I am wondering who the hell voted for the new nutjob NUS president. As far as I can tell even left wingers are up in arms at her getting power.
The NUS is an ideal organisation for far-left takeover. It has an arcane structure, operating through various tiers of hierarchy and so making it difficult to hold anyone to account, and it attracts left-wing activists in numbers greatly disproportionate to their true frequency among the student population because it's a largely pointless organisation and only those interested in using it as a platform will go in for it - something which becomes reinforcing once one group has established itself there.
There is a simple remedy. People such as yourself can campaign for banks & other lenders to limit student loans to people who agree with the "free" market.
You seem far keener on these things than me. You do it.
The best thing that the rest of us could do re the NUS is ignore it.
The court found that he was kept isolated for excessive periods and too frequently subjected to unexpected inspections with insufficient reason to suspect a security risk. The main point was the lack of human contact. However, Breivik's appeal that he should be free to communicate on the internet and have visitors without restriction was rejected.The Government is paying his costs (roughly £35,000).
As someone who lives in a two-room flat, I read about his 3-room detention with some wry amusement. But it's a good thing to have a legal system that considers absolutely anyone's case on its merits.
The whole point of prison is to be kept isolated IMO.
The court found that he was kept isolated for excessive periods and too frequently subjected to unexpected inspections with insufficient reason to suspect a security risk. The main point was the lack of human contact. However, Breivik's appeal that he should be free to communicate on the internet and have visitors without restriction was rejected.The Government is paying his costs (roughly £35,000).
As someone who lives in a two-room flat, I read about his 3-room detention with some wry amusement. But it's a good thing to have a legal system that considers absolutely anyone's case on its merits.
The whole point of prison is to be kept isolated IMO.
If you want isolation, this is the case for you.
The US Supreme Court will hear an appeal this Friday against the execution of Bobby James Moore, a prisoner who has spent nearly 36 years on death row in Texas.
The facts are depressingly familiar. Moore was convicted after his gun went off in a hold-up that went wrong. A man died instantly. Moore is poor, black, from a broken home. As a kid he was regularly beaten by his father when he tried to protect his mother from his father’s abuse and lived on the streets from the age of 14. He has an IQ of less than 75.
The murder was back in 1980. Moore has been on death row ever since. The last 15 years have been in solitary confinement. He spends at least 22.5 hours a day in his cell and has been allowed no physical human contact for 15 years. Food is pushed through a slot in the door. He speaks to visitors via telephone from an isolation unit. 15 years of not being able to touch someone? It's the sort of punishment the ancient Romans would have devised. The State has twice signed his death warrant and set a date for execution. One warrant was stayed five days before execution was scheduled, the other just 24 hours.
A % of conservatives would love to see the labour party destroyed and vice versa, I'd like both to split into two: a labour group led by Corbyn and another by Blair's disciples. The same with the tories: a group led by Cameron and another by a modern day Tebbitt. As it stands neither party has a unifying purpose beyond power.
This site is increasingly becoming a parody of itself, its become a facebook site for sexually frustrated middle aged blokes in suits.
Those who say that parties are only means to ends are right - but with the caveat that often they're the only realistic means to those ends. There are far more instances in history of parties tearing themselves apart and making themselves unelectable over some fiercely debated point than there are of such debates resulting in enough of a victory for one side to be subsequently able to implement that platform.
I am wondering who the hell voted for the new nutjob NUS president. As far as I can tell even left wingers are up in arms at her getting power.
The NUS is an ideal organisation for far-left takeover. It has an arcane structure, operating through various tiers of hierarchy and so making it difficult to hold anyone to account, and it attracts left-wing activists in numbers greatly disproportionate to their true frequency among the student population because it's a largely pointless organisation and only those interested in using it as a platform will go in for it - something which becomes reinforcing once one group has established itself there.
There is a simple remedy. People such as yourself can campaign for banks & other lenders to limit student loans to people who agree with the "free" market.
You seem far keener on these things than me. You do it.
The best thing that the rest of us could do re the NUS is ignore it.
The trouble is that having people like this in the NUS means that extremists do get a chance to spread more of their poison in universities, that Jewish students feel threatened, that the Prevent programmes get undermined and so on. So ignoring them is not enough. Those spreading these ideas need confronting and challenging and defeating. Hoping they will go away is not, I fear, enough.
It comes across as really bitter. The comments' section also shows how unrepresentative (thankfully) The Guardian is. Quite a few Republicans there, when most people in the country support the monarchy. I'm finding CIF's constant 'goodies vs badies' view of the world, with no shades of gray to be irritating. They are just as bad, and if not worse than those in the DM comments' section.
Perhaps that's because on present going, the Queen will last longer than The Guardian?
That seems fairly evenly divided between concerns that favour Leave (immigration, self-government, EU regulation) and those that favour Remain (economy, workers' rights).
I thought of you when reading Rudy Guiliani's comment today that Hillary will find Trump a much more difficult opponent than Cruz, because Cruz is a telegraphed, predictable politician.
Waiting for the perfect opportunity instead of seizing the once in a generation opportunity we have now could mean we don't get another vote for decades.
