Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Brown is widely acknowledged as having led the international response so he can hardly have been paralysed by the crash. Distracted from other events, perhaps.
Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Brown is widely acknowledged as having led the international response so he can hardly have been paralysed by the crash. Distracted from other events, perhaps.
That is the biggest pile of B/S Only in his own mind did Brown save the world. Darling had to drag Brown kicking and screaming to the rescue of British banks that weekend in October 2008. And it was Brown's paralysis and refusal to countenance a deal which would have saved Northern Rock which led to the run on its branches and its eventual collapse months later.
Is Corbyn about to emulate Ramsay MacDonald for incoherence & illogical statements?
How many plcs would attempt to copy George Osborne's forecasting technique. It reminds me of the story about Kingsley Amis talking to Margaret Thatcher about his book Russian Hide and Seek. The theme was 50 years after the Russian conquest of Britain. Her reply was on the lines of buy yourself a new crystal ball.
Utah really does not like Trump, he could be the first Republican to lose the state since Goldwater!
indeed so. The Romney effect in play.
That said I'd still expect a comfortable Trump win in Utah in November albeit not by the landslide proportions normally expected of GOP candidates.
Do you think the GOP will kiss and make up after Cleveland ?
Will Hillary/SCOTUS focus minds ?
To a significant degree yes. Although there will remain some as indicated by the Utah poll that would see hell freeze over before lifting a finger for Trump. The Donald's principal problems are his narrow base, shocking negatives and awful pull with minorities in swing states.
The SCOTUS issue will likely assist Clinton more than the GOP at the margin especially given the polling that shows a substantial slice of GOP voters disagree with the blocking tactics of the Senate Republicans.
' Budget 2008, Stability and opportunity: building a strong, sustainable future, presents updated assessments and forecasts of the economy and public finances, and reports on how the Government's policies are delivering its long-term goals. The Budget reports that the economy is stable and resilient, and continuing to grow, and that the Government is meeting its strict fiscal rules for the public finances '
So in March 2008 the Treasury thought that the economy was strong and resilient and continuing to grow.
The following four quarters of the 'strong, resilient and continuing to grow' economy had growth of:
Utah really does not like Trump, he could be the first Republican to lose the state since Goldwater!
indeed so. The Romney effect in play.
That said I'd still expect a comfortable Trump win in Utah in November albeit not by the landslide proportions normally expected of GOP candidates.
Do you think the GOP will kiss and make up after Cleveland ?
Will Hillary/SCOTUS focus minds ?
To a significant degree yes. Although there will remain some as indicated by the Utah poll that would see hell freeze over before lifting a finger for Trump. The Donald's principal problems are his narrow base, shocking negatives and awful pull with minorities in swing states.
The SCOTUS issue will likely assist Clinton more than the GOP at the margin especially given the polling that shows a substantial slice of GOP voters disagree with the blocking tactics of the Senate Republicans.
SCOTUS gets the Sanders voters turning out in numbes for Hilary which she was going to have problems with otherwise.
Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Thanks. You both make some interesting points.
Incidentally, hearing Mandelson speak, or not, isn't the issue. I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.
It's the politics of the politics within my business that concerns me.
The Out camp has failed to come down clearly on what post-Brexit trading arrangement it favours. It claims, with straight face, that Britain could maintain access to the single market without meeting the obligations this entails as regards free movement of people. This disdain for political reality bears more than a passing resemblance to the Know Nothing rhetoric of Donald Trump.
This June’s referendum is the most important political decision that the British people will take for a generation. All sides must engage in arguments of substance. The Treasury’s report is a useful counterpoint in a debate that is becoming increasingly politically charged, especially within a divided Conservative party. If the Brexiteers cannot respond by addressing the issues it raises head on, they do not deserve to be taken seriously.
The Out camp has failed to come down clearly on what post-Brexit trading arrangement it favours. It claims, with straight face, that Britain could maintain access to the single market without meeting the obligations this entails as regards free movement of people. This disdain for political reality bears more than a passing resemblance to the Know Nothing rhetoric of Donald Trump.
This June’s referendum is the most important political decision that the British people will take for a generation. All sides must engage in arguments of substance. The Treasury’s report is a useful counterpoint in a debate that is becoming increasingly politically charged, especially within a divided Conservative party. If the Brexiteers cannot respond by addressing the issues it raises head on, they do not deserve to be taken seriously.
Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Thanks. You both make some interesting points.
Incidentally, hearing Mandelson speak, or not, isn't the issue. I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.
It's the politics of the politics within my business that concerns me.
Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Thanks. You both make some interesting points.
Incidentally, hearing Mandelson speak, or not, isn't the issue. I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.
It's the politics of the politics within my business that concerns me.
Your employer should welcome people with alternative views.
Few things are as dangerous as unchallenged groupthink.
Well, if this is symptomatic of the next 65 days, I doubt many of us will make it to June 23rd.
I keep coming back to Ernest Bevin's words on Britain's relationship with Europe as far back as 1950 - we aren't socially, culturally, politically or economically European. Geography and history (950 years since a different kind of referendum down on the south coast which REMAIN won) mean we need to have a relationship with Europe and pretending it isn't there isn't an option.
Defining that relationship is the problem - I suspect most people are happy with the economic aspects particularly the Single Market and nobody wants to go back to the bad old days of mutually antagonistic militaristic nation states working out their differences via blood and gore every so often.
And yet from Magna Carta onwards, the English in particular have had a difficult relationship with the State. We beheaded a King who tried to be an autocrat and our relative political stability since then has not been unrelated to a political and representative system which, while not without its flaws. generally works pretty well.
Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Thanks. You both make some interesting points.
Incidentally, hearing Mandelson speak, or not, isn't the issue. I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.
It's the politics of the politics within my business that concerns me.
Your employer should welcome people with alternative views.
Few things are as dangerous as unchallenged groupthink.
It seems the polls are now stuck in a pattern that indicates Remain. Only three things could swing it for Leave. 1. Tony Blair takes a higher profile for Remain. 2.Andy Burnham declares that we have 66 days to save the NHS by voting Remain. 3.Jeremy Corbyn says that he intends from now on to campaign actively for Remain. You never know. Do not under estimate the sheer uselessness of the Labour party in this situation. Todays ICM polls underline how marginalised they are from the national conversation.
Well, if this is symptomatic of the next 65 days, I doubt many of us will make it to June 23rd.
I keep coming back to Ernest Bevin's words on Britain's relationship with Europe as far back as 1950 - we aren't socially, culturally, politically or economically European. Geography and history (950 years since a different kind of referendum down on the south coast which REMAIN won) mean we need to have a relationship with Europe and pretending it isn't there isn't an option.
Defining that relationship is the problem - I suspect most people are happy with the economic aspects particularly the Single Market and nobody wants to go back to the bad old days of mutually antagonistic militaristic nation states working out their differences via blood and gore every so often.
And yet from Magna Carta onwards, the English in particular have had a difficult relationship with the State. We beheaded a King who tried to be an autocrat and our relative political stability since then has not been unrelated to a political and representative system which, while not without its flaws. generally works pretty well.
Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Thanks. You both make some interesting points.
Incidentally, hearing Mandelson speak, or not, isn't the issue. I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.
It's the politics of the politics within my business that concerns me.
Your employer should welcome people with alternative views.
Few things are as dangerous as unchallenged groupthink.
Well, if this is symptomatic of the next 65 days, I doubt many of us will make it to June 23rd.
I keep coming back to Ernest Bevin's words on Britain's relationship with Europe as far back as 1950 - we aren't socially, culturally, politically or economically European. Geography and history (950 years since a different kind of referendum down on the south coast which REMAIN won) mean we need to have a relationship with Europe and pretending it isn't there isn't an option.
Defining that relationship is the problem - I suspect most people are happy with the economic aspects particularly the Single Market and nobody wants to go back to the bad old days of mutually antagonistic militaristic nation states working out their differences via blood and gore every so often.
And yet from Magna Carta onwards, the English in particular have had a difficult relationship with the State. We beheaded a King who tried to be an autocrat and our relative political stability since then has not been unrelated to a political and representative system which, while not without its flaws. generally works pretty well.
I've more or less come to the conclusion that, whatever his motivation, Charles de Gaulle had it right when he kept saying "Non" to UK entering the Common Market.
Utah really does not like Trump, he could be the first Republican to lose the state since Goldwater!
indeed so. The Romney effect in play.
That said I'd still expect a comfortable Trump win in Utah in November albeit not by the landslide proportions normally expected of GOP candidates.
Indeed but if the GOP are having to defend Utah, that will not help their efforts!
I really don't think much blood and gold will have to expended in Utah.
