Look at who Jeremy Corbyn associates with. Look in detail at the people who run the Finsbury Park Mosque. These are not liberals. Look at Andy Slaughter and who he associates with. These are not liberals. Look at Ken Livingstone and Al Qaradawi. He invited him to London and praised him as a moderate. Moderate, my a*se!
Politicians have a certain standing and if they agree to speak at events with extremists without challenging them then they need to think about whether this might not be seen as implicit support for those views. If they invite them to Parliament (as Corbyn has done with Raad Saleh) or City Hall, what message do you think it sends out to real moderates. These are the people that the authorities value: that's the message.
This is not just my view. This is what Yvette Cooper herself said last summer.
There are those in the Muslim community who do have a good understanding of how extremists work and how to challenge and confront, some of them being ex-extremists themselves. Think of those at the Quillam Foundation. Think of Gita Saghal who pointed out the grossness of Amnesty teaming up with Cage, given the latter's views on women's rights. And yet those people are not reached out to by Labour.
I'm sure I must be misreading your point here, but I don't quite understand the reference to Saghal who is an atheist, a secularist campaigner and from a Hindu background (unless Wikipedia has that bit wrong, but I think it's a Hindu rather than Muslim name). The Quilliam Foundation is billed as apolitical but has been strongly tied in to successive governments so it's not altogether surprising if Labour isn't that close to it in opposition, particularly given the dynamics of the Corbyn faction in relation to the think tanks that were strongly identified with the New Labour faction.
I'm not disputing that Labour figures have associated with those along the extremist spectrum - although it's somewhat hard to find a political party that hasn't, where the electoral realities of an area mean that community leaders have unpalatable associations. But it's an unjustified jump in reasoning to say that because Labour has certain associations, it is actively avoiding working with "moderates". All else aside, politicians are whores who will associate with anyone who might bring them more votes than they lose.
I see there have been some posts about Neil Woodford's views on Brexit. He's certainly someone well worth listening to, and the Capital Economics report he commissioned is well worth a read (although of course Vicky Redwood has always been a Leaver, so the views of Capital Economics are no more independent than those of other institutions).
What has been less reported is Neil Woodford's views on the sectoral effects of Brexit:
"There are going to be some industries that we think will benefit and some that we think will suffer. I think the City will be disadvantaged by a Brexit, but of course it is likely that the currency will depreciate further if we do leave, and consequently it is likely some other industries may benefit from a weaker pound. So we need to factor that into our judgments about what we have got in the portfolio, where we are positioned and which companies we are happy with.
What's your point Richard? Any shift in trade regimes will mean some relative winners and some relative losers, over time. That's hardly a big story.
The big story is what happens to overall economic welfare. And there is a good case to be made that overall welfare will increase after Brexit if we follow liberal trade policies as we should.
As it happens I suspect some kind of deal will be done to preserve the special positions of some industries after Brexit; the City gets to keep its passporting rights in return for European car makers retaining a privileged position in the UK market or similar. That will reduce the adjustment costs - while cutting some of the benefits too of course.
I've had a wee look at the Holyrood constituency betting markets and I think there may actually be a smidge of value.
South of Scotland is a tough Area for the SNP, currently all 3 border constituencies are non-SNP, Conservative, Labour and Conservative respectively from West to East.
Galloway & West Dumfries is currently Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition but with a majority of only 862, with the SNP in second place. This looks a slam dunk SNP gain but Ladbrokes are rating it as only a 63% chance of a gain. I will be backing this one all day long.
The analogous Westminster constituency takes in all of Dumfries whilst the Holyrood constituency takes in only half of it but with no Lib Dem presence to speak of I can only see the Labour vote breaking heavily for the SNP as they did last year. 4/7 Looks like a great price to back the SNP here.
Dumfriesshire is vastly harder to call.
There is a real sense of disappointment amongst the Anti-Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition voters that they failed to kick out Mundell by a scant few hundred votes and the idea of his son getting a seat doesn't sit well with them. the Labour vote will drop, it will only go to the SNP. It would require a 7.5 point swing to the SNP for Lab to get them over the line.
