Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
If that's the view of party managers, they're seriously out of touch. Or deluding themselves.
JohnO and myself have several decades of continuous party membership, what do we know?
Cameron's attack on Khan demeaned his office. IMO.
Cameron and Osborne are heading for one heck of a fall. Time to give them both a kicking.
Cameron merely stated the truth. To appear on a platform with an extremist sympathiser may be accidental but to do it nine times appears to denote support.
Given the apparent failure of Cameron's intervention, one does wonder about the success of any similar attacks on Corbyn and McDonnell in a General Election. The Tories would appear to be pinning a lot on this tactic.
It'll work in the GE, especially going after McDonnell's shady past.
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
If that's the view of party managers, they're seriously out of touch. Or deluding themselves.
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
Party members are important. They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
Sidestepping the question - let me help you out: party membership dropped significantly during the Gay Marriage saga, and numbers have not recovered.
That wasn't because Tory members are homophobes. It's because they were treated with insufficient respect, and not a few in CCHQ and elsewhere wanted to triangulate the party brand at their expense, throwing in a few insults along the way.
Party membership has been on a long term decline for decades.
It wasn't about triangulation, it was doing the right thing.
Just like when Lady Thatcher decriminalised homosexuality in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
If that's the view of party managers, they're seriously out of touch. Or deluding themselves.
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
If that's the view of party managers, they're seriously out of touch. Or deluding themselves.
JohnO and myself have several decades of continuous party membership, what do we know?
“Donald is a niche candidate. He can’t expand that, and to win you’ve got to have a broad tent, you’ve got to bring in voters other than the hard base.”
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
If that's the view of party managers, they're seriously out of touch. Or deluding themselves.
TSE is trying to send me a message.
S O S
'We've just rammed an iceberg, and it's all the fault of the passengers who asked for a closer look'
“Donald is a niche candidate. He can’t expand that, and to win you’ve got to have a broad tent, you’ve got to bring in voters other than the hard base.”
'The Government judges that what the UK gets back in opportunities, job creation and economic security from EU membership far outweighs the cost.'
But, in a ComRes poll for the Mail and ITV News, voters rejected the idea that the EU is good value for money. Some 56 per cent think that Britain's net contribution is bad value for money. Less than a third think it is good value for money. For Tory supporters, the difference is even more stark – 63 per cent to 27 per cent.
If the money were not spent on the EU, an overwhelmingly majority of the public – 57 per cent - would most like to see the money spent on healthcare and the NHS.
The poll of more than 1,000 voters shows that, as the contest heads into the final two months, Remain holds a lead of 11 points – 51 per cent to 40 per cent.
Nine per cent are still undecided. Last month, the lead was seven points.
After likelihood to vote is taken into consideration - and don't knows are excluded – the In camp leads by 58 per cent to 42 per cen
“Donald is a niche candidate. He can’t expand that, and to win you’ve got to have a broad tent, you’ve got to bring in voters other than the hard base.”
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
If that's the view of party managers, they're seriously out of touch. Or deluding themselves.
TSE is trying to send me a message.
Just to cheer you up. Our firm has its first Brexit contingency planning meeting at 2pm
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
Party members are important. They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
Sidestepping the question - let me help you out: party membership dropped significantly during the Gay Marriage saga, and numbers have not recovered.
That wasn't because Tory members are homophobes. It's because they were treated with insufficient respect, and not a few in CCHQ and elsewhere wanted to triangulate the party brand at their expense, throwing in a few insults along the way.
Party membership has been on a long term decline for decades.
It wasn't about triangulation, it was doing the right thing.
Just like when Lady Thatcher decriminalised homosexuality in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
You're not listening.
You are also too close to CCHQ and those at the top of the party. You have those in the party who agree too but you tend to dismiss those who disagree and push the leadership view; you're not close to how a lot of this landed in the Shires.
I suspect deep down you know this. But, anyway, it's history now: what's done is done.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which produces official forecasts for the Government, updated its forecasts for the deficit only last month.
Revealing the OBR's forecast at the Budget in March, the Chancellor announced that the Government expected to borrow £72.2bn in the fiscal year - a projection £1.8bn wide of the mark.
That article is so economically illiterate it is hard to know where to start. Maybe with the fact these were OBR numbers not Osborne's. Or that the difference is a rounding error. Or that it is very likely that the figure will be revised back below the target in due course anyway. Or that the budget forecast (also OBR but at least announced by Osborne) was £73.5bn.
I completely get that the way Osborne's behaving in relation to the referendum is ticking some Conservative supporters off. But rubbishing what is a very good economic record to try and reduce the weight of his contribution in that debate is stupid. In the last year we have tax revenues up over 4%, we have government spending up all of 0.2% and we have a fall in the deficit of £17.7 bn.
Just rejoice at that news, as one Tory once said.
Won't be long before they start praising Corbyn at PMQs - oh wait one of them did yesterday. At the moment it's all about Brexit. I imagine John Major is having some wry old chuckles.
He has some decent contests coming up in the run up to the biggy in California though (Though they're small states and not worth so many delegates)
By then I think it will be generally accepted that Trump is the presumptive nominee. Cruz cannot credibly fight down to the wire with no prospect of overtaking Trump, let alone getting to 1237.
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
Party members are important. They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
Sidestepping the question - let me help you out: party membership dropped significantly during the Gay Marriage saga, and numbers have not recovered.
That wasn't because Tory members are homophobes. It's because they were treated with insufficient respect, and not a few in CCHQ and elsewhere wanted to triangulate the party brand at their expense, throwing in a few insults along the way.
And that was just before they got thumped by Labour in the GE right??
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
If that's the view of party managers, they're seriously out of touch. Or deluding themselves.
TSE is trying to send me a message.
Just to cheer you up. Our firm has its first Brexit contingency planning meeting at 2pm
We've already done that at Crossrail: no material impact.
We are Europe's largest construction project with a huge supply chain.
He has some decent contests coming up in the run up to the biggy in California though (Though they're small states and not worth so many delegates)
By then I think it will be generally accepted that Trump is the presumptive nominee. Cruz cannot credibly fight down to the wire with no prospect of overtaking Trump, let alone getting to 1237.
Trump getting 60% in liberal New York must have been a bit of a wake-up call for those who are hoping he won't make it to November as nominee.
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
Party members are important. They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
Sidestepping the question - let me help you out: party membership dropped significantly during the Gay Marriage saga, and numbers have not recovered.
That wasn't because Tory members are homophobes. It's because they were treated with insufficient respect, and not a few in CCHQ and elsewhere wanted to triangulate the party brand at their expense, throwing in a few insults along the way.