Trump's problems lie elsewhere - Swingstategedon
Any gold he does have to spend in Salt Lake City is gold that cannot be spent in Ohio, Virginia and Florida
We're really talking small potatoes in Utah. Trump will not be short of tubers for the general election.
It has 6 EC votes, 2 more than NH, in a very tight race it could be crucial. Even having to divert the campaign plane to Utah in the final days costs vital hours in the swing states
LOL. That is brilliant. To think there were those who actually thought Truss might be a future Tory leader. When you don't even know the scope of your own department your really are out of your depth,
Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Thanks. You both make some interesting points.
Incidentally, hearing Mandelson speak, or not, isn't the issue. I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.
It's the politics of the politics within my business that concerns me.
If you value the business you work for and your colleagues I would not put that at risk. Sometimes delightful and intelligent people can have different views on a topic. It may be better to just park some issues. And if you feel you won't be able to stay quiet, then I would stay away. But I'm sure you can be quiet and listen. You may be surprised to find that others have more doubts than you are assuming.
And it would probably do you good to listen to why they are Remainers.
And then you can come and vent on here.....!
Mind you at these dinners, what with all the drinking and networking and social chit chat and eating and the like there's precious little time for discussing any substance. I'd concentrate on the networking for the good of your career.
It seems the polls are now stuck in a pattern that indicates Remain. Only three things could swing it for Leave. 1. Tony Blair takes a higher profile for Remain. 2.Andy Burnham declares that we have 66 days to save the NHS by voting Remain. 3.Jeremy Corbyn says that he intends from now on to campaign actively for Remain. You never know. Do not under estimate the sheer uselessness of the Labour party in this situation. Todays ICM polls underline how marginalised they are from the national conversation.
Tony Blair is making a big pro Leave speech at the weekend. Apparently, we can never truly be up George Bush's butt, unless we leave the EU.
Trump's Betfair odds to win the GOP nomination have shortened by 30% over the past 48 hours from Evens to 7/10 but thus far has barely rated a mention on the site. Had his odds instead LENGTHENED by 30%, that would have been headline news on PB.com and would have triggered a new thread highlighting such news.
Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Thanks. You both make some interesting points.
Incidentally, hearing Mandelson speak, or not, isn't the issue. I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.
It's the politics of the politics within my business that concerns me.
Your employer should welcome people with alternative views.
Few things are as dangerous as unchallenged groupthink.
Should but don't. At least not in my experience.
The good ones do.
I guess that doesn't contradict your comment.
I had one very good employer, and groupthink was an immense problem there.
The assessment criteria were fairly consistent with personality styles, so that only the approved personality types could hope for promotion.
Living the EU dream, just back from day business trip to Berlin. Surprisingly good day. Tesla S taxi to the airport was added bonus. Those things shift.
Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Thanks. You both make some interesting points.
Incidentally, hearing Mandelson speak, or not, isn't the issue. I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.
It's the politics of the politics within my business that concerns me.
Casino my advice is to stay quiet. Your employer has a strong view the other way seeing it as fundamental to their business. Misguided, probably, but think of your economic well being.
Trump's Betfair odds to win the GOP nomination have shortened by 30% over the past 48 hours from Evens to 7/10 but thus far has barely rated a mention. Had his odds instead LENGTHENED by 30%, that would have been headline news on PB.com and would have triggered a new thread highlighting such news.
Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Thanks. You both make some interesting points.
Incidentally, hearing Mandelson speak, or not, isn't the issue. I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.
It's the politics of the politics within my business that concerns me.
Your employer should welcome people with alternative views.
Few things are as dangerous as unchallenged groupthink.
Should but don't. At least not in my experience.
The good ones do.
I guess that doesn't contradict your comment.
I had one very good employer, and groupthink was an immense problem there.
The assessment criteria were fairly consistent with personality styles, so that only the approved personality types could hope for promotion.
Its certainly possible that the groupthink might be right for an organisation.
But is should always be open to outside views.
When organisations are unwilling to accept questions then they fall into complacency and stagnation.
Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Thanks. You both make some interesting points.
Incidentally, hearing Mandelson speak, or not, isn't the issue. I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.
It's the politics of the politics within my business that concerns me.
Just delight in the fact your boss as exactly the same number of votes as you, that you are probably not alone in the room and that - so long as he is with you - Mandleson is wasting his time, which could be better spent elsewhere.