Etrrick, roxburgh & Berwicks is a 1/8 Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition hold. I can't disagree with that. SNP won the Westminster version by a whisker and the Holyrood configuration is less favorable to them.
So SNP in Galloway & West Dumfries, Labour in Dumfriesshire with an SNP saver. ER&B to be left alone.
If anyone ever gets to the point of putting up markets for the regional lists, backing the SCons No.1 Glasgow candidate Adam WATP Tomkins might be inadvisable.
LOL all those idiots who voted NO to save their jobs will be wondering why they were stupid enough to trust a Tory promise.
No, we voted NAW because of Salmond's lies and his cult of eejits. If we had voted for Independence, the self deluded clown would have bankrupted Scotland and within a few years, would have been begging England to take us back, and we would have had to accept far worse terms than we have now. We also realised that the cult would have made life unbearable for any unbeliever. You and the cult thought we were cabbages, but son, we weren't that green. You lost. Get over it. The SNP are a one trick pony, now with one leg broken, but will hirple along for a time while Sturgeon offers vague promises to the cult and, hopefully, in a few years the carcass will be buried and forgotten.
I see there have been some posts about Neil Woodford's views on Brexit. He's certainly someone well worth listening to, and the Capital Economics report he commissioned is well worth a read (although of course Vicky Redwood has always been a Leaver, so the views of Capital Economics are no more independent than those of other institutions).
What has been less reported is Neil Woodford's views on the sectoral effects of Brexit:
"There are going to be some industries that we think will benefit and some that we think will suffer. I think the City will be disadvantaged by a Brexit, but of course it is likely that the currency will depreciate further if we do leave, and consequently it is likely some other industries may benefit from a weaker pound. So we need to factor that into our judgments about what we have got in the portfolio, where we are positioned and which companies we are happy with.
Why did you not highlight the fact that some industries will benefit? Is it because you only care about that which backs Remain, or you think we should have all our eggs in one industry and screw the others?
Any energy intensive industry such as steelmaking, glass manufacturing or cement production is screwed in the EU.
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
It's like suggesting that someone from an Irish Nationalist background is not well-disposed towards the UK. It may or may not be true, but it's hardly outrageous.
Two points:-
1. It's an irrelevance. No-one is going to be persuaded to vote Leave because they are bothered by Obama being influenced by his Dad in what he said about Brexit.
2. Obama's Dad - as I understand it - scarpered when Obama was very young. How likely is it that he was that much influenced by the history of the country of a father who was not around during his life?
It's just an ill-judged comment. As if those who suggest that Britain should remain in the EU can only be motivated by base motives or malice.
Obama is the president of the United States. He is not part Kenyan, he is fully American. Just as Boris is British. Calling Obama part-Kenyan is insulting him and his office. The family that brought him up is from Hawaii. What's more there is absolutely no evidence that he is anti-British. All Democrat presidents get labelled the same. Clinton certainly was.
I agree. I think the attacks on Obama are silly and pointless.
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
It's like suggesting that someone from an Irish Nationalist background is not well-disposed towards the UK. It may or may not be true, but it's hardly outrageous.
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. He was born in the US and was raised by his American mother and her American family. His Kenyan grandfather - who he did not meet, as far as I know - was imprisoned by the British. Obama referred to it in a book he wrote. And that's it.
So Farage was right then....
No, he wasn't. He asserted - without a shred of evidence - that Obama is anti-British.
You said he does not have a Kenyan background, he does. He removed a bust of Winston Churchill, he is the only person I have known to refer to BP as British Petroleum as it suited his agenda, need I go on?
He did not remove Churchill's bust.
Plenty of people refer to BP as British Petroleum:
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. His background is American.
What's your point Richard? Any shift in trade regimes will mean some relative winners and some relative losers, over time. That's hardly a big story.
The big story is what happens to overall economic welfare. And there is a good case to be made that overall welfare will increase after Brexit if we follow liberal trade policies as we should.
As it happens I suspect some kind of deal will be done to preserve the special positions of some industries after Brexit; the City gets to keep its passporting rights in return for European car makers retaining a privileged position in the UK market or similar. That will reduce the adjustment costs - while cutting some of the benefits too of course.