Mr. Dancer, in the words of the zen master, "we'll see". That is one of the points I have been grappling with. But much as I felt the Yes campaign in the Scottish referendum blew it by not having a credible plan for self-governance, I believe the Leave campaign has singularly failed to prepare for their moment in the sun. It has been amateurish so far, a campaign built on instinct rather than thought. It troubles me that so many of its supporters are quick to disregard the views of institutions who were seen to be authoritative in the Scottish referendum, how quickly they have embraced arguments dismissed with ridicule just months ago, and dismissed arguments then made with force. On balance I don't think it is right to make a bad decision now for fear of not having another opportunity to make the same decision in the future when it might have different outcomes.
The EU only integrates one way, and Brown's discarding of vetoes when he signed up to the Lisbon Treaty gives QMV more power than ever (and the eurozone has a critical mass for QMV. Even if every non-eurozone country opposes, the eurozone can impose its will throughout the EU).
I agree with that, but again I don't accept that leaving is the only solution. We need better leadership of and in Europe and more creative thinking. The present structure, even with QMV, does not allow the EU to take jurisdiction over the areas of most concern to voters and they will; find it impossible to change that with national sentiment in many countries being what it is.
It seems to me that the 'immigration' issues have been divided up into about four questions of different sorts in that survey.
Added together, they are more than the economy...
They are not different options as it is unprompted. The issue is how they choose to collate them afterwards.
You can also the economy is divided into three different categories, adding up to 55%
You can't just add them (Economy or immigration related ones), the intersects need to be subtracted as well - else you're assuming zero correlation between the issues.
Adding "most important issue" is a quick workaround.
Impact on economy + Impact on British jobs + ability to trade = 25
Immigrants into Britain + Cost on welfare system + refugees + housing = 24
A % of conservatives would love to see the labour party destroyed and vice versa, I'd like both to split into two: a labour group led by Corbyn and another by Blair's disciples. The same with the tories: a group led by Cameron and another by a modern day Tebbitt. As it stands neither party has a unifying purpose beyond power.
This site is increasingly becoming a parody of itself, its become a facebook site for sexually frustrated middle aged blokes in suits.
It seems to me that the 'immigration' issues have been divided up into about four questions of different sorts in that survey.
Added together, they are more than the economy...
They are not different options as it is unprompted. The issue is how they choose to collate them afterwards.
You can also the economy is divided into three different categories, adding up to 55%
You can't just add them (Economy or immigration related ones), the intersects need to be subtracted as well - else you're assuming zero correlation between the issues.
Adding "most important issue" is a quick workaround.
Impact on economy + Impact on British jobs + ability to trade = 25
Immigrants into Britain + Cost on welfare system + refugees + housing = 24
That was kinda my point, you can really add things together from that poll with 100% certainty.
Meanwhile, Peter Doyle (ex-IMF economist) who please note does not support Brexit, has written a very interesting article on the Treasury 'study'. Some quite devastating critical points here, as well as some rather unusual perspectives later on.
@david_herdson Hah! The only reason why I'm not going to wish that on The Guardian is that a lot of people would lose their jobs (which would be sad for them and their families).
And Victoria Wood. RIP. What the hell is going on with celebrity deaths? 2016 is so far is a truly rubbish year.
A % of conservatives would love to see the labour party destroyed and vice versa, I'd like both to split into two: a labour group led by Corbyn and another by Blair's disciples. The same with the tories: a group led by Cameron and another by a modern day Tebbitt. As it stands neither party has a unifying purpose beyond power.
This site is increasingly becoming a parody of itself, its become a facebook site for sexually frustrated middle aged blokes in suits.
Speak for yourself!
Well I'm middle aged but there is a foolproof rule about those who talk about sex, they ain't getting any.
It seems to me that the 'immigration' issues have been divided up into about four questions of different sorts in that survey.
Added together, they are more than the economy...
They are not different options as it is unprompted. The issue is how they choose to collate them afterwards.
You can also the economy is divided into three different categories, adding up to 55%
You can't just add them (Economy or immigration related ones), the intersects need to be subtracted as well - else you're assuming zero correlation between the issues.
Adding "most important issue" is a quick workaround.
Impact on economy + Impact on British jobs + ability to trade = 25
Immigrants into Britain + Cost on welfare system + refugees + housing = 24
That was kinda my point, you can really add things together from that poll with 100% certainty.
I did some analysis on one of the "issues" poll to test Mr Meek's hypothesis that the EU and immigration are seen as seperate issues. I came to the conclusion that voters concerned about hospitals tend to be concerned about schools too.
Given that much of the Remain campaign so far has centred on the characters of those leading Leave and that Mr Meeks is one of the worst offenders for this - not least with his continual claims about fearing what the country would be like socially after a Leave vote - I find this thread header more than a little one sided.
Undecided voters: look at the picture of Richard Tyndall. Does he look like the kind of person you'd like your daughter to marry?
Now, ask yourself? If you wouldn't want your daughter to marry Mr Tyndall, that must mean you distrust him. And if you distrust him, you must ignore whatever he says on the subject of Brexit.
I'd warn mine off getting hitched to you. Who'd want a balding Russian with dodgy plastic surgery as a Son In Law?
Mr. 63, perhaps they're not performing duets, but if music be the food of love then conducting oneself in a solo symphony is an option.
Mr. Flockers, upon leaving a negotiation with the EU will occur, so there can't be a firm plan because it's a discussion between two sides, not one imposed by one upon the other.
