Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
I know. Fun isn't it? I live very close to the infamous Finchley Road address. I shall have to check it out on my way home.
Let's put it this way. It isn't a building that befits over 250,000 companies having at one time or another being registered out of that address.
This Politician Didn’t Notice The Pigs Fucking Behind Him When He Gave A TV Interview
“We like to organise our visits to send a message in pictorial terms exactly what we’re asking for,” said Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie, unaware of what the pigs were doing in the background.
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
I know. Fun isn't it? I live very close to the infamous Finchley Road address. I shall have to check it out on my way home.
These PB meets are just fronts for the Illuminati lizards
And if you want to "Chercher la femme"....... I am happy to oblige.
This Politician Didn’t Notice The Pigs Fucking Behind Him When He Gave A TV Interview
“We like to organise our visits to send a message in pictorial terms exactly what we’re asking for,” said Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie, unaware of what the pigs were doing in the background.
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
I know. Fun isn't it? I live very close to the infamous Finchley Road address. I shall have to check it out on my way home.
These PB meets are just fronts for the Illuminati lizards
And if you want to "Chercher la femme"....... I am happy to oblige.
So in 1997 Cameron invests in a perfectly legitimate and legal offshore fund. 13 years later he sells this investment.Throughout the course of the investment he paid all due UK taxes on his investment. Somehow this now means that 90% of the news airtime is about this perfectly legal investment with all and sundry giving their opinion.
In the words of an investment expert this morning there was a "massive misunderstanding" about what Mr Cameron had invested in.
He said it was a hedge fund that was "about as boring as it gets for investments", adding that it would not be used for avoiding tax.
"It's no different from Mr Cameron investing in a UK stock,"
Apparently it is now a resigning matter. It is too mad for words
The Prime Minister is today facing a sleaze inquiry into his failure to declare his shares in a shady offshore fund.
Campaigning Labour MP John Mann said he will refer David Cameron to the Parliamentary standards watchdog for keeping the £30,000-worth of offshore shares a secret during his years in Opposition.
"Action will have to be taken, there's no question about it," Mr Mann told the Mirror.
"He has broken the rules and principles of standards in public life.
2) Just because you're a Leaver doesn't mean you're automatically anti-Dave. Do we really expect the likes of Gove, Zahawi et al to try and topple Dave. Never happening.
They are much more likely to be anti-Osborne though
In the event of a Remain victory, Dave moves George to the FO and Gove to the Treasury, everyone's happy
I think it will take more than that.
Dave will also have to do something Very Right Wing to raise the moral of the troops and show he isn't an effete Guardianista.
Dusting himself off, reshuffling the deck and then carrying on just the same as before won't quite cut it.
On the last two occasions that the government tried to do something Very Right Wing (tax credit cuts, benefit cuts), it was sabotaged by some of the Very Right Wing MPs who David Cameron was looking to throw some red meat. So if David Cameron were to go down that route, the Very Right Wing will need to play their part too in telling the more hostile of their number to sit down and shut up.
As you said on the last thread, party management is part of it. But both those measures were mainstream budgetary measures part of the Government's Plan A just with George Osborne's pawprints all over them.
It was about damaging Osborne. With Gove as Chancellor it'll be a different story.
But backbench MPs will expect to see meaningful change. I expect more non-fiscal measures.
The full compulsory academy plan might be part of this but it's very ill thought through.
I'd prefer to see things like profit-making schools and some extra measures on the HRA bill (still undeclared) and immigration.
"I'd prefer to see things like profit-making schools"
As someone with a young son, I want to see schools that work. Decreasing the illiteracy and innumeracy rates from their long-term p*ss poor rate (~20%) is vital. Not just for my kid, or those kids, but society as a whole.
It'd be nice if they made a profit as well, but ensuring we have kids that leave school able to function in society is absolutely vital.
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
I know. Fun isn't it? I live very close to the infamous Finchley Road address. I shall have to check it out on my way home.
Let's put it this way. It isn't a building that befits over 250,000 companies having at one time or another being registered out of that address.
I expect I'll regret asking. What do you think such a building ought to look like?
I pay a lot of attention to my own behaviour when sharing stuff on social media.
I'll promote generic Tory stuff, but nothing for Cameron or Osborne now. Ditto defending either. I'm feeling duped, and it takes a lot of piss taking to lose my loyalty.
Incidentally, I saw Jimmy Carr host an awards ceremony where as part of his stand-up routine he talked about his experience of being on the front pages of the newspapers for tax avoidance. I'm not generally a fan of his but he was extremely funny. As part of his routine, he said something along the lines of:
"And when the Prime Minister breaks away from a G20 summit to condemn you personally, that's when you realise that you've got a problem."
He is probably enjoying this week enormously.
Carr's used that line before - it is good.
I actually feel a bit sorry for Cameron, it doesn't seem he's done anything particularly egregious - nothing like Carr.
But then I remember how Cameron's trying to rig the referendum, and so I stop caring.
I get that you support Leave and Cameron doesn't, but how do you feel you were duped? He said there'd be a referendum and here it is.
Really? What else is there?
You've certainly changed your tune since May last year.
It's called following the crowd. It seems to be all the rage.
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
I know. Fun isn't it? I live very close to the infamous Finchley Road address. I shall have to check it out on my way home.
These PB meets are just fronts for the Illuminati lizards
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
I know. Fun isn't it? I live very close to the infamous Finchley Road address. I shall have to check it out on my way home.
These PB meets are just fronts for the Illuminati lizards
Last night I alluded to a beast of a super injunction- and it wasn't this threesome celebrity thing. My friend says it is known amongst a few journos. That's what I thought might come out at the Shooting Star tonight.
I wrote a couple of days ago about a 'deviant' politician who the media may be protecting for political reasons because they consider him useful. IMO that's not healthy.
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
I know. Fun isn't it? I live very close to the infamous Finchley Road address. I shall have to check it out on my way home.
Let's put it this way. It isn't a building that befits over 250,000 companies having at one time or another being registered out of that address.
I expect I'll regret asking. What do you think such a building ought to look like?
Excuse the non sequitur but every time I see Hunchman on here it reminds me of Woody Allen's line "Of course I like Wagner but every time I hear him I want to invade Poland"
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
I know. Fun isn't it? I live very close to the infamous Finchley Road address. I shall have to check it out on my way home.