And that was just before they got thumped by Labour in the GE right??
If you don't think the slow death of the Tory voluntary party isn't a long term problem for the Tory Party then I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
He has some decent contests coming up in the run up to the biggy in California though (Though they're small states and not worth so many delegates)
By then I think it will be generally accepted that Trump is the presumptive nominee. Cruz cannot credibly fight down to the wire with no prospect of overtaking Trump, let alone getting to 1237.
Trump getting 60% in liberal New York must have been a bit of a wake-up call for those who are hoping he won't make it to November as nominee.
Party members are important. They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
Loyalty to the PM has split the party, not Europe. If the PM had got a decent deal or backed Leave if he failed then the party would be united. That he got a piss poor deal and tried to sell it as a win and then backed remain has split the party among loyalists to the PM and those who are following their principles of backing leave because they have backed that position for 20 years or more. If party managers are trying to pin the blame of the party split on members disagreeing with the leadership's position on the EU then they are burying their heads in the sand. I like Dave and have said many times I would keep him on as PM, I'm a Cameroon and during this saga I would be closest to the Gove camp. However, my support of the PM does not stretch to blind loyalty to him in the case of voting or campaigning for Remain, it goes against every fibre of my being to back such a poor deal that will leave this country open to EU hostility.
Is the Leave argument ideal, far from it, is it regrettable that more than half of the party are opposing the leadership, yes, but am I going to waste the one opportunity we are going to get to have our say, not in this life. That's where you and I differ, the party will survive this little spat, we will move on together and elect someone fairly reasonable once Dave steps down. Now that the danger of Osborne as leader has subsided I feel fairly confident for 2020 (even if Labour get their arse in gear). The danger of the party being taken over from the right in the case of leave is remote, which I know is your fear, I don't see UKIP disappearing overnight and I also don't see immigration stop being an issue and any new leader not being broadly in favour of a decent level of immigration. We've been through IDS and I don't know anyone who would care to repeat it, the issue, as always, is talent. There is no one on in the Cabinet fit to clean the dirt of Dave's shoes IMO, he is far and away the best politician in the country. Again, that is a reason why I think Dave will manage to hang on in the event of a Leave vote. There is no one else, I've not met any members who would consider Boris for the leadership and this is West London of all places, where he is supposed to have his power base.
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
If that's the view of party managers, they're seriously out of touch. Or deluding themselves.
TSE is trying to send me a message.
Just to cheer you up. Our firm has its first Brexit contingency planning meeting at 2pm
We've already done that at Crossrail: no material impact.
We are Europe's largest construction project with a huge supply chain.
Unfortunately we're connnected to the sector, that when it went mammary glands up last time, it nearly broke the UK economy.
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
If that's the view of party managers, they're seriously out of touch. Or deluding themselves.
TSE is trying to send me a message.
Just to cheer you up. Our firm has its first Brexit contingency planning meeting at 2pm
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
If that's the view of party managers, they're seriously out of touch. Or deluding themselves.
TSE is trying to send me a message.
Just to cheer you up. Our firm has its first Brexit contingency planning meeting at 2pm
We've already done that at Crossrail: no material impact.
We are Europe's largest construction project with a huge supply chain.
Unfortunately we're connnected to the sector, that when it went mammary glands up last time, it nearly broke the UK economy.
He has some decent contests coming up in the run up to the biggy in California though (Though they're small states and not worth so many delegates)
By then I think it will be generally accepted that Trump is the presumptive nominee. Cruz cannot credibly fight down to the wire with no prospect of overtaking Trump, let alone getting to 1237.
Trump getting 60% in liberal New York must have been a bit of a wake-up call for those who are hoping he won't make it to November as nominee.
The Times has been taking over by ultra-metropolitan liberals over the last few years. It's so predictable what they're going to write on any subject. (I still buy it anyway, a couple of times a week).
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
If that's the view of party managers, they're seriously out of touch. Or deluding themselves.
TSE is trying to send me a message.
Just to cheer you up. Our firm has its first Brexit contingency planning meeting at 2pm
We've already done that at Crossrail: no material impact.
We are Europe's largest construction project with a huge supply chain.
I have been bored by the EU ref campaign for quite some time, so it surprised me to realise, just now, that I've started to view a Brexit win as an exciting change, a new challenge.
At least it will be different from those boring, faceless EU bureaucrats.
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
If that's the view of party managers, they're seriously out of touch. Or deluding themselves.
TSE is trying to send me a message.
Just to cheer you up. Our firm has its first Brexit contingency planning meeting at 2pm
Someone did it at our place, the result was mixed, though they gamed three scenarios. There was no real difference between remaining in the EU and being in the EEA for us, leaving in full would cause some short term damage and some possible long term issues, but other specific issues could be addressed (the eurodollar was cited as a possible solution to the ECB locking us out of the game if we went full leave).
Party members are important. They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
Loyalty to the PM has split the party, not Europe. If the PM had got a decent deal or backed Leave if he failed then the party would be united. That he got a piss poor deal and tried to sell it as a win and then backed remain has split the party among loyalists to the PM and those who are following their principles of backing leave because they have backed that position for 20 years or more. If party managers are trying to pin the blame of the party split on members disagreeing with the leadership's position on the EU then they are burying their heads in the sand. I like Dave and have said many times I would keep him on as PM, I'm a Cameroon and during this saga I would be closest to the Gove camp. However, my support of the PM does not stretch to blind loyalty to him in the case of voting or campaigning for Remain, it goes against every fibre of my being to back such a poor deal that will leave this country open to EU hostility.
Is the Leave argument ideal, far from it, is it regrettable that more than half of the party are opposing the leadership, yes, but am I going to waste the one opportunity we are going to get to have our say, not in this life. That's where you and I differ, the party will survive this little spat, we will move on together and elect someone fairly reasonable once Dave steps down. Now that the danger of Osborne as leader has subsided I feel fairly confident for 2020 (even if Labour get their arse in gear). The danger of the party being taken over from the right in the case of leave is remote, which I know is your fear, I don't see UKIP disappearing overnight and I also don't see immigration stop being an issue and any new leader not being broadly in favour of a decent level of immigration. We've been through IDS and I don't know anyone who would care to repeat it, the issue, as always, is talent. There is no one on in the Cabinet fit to clean the dirt of Dave's shoes IMO, he is far and away the best politician in the country. Again, that is a reason why I think Dave will manage to hang on in the event of a Leave vote. There is no one else, I've not met any members who would consider Boris for the leadership and this is West London of all places, where he is supposed to have his power base.