As for staying in with better governance etc, if I felt that were a genuine option, I'd vote to Remain. What we've seen is No votes repeatedly ignored, and an unwillingness to do anything beyond pausing in the continual march down the road of integration.
I fear that what you want isn't on the menu. It's leave now, or integrate more.
I suppose at some point in all our lives (I am guessing a median age on PB of around 45-60) all those people, who have been part of our conscious cultural and environmental upbringing as we began to notice the world around us and stopped being young childfren, die.
Perhaps that is why we are so affected by and notice them right now .
It seems to me that the 'immigration' issues have been divided up into about four questions of different sorts in that survey.
Added together, they are more than the economy...
They are not different options as it is unprompted. The issue is how they choose to collate them afterwards.
You can also the economy is divided into three different categories, adding up to 55%
You can't just add them (Economy or immigration related ones), the intersects need to be subtracted as well - else you're assuming zero correlation between the issues.
Adding "most important issue" is a quick workaround.
Impact on economy + Impact on British jobs + ability to trade = 25
Immigrants into Britain + Cost on welfare system + refugees + housing = 24
That was kinda my point, you can really add things together from that poll with 100% certainty.
I did some analysis on one of the "issues" poll to test Mr Meek's hypothesis that the EU and immigration are seen as seperate issues. I came to the conclusion that voters concerned about hospitals tend to be concerned about schools too.
I've got a thread coming up on that topic, and the gender splits.
Conservatives favour Leave by 50-42% (52% to 39% among 2015 voters) , UKIP by 98-2%, while Labour favour Remain by 67-23%, and Lib Dems (albeit, small sample size) by 65-23%.
There's less of a turnout gap with this poll than with others, those who are 9 or 10/10 likely to vote favour Remain by 49-42%.
I thought of you when reading Rudy Guiliani's comment today that Hillary will find Trump a much more difficult opponent than Cruz, because Cruz is a telegraphed, predictable politician.
Our Rudy clearly isn;t a reader of polls!
Apart from those polls he read that told him he'd be POTUS right up to polling day.
Meanwhile, Peter Doyle (ex-IMF economist) who please note does not support Brexit, has written a very interesting article on the Treasury 'study'. Some quite devastating critical points here, as well as some rather unusual perspectives later on.
It's a very strange article. He seems to be saying that the EU-FTA option might include full access to services and free movement. Well, yes, but in that case it's substantively the same as the EEA scenario.
He's also naive on the politics:
Granted, there are fundamental issues of prosperity and sovereignty to weigh in continued EU membership. But there were and are other approaches to settling those which would have avoided the risks—an enthusiastic information campaign to blunt calls for a referendum, a different approach to the internal politics of the Conservative party, and a less stridently Federalist tone from Europe.
Mr. Eagles, the referendum is not merely about the present but the future, about which you've also raised reservations.
If we're independent and self-governing, can we ignore or veto QMV proposals? Will we regain powers from the EU or lose more?
I can see why people prefer to remain in the EU, but the notion we won't see sovereignty continually sliced away, a little piece at a time, is at odds with reality.
Incidentally, your quote from Kahless, [upon whose return he was shown to be a feeble clone of the real thing...], only makes sense if you see either the EU or the Conservative Party as 'the Empire', rather than the UK.
Whilst the current situation isn't perfect, the view articulated by Gove and Vote Leave is much worse. As contra, Richard Tyndall said he wasn't keen on Vote Leave's plans, but to him that was the better option than remaining, which again is a view I respect.
As for the future, we don't like what the EU is becoming or has become, we can hold another referendum to leave, or elect a party at GE with a manifesto commitment to take us out of the EU.
All the hallmarks of an independent, self governing nation.
Again I think that is a terribly naïve and dangerous view to take. My personal view is that this is the last chance we have to leave on reasonable terms avoiding the worst of what is to come in the EU. From this point on not only will future PMs be extremely loath to reopen the question but we will see Britain's position within the EU deteriorating dramatically.
And saying that a serf is not a serf because they can always by themselves out of servitude in the future is an extremely weak argument. As it stands as long as we remain in the EU we are not self governing and I would suggest not independent.
The Issue Index - 10/10 to Vote - Most Important Issue
REMAIN - 34
Economy 20, Trade 4, Jobs 2, Workers Rights 2, Personal Impact 1, International Relations 1, Human Rights 1, Free Movement 1, Pro EU 1, Global Standing 1
LEAVE - 37
Immigrants 15, Sovereignty 8, Welfare Payouts 5, EU Fees 3, Security 2, Housing and Public Services 1, Refugees 1, EU Regulations 1, Anti EU 1
It seems to me that the 'immigration' issues have been divided up into about four questions of different sorts in that survey.
Added together, they are more than the economy...
They are not different options as it is unprompted. The issue is how they choose to collate them afterwards.
You can also the economy is divided into three different categories, adding up to 55%
You can't just add them (Economy or immigration related ones), the intersects need to be subtracted as well - else you're assuming zero correlation between the issues.
Adding "most important issue" is a quick workaround.
Impact on economy + Impact on British jobs + ability to trade = 25
Immigrants into Britain + Cost on welfare system + refugees + housing = 24
That was kinda my point, you can really add things together from that poll with 100% certainty.
