Watching Cameron take Questions in Birmingham on his remain propaganda,hard to believe the lying shit had any Eurosceptic... How I was taken in by this guy.
...
...
...
...
So far as one can tell, Cameron's standing among the public as a whole has fallen sharply in the past six weeks or so. But, what matters for the purpose of this referendum, is how far he can sway the 38% who voted Conservative, rather than the 62% who didn't. I don't think he's done as well as he might have expected. I think a sizeable number of Conservatives were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and see what he was able to negotiate. but were distinctly unimpressed by the outcome..
How much can Cameron sway the Conservative voters his way? At the start of this referendum period, I suggest he had very large support - probably 80% of Con voters. But as you say he has lost ground which seems to be linked to the more he has used media time pushing the REMAIN arguments. So should he use even more of the media time trying to win back, 1% 2% or 3% of the Conservative vote (of 38%) or give more time for REMAIN Labour to engage with Labour voters to get them to vote REMAIN? Labour start with 2/3 of their voters for REMAIN. It is the Labour REMAIN vote that has been reported as soft and the Labour REMAIN people are getting almost no media time.
There is one possible danger for Labour in filling the airwaves arguing for the EU. That is they do risk reinforcing the message in their core wwc support that they are pro EU and pro immigration. The type of penalty of associating with a view unpopular in large parts of the wwc, immigration. Just as SLAB hurt them selves by their strong backing of the union. Another example is that Clegg tried to shore up the LD vote in the 2014 EU elections by taking on UKIP and sending the message to voters considering the LDs that the LDs are a very europhile party. Previous surveys prior to 2010 had often found that LD voters were almost split 50/50 between pro and anti the EU. Clegg's stance would not have helped shore up the vote. The anti-EU LD2010 voters probably took notice and decided they did not want to vote for them anymore.
'That is they do risk reinforcing the message in their core wwc support that they are pro EU and pro immigration. The type of penalty of associating with a view unpopular in large parts of the wwc, immigration. '
This is the most perceptive point I've read in weeks.
.....hmmm really...really the Guardian. I don't think so. At this rate it will be Giant Panda's struggle to reproduce because of the activities of rich shown in the Panama Papers...
I can't stand the witch hunt media at the moment. Wish the papers would just go back to having decent margins and market shares or simply disappear. This present whole thrashing cavalcade of a dying media sector is undermining people's trust and spreading hatred amongst people who are not able to understand the finer points of politics, history or international relations.
The world needs a snopes type source for current affairs to counter the guff that fills most newspapers and sites
The media are out of control at present and the Daily Mail is simply not worth reading for a balanced view of the arguments. It is as extreme leave as the express and with the telegraph also seemingly following a semi leave agenda it only leaves the lefty papers to support remain. It is to be hoped that post the 23rd June a resemblance of objectivity is restored again
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
As much as I have admired, associated with and campaigned for DC, he has created a tremendous headache for his party by not walking away from the 'deal' in February and backing Leave or, accepting it gracefully and emulating May and rising above it.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
So Leavers can campaign for Leave, but Remainers can't campaign for Remain.
Yes, I can see why Leavers might feel that sounds reasonable.
A nice soundbite, but not what I said.
Remainers can do what they want. But Cameron has endangered the future of the Tory party by so vehemently backing a weak deal.
I'm not entirely sure why you like to keep pointing out false inconsistencies Alastair. Listen to members (or ex-members) here to see the reaction amongst the party. Witness the huge number of non-payroll MPs who have come out for Leave. Witness the discomfort by some of those who plumped for Leave likely because of expectations of a result, and a future leadership, that now look terribly in doubt.
And, again, I was on the fence until the 'deal'. I benefit from Remain. Leave will cost me money.
I should be about as reluctant a Leaver as can be.
Thinking the £150 usually going to the local party at this time of year might be better in Vote Leave's coffers; for the good of the Tory party as much as anything....
It's pretty much exactly what you said. Your complaint is that the Prime Minister is a formidable campaigner. Therefore you want him on your side or effectively muzzled. It's noteworthy that you didn't say that you expected him to stay quiet if he had hypothetically walked away and backed Leave. But you did expect him to rise above it once he'd backed Remain.
Why on earth should the Prime Minister not be able to campaign vigorously for the deal that he evidently thinks is the right thing for Britain?
Go back and read it Alastair.
You're assuming I think it is wrong for him to campaign. I don't think anything of the kind.
I said it has created his party a tremendous headache. I note you're choosing not to dispute that, but instead suggest I said something else.
He's a leader. He's supposed to lead. If Leavers are too immature to deal with that, you should be turning your ire on them, not him.
Some part of leadership is about having the maturity to accept that however much you think something might be right, you could be wrong about that, no?
Losing your team is not generally a mark of successful leadership.
I'm still undecided. I've been pretty anti-Europe for many years, but that was mainly because of the hidden agenda. I don't think that anyone voting to remain can be unaware of the 'ever closer union' stuff now, so my sole historical objection is moot.
The problem in deciding is that there's no debate. I've yet to read, hear, or watch, a single thing which takes the facts and tries to balance them. I can only balance the clod-hopping ignorance of Leave with the blind-faith of Remain. If there was a third option I'd be rallying to their cause.
Isn't the third option doing your own research?