If you don't think the slow death of the Tory voluntary party isn't a long term problem for the Tory Party then I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
Whilst I don't disagree with your general point about the decline in numbers, the 2015 ground game round here at least (Eastbourne, Lewes) was pretty good. Plenty of dedicated people both locally and from further afield.
FWIW, amongst the party members I know (many of whom are Leavers), I simply don't recognise this PB meme of massive anger against Cameron over the referendum. There was more anger over gay marriage in my experience.
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
If that's the view of party managers, they're seriously out of touch. Or deluding themselves.
TSE is trying to send me a message.
Just to cheer you up. Our firm has its first Brexit contingency planning meeting at 2pm
Someone did it at our place, the result was mixed, though they gamed three scenarios. There was no real difference between remaining in the EU and being in the EEA for us, leaving in full would cause some short term damage and some possible long term issues, but other specific issues could be addressed (the eurodollar was cited as a possible solution to the ECB locking us out of the game if we went full leave).
I'll let you know how it goes. I think most of us will be agreeing with Miss Cyclefree over Leave's position.
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
If that's the view of party managers, they're seriously out of touch. Or deluding themselves.
TSE is trying to send me a message.
Just to cheer you up. Our firm has its first Brexit contingency planning meeting at 2pm
We've already done that at Crossrail: no material impact.
We are Europe's largest construction project with a huge supply chain.
I have been bored by the EU ref campaign for quite some time, so it surprised me to realise, just now, that I've started to view a Brexit win as an exciting change, a new challenge.
At least it will be different from those boring, faceless EU bureaucrats.
Yes. There will be some winners, some losers (not unlike the industry restructuring that occurred with Webb/Osborne's pension reforms) and some short term uncertainty, and we will adjust and carry on as a successful, independent rich country.
In the long run we will be absolutely fine, life will go on, and we will have full sovereignty back.
If you don't think the slow death of the Tory voluntary party isn't a long term problem for the Tory Party then I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
Whilst I don't disagree with your general point about the decline in numbers, the 2015 ground game round here at least (Eastbourne, Lewes) was pretty good. Plenty of dedicated people both locally and from further afield.
FWIW, amongst the party members I know (many of whom are Leavers), I simply don't recognise this PB meme of massive anger against Cameron over the referendum. There was more anger over gay marriage in my experience.
If you don't think the slow death of the Tory voluntary party isn't a long term problem for the Tory Party then I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
Whilst I don't disagree with your general point about the decline in numbers, the 2015 ground game round here at least (Eastbourne, Lewes) was pretty good. Plenty of dedicated people both locally and from further afield.
FWIW, amongst the party members I know (many of whom are Leavers), I simply don't recognise this PB meme of massive anger against Cameron over the referendum. There was more anger over gay marriage in my experience.
So the people of Lewes are homophobic as well as sectarian. Nice.
If you don't think the slow death of the Tory voluntary party isn't a long term problem for the Tory Party then I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
Whilst I don't disagree with your general point about the decline in numbers, the 2015 ground game round here at least (Eastbourne, Lewes) was pretty good. Plenty of dedicated people both locally and from further afield.
FWIW, amongst the party members I know (many of whom are Leavers), I simply don't recognise this PB meme of massive anger against Cameron over the referendum. There was more anger over gay marriage in my experience.
So the people of Lewes are homophobic as well as sectarian. Nice.
They run an inclusive, non-partisan, equal-opportunity, burning-at-the-stake policy.
"I used to believe that bad news would boost the morale of ordinary citizens. So much misfortune and misery in the outside world would be reassuring. As long as we personally are not experiencing an earthquake, a pogrom or matrimonial violence, we are doing better than most. Evil gossip about the lives of others reflects well on our own dull selves. A celebrity fallen from grace restores balance to the world. Fate comes to every Icarus.
Now I am not so sure. I recently looked back at the files of old newspapers. While good news sometimes read as propaganda, there was far less of today’s relentless, 24/7 misery. The old journalistic rule of thumb, that bad news should be leavened with good, has died. Terrorism incidents are turned into week-long sagas of hysteria. This can only feed insecurity and risk-aversion."
What amused me was Trump's 80% in Staten Island, Italian-Americans just go nuts for Trump. Whilst I think Trump will make NY competitive, forcing the Democrats to campaign in a very expensive media market, it is NJ that might be a dark horse. Romney got a pathetic share of the white vote there and there is also a big Guido community on the Jersey shore.
There are a few Plains West and Rocky Mountain West states coming up that Cruz should do well in. Problem is they have very few to no Mormons, and they are Primaries too. Also there might be a rally round the leader effect. Trump won a few counties in Idaho that border Montana, the ones without Mormons, even though it was caucus. I don't see Nebraska, Montana and South Dakota as sure things for Cruz, Montana I could see an upset.
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
Party members are important. They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
Sidestepping the question - let me help you out: party membership dropped significantly during the Gay Marriage saga, and numbers have not recovered.
That wasn't because Tory members are homophobes. It's because they were treated with insufficient respect, and not a few in CCHQ and elsewhere wanted to triangulate the party brand at their expense, throwing in a few insults along the way.
And that was just before they got thumped by Labour in the GE right??
If you don't think the slow death of the Tory voluntary party isn't a long term problem for the Tory Party then I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
Agree to disagree it is. You appear to want to keep the Corn Laws. I'm with Peel all the way. Country first, party second.
If you don't think the slow death of the Tory voluntary party isn't a long term problem for the Tory Party then I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
Whilst I don't disagree with your general point about the decline in numbers, the 2015 ground game round here at least (Eastbourne, Lewes) was pretty good. Plenty of dedicated people both locally and from further afield.
FWIW, amongst the party members I know (many of whom are Leavers), I simply don't recognise this PB meme of massive anger against Cameron over the referendum. There was more anger over gay marriage in my experience.
I don't see any anger towards Dave either, as I just said, most seem happy for him to continue as leader after the referendum regardless of the result. Honestly it is an issue being whipped up by a few malcontents like Davis and Montgomery that Dave would have to stand down if there was a leave vote. I have said this many, many times, there is no appetite to remove Dave as leader, at least among members in West London, even those who are in the Leave camp.
If you don't think the slow death of the Tory voluntary party isn't a long term problem for the Tory Party then I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
Whilst I don't disagree with your general point about the decline in numbers, the 2015 ground game round here at least (Eastbourne, Lewes) was pretty good. Plenty of dedicated people both locally and from further afield.
FWIW, amongst the party members I know (many of whom are Leavers), I simply don't recognise this PB meme of massive anger against Cameron over the referendum. There was more anger over gay marriage in my experience.