I did some analysis on one of the "issues" poll to test Mr Meek's hypothesis that the EU and immigration are seen as seperate issues. I came to the conclusion that voters concerned about hospitals tend to be concerned about schools too.
I've got a thread coming up on that topic, and the gender splits.
Mr. Eagles, the referendum is not merely about the present but the future, about which you've also raised reservations.
If we're independent and self-governing, can we ignore or veto QMV proposals? Will we regain powers from the EU or lose more?
I can see why people prefer to remain in the EU, but the notion we won't see sovereignty continually sliced away, a little piece at a time, is at odds with reality.
Incidentally, your quote from Kahless, [upon whose return he was shown to be a feeble clone of the real thing...], only makes sense if you see either the EU or the Conservative Party as 'the Empire', rather than the UK.
Whilst the current situation isn't perfect, the view articulated by Gove and Vote Leave is much worse. As contra, Richard Tyndall said he wasn't keen on Vote Leave's plans, but to him that was the better option than remaining, which again is a view I respect.
As for the future, we don't like what the EU is becoming or has become, we can hold another referendum to leave, or elect a party at GE with a manifesto commitment to take us out of the EU.
All the hallmarks of an independent, self governing nation.
Again I think that is a terribly naïve and dangerous view to take. My personal view is that this is the last chance we have to leave on reasonable terms avoiding the worst of what is to come in the EU. From this point on not only will future PMs be extremely loath to reopen the question but we will see Britain's position within the EU deteriorating dramatically.
And saying that a serf is not a serf because they can always by themselves out of servitude in the future is an extremely weak argument. As it stands as long as we remain in the EU we are not self governing and I would suggest not independent.
At least you have now moved on to thinking it is your "personal view", rather than some eternal truth or profound reality.
Anyone who followed his advice to bet heavily on the SNP.
He wasn't the only voice on that. I did say often enough (and gave reasons why) the SNP would poll 50% of the vote in Scotland. They got exactly 50%.
I also had the temerity to gently chide JackW that his SNP seats was too low, his LibDem seats too high.
That Mr Meeks got the SNP right does not mean (a) he was a lone voice in the wilderness on that point and (b) does not make him the go-to guy on the result of the Referendum...
How about calling us LEAVERs "loons"? Is that not playing the man (or woman)?
In the past 24 hours us Remainers have been called traitors.
All you Leavers are doing is awaken the sleeping giant that are Remainers and fill them with a terrible resolve
TSE - Christmas 2015 "my friends think Leave will win because I'm planning to vote Leave" TSE - February 2016 - "awful deal - firming up" TSE - 2 weeks ago "my heart says Leave" TSE - last weekend "you pb'ers have convinced me to campaign for Remain - thanks" TSE - today "eurosceptic loons", "us Remainers"
My patience is being tested by some on the Leave side.
Don't be surprised if I reply in kind.
You yourself talked about destroying the Tory Party to win.
That's what actually convinced me in part to go campaigning for Remain.
I know what happened the last time the Tory Party became obsessed with The EU
I didn't. I said the country was more important than the party and that if Cameron's career had to be sacrificed to achieve that then, regrettably, that must be. Politics is brutal.
And I did that after you welched to Remain, not before.
Stop looking for a scapegoat.
No, I moved after the report at work.
I moved to campaigning in part, after you wrote this on Saturday, prior to that, I was content to sit the campaign out. It was exactly this sort of comment I heard in the 90s.
I care far more about this country, and its prospects of being an independent self-governing nation again, than I do about the Conservative Party. To me, the latter is a means to an end: to advance the politics I feel will give us the brightest future. Just like most normal people.
If wrecking trust in David Cameron, and sacrificing his political career in the process, is what it takes for a majority of this country to Vote Leave, then that's what must be done.
As Emperor Kahless said "Destroying an Empire to win a war is no victory. And ending a battle to save an Empire is no defeat."
We are an independent self governing nation. If we weren't, we wouldn't be having this referendum.
I have no desire to see the Conservative Party destroyed by this Referendum. But, nor does the risk of it worry me.
Again that's fine, but don't expect some of us to sit idly by.
It seems to me that the 'immigration' issues have been divided up into about four questions of different sorts in that survey.
Added together, they are more than the economy...
They are not different options as it is unprompted. The issue is how they choose to collate them afterwards.
You can also the economy is divided into three different categories, adding up to 55%
You can't just add them (Economy or immigration related ones), the intersects need to be subtracted as well - else you're assuming zero correlation between the issues.
Adding "most important issue" is a quick workaround.
Impact on economy + Impact on British jobs + ability to trade = 25
Immigrants into Britain + Cost on welfare system + refugees + housing = 24
That was kinda my point, you can really add things together from that poll with 100% certainty.
I did some analysis on one of the "issues" poll to test Mr Meek's hypothesis that the EU and immigration are seen as seperate issues. I came to the conclusion that voters concerned about hospitals tend to be concerned about schools too.
I've got a thread coming up on that topic, and the gender splits.
If Leave want to win, they need to reassure women
By writing thread headers about blow jobs
I did no such thing. I wrote a tweet, that Mike found 'robust' and he decided to incorporate into a thread.