My point is that Neil Woodford, who is someone whose views I greatly respect, thinks that the City will be damaged by Brexit. No more or less than that.
The referendum is now in the collective conscience. The polls are now relevant.
Spot on. So the numbers next week will be interesting.
*gulp*
Its probably just me but it feels like Remain are already through some big plays, whereas leave have barely started.
With a full two months to go, where do Remain go after Obama?
I think Remain are playing this spot on (sadly).
Get all the big names backing you early on and then you can repeat ad nauseum their backing. During any debate a Remain supporter can easily appeal to authority over the economy (IMF etc) and international relations (Obama etc) and so on and so forth. Essentially Remain are making these big plays a matter of public record that can then be repeated to death by their own supporters for the next two months.
True, but as the republican establishment have discovered, big names count for less than they used to.
Mr. Eagles, Cameron's very keen to win the referendum. A shame he didn't show such vigour negotiating a deal worth defending.
Cameron is as much of a lamb internationally as he is a lion domestically.
You see him as a lion? I see him more as a serpent.
I thought the Lib Dems viewed Cameron as a black widow spider
That too, Mr Eagles. And as a toad.
Also as a chameleon, so you never know where you are with him.
And what I find particularly interesting in recent weeks is how many erswthile Conservatives have now come round to the Lib Dem point of view. Caameron is not to be trusted over anything.
Cameron has always believed that the UK should remain in the EU. All the contortions over the referendum and the "renegotiation" have been a smokescreen behind which to hide that belief. All the key players in the EU knew that was his position, as did anyone here who was not blinded by their animosity to the EU or by naive faith in Cameron's public pronouncements. If you start from that premise you can see why the "deal" lacks any real substance, why the leave Tories feel betrayed and why Cameron is campaigning so strongly for a remain vote.
Yes. To be non-partisan, Harold Wilson did exactly the same, in almost every detail. Cameron is actually keener, I think - he genuinely thinks that withdrawal would be a disaster (which is why I think that offering the referendum was wrong - you shouldn't offer the population a choice if you think that one answer will be a catastrophe). I don't remember Harold caring that much: politics for him was mostly about tactics with a dash of modest reform.
And we'd only been in two years in 1975 so we were nowhere near as integrated into the structure as we are now - truth is that the EEC at that time was generally run by and for the French - the working language in Brussels was French, many of the top bureaucrats were French and key policies, such as the CAP, worked primarily in favour of French interests. Now the working language is English and the UK has been a key driver behind many EU policies, notably expansion into Eastern Europe.
I've had a wee look at the Holyrood constituency betting markets and I think there may actually be a smidge of value.
South of Scotland is a tough Area for the SNP, currently all 3 border constituencies are non-SNP, Conservative, Labour and Conservative respectively from West to East.
Galloway & West Dumfries is currently Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition but with a majority of only 862, with the SNP in second place. This looks a slam dunk SNP gain but Ladbrokes are rating it as only a 63% chance of a gain. I will be backing this one all day long.
The analogous Westminster constituency takes in all of Dumfries whilst the Holyrood constituency takes in only half of it but with no Lib Dem presence to speak of I can only see the Labour vote breaking heavily for the SNP as they did last year. 4/7 Looks like a great price to back the SNP here.
Dumfriesshire is vastly harder to call. the Labour MP here has a personal vote and is respected also the consituency bears little relation to the Westminster constituency it overlaps so it would be foolish to try ad apply Westminster trends to this seat.
There is a real sense of disappointment amongst the Anti-Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition voters that they failed to kick out Mundell by a scant few hundred votes and the idea of his son getting a seat doesn't sit well with them. the Labour vote will drop, it will only go to the SNP. It would require a 7.5 point swing to the SNP for Lab to get them over the line. Evens on the SNP here feels like a gamble, 9/2 on Labour is betting on their personal vote to hold up. The 5/4 on Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition feels too short. They would be relying on the handful of Lib Dem voters to go to them and a near perfect vote split between Lab and SNP to win it. Like Dumfries and Galloway in Westminster election I would be willing to have a punt at 8/1 on the starts aligning but not 5/4.