Precisely no-one would ever be able to form an opinion on the benefits of EU membership without relying on others to help distill the facts. I could certainly do more to understand the issues, but I feel I'd like to make my decision with the assistance of other views. I'm therefore very happy to listen to all of the strands in the debate. I'd quite like to find one of those strands that (with my limited knowledge) I couldn't already rule out as wrong.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
I might write a thread about this.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
Many Conservatives failed to learn the lessons of the AV and SINDY referendums. The Prime Minister is fighting to win not placate LEAVE whomsoever they might be.
It really is that simple.
If his strategy is that simple than he is creating a huge headache for his party.
Because the majority of it do not agree with him.
If the nation supports Cameron's position who in the Conservative party will gainsay the electorate?
I can't stand the witch hunt media at the moment. Wish the papers would just go back to having decent margins and market shares or simply disappear. This present whole thrashing cavalcade of a dying media sector is undermining people's trust and spreading hatred amongst people who are not able to understand the finer points of politics, history or international relations.
The world needs a snopes type source for current affairs to counter the guff that fills most newspapers and sites
Looks like the Guardian/Panama papers have got a big fish
The new head of world football has been caught up in the sport’s corruption scandal because of documents that have been revealed by the Panama Papers leak.
Files seen by the Guardian will raise questions about the role Fifa’s president, Gianni Infantino, played in deals that were concluded when he was director of legal services at Uefa, European football’s governing body.
According to records, Uefa concluded offshore deals with one of the indicted figures at the heart of an alleged “World Cup of fraud” despite previously insisting it had no dealings with any of them.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
They stayed the full term.
Except Dave isn't staying the full term. Every Tory MP knows a leadership contest is coming.
Why retain a lame duck for three more years who might very well have pissed off almost half the party?
I wasn't aware that the PM had determined not to stay full term. Cameron with the full powers of his office will go when he is good and ready. We don't do lame duck PM's within our constitution.
John Major - September 1992 to May 1997
Gordon Brown - October 2007 to May 2010
????
I think you'll find they served the full term and enacted legislation to the end. British ducks quack quite loudly.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
I might write a thread about this.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
Many Conservatives failed to learn the lessons of the AV and SINDY referendums. The Prime Minister is fighting to win not placate LEAVE whomsoever they might be.
It really is that simple.
If his strategy is that simple than he is creating a huge headache for his party.
Because the majority of it do not agree with him.
If the nation supports Cameron's position who in the Conservative party will gainsay the electorate?
If the party splits, the electorate won't come in to it.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
I might write a thread about this.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
Many Conservatives failed to learn the lessons of the AV and SINDY referendums. The Prime Minister is fighting to win not placate LEAVE whomsoever they might be.
It really is that simple.
If his strategy is that simple than he is creating a huge headache for his party.
Because the majority of it do not agree with him.
If the nation supports Cameron's position who in the Conservative party will gainsay the electorate?
Leaver Conservatives would simply conclude the electorate got it wrong. They would plan ahead accordingly.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
Basically, the current leadership is in awful shape no matter what the result of the referendum.........
I might write a thread about this.
'' As much as I have admired, associated with and campaigned for DC, he has created a tremendous headache for his party by not walking away from the 'deal' in February and backing Leave or, accepting it gracefully and emulating May and rising above it.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
Many Conservatives failed to learn the lessons of the AV and SINDY referendums. The Prime Minister is fighting to win not placate LEAVE whomsoever they might be.
It really is that simple.
AV was about the Conservative party getting their voters out against change a position that (I guess) 90% were ready to do. The EU referendum has the Con party split and the fight within the party is only about a few % either way. The bigger vote to get out and vote is the large disinterested Labour vote (mainly wc) looking from the outside at this internal Con party row and wondering why should they vote.
If I were an enterprising journalist and wanted to inquire into politicians' finances - and following on from my post earlier today - I would be looking to the NCA and whether they had received any reports from banks about monies paid to or received from accounts held by some of Corbyn's more exotic friends and into whether such friends had ever provided any sort of financial benefit, either directly or in kind, to Corbyn or his allies.
Watching Cameron take Questions in Birmingham on his remain propaganda,hard to believe the lying shit had any Eurosceptic... How I was taken in by this guy.
...
...
...
...
So far as one can tell, Cameron's standing among the public as a whole has fallen sharply in the past six weeks or so. But, what matters for the purpose of this referendum, is how far he can sway the 38% who voted Conservative, rather than the 62% who didn't. I don't think he's done as well as he might have expected. I think a sizeable number of Conservatives were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and see what he was able to negotiate. but were distinctly unimpressed by the outcome..
How much can Cameron sway the Conservative voters his way? ...... So should he use even more of the media time trying to win back, 1% 2% or 3% of the Conservative vote (of 38%) or give more time for REMAIN Labour to engage with Labour voters to get them to vote REMAIN? Labour start with 2/3 of their voters for REMAIN. It is the Labour REMAIN vote that has been reported as soft and the Labour REMAIN people are getting almost no media time.
There is one possible danger for Labour in filling the airwaves arguing for the EU. That is they do risk reinforcing the message in their core wwc support that they are pro EU and pro immigration. The type of penalty of associating with a view unpopular in large parts of the wwc, immigration. Just as SLAB hurt them selves by their strong backing of the union. Another example is that Clegg tried to shore up the LD vote in the 2014 EU elections by taking on UKIP and sending the message to voters considering the LDs that the LDs are a very europhile party. Previous surveys prior to 2010 had often found that LD voters were almost split 50/50 between pro and anti the EU. Clegg's stance would not have helped shore up the vote. The anti-EU LD2010 voters probably took notice and decided they did not want to vote for them anymore.