The Issue Index - 10/10 to Vote - Most Important Issue
REMAIN - 34
Economy 20, Trade 4, Jobs 2, Workers Rights 2, Personal Impact 1, International Relations 1, Human Rights 1, Free Movement 1, Pro EU 1, Global Standing 1
LEAVE - 37
Immigrants 15, Sovereignty 8, Welfare Payouts 5, EU Fees 3, Security 2, Housing and Public Services 1, Refugees 1, EU Regulations 1, Anti EU 1
Mr. Eagles, the referendum is not merely about the present but the future, about which you've also raised reservations.
If we're independent and self-governing, can we ignore or veto QMV proposals? Will we regain powers from the EU or lose more?
I can see why people prefer to remain in the EU, but the notion we won't see sovereignty continually sliced away, a little piece at a time, is at odds with reality.
Incidentally, your quote from Kahless, [upon whose return he was shown to be a feeble clone of the real thing...], only makes sense if you see either the EU or the Conservative Party as 'the Empire', rather than the UK.
Whilst the current situation isn't perfect, the view articulated by Gove and Vote Leave is much worse. As contra, Richard Tyndall said he wasn't keen on Vote Leave's plans, but to him that was the better option than remaining, which again is a view I respect.
As for the future, we don't like what the EU is becoming or has become, we can hold another referendum to leave, or elect a party at GE with a manifesto commitment to take us out of the EU.
All the hallmarks of an independent, self governing nation.
Again I think that is a terribly naïve and dangerous view to take. My personal view is that this is the last chance we have to leave on reasonable terms avoiding the worst of what is to come in the EU. From this point on not only will future PMs be extremely loath to reopen the question but we will see Britain's position within the EU deteriorating dramatically.
And saying that a serf is not a serf because they can always by themselves out of servitude in the future is an extremely weak argument. As it stands as long as we remain in the EU we are not self governing and I would suggest not independent.
At least you have now moved on to thinking it is your "personal view", rather than some eternal truth or profound reality.
Different subject. What we were talking about yesterday was basically just you talking garbage as if it were fact. And showing a remarkable amount of ignorance as well.
Meanwhile, Peter Doyle (ex-IMF economist) who please note does not support Brexit, has written a very interesting article on the Treasury 'study'. Some quite devastating critical points here, as well as some rather unusual perspectives later on.
It's a very strange article. He seems to be saying that the EU-FTA option might include full access to services and free movement. Well, yes, but in that case it's substantively the same as the EEA scenario.
He's also naive on the politics:
Granted, there are fundamental issues of prosperity and sovereignty to weigh in continued EU membership. But there were and are other approaches to settling those which would have avoided the risks—an enthusiastic information campaign to blunt calls for a referendum, a different approach to the internal politics of the Conservative party, and a less stridently Federalist tone from Europe.
Give me a break!
As I said, some unusual perspectives in there.
But his economic points are very strong.
I also think he is 100% right that if LEAVE does win there will be a rapid scramble for damage limitation by all sides which will mean an excellent chance for the UK to cut a very satisfactory deal. And given Peter's background he has a better insight on this than anyone posting on this board.
Just when the gold standard pollster thinks they might have got the hang of things again...they have the LibDems losing 2 out of 5 of their voters in a month! Takes a heart of stone etc etc....
It seems to me that the 'immigration' issues have been divided up into about four questions of different sorts in that survey.
Added together, they are more than the economy...
Yes, but you get to give more than one answer (hence the fact the sum adds up to about 250), so you can't just aggregate them as many people will have (effectively) voted for immigration twice.
That Mr Meeks got the SNP right does not mean (a) he was a lone voice in the wilderness on that point and (b) does not make him the go-to guy on the result of the Referendum...
Quite so, but he's definitely someone well worth listening to, as you and others are.
In the case of the GE I also was betting on the SNP, but not quite as full-throatedly as Alastair was. On the other hand, I didn't make his mistake of going all-in on NOM. Either way I'd always listen very carefully to what he has to say - he's one of the smartest posters here by any standard.
Mr. Eagles, the referendum is not merely about the present but the future, about which you've also raised reservations.
If we're independent and self-governing, can we ignore or veto QMV proposals? Will we regain powers from the EU or lose more?
I can see why people prefer to remain in the EU, but the notion we won't see sovereignty continually sliced away, a little piece at a time, is at odds with reality.
Incidentally, your quote from Kahless, [upon whose return he was shown to be a feeble clone of the real thing...], only makes sense if you see either the EU or the Conservative Party as 'the Empire', rather than the UK.
Whilst the current situation isn't perfect, the view articulated by Gove and Vote Leave is much worse. As contra, Richard Tyndall said he wasn't keen on Vote Leave's plans, but to him that was the better option than remaining, which again is a view I respect.
As for the future, we don't like what the EU is becoming or has become, we can hold another referendum to leave, or elect a party at GE with a manifesto commitment to take us out of the EU.
All the hallmarks of an independent, self governing nation.
Again I think that is a terribly naïve and dangerous view to take. My personal view is that this is the last chance we have to leave on reasonable terms avoiding the worst of what is to come in the EU. From this point on not only will future PMs be extremely loath to reopen the question but we will see Britain's position within the EU deteriorating dramatically.
And saying that a serf is not a serf because they can always by themselves out of servitude in the future is an extremely weak argument. As it stands as long as we remain in the EU we are not self governing and I would suggest not independent.
At least you have now moved on to thinking it is your "personal view", rather than some eternal truth or profound reality.