I don't see any anger towards Dave either, as I just said, most seem happy for him to continue as leader after the referendum regardless of the result. Honestly it is an issue being whipped up by a few malcontents like Davis and Montgomery that Dave would have to stand down if there was a leave vote. I have said this many, many times, there is no appetite to remove Dave as leader, at least among members in West London, even those who are in the Leave camp.
I think you're right, but I wouldn't describe Ken Clark as a malcontent. Many other unflattering epiphets, yes.
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
Party members are important. They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
Sidestepping the question - let me help you out: party membership dropped significantly during the Gay Marriage saga, and numbers have not recovered.
That wasn't because Tory members are homophobes. It's because they were treated with insufficient respect, and not a few in CCHQ and elsewhere wanted to triangulate the party brand at their expense, throwing in a few insults along the way.
And that was just before they got thumped by Labour in the GE right??
If you don't think the slow death of the Tory voluntary party isn't a long term problem for the Tory Party then I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
Agree to disagree it is. You appear to want to keep the Corn Laws. I'm with Peel all the way. Country first, party second.
"I used to believe that bad news would boost the morale of ordinary citizens. So much misfortune and misery in the outside world would be reassuring. As long as we personally are not experiencing an earthquake, a pogrom or matrimonial violence, we are doing better than most. Evil gossip about the lives of others reflects well on our own dull selves. A celebrity fallen from grace restores balance to the world. Fate comes to every Icarus.
Now I am not so sure. I recently looked back at the files of old newspapers. While good news sometimes read as propaganda, there was far less of today’s relentless, 24/7 misery. The old journalistic rule of thumb, that bad news should be leavened with good, has died. Terrorism incidents are turned into week-long sagas of hysteria. This can only feed insecurity and risk-aversion."
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
Labour would be comfortably ahead now, if they had an adequate leader. Cameron's and Osborne's ratings are not good, right now.
This is simply not true , historically speaking . The government has only been in power 1 year . People have gone from a year ago giving a smile , wink and nod to Conservative canvassers , to giving a shifty , eye voiding look and sometimes a scowl . This time next year it will have moved on to glaring looks , outright hostility and nasty comments , Then Labour should be comfortably ahead
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
Party members are important. They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
Sidestepping the question - let me help you out: party membership dropped significantly during the Gay Marriage saga, and numbers have not recovered.
That wasn't because Tory members are homophobes. It's because they were treated with insufficient respect, and not a few in CCHQ and elsewhere wanted to triangulate the party brand at their expense, throwing in a few insults along the way.
And that was just before they got thumped by Labour in the GE right??
If you don't think the slow death of the Tory voluntary party isn't a long term problem for the Tory Party then I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
Agree to disagree it is. You appear to want to keep the Corn Laws. I'm with Peel all the way. Country first, party second.
Only in this case it's European project first, country second. The party doesn't even come into it. I would imagine Cameron regards the wider Tory party as little more than an annoyance, to be appeased and/or chided like any other stakeholder - Murdoch/Archbishops getting on one about poverty/Dacre/Mumsnet/the Beeb/the 1922 committee etc.
Comres Phone poll in Daily Mail appears to have asked GE Voting Intention questions but full details of findings have not been released. Any information anywhere?
If you don't think the slow death of the Tory voluntary party isn't a long term problem for the Tory Party then I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
Whilst I don't disagree with your general point about the decline in numbers, the 2015 ground game round here at least (Eastbourne, Lewes) was pretty good. Plenty of dedicated people both locally and from further afield.
FWIW, amongst the party members I know (many of whom are Leavers), I simply don't recognise this PB meme of massive anger against Cameron over the referendum. There was more anger over gay marriage in my experience.
I don't see any anger towards Dave either, as I just said, most seem happy for him to continue as leader after the referendum regardless of the result. Honestly it is an issue being whipped up by a few malcontents like Davis and Montgomery that Dave would have to stand down if there was a leave vote. I have said this many, many times, there is no appetite to remove Dave as leader, at least among members in West London, even those who are in the Leave camp.
Maybe not, but it would be such a blow that he would have to go.
"I used to believe that bad news would boost the morale of ordinary citizens. So much misfortune and misery in the outside world would be reassuring. As long as we personally are not experiencing an earthquake, a pogrom or matrimonial violence, we are doing better than most. Evil gossip about the lives of others reflects well on our own dull selves. A celebrity fallen from grace restores balance to the world. Fate comes to every Icarus.
Now I am not so sure. I recently looked back at the files of old newspapers. While good news sometimes read as propaganda, there was far less of today’s relentless, 24/7 misery. The old journalistic rule of thumb, that bad news should be leavened with good, has died. Terrorism incidents are turned into week-long sagas of hysteria. This can only feed insecurity and risk-aversion."
Hysterics and shroud waving presumably sells newspapers and TV ads. The 24/7 news cycle and frothing twitterati make an unpleasant environment. People will eventually switch off and spend more time with friends and real people.(and less time on pb ?)
A decision over an injunction taken out by a celebrity to keep an extra-marital relationship out of the media will be announced at "a later date", the Supreme Court has said.
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
Party members are important. They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
Sidestepping the question - let me help you out: party membership dropped significantly during the Gay Marriage saga, and numbers have not recovered.
That wasn't because Tory members are homophobes. It's because they were treated with insufficient respect, and not a few in CCHQ and elsewhere wanted to triangulate the party brand at their expense, throwing in a few insults along the way.
And that was just before they got thumped by Labour in the GE right??
If you don't think the slow death of the Tory voluntary party isn't a long term problem for the Tory Party then I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
Agree to disagree it is. You appear to want to keep the Corn Laws. I'm with Peel all the way. Country first, party second.
WTF do the corn laws or Peel have to do with it?
I'm a retired history teacher - don't do lessons for free
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
Party members are important. They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
Sidestepping the question - let me help you out: party membership dropped significantly during the Gay Marriage saga, and numbers have not recovered.
That wasn't because Tory members are homophobes. It's because they were treated with insufficient respect, and not a few in CCHQ and elsewhere wanted to triangulate the party brand at their expense, throwing in a few insults along the way.
And that was just before they got thumped by Labour in the GE right??
If you don't think the slow death of the Tory voluntary party isn't a long term problem for the Tory Party then I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
Agree to disagree it is. You appear to want to keep the Corn Laws. I'm with Peel all the way. Country first, party second.