Etrrick, roxburgh & Berwicks is a 1/8 Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition hold. I can't disagree with that. SNP won the Westminster version by a whisker and the Holyrood configuration is less favorable to them.
So SNP in Galloway & West Dumfries, Labour in Dumfriesshire with an SNP saver. ER&B to be left alone.
If anyone ever gets to the point of putting up markets for the regional lists, backing the SCons No.1 Glasgow candidate Adam WATP Tomkins might be inadvisable.
The SNP are a one trick pony, now with one leg broken, but will hirple along for a time while Sturgeon offers vague promises to the cult and, hopefully, in a few years the carcass will be buried and forgotten.
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
It's like suggesting that someone from an Irish Nationalist background is not well-disposed towards the UK. It may or may not be true, but it's hardly outrageous.
Two points:-
1. It's an irrelevance. No-one is going to be persuaded to vote Leave because they are bothered by Obama being influenced by his Dad in what he said about Brexit.
2. Obama's Dad - as I understand it - scarpered when Obama was very young. How likely is it that he was that much influenced by the history of the country of a father who was not around during his life?
It's just an ill-judged comment. As if those who suggest that Britain should remain in the EU can only be motivated by base motives or malice.
Obama is the president of the United States. He is not part Kenyan, he is fully American. Just as Boris is British. Calling Obama part-Kenyan is insulting him and his office. The family that brought him up is from Hawaii. What's more there is absolutely no evidence that he is anti-British. All Democrat presidents get labelled the same. Clinton certainly was.
I agree. I think the attacks on Obama are silly and pointless.
I find them silly and pointless, although judging by the polls, a lot of voters have not reacted favourably to his intervening in the debate.
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
It's like suggesting that someone from an Irish Nationalist background is not well-disposed towards the UK. It may or may not be true, but it's hardly outrageous.
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. He was born in the US and was raised by his American mother and her American family. His Kenyan grandfather - who he did not meet, as far as I know - was imprisoned by the British. Obama referred to it in a book he wrote. And that's it.
So Farage was right then....
No, he wasn't. He asserted - without a shred of evidence - that Obama is anti-British.
You said he does not have a Kenyan background, he does. He removed a bust of Winston Churchill, he is the only person I have known to refer to BP as British Petroleum as it suited his agenda, need I go on?
He did not remove Churchill's bust.
Plenty of people refer to BP as British Petroleum:
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. His background is American.
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
It's like suggesting that someone from an Irish Nationalist background is not well-disposed towards the UK. It may or may not be true, but it's hardly outrageous.
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. He was born in the US and was raised by his American mother and her American family. His Kenyan grandfather - who he did not meet, as far as I know - was imprisoned by the British. Obama referred to it in a book he wrote. And that's it.
So Farage was right then....
No, he wasn't. He asserted - without a shred of evidence - that Obama is anti-British.
You said he does not have a Kenyan background, he does. He removed a bust of Winston Churchill, he is the only person I have known to refer to BP as British Petroleum as it suited his agenda, need I go on?
On the basis of how BP were treated after Deepwater, Obama should never be allowed into this country.
I find them silly and pointless, although judging by the polls, a lot of voters have not reacted favourably to his intervening in the debate.
Isn't it a bit too early to tell that. Besides as I said before I suspect Remain are deliberately getting these remarks out of the way to simply make it part of the background matter of record - rather than have a swing immediately in opinion.
The SNP are a one trick pony, now with one leg broken, but will hirple along for a time while Sturgeon offers vague promises to the cult and, hopefully, in a few years the carcass will be buried and forgotten.
And Conservatives don't care about animal welfare?
If the government tries to repeal those laws then the public can vote out the government. Its called democracy. Its possible for a party the public loses faith in to lose almost all of their seats in fact (see Canadian Tories and British Liberals and British Lib Dems as examples).
Quite untrue, Mr Thompson. In fact, it is nonsense. We have a broken electoral system, which means that a small group of people can take absolute power, despite getting under 25% of the electorate to vote for them.
This small group of people operates in the interests of the very rich and powerful.
So they have money pouring out of the windows.
So much that they can swamp any constituency and effectively buy all the votes they need. In theory the Electoral Commission makes sure they respect the limits on overspending. In practice the Electoral Commission is a broken reed.