Different subject. What we were talking about yesterday was basically just you talking garbage as if it were fact. And showing a remarkable amount of ignorance as well.
Don't panic Richard, we all let our guards down and allow the truth to slip out de temps en temps. You have acknowledged that all the stuff and nonsense you have been banging on about is your "personal view". I, personally, welcome that admission.
It seems to me that the 'immigration' issues have been divided up into about four questions of different sorts in that survey.
Added together, they are more than the economy...
They are not different options as it is unprompted. The issue is how they choose to collate them afterwards.
You can also the economy is divided into three different categories, adding up to 55%
You can't just add them (Economy or immigration related ones), the intersects need to be subtracted as well - else you're assuming zero correlation between the issues.
Adding "most important issue" is a quick workaround.
Impact on economy + Impact on British jobs + ability to trade = 25
Immigrants into Britain + Cost on welfare system + refugees + housing = 24
That was kinda my point, you can really add things together from that poll with 100% certainty.
I did some analysis on one of the "issues" poll to test Mr Meek's hypothesis that the EU and immigration are seen as seperate issues. I came to the conclusion that voters concerned about hospitals tend to be concerned about schools too.
I've got a thread coming up on that topic, and the gender splits.
If Leave want to win, they need to reassure women
By writing thread headers about blow jobs
If you find PB so offensive it's a wonder you trouble OGH and TSE with your presence.
Anyone who followed his advice to bet heavily on the SNP.
He wasn't the only voice on that. I did say often enough (and gave reasons why) the SNP would poll 50% of the vote in Scotland. They got exactly 50%.
I also had the temerity to gently chide JackW that his SNP seats was too low, his LibDem seats too high.
That Mr Meeks got the SNP right does not mean (a) he was a lone voice in the wilderness on that point and (b) does not make him the go-to guy on the result of the Referendum...
Alastair Meeks put alot of cash behind his prediction though, and wasn't wrong. In terms of tipping, backing your own tip, not wavering and ultimately being right - it is as good as you'll see in political betting.
How did LD manage to lose 4 points over the Panama Papers scandal ;-)
The biggest shock out of all of this, UKIP haven't gotten a boost.
The whole EURef debate is being dominated by Tories on both sides (perhaps because that's where the media's keen to look due to secondary stories - leadership challenges and the like). As such, it's shutting out UKIP as a pull factor and also keeping some Labour Leavers within the red tent as the Blair-Mandelson axis isn't around or visible to wind them up.
I also think he is 100% right that if LEAVE does win there will be a rapid scramble for damage limitation by all sides which will mean an excellent chance for the UK to cut a very satisfactory deal. And given Peter's background he has a better insight on this than anyone posting on this board.
I'm sure he's right on that, but the mechanics are awkward because of the cumbersome EU decision-making process, and the fact that the UK's goals would not immediately be clear. Those two considerations add considerable uncertainty into the mix.
It seems to me that the 'immigration' issues have been divided up into about four questions of different sorts in that survey.
Added together, they are more than the economy...
They are not different options as it is unprompted. The issue is how they choose to collate them afterwards.
You can also the economy is divided into three different categories, adding up to 55%
You can't just add them (Economy or immigration related ones), the intersects need to be subtracted as well - else you're assuming zero correlation between the issues.
Adding "most important issue" is a quick workaround.
Impact on economy + Impact on British jobs + ability to trade = 25
Immigrants into Britain + Cost on welfare system + refugees + housing = 24
That was kinda my point, you can really add things together from that poll with 100% certainty.
I did some analysis on one of the "issues" poll to test Mr Meek's hypothesis that the EU and immigration are seen as seperate issues. I came to the conclusion that voters concerned about hospitals tend to be concerned about schools too.
I've got a thread coming up on that topic, and the gender splits.
If Leave want to win, they need to reassure women
By writing thread headers about blow jobs
If you find PB so offensive it's a wonder you trouble OGH and TSE with your presence.
I don't find it offensive and have no idea why would suggest I do.
TSE - Christmas 2015 "my friends think Leave will win because I'm planning to vote Leave" TSE - February 2016 - "awful deal - firming up" TSE - 2 weeks ago "my heart says Leave" TSE - last weekend "you pb'ers have convinced me to campaign for Remain - thanks" TSE - today "eurosceptic loons", "us Remainers"
My patience is being tested by some on the Leave side.
Don't be surprised if I reply in kind.
You yourself talked about destroying the Tory Party to win.
That's what actually convinced me in part to go campaigning for Remain.
I know what happened the last time the Tory Party became obsessed with The EU
I didn't. I said the country was more important than the party and that if Cameron's career had to be sacrificed to achieve that then, regrettably, that must be. Politics is brutal.
And I did that after you welched to Remain, not before.
Stop looking for a scapegoat.
No, I moved after the report at work.
I moved to campaigning in part, after you wrote this on Saturday, prior to that, I was content to sit the campaign out. It was exactly this sort of comment I heard in the 90s.
I care far more about this country, and its prospects of being an independent self-governing nation again, than I do about the Conservative Party. To me, the latter is a means to an end: to advance the politics I feel will give us the brightest future. Just like most normal people.
If wrecking trust in David Cameron, and sacrificing his political career in the process, is what it takes for a majority of this country to Vote Leave, then that's what must be done.
