Very interesting analysis just out from Peter Kellner on the difference between outers and inners.
The inners are younger, urban, better educated, and richer than the outers who are older, provincial, dimmer and poorer.
But the big difference is:
"We listed ten possible causes of our economic problems and asked people to say which two or three they blame most. The top three picked by the “in” voters are completely different from the three picked by “out” voters:
For “in” voters, the top three are: British banks, the Conservative-led government since 2010 and growing inequality.
For “out” voters they are: EU rules and regulations, immigrants willing to work for low wages and the last Labour government. "
If it is narrow victory for Brexit, I don't think the younger, better educated ABC1s will take it lying down. Nor the Scots, Welsh and Irish. There will be all sorts of legal challenges, reinterpretations of what it means etc. Not quite civil war but brutal and effective.
However I still believe that REMAIN will win easily. I think REMAIN will be more professional and effective and have loads more money than the various BREXIT factions. So far I have received two excellently produced leaflets from REMAIN and none from BREXIT. I have also signed up to help the REMAIN campaign with leafletting, telephone canvassing and data entry. So bring it on.
Sam Coates There is unconfirmed talk of Jeremy Hunt to Commons Leader post referendum to help with Tory reunification - Tory source
Hmm. Hunt seems to have caused all the problems with Health that Gove did with Education without any of the success.
Also he's an EU welcher.
Hunt's got the contract through. It wasn't pretty how he did it, but he hasn't buckled like a Bojo certainly would in that position.
We haven’t seen how many are going to sign up in June/July though. Empty junior posts in August because those who “should” have filled them have gone elsewhere will bring problems.
Just as well not to let those who don't have the right outlook for the job get in the way of those that do. I assume they would be the more mercenary, who would leave for greener pastures anyway.
Why would we want them without an ethos that is compatible with a Health Service.
Well you want Hunt in charge of the NHS , a man with an ethos that is not compatible with a Health Service .
I actually don't give a monkeys about the NHS./blockquote>
Unfortunately , all too typical of the Conservative attitude to the NHS and the majority of the public know it which is why their support for the junior doctors has increased since the dispute started .
Unfortunately it is all too typical of the LibDem attitude to the truth to deliberately misrepresent their opponents.
What @philiph was saying was that the function is more important than the form: what matters is high quality, taxpayer funded, health care provision on a universal basis and in a cost effective manner. The precise legal mechanism doesn't matter nearly as much
I must have learnt my lesson from you Leavers on here .
Interesting.
Your response to being called out is to smear your opponents.
Old school. Kudos for that.
Charles, thank you for explaining my meaning concisely eloquently and clearly than I managed.
Just as an aside, I have noticed on The Times website that they have over 400,000 members. I would estimate an annual ASP of £80 once you take into account discounted memberships for new signups and students. That would yield digital revenue of over £30m before taking into account advertising money.
If anyone, Alan Rusbridger, now doubts the success of the paywall they are kidding themselves. Since I became a subscriber I have noticed the difference in quality compared to other newspapers, the Telegraph and Guardian have nowhere near the quality and depth of recording compared to The Times.
Very interesting analysis just out from Peter Kellner on the difference between outers and inners.
The inners are younger, urban, better educated, and richer than the outers who are older, provincial, dimmer and poorer.
But the big difference is:
"We listed ten possible causes of our economic problems and asked people to say which two or three they blame most. The top three picked by the “in” voters are completely different from the three picked by “out” voters:
For “in” voters, the top three are: British banks, the Conservative-led government since 2010 and growing inequality.
For “out” voters they are: EU rules and regulations, immigrants willing to work for low wages and the last Labour government. "
If it is narrow victory for Brexit, I don't think the younger, better educated ABC1s will take it lying down. Nor the Scots, Welsh and Irish. There will be all sorts of legal challenges, reinterpretations of what it means etc. Not quite civil war but brutal and effective.
However I still believe that REMAIN will win easily. I think REMAIN will be more professional and effective and have loads more money than the various BREXIT factions. So far I have received two excellently produced leaflets from REMAIN and none from BREXIT. I have also signed up to help the REMAIN campaign with leafletting, telephone canvassing and data entry. So bring it on.
He's objective then.
For plenty of urbane Leftists the EU is just as important a totem for them as it for Leavers who are desperate to leave it.
