers and Carswell as well as Tom Watson w suggestions for policies that would pressurise the bookies to change tack
Very good stuff. Did you hear back from Carswell or Tom W?
Thanks... Actually I must fess up, on re reading my emails, I sent it to Carswell a second time after the GE, asking him to bring it up in the House, and saying I was going to send to Watson but wanted Ukip to get the credit.
He didn't reply and I forgot to send it to Watson...
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
H
B
D.
This is also rubbish. They would be unaffected:
"Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve has claimed that: “EU exit would make 2m Britons abroad illegal immigrants overnight.” However, this claim is not grounded in legal fact, as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 would come into play. It contains articles that are based on ‘acquired rights’, which individuals build up over time and hold despite any changes in future treaties enacted by their nation.
Article 70 states that the termination of a treaty “does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.”331 This is qualified further by previous legal pronouncements, as the International Law Commission told the UN in 1959: “Private rights acquired under existing law do not cease on a change of sovereignty”.
Moreover, “acquired rights” were acknowledged in Greenland’s withdrawal from the European Economic Community (EEC). Under the term “vested rights”, the European Commission said that Greenland should retain the “substance” of free movement rights for workers from the EEC at the time of withdrawal."
So Spain keeps British Pensioners and we keep Polish Plumbers?
But neither new British Pensioners, nor new Polish Plumbers not yet in country would enjoy the Four Freedoms?
You don't think that might get people to move before the two years was up?
I don't think any EU citizen who exercised a treaty right prior to our departure and was resident in the UK, or any UK citizen resident in the EU, would be forced to leave.
This would obviously not be an automatic right for future movements of people following our exit and would be dependent upon the negotiation.
I suspect there will also need to be transitional controls in place to prevent the issue you highlight.
From the Tory members' survey - we seem to have our heads screwed on, in a general sense.
Which two or three of the following criteria do you think are most important in deciding who should be the next leader of the Conservative party? (the 2 figs are different fieldwork samples, 5-20 Feb and 23-26 Feb)
Someone who would make a competent Prime Minister 69 67 Someone who has the best chance of winning the 2020 election 52 56 Someone who will be able to unite the Conservative party behind them 46 44 Someone who has good policy ideas for the country 45 45 Someone who will broadly continue the direction and policies of David Cameron 19 19 Someone who campaigned to leave the EU in the referendum 19 20 Someone who will be a clear change from the direction and policies of David Cameron 5 3 Someone who campaigned to remain in the EU in the referendum 4 4
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
I was aware of it but I think it's going to come as something of a shock to many LEAVERS that Norway & Switzerland pay into the EU budget and have freedom of movement!
But at lower rates, of course.
It's political advertising, but if it wasn't then the ASA would be all over them
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:.
At least someone is spelling out what the alternatives might be......Hardly REMAIN's job to make them look attractive......
Bring it on. I'd love to be like Canada.
Do Canadians enjoy the Four Freedoms in Europe?
Better not tell the ±2 million Brits who currently do.......
This is also rubbish. They would be unaffected:
"Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve has claimed that: “EU exit would make 2m Britons abroad illegal immigrants overnight.” However, this claim is not grounded in legal fact, as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 would come into play. It contains articles that are based on ‘acquired rights’, which individuals build up over time and hold despite any changes in future treaties enacted by their nation.
Article 70 states that the termination of a treaty “does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.”331 This is qualified further by previous legal pronouncements, as the International Law Commission told the UN in 1959: “Private rights acquired under existing law do not cease on a change of sovereignty”.
Moreover, “acquired rights” were acknowledged in Greenland’s withdrawal from the European Economic Community (EEC). ....."
If it's correct that all citizens retain the rights currently acquired, does that mean that all EU citizens currently alive will retain all free movement rights into the UK? Seems perverse but I can't immediately see why not.
This is all moot.
obviously Germany are not going to deport 300,000 Britons overnight; nor are they going to be able to stay indefinitely (if they aren't already).
@isam - Good stuff. Yes, FOBTs are menace; it's very disturbing to see the number of bookies in very poor areas. They are not there to provide a public service!
Cheers Richard.. Yes it would be handy if someone helped Watson in his mission... I was disappointed in Carswell not responding, the UKIP policy team seemed to think it was a good argument. Betting shops are just fences for FOBTs and, as the guardian article points out, forcing bookies to say 'Please Bet Responsibly' is worse than useless
From the Tory members' survey - we seem to have our heads screwed on, in a general sense.
Which two or three of the following criteria do you think are most important in deciding who should be the next leader of the Conservative party? (the 2 figs are different fieldwork samples, 5-20 Feb and 23-26 Feb)
Someone who would make a competent Prime Minister 69 67 Someone who has the best chance of winning the 2020 election 52 56 Someone who will be able to unite the Conservative party behind them 46 44 Someone who has good policy ideas for the country 45 45 Someone who will broadly continue the direction and policies of David Cameron 19 19 Someone who campaigned to leave the EU in the referendum 19 20 Someone who will be a clear change from the direction and policies of David Cameron 5 3 Someone who campaigned to remain in the EU in the referendum 4 4
Some people fall for the act and like to publicise Paddy Powers cheeky chappy image... this article reveals the truth
"Concerns about his compulsive gambling were passed up the line to senior managers by betting shop staff, to no avail. One senior employee, in fact, responded to a report that Customer A might be “visiting the shop less frequently” by advising that “steps should be taken to try to increase Customer A’s visits and time spent in the gambling premises”."