Only in this case it's European project first, country second. The party doesn't even come into it. I would imagine Cameron regards the wider Tory party as little more than an annoyance, to be appeased and/or chided like any other stakeholder - Murdoch/Archbishops getting on one about poverty/Dacre/Mumsnet/the Beeb/the 1922 committee etc.
Still agreeing to disagree. I think it's in our interests to Remain.
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: UK Statistics Authority chair Andrew Dilnot says Vote Leave claim the UK sends £350m a week to the EU is "potentially misleading"
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: UK Statistics Authority chair Andrew Dilnot says Vote Leave claim the UK sends £350m a week to the EU is "potentially misleading"
He'll have fun with Osborne's '£4300' claim, confusing GDP per household with household income.
"I used to believe that bad news would boost the morale of ordinary citizens. So much misfortune and misery in the outside world would be reassuring. As long as we personally are not experiencing an earthquake, a pogrom or matrimonial violence, we are doing better than most. Evil gossip about the lives of others reflects well on our own dull selves. A celebrity fallen from grace restores balance to the world. Fate comes to every Icarus.
Now I am not so sure. I recently looked back at the files of old newspapers. While good news sometimes read as propaganda, there was far less of today’s relentless, 24/7 misery. The old journalistic rule of thumb, that bad news should be leavened with good, has died. Terrorism incidents are turned into week-long sagas of hysteria. This can only feed insecurity and risk-aversion."
When the recent drinking guidelines came out I actually checked the research- someone my age, drinking two bottles of wine a day increases their chance of early death by about 9% - which, were I want to do so struck me as a pretty reasonable trade off!
A decision over an injunction taken out by a celebrity to keep an extra-marital relationship out of the media will be announced at "a later date", the Supreme Court has said.
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: UK Statistics Authority chair Andrew Dilnot says Vote Leave claim the UK sends £350m a week to the EU is "potentially misleading"
He'll have fun with Osborne's '£4300' claim, confusing GDP per household with household income.
No current civil servant or quango is going to go against Osborne.
HM Government position is clear, and any associated arm will help to advance it.
"Do you want a career, or do you want to support Leave?"
"I used to believe that bad news would boost the morale of ordinary citizens. So much misfortune and misery in the outside world would be reassuring. As long as we personally are not experiencing an earthquake, a pogrom or matrimonial violence, we are doing better than most. Evil gossip about the lives of others reflects well on our own dull selves. A celebrity fallen from grace restores balance to the world. Fate comes to every Icarus.
Now I am not so sure. I recently looked back at the files of old newspapers. While good news sometimes read as propaganda, there was far less of today’s relentless, 24/7 misery. The old journalistic rule of thumb, that bad news should be leavened with good, has died. Terrorism incidents are turned into week-long sagas of hysteria. This can only feed insecurity and risk-aversion."
When the recent drinking guidelines came out I actually checked the research- someone my age, drinking two bottles of wine a day increases their chance of early death by about 9% - which, were I want to do so struck me as a pretty reasonable trade off!
Wonder if Kasich can get past Cruz? We're probbly almost into VP time!
The bigger question is whether Cruz and Kasich between them can damage Trump sufficiently to deny him the nomination on the first ballot. After New York and recent polling it's looking marginal.
"I used to believe that bad news would boost the morale of ordinary citizens. So much misfortune and misery in the outside world would be reassuring. As long as we personally are not experiencing an earthquake, a pogrom or matrimonial violence, we are doing better than most. Evil gossip about the lives of others reflects well on our own dull selves. A celebrity fallen from grace restores balance to the world. Fate comes to every Icarus.
Now I am not so sure. I recently looked back at the files of old newspapers. While good news sometimes read as propaganda, there was far less of today’s relentless, 24/7 misery. The old journalistic rule of thumb, that bad news should be leavened with good, has died. Terrorism incidents are turned into week-long sagas of hysteria. This can only feed insecurity and risk-aversion."
When the recent drinking guidelines came out I actually checked the research- someone my age, drinking two bottles of wine a day increases their chance of early death by about 9% - which, were I want to do so struck me as a pretty reasonable trade off!
Two bottles of wine a day is quite a lot.
Although less than I'll be having each day if we vote to Remain.
I wonder whether Labour were wise to make such a big thing of Cameron's comments on Sadiq Khan? It's always difficult in cases like this to judge whether to let the attack pass with only a mild rebuttal, or respond with all guns blazing, as Labour have in this case. The risk of the latter, obviously, is that it draws further attention to the issue. The risk of the former is that it could mean that it looks as though you are implicitly accepting at least some of the attack.
In this particular case, I think it was an error for Labour to cry 'Racist!', as it gave Zac an opportunity (which he used very well) to respond that it's not racist to be concerned about extremism. But responding vigorously to the extremist-link attack was probably sensible on Labour's part.
It probably doesn't matter much anyway. PBers will be collecting their 33/1s, I think.
Khan will win so yes it probably doesn't matter much.
But long-term I think it is foolish of Labour to react in the way they did. It makes them look as if they want to shut down debate on any association with extremists. If one can't ask legitimate questions about why senior Labour people always seem to associate with extremist Muslims and not the liberal peaceful non-extremist Muslims they're always talking about, it risks creating the perception that Labour thinks these are the only Muslims worth talking to, that these are the Muslims who represent the community. And that does a grave disservice to the non-extremists and does give more oxygen to the extremists. And it is but a short step from there to thinking that Labour is on the side of the extremists. That is the risk for Labour.
The nightmare for Labour - and pray God this does not happen - is if there is a terrorist attack and it turns out that there is a link between the perpetrators and all these radical imams and others senior Labour figures have been associating with.
There are plenty of non-extreme Muslims around who would be splendid role models and could advise Labour. Why does Labour persist on spurning them and being friends with the extremists, with those who advocate boycotts of fellow Muslims, who cheer the murder of people for arguing against blasphemy, who support convicted terrorists etc? The Tories may not win the battle but they may win the longer war. And Labour seem intent on helping them.
"I used to believe that bad news would boost the morale of ordinary citizens. So much misfortune and misery in the outside world would be reassuring. As long as we personally are not experiencing an earthquake, a pogrom or matrimonial violence, we are doing better than most. Evil gossip about the lives of others reflects well on our own dull selves. A celebrity fallen from grace restores balance to the world. Fate comes to every Icarus.
Now I am not so sure. I recently looked back at the files of old newspapers. While good news sometimes read as propaganda, there was far less of today’s relentless, 24/7 misery. The old journalistic rule of thumb, that bad news should be leavened with good, has died. Terrorism incidents are turned into week-long sagas of hysteria. This can only feed insecurity and risk-aversion."