These PB meets are just fronts for the Illuminati lizards
And if you want to "Chercher la femme"....... I am happy to oblige.
Such a shame I won't be able to make tonight.
Oh!
Will anyone nice be coming? Other than the wonderful OGH himself, of course.......
Wasn't there that twitter hash tag a while back that was "trending" for weeks in regards to CameronMustGo or something similar. And all the tw@terati got ever so cross nobody was mentioning it.
It's the BBC News and Sky News lead.
The patronising arrogance towards twitter, when pb.com was disastrously wrong about the General Election, is so far beyond parody as to be amusing.
Still, perhaps we should ask Lord Ashcroft's polling advice?
PB had rather a good General Election. Okay, most of us underestimate the number of Conservative seats, but we were right to think that the Conservatives would come first.
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
I know. Fun isn't it? I live very close to the infamous Finchley Road address. I shall have to check it out on my way home.
These PB meets are just fronts for the Illuminati lizards
And if you want to "Chercher la femme"....... I am happy to oblige.
Such a shame I won't be able to make tonight.
Oh!
Will anyone nice be coming? Other than the wonderful OGH himself, of course.......
Mr Meeks will be there, so will Sunil, they are the epitome of niceness.
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
I know. Fun isn't it? I live very close to the infamous Finchley Road address. I shall have to check it out on my way home.
Let's put it this way. It isn't a building that befits over 250,000 companies having at one time or another being registered out of that address.
I expect I'll regret asking. What do you think such a building ought to look like?
Excuse the non sequitur but every time I see Hunchman on here it reminds me of Woody Allen's line "Of course I like Wagner but every time I hear him I want to invade Poland"
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
I know. Fun isn't it? I live very close to the infamous Finchley Road address. I shall have to check it out on my way home.
Let's put it this way. It isn't a building that befits over 250,000 companies having at one time or another being registered out of that address.
I expect I'll regret asking. What do you think such a building ought to look like?
Stop trying to divert from the central issue at hand. The more ridicule I draw from the establishment on here over this the more I know along with Gordon bowden and others that I'm on the right lines. .......
Currystar..re Cameron..you have it spot on..and John Mann is a total prat..who is about to enter the Labour minefield..He could start off with Browns conduct re his wife's flat..or Darlings flip flopping house sales..or Miliband rejigging of dads will..maybe cast a glance at the dubious financial antics in the Benn family when Wedgie popped off..
David Cameron now has a lower approval rating than Jeremy Corbyn – while the Prime Minister and Chancellor are the least trusted politicians on tax avoidance
Strange that you mention Andreotti, I'm going out to dinner tonight with a good friend here, a nephew of Fanfani (Andreotti's political soul mate).
Italians are fascinated by conspiracy. Their evening TV mixes between Berlusconi's tits and arse shows that go on and on, and then the most ludicrous documentaries on say how Diana was murdered by the M15 because she was pregnant which is just presented as fact like we'd watch Panorama. Quite incredible.
Come to Italy...It is the common view to think that the world is a labyrinthine maze of murky intrigues interlocking the most simple of events; anyone just offering a bog standard explanation is considered off their proverbial.
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
Yes, well, that's normally correct in Italy. You'll be telling me that Andreotti was a simple politician next.......
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
I know. Fun isn't it? I live very close to the infamous Finchley Road address. I shall have to check it out on my way home.
Let's put it this way. It isn't a building that befits over 250,000 companies having at one time or another being registered out of that address.
I expect I'll regret asking. What do you think such a building ought to look like?
Stop trying to divert from the central issue at hand. The more ridicule I draw from the establishment on here over this the more I know along with Gordon bowden and others that I'm on the right lines. .......
Can I be a member of the establishment as well? I mean, I am a pleb, but it looks so nice, cosy and protective up there. I know a secret handshake as well, even if it is only the one you need to get into Rustington Coalville working men's club.
Wasn't there that twitter hash tag a while back that was "trending" for weeks in regards to CameronMustGo or something similar. And all the tw@terati got ever so cross nobody was mentioning it.
It's the BBC News and Sky News lead.
The patronising arrogance towards twitter, when pb.com was disastrously wrong about the General Election, is so far beyond parody as to be amusing.
Still, perhaps we should ask Lord Ashcroft's polling advice?
PB had rather a good General Election. Okay, most of us underestimate the number of Conservative seats, but we were right to think that the Conservatives would come first.
Twitter didn't have as good a General Election.
Many of us were right in criticising the pollsters *before* the election.
2) Just because you're a Leaver doesn't mean you're automatically anti-Dave. Do we really expect the likes of Gove, Zahawi et al to try and topple Dave. Never happening.
They are much more likely to be anti-Osborne though
In the event of a Remain victory, Dave moves George to the FO and Gove to the Treasury, everyone's happy
I think it will take more than that.
Dave will also have to do something Very Right Wing to raise the moral of the troops and show he isn't an effete Guardianista.
Dusting himself off, reshuffling the deck and then carrying on just the same as before won't quite cut it.
On the last two occasions that the government tried to do something Very Right Wing (tax credit cuts, benefit cuts), it was sabotaged by some of the Very Right Wing MPs who David Cameron was looking to throw some red meat. So if David Cameron were to go down that route, the Very Right Wing will need to play their part too in telling the more hostile of their number to sit down and shut up.
As you said on the last thread, party management is part of it. But both those measures were mainstream budgetary measures part of the Government's Plan A just with George Osborne's pawprints all over them.
It was about damaging Osborne. With Gove as Chancellor it'll be a different story.
But backbench MPs will expect to see meaningful change. I expect more non-fiscal measures.
The full compulsory academy plan might be part of this but it's very ill thought through.
I'd prefer to see things like profit-making schools and some extra measures on the HRA bill (still undeclared) and immigration.
"I'd prefer to see things like profit-making schools"
As someone with a young son, I want to see schools that work. Decreasing the illiteracy and innumeracy rates from their long-term p*ss poor rate (~20%) is vital. Not just for my kid, or those kids, but society as a whole.
It'd be nice if they made a profit as well, but ensuring we have kids that leave school able to function in society is absolutely vital.
I want to see them because I think they'll help good schools, invest, expand and do their utmost to be as good as they can be to attract new pupils, and parents.