I also wrote to Ukip manifesto writers and Carswell as well as Tom Watson w suggestions for policies that would pressurise the bookies to change tack
Very good stuff. Did you hear back from Carswell or Tom W?
Thanks... Actually I must fess up, on re reading my emails, I sent it to Carswell a second time after the GE, asking him to bring it up in the House, and saying I was going to send to Watson but wanted Ukip to get the credit.
He didn't reply and I forgot to send it to Watson...
I think it is difficult to get some - many? - people to take the notion of responsible or intelligent gambling seriously. They think it's just a way for weak-willed people to set fire to their money and that they shouldn't expect anything other than to be fleeced.
1. Our economy will collapse if we vote Leave; 2. Tourists will be stranded on the Continent, if we vote Leave; 3. British nationals living on the Continent will become illegal immigrants, if we vote Leave;
Was it not the height of irresponsibility to include a Referendum pledge in the last manifesto, and to be holding this Referendum?
Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.
Betfair makes very little sense.
Maybe they think the FBI will do its duty and arrest Hillary.
Betfair doesn' think that either, Biden has gone out to 200s.
This move doesn't make much sense. We are moving into the prime Biden window, as identified by David Herdson. Sanders being well beaten helps Biden, and I don't believe the number of delegates Clinton wins will make any difference to the FBI's conclusions.
As Mike says, it's a long shot. But it feels more like a 12/1 chance than 50/1.
I'd agree with that (obviously, given my weekend piece).
All else being equal, Biden's price ought to remain shortish for another month at least. Sanders did do his chances some good last night in case of Hillary being FBI'd: coming out with four states was some way ahead of his not unrealistic worst-case. All the same, after March 15 Hillary will start pulling away rapidly in the pledged delegate count and he'll be seen to have run his race.
On a related note, Hillary can thank her lucky stars that she won those tight races in Iowa and Nevada. Had she not, we'd be talking about last night as another underwhelming performance and questioning whether she could win outside the South.
Tend to agree but I think defeating Bernie in Massachusetts (the most populous New England state) was significant.
That's true, though whether she would have won without the momentum she actually generated from the early states is another question. She was trailing Bernie in the polls in Massachusetts mid-February.
From the Tory members' survey - we seem to have our heads screwed on, in a general sense.
Which two or three of the following criteria do you think are most important in deciding who should be the next leader of the Conservative party? (the 2 figs are different fieldwork samples, 5-20 Feb and 23-26 Feb)
Someone who would make a competent Prime Minister 69 67 Someone who has the best chance of winning the 2020 election 52 56 Someone who will be able to unite the Conservative party behind them 46 44 Someone who has good policy ideas for the country 45 45 Someone who will broadly continue the direction and policies of David Cameron 19 19 Someone who campaigned to leave the EU in the referendum 19 20 Someone who will be a clear change from the direction and policies of David Cameron 5 3 Someone who campaigned to remain in the EU in the referendum 4 4
(1) My email to UKIP policy people and Carswell... The policy people said it was a big social concern for the working class and it should be something they focussed on/would pass on to Suzanne Evans... Carswell didn't reply
" A problem that particularly affects the working class is the growing number of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) in betting shops. I have worked in the bookmaking industry for nearly twenty years, and in that time there have been a lot of changes. The existence of the betting exchanges, namely Betfair, has meant that the bookie vs punter battle is all but over. Bookmakers are unable to compete with the margins that the exchanges bet to, but what they lose in custom they make up for in wages. As the exchanges are the ultimate guide to the betting market, they no longer have to employ as many odds compilers, they just copy the exchange and add a bit of margin. If the bookmaker is out of line with the exchanges, and punters try to take the bookie price, the bookie stops them betting, or limits them to pennies. To all intents and purposes the high St bookie should be dead. They don't take many bets, and they don't let people bet much.
But they are kept afloat by the FOBTs. These are basically Fruit Machines on crack cocaine. There is no edge for the punter as the machines are programmed to win a certain percentage. It is not about skill, they cannot be beaten. Bookmakers now have as many of these machines as possible in betting shops, and staff I have spoken to have told me they are instructed to teach punters how to play them, and stay open as long as possible even when there is barely any sport to bet on. Labour MP Tom Watson has done a great deal of work on the problems of FOBTs. They are a social menace, causing misery to many who cant afford to lose the money they are, and the anger on the part of the player when they lose is often also distressing for the employee, who is usually working alone late at night. The bookmakers that are applying to open shops in High Streets in poor areas (Newham is a particular example) are only doing so in order to pile these machines into them.
Watson wants some kind of ban on them, Cameron is dithering.
I don't disagree with you, isam. I just doubt the victims of these things would be in any better position, even if FOBT's were banned altogether. Anyone with even the cheapest android smartphone and a debit card now has a FOBT in their pocket.
The problem is ultimately one of compulsion, addiction and personal control. The solution is education, compassion, support and sometimes, medical intervention.
James Lansdale Philip Hammond reveals real aim of today's govt dossier, to "smoke out' the Leave campaign "to put flesh" on its own post Brexit scenario
I disagree, I 'll have to do some maths but I think Sanders looks done actually.
Sanders is "done" to a turn.
Apart from the huge disparity in the delegate count, including Super Delegates, the upcoming states are in the main states where Clinton will rack up big numbers.