When the recent drinking guidelines came out I actually checked the research- someone my age, drinking two bottles of wine a day increases their chance of early death by about 9% - which, were I want to do so struck me as a pretty reasonable trade off!
Two bottles of wine a day is quite a lot.
It's a HUGE amount - about four times what I'd drink over the weekend (rarely during the week) - but the point was that 9% excess deaths is a big number for the government but pretty reasonable odds for the individual- should they wish to drink that much!
Crikey, do IN really need more money, after their £9 million leafleting bung?
Incidentally, I was filing some returns with Companies House yesterday, and there was a direct link to HMG's Remain position. How do they account for this within the spending limits?
"I used to believe that bad news would boost the morale of ordinary citizens. So much misfortune and misery in the outside world would be reassuring. As long as we personally are not experiencing an earthquake, a pogrom or matrimonial violence, we are doing better than most. Evil gossip about the lives of others reflects well on our own dull selves. A celebrity fallen from grace restores balance to the world. Fate comes to every Icarus.
Now I am not so sure. I recently looked back at the files of old newspapers. While good news sometimes read as propaganda, there was far less of today’s relentless, 24/7 misery. The old journalistic rule of thumb, that bad news should be leavened with good, has died. Terrorism incidents are turned into week-long sagas of hysteria. This can only feed insecurity and risk-aversion."
When the recent drinking guidelines came out I actually checked the research- someone my age, drinking two bottles of wine a day increases their chance of early death by about 9% - which, were I want to do so struck me as a pretty reasonable trade off!
Two bottles of wine a day is quite a lot.
Although less than I'll be having each day if we vote to Remain.
So: in the even of Remain, you'll be drinking yourself into oblivion. In the event of Leave, it'll be a celebratory bender.
"I used to believe that bad news would boost the morale of ordinary citizens. So much misfortune and misery in the outside world would be reassuring. As long as we personally are not experiencing an earthquake, a pogrom or matrimonial violence, we are doing better than most. Evil gossip about the lives of others reflects well on our own dull selves. A celebrity fallen from grace restores balance to the world. Fate comes to every Icarus.
Now I am not so sure. I recently looked back at the files of old newspapers. While good news sometimes read as propaganda, there was far less of today’s relentless, 24/7 misery. The old journalistic rule of thumb, that bad news should be leavened with good, has died. Terrorism incidents are turned into week-long sagas of hysteria. This can only feed insecurity and risk-aversion."
When the recent drinking guidelines came out I actually checked the research- someone my age, drinking two bottles of wine a day increases their chance of early death by about 9% - which, were I want to do so struck me as a pretty reasonable trade off!
Two bottles of wine a day is quite a lot.
Although less than I'll be having each day if we vote to Remain.
But if we vote LEAVE you won't be able to afford two bottles a day! ;-)
Mr. Eagles, a narrow lead is not what most people expected. Cameron and Osborne are reaping tomorrow's harvest to claim a feast today, but there'll be a Conservative famine tomorrow*.
Take people for granted and they either don't turn out or move to other groups (cf Mr. Fear et al).
*(Probably 2025, assuming Labour stops being mad when it comes to leaders).
I'm taking nothing for granted.
Just remember all those voters Cameron pissed off by introducing same sex marriage, ultimately helped him win over more net voters
What about party members?
Party members are important. They are broadly frustrated not by the PM but the decision of some to re-enact the 90s.
Sidestepping the question - let me help you out: party membership dropped significantly during the Gay Marriage saga, and numbers have not recovered.
That wasn't because Tory members are homophobes. It's because they were treated with insufficient respect, and not a few in CCHQ and elsewhere wanted to triangulate the party brand at their expense, throwing in a few insults along the way.
And that was just before they got thumped by Labour in the GE right??
If you don't think the slow death of the Tory voluntary party isn't a long term problem for the Tory Party then I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
Who needs soldiers in an age of drone warfare? Labour can have as many boots on the ground as they like but all Lynton has to do is fire a precision guided missile from his office. As for money, what are you suggesting - that all those wealthy benefactors currently giving the Tories money would suddenly desert them because they weren't in power. How can you suggest such generous people would be fair weather friends?
"I used to believe that bad news would boost the morale of ordinary citizens. So much misfortune and misery in the outside world would be reassuring. As long as we personally are not experiencing an earthquake, a pogrom or matrimonial violence, we are doing better than most. Evil gossip about the lives of others reflects well on our own dull selves. A celebrity fallen from grace restores balance to the world. Fate comes to every Icarus.
Now I am not so sure. I recently looked back at the files of old newspapers. While good news sometimes read as propaganda, there was far less of today’s relentless, 24/7 misery. The old journalistic rule of thumb, that bad news should be leavened with good, has died. Terrorism incidents are turned into week-long sagas of hysteria. This can only feed insecurity and risk-aversion."
When the recent drinking guidelines came out I actually checked the research- someone my age, drinking two bottles of wine a day increases their chance of early death by about 9% - which, were I want to do so struck me as a pretty reasonable trade off!
Two bottles of wine a day is quite a lot.
Although less than I'll be having each day if we vote to Remain.
So: in the even of Remain, you'll be drinking yourself into oblivion. In the event of Leave, it'll be a celebratory bender.
I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
Yup, short-term blip under Leave; long-term decline under Remain! ;-)
Wonder if Kasich can get past Cruz? We're probbly almost into VP time!
The bigger question is whether Cruz and Kasich between them can damage Trump sufficiently to deny him the nomination on the first ballot. After New York and recent polling it's looking marginal.
Agree; looks very much indeed like Trump vs Clinton. And, TBH, although she'd younger than me, I do wonder how physically tough Clinton is. Which leads me to the VP slot.
Still agreeing to disagree. I think it's in our interests to Remain.
You may or may not be right [spoiler - you're wrong], but we're talking about Cameron's priorities. The consistent pattern of behaviour indicates that despite his many statements to the contrary, he puts remaining in the EU above the interests of the UK.
That BBC article really is very slanted, though subtly so:
'If what you care about is economic modelling, then this is a perfectly respectable piece of modelling, following broadly similar methodology to the one from the Centre for Economic Performance'
The gravity model used has in fact come in for considerable criticism over the years
then -
'although headlining the figure taking into account dynamic effects rather than static ones (dynamic models include changes that happen over time such as trade increasing competition or efficiency). This is not hugely surprising - economic models tend to assume that free trade and economic cooperation are a good thing.'
Yes they do, but note they are conflating 'free trade' and EU membership here. That is misleading, as the EU is a preferential trade agreement that diverts and distorts trade. Alternative modelling approaches that better take these effects into account do not show the same results as the Treasury's - indeed some show gains from Brexit.