I don't support everyone making a profit for the good of my Hayek, but I also don't think profit is a dirty word.
More trade figures, another record EU trade deficit. More bad news from the index of production as well. Manufacturing in reverse again.
Feb trade
Exports:
EU - £11.3bn (+£0.4bn) Non-EU - £11.9bn (-£0.1bn)
Imports
EU - £19.9bn (+£1.2bn) Non-EU £15.3bn (-£1.1bn)
Absolutely horrible figures.
If Corrib has come on stream, which I think it did at end January, than that will have skewed the numbers somewhat. Historically, we took gas from Norway (non-EU import), and sent it to Ireland (EU export).
With Corrib basically supplying all of Ireland's gas, it means that non-EU imports will be reduced, as will EU exports.
We probably need to see it stripped out to get underlying trends for the trade balance.
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
I know. Fun isn't it? I live very close to the infamous Finchley Road address. I shall have to check it out on my way home.
Let's put it this way. It isn't a building that befits over 250,000 companies having at one time or another being registered out of that address.
There are lots of places that sell off the shelf companies - Betgenius Ltd (now Genius Sports Group) was just bought off the shelf.
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
I know. Fun isn't it? I live very close to the infamous Finchley Road address. I shall have to check it out on my way home.
Let's put it this way. It isn't a building that befits over 250,000 companies having at one time or another being registered out of that address.
I expect I'll regret asking. What do you think such a building ought to look like?
Stop trying to divert from the central issue at hand. The more ridicule I draw from the establishment on here over this the more I know along with Gordon bowden and others that I'm on the right lines. .......
I knew I would regret it. I'm not diverting anything. You said the building didn't "befit" its use so I asked what would make it "befit" the use to which you say it's been put. If you say it's an irrelevant question why did you make an irrelevant point? If it is relevant, you'll have an answer.
@David_Ross86: Extraordinary GMS interview with Chinese consortium rep. Said specific projects identified and they have been in talks with SNP for a year.
Strange that you mention Andreotti, I'm going out to dinner tonight with a good friend here, a nephew of Fanfani (Andreotti's political soul mate).
Italians are fascinated by conspiracy. Their evening TV mixes between Berlusconi's tits and arse shows that go on and on, and then the most ludicrous documentaries on say how Diana was murdered by the M15 because she was pregnant which is just presented as fact like we'd watch Panorama. Quite incredible.
Come to Italy...It is the common view to think that the world is a labyrinthine maze of murky intrigues interlocking the most simple of events; anyone just offering a bog standard explanation is considered off their proverbial.
Blairmore holdings. ......panmure gordon. ....pinsent Mason. .....Carroll trust. Follow the trail......of money. And see the YouTube clip I posted on here late last night.
Ooooh, it's ages since I've been tangentially linked to a good conspiracy theory.
Yes, well, that's normally correct in Italy. You'll be telling me that Andreotti was a simple politician next.......
The Francesco Rosi film "Illustrious Corpses" is well worth watching, if you haven't seen it. Most of his films are, in fact.
From my personal and professional experience of Italy (and I have plenty of both), the explanation for most things in Italy is rarely simple. Ockham's Razor simply has no purchase there.
2) Just because you're a Leaver doesn't mean you're automatically anti-Dave. Do we really expect the likes of Gove, Zahawi et al to try and topple Dave. Never happening.
They are much more likely to be anti-Osborne though
In the event of a Remain victory, Dave moves George to the FO and Gove to the Treasury, everyone's happy
I think it will take more than that.
Dave will also have to do something Very Right Wing to raise the moral of the troops and show he isn't an effete Guardianista.
Dusting himself off, reshuffling the deck and then carrying on just the same as before won't quite cut it.
, the Very Right Wing will need to play their part too in telling the more hostile of their number to sit down and shut up.
As you said on the last thread, party management is part of it. But both those measures were mainstream budgetary measures part of the Government's Plan A just with George Osborne's pawprints all over them.
It was about damaging Osborne. With Gove as Chancellor it'll be a different story.
But backbench MPs will expect to see meaningful change. I expect more non-fiscal measures.
The full compulsory academy plan might be part of this but it's very ill thought through.
I'd prefer to see things like profit-making schools and some extra measures on the HRA bill (still undeclared) and immigration.
"I'd prefer to see things like profit-making schools"
As someone with a young son, I want to see schools that work. Decreasing the illiteracy and innumeracy rates from their long-term p*ss poor rate (~20%) is vital. Not just for my kid, or those kids, but society as a whole.
It'd be nice if they made a profit as well, but ensuring we have kids that leave school able to function in society is absolutely vital.
I want to see them because I think they'll help good schools, invest, expand and do their utmost to be as good as they can be to attract new pupils, and parents.
I don't support everyone making a profit for the good of my Hayek, but I also don't think profit is a dirty word.
Trouble is won't you end up with huge mega schools and potentially reduced competition. And presumably the successful schools will need to expand (costing money) whilst the unsuccessful ones will go empty.
When the referendum legislation went through parliament, the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, told MPs: “It will be for the yes and the no campaigns to lead the debate in the weeks preceding the poll. I can assure the house that the government has no intention of undermining those campaigns.”
David Lidington, the likeable Europe minister, was even more emphatic: “Let me repeat that we have no intention of legislating to allow the government to do things such as mailshots, paid advertising or leafleting.”
Why, then, have ministers gone back on their words? Why have they chosen to ignore both Britain’s Electoral Commission, which has declared its unhappiness, and the basic rules on the conduct of referendums required by the Council of Europe, which states: “The use of public funds for campaigning purposes must be prohibited in order to guarantee equality of opportunity and the freedom of voters to form an opinion”? Why have they annoyed neutrals and quite a few Remain campaigners by so flagrant a disregard for fair play?
2) Just because you're a Leaver doesn't mean you're automatically anti-Dave. Do we really expect the likes of Gove, Zahawi et al to try and topple Dave. Never happening.
They are much more likely to be anti-Osborne though
In the event of a Remain victory, Dave moves George to the FO and Gove to the Treasury, everyone's happy
I think it will take more than that.
Dave will also have to do something Very Right Wing to raise the moral of the troops and show he isn't an effete Guardianista.
Dusting himself off, reshuffling the deck and then carrying on just the same as before won't quite cut it.