[snip].
Do you think?
On Saturday, she'll score big in Louisiana but Sanders ought to be looking at Kansas and Nebraska as places where he could at least be competitive.
Then next Tuesday, Hillary will gain another big win in Mississippi but Maine ought to be a Sanders win and Michigan a state where he's within sight at least.
There's no way he can win overall but he does have a bit of an opportunity this next week to dent her procession towards Philadelphia.
I do.
Sanders is "done" more than a turkey after Thanksgiving.
Sanders will continue to pick off some states but this race is finished. Sanders is failing completely to pick away at Clinton lead with AA and hispanics and she is doing sufficiently well with white voters. States with those sizeable minority demographics will pull in further big wins for Clinton.
Reminds me of 08 after Super Tuesday. Clinton did well but Obama effectively had the race sewn up. Hillary stayed in the race but they both began to pivot toward the general election and she steadily began to throw her support to Obama. Sanders will do the same as the Convention looms.
On that basis, you could say that the race was sown up after Iowa; certainly after Nevada.
Without at least two and preferably (for him) three wins out of the first four for Sanders, Hillary was always going to have unstoppable momentum after Super Tuesday.
On an objective basis, she didn't do very well (against expectations) yesterday.
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
I don't know what others think, but it's not obvious to me that Canada, Norway, Switzerland are worse off than the UK, as a result of not being in the EU. Last time I looked, they all had higher incomes per head than we do.
Is that gdp per capita or individual incomes. The USA for one has high incomes but also great levels of poverty and murder and crime. Cerainly if you look, canada did not rank very well in terms of child poverty a few years ago. I am not sure I go with statistics on this but its said 1 in 7 canadians live in poverty. Canada has a large immigrant population. Canada and norway will of course be affected by commodity prices.
James Lansdale Philip Hammond reveals real aim of today's govt dossier, to "smoke out' the Leave campaign "to put flesh" on its own post Brexit scenario
Of course.
And very sensible too. The Leave side are deliberately obfuscating, because they know they will lose a lot of support once people understand the trade-offs of the various Brexit scenarios. The government, and the Remain side, want people to understand that simultaneously having your cake, eating it, and taking out a mortgage on it, is not an option.
There is nothing to be surprised about here - it is all exactly as predicted,
1. Our economy will collapse if we vote Leave; 2. Tourists will be stranded on the Continent, if we vote Leave; 3. British nationals living on the Continent will become illegal immigrants, if we vote Leave;
Was it not the height of irresponsibility to include a Referendum pledge in the last manifesto, and to be holding this Referendum?
I think the fear card has been played much too early by Remain. They reek of panic.
Apparently leaving would cause economic ruin and put us at serious risk in security terms. Why it was Cameron's policy to hold such a dangerous referendum is not explained. Possibly because he's full of shit.
A majority of Britons (55%) say they would be worried about what a vote to leave the EU in the 23rd June referendum may do to the value of the pound.
At the moment, the British public is divided on whether the strength of the pound leading up to and on the day of the referendum will be an important factor in how they will vote in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. More than two in five Britons (43%) say it will be important, while half (49%) say it will not be important.
If it's close, the pound will tank in the final week.
We'll then see what sort of fibre we're made of.
If I'm right, it'll be the economy that wins it for Remain. This should help
A weaker Pound would be good for the economy. We have a terrible balance of payments picture. It was the tanking Pound that gave us a massive boost after Black Wednesday.
A majority of Britons (55%) say they would be worried about what a vote to leave the EU in the 23rd June referendum may do to the value of the pound.
At the moment, the British public is divided on whether the strength of the pound leading up to and on the day of the referendum will be an important factor in how they will vote in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. More than two in five Britons (43%) say it will be important, while half (49%) say it will not be important.
If it's close, the pound will tank in the final week.
We'll then see what sort of fibre we're made of.
If I'm right, it'll be the economy that wins it for Remain. This should help
A weaker Pound would be good for the economy. We have a terrible balance of payments picture. It was the tanking Pound that gave us a massive boost after Black Wednesday.
I'm not convinced that the value of Sterling has been a major political issue, since we left the ERM.
(1) My email to UKIP policy people and Carswell... The policy people said it was a big social concern for the working class and it should be something they focussed on/would pass on to Suzanne Evans... Carswell didn't reply
" A problem that particularly affects the working class is the growing number of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) in betting shops. I have worked in the bookmaking industry for nearly twenty years, and in that time there have been a lot of changes. The existence of the betting exchanges, namely Betfair, has meant that the bookie vs punter battle is all but over. Bookmakers are unable to compete with the margins that the exchanges bet to, but what they lose in custom they make up for in wages. As the exchanges are the ultimate guide to the betting market, they no longer have to employ as many odds compilers, they just copy the exchange and add a bit of margin. If the bookmaker is out of line with the exchanges, and punters try to take the bookie price, the bookie stops them betting, or limits them to pennies. To all intents and purposes the high St bookie should be dead. They don't take many bets, and they don't let people bet much.