In addition, there is not much of an attempt by the article to take a look at the assumptions underlying the Treasury's model - some of which are highly questionable.
and then
'One useful thing from this Treasury report is that it helps put into context the significance of the UK's contribution to the EU Budget. The Treasury says that the 6% of GDP in 2030 would cut tax receipts by £36bn, dwarfing the contributions to the EU. Indeed, the Treasury has reached the £36bn figure after subtracting the UK's £7bn a year average net contribution.'
So basically here the BBC are implying that Treasury's estimates are broadly correct and we shouldn't worry about the piddling little net contributions.
"I used to believe that bad news would boost the morale of ordinary citizens. So much misfortune and misery in the outside world would be reassuring. As long as we personally are not experiencing an earthquake, a pogrom or matrimonial violence, we are doing better than most. Evil gossip about the lives of others reflects well on our own dull selves. A celebrity fallen from grace restores balance to the world. Fate comes to every Icarus.
Now I am not so sure. I recently looked back at the files of old newspapers. While good news sometimes read as propaganda, there was far less of today’s relentless, 24/7 misery. The old journalistic rule of thumb, that bad news should be leavened with good, has died. Terrorism incidents are turned into week-long sagas of hysteria. This can only feed insecurity and risk-aversion."
When the recent drinking guidelines came out I actually checked the research- someone my age, drinking two bottles of wine a day increases their chance of early death by about 9% - which, were I want to do so struck me as a pretty reasonable trade off!
Two bottles of wine a day is quite a lot.
Although less than I'll be having each day if we vote to Remain.
So: in the even of Remain, you'll be drinking yourself into oblivion. In the event of Leave, it'll be a celebratory bender.
I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
Between drinking the wine and the wine *ahem* exiting, I can't think how there's time for anything else of an evening.
A decision over an injunction taken out by a celebrity to keep an extra-marital relationship out of the media will be announced at "a later date", the Supreme Court has said.
Still agreeing to disagree. I think it's in our interests to Remain.
You may or may not be right [spoiler - you're wrong], but we're talking about Cameron's priorities. The consistent pattern of behaviour indicates that despite his many statements to the contrary, he puts remaining in the EU above the interests of the UK.
Lol - depends on what you think are the interests of the UK. On which we disagree. Is it groundhog day or have I just had too much of this glorious Spanish (EU) sun?
Still agreeing to disagree. I think it's in our interests to Remain.
You may or may not be right [spoiler - you're wrong], but we're talking about Cameron's priorities. The consistent pattern of behaviour indicates that despite his many statements to the contrary, he puts remaining in the EU above the interests of the UK.
Lol - depends on what you think are the interests of the UK. On which we disagree. Is it groundhog day or have I just had too much of this glorious Spanish (EU) sun?
"I used to believe that bad news would boost the morale of ordinary citizens. So much misfortune and misery in the outside world would be reassuring. As long as we personally are not experiencing an earthquake, a pogrom or matrimonial violence, we are doing better than most. Evil gossip about the lives of others reflects well on our own dull selves. A celebrity fallen from grace restores balance to the world. Fate comes to every Icarus.
Now I am not so sure. I recently looked back at the files of old newspapers. While good news sometimes read as propaganda, there was far less of today’s relentless, 24/7 misery. The old journalistic rule of thumb, that bad news should be leavened with good, has died. Terrorism incidents are turned into week-long sagas of hysteria. This can only feed insecurity and risk-aversion."
When the recent drinking guidelines came out I actually checked the research- someone my age, drinking two bottles of wine a day increases their chance of early death by about 9% - which, were I want to do so struck me as a pretty reasonable trade off!
Two bottles of wine a day is quite a lot.
Indeed - no wonder the NHS struggles - and I always thought of Carlotta as a sober type!
After days of the Leave price sticking rigidly at 2.70 on Betfair, it has moved to 2.94 (last traded). Ah well, it was good while it lasted.
Yes, Leave has gone most of the way back to where it stood at the weekend.
I saw your post (BTL) yesterday in which you set out three reasons why Remain would win. The first was that you expected high turnout. I didn't get a chance to comment at the time but I wondered what you meant by high. My thinking is that it will approach GE levels but won't exceed them.
Comments
http://play.bbc.co.uk/play/pen/gp7fxwwlg9
It wasn't about triangulation, it was doing the right thing.
Just like when Lady Thatcher decriminalised homosexuality in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
“Donald is a niche candidate. He can’t expand that, and to win you’ve got to have a broad tent, you’ve got to bring in voters other than the hard base.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/21/anti-trump_forces_face_tough_road.html
'We've just rammed an iceberg, and it's all the fault of the passengers who asked for a closer look'
Things will be looking even tougher for Cruz after the primaries on the 26th where he will be roundly thumped.
He has some decent contests coming up in the run up to the biggy in California though (Though they're small states and not worth so many delegates)
The poll of more than 1,000 voters shows that, as the contest heads into the final two months, Remain holds a lead of 11 points – 51 per cent to 40 per cent.
Nine per cent are still undecided. Last month, the lead was seven points.
After likelihood to vote is taken into consideration - and don't knows are excluded – the In camp leads by 58 per cent to 42 per cen
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3550906/Most-voters-say-Britain-doesn-t-value-money-EU-Majority-say-prefer-8-5bn-spent-NHS.html#ixzz46Spm5Ies
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
You are also too close to CCHQ and those at the top of the party. You have those in the party who agree too but you tend to dismiss those who disagree and push the leadership view; you're not close to how a lot of this landed in the Shires.
I suspect deep down you know this. But, anyway, it's history now: what's done is done.
Maybe with the fact these were OBR numbers not Osborne's.
Or that the difference is a rounding error.
Or that it is very likely that the figure will be revised back below the target in due course anyway.
Or that the budget forecast (also OBR but at least announced by Osborne) was £73.5bn.
I completely get that the way Osborne's behaving in relation to the referendum is ticking some Conservative supporters off. But rubbishing what is a very good economic record to try and reduce the weight of his contribution in that debate is stupid. In the last year we have tax revenues up over 4%, we have government spending up all of 0.2% and we have a fall in the deficit of £17.7 bn.
Just rejoice at that news, as one Tory once said.
Won't be long before they start praising Corbyn at PMQs - oh wait one of them did yesterday. At the moment it's all about Brexit. I imagine John Major is having some wry old chuckles.
We are Europe's largest construction project with a huge supply chain.
The 2015GE involved a huge (and very expensive) air war effort to compensate for some real holes in the national ground game.