Regarding the ICM, are we certain that they haven't changed the methodology since the last poll, as they keep threatening to do? Otherwise, it is the outlier, as all other polls in the meantime have shown a marked shift towards labour.
Regarding the ICM, are we certain that they haven't changed the methodology since the last poll, as they keep threatening to do? Otherwise, it is the outlier, as all other polls in the meantime have shown a marked shift towards labour.
ComRes also showed a 5-point Tory lead at the weekend.
Regarding the ICM, are we certain that they haven't changed the methodology since the last poll, as they keep threatening to do? Otherwise, it is the outlier, as all other polls in the meantime have shown a marked shift towards labour.
ComRes also showed a 5-point Tory lead at the weekend.
Yes, but the trend was still towards labour. The trend here is against, unlike pretty much every other poll in the period.
On work environments, despite not being a supporter of them myself, I've found myself surprised on occasion to hear what is normally a very politically cautious office openly opine that UKIP and all its supporters are clear racists. It's all the more surprising to me as I live and work in the Tory shires, where I'd assume a certain level of UKIP affinity to filter through even in the public sector.
On work environments, despite not being a supporter of them myself, I've found myself surprised on occasion to hear what is normally a very politically cautious office openly opine that UKIP and all its supporters are clear racists. It's all the more surprising to me as I live and work in the Tory shires, where I'd assume a certain level of UKIP affinity to filter through even in the public sector.
I work in the civil service and hear similar things said about Ukip. What's odd is that the people saying it don't for a second imagine there are Ukip voters in the office. Quite how they'd react if they encountered a Ukip supporter I don't know.
Even disregarding her ministerial job Truss is MP for Norfolk SW, one of the most agricultural dependent constituencies in the country.
I thought she had a vote winner idea with increasing the child to staff ratios in nursery schools. She backed it up with figures from (i believe) Holland and it would have enabled a lower charge to parents, more profit for the schools and higher wages. Alas having been given the job, she buckled under the opposition of Clegg and took a job elsewhere in return for her acquiescence. Completely lacked principles and backbone. Oh and she stole the childrens minister job of Tim Loughton who had done good work on reducing the number of kids in care. No surprise to see her advocating REMAIN.
Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Brown is widely acknowledged as having led the international response so he can hardly have been paralysed by the crash. Distracted from other events, perhaps.
That is the biggest pile of B/S Only in his own mind did Brown save the world. Darling had to drag Brown kicking and screaming to the rescue of British banks that weekend in October 2008. And it was Brown's paralysis and refusal to countenance a deal which would have saved Northern Rock which led to the run on its branches and its eventual collapse months later.
Quite so. It is incredible that some of Brown's delusions (bordering on the medical) survive to this day.
That civil Tory Civil War is going well then. IDS has already implicitly called Cameron a liar, now a coward, the remainers have called leavers delusional. And it's so early too.
Luckily for them, The Bearded Tit remains firmly ensconced as leader of the Labour Party.
And the blue tit leads the Conservatives and the great tit UKIP.
I wouldn't like to say if any of the lady leaders are Penduline Tits....
On work environments, despite not being a supporter of them myself, I've found myself surprised on occasion to hear what is normally a very politically cautious office openly opine that UKIP and all its supporters are clear racists. It's all the more surprising to me as I live and work in the Tory shires, where I'd assume a certain level of UKIP affinity to filter through even in the public sector.
I find it amusing when the same people who openly attack UKIP subsequently make some incredibly un-PC comment.
That is pretty stunning. I thought she was better than that.
Astonishing ignorance.
But perhaps this results from uncritically sucking up all the propaganda about Norway that the government have engaged in since day one.
As I argued ages ago, the Norway model is a huge danger for the government because it is so close to what most of the public want. Hence the desperate attempts to rubbish it from the off.
So can someone who knows more than me (TSE?) confirm whether ICM methodology is the same then? I'm genuinely interested.
I'm like John Snow, I know nothing, as they've not published the tables yet.
My own hunch is that this poll is a reversion to the mean, as last month was a tie, and ICM said it was a rogue poll due to the sample being too skewed to voting Labour in May 2015.