Cameron, Osborne and Co are laughing all the way to the bank. And you come along, Mr Thompson, and tell us we can vote out the government? That may be the case in Australia, but then you have a much better voting system.
And Conservatives don't care about animal welfare?
If the government tries to repeal those laws then the public can vote out the government. Its called democracy. Its possible for a party the public loses faith in to lose almost all of their seats in fact (see Canadian Tories and British Liberals and British Lib Dems as examples).
Quite untrue, Mr Thompson. In fact, it is nonsense. We have a broken electoral system, which means that a small group of people can take absolute power, despite getting under 25% of the electorate to vote for them.
This small group of people operates in the interests of the very rich and powerful.
So they have money pouring out of the windows.
So much that they can swamp any constituency and effectively buy all the votes they need. In theory the Electoral Commission makes sure they respect the limits on overspending. In practice the Electoral Commission is a broken reed.
Cameron, Osborne and Co are laughing all the way to the bank. And you come along, Mr Thompson, and tell us we can vote out the government? That may be the case in Australia, but then you have a much better voting system.
It would take a relatively small swing to vote this government out of office.
I find them silly and pointless, although judging by the polls, a lot of voters have not reacted favourably to his intervening in the debate.
Isn't it a bit too early to tell that. Besides as I said before I suspect Remain are deliberately getting these remarks out of the way to simply make it part of the background matter of record - rather than have a swing immediately in opinion.
Point number 2 is complete tosh, animal welfare standards in Britain exceed those of the EU Pig farming here vs the Netherland and Denmark springs to mind.
Took the words right out of our mouth.
Anyone buying "Danish Bacon" is supporting animal cruelty. There's a reason why British pork is more expensive than continental cuts and that comes from not torturing the animals.
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
It's like suggesting that someone from an Irish Nationalist background is not well-disposed towards the UK. It may or may not be true, but it's hardly outrageous.
Two points:-
1. It's an irrelevance. No-one is going to be persuaded to vote Leave because they are bothered by Obama being influenced by his Dad in what he said about Brexit.
2. Obama's Dad - as I understand it - scarpered when Obama was very young. How likely is it that he was that much influenced by the history of the country of a father who was not around during his life?
It's just an ill-judged comment. As if those who suggest that Britain should remain in the EU can only be motivated by base motives or malice.
Obama is the president of the United States. He is not part Kenyan, he is fully American. Just as Boris is British. Calling Obama part-Kenyan is insulting him and his office. The family that brought him up is from Hawaii. What's more there is absolutely no evidence that he is anti-British. All Democrat presidents get labelled the same. Clinton certainly was.
I agree. I think the attacks on Obama are silly and pointless.
I find them silly and pointless, although judging by the polls, a lot of voters have not reacted favourably to his intervening in the debate.
That may be true. But that does not mean that those voters will vote Leave on June 23rd. And that is the point which those leaders of the Leave campaign are missing.
While they're busy saying rude things or accusing this or that foreign leader of hypocrisy or anti-Britishness or thinking the EU has ruined the cheese the moon is made of, the voters have probably absorbed two facts: (1) leaving will cost them ca. 4 grand; and (2) no-one important around the world seems to think it a good idea.
Point number 2 is complete tosh, animal welfare standards in Britain exceed those of the EU Pig farming here vs the Netherland and Denmark springs to mind.
Took the words right out of our mouth.
Anyone buying "Danish Bacon" is supporting animal cruelty. There's a reason why British pork is more expensive than continental cuts and that comes from not torturing the animals.
I get all my pork from a smallholding now, where the pigs run free. It's excellent (and cheap).
And Conservatives don't care about animal welfare?
If the government tries to repeal those laws then the public can vote out the government. Its called democracy. Its possible for a party the public loses faith in to lose almost all of their seats in fact (see Canadian Tories and British Liberals and British Lib Dems as examples).
Quite untrue, Mr Thompson. In fact, it is nonsense. We have a broken electoral system, which means that a small group of people can take absolute power, despite getting under 25% of the electorate to vote for them.
This small group of people operates in the interests of the very rich and powerful.