'That is they do risk reinforcing the message in their core wwc support that they are pro EU and pro immigration. The type of penalty of associating with a view unpopular in large parts of the wwc, immigration. '
This is the most perceptive point I've read in weeks.
Mortimer - I am going to retire tonight after that kind word.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
I might write a thread about this.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
Many Conservatives failed to learn the lessons of the AV and SINDY referendums. The Prime Minister is fighting to win not placate LEAVE whomsoever they might be.
It really is that simple.
If his strategy is that simple than he is creating a huge headache for his party.
Because the majority of it do not agree with him.
If the nation supports Cameron's position who in the Conservative party will gainsay the electorate?
Leaver Conservatives would simply conclude the electorate got it wrong. They would plan ahead accordingly.
This Leaver Conservative would accept the will of the nation.
Might be best not to profess to know the minds of leavers given you seem to struggle to understand their arguments here.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
I might write a thread about this.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
Many Conservatives failed to learn the lessons of the AV and SINDY referendums. The Prime Minister is fighting to win not placate LEAVE whomsoever they might be.
It really is that simple.
If his strategy is that simple than he is creating a huge headache for his party.
Because the majority of it do not agree with him.
If the nation supports Cameron's position who in the Conservative party will gainsay the electorate?
If the party splits, the electorate won't come in to it.
Even Peter Bone isn't that stupid (see below) and the stupid party isn't that stupid especially when faced with the awesomely stupid Labour party presenting them with a free pass in 2020.
The most shocking thing about tax evasion (or, indeed, avoidance) is that one fails to fully participate in projects such as HS2, The UK Foreign Aid Budget, or, indeed, paying 180,000 for some illegal immigrant's use of our National Treasure.
Perhaps we should all just follow the example of the uber-wealthy and pay no tax. In the ensuing anarchy the people who would scream loudest would b the very same people who dodge making any contribution to law enforcement or anything else.
You can dress it up any way you like but when those with most money are too greedy and selfish to contribute to our police, military, hospitals and schools and just leave it to everybody else then it is immoral pure and simple.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
I might write a thread about this.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
Many Conservatives failed to learn the lessons of the AV and SINDY referendums. The Prime Minister is fighting to win not placate LEAVE whomsoever they might be.
It really is that simple.
If his strategy is that simple than he is creating a huge headache for his party.
Because the majority of it do not agree with him.
If the nation supports Cameron's position who in the Conservative party will gainsay the electorate?
Leaver Conservatives would simply conclude the electorate got it wrong. They would plan ahead accordingly.
The argument will be that the Remain win means that the electorate will shortly feel betrayed and that therefore it would be suicide not to have a Leave leader.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
I might write a thread about this.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
Many Conservatives failed to learn the lessons of the AV and SINDY referendums. The Prime Minister is fighting to win not placate LEAVE whomsoever they might be.
It really is that simple.
If his strategy is that simple than he is creating a huge headache for his party.
Because the majority of it do not agree with him.
If the nation supports Cameron's position who in the Conservative party will gainsay the electorate?
Leaver Conservatives would simply conclude the electorate got it wrong. They would plan ahead accordingly.
This Leaver Conservative would accept the will of the nation.
Might be best not to profess to know the minds of leavers given you seem to struggle to understand their arguments here.
I understand your embarrassingly self-serving arguments only too well.
I'm still undecided. I've been pretty anti-Europe for many years, but that was mainly because of the hidden agenda. I don't think that anyone voting to remain can be unaware of the 'ever closer union' stuff now, so my sole historical objection is moot.
The problem in deciding is that there's no debate. I've yet to read, hear, or watch, a single thing which takes the facts and tries to balance them. I can only balance the clod-hopping ignorance of Leave with the blind-faith of Remain. If there was a third option I'd be rallying to their cause.
Isn't the third option doing your own research?
Precisely no-one would ever be able to form an opinion on the benefits of EU membership without relying on others to help distill the facts. I could certainly do more to understand the issues, but I feel I'd like to make my decision with the assistance of other views. I'm therefore very happy to listen to all of the strands in the debate. I'd quite like to find one of those strands that (with my limited knowledge) I couldn't already rule out as wrong.
Apologies for being too snarky. Indeed, the issues are too large and complex for any one person to know in detail. But for most of us, we don't need to understand all the issues, or necessarily the full complexity of everything. Just the broad strokes of what most matters to us.
For me, that is the future trajectory of decision-making in the EU. The world is ever more complex, and 'events' are less and less predictable as they are ever more emergent properties of a complex adaptive system. This calls for nimbler, more sensitive and more aware decision-makers and decision-making systems.
The EU has shown itself as nothing if not lumbering, tone-deaf and blind. Not to mention incompetent. With such governance, regardless of the benefits of home market size, the only direction for the societies and economies in such an organization (comparative to better-governed countries) is down.
Thus I would have the UK leave, revert to more competent, local, nimbler, and adaptive form of government to enable us to be more responsive to what the world throws at us, rather than be caught in the Eurocrats' immobilizing web of inertia. Even if leaving means more pain in the short-term.
Two more EU Referendum polls from Populus (shown on the Britain Elects spreadsheet).
Populus online Leave 45% Remain 39%. Populus phone Leave 37%, Remain 48%.
I think their reputation would be higher of they'd just stayed silent.