Allistair Heath gives Osborne both barrels. "Yet the Treasury report on the supposed long-term impact of leaving the EU is shameful, undoubtedly the worst piece of “research” from a government department in years. It starts off with a scandalously biased assumption: that there can be no possible economic benefits to Brexit, just costs. In other words, it’s not really a cost-benefit analysis of Brexit, but merely a cost-cost one. And not just any costs, mind: in each case, any downsides are magnified in an extreme way. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/18/the-treasurys-dodgy-dossier-on-brexit-is-beneath-contempt/
That is pretty stunning. I thought she was better than that.
Astonishing ignorance.
But perhaps this results from uncritically sucking up all the propaganda about Norway that the government have engaged in since day one.
As I argued ages ago, the Norway model is a huge danger for the government because it is so close to what most of the public want. Hence the desperate attempts to rubbish it from the off.
I am so disappointed that we have waited 40 odds years for this opportunity and the Norway Option has been largely ignored. Project Fear would be just a fraction of what we are seeing as we would retain access to the Single Market and maintain freedom of movement.
IF we vote to remain I really really hope everyone in Vote Leave, Leave.eu, Grassroots Out, etc., has a long hard think about what to propose in order to give us the best chance of leaving.
Sorry, am I missing something here? Truss didn't mention CAP. It was the bloke who replied who brought it up. Or are we saying that post-Leave the EU can do what it likes with agricultural policy and it will never affect us one iota?
Sorry, am I missing something here? Truss didn't mention CAP. It was the bloke who replied who brought it up. Or are we saying that post-Leave the EU can do what it likes with agricultural policy and it will never affect us one iota?
Sorry, am I missing something here? Truss didn't mention CAP. It was the bloke who replied who brought it up. Or are we saying that post-Leave the EU can do what it likes with agricultural policy and it will never affect us one iota?
Sorry, am I missing something here? Truss didn't mention CAP. It was the bloke who replied who brought it up. Or are we saying that post-Leave the EU can do what it likes with agricultural policy and it will never affect us one iota?
Yes.
Please tell me what.
the EU can do what it likes with agricultural policy and it will never affect us one iota
Sorry, am I missing something here? Truss didn't mention CAP. It was the bloke who replied who brought it up. Or are we saying that post-Leave the EU can do what it likes with agricultural policy and it will never affect us one iota?
Yes.
Please tell me what.
I really think yes covers it. If you think that is a sensible comment you are missing a lot. If you think that agricultural policy within the EU would bother us once we leave (even within the EEA) you are missing more. We would choose what to spend on supporting our own agriculture or what not to spend. Hence the NFU vote today.
So can someone who knows more than me (TSE?) confirm whether ICM methodology is the same then? I'm genuinely interested.
I'm like John Snow, I know nothing, as they've not published the tables yet.
My own hunch is that this poll is a reversion to the mean, as last month was a tie, and ICM said it was a rogue poll due to the sample being too skewed to voting Labour in May 2015.
My view is that on average, the Conservatives are 1-2% ahead of Labour.
Sorry, am I missing something here? Truss didn't mention CAP. It was the bloke who replied who brought it up. Or are we saying that post-Leave the EU can do what it likes with agricultural policy and it will never affect us one iota?
Yes.
Please tell me what.
I really think yes covers it. If you think that is a sensible comment you are missing a lot. If you think that agricultural policy within the EU would bother us once we leave (even within the EEA) you are missing more. We would choose what to spend on supporting our own agriculture or what not to spend. Hence the NFU vote today.
So Truss thinks our agriculture would be better served sitting at the High Table; you think that's of no moment. Fair enough. It's a difference of opinion. But I got the impression she'd dropped a huge clanger or something.
Sorry, am I missing something here? Truss didn't mention CAP. It was the bloke who replied who brought it up. Or are we saying that post-Leave the EU can do what it likes with agricultural policy and it will never affect us one iota?
Yes.
Please tell me what.
I really think yes covers it. If you think that is a sensible comment you are missing a lot. If you think that agricultural policy within the EU would bother us once we leave (even within the EEA) you are missing more. We would choose what to spend on supporting our own agriculture or what not to spend. Hence the NFU vote today.
So Truss thinks our agriculture would be better served sitting at the High Table; you think that's of no moment. Fair enough. It's a difference of opinion. But I got the impression she'd dropped a huge clanger or something.
Better go back to sarcasm and winding people up. You showed some real talent at that.