Just as an aside, I have noticed on The Times website that they have over 400,000 members. I would estimate an annual ASP of £80 once you take into account discounted memberships for new signups and students. That would yield digital revenue of over £30m before taking into account advertising money.
If anyone, Alan Rusbridger, now doubts the success of the paywall they are kidding themselves. Since I became a subscriber I have noticed the difference in quality compared to other newspapers, the Telegraph and Guardian have nowhere near the quality and depth of recording compared to The Times.
That is very impressive, especially given there is no freemium component to that. It is pay or basically nothing, unlike many digital services who inflate their number by including all those non-paying members who get a restricted service.
What Stephen Fisher says doesn't apply to the EURef. He's taking an average too far. You've got to look at the reason for the tendency he identifies.
Some people vote for the status quo not because they love it, but because they associate the proposed change with politicians trying to get one over on them.
One example was the AV referendum, correctly perceived as the LibDems promoting a change that would benefit only LibDems. The main voters in favour were LibDem voters and some dons at Oxford and Cambridge who thought they knew best about how the popular will should be expressed.
The NZ flag vote was another. There wasn't much popular feeling in favour of changing the flag. Some people acknowledged that on paper there were strong arguments for change, even if their guts told them this was a bunch of politicians doing the usual. So they told pollsters "yeah yeah, new flag - good idea, mate". When they got to the polling booth, they voted "sensible".
The absolutely classic example is the Australian monarchy referendum of 1999. The vast majority were opposed to the monarchy. But the monarchy won a majority. How did that happen?
It happened because the question on the ballot wasn't "Should Australia abolish the monarchy?" Voters were asked whether they supported a specific republican plan which was widely criticised as giving politicians too much power over the choice of the head of state. You couldn't imagine a republican campaign that was more to the liking of the monarchists. The monarch herself and her family were held to be above criticism. Pathetic! No monarchy has ever fallen unless the monarch has been reviled. Charles I was tried for treason and murder. Marie Antoinette was accused of having sex with her own children. In Russia there were Bloody Sunday and the Odessa steps. In Italy, Victor Emmanuel's fancy footwork couldn't get round his decades-long support for fascism. In Australia, the republican side completely messed it up. You don't get rid of the monarchy by saying "We love our queen, but we've got a great plan for you. Let's allow politicians to pick the head of state. We've worked out the details and they're great." Come voting day, people were motivated by their dislike of politicians more than their dislike of the monarchy.
In Britain in 2016, many people see the EUref as their chance to have their say on an issue - immigration - that politicians for many years have allowed to fester. It's LEAVE that has the anti-politician ticket.
Most people don't like politicians, but usually vote in GEs. The politicians have been ignoring people's concerns about immigration for decades, right? Sock it to 'em. Politicians have also been calling for or half-promising a referendum for years. Why haven't they held one? The detailed answer isn't important. The shape of it is that it's because they are a bunch of politicians. Remain need to paint the leaders of Leave as creeps.
Just as an aside, I have noticed on The Times website that they have over 400,000 members. I would estimate an annual ASP of £80 once you take into account discounted memberships for new signups and students. That would yield digital revenue of over £30m before taking into account advertising money.
If anyone, Alan Rusbridger, now doubts the success of the paywall they are kidding themselves. Since I became a subscriber I have noticed the difference in quality compared to other newspapers, the Telegraph and Guardian have nowhere near the quality and depth of recording compared to The Times.
That is very impressive, especially given there is no freemium component to that. It is pay or basically nothing, unlike many digital services who inflate their number by including all those non-paying members who get a restricted service.
Is that 400,000 active subscriptions though or does it include people who have signed up but who have let their membership lapse?
Very interesting analysis just out from Peter Kellner on the difference between outers and inners.
The inners are younger, urban, better educated, and richer than the outers who are older, provincial, dimmer and poorer.
But the big difference is:
"We listed ten possible causes of our economic problems and asked people to say which two or three they blame most. The top three picked by the “in” voters are completely different from the three picked by “out” voters:
For “in” voters, the top three are: British banks, the Conservative-led government since 2010 and growing inequality.