"It is better to stay silent and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Your career doesn't go very far in the professions with that approach.
I prefer: know your subject, carefully research the client's problem, listen and offer a well-considered solution.
Hopefully you don't make a fool of yourself but it never ceases to amaze me how just one misplaced or carelessly chosen word can derail an entire presentation to a client, despite everything else having merit.
But they have done two surveys with diametrically opposed results!
And then published then both. Either their telephone polling is rubbish, or their internet panel.
I can't see how the GOP can choose any of the withdrawn candidates - they completely failed to win the vote after all. So that leaves the other two - but how on earth do you explain that you're going with the less popular man?
Somehow to invent a candidate anew is troubled as well. Romney? McCain? Palin?!!
I've stopped betting on this, because I have quite enough. I think I must be wrong somehow, but I've yet to see an explanation.
As I see it unless someone is able to disable Trump by finding some reason why he's ineligible, then he sort of has to be it.
In your list of options, you've left out the white knight. The only obvious candidate is Paul Ryan. I think it is a minuscule possibility, but it is the only one other than the three left on the ballots.
Sorry yes. Ryan is the clear leader in the 'candidate anew' field. His 'count me out' stuff probably suggests he'd not be averse too.
If it gets that far though anyone's possible. Were you born in the US at all MTimT?
Nope. Permanent resident these last 19 years, now in MD, but born in Plymouth (Devon, not one of the 47 in the USA) out of Cornish stock. As one interviewer prior to joining the FCO noted - 'snuck across the border'.
Ok, so it can't be you, and as I'm English it can't be me. I suspect this process of elimination will be roughly as hard as the process as to who it could be.
I'm not so sure that a person chosen at random wouldn't represent a better GOP bet than Trump. He is to my mind a fool, however I completely understand the mass appeal. I really quite like his ability to just say it how it is. Ok, so he doesn't really, and it isn't, but you know what I mean.
When Hillary gets elected (As I hope she will) I think she can learn a lot from the Trump circus. I wish she'd got the gig 8 years ago, but I still think she'll be a great President.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
Basically, the current leadership is in awful shape no matter what the result of the referendum.........
I might write a thread about this.
'' Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
Many Conservatives failed to learn the lessons of the AV and SINDY referendums. The Prime Minister is fighting to win not placate LEAVE whomsoever they might be.
It really is that simple.
AV was about the Conservative party getting their voters out against change a position that (I guess) 90% were ready to do. The EU referendum has the Con party split and the fight within the party is only about a few % either way. The bigger vote to get out and vote is the large disinterested Labour vote (mainly wc) looking from the outside at this internal Con party row and wondering why should they vote.
Much the same arguments were made in 75. We'll see.
I think you also meant large uninterested Labour vote not "disinterested" Labour vote.
Seems like no. 10 bad pr / media op. If they just said that straight away would have saved a lot of bad headlines.
One question...Cameron said he owns 1 house. What about the one in Witney?
Fact-checking takes time. It would have been career-ending to issue a trenchant denial only for it to emerge that there was a bijou overseas trust which had slipped the Prime Minister's mind.
I think you will find the London house is rented out while the Oxfordshire house and the other 5 are in the name of Mrs Cameron or her step father. When someone becomes PM it used to be the case that all their financial instruments, shares, pensions and so on goes into a blind trust to be administered on their behalf with out fear or favour of incidently/accidentally benefiting from legislation brought in. If that is still the case, then considering the very specific phrasing used, David Cameron has not lied.
I understand your embarrassingly self-serving arguments only too well.
Just don't understand the need for such attitude, to be honest.
I have not accused you of the self serving position of wanting to stay.
I just wonder whether you have the right sort of objectivity to understand how it will affect the Tory party given you seem to (perhaps deliberately?) misunderstand the arguments of Leavers of all persuasions, display hostility towards Leave posters on here and indeed oppose much of the traditional Tory policy platform.
I can't see how the GOP can choose any of the withdrawn candidates - they completely failed to win the vote after all. So that leaves the other two - but how on earth do you explain that you're going with the less popular man?
Somehow to invent a candidate anew is troubled as well. Romney? McCain? Palin?!!
I've stopped betting on this, because I have quite enough. I think I must be wrong somehow, but I've yet to see an explanation.
As I see it unless someone is able to disable Trump by finding some reason why he's ineligible, then he sort of has to be it.
In your list of options, you've left out the white knight. The only obvious candidate is Paul Ryan. I think it is a minuscule possibility, but it is the only one other than the three left on the ballots.
Sorry yes. Ryan is the clear leader in the 'candidate anew' field. His 'count me out' stuff probably suggests he'd not be averse too.
If it gets that far though anyone's possible. Were you born in the US at all MTimT?
Nope. Permanent resident these last 19 years, now in MD, but born in Plymouth (Devon, not one of the 47 in the USA) out of Cornish stock. As one interviewer prior to joining the FCO noted - 'snuck across the border'.
Ok, so it can't be you, and as I'm English it can't be me. I suspect this process of elimination will be roughly as hard as the process as to who it could be.
I'm not so sure that a person chosen at random wouldn't represent a better GOP bet than Trump. He is to my mind a fool, however I completely understand the mass appeal. I really quite like his ability to just say it how it is. Ok, so he doesn't really, and it isn't, but you know what I mean.
When Hillary gets elected (As I hope she will) I think she can learn a lot from the Trump circus. I wish she'd got the gig 8 years ago, but I still think she'll be a great President.