As Emperor Kahless said "Destroying an Empire to win a war is no victory. And ending a battle to save an Empire is no defeat."
We are an independent self governing nation. If we weren't, we wouldn't be having this referendum.
I have no desire to see the Conservative Party destroyed by this Referendum. But, nor does the risk of it worry me.
Again that's fine, but don't expect some of us to sit idly by.
It is sad to see you put party before country.
Depends on how you view it. If you see the EU as a massive issue, more important than the odd GE, then the referendum is the priority. On the other hand, if you see EU membership as important but not worth handing the country to Corbyn over, then being in a position to win in 2020 matters more. The EU is just one policy. A different government could change everything.
I also think he is 100% right that if LEAVE does win there will be a rapid scramble for damage limitation by all sides which will mean an excellent chance for the UK to cut a very satisfactory deal. And given Peter's background he has a better insight on this than anyone posting on this board.
I'm sure he's right on that, but the mechanics are awkward because of the cumbersome EU decision-making process, and the fact that the UK's goals would not immediately be clear. Those two considerations add considerable uncertainty into the mix.
It's only cumbersome if people want it to be - Peter's point is precisely that they wouldn't.
Nor would it take long to thrash out a sensible set of goals from the UK side. I know you like to make it sound like everything is just too complicated to bother with, but it really isn't.
The question of whether the spending was local is more critical, since in theory in puts 22 Tory seats at immediate risk. In practice it depends on local police and prosecutors whether they choose to take it up.
The question of whether the spending was local is more critical, since in theory in puts 22 Tory seats at immediate risk. In practice it depends on local police and prosecutors whether they choose to take it up.
The Issue Index - 10/10 to Vote - Most Important Issue
REMAIN - 34
Economy 20, Trade 4, Jobs 2, Workers Rights 2, Personal Impact 1, International Relations 1, Human Rights 1, Free Movement 1, Pro EU 1, Global Standing 1
LEAVE - 37
Immigrants 15, Sovereignty 8, Welfare Payouts 5, EU Fees 3, Security 2, Housing and Public Services 1, Refugees 1, EU Regulations 1, Anti EU 1
It's only cumbersome if people want it to be - Peter's point is precisely that they wouldn't.
No, it's cumbersome because it's cumbersome, involving a disparate group of countries each with their own agendas and domestic political issues, as well the EU bureaucracy and the European Parliament. It's not even quite clear whether it would require unanimity amongst the other 27 EU governments, but it might. At the very least it will require a QMV majority. So whilst the main participants might indeed want to come to a deal quickly, that's not enough to ensure that they'll be able to.
As a kipper the poll that gives Ukip 11% is hugely optimistic, at the next GE we'll have no funds, no coherent message, no real purpose. Single figures
Presumably this is the scare story about how we will apparently cancel all visas the day after BrExit and frog march all the nasty foreigners (especially one presume the brown ones, since Leave are supposedly a pile of racists) on to airplanes "home"
It's bollocks.
That's a shame, for those of us who have ex-spouses from EEA countries who enjoy "EU residence rights" here.
Nope, Vienna Convention of 1969, says that the termination of a treaty "does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.”
The Issue Index - 10/10 to Vote - Most Important Issue
REMAIN - 34
Economy 20, Trade 4, Jobs 2, Workers Rights 2, Personal Impact 1, International Relations 1, Human Rights 1, Free Movement 1, Pro EU 1, Global Standing 1
LEAVE - 37
Immigrants 15, Sovereignty 8, Welfare Payouts 5, EU Fees 3, Security 2, Housing and Public Services 1, Refugees 1, EU Regulations 1, Anti EU 1
That's quite revealing I think.
I'm not sure "Jobs" should be entirely within "Remain" to be honest. "Security" might also be partially "remain" though...
Don't panic Richard, we all let our guards down and allow the truth to slip out de temps en temps. You have acknowledged that all the stuff and nonsense you have been banging on about is your "personal view". I, personally, welcome that admission.
Sorry Topping but these strange misquotes really don't fool anyone. All they show is that your actual grasp of the subject matter is so flaky and shallow that you have to rely upon deflection rather than dealing with the issues. Of course the problem is that you write opinion as fact whereas I make a point of distinguishing between the two.
So please do continue with your asides. At least they save us from your fantasy ideas about how the EEA or EFTA work which bear no resemblance to reality at all.
Comments
The Grim Reaper really has having a busy year
The best thing that the rest of us could do re the NUS is ignore it.
The US Supreme Court will hear an appeal this Friday against the execution of Bobby James Moore, a prisoner who has spent nearly 36 years on death row in Texas.
The facts are depressingly familiar. Moore was convicted after his gun went off in a hold-up that went wrong. A man died instantly. Moore is poor, black, from a broken home. As a kid he was regularly beaten by his father when he tried to protect his mother from his father’s abuse and lived on the streets from the age of 14. He has an IQ of less than 75.