For “out” voters they are: EU rules and regulations, immigrants willing to work for low wages and the last Labour government. "
If it is narrow victory for Brexit, I don't think the younger, better educated ABC1s will take it lying down. Nor the Scots, Welsh and Irish. There will be all sorts of legal challenges, reinterpretations of what it means etc. Not quite civil war but brutal and effective.
However I still believe that REMAIN will win easily. I think REMAIN will be more professional and effective and have loads more money than the various BREXIT factions. So far I have received two excellently produced leaflets from REMAIN and none from BREXIT. I have also signed up to help the REMAIN campaign with leafletting, telephone canvassing and data entry. So bring it on.
He's objective then.
For plenty of urbane Leftists the EU is just as important a totem for them as it for Leavers who are desperate to leave it.
Very interesting analysis just out from Peter Kellner on the difference between outers and inners.
The inners are younger, urban, better educated, and richer than the outers who are older, provincial, dimmer and poorer.
But the big difference is:
"We listed ten possible causes of our economic problems and asked people to say which two or three they blame most. The top three picked by the “in” voters are completely different from the three picked by “out” voters:
For “in” voters, the top three are: British banks, the Conservative-led government since 2010 and growing inequality.
For “out” voters they are: EU rules and regulations, immigrants willing to work for low wages and the last Labour government. "
If it is narrow victory for Brexit, I don't think the younger, better educated ABC1s will take it lying down. Nor the Scots, Welsh and Irish. There will be all sorts of legal challenges, reinterpretations of what it means etc. Not quite civil war but brutal and effective.
However I still believe that REMAIN will win easily. I think REMAIN will be more professional and effective and have loads more money than the various BREXIT factions. So far I have received two excellently produced leaflets from REMAIN and none from BREXIT. I have also signed up to help the REMAIN campaign with leafletting, telephone canvassing and data entry. So bring it on.
He's objective then.
For plenty of urbane Leftists the EU is just as important a totem for them as it for Leavers who are desperate to leave it.
Very interesting analysis just out from Peter Kellner on the difference between outers and inners.
If it is narrow victory for Brexit, I don't think the younger, better educated ABC1s will take it lying down. Nor the Scots, Welsh and Irish. There will be all sorts of legal challenges, reinterpretations of what it means etc. Not quite civil war but brutal and effective
Well the young have taken most things lying down so why not Brexit? I'm not sure it is a massive issue for them generally. That sounds a little menacing though. How will it be challenged? Through money I presume. That I can see but it won't be about the young. The Scots will be to busy planning for a new referendum and as for the Welsh, someone is kidding right?
Kellner ignores the fact that if we vote to leave we'll have 27 other countries packing our bags for us.
If it is narrow victory for Brexit, I don't think the younger, better educated ABC1s will take it lying down. Nor the Scots, Welsh and Irish. There will be all sorts of legal challenges, reinterpretations of what it means etc. Not quite civil war but brutal and effective.
The big difference between staying in and leaving is symbolic.
However I still believe that REMAIN will win easily. I think REMAIN will be more professional and effective and have loads more money than the various BREXIT factions. So far I have received two excellently produced leaflets from REMAIN and none from BREXIT. I have also signed up to help the REMAIN campaign with leafletting, telephone canvassing and data entry. So bring it on.
Most don't care about any of that crap that comes through the door.
Talking of legal challenges, how is the expats' challenge to the EUref franchise going? There was word that it might delay the vote. I took that to be selling the message that the expats, including many British citizens who live elsewhere in the EU, were a bunch of trouble-makers. The answer to which is would their ermine-bedecked lordships mind getting their fingers out.
Just as an aside, I have noticed on The Times website that they have over 400,000 members. I would estimate an annual ASP of £80 once you take into account discounted memberships for new signups and students. That would yield digital revenue of over £30m before taking into account advertising money.
If anyone, Alan Rusbridger, now doubts the success of the paywall they are kidding themselves. Since I became a subscriber I have noticed the difference in quality compared to other newspapers, the Telegraph and Guardian have nowhere near the quality and depth of recording compared to The Times.
That is very impressive, especially given there is no freemium component to that. It is pay or basically nothing, unlike many digital services who inflate their number by including all those non-paying members who get a restricted service.
Is that 400,000 active subscriptions though or does it include people who have signed up but who have let their membership lapse?
Either way, they do seem to be making a go of it.
"400,000 members". To be a member you have to sign up and pay, if you let it lapse you're no longer a member.