Kasich is the only one of the five I think would make a good President. Have to leave now - my critique of Hillary would take too long ...
Jesus Wept we are through the looking glass and even the back of the wardrobe here. There is no hope for this country anymore
Telegraph Reporters 5 APRIL 2016 • 4:02PM Butlin's has apologised after a father complained that a wrestling bout that encouraged the crowd to boo a man carrying an Arabic flag was racist. Christian Cerisola, a father of two, said the audience were encouraged to jeer a Muslim character called Hakim and cheer another opponent called Tony Spitfire.
On Twitter, the 41-year-old described the show as a "horrific race hate-filled 10 minutes of everything wrong on racial stereotypes" and said it was a terrible message for the young audience.
Jesus Wept we are through the looking glass and even the back of the wardrobe here. There is no hope for this country anymore
Telegraph Reporters 5 APRIL 2016 • 4:02PM Butlin's has apologised after a father complained that a wrestling bout that encouraged the crowd to boo a man carrying an Arabic flag was racist. Christian Cerisola, a father of two, said the audience were encouraged to jeer a Muslim character called Hakim and cheer another opponent called Tony Spitfire.
On Twitter, the 41-year-old described the show as a "horrific race hate-filled 10 minutes of everything wrong on racial stereotypes" and said it was a terrible message for the young audience.
Jesus Wept we are through the looking glass and even the back of the wardrobe here. There is no hope for this country anymore
Telegraph Reporters 5 APRIL 2016 • 4:02PM Butlin's has apologised after a father complained that a wrestling bout that encouraged the crowd to boo a man carrying an Arabic flag was racist. Christian Cerisola, a father of two, said the audience were encouraged to jeer a Muslim character called Hakim and cheer another opponent called Tony Spitfire.
On Twitter, the 41-year-old described the show as a "horrific race hate-filled 10 minutes of everything wrong on racial stereotypes" and said it was a terrible message for the young audience.
What David Cameron did and didn't say about his father's offshore trust
The prime minister chose his response to reporter’s question about Blairmore Holdings very carefully – and he will probably get away with it
And yet, Cameron will probably get away with this. He plays the media well and has a good sense of how to say just enough to satisfy people (or at least those people willing to give him the benefit of the doubt) without admitting anything too incriminating.
Jesus Wept we are through the looking glass and even the back of the wardrobe here. There is no hope for this country anymore
Telegraph Reporters 5 APRIL 2016 • 4:02PM Butlin's has apologised after a father complained that a wrestling bout that encouraged the crowd to boo a man carrying an Arabic flag was racist. Christian Cerisola, a father of two, said the audience were encouraged to jeer a Muslim character called Hakim and cheer another opponent called Tony Spitfire.
On Twitter, the 41-year-old described the show as a "horrific race hate-filled 10 minutes of everything wrong on racial stereotypes" and said it was a terrible message for the young audience.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
They stayed the full term.
Except Dave isn't staying the full term. Every Tory MP knows a leadership contest is coming.
Why retain a lame duck for three more years who might very well have pissed off almost half the party?
I wasn't aware that the PM had determined not to stay full term. Cameron with the full powers of his office will go when he is good and ready. We don't do lame duck PM's within our constitution.
John Major - September 1992 to May 1997
Gordon Brown - October 2007 to May 2010
????
I think you'll find they served the full term and enacted legislation to the end. British ducks quack quite loudly.
Big difference, they were standing for reelection.
Apologies for being too snarky. Indeed, the issues are too large and complex for any one person to know in detail. But for most of us, we don't need to understand all the issues, or necessarily the full complexity of everything. Just the broad strokes of what most matters to us.
For me, that is the future trajectory of decision-making in the EU. The world is ever more complex, and 'events' are less and less predictable as they are ever more emergent properties of a complex adaptive system. This calls for nimbler, more sensitive and more aware decision-makers and decision-making systems.
The EU has shown itself as nothing if not lumbering, tone-deaf and blind. Not to mention incompetent. With such governance, regardless of the benefits of home market size, the only direction for the societies and economies in such an organization (comparative to better-governed countries) is down.
Thus I would have the UK leave, revert to more competent, local, nimbler, and adaptive form of government to enable us to be more responsive to what the world throws at us, rather than be caught in the Eurocrats' immobilizing web of inertia. Even if leaving means more pain in the short-term.
Don't worry at all - I didn't rate you as snarky. I think you've summed up, and expanded upon, part of my Leave thinking very well.
I also like the idea that we as a Nation (or collection of) can rise to a challenge.
However I'm also very aware of the hopeless economic position of the 70s. I could quite see an argument that the GB economy's doomed supertanker did a turnaround in EU waters that took 10 years. I can also see an argument that the faceless bureaucrats of Brussels may be better at running things than Cameron and co.
Moreover I quite like being part of Europe - seems friendlier.
I am sure Jack has his finger in many pies, and a Jacobite of his years is sure to have some Darien Company shares in his portfolio. Bound to come good with time..
I understand your embarrassingly self-serving arguments only too well.
Just don't understand the need for such attitude, to be honest.
I have not accused you of the self serving position of wanting to stay.
I just wonder whether you have the right sort of objectivity to understand how it will affect the Tory party given you seem to (perhaps deliberately?) misunderstand the arguments of Leavers of all persuasions, display hostility towards Leave posters on here and indeed oppose much of the traditional Tory policy platform.