The murder was back in 1980. Moore has been on death row ever since. The last 15 years have been in solitary confinement. He spends at least 22.5 hours a day in his cell and has been allowed no physical human contact for 15 years. Food is pushed through a slot in the door. He speaks to visitors via telephone from an isolation unit. 15 years of not being able to touch someone? It's the sort of punishment the ancient Romans would have devised. The State has twice signed his death warrant and set a date for execution. One warrant was stayed five days before execution was scheduled, the other just 24 hours.
http://www.rollonfriday.com/Blogs/ReadBlog/tabid/144/id/36425/Default.aspx
Clinton 46 .. Trump 34
Clinton 45 .. Cruz 44
Sanders 52 .. Trump 33
Sanders 50 .. Cruz 40
http://www.snc.edu/sri/docs/2016/201604wissurvey.pdf
This site is increasingly becoming a parody of itself, its become a facebook site for sexually frustrated middle aged blokes in suits.
Our Rudy clearly isn;t a reader of polls!
I agree with that, but again I don't accept that leaving is the only solution. We need better leadership of and in Europe and more creative thinking. The present structure, even with QMV, does not allow the EU to take jurisdiction over the areas of most concern to voters and they will; find it impossible to change that with national sentiment in many countries being what it is.
Adding "most important issue" is a quick workaround.
Impact on economy + Impact on British jobs + ability to trade = 25
Immigrants into Britain + Cost on welfare system + refugees + housing = 24
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/04/20/2159639/on-hm-treasurys-brexit-analysis/
And Victoria Wood. RIP. What the hell is going on with celebrity deaths? 2016 is so far is a truly rubbish year.
Con 38 (+2)
Lab 35 (+1)
UKIP 11 (nc)
LD 6 (-4)
Greens 3 (nc)
I came to the conclusion that voters concerned about hospitals tend to be concerned about schools too.
Mr. Flockers, upon leaving a negotiation with the EU will occur, so there can't be a firm plan because it's a discussion between two sides, not one imposed by one upon the other.
As for staying in with better governance etc, if I felt that were a genuine option, I'd vote to Remain. What we've seen is No votes repeatedly ignored, and an unwillingness to do anything beyond pausing in the continual march down the road of integration.
I fear that what you want isn't on the menu. It's leave now, or integrate more.
Perhaps that is why we are so affected by and notice them right now .
If Leave want to win, they need to reassure women
There's less of a turnout gap with this poll than with others, those who are 9 or 10/10 likely to vote favour Remain by 49-42%.
We didn't defeat the Nazis and Napoleon with that kind of attitude.
He's also naive on the politics:
Granted, there are fundamental issues of prosperity and sovereignty to weigh in continued EU membership. But there were and are other approaches to settling those which would have avoided the risks—an enthusiastic information campaign to blunt calls for a referendum, a different approach to the internal politics of the Conservative party, and a less stridently Federalist tone from Europe.
Give me a break!
And saying that a serf is not a serf because they can always by themselves out of servitude in the future is an extremely weak argument. As it stands as long as we remain in the EU we are not self governing and I would suggest not independent.
This was always going to be very hard to win. I'll be over the moon if we do, and we still have a good chance of running it quite close.
REMAIN - 34
Economy 20, Trade 4, Jobs 2, Workers Rights 2, Personal Impact 1, International Relations 1, Human Rights 1, Free Movement 1, Pro EU 1, Global Standing 1
LEAVE - 37
Immigrants 15, Sovereignty 8, Welfare Payouts 5, EU Fees 3, Security 2, Housing and Public Services 1, Refugees 1, EU Regulations 1, Anti EU 1
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
I also had the temerity to gently chide JackW that his SNP seats was too low, his LibDem seats too high.
That Mr Meeks got the SNP right does not mean (a) he was a lone voice in the wilderness on that point and (b) does not make him the go-to guy on the result of the Referendum...
But his economic points are very strong.
I also think he is 100% right that if LEAVE does win there will be a rapid scramble for damage limitation by all sides which will mean an excellent chance for the UK to cut a very satisfactory deal. And given Peter's background he has a better insight on this than anyone posting on this board.
Just when the gold standard pollster thinks they might have got the hang of things again...they have the LibDems losing 2 out of 5 of their voters in a month! Takes a heart of stone etc etc....
In the case of the GE I also was betting on the SNP, but not quite as full-throatedly as Alastair was. On the other hand, I didn't make his mistake of going all-in on NOM. Either way I'd always listen very carefully to what he has to say - he's one of the smartest posters here by any standard.
If you want my real view, it probably is in the best interests of the Tory Party for the UK to Leave the EU.
But I'm putting country before party.
Do you tweet about blow jobs? If not why not?
As for World War II, we did it as part of a Europe Wide alliance, with massive help from our Empire forces.
Nor would it take long to thrash out a sensible set of goals from the UK side. I know you like to make it sound like everything is just too complicated to bother with, but it really isn't.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/apr/20/eu-referendum-brexit-would-put-special-relationship-with-us-at-risk-uk-warned-politics-live
The question of whether the spending was local is more critical, since in theory in puts 22 Tory seats at immediate risk. In practice it depends on local police and prosecutors whether they choose to take it up.
And learn some history.
Mr. Palmer, the US has no business meddling in how we vote. That'll annoy more people than it'll worry.
Tykejohnno = Winston Churchill
Eagles = neutered poodle
Ideally I would like her to be thrown out!
It's probably fair on balance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
I'm off to Canada for a holiday this year, and I've got Brunswick on the brain
So please do continue with your asides. At least they save us from your fantasy ideas about how the EEA or EFTA work which bear no resemblance to reality at all.