Very interesting analysis just out from Peter Kellner on the difference between outers and inners.
If it is narrow victory for Brexit, I don't think the younger, better educated ABC1s will take it lying down. Nor the Scots, Welsh and Irish. There will be all sorts of legal challenges, reinterpretations of what it means etc. Not quite civil war but brutal and effective
Well the young have taken most things lying down so why not Brexit? I'm not sure it is a massive issue for them generally. That sounds a little menacing though. How will it be challenged? Through money I presume. That I can see but it won't be about the young. The Scots will be to busy planning for a new referendum and as for the Welsh, someone is kidding right?
Kellner ignores the fact that if we vote to leave we'll have 27 other countries packing our bags for us.
The legal challenges will be a part of the widespread chaos that will follow a vote for BREXIT.
Very interesting analysis just out from Peter Kellner on the difference between outers and inners.
If it is narrow victory for Brexit, I don't think the younger, better educated ABC1s will take it lying down. Nor the Scots, Welsh and Irish. There will be all sorts of legal challenges, reinterpretations of what it means etc. Not quite civil war but brutal and effective
Well the young have taken most things lying down so why not Brexit? I'm not sure it is a massive issue for them generally. That sounds a little menacing though. How will it be challenged? Through money I presume. That I can see but it won't be about the young. The Scots will be to busy planning for a new referendum and as for the Welsh, someone is kidding right?
Kellner ignores the fact that if we vote to leave we'll have 27 other countries packing our bags for us.
The legal challenges will be a part of the widespread chaos that will follow a vote for BREXIT.
Just as an aside, I have noticed on The Times website that they have over 400,000 members. I would estimate an annual ASP of £80 once you take into account discounted memberships for new signups and students. That would yield digital revenue of over £30m before taking into account advertising money.
If anyone, Alan Rusbridger, now doubts the success of the paywall they are kidding themselves. Since I became a subscriber I have noticed the difference in quality compared to other newspapers, the Telegraph and Guardian have nowhere near the quality and depth of recording compared to The Times.
That is very impressive, especially given there is no freemium component to that. It is pay or basically nothing, unlike many digital services who inflate their number by including all those non-paying members who get a restricted service.
Is that 400,000 active subscriptions though or does it include people who have signed up but who have let their membership lapse?
Either way, they do seem to be making a go of it.
They have very generous promotional offers.
I have a 6 day subscription costing just over £20 a month, for which I have enough Avios points to take me and the girlfriend to Paris and back on Eurostar. Bargain. And the parent gets a daily array of puzzles.
Except for the FT it is probably the best paper at present, the Guardian being as shite poor as ever and the Telegraph having turned into Outraged of the Park Homes Development.
Very interesting analysis just out from Peter Kellner on the difference between outers and inners.
If it is narrow victory for Brexit, I don't think the younger, better educated ABC1s will take it lying down. Nor the Scots, Welsh and Irish. There will be all sorts of legal challenges, reinterpretations of what it means etc. Not quite civil war but brutal and effective
Well the young have taken most things lying down so why not Brexit? I'm not sure it is a massive issue for them generally. That sounds a little menacing though. How will it be challenged? Through money I presume. That I can see but it won't be about the young. The Scots will be to busy planning for a new referendum and as for the Welsh, someone is kidding right?
Kellner ignores the fact that if we vote to leave we'll have 27 other countries packing our bags for us.
The legal challenges will be a part of the widespread chaos that will follow a vote for BREXIT.
Very interesting analysis just out from Peter Kellner on the difference between outers and inners.
The inners are younger, urban, better educated, and richer than the outers who are older, provincial, dimmer and poorer.
But the big difference is:
"We listed ten possible causes of our economic problems and asked people to say which two or three they blame most. The top three picked by the “in” voters are completely different from the three picked by “out” voters:
For “in” voters, the top three are: British banks, the Conservative-led government since 2010 and growing inequality.
For “out” voters they are: EU rules and regulations, immigrants willing to work for low wages and the last Labour government. "
If it is narrow victory for Brexit, I don't think the younger, better educated ABC1s will take it lying down. Nor the Scots, Welsh and Irish. There will be all sorts of legal challenges, reinterpretations of what it means etc. Not quite civil war but brutal and effective.