I understand your embarrassingly self-serving arguments only too well.
Just don't understand the need for such attitude, to be honest.
I have not accused you of the self serving position of wanting to stay.
I just wonder whether you have the right sort of objectivity to understand how it will affect the Tory party given you seem to (perhaps deliberately?) misunderstand the arguments of Leavers of all persuasions, display hostility towards Leave posters on here and indeed oppose much of the traditional Tory policy platform.
I wouldn't bother arguing with him, it just makes it worse.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
They stayed the full term.
Except Dave isn't staying the full term. Every Tory MP knows a leadership contest is coming.
Why retain a lame duck for three more years who might very well have pissed off almost half the party?
I wasn't aware that the PM had determined not to stay full term. Cameron with the full powers of his office will go when he is good and ready. We don't do lame duck PM's within our constitution.
John Major - September 1992 to May 1997
Gordon Brown - October 2007 to May 2010
????
I think you'll find they served the full term and enacted legislation to the end. British ducks quack quite loudly.
Big difference, they were standing for reelection.
Jesus Wept we are through the looking glass and even the back of the wardrobe here. There is no hope for this country anymore
Telegraph Reporters 5 APRIL 2016 • 4:02PM Butlin's has apologised after a father complained that a wrestling bout that encouraged the crowd to boo a man carrying an Arabic flag was racist. Christian Cerisola, a father of two, said the audience were encouraged to jeer a Muslim character called Hakim and cheer another opponent called Tony Spitfire.
On Twitter, the 41-year-old described the show as a "horrific race hate-filled 10 minutes of everything wrong on racial stereotypes" and said it was a terrible message for the young audience.
If Vote Leave becomes the official leave campaign, then it will be a more of a calmer, rational debate, as it will be Dave v Gove kinda situations, where there will be mutual respect.
If Arron Banks lot get it, then Dave will be campaigning very differently, as the Banks strategy is going to be talk about immigration and put Farage front and centre, and make it about Cameron.
FWIW my information (from Banks's camp, where I have friends) is that Vote Leave is really the favourite by a large margin. It'd be an amusing niche market for Shadsy.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron..
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron ...
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. .
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time,.....
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
Basically, the current leadership is in awful shape no matter what the result of the referendum.........
I might write a thread about this.
'' Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
Many Conservatives failed to learn the lessons of the AV and SINDY referendums. The Prime Minister is fighting to win not placate LEAVE whomsoever they might be.
It really is that simple.
AV was about the Conservative party getting their voters out against change a position that (I guess) 90% were ready to do. The EU referendum has the Con party split and the fight within the party is only about a few % either way. The bigger vote to get out and vote is the large disinterested Labour vote (mainly wc) looking from the outside at this internal Con party row and wondering why should they vote.
Much the same arguments were made in 75. We'll see.
I think you also meant large uninterested Labour vote not "disinterested" Labour vote.
(17th cent disinterested, you use modern context - not as old as you make out!). https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/don-t-trust-received-wisdom-uk-eu-referendum-vote "These concerns about immigration, borders and national identity are mobilizing Leave voters who now readily view their Brexit vote as an attempt to regain control over migration and national borders. For these older, white and typically more economically disadvantaged voters"
I am sure Jack has his finger in many pies, and a Jacobite of his years is sure to have some Darien Company shares in his portfolio. Bound to come good with time..
I have many fingers in many pies .... just none of them mine ..
RE: Peirs Morgan's tweet about wanting to see the PM's tax returns. Not sure what that has to do with it since surely the whole purpose of these schemes is to avoid tax!
Apologies for being too snarky. Indeed, the issues are too large and complex for any one person to know in detail. But for most of us, we don't need to understand all the issues, or necessarily the full complexity of everything. Just the broad strokes of what most matters to us.
For me, that is the future trajectory of decision-making in the EU. The world is ever more complex, and 'events' are less and less predictable as they are ever more emergent properties of a complex adaptive system. This calls for nimbler, more sensitive and more aware decision-makers and decision-making systems.
The EU has shown itself as nothing if not lumbering, tone-deaf and blind. Not to mention incompetent. With such governance, regardless of the benefits of home market size, the only direction for the societies and economies in such an organization (comparative to better-governed countries) is down.
Thus I would have the UK leave, revert to more competent, local, nimbler, and adaptive form of government to enable us to be more responsive to what the world throws at us, rather than be caught in the Eurocrats' immobilizing web of inertia. Even if leaving means more pain in the short-term.
Don't worry at all - I didn't rate you as snarky. I think you've summed up, and expanded upon, part of my Leave thinking very well.
I also like the idea that we as a Nation (or collection of) can rise to a challenge.
However I'm also very aware of the hopeless economic position of the 70s. I could quite see an argument that the GB economy's doomed supertanker did a turnaround in EU waters that took 10 years. I can also see an argument that the faceless bureaucrats of Brussels may be better at running things than Cameron and co.
Moreover I quite like being part of Europe - seems friendlier.
I think that's just factually incorrect is it not? As far as what I've read goes, the benefit of being within the tariff wall was considerably less than expected, and the economy didn't really turn a corner until the Thatcher reforms, which were what the economy actually needed at rather than joining the EEC. In terms of a stitch in time saving nine, joining the EU surely harmed the UK economy by putting off the needed reforms.
RE: Peirs Morgan's tweet about wanting to see the PM's tax returns. Not sure what that has to do with it since surely the whole purpose of these schemes is to avoid tax!