So they have money pouring out of the windows.
So much that they can swamp any constituency and effectively buy all the votes they need. In theory the Electoral Commission makes sure they respect the limits on overspending. In practice the Electoral Commission is a broken reed.
Cameron, Osborne and Co are laughing all the way to the bank. And you come along, Mr Thompson, and tell us we can vote out the government? That may be the case in Australia, but then you have a much better voting system.
It would take a relatively small swing to vote this government out of office.
It should never have been there in the first place, Mr Fear!
And if they removed the corrupt MPs who "made a mistake" with their election expenses, they wouldn´t be there now.
I've had a wee look at the Holyrood constituency betting markets and I think there may actually be a smidge of value.
South of Scotland is a tough Area for the SNP, currently all 3 border constituencies are non-SNP, Conservative, Labour and Conservative respectively from West to East.
Galloway & West Dumfries is currently Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition but with a majority of only 862, with the SNP in second place. This looks a slam dunk SNP gain but Ladbrokes are rating it as only a 63% chance of a gain. I will be backing this one all day long.
The analogous Westminster constituency takes in all of Dumfries whilst the Holyrood constituency takes in only half of it but with no Lib Dem presence to speak of I can only see the Labour vote breaking heavily for the SNP as they did last year. 4/7 Looks like a great price to back the SNP here.
Dumfriesshire is vastly harder to call.
So SNP in Galloway & West Dumfries, Labour in Dumfriesshire with an SNP saver. ER&B to be left alone.
If anyone ever gets to the point of putting up markets for the regional lists, backing the SCons No.1 Glasgow candidate Adam WATP Tomkins might be inadvisable.
LOL all those idiots who voted NO to save their jobs will be wondering why they were stupid enough to trust a Tory promise.
No, we voted NAW because of Salmond's lies and his cult of eejits. If we had voted for Independence, the self deluded clown would have bankrupted Scotland and within a few years, would have been begging England to take us back, and we would have had to accept far worse terms than we have now. We also realised that the cult would have made life unbearable for any unbeliever. You and the cult thought we were cabbages, but son, we weren't that green. You lost. Get over it. The SNP are a one trick pony, now with one leg broken, but will hirple along for a time while Sturgeon offers vague promises to the cult and, hopefully, in a few years the carcass will be buried and forgotten.
Assume you are just stupid then , rather than stupid and believing they would save the shipyards. I see your point about hirpling along on over 50% of the electorate , as the Tories try to win a few list seats, their great leader having to move to Edinburgh and oust someone to ensure she can even get into parliament on a losers seat.
The SNP are a one trick pony, now with one leg broken, but will hirple along for a time while Sturgeon offers vague promises to the cult and, hopefully, in a few years the carcass will be buried and forgotten.
The Bank of England chooses someone absolutely appropriate to grace a banknote and with a great picture.
On its way to the scrap yard - just like the Pound will be if we vote Remain!
The pound will rocket on the 24th June if we remain
To be honest, if we remain (and I would rather we don't), we should ditch the pound as soon as is possible. The EU is going to be split into two parts, only one of which will have any influence - the Eurozone.
If we remain, there is no point trying to pretend that there is any point staying outside it as a hostage to fortune, we would be better to get inside and try to make the the EZ more an Anglo/German axis than a Franco/German one.
The reason that Obama (as all US administrations) wants us to stay in is that they fear the French vision of the EU, where it challenges the US for hegemony in the longer term. They would rather have us in there disrupting the main event for as long as possible. We should fear that equally if we are trapped inside as second class members.
And Conservatives don't care about animal welfare?
If the government tries to repeal those laws then the public can vote out the government. Its called democracy. Its possible for a party the public loses faith in to lose almost all of their seats in fact (see Canadian Tories and British Liberals and British Lib Dems as examples).
Quite untrue, Mr Thompson. In fact, it is nonsense. We have a broken electoral system, which means that a small group of people can take absolute power, despite getting under 25% of the electorate to vote for them.
This small group of people operates in the interests of the very rich and powerful.
So they have money pouring out of the windows.
So much that they can swamp any constituency and effectively buy all the votes they need. In theory the Electoral Commission makes sure they respect the limits on overspending. In practice the Electoral Commission is a broken reed.