However I still believe that REMAIN will win easily. I think REMAIN will be more professional and effective and have loads more money than the various BREXIT factions. So far I have received two excellently produced leaflets from REMAIN and none from BREXIT. I have also signed up to help the REMAIN campaign with leafletting, telephone canvassing and data entry. So bring it on.
He's objective then.
For plenty of urbane Leftists the EU is just as important a totem for them as it for Leavers who are desperate to leave it.
The Brussels and Paris terror attacks hinged on a pot-bellied, bearded jihadi guru who goes by the nickname of Papa Noel, or Father Christmas, it emerged on Thursday.
Prosecutors say Khalid Zerkani, 42, dubbed "Belgium's biggest ever jihadi recruiter", had links with Najim Laachraoui, whose DNA on Wednesday betrayed him as the second suicide bomber of the Brussels airport attack - pictured pushing a trolley with one black glove on shortly before the devastating blasts.
Police suspect Laahchraoui of being the bomb maker in both Brussels and Paris. Belgian authorities say Laachraoui travelled to Syria in 2013 to train and recruit other foreign fighters before slipping back into Europe among a wave of migrants last autumn.
Moroccan-born Zerkani is also accredited with recruiting two of the Paris killers - Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the suspected mastermind of the atrocities who was killed in a shootout in Saint Denis, outside Paris, shortly afterwards - and Chakib Akrouh, one of the terrace assailants.
During his trial last year for recruiting jihadists, the court heard that Zerkani earned his "Papa Noel" nickname due to his habit of doling out cash and presents to the wayward youths he recruited as thieves and prospective fighters.
He would send them out, Fagin-style, to target train stations and tourists, stealing luggage, even shoplifting for their cause. The profits, officials say, went to help cover the costs of sending recruits from Europe to the battlefields of Syria and Iraq.
But Mohamed Karim Haddad, whose brother was recruited to fight in Syria, told officials that Zerkani was “a charlatan who manipulates young men or socially awkward men, for the wrong cause and probably for his own business.”
-----
Sounds familiar state of affairs...I just can't quite remember where I have heard similar tales before.
Very interesting analysis just out from Peter Kellner on the difference between outers and inners.
If it is narrow victory for Brexit, I don't think the younger, better educated ABC1s will take it lying down. Nor the Scots, Welsh and Irish. There will be all sorts of legal challenges, reinterpretations of what it means etc. Not quite civil war but brutal and effective
Well the young have taken most things lying down so why not Brexit? I'm not sure it is a massive issue for them generally. That sounds a little menacing though. How will it be challenged? Through money I presume. That I can see but it won't be about the young. The Scots will be to busy planning for a new referendum and as for the Welsh, someone is kidding right?
Kellner ignores the fact that if we vote to leave we'll have 27 other countries packing our bags for us.
Talk of legal challenges is for the birds imo. For a start the referendum itself is non-binding so what are you challenging? It's a political, not legal, fact that the Government would respect the result and (as I have just been saying) Parliament can repeal the 1973 Act if it wants to. That would be via a new piece of primary legislation. What legal challenge is even plausible?
Just as an aside, I have noticed on The Times website that they have over 400,000 members. I would estimate an annual ASP of £80 once you take into account discounted memberships for new signups and students. That would yield digital revenue of over £30m before taking into account advertising money.
If anyone, Alan Rusbridger, now doubts the success of the paywall they are kidding themselves. Since I became a subscriber I have noticed the difference in quality compared to other newspapers, the Telegraph and Guardian have nowhere near the quality and depth of recording compared to The Times.
Very interesting analysis just out from Peter Kellner on the difference between outers and inners.
If it is narrow victory for Brexit, I don't think the younger, better educated ABC1s will take it lying down. Nor the Scots, Welsh and Irish. There will be all sorts of legal challenges, reinterpretations of what it means etc. Not quite civil war but brutal and effective
Well the young have taken most things lying down so why not Brexit? I'm not sure it is a massive issue for them generally. That sounds a little menacing though. How will it be challenged? Through money I presume. That I can see but it won't be about the young. The Scots will be to busy planning for a new referendum and as for the Welsh, someone is kidding right?
Kellner ignores the fact that if we vote to leave we'll have 27 other countries packing our bags for us.