As soon as we go back into opposition it will be a huge problem, if money starts to dry up. There's no reason it needs to be this way, as both the SNP, and Labour, have recently shown.
I've seen no strategy from the top to address this, or that they even much care about the members except as cannon fodder.
Is the Leave argument ideal, far from it, is it regrettable that more than half of the party are opposing the leadership, yes, but am I going to waste the one opportunity we are going to get to have our say, not in this life. That's where you and I differ, the party will survive this little spat, we will move on together and elect someone fairly reasonable once Dave steps down. Now that the danger of Osborne as leader has subsided I feel fairly confident for 2020 (even if Labour get their arse in gear). The danger of the party being taken over from the right in the case of leave is remote, which I know is your fear, I don't see UKIP disappearing overnight and I also don't see immigration stop being an issue and any new leader not being broadly in favour of a decent level of immigration. We've been through IDS and I don't know anyone who would care to repeat it, the issue, as always, is talent. There is no one on in the Cabinet fit to clean the dirt of Dave's shoes IMO, he is far and away the best politician in the country. Again, that is a reason why I think Dave will manage to hang on in the event of a Leave vote. There is no one else, I've not met any members who would consider Boris for the leadership and this is West London of all places, where he is supposed to have his power base.
At least it will be different from those boring, faceless EU bureaucrats.
FWIW, amongst the party members I know (many of whom are Leavers), I simply don't recognise this PB meme of massive anger against Cameron over the referendum. There was more anger over gay marriage in my experience.
In the long run we will be absolutely fine, life will go on, and we will have full sovereignty back.
All views are valid.
Simon Jenkins on bad news:
"I used to believe that bad news would boost the morale of ordinary citizens. So much misfortune and misery in the outside world would be reassuring. As long as we personally are not experiencing an earthquake, a pogrom or matrimonial violence, we are doing better than most. Evil gossip about the lives of others reflects well on our own dull selves. A celebrity fallen from grace restores balance to the world. Fate comes to every Icarus.
Now I am not so sure. I recently looked back at the files of old newspapers. While good news sometimes read as propaganda, there was far less of today’s relentless, 24/7 misery. The old journalistic rule of thumb, that bad news should be leavened with good, has died. Terrorism incidents are turned into week-long sagas of hysteria. This can only feed insecurity and risk-aversion."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/21/bad-news-media-misery
There are a few Plains West and Rocky Mountain West states coming up that Cruz should do well in. Problem is they have very few to no Mormons, and they are Primaries too. Also there might be a rally round the leader effect. Trump won a few counties in Idaho that border Montana, the ones without Mormons, even though it was caucus. I don't see Nebraska, Montana and South Dakota as sure things for Cruz, Montana I could see an upset.
Good job Lese Majeste isn't applied anymore.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36103975
So that candle in the wind continues to burn for even longer.
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: UK Statistics Authority chair Andrew Dilnot says Vote Leave claim the UK sends £350m a week to the EU is "potentially misleading"
Trump 40 .. Cruz 26 .. Kasich 25
Clinton 58 .. Sanders 31
http://www.fandm.edu/uploads/files/746493212120738645-f-m-poll-release-april-2016.pdf
@MrHarryCole: Arron Banks is very angry that Peter Bone and Tom Pursglove have lined their pockets with Brexit cash: https://t.co/y1Y8bkKsHL
'Reality Check verdict: The precise figure is questionable and probably not particularly helpful.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201
HM Government position is clear, and any associated arm will help to advance it.
"Do you want a career, or do you want to support Leave?"
https://in.nationbuilder.com/kate_hoey_donate?utm_campaign
But long-term I think it is foolish of Labour to react in the way they did. It makes them look as if they want to shut down debate on any association with extremists. If one can't ask legitimate questions about why senior Labour people always seem to associate with extremist Muslims and not the liberal peaceful non-extremist Muslims they're always talking about, it risks creating the perception that Labour thinks these are the only Muslims worth talking to, that these are the Muslims who represent the community. And that does a grave disservice to the non-extremists and does give more oxygen to the extremists. And it is but a short step from there to thinking that Labour is on the side of the extremists. That is the risk for Labour.
The nightmare for Labour - and pray God this does not happen - is if there is a terrorist attack and it turns out that there is a link between the perpetrators and all these radical imams and others senior Labour figures have been associating with.
There are plenty of non-extreme Muslims around who would be splendid role models and could advise Labour. Why does Labour persist on spurning them and being friends with the extremists, with those who advocate boycotts of fellow Muslims, who cheer the murder of people for arguing against blasphemy, who support convicted terrorists etc? The Tories may not win the battle but they may win the longer war. And Labour seem intent on helping them.
Incidentally, I was filing some returns with Companies House yesterday, and there was a direct link to HMG's Remain position. How do they account for this within the spending limits?
I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
'If what you care about is economic modelling, then this is a perfectly respectable piece of modelling, following broadly similar methodology to the one from the Centre for Economic Performance'
The gravity model used has in fact come in for considerable criticism over the years
then -
'although headlining the figure taking into account dynamic effects rather than static ones (dynamic models include changes that happen over time such as trade increasing competition or efficiency). This is not hugely surprising - economic models tend to assume that free trade and economic cooperation are a good thing.'
Yes they do, but note they are conflating 'free trade' and EU membership here. That is misleading, as the EU is a preferential trade agreement that diverts and distorts trade. Alternative modelling approaches that better take these effects into account do not show the same results as the Treasury's - indeed some show gains from Brexit.
In addition, there is not much of an attempt by the article to take a look at the assumptions underlying the Treasury's model - some of which are highly questionable.
and then
'One useful thing from this Treasury report is that it helps put into context the significance of the UK's contribution to the EU Budget. The Treasury says that the 6% of GDP in 2030 would cut tax receipts by £36bn, dwarfing the contributions to the EU. Indeed, the Treasury has reached the £36bn figure after subtracting the UK's £7bn a year average net contribution.'
So basically here the BBC are implying that Treasury's estimates are broadly correct and we shouldn't worry about the piddling little net contributions.
Daniel Hannan – Verified account @DanHannanMEP
Lord Rose admits that #Brexit will mean higher wages, Lord Ashdown admits it will mean cheaper food. And that's the *Remain* side.
3:42 p.m. - 20 Apr 2016
451 RETWEETS287 LIKES.
I saw your post (BTL) yesterday in which you set out three reasons why Remain would win. The first was that you expected high turnout. I didn't get a chance to comment at the time but I wondered what you meant by high. My thinking is that it will approach GE levels but won't exceed them.
Back to work.