Cameron, Osborne and Co are laughing all the way to the bank. And you come along, Mr Thompson, and tell us we can vote out the government? That may be the case in Australia, but then you have a much better voting system.
Is it easier to oust our government than Germany's grand coalition? I would say much
That may be true. But that does not mean that those voters will vote Leave on June 23rd. And that is the point which those leaders of the Leave campaign are missing.
While they're busy saying rude things or accusing this or that foreign leader of hypocrisy or anti-Britishness or thinking the EU has ruined the cheese the moon is made of, the voters have probably absorbed two facts: (1) leaving will cost them ca. 4 grand; and (2) no-one important around the world seems to think it a good idea.
Precisely right. It's not the effect of any one intervention, it's the cumulative effect of sowing doubt in voters' minds which will be significant. As I've said many times, the Remain side don't need to win the argument, they only need to sow doubt about the leap in the dark. The Leave side's knee-jerk reaction of trying to trash anyone who warns about the leap in the dark won't help one iota in this, in fact it is likely to be counter-productive.
Eurozone integration deepening over the next decade seems all but certain. QMV mass gives them the right to impose what they wish on the rest of the EU. And suppose we get the choice of joining the euro or leaving the EU?
Today, we'd vote to leave on that basis. But years down the line, that may not be the case.
Point number 2 is complete tosh, animal welfare standards in Britain exceed those of the EU Pig farming here vs the Netherland and Denmark springs to mind.
Took the words right out of our mouth.
Anyone buying "Danish Bacon" is supporting animal cruelty. There's a reason why British pork is more expensive than continental cuts and that comes from not torturing the animals.
I agree, but all the more reason that we should Remain and thereby continue the EU moving to higher welfare standards.
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
It's like suggesting that someone from an Irish Nationalist background is not well-disposed towards the UK. It may or may not be true, but it's hardly outrageous.
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. He was born in the US and was raised by his American mother and her American family. His Kenyan grandfather - who he did not meet, as far as I know - was imprisoned by the British. Obama referred to it in a book he wrote. And that's it.
So Farage was right then....
No, he wasn't. He asserted - without a shred of evidence - that Obama is anti-British.
You said he does not have a Kenyan background, he does. He removed a bust of Winston Churchill, he is the only person I have known to refer to BP as British Petroleum as it suited his agenda, need I go on?
He did not remove Churchill's bust.
Plenty of people refer to BP as British Petroleum:
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. His background is American.
If Obama was any good at say football, could he have played for Kenya?
"There is no evidence that Obama personally decided to return the bust; given the economic crisis at the time, one imagines he had bigger issues on his mind."
I find them silly and pointless, although judging by the polls, a lot of voters have not reacted favourably to his intervening in the debate.
Isn't it a bit too early to tell that. Besides as I said before I suspect Remain are deliberately getting these remarks out of the way to simply make it part of the background matter of record - rather than have a swing immediately in opinion.
There have been three instant polls today.
I understand, but I have never been a believer in instant polls. That way lies the YouGov daily polling nonsense. I believe that barring total shocks (and this was not a total shock) it takes time for things to percolate in the back of people's head.
If I recall correctly the instant polls in the election after some things like the debates did not exactly turn out well.
Eurozone integration deepening over the next decade seems all but certain. QMV mass gives them the right to impose what they wish on the rest of the EU. And suppose we get the choice of joining the euro or leaving the EU?
Today, we'd vote to leave on that basis. But years down the line, that may not be the case.
If we were given that choice, I would anticipate that the Great and the Good, and the foreign leaders, would favour our joining the Euro.
Point number 2 is complete tosh, animal welfare standards in Britain exceed those of the EU Pig farming here vs the Netherland and Denmark springs to mind.
Took the words right out of our mouth.
Anyone buying "Danish Bacon" is supporting animal cruelty. There's a reason why British pork is more expensive than continental cuts and that comes from not torturing the animals.
I get all my pork from a smallholding now, where the pigs run free. It's excellent (and cheap).