The legal challenges will be a part of the widespread chaos that will follow a vote for BREXIT.
What widespread chaos exactly?
Economic: Immediate drop in financial markets and sterling followed by announcements by various companies of relocating out of UK. Longer term impact on trade, economic growth, jobs etc.
Political: Confusion on what BREXIT means - Norway, Iceland, WTO model. Who decides? Who negotiates? New Tory leader? General Election? Post EU disagreements takes up all political bandwidth to exclusion of health, education, housing, defence etc. Scotland. Northern Ireland.
Very interesting analysis just out from Peter Kellner on the difference between outers and inners.
If it is narrow victory for Brexit, I don't think the younger, better educated ABC1s will take it lying down. Nor the Scots, Welsh and Irish. There will be all sorts of legal challenges, reinterpretations of what it means etc. Not quite civil war but brutal and effective
Well the young have taken most things lying down so why not Brexit? I'm not sure it is a massive issue for them generally. That sounds a little menacing though. How will it be challenged? Through money I presume. That I can see but it won't be about the young. The Scots will be to busy planning for a new referendum and as for the Welsh, someone is kidding right?
Kellner ignores the fact that if we vote to leave we'll have 27 other countries packing our bags for us.
The legal challenges will be a part of the widespread chaos that will follow a vote for BREXIT.
Very interesting analysis just out from Peter Kellner on the difference between outers and inners.
If it is narrow victory for Brexit, I don't think the younger, better educated ABC1s will take it lying down. Nor the Scots, Welsh and Irish. There will be all sorts of legal challenges, reinterpretations of what it means etc. Not quite civil war but brutal and effective
Well the young have taken most things lying down so why not Brexit? I'm not sure it is a massive issue for them generally. That sounds a little menacing though. How will it be challenged? Through money I presume. That I can see but it won't be about the young. The Scots will be to busy planning for a new referendum and as for the Welsh, someone is kidding right?
Kellner ignores the fact that if we vote to leave we'll have 27 other countries packing our bags for us.
The legal challenges will be a part of the widespread chaos that will follow a vote for BREXIT.
What widespread chaos exactly?
You forget that it will be the End of Days. Volcanic eruptions, plagues, floods, monsoons, hurricanes etc etc
It makes quite a bit of sense, I think. The presidency is a write-off this year, so Republicans need to concentrate on damage limitation. That means (a) Trying to avoid making the party even more of a laughing-stock than it currently is, (b) Trying to limit the damage in the gubernatorial and congressional elections, and (c) Thinking ahead to 2020.
Cruz, though far from ideal on any of the three goals, is likely to be less of an unmitigated disaster than Trump.
Comments
If anyone, Alan Rusbridger, now doubts the success of the paywall they are kidding themselves. Since I became a subscriber I have noticed the difference in quality compared to other newspapers, the Telegraph and Guardian have nowhere near the quality and depth of recording compared to The Times.
BBC breaking
Some people vote for the status quo not because they love it, but because they associate the proposed change with politicians trying to get one over on them.
One example was the AV referendum, correctly perceived as the LibDems promoting a change that would benefit only LibDems. The main voters in favour were LibDem voters and some dons at Oxford and Cambridge who thought they knew best about how the popular will should be expressed.
The NZ flag vote was another. There wasn't much popular feeling in favour of changing the flag. Some people acknowledged that on paper there were strong arguments for change, even if their guts told them this was a bunch of politicians doing the usual. So they told pollsters "yeah yeah, new flag - good idea, mate". When they got to the polling booth, they voted "sensible".
The absolutely classic example is the Australian monarchy referendum of 1999. The vast majority were opposed to the monarchy. But the monarchy won a majority. How did that happen?
It happened because the question on the ballot wasn't "Should Australia abolish the monarchy?" Voters were asked whether they supported a specific republican plan which was widely criticised as giving politicians too much power over the choice of the head of state. You couldn't imagine a republican campaign that was more to the liking of the monarchists. The monarch herself and her family were held to be above criticism. Pathetic! No monarchy has ever fallen unless the monarch has been reviled. Charles I was tried for treason and murder. Marie Antoinette was accused of having sex with her own children. In Russia there were Bloody Sunday and the Odessa steps. In Italy, Victor Emmanuel's fancy footwork couldn't get round his decades-long support for fascism. In Australia, the republican side completely messed it up. You don't get rid of the monarchy by saying "We love our queen, but we've got a great plan for you. Let's allow politicians to pick the head of state. We've worked out the details and they're great." Come voting day, people were motivated by their dislike of politicians more than their dislike of the monarchy.