Why would it benefit us being at the High Table when we take no part in the feast? When we have ordered our own carry out? When what is decided is of no relevance to us and we no longer foot a part of the bill? It is an idiotic thing to say. Or, as Robert says, much more likely to have said on her behalf by some dumb bell who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Sorry, am I missing something here? Truss didn't mention CAP. It was the bloke who replied who brought it up. Or are we saying that post-Leave the EU can do what it likes with agricultural policy and it will never affect us one iota?
Yes.
Please tell me what.
I really think yes covers it. If you think that is a sensible comment you are missing a lot. If you think that agricultural policy within the EU would bother us once we leave (even within the EEA) you are missing more. We would choose what to spend on supporting our own agriculture or what not to spend. Hence the NFU vote today.
So Truss thinks our agriculture would be better served sitting at the High Table; you think that's of no moment. Fair enough. It's a difference of opinion. But I got the impression she'd dropped a huge clanger or something.
"our agriculture would be better served sitting at the High Table"
What high table? Why do we even need to sit there?
Why be in an organisation where QMV (and the French) can out-vote us in agriculture?
Allistair Heath gives Osborne both barrels. "Yet the Treasury report on the supposed long-term impact of leaving the EU is shameful, undoubtedly the worst piece of “research” from a government department in years. It starts off with a scandalously biased assumption: that there can be no possible economic benefits to Brexit, just costs. In other words, it’s not really a cost-benefit analysis of Brexit, but merely a cost-cost one. And not just any costs, mind: in each case, any downsides are magnified in an extreme way. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/18/the-treasurys-dodgy-dossier-on-brexit-is-beneath-contempt/
Allistair Heath gives Osborne both barrels. "Yet the Treasury report on the supposed long-term impact of leaving the EU is shameful, undoubtedly the worst piece of “research” from a government department in years. It starts off with a scandalously biased assumption: that there can be no possible economic benefits to Brexit, just costs. In other words, it’s not really a cost-benefit analysis of Brexit, but merely a cost-cost one. And not just any costs, mind: in each case, any downsides are magnified in an extreme way. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/18/the-treasurys-dodgy-dossier-on-brexit-is-beneath-contempt/
I don't always agree with him, but he is spot on here.
Sorry, am I missing something here? Truss didn't mention CAP. It was the bloke who replied who brought it up. Or are we saying that post-Leave the EU can do what it likes with agricultural policy and it will never affect us one iota?
Yes.
Please tell me what.
I really think yes covers it. If you think that is a sensible comment you are missing a lot. If you think that agricultural policy within the EU would bother us once we leave (even within the EEA) you are missing more. We would choose what to spend on supporting our own agriculture or what not to spend. Hence the NFU vote today.
So Truss thinks our agriculture would be better served sitting at the High Table; you think that's of no moment. Fair enough. It's a difference of opinion. But I got the impression she'd dropped a huge clanger or something.
If we are not in the EU we are not subject to the CAP. As such we have no need to be 'at the high table' because we have complete control over our own agriculture.
This Spurs side are seriously good and a delight to watch. Didn't enjoy the 3 goals against United as much but it was still hard not to admire the skill.
It seems the polls are now stuck in a pattern that indicates Remain. Only three things could swing it for Leave. 1. Tony Blair takes a higher profile for Remain. 2.Andy Burnham declares that we have 66 days to save the NHS by voting Remain. 3.Jeremy Corbyn says that he intends from now on to campaign actively for Remain. You never know. Do not under estimate the sheer uselessness of the Labour party in this situation. Todays ICM polls underline how marginalised they are from the national conversation.
4. Eddie Izzard and Emma Thompson start campaigning very publicly for Remain 5. Roger predicts a Remain landslide 6. Dan Hodges promises to streak fully starkers this time if Leave win
Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Thanks. You both make some interesting points.
Incidentally, hearing Mandelson speak, or not, isn't the issue. I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.
It's the politics of the politics within my business that concerns me.
If you value the business you work for and your colleagues I would not put that at risk. Sometimes delightful and intelligent people can have different views on a topic. It may be better to just park some issues. And if you feel you won't be able to stay quiet, then I would stay away. But I'm sure you can be quiet and listen. You may be surprised to find that others have more doubts than you are assuming.
And it would probably do you good to listen to why they are Remainers.
And then you can come and vent on here.....!
Mind you at these dinners, what with all the drinking and networking and social chit chat and eating and the like there's precious little time for discussing any substance. I'd concentrate on the networking for the good of your career.
This whole obsession with 'high tables' and 'top tables' just proves what the establishment's attachment to the EU is about i.e. self-advancement, vanity and lording it over the rest of us.