, the Very Right Wing will need to play their part too in telling the more hostile of their number to sit down and shut up.
As you said on the last thread, party management is part of it. But both those measures were mainstream budgetary measures part of the Government's Plan A just with George Osborne's pawprints all over them.
It was about damaging Osborne. With Gove as Chancellor it'll be a different story.
But backbench MPs will expect to see meaningful change. I expect more non-fiscal measures.
The full compulsory academy plan might be part of this but it's very ill thought through.
I'd prefer to see things like profit-making schools and some extra measures on the HRA bill (still undeclared) and immigration.
"I'd prefer to see things like profit-making schools"
As someone with a young son, I want to see schools that work. Decreasing the illiteracy and innumeracy rates from their long-term p*ss poor rate (~20%) is vital. Not just for my kid, or those kids, but society as a whole.
It'd be nice if they made a profit as well, but ensuring we have kids that leave school able to function in society is absolutely vital.
I want to see them because I think they'll help good schools, invest, expand and do their utmost to be as good as they can be to attract new pupils, and parents.
I don't support everyone making a profit for the good of my Hayek, but I also don't think profit is a dirty word.
Trouble is won't you end up with huge mega schools and potentially reduced competition. And presumably the successful schools will need to expand (costing money) whilst the unsuccessful ones will go empty.
I have no problem with a free market in education.
My problem is right now only the wealthy and privileged can access it.
When the referendum legislation went through parliament, the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, told MPs: “It will be for the yes and the no campaigns to lead the debate in the weeks preceding the poll. I can assure the house that the government has no intention of undermining those campaigns.”
David Lidington, the likeable Europe minister, was even more emphatic: “Let me repeat that we have no intention of legislating to allow the government to do things such as mailshots, paid advertising or leafleting.”
Why, then, have ministers gone back on their words? Why have they chosen to ignore both Britain’s Electoral Commission, which has declared its unhappiness, and the basic rules on the conduct of referendums required by the Council of Europe, which states: “The use of public funds for campaigning purposes must be prohibited in order to guarantee equality of opportunity and the freedom of voters to form an opinion”? Why have they annoyed neutrals and quite a few Remain campaigners by so flagrant a disregard for fair play?
Sorry if I am a bit pedantic but I don't recall the government "legislating" for mailshots, advertising or leaflets. The recent row about the governments leaflet seems to discount the fact that by precedent in the previous Europe referendum the government issued a leaflet. The formal campaigns within which rules are applied has not started yet and the government will keep to those rules.
Such a shame I'm seeing Muse tomorrow night in Manchester, or I would be there (trolling them in person)
They'd be better off signing an online petition
How many Conservative backbenchers will be taking part?
Just think of all those poor protesters who are down on their luck because they keep getting turned down for jobs by posh w****** who'd prefer to employ their mates. Or their mates children. And grandchildren. And nephews. And nieces.
I wonder if they might find common cause with some Tory backbenchers. It's always worth remembering that one of the biggest ructions of Cameron's leadership was over grammar schools.
When the referendum legislation went through parliament, the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, told MPs: “It will be for the yes and the no campaigns to lead the debate in the weeks preceding the poll. I can assure the house that the government has no intention of undermining those campaigns.”
David Lidington, the likeable Europe minister, was even more emphatic: “Let me repeat that we have no intention of legislating to allow the government to do things such as mailshots, paid advertising or leafleting.”
Why, then, have ministers gone back on their words? Why have they chosen to ignore both Britain’s Electoral Commission, which has declared its unhappiness, and the basic rules on the conduct of referendums required by the Council of Europe, which states: “The use of public funds for campaigning purposes must be prohibited in order to guarantee equality of opportunity and the freedom of voters to form an opinion”? Why have they annoyed neutrals and quite a few Remain campaigners by so flagrant a disregard for fair play?
That's all very well. But while he is making this eloquent argument he is not making an eloquent argument to the voters to persuade them to his point of view. And this argument won't win the case.
People are not going to vote Leave because they're pissed off that the government spent some money on a leaflet ahead of the formal campaign. And it is, frankly, delusional to think that endlessly harping on about this is a winning argument.
Trouble is won't you end up with huge mega schools and potentially reduced competition. And presumably the successful schools will need to expand (costing money) whilst the unsuccessful ones will go empty.
Yes! You've almost got it. Unsuccessful ones going empty is the entire point. A hell of a lot better than the current system, where the bad schools are full because parents don't have any choice, and the local education authorities just want to protect the status quo.
Your only mistake is that you don't have to end up with mega schools; successful chains of academies will open new ones, or take over the existing poor ones and transform them. The the existing poor ones will have a strong incentive to improve.
More trade figures, another record EU trade deficit. More bad news from the index of production as well. Manufacturing in reverse again.
Feb trade
Exports:
EU - £11.3bn (+£0.4bn) Non-EU - £11.9bn (-£0.1bn)
Imports
EU - £19.9bn (+£1.2bn) Non-EU £15.3bn (-£1.1bn)
Absolutely horrible figures.
If Corrib has come on stream, which I think it did at end January, than that will have skewed the numbers somewhat. Historically, we took gas from Norway (non-EU import), and sent it to Ireland (EU export).
With Corrib basically supplying all of Ireland's gas, it means that non-EU imports will be reduced, as will EU exports.
We probably need to see it stripped out to get underlying trends for the trade balance.
I don't think it's the same one. I don't want to say anything else because it is explosive; that said if you search on the internet it has been reported outside the UK.
I tell you something though- the problem with the internet is that anyone can say anything whether true or false- and it gets picked up somewhere. It is impossible to police.
Last night I alluded to a beast of a super injunction- and it wasn't this threesome celebrity thing. My friend says it is known amongst a few journos. That's what I thought might come out at the Shooting Star tonight.
I wrote a couple of days ago about a 'deviant' politician who the media may be protecting for political reasons because they consider him useful. IMO that's not healthy.
That's all very well. But while he is making this eloquent argument he is not making an eloquent argument to the voters to persuade them to his point of view. And this argument won't win the case.
You are right, of course. I'm surprised to see Dan Hannan making that mistake, he's usually very sharp.
Before the Scottish referendum didn't the government send out a booklet in June and a leaflet in August, ahead of the referendum in the middle of September. I can't remember any outrage at funds being used which would otherwise have gone to the NHS.