But they are kept afloat by the FOBTs. These are basically Fruit Machines on crack cocaine. There is no edge for the punter as the machines are programmed to win a certain percentage. It is not about skill, they cannot be beaten. Bookmakers now have as many of these machines as possible in betting shops, and staff I have spoken to have told me they are instructed to teach punters how to play them, and stay open as long as possible even when there is barely any sport to bet on. Labour MP Tom Watson has done a great deal of work on the problems of FOBTs. They are a social menace, causing misery to many who cant afford to lose the money they are, and the anger on the part of the player when they lose is often also distressing for the employee, who is usually working alone late at night. The bookmakers that are applying to open shops in High Streets in poor areas (Newham is a particular example) are only doing so in order to pile these machines into them.
Watson wants some kind of ban on them, Cameron is dithering.
I don't disagree with you, isam. I just doubt the victims of these things would be in any better position, even if FOBT's were banned altogether. Anyone with even the cheapest android smartphone and a debit card now has a FOBT in their pocket.
The problem is ultimately one of compulsion, addiction and personal control. The solution is education, compassion, support and sometimes, medical intervention.
Possibly... I suppose I think what would the bookies least like and then do that!
1. Our economy will collapse if we vote Leave; 2. Tourists will be stranded on the Continent, if we vote Leave; 3. British nationals living on the Continent will become illegal immigrants, if we vote Leave;
Was it not the height of irresponsibility to include a Referendum pledge in the last manifesto, and to be holding this Referendum?
Doesn't that come down to: is it irresponsible for a Government to call a referendum when it strongly recommends the status quo?
I don't think the answer to that is yes. If the issue is a major one on which public opinion has been divided over a long period, I don't think it's irresponsible to put it to a vote (and then campaign hard for what you, the Government, think is the right answer). You have to balance what you think will be the negative effects of getting the "wrong" result vs the disillusionment that will result from denying people a voice.
On the EU question I strongly favour Remain but I am glad that we are holding a referendum which Leave could very well win. I wish we had had this vote before now - over Lisbon certainly. It does no good to run away from the ballot box in a society in which that is the only source of political legitimacy.
Apparently leaving would cause economic ruin and put us at serious risk in security terms. Why it was Cameron's policy to hold such a dangerous referendum is not explained. Possibly because he's full of shit.
Sure, it would be like holding a referendum on abolishing the armed forces.
The clear conclusion to draw is that Cameron & Co. don't actually believe the claims that they're making.
Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
I was aware of it but I think it's going to come as something of a shock to many LEAVERS that Norway & Switzerland pay into the EU budget and have freedom of movement!
But at lower rates, of course.
It's political advertising, but if it wasn't then the ASA would be all over them
Charles, it's a bit like the different types of freedom of movement/labour, it is too nuanced for most of the electorate.
It is true that Norway/Switzerland pay lest the EU but it's the fact that is they pay and LEAVE won't be able to tell us how much the UK will be charged
I disagree, I 'll have to do some maths but I think Sanders looks done actually.
Sanders is "done" to a turn.
Apart from the huge disparity in the delegate count, including Super Delegates, the upcoming states are in the main states where Clinton will rack up big numbers.
[snip].
Do you think?
On Saturday, she'll score big in Louisiana but Sanders ought to be looking at Kansas and Nebraska as places where he could at least be competitive.
Then next Tuesday, Hillary will gain another big win in Mississippi but Maine ought to be a Sanders win and Michigan a state where he's within sight at least.
There's no way he can win overall but he does have a bit of an opportunity this next week to dent her procession towards Philadelphia.
I do.
Sanders is "done" more than a turkey after Thanksgiving.
Sanders will continue to pick off some states but this race is finished. Sanders is failing completely to pick away at Clinton lead with AA and hispanics and she is doing sufficiently well with white voters. States with those sizeable minority demographics will pull in further big wins for Clinton.
Reminds me of 08 after Super Tuesday. Clinton did well but Obama effectively had the race sewn up. Hillary stayed in the race but they both began to pivot toward the general election and she steadily began to throw her support to Obama. Sanders will do the same as the Convention looms.
On that basis, you could say that the race was sown up after Iowa; certainly after Nevada.
Without at least two and preferably (for him) three wins out of the first four for Sanders, Hillary was always going to have unstoppable momentum after Super Tuesday.
On an objective basis, she didn't do very well (against expectations) yesterday.
Effectively it was clear as soon as minority voters came out in the 80/20 range for Clinton over Sanders that he had no clear path to the nomination especially as Clinton was performing well enough with whites.
Hillary did well enough last night, especially with the win in Massachusetts. Sanders slightly better than expected but we're talking small beer compared to the overall nature of the Dem race.
According to CNN Clinton has 1055 delegates to Sanders 418. Game over .... and long ago.
A majority of Britons (55%) say they would be worried about what a vote to leave the EU in the 23rd June referendum may do to the value of the pound.
At the moment, the British public is divided on whether the strength of the pound leading up to and on the day of the referendum will be an important factor in how they will vote in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. More than two in five Britons (43%) say it will be important, while half (49%) say it will not be important.
If it's close, the pound will tank in the final week.
We'll then see what sort of fibre we're made of.
If I'm right, it'll be the economy that wins it for Remain. This should help
A weaker Pound would be good for the economy. We have a terrible balance of payments picture. It was the tanking Pound that gave us a massive boost after Black Wednesday.
I'm not convinced that the value of Sterling has been a major political issue, since we left the ERM.
No....but a huge balance of payments / trade deficit is as unsustainable as a huge budget deficit. Osborne has made a lot of noise about the latter and none whatever about the former. The consequences of not resolving it wil lend up in the 'real world' of voters at some point. A Brexit would be tremendously helpful - that's all I'm saying.