In Britain in 2016, many people see the EUref as their chance to have their say on an issue - immigration - that politicians for many years have allowed to fester. It's LEAVE that has the anti-politician ticket.
Most people don't like politicians, but usually vote in GEs. The politicians have been ignoring people's concerns about immigration for decades, right? Sock it to 'em. Politicians have also been calling for or half-promising a referendum for years. Why haven't they held one? The detailed answer isn't important. The shape of it is that it's because they are a bunch of politicians. Remain need to paint the leaders of Leave as creeps.
Remain +1
Leave +3
DK -4
Is this the first time that Corbyn's approval ratings are better than Cameron's ?
Either way, they do seem to be making a go of it.
Kellner ignores the fact that if we vote to leave we'll have 27 other countries packing our bags for us.
Most don't care about any of that crap that comes through the door.
Talking of legal challenges, how is the expats' challenge to the EUref franchise going? There was word that it might delay the vote. I took that to be selling the message that the expats, including many British citizens who live elsewhere in the EU, were a bunch of trouble-makers. The answer to which is would their ermine-bedecked lordships mind getting their fingers out.
FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF ANY DOUBT
Survation has itRemain 46%
Leave 35%
LOL
I have a 6 day subscription costing just over £20 a month, for which I have enough Avios points to take me and the girlfriend to Paris and back on Eurostar. Bargain. And the parent gets a daily array of puzzles.
Except for the FT it is probably the best paper at present, the Guardian being as
shitepoor as ever and the Telegraph having turned into Outraged of the Park Homes Development.Prosecutors say Khalid Zerkani, 42, dubbed "Belgium's biggest ever jihadi recruiter", had links with Najim Laachraoui, whose DNA on Wednesday betrayed him as the second suicide bomber of the Brussels airport attack - pictured pushing a trolley with one black glove on shortly before the devastating blasts.
Police suspect Laahchraoui of being the bomb maker in both Brussels and Paris. Belgian authorities say Laachraoui travelled to Syria in 2013 to train and recruit other foreign fighters before slipping back into Europe among a wave of migrants last autumn.
Moroccan-born Zerkani is also accredited with recruiting two of the Paris killers - Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the suspected mastermind of the atrocities who was killed in a shootout in Saint Denis, outside Paris, shortly afterwards - and Chakib Akrouh, one of the terrace assailants.
During his trial last year for recruiting jihadists, the court heard that Zerkani earned his "Papa Noel" nickname due to his habit of doling out cash and presents to the wayward youths he recruited as thieves and prospective fighters.
He would send them out, Fagin-style, to target train stations and tourists, stealing luggage, even shoplifting for their cause. The profits, officials say, went to help cover the costs of sending recruits from Europe to the battlefields of Syria and Iraq.
But Mohamed Karim Haddad, whose brother was recruited to fight in Syria, told officials that Zerkani was “a charlatan who manipulates young men or socially awkward men, for the wrong cause and probably for his own business.”
-----
Sounds familiar state of affairs...I just can't quite remember where I have heard similar tales before.
Remain 53%
Leave 36%
DK 11%
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Political: Confusion on what BREXIT means - Norway, Iceland, WTO model. Who decides? Who negotiates? New Tory leader? General Election? Post EU disagreements takes up all political bandwidth to exclusion of health, education, housing, defence etc. Scotland. Northern Ireland.
Legal: Challenges.
Yet more lies from Project Shit-Your-Pants.
Establishment is increasingly prepared to lose with Cruz than hand the party to Trump
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/ted-cruz-republican-establishment-elites-221174
It makes quite a bit of sense, I think. The presidency is a write-off this year, so Republicans need to concentrate on damage limitation. That means (a) Trying to avoid making the party even more of a laughing-stock than it currently is, (b) Trying to limit the damage in the gubernatorial and congressional elections, and (c) Thinking ahead to 2020.
Cruz, though far from ideal on any of the three goals, is likely to be less of an unmitigated disaster than Trump.
Of course, it may be too late anyway.