Trouble is won't you end up with huge mega schools and potentially reduced competition. And presumably the successful schools will need to expand (costing money) whilst the unsuccessful ones will go empty.
Yes! You've almost got it. Unsuccessful ones going empty is the entire point. A hell of a lot better than the current system, where the bad schools are full because parents don't have any choice, and the local education authorities just want to protect the status quo.
Your only mistake is that you don't have to end up with mega schools; successful chains of academies will open new ones, or take over the existing poor ones and transform them. The the existing poor ones will have a strong incentive to improve.
When the referendum legislation went through parliament, the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, told MPs: “It will be for the yes and the no campaigns to lead the debate in the weeks preceding the poll. I can assure the house that the government has no intention of undermining those campaigns.” [snip]
That's all very well. But while he is making this eloquent argument he is not making an eloquent argument to the voters to persuade them to his point of view. And this argument won't win the case.
People are not going to vote Leave because they're pissed off that the government spent some money on a leaflet ahead of the formal campaign. And it is, frankly, delusional to think that endlessly harping on about this is a winning argument.
Indeed so Ms Cyclefree, - is it too late for you to lead one of the Leave campaigns?
When you consider that Brexit support hovers at around 40% with YouGov it means that there are quite a few undecideds and Remain supporters who oppose this as well.
More trade figures, another record EU trade deficit. More bad news from the index of production as well. Manufacturing in reverse again.
Feb trade
Exports:
EU - £11.3bn (+£0.4bn) Non-EU - £11.9bn (-£0.1bn)
Imports
EU - £19.9bn (+£1.2bn) Non-EU £15.3bn (-£1.1bn)
Absolutely horrible figures.
If Corrib has come on stream, which I think it did at end January, than that will have skewed the numbers somewhat. Historically, we took gas from Norway (non-EU import), and sent it to Ireland (EU export).
With Corrib basically supplying all of Ireland's gas, it means that non-EU imports will be reduced, as will EU exports.
We probably need to see it stripped out to get underlying trends for the trade balance.
Surely that means the numbers are "unskewed" now!
That's a really good point :-)
I guess I was pointing out that the *changes* from the previous month are skewed.
When you consider that Brexit support hovers at around 40% with YouGov it means that there are quite a few undecideds and Remain supporters who oppose this as well.
I wouldn't over-analyse. I'd bet you'd get very similar results if you asked a similar question regarding a government leaflet about any random issue.
When the referendum legislation went through parliament, the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, told MPs: “It will be for the yes and the no campaigns to lead the debate in the weeks preceding the poll. I can assure the house that the government has no intention of undermining those campaigns.”
David Lidington, the likeable Europe minister, was even more emphatic: “Let me repeat that we have no intention of legislating to allow the government to do things such as mailshots, paid advertising or leafleting.”
Why, then, have ministers gone back on their words? Why have they chosen to ignore both Britain’s Electoral Commission, which has declared its unhappiness, and the basic rules on the conduct of referendums required by the Council of Europe, which states: “The use of public funds for campaigning purposes must be prohibited in order to guarantee equality of opportunity and the freedom of voters to form an opinion”? Why have they annoyed neutrals and quite a few Remain campaigners by so flagrant a disregard for fair play?
That's all very well. But while he is making this eloquent argument he is not making an eloquent argument to the voters to persuade them to his point of view. And this argument won't win the case.
People are not going to vote Leave because they're pissed off that the government spent some money on a leaflet ahead of the formal campaign. And it is, frankly, delusional to think that endlessly harping on about this is a winning argument.
That is an argument about using up precious media time. In this case it is probably worthwhile using up media time to reduce the upside for REMAIN that they would have derived from it. From a PR viewpoint if the tag that this leaflet is deceiving and wastes Govt money develops a strong association with it, then the money is not only wasted but may turn into a negative for REMAIN. Cameron's ratings for trust have already been falling.
When the referendum legislation went through parliament, the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, told MPs: “It will be for the yes and the no campaigns to lead the debate in the weeks preceding the poll. I can assure the house that the government has no intention of undermining those campaigns.”
David Lidington, the likeable Europe minister, was even more emphatic: “Let me repeat that we have no intention of legislating to allow the government to do things such as mailshots, paid advertising or leafleting.”
Why, then, have ministers gone back on their words? Why have they chosen to ignore both Britain’s Electoral Commission, which has declared its unhappiness, and the basic rules on the conduct of referendums required by the Council of Europe, which states: “The use of public funds for campaigning purposes must be prohibited in order to guarantee equality of opportunity and the freedom of voters to form an opinion”? Why have they annoyed neutrals and quite a few Remain campaigners by so flagrant a disregard for fair play?
That's all very well. But while he is making this eloquent argument he is not making an eloquent argument to the voters to persuade them to his point of view. And this argument won't win the case.
People are not going to vote Leave because they're pissed off that the government spent some money on a leaflet ahead of the formal campaign. And it is, frankly, delusional to think that endlessly harping on about this is a winning argument.
I think the mileage is limited, of course, but I think it is legitimate to criticise the misuse of public funds for partisan purposes, in order to avoid spending caps.
You lucky man. I think I'd rather be watching the Muse to be honest. Those west country lads have done good and are probably now considered the greatest, global live act...
That's all very well. But while he is making this eloquent argument he is not making an eloquent argument to the voters to persuade them to his point of view. And this argument won't win the case.
You are right, of course. I'm surprised to see Dan Hannan making that mistake, he's usually very sharp.
There are very few people - on either side of the debate - making any sort of argument at all. If it continues at this rate, we may as well toss a coin.
Such a shame I'm seeing Muse tomorrow night in Manchester, or I would be there (trolling them in person)
They'd be better off signing an online petition
How many Conservative backbenchers will be taking part?
David Davis for sure.
Interestingly David Davis was the europhile and Cameron the eurosceptic in the leadership election.
There is something deeply personal between those two that went badly wrong around 2008, but I'm afraid I have no idea what it was.
I do.
When David Davis quit and won the by election, he was expecting Cameron to offer him his old job back PDQ.
Whereas Dave and pretty much the entire Tory Party thought Davis showed his unsuitability to hold high office by holding that vanity by-election.