The question you have to ask yourself is why you might be paying attention to his tweets.
I understand your embarrassingly self-serving arguments only too well.
Just don't understand the need for such attitude, to be honest.
I have not accused you of the self serving position of wanting to stay.
I just wonder whether you have the right sort of objectivity to understand how it will affect the Tory party given you seem to (perhaps deliberately?) misunderstand the arguments of Leavers of all persuasions, display hostility towards Leave posters on here and indeed oppose much of the traditional Tory policy platform.
Because the whole schtick is embarrassingly self-serving. You purport to lament the loss of the Prime Minister's authority because he has the temerity to campaign for what he believes in, but rather than take on or criticise those who are unable to accept that, you are looking at giving your money to ensuring his defeat.
It's reminiscent of "in order to save the village we had to destroy it". But the strategic objective is rather more obvious.
Cameron's speech today got drowned out with the tax haven thing.I thought his tone was an end to Project Fear and the start of Project Hope in a powerful message to young people and universities to Remain.I saw too scientists have come out massively for Remain.All of this gives Remain the better evidence base.Much better for him to look the statesman than the bar-room bruiser. I believe Remain may have had a very good day.
RE: Peirs Morgan's tweet about wanting to see the PM's tax returns. Not sure what that has to do with it since surely the whole purpose of these schemes is to avoid tax!
Perhaps he has photos of British soldiers avoiding the Prime Minister's tax.
Cameron's speech today got drowned out with the tax haven thing.I thought his tone was an end to Project Fear and the start of Project Hope in a powerful message to young people and universities to Remain.I saw too scientists have come out massively for Remain.All of this gives Remain the better evidence base.Much better for him to look the statesman than the bar-room bruiser. I believe Remain may have had a very good day.
I understand your embarrassingly self-serving arguments only too well.
Just don't understand the need for such attitude, to be honest.
I have not accused you of the self serving position of wanting to stay.
I just wonder whether you have the right sort of objectivity to understand how it will affect the Tory party given you seem to (perhaps deliberately?) misunderstand the arguments of Leavers of all persuasions, display hostility towards Leave posters on here and indeed oppose much of the traditional Tory policy platform.
Because the whole schtick is embarrassingly self-serving. You purport to lament the loss of the Prime Minister's authority because he has the temerity to campaign for what he believes in, but rather than take on or criticise those who are unable to accept that, you are looking at giving your money to ensuring his defeat.
It's reminiscent of "in order to save the village we had to destroy it". But the strategic objective is rather more obvious.
RE: Peirs Morgan's tweet about wanting to see the PM's tax returns. Not sure what that has to do with it since surely the whole purpose of these schemes is to avoid tax!
Perhaps he has photos of British soldiers avoiding the Prime Minister's tax.
I understand your embarrassingly self-serving arguments only too well.
Just don't understand the need for such attitude, to be honest.
I have not accused you of the self serving position of wanting to stay.
I just wonder whether you have the right sort of objectivity to understand how it will affect the Tory party given you seem to (perhaps deliberately?) misunderstand the arguments of Leavers of all persuasions, display hostility towards Leave posters on here and indeed oppose much of the traditional Tory policy platform.
Because the whole schtick is embarrassingly self-serving. You purport to lament the loss of the Prime Minister's authority because he has the temerity to campaign for what he believes in, but rather than take on or criticise those who are unable to accept that, you are looking at giving your money to ensuring his defeat.
It's reminiscent of "in order to save the village we had to destroy it". But the strategic objective is rather more obvious.
Self serving because?
Because your argument, nominally about the Prime Minister's impact on the Conservative party, is really about looking to maximise the chances of a Leave win, which you evidently regard as far more important.
It's fine to disagree with the Prime Minister about the referendum. To argue that he should shut up unless he agrees with you for reasons of party management is absurd - and transparent.
RE: Peirs Morgan's tweet about wanting to see the PM's tax returns. Not sure what that has to do with it since surely the whole purpose of these schemes is to avoid tax!
Cameron's speech today got drowned out with the tax haven thing.I thought his tone was an end to Project Fear and the start of Project Hope in a powerful message to young people and universities to Remain.I saw too scientists have come out massively for Remain.All of this gives Remain the better evidence base.Much better for him to look the statesman than the bar-room bruiser. I believe Remain may have had a very good day.
Nope,project fear was still there in his negative propaganda,uni's will lose money from the EU,young people will forever be stuck on this damp island if we vote leave and on he went until the tax Question came into it.
RE: Peirs Morgan's tweet about wanting to see the PM's tax returns. Not sure what that has to do with it since surely the whole purpose of these schemes is to avoid tax!
Jesus Wept we are through the looking glass and even the back of the wardrobe here. There is no hope for this country anymore
Telegraph Reporters 5 APRIL 2016 • 4:02PM Butlin's has apologised after a father complained that a wrestling bout that encouraged the crowd to boo a man carrying an Arabic flag was racist. Christian Cerisola, a father of two, said the audience were encouraged to jeer a Muslim character called Hakim and cheer another opponent called Tony Spitfire.
On Twitter, the 41-year-old described the show as a "horrific race hate-filled 10 minutes of everything wrong on racial stereotypes" and said it was a terrible message for the young audience.
Well no, because his Irishness is not the reason to boo him - his terrible facial hair is the reason to boo him. One of the most popular wrestlers, Becky Lynch, is also Irish. So his heel status is not predicated on his nationality.