Off topic - my firm (led by ardent Remainers) have invited me along to an event on 14th June at Westminster Abbey where the guest speaker is Peter Mandelson, who will be "sharing his thoughts" on the Europe debate.
They have booked a table, invited me as along it's a "fantastic networking event" but don't know I'm a Leaver.
I really don't think it's a good idea for me to go, especially barely 10 days before the vote. The subject is bound to come up around the table. I'm not sure I could keep my mouth shut.
What do pb'ers think? How would I politely turn it down without giving my views away?
I would go because I think such occasions can be interesting, it is always useful to hear what those who are on the opposite side of you in an argument have to say and you can learn an awful lot by listening and asking a few questions rather than speaking.
But if you really don't want to go, an alternative social / family engagement is the way to decline politely.
I agree. One of the best political meetings I have ever been to was when Jimmy Reid was standing in Dundee as a candidate. I agreed with almost nothing he said but boy, did he say it well.
Mandelson has many flaws but is, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the crash. Brown was completely paralysed by it and seriously needed someone competent to run his government for him. He is an interesting guy and I would not miss the opportunity to hear him speak.
Thanks. You both make some interesting points.
Incidentally, hearing Mandelson speak, or not, isn't the issue. I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.
It's the politics of the politics within my business that concerns me.
Casino my advice is to stay quiet. Your employer has a strong view the other way seeing it as fundamental to their business. Misguided, probably, but think of your economic well being.
I have an idea. Basically, if I get directly challenged, I need to be a politician:
Employer: "he's so right, isn't it?" Me: "he certainly has some interesting views, which he put across with real conviction" Employer: "but to Leave would be crazy, wouldn't it?" Me: "none of us can predict the future; but that's what makes life so exciting, doesn't it? Another glass of wine?"
Comments
How many plcs would attempt to copy George Osborne's forecasting technique. It reminds me of the story about Kingsley Amis talking to Margaret Thatcher about his book Russian Hide and Seek. The theme was 50 years after the Russian conquest of Britain. Her reply was on the lines of buy yourself a new crystal ball.
The SCOTUS issue will likely assist Clinton more than the GOP at the margin especially given the polling that shows a substantial slice of GOP voters disagree with the blocking tactics of the Senate Republicans.
The same Treasury which produced this document in March 2008:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/bud08_chapter1.pdf
It begins:
' Budget 2008, Stability and opportunity: building a strong, sustainable future, presents updated assessments and forecasts of the economy and public finances, and reports on how the Government's policies are delivering its long-term goals. The Budget reports that the economy is stable and resilient, and continuing to grow, and that the Government is meeting its strict fiscal rules for the public finances '
So in March 2008 the Treasury thought that the economy was strong and resilient and continuing to grow.
The following four quarters of the 'strong, resilient and continuing to grow' economy had growth of:
2008q2 -0.6%
2008q3 -1.7%
2008q4 -2.3%
2009q1 -1.6%
A year later the Treasury's borrowing predictions had increased by half a TRILLION pounds.
Unsurprising, if you're not actually a member.
The same Osborne who has created an actual £170bn black hole in the government finances since 2010.
What's the saying about motes and beams ?
Incidentally, hearing Mandelson speak, or not, isn't the issue. I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.
It's the politics of the politics within my business that concerns me.
It has pithier analysis, lots more readers and we all get just one vote
Does the FT still advocate Britain joining the Euro ?
@NickThornsby: The happy moron and Brexit - The Boston Globe << @nfergus skewers the Brexiters https://t.co/utJZB2x4Xl
It has pithier analysis, lots more readers and we all get just one vote
That's the FT that supported Kinnock, the ERM and the Euro.
If Remainers want to try to convince Leavers they are going to have to do better than that.
Being in government has totally destroyed them.
The ironic thing is I'm increasingly viewing their governmental performance in favourable terms.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/722103211834871808
Perhaps it'll all become crystal clear on Friday once Obama tells us obedient Brits how to vote.
Few things are as dangerous as unchallenged groupthink.
Trump's problems lie elsewhere - Swingstategedon
Well, if this is symptomatic of the next 65 days, I doubt many of us will make it to June 23rd.
I keep coming back to Ernest Bevin's words on Britain's relationship with Europe as far back as 1950 - we aren't socially, culturally, politically or economically European. Geography and history (950 years since a different kind of referendum down on the south coast which REMAIN won) mean we need to have a relationship with Europe and pretending it isn't there isn't an option.