A couple of small, noteworthy pieces from the Comres Currency poll.
In the over 55 age group, there is a 40:60 gender distortion in telephone response rate. Women answer, (grumpy?) older men don't. Perhaps a clue to telephone polling outcomes?
The 'worrieds' are the usual Labour/SNP demographic - London/Scotland, low paid or students.
Apparently leaving would cause economic ruin and put us at serious risk in security terms. Why it was Cameron's policy to hold such a dangerous referendum is not explained. Possibly because he's full of shit.
And it was pointed out that the EZ had changed things. Now we know that the EU is not a single currency area and that we are not part of ever closer union.
A majority of Britons (55%) say they would be worried about what a vote to leave the EU in the 23rd June referendum may do to the value of the pound.
At the moment, the British public is divided on whether the strength of the pound leading up to and on the day of the referendum will be an important factor in how they will vote in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. More than two in five Britons (43%) say it will be important, while half (49%) say it will not be important.
If it's close, the pound will tank in the final week.
We'll then see what sort of fibre we're made of.
If I'm right, it'll be the economy that wins it for Remain. This should help
A weaker Pound would be good for the economy. We have a terrible balance of payments picture. It was the tanking Pound that gave us a massive boost after Black Wednesday.
I'm not convinced that the value of Sterling has been a major political issue, since we left the ERM.
It's pretty salient as another "common sense" issue (i.e. not actual common sense at all but misleadingly portrayed as such) along with house prices: the Mail tells us we're rich because our houses are worth more and our currency is strong. Of course the fact that being able to do equity release and go on cheaper holidays doesn't compensate for the downside of being unable to afford houses or export goods and services competitively tends to get missed out there.
Clinton wins Alabama 77.8 - sanders 19.2% - Other 3%, and the delegates are shown assigned as 37 vs 4. But that only adds to 41, there are 53 pledged delegates from the state.
Are the remaining 12 proportional, or by district or what ?
1. Our economy will collapse if we vote Leave; 2. Tourists will be stranded on the Continent, if we vote Leave; 3. British nationals living on the Continent will become illegal immigrants, if we vote Leave;
Was it not the height of irresponsibility to include a Referendum pledge in the last manifesto, and to be holding this Referendum?
Doesn't that come down to: is it irresponsible for a Government to call a referendum when it strongly recommends the status quo?
I don't think the answer to that is yes. If the issue is a major one on which public opinion has been divided over a long period, I don't think it's irresponsible to put it to a vote (and then campaign hard for what you, the Government, think is the right answer). You have to balance what you think will be the negative effects of getting the "wrong" result vs the disillusionment that will result from denying people a voice.
On the EU question I strongly favour Remain but I am glad that we are holding a referendum which Leave could very well win. I wish we had had this vote before now - over Lisbon certainly. It does no good to run away from the ballot box in a society in which that is the only source of political legitimacy.
It's irresponsible to call it, if you genuinely believe that the outcome could be disastrous.
If we had the sort of constitution, whereby a certain number of signatures could force the government to hold a referendum, then that would be a different matter. But, this is a voluntary act on the government's part.
Apparently leaving would cause economic ruin and put us at serious risk in security terms. Why it was Cameron's policy to hold such a dangerous referendum is not explained. Possibly because he's full of shit.
Sure, it would be like holding a referendum on abolishing the armed forces.
The clear conclusion to draw is that Cameron & Co. don't actually believe the claims that they're making.
I don't quite follow your logic there. A sizeable number of voters, including your party, have been calling for a referendum for years, indeed laying into Cameron for not providing one earlier despite the fact that he couldn't.
No-one is campaigning for a referendum on abolishing the armed forces.
LOL. 10 our of 10 to BSE for bare faced audacity I suppose the message from that poster is that if you are going to lie then lie big.
Utter bollocks would be too polite a way to describe their claims.
Actually that's a very fair summary of the four options.
Bollocks.
More specificity might be more persuasive.......
You can make similar claims of *every* country in the world.
Yes, but not 'every country in the world' is holding a referendum in June on leaving the EU - only this one is.
And if LEAVE can't - or won't - paint a picture of what LEAVE might look like, they can hardly complain when someone else does......
They can if it's a blatant lie.
The SNP tried 'THEY'RE LYING!!!!' over the currency question - its not enormously persuasive, it makes you sound a wee bit fanatical.....and of course does invite the immediate 'so what's your proposal, then?'
Apparently leaving would cause economic ruin and put us at serious risk in security terms. Why it was Cameron's policy to hold such a dangerous referendum is not explained. Possibly because he's full of shit.
Sure, it would be like holding a referendum on abolishing the armed forces.
The clear conclusion to draw is that Cameron & Co. don't actually believe the claims that they're making.
I don't quite follow your logic there. A sizeable number of voters, including your party, have been calling for a referendum for years, indeed laying into Cameron for not providing one earlier despite the fact that he couldn't.
No-one is campaigning for a referendum on abolishing the armed forces.
I'm quite happy for there to be a referendum, as I don't believe that the predictions of doom and disaster amount to a hill of beans.
A. Neill "You would risk all that and soddom & gomorrah..." "EFTA Secretariat has 9% of EU laws adopted by Norway so where does the 75% claim from the FO come from?"