The irony of it is, had he not resigned, he would have become Home Secretary in 2010, and become a great libertarian Home Secretary.
Yes, David Davis would have been one of the truly great Home Secretaries and wouldn't have been scared into illiberal moves by the spooks in the same way as May.
That's all very well. But while he is making this eloquent argument he is not making an eloquent argument to the voters to persuade them to his point of view. And this argument won't win the case.
You are right, of course. I'm surprised to see Dan Hannan making that mistake, he's usually very sharp.
There are very few people - on either side of the debate - making any sort of argument at all. If it continues at this rate, we may as well toss a coin.
If we are calling it as a coin flip on the eve of the vote then the campaign has worked out quite well for Leave, I think. (This is not the same as saying that Leave has run a good campaign, of course.)
UKIP's defence of council seats they already hold has not been great, in fact I would say that they have been very poor.
So in contrast to Rallings and Thatcher, I expect UKIP to lose seats.
They have virtually none to defend: 2012 was before the UKIP surge.
The forecast of 40 gains is about right IMHO.
R&T are likely wrong re the LibDems, mind. 2012 was a good year for them: 12% in the national opinion polls, and 16% NEV in the locals. They've lost a third of their support since then, so I can't see anything other than -20 to -60 for the Libs.
When the referendum legislation went through parliament, the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, told MPs: “It will be for the yes and the no campaigns to lead the debate in the weeks preceding the poll. I can assure the house that the government has no intention of undermining those campaigns.”
David Lidington, the likeable Europe minister, was even more emphatic: “Let me repeat that we have no intention of legislating to allow the government to do things such as mailshots, paid advertising or leafleting.”
Why, then, have ministers gone back on their words? Why have they chosen to ignore both Britain’s Electoral Commission, which has declared its unhappiness, and the basic rules on the conduct of referendums required by the Council of Europe, which states: “The use of public funds for campaigning purposes must be prohibited in order to guarantee equality of opportunity and the freedom of voters to form an opinion”? Why have they annoyed neutrals and quite a few Remain campaigners by so flagrant a disregard for fair play?
Sorry if I am a bit pedantic but I don't recall the government "legislating" for mailshots, advertising or leaflets. The recent row about the governments leaflet seems to discount the fact that by precedent in the previous Europe referendum the government issued a leaflet. The formal campaigns within which rules are applied has not started yet and the government will keep to those rules.
But it feels like the campaign has started. I’m still solid for Remain, but my wife is coming to the view that if Cameron is going to behave like this over the leaflet, she might switch to Leave. And I can’t say I blame her.
Before the Scottish referendum didn't the government send out a booklet in June and a leaflet in August, ahead of the referendum in the middle of September. I can't remember any outrage at funds being used which would otherwise have gone to the NHS.
Politically engaged people on site about politics have axes to grind shocker.
Such a shame I'm seeing Muse tomorrow night in Manchester, or I would be there (trolling them in person)
They'd be better off signing an online petition
How many Conservative backbenchers will be taking part?
David Davis for sure.
Interestingly David Davis was the europhile and Cameron the eurosceptic in the leadership election.
There is something deeply personal between those two that went badly wrong around 2008, but I'm afraid I have no idea what it was.
I do.
When David Davis quit and won the by election, he was expecting Cameron to offer him his old job back PDQ.
Whereas Dave and pretty much the entire Tory Party thought Davis showed his unsuitability to hold high office by holding that vanity by-election.
The irony of it is, had he not resigned, he would have become Home Secretary in 2010, and become a great libertarian Home Secretary.
Didn't Davis discuss this with Cameron first?
I'm not someone who detests the Right of the Conservative Party. As you say, David Davis would have been a great Home Secretary, IDS was and is passionate about welfare reform for the right reasons and I love Jacob Rees-Mogg.
He would have done something else though that would have finished his mainstream political career. In his DNA, like Enoch Powell. Narcissistic, unhinged mavericks cannot stop themselves.
As much as I don't like May, she has been a blessing for Cameron- quietly effective, and trouble free. David Davis would have been the opposite.
Such a shame I'm seeing Muse tomorrow night in Manchester, or I would be there (trolling them in person)
They'd be better off signing an online petition
How many Conservative backbenchers will be taking part?
David Davis for sure.
Interestingly David Davis was the europhile and Cameron the eurosceptic in the leadership election.
There is something deeply personal between those two that went badly wrong around 2008, but I'm afraid I have no idea what it was.
I do.
When David Davis quit and won the by election, he was expecting Cameron to offer him his old job back PDQ.
Whereas Dave and pretty much the entire Tory Party thought Davis showed his unsuitability to hold high office by holding that vanity by-election.
The irony of it is, had he not resigned, he would have become Home Secretary in 2010, and become a great libertarian Home Secretary.
Didn't Davis discuss this with Cameron first?
I'm not someone who detests the Right of the Conservative Party. As you say, David Davis would have been a great Home Secretary, IDS was and is passionate about welfare reform for the right reasons and I love Jacob Rees-Mogg.
It was less of a discussion more Davis telling Cameron I'm doing this, Cameron saying I think you're making a mistake, think about it, speak to the likes of Iain Dale, who urged him not to quit, but he went and quit within the hour.
I don't think it's the same one. I don't want to say anything else because it is explosive; that said if you search on the internet it has been reported outside the UK.
I tell you something though- the problem with the internet is that anyone can say anything whether true or false- and it gets picked up somewhere. It is impossible to police.
Last night I alluded to a beast of a super injunction- and it wasn't this threesome celebrity thing. My friend says it is known amongst a few journos. That's what I thought might come out at the Shooting Star tonight.
I wrote a couple of days ago about a 'deviant' politician who the media may be protecting for political reasons because they consider him useful. IMO that's not healthy.
I used to hear a lot of stories about well known people doing things. That's what happens when you work with models and stylists. Gossip is a sort of currency.
The thing is that unless you have a newspaper to tell you what is a big one and what isn't you don't really think about them other than as attractive people doing what attractive people do.
More than once I've know about something that turned into a big story without it dawning on me that it was. Even as recently as the hacking inquiry I was told by someone who had been approached about a past relationship.
It was far more eye opening than most of the ones that have appeared but because she's not a tramp it's so far stayed under wraps. It struck me that the only ones that do get known are when someone wants them to be
Such a shame I'm seeing Muse tomorrow night in Manchester, or I would be there (trolling them in person)
They'd be better off signing an online petition
How many Conservative backbenchers will be taking part?