Defining that relationship is the problem - I suspect most people are happy with the economic aspects particularly the Single Market and nobody wants to go back to the bad old days of mutually antagonistic militaristic nation states working out their differences via blood and gore every so often.
And yet from Magna Carta onwards, the English in particular have had a difficult relationship with the State. We beheaded a King who tried to be an autocrat and our relative political stability since then has not been unrelated to a political and representative system which, while not without its flaws. generally works pretty well.
https://twitter.com/MrBrexit/status/722000584488927232
1. Tony Blair takes a higher profile for Remain.
2.Andy Burnham declares that we have 66 days to save the NHS by voting Remain.
3.Jeremy Corbyn says that he intends from now on to campaign actively for Remain.
You never know. Do not under estimate the sheer uselessness of the Labour party in this situation. Todays ICM polls underline how marginalised they are from the national conversation.
Your comments are always worth reading.
@rowenamason: Kate Hoey at Grassroots Out rally urging people to accost fellow customers in the supermarket to convince them to vote to leave EU
I guess that doesn't contradict your comment.
And it would probably do you good to listen to why they are Remainers.
And then you can come and vent on here.....!
Mind you at these dinners, what with all the drinking and networking and social chit chat and eating and the like there's precious little time for discussing any substance. I'd concentrate on the networking for the good of your career.
Had his odds instead LENGTHENED by 30%, that would have been headline news on PB.com and would have triggered a new thread highlighting such news.
Funny that!
The assessment criteria were fairly consistent with personality styles, so that only the approved personality types could hope for promotion.
But is should always be open to outside views.
When organisations are unwilling to accept questions then they fall into complacency and stagnation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdqvX-n25gs
But perhaps this results from uncritically sucking up all the propaganda about Norway that the government have engaged in since day one.
As I argued ages ago, the Norway model is a huge danger for the government because it is so close to what most of the public want. Hence the desperate attempts to rubbish it from the off.
My own hunch is that this poll is a reversion to the mean, as last month was a tie, and ICM said it was a rogue poll due to the sample being too skewed to voting Labour in May 2015.
"Yet the Treasury report on the supposed long-term impact of leaving the EU is shameful, undoubtedly the worst piece of “research” from a government department in years.
It starts off with a scandalously biased assumption: that there can be no possible economic benefits to Brexit, just costs. In other words, it’s not really a cost-benefit analysis of Brexit, but merely a cost-cost one. And not just any costs, mind: in each case, any downsides are magnified in an extreme way. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/18/the-treasurys-dodgy-dossier-on-brexit-is-beneath-contempt/
IF we vote to remain I really really hope everyone in Vote Leave, Leave.eu, Grassroots Out, etc., has a long hard think about what to propose in order to give us the best chance of leaving.
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/722134342626058240
Trump 33 .. Cruz 26 .. Kasich 25
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/MD-GOP-Primary-Survey-Toplines-1.pdf
Why would it benefit us being at the High Table when we take no part in the feast? When we have ordered our own carry out? When what is decided is of no relevance to us and we no longer foot a part of the bill? It is an idiotic thing to say. Or, as Robert says, much more likely to have said on her behalf by some dumb bell who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Trump 52 .. Kasich 24 .. Cruz 18
Clinton 51 .. Sanders 42
http://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/rutgers-eagleton-2016-presidential-election-Apr2016/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_wkO4hk07o
What high table? Why do we even need to sit there?
Why be in an organisation where QMV (and the French) can out-vote us in agriculture?
Why can't we* just make our own decisions?
*Well you can't, obviously, but the rest of us...
Where's the beast when you need him?
Leicester can still not afford to slip up.
5. Roger predicts a Remain landslide
6. Dan Hodges promises to streak fully starkers this time if Leave win
How's the spreadsheet looking?
Some of the worst Tories are ex SDP/Liberal Democrat defectors.
Yes, I'm looking at you Chris Grayling.
I liked her predecessor, Owen Paterson, a lot. He made a very persuasive case for GM Foods.
Employer: "he's so right, isn't it?"
Me: "he certainly has some interesting views, which he put across with real conviction"
Employer: "but to Leave would be crazy, wouldn't it?"
Me: "none of us can predict the future; but that's what makes life so exciting, doesn't it? Another glass of wine?"