Neil "How many EU laws does Switzerland write in? Hancock = dont know. Neil = its zero Nurse please save Matt Hancock.
I'm quite happy for there to be a referendum, as I don't believe that the predictions of doom and disaster amount to a hill of beans.
Fair enough, there's a disagreement on that. Cameron is doing exactly what he said he would, giving people the choice, and arguing his case. Good for him, on both counts.
Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.
The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.
The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.
Mr. Nabavi, the point is that some in the Remain campaign, such as the PM, are stating the Leave option is tantamount to economic suicide and would leave us dangerously exposed to terrorism and the Black Death. If it's that bad, why's he even giving us the option? Parents don't ask their children if they'd like cheese, ham, or razorblades in their sandwiches.
On an objective basis, she didn't do very well (against expectations) yesterday.
Are you sure ?
I had her estimated at around a 200 delegate lead yesterday in my model (I'm excluding supers) and it looks like she'll get around that.
Depends on how you look at it. By delegates, yes, she's broadly in line - though with a PRish distribution then it takes a lot to knock a candidate too far from predictions. By states won, there was a lot of speculation about locking Bernie out of everywhere but Vermont.
Now, it's a completely fair point that the nomination has little to do with states won up (until they become WTA and even then only as a kind of proxy). However, that's not necessarily how it's reported in the media and on that basis the day goes down as a bit meh.
"Vote Leave said it was confident it would emerge with more Labour MPs than the opposition and with the designation.
It has also held on to the support of the eight Democratic Unionist MPs despite attempts by Mr Banks to lure the party into the Grassroots Out camp.
The FT has established that Mr Field, Mr Mahmood, Mr Godsiff and Ms Stuart are set to join Vote Leave. Mr Stringer has stayed on board, along with John Mills, a Labour donor."
Clinton wins Alabama 77.8 - sanders 19.2% - Other 3%, and the delegates are shown assigned as 37 vs 4. But that only adds to 41, there are 53 pledged delegates from the state.
Are the remaining 12 proportional, or by district or what ?
According to Frontloader there are:
11 At large delegates 7 PLEO delagates 35 District 7 super delegates
Somewhere in there may be the answer! Highly complicated.
On an objective basis, she didn't do very well (against expectations) yesterday.
Are you sure ?
I had her estimated at around a 200 delegate lead yesterday in my model (I'm excluding supers) and it looks like she'll get around that.
Depends on how you look at it. By delegates, yes, she's broadly in line - though with a PRish distribution then it takes a lot to knock a candidate too far from predictions. By states won, there was a lot of speculation about locking Bernie out of everywhere but Vermont.
Now, it's a completely fair point that the nomination has little to do with states won up (until they become WTA and even then only as a kind of proxy). However, that's not necessarily how it's reported in the media and on that basis the day goes down as a bit meh.
I thought the DEM race was proportional all the way through, meaning Sanders' hole is bigger than it appears (No chance of a 450 delegate California size lump to fill it in with). (I'm excluding supers).
Comments
No surprise Trump does poorly in Northern Virginia given he is running against DC corruption. Even now polls show Florida isn't even close between Trump and Hillary. Still think Kobach as VP would give Trump the boost he needs in the Midwest and with evangelicals, fantastically smart and could best Corey Booker in any debate.
Just watched Trump's press conference, very impressive.
All else being equal, Biden's price ought to remain shortish for another month at least. Sanders did do his chances some good last night in case of Hillary being FBI'd: coming out with four states was some way ahead of his not unrealistic worst-case. All the same, after March 15 Hillary will start pulling away rapidly in the pledged delegate count and he'll be seen to have run his race.
On a related note, Hillary can thank her lucky stars that she won those tight races in Iowa and Nevada. Had she not, we'd be talking about last night as another underwhelming performance and questioning whether she could win outside the South.
What they really need is a good "hope" story with just the right amount of patriotism, Bold, Free Trading Nation etc etc.
Sanders is "done" more than a turkey after Thanksgiving.
Sanders will continue to pick off some states but this race is finished. Sanders is failing completely to pick away at Clinton lead with AA and hispanics and she is doing sufficiently well with white voters. States with those sizeable minority demographics will pull in further big wins for Clinton.
Reminds me of 08 after Super Tuesday. Clinton did well but Obama effectively had the race sewn up. Hillary stayed in the race but they both began to pivot toward the general election and she steadily began to throw her support to Obama. Sanders will do the same as the Convention looms.
OK then we'll wait and see what the effect on their trade agreements are when they remove it and how long the negotiations take. I'm sure the UK would vote against freedom of movement if there were no consequences. but it doesn't work like that.
I'm sorry but however you spin it I think it will be pretty damning for many LEAVERS when they understand that once they BREXIT they will almost certainly be paying into the EU budget and still have freedom of movement. Up to now LEAVE has had a pretty clear run in having many of its assertions go unchallenged and I suspect many voters will have taken those assertions as gospel and will be in for a bit of a shock
This is how much I love the Scots
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/704981929951678464
Switzerland is in Schengen.
Better not tell the ±2 million Brits who currently do.......
Laugh all you like. The rest of us are laughing at you not with you.
Thanks I think that was him. Comedy Gold
"Concerns about his compulsive gambling were passed up the line to senior managers by betting shop staff, to no avail. One senior employee, in fact, responded to a report that Customer A might be “visiting the shop less frequently” by advising that “steps should be taken to try to increase Customer A’s visits and time spent in the gambling premises”."