David Davis for sure.
Interestingly David Davis was the europhile and Cameron the eurosceptic in the leadership election.
There is something deeply personal between those two that went badly wrong around 2008, but I'm afraid I have no idea what it was.
I do.
When David Davis quit and won the by election, he was expecting Cameron to offer him his old job back PDQ.
Whereas Dave and pretty much the entire Tory Party thought Davis showed his unsuitability to hold high office by holding that vanity by-election.
The irony of it is, had he not resigned, he would have become Home Secretary in 2010, and become a great libertarian Home Secretary.
Didn't Davis discuss this with Cameron first?
I'm not someone who detests the Right of the Conservative Party. As you say, David Davis would have been a great Home Secretary, IDS was and is passionate about welfare reform for the right reasons and I love Jacob Rees-Mogg.
I have read that he didn't tell Cameron in advance that he was planning to resign.
I like Davis's interventions in defence of civil liberties but I find it hard to imagine him holding down a job in government. Well, he would cut a different figure if that were the case.
UKIP's defence of council seats they already hold has not been great, in fact I would say that they have been very poor.
So in contrast to Rallings and Thatcher, I expect UKIP to lose seats.
They have virtually none to defend: 2012 was before the UKIP surge.
The forecast of 40 gains is about right IMHO.
R&T are likely wrong re the LibDems, mind. 2012 was a good year for them: 12% in the national opinion polls, and 16% NEV in the locals. They've lost a third of their support since then, so I can't see anything other than -20 to -60 for the Libs.
Even if UKIP lose most of the seats they're defending, they'll likely emerge with a net gain. I also think 40 is about right.
He would have done something else though that would have finished his mainstream political career. In his DNA, like Enoch Powell. Narcissistic, unhinged mavericks cannot stop themselves.
As much as I don't like May, she has been a blessing for Cameron- quietly effective, and trouble free. David Davis would have been the opposite.
Such a shame I'm seeing Muse tomorrow night in Manchester, or I would be there (trolling them in person)
They'd be better off signing an online petition
How many Conservative backbenchers will be taking part?
David Davis for sure.
Interestingly David Davis was the europhile and Cameron the eurosceptic in the leadership election.
There is something deeply personal between those two that went badly wrong around 2008, but I'm afraid I have no idea what it was.
I do.
When David Davis quit and won the by election, he was expecting Cameron to offer him his old job back PDQ.
Whereas Dave and pretty much the entire Tory Party thought Davis showed his unsuitability to hold high office by holding that vanity by-election.
The irony of it is, had he not resigned, he would have become Home Secretary in 2010, and become a great libertarian Home Secretary.
Yes, he would definitely have gone out with a bang rather than a whimper. We don't have enough big beasts like that in politics any more. If Osborne is the current Tory big beast (other than Dave) then we've got problems.
That's all very well. But while he is making this eloquent argument he is not making an eloquent argument to the voters to persuade them to his point of view. And this argument won't win the case.
People are not going to vote Leave because they're pissed off that the government spent some money on a leaflet ahead of the formal campaign. And it is, frankly, delusional to think that endlessly harping on about this is a winning argument.
That is an argument about using up precious media time. In this case it is probably worthwhile using up media time to reduce the upside for REMAIN that they would have derived from it. From a PR viewpoint if the tag that this leaflet is deceiving and wastes Govt money develops a strong association with it, then the money is not only wasted but may turn into a negative for REMAIN. Cameron's ratings for trust have already been falling.
Maybe. Most of these leaflets end up in the bin. It's just as likely that more people might read it than not.
When I was a barrister in court one of the more experienced barristers in chambers told me that, from time to time, your witness would give you - despite all your expectations and preparation - the most unhelpful answer possible. In that case - and if it was a jury trial - he said that you should ask him to repeat it slowly, write something down and then move on to the next question without revealing in any way your surprise. That way the jury would simply assume that this was all OK and nothing to worry about. The last thing you should do, he said, was to draw attention to the fact that the witness had just done the equivalent of shooting you in the face.
All Leave have done this week is give the impression that they're more interested in themselves, more interested in some private Tory party vendetta and embarrassed that they did not have the wit to do what the government has done and commissioned their own leaflet.
A far better response would have been to say that it was a disgrace that such a leaflet should cost £9 million, this was an example of government waste similar to [insert example of egregious spending by EU body] and the latter was one of the many reasons why Britain would be better off out along with [insert other reasons / path to sunny uplands etc here].
Comments
In the words of an investment expert this morning there was a "massive misunderstanding" about what Mr Cameron had invested in.
He said it was a hedge fund that was "about as boring as it gets for investments", adding that it would not be used for avoiding tax.
"It's no different from Mr Cameron investing in a UK stock,"
Apparently it is now a resigning matter. It is too mad for words
What a sad country this is sometimes!!
As someone with a young son, I want to see schools that work. Decreasing the illiteracy and innumeracy rates from their long-term p*ss poor rate (~20%) is vital. Not just for my kid, or those kids, but society as a whole.
It'd be nice if they made a profit as well, but ensuring we have kids that leave school able to function in society is absolutely vital.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/07/9-million-pro-eu-leaflet-in-campaign?CMP=share_btn_tw
Will anyone nice be coming? Other than the wonderful OGH himself, of course.......
LOL - Paxo tells it as it is.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3529739/Zut-alors-Jeremy-Paxman-launches-savage-attack-French-saying-language-useless-famous-achievements-long-past.html
Twitter didn't have as good a General Election.
https://twitter.com/AbiWilks/status/718418577745932288
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/04/08/camerons-ratings-now-lower-corbyns/
Italians are fascinated by conspiracy. Their evening TV mixes between Berlusconi's tits and arse shows that go on and on, and then the most ludicrous documentaries on say how Diana was murdered by the M15 because she was pregnant which is just presented as fact like we'd watch Panorama. Quite incredible.
I don't support everyone making a profit for the good of my Hayek, but I also don't think profit is a dirty word.
With Corrib basically supplying all of Ireland's gas, it means that non-EU imports will be reduced, as will EU exports.
We probably need to see it stripped out to get underlying trends for the trade balance.