Comments
This is the most perceptive point I've read in weeks.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/05/millennials-rent-trap-panama-papers-british-property-housing-young-people
.....hmmm really...really the Guardian. I don't think so. At this rate it will be Giant Panda's struggle to reproduce because of the activities of rich shown in the Panama Papers...
Some part of leadership is about having the maturity to accept that however much you think something might be right, you could be wrong about that, no?
Losing your team is not generally a mark of successful leadership.
Well that didn't take long
I'm afraid if people will insist on heading to a secret shop full of broomsticks and pointy hats.....
Might be best not to profess to know the minds of leavers given you seem to struggle to understand their arguments here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35959604
Tax arranging/planning/avoiding/evading are 50 shades of financial grey, interacting with sanctioned regimes generally isn't
You can dress it up any way you like but when those with most money are too greedy and selfish to contribute to our police, military, hospitals and schools and just leave it to everybody else then it is immoral pure and simple.
This Leaver Conservative would accept the will of the nation.
Might be best not to profess to know the minds of leavers given you seem to struggle to understand their arguments here.
I understand your embarrassingly self-serving arguments only too well.
For me, that is the future trajectory of decision-making in the EU. The world is ever more complex, and 'events' are less and less predictable as they are ever more emergent properties of a complex adaptive system. This calls for nimbler, more sensitive and more aware decision-makers and decision-making systems.
The EU has shown itself as nothing if not lumbering, tone-deaf and blind. Not to mention incompetent. With such governance, regardless of the benefits of home market size, the only direction for the societies and economies in such an organization (comparative to better-governed countries) is down.
Thus I would have the UK leave, revert to more competent, local, nimbler, and adaptive form of government to enable us to be more responsive to what the world throws at us, rather than be caught in the Eurocrats' immobilizing web of inertia. Even if leaving means more pain in the short-term.
And then published then both. Either their telephone polling is rubbish, or their internet panel.
I'm not so sure that a person chosen at random wouldn't represent a better GOP bet than Trump. He is to my mind a fool, however I completely understand the mass appeal. I really quite like his ability to just say it how it is. Ok, so he doesn't really, and it isn't, but you know what I mean.
When Hillary gets elected (As I hope she will) I think she can learn a lot from the Trump circus. I wish she'd got the gig 8 years ago, but I still think she'll be a great President.
I think you also meant large uninterested Labour vote not "disinterested" Labour vote.
I have not accused you of the self serving position of wanting to stay.
I just wonder whether you have the right sort of objectivity to understand how it will affect the Tory party given you seem to (perhaps deliberately?) misunderstand the arguments of Leavers of all persuasions, display hostility towards Leave posters on here and indeed oppose much of the traditional Tory policy platform.
Telegraph Reporters
5 APRIL 2016 • 4:02PM
Butlin's has apologised after a father complained that a wrestling bout that encouraged the crowd to boo a man carrying an Arabic flag was racist. Christian Cerisola, a father of two, said the audience were encouraged to jeer a Muslim character called Hakim and cheer another opponent called Tony Spitfire.
On Twitter, the 41-year-old described the show as a "horrific race hate-filled 10 minutes of everything wrong on racial stereotypes" and said it was a terrible message for the young audience.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/05/butlins-apologises-for-racist-wrestling-match-that-urged-familie/
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-35967298
I wonder if the same applies to Irish WWE "Star" Sheamus and a heal is also racist / xenophobic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrK_HVGOnUo
The prime minister chose his response to reporter’s question about Blairmore Holdings very carefully – and he will probably get away with it
And yet, Cameron will probably get away with this. He plays the media well and has a good sense of how to say just enough to satisfy people (or at least those people willing to give him the benefit of the doubt) without admitting anything too incriminating.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/05/what-david-cameron-did-and-didnt-say-about-his-fathers-offshore-trust
Maybe he just doesn't have anything incriminating to admit? I seem to remember something about innocent until proven guilty...
So we brought the kids to. @Butlins this w/e. Rough round the edges, but loads for them to do.
I also like the idea that we as a Nation (or collection of) can rise to a challenge.
However I'm also very aware of the hopeless economic position of the 70s. I could quite see an argument that the GB economy's doomed supertanker did a turnaround in EU waters that took 10 years. I can also see an argument that the faceless bureaucrats of Brussels may be better at running things than Cameron and co.
Moreover I quite like being part of Europe - seems friendlier.
Having said that, the show does seem in extremely poor taste, and can't really be justified.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/don-t-trust-received-wisdom-uk-eu-referendum-vote
"These concerns about immigration, borders and national identity are mobilizing Leave voters who now readily view their Brexit vote as an attempt to regain control over migration and national borders. For these older, white and typically more economically disadvantaged voters"
It's reminiscent of "in order to save the village we had to destroy it". But the strategic objective is rather more obvious.
I believe Remain may have had a very good day.
It's fine to disagree with the Prime Minister about the referendum. To argue that he should shut up unless he agrees with you for reasons of party management is absurd - and transparent.
This would:
1) Confirm or disprove rumours that he earns no actual money and;
2) Give unambiguous confirmation that Private Eye spells his last name correctly.
"Don’t Trust Received Wisdom on UK's EU Referendum Vote
The popular narrative that Remain will benefit from a late surge in support and divisions in the Leave camp may be flawed."
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/don-t-trust-received-wisdom-uk-eu-referendum-vote#