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/mar/01/paddy-power-case-highlights-scourge-fixed-odds-betting-terminals?CMP=share_btn_tw
I wrote a couple of articles on my blog on the absurd "gamble responsibly" line and the facade that is sports betting a year or so ago
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/luis-louis-ladbrokes-life.html?m=1
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/you-dont-have-to-be-hypocritical-coward.html?m=1
I also wrote to Ukip manifesto writers and Carswell as well as Tom Watson w suggestions for policies that would pressurise the bookies to change tack
Sorry, channeling my inner Cromwell there.
You can make similar claims of *every* country in the world.
The highly misleading implication is clearly to highlight it'd be a "disaster" if the UK left the EU and adopted it.
If that's true, then every country in the world is a disaster that isn't in the EU, and every country should, therefore, join it.
So it's bollocks.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/02/alternatives-to-eu-membership-government-dossier-key-points?CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics
Though the Grauniad only summarises four.....
Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.
The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.
"Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve has claimed that: “EU exit would make 2m Britons abroad illegal immigrants overnight.” However, this claim is not grounded in legal fact, as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 would come into play. It contains articles that are based on ‘acquired rights’, which individuals build up over time and hold despite any
changes in future treaties enacted by their nation.
Article 70 states that the termination of a treaty “does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.”331 This is qualified further by previous legal pronouncements, as the International Law Commission told the UN in 1959: “Private rights acquired under existing
law do not cease on a change of sovereignty”.
Moreover, “acquired rights” were acknowledged in Greenland’s withdrawal from the European Economic Community (EEC). Under the term “vested rights”, the European Commission said that Greenland should retain the “substance” of free movement rights for workers from the EEC at the time of withdrawal."
http://forbritain.org/cogchapter12.pdf
" A problem that particularly affects the working class is the growing number of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) in betting shops. I have worked in the bookmaking industry for nearly twenty years, and in that time there have been a lot of changes. The existence of the betting exchanges, namely Betfair, has meant that the bookie vs punter battle is all but over. Bookmakers are unable to compete with the margins that the exchanges bet to, but what they lose in custom they make up for in wages. As the exchanges are the ultimate guide to the betting market, they no longer have to employ as many odds compilers, they just copy the exchange and add a bit of margin. If the bookmaker is out of line with the exchanges, and punters try to take the bookie price, the bookie stops them betting, or limits them to pennies. To all intents and purposes the high St bookie should be dead. They don't take many bets, and they don't let people bet much.
But they are kept afloat by the FOBTs. These are basically Fruit Machines on crack cocaine. There is no edge for the punter as the machines are programmed to win a certain percentage. It is not about skill, they cannot be beaten. Bookmakers now have as many of these machines as possible in betting shops, and staff I have spoken to have told me they are instructed to teach punters how to play them, and stay open as long as possible even when there is barely any sport to bet on. Labour MP Tom Watson has done a great deal of work on the problems of FOBTs. They are a social menace, causing misery to many who cant afford to lose the money they are, and the anger on the part of the player when they lose is often also distressing for the employee, who is usually working alone late at night. The bookmakers that are applying to open shops in High Streets in poor areas (Newham is a particular example) are only doing so in order to pile these machines into them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-watson-mp/tom-watson-gambling-machines_b_4108634.html
Watson wants some kind of ban on them, Cameron is dithering.
At the moment, the British public is divided on whether the strength of the pound leading up to and on the day of the referendum will be an important factor in how they will vote in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. More than two in five Britons (43%) say it will be important, while half (49%) say it will not be important.
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/fxcompared-survey-on-the-impact-of-the-eu-referendum-on-the-british-pound/
Your second point is valid.
And if LEAVE can't - or won't - paint a picture of what LEAVE might look like, they can hardly complain when someone else does......
Sanders isn't seen as loony tune within the party but as a rather endearing semi-detached Democrat fellow traveller. There is no animus toward Sanders in complete contrast to the GOP race.
Im baffled as to why anyone would vote for Cruz!!
What are his policies? Shutting down the government??
Man is a complete headbanger and seriously creepy.
We'll then see what sort of fibre we're made of.
Because they cannot be beaten, the bookies let anybody have anything they like in these machines
To encourage the existence of a traditional bookmakers, I would offer an tax incentive for those who bet to a low margin and accept large bets in FOBT-less shops. At the moment they bet to very big margins and refuse to take many bets. The betting market in the far east is thriving by accepting enormous bets at low margin, and that is something I feel we could tap into. I have many contacts in the bookmaking game, both poacher and gamekeeper so to speak, and could help pack out a detailed policy if you decide to follow it up."
Looks like today's early favourite in the Four Horsemen/Plagues of Egypt show.
Really embarrassing stuff.
Edit: seen your further posts
But neither new British Pensioners, nor new Polish Plumbers not yet in country would enjoy the Four Freedoms?
You don't think that might get people to move before the two years was up?
Which two or three of the following criteria do you think are most important in deciding who should be the next leader of the Conservative party? (the 2 figs are different fieldwork samples, 5-20 Feb and 23-26 Feb)
Someone who would make a competent Prime Minister 69 67
Someone who has the best chance of winning the 2020 election 52 56
Someone who will be able to unite the Conservative party behind them 46 44
Someone who has good policy ideas for the country 45 45
Someone who will broadly continue the direction and policies of David Cameron 19 19
Someone who campaigned to leave the EU in the referendum 19 20
Someone who will be a clear change from the direction and policies of David Cameron 5 3
Someone who campaigned to remain in the EU in the referendum 4 4
obviously Germany are not going to deport 300,000 Britons overnight; nor are they going to be able to stay indefinitely (if they aren't already).