They'd be better off signing an online petition
@David_Ross86: Extraordinary GMS interview with Chinese consortium rep. Said specific projects identified and they have been in talks with SNP for a year.
From my personal and professional experience of Italy (and I have plenty of both), the explanation for most things in Italy is rarely simple. Ockham's Razor simply has no purchase there.
It's trending on twitter
This is not "gaining traction". But carry on feeling good about yourself with your clicktivism!
(And I am going off cameron rapidly too, this is not the same as wanting him to resign, dearie me)
On David Cameron dealing with the issues of tax avoidance and tax havens:
Would trust: 23%
Would not trust: 68%
(via YouGov / 06 - 07 Apr)
Britain Elects @britainelects 4m4 minutes ago
On Jeremy Corbyn dealing with the issues of tax avoidance and tax havens:
Would trust: 39%
Would not trust: 47%
(via YouGov / 06 - 07 Apr)
My problem is right now only the wealthy and privileged can access it.
I want all parents to have the same choices.
I wonder if they might find common cause with some Tory backbenchers. It's always worth remembering that one of the biggest ructions of Cameron's leadership was over grammar schools.
People are not going to vote Leave because they're pissed off that the government spent some money on a leaflet ahead of the formal campaign. And it is, frankly, delusional to think that endlessly harping on about this is a winning argument.
Your only mistake is that you don't have to end up with mega schools; successful chains of academies will open new ones, or take over the existing poor ones and transform them. The the existing poor ones will have a strong incentive to improve.
So in contrast to Rallings and Thatcher, I expect UKIP to lose seats.
Maybe they've realised that lefties don't like to pay for subscriptions and they block adverts!
I tell you something though- the problem with the internet is that anyone can say anything whether true or false- and it gets picked up somewhere. It is impossible to police.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-35982241
And still it continues, at this rate there’ll be no blokes left in the town.
Cue Bono • 36 minutes ago
"Wouldn't you prefer to use the back door?"
http://order-order.com/2016/04/08/friday-caption-contest-redacted-edition/#disqus_thread
I can't remember any outrage at funds being used which would otherwise have gone to the NHS.
A winning team !
People are not going to vote Leave because they're pissed off that the government spent some money on a leaflet ahead of the formal campaign. And it is, frankly, delusional to think that endlessly harping on about this is a winning argument.
Indeed so Ms Cyclefree, - is it too late for you to lead one of the Leave campaigns?
There is something deeply personal between those two that went badly wrong around 2008, but I'm afraid I have no idea what it was.
Perhaps a bit of humble pie is missing from their diet. Still, they always plough on telling us we're wrong.
I guess I was pointing out that the *changes* from the previous month are skewed.
People are not going to vote Leave because they're pissed off that the government spent some money on a leaflet ahead of the formal campaign. And it is, frankly, delusional to think that endlessly harping on about this is a winning argument.
I think the mileage is limited, of course, but I think it is legitimate to criticise the misuse of public funds for partisan purposes, in order to avoid spending caps.
You lucky man.
I think I'd rather be watching the Muse to be honest. Those west country lads have done good and are probably now considered the greatest, global live act...
When David Davis quit and won the by election, he was expecting Cameron to offer him his old job back PDQ.
Whereas Dave and pretty much the entire Tory Party thought Davis showed his unsuitability to hold high office by holding that vanity by-election.
The irony of it is, had he not resigned, he would have become Home Secretary in 2010, and become a great libertarian Home Secretary.
The forecast of 40 gains is about right IMHO.
R&T are likely wrong re the LibDems, mind. 2012 was a good year for them: 12% in the national opinion polls, and 16% NEV in the locals. They've lost a third of their support since then, so I can't see anything other than -20 to -60 for the Libs.
But it feels like the campaign has started. I’m still solid for Remain, but my wife is coming to the view that if Cameron is going to behave like this over the leaflet, she might switch to Leave.
And I can’t say I blame her.
I'm not someone who detests the Right of the Conservative Party. As you say, David Davis would have been a great Home Secretary, IDS was and is passionate about welfare reform for the right reasons and I love Jacob Rees-Mogg.
As much as I don't like May, she has been a blessing for Cameron- quietly effective, and trouble free. David Davis would have been the opposite.
*Checks Downing Street*
Yep. He's still there guys.
It all feels reminiscent of the Lib Dems Winning Here PB mantra prior to GE2015 that misled many of us.
The thing is that unless you have a newspaper to tell you what is a big one and what isn't you don't really think about them other than as attractive people doing what attractive people do.
More than once I've know about something that turned into a big story without it dawning on me that it was. Even as recently as the hacking inquiry I was told by someone who had been approached about a past relationship.
It was far more eye opening than most of the ones that have appeared but because she's not a tramp it's so far stayed under wraps. It struck me that the only ones that do get known are when someone wants them to be
I like Davis's interventions in defence of civil liberties but I find it hard to imagine him holding down a job in government. Well, he would cut a different figure if that were the case.
The Crosby/Textor private polling for the Tories in March/April 2015 had the Lib Dems winning most of their Con facing seats.
It wasn't until Jan 2014 that the Tories start moving resources into the Lib Dem held seats, prior to that they thought it was a waste of resources.
I mean George Osborne was texting Nick Clegg on election day to persuade him to agree to a second coalition.
Maybe. Most of these leaflets end up in the bin. It's just as likely that more people might read it than not.
When I was a barrister in court one of the more experienced barristers in chambers told me that, from time to time, your witness would give you - despite all your expectations and preparation - the most unhelpful answer possible. In that case - and if it was a jury trial - he said that you should ask him to repeat it slowly, write something down and then move on to the next question without revealing in any way your surprise. That way the jury would simply assume that this was all OK and nothing to worry about. The last thing you should do, he said, was to draw attention to the fact that the witness had just done the equivalent of shooting you in the face.
All Leave have done this week is give the impression that they're more interested in themselves, more interested in some private Tory party vendetta and embarrassed that they did not have the wit to do what the government has done and commissioned their own leaflet.
A far better response would have been to say that it was a disgrace that such a leaflet should cost £9 million, this was an example of government waste similar to [insert example of egregious spending by EU body] and the latter was one of the many reasons why Britain would be better off out along with [insert other reasons / path to sunny uplands etc here].
And then move on.