He didn't reply and I forgot to send it to Watson...
This would obviously not be an automatic right for future movements of people following our exit and would be dependent upon the negotiation.
I suspect there will also need to be transitional controls in place to prevent the issue you highlight.
Right, must dash- the day beckons.
It's political advertising, but if it wasn't then the ASA would be all over them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#Foreign_nationals_in_Germany
I find this a bit troubling.
1. Our economy will collapse if we vote Leave;
2. Tourists will be stranded on the Continent, if we vote Leave;
3. British nationals living on the Continent will become illegal immigrants, if we vote Leave;
Was it not the height of irresponsibility to include a Referendum pledge in the last manifesto, and to be holding this Referendum?
Not that it matters now.
The problem is ultimately one of compulsion, addiction and personal control. The solution is education, compassion, support and sometimes, medical intervention.
Glad I didn't lay Hillary at Evens as suggested here.
Philip Hammond reveals real aim of today's govt dossier, to "smoke out' the Leave campaign "to put flesh" on its own post Brexit scenario
Without at least two and preferably (for him) three wins out of the first four for Sanders, Hillary was always going to have unstoppable momentum after Super Tuesday.
On an objective basis, she didn't do very well (against expectations) yesterday.
The USA for one has high incomes but also great levels of poverty and murder and crime. Cerainly if you look, canada did not rank very well in terms of child poverty a few years ago. I am not sure I go with statistics on this but its said 1 in 7 canadians live in poverty. Canada has a large immigrant population.
Canada and norway will of course be affected by commodity prices.
Total votes across Super Tuesday
Clinton —— 3.3 million
Trump —— 2.8 million
Cruz —— 2.3 million
Sanders - 2.0 million
Rubio - 1.8 million
And very sensible too. The Leave side are deliberately obfuscating, because they know they will lose a lot of support once people understand the trade-offs of the various Brexit scenarios. The government, and the Remain side, want people to understand that simultaneously having your cake, eating it, and taking out a mortgage on it, is not an option.
There is nothing to be surprised about here - it is all exactly as predicted,
I had her estimated at around a 200 delegate lead yesterday in my model (I'm excluding supers) and it looks like she'll get around that.
Apparently leaving would cause economic ruin and put us at serious risk in security terms. Why it was Cameron's policy to hold such a dangerous referendum is not explained. Possibly because he's full of shit.
I don't think the answer to that is yes. If the issue is a major one on which public opinion has been divided over a long period, I don't think it's irresponsible to put it to a vote (and then campaign hard for what you, the Government, think is the right answer). You have to balance what you think will be the negative effects of getting the "wrong" result vs the disillusionment that will result from denying people a voice.
On the EU question I strongly favour Remain but I am glad that we are holding a referendum which Leave could very well win. I wish we had had this vote before now - over Lisbon certainly. It does no good to run away from the ballot box in a society in which that is the only source of political legitimacy.
The clear conclusion to draw is that Cameron & Co. don't actually believe the claims that they're making.
It is true that Norway/Switzerland pay lest the EU but it's the fact that is they pay and LEAVE won't be able to tell us how much the UK will be charged
Hillary did well enough last night, especially with the win in Massachusetts. Sanders slightly better than expected but we're talking small beer compared to the overall nature of the Dem race.
According to CNN Clinton has 1055 delegates to Sanders 418. Game over .... and long ago.
In the over 55 age group, there is a 40:60 gender distortion in telephone response rate. Women answer, (grumpy?) older men don't. Perhaps a clue to telephone polling outcomes?
The 'worrieds' are the usual Labour/SNP demographic - London/Scotland, low paid or students.
Are the remaining 12 proportional, or by district or what ?
If we had the sort of constitution, whereby a certain number of signatures could force the government to hold a referendum, then that would be a different matter. But, this is a voluntary act on the government's part.
No-one is campaigning for a referendum on abolishing the armed forces.
"EFTA Secretariat has 9% of EU laws adopted by Norway so where does the 75% claim from the FO come from?"
Neil "How many EU laws does Switzerland write in? Hancock = dont know. Neil = its zero
Nurse please save Matt Hancock.
The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.
Now, it's a completely fair point that the nomination has little to do with states won up (until they become WTA and even then only as a kind of proxy). However, that's not necessarily how it's reported in the media and on that basis the day goes down as a bit meh.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5c9934d2-dbbd-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html#axzz41kDRXrat
"Vote Leave said it was confident it would emerge with more Labour MPs than the opposition and with the designation.
It has also held on to the support of the eight Democratic Unionist MPs despite attempts by Mr Banks to lure the party into the Grassroots Out camp.
The FT has established that Mr Field, Mr Mahmood, Mr Godsiff and Ms Stuart are set to join Vote Leave. Mr Stringer has stayed on board, along with John Mills, a Labour donor."
11 At large delegates
7 PLEO delagates
35 District
7 super delegates
Somewhere in there may be the answer! Highly complicated.
http://frontloading.blogspot.co.uk/p/2016-democratic-delegate-allocation.html