I you can recommend me a good place for British Salamis and similar then I would be all ears. I love the taste of the continental preserved pork products but cannot stomach the animal welfare conditions so I do not purchase them,
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
It's like suggesting that someone from an Irish Nationalist background is not well-disposed towards the UK. It may or may not be true, but it's hardly outrageous.
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. He was born in the US and was raised by his American mother and her American family. His Kenyan grandfather - who he did not meet, as far as I know - was imprisoned by the British. Obama referred to it in a book he wrote. And that's it.
So Farage was right then....
No, he wasn't. He asserted - without a shred of evidence - that Obama is anti-British.
You said he does not have a Kenyan background, he does. He removed a bust of Winston Churchill, he is the only person I have known to refer to BP as British Petroleum as it suited his agenda, need I go on?
He did not remove Churchill's bust.
Plenty of people refer to BP as British Petroleum:
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. His background is American.
If Obama was any good at say football, could he have played for Kenya?
"There is no evidence that Obama personally decided to return the bust; given the economic crisis at the time, one imagines he had bigger issues on his mind."
I don't know if Obama could have played for Kenya. What I do know is that he was born in the US and raised by his American family.
I thought the bust that was returned was a copy, put in place while the original was restored. Obama then returned the real one to the living quarters at the Whitehouse, and put Lincoln in the Oval office.
(p.s. I still think he's the worst president in my lifetime!)
Point number 2 is complete tosh, animal welfare standards in Britain exceed those of the EU Pig farming here vs the Netherland and Denmark springs to mind.
Took the words right out of our mouth.
Anyone buying "Danish Bacon" is supporting animal cruelty. There's a reason why British pork is more expensive than continental cuts and that comes from not torturing the animals.
I get all my pork from a smallholding now, where the pigs run free. It's excellent (and cheap).
I you can recommend me a good place for British Salamis and similar then I would be all ears. I love the taste of the continental preserved pork products but cannot stomach the animal welfare conditions so I do not purchase them,
I tend not to go for Salami, so I can't advise you.
[Snipped for length] I'm not disputing that Labour figures have associated with those along the extremist spectrum - although it's somewhat hard to find a political party that hasn't, where the electoral realities of an area mean that community leaders have unpalatable associations. But it's an unjustified jump in reasoning to say that because Labour has certain associations, it is actively avoiding working with "moderates". All else aside, politicians are whores who will associate with anyone who might bring them more votes than they lose.
I know Gita Saghal is not Muslim. Labour make a big point of being a feminist party and yet has been a bit quiet in challenging the anti-feminism of some in the Muslim community.
I don't want to prolong this debate unnecessarily. I would just say three things:-
1. There hasn't been anything like the same connections between the Tories and extremists in the Muslim community as there has in Labour. Cameron, to his credit, has tried address extremism and the reasons for it. Too many of those Labour has associated with are working actively to undermine the Prevent programme. One would have thought that Labour would see the problems with that.
2. If community leaders have unpalatable associations (and setting aside whether parties should be dealing with "leaders" rather than with voters) it would be better not to deal with them or to challenge them. There is very little evidence of Labour doing the latter.
3. I can only call it as I see it. I do not see Labour working with the liberals there are in the Muslim community. Your last sentence nails it. Labour are interested in the votes and it that means that they will abandon their principles and associate with extremists if they think they will bring them votes then that is what they will do. And they will have to live with the consequences. One of which will be that some voters will associate them with extremists and terrorists and their sympathisers. That does not seem to me to be a sensible course to take. But there we are.
And Conservatives don't care about animal welfare?
If the government tries to repeal those laws then the public can vote out the government. Its called democracy. Its possible for a party the public loses faith in to lose almost all of their seats in fact (see Canadian Tories and British Liberals and British Lib Dems as examples).
Quite untrue, Mr Thompson. In fact, it is nonsense. We have a broken electoral system, which means that a small group of people can take absolute power, despite getting under 25% of the electorate to vote for them.
This small group of people operates in the interests of the very rich and powerful.
So they have money pouring out of the windows.
So much that they can swamp any constituency and effectively buy all the votes they need. In theory the Electoral Commission makes sure they respect the limits on overspending. In practice the Electoral Commission is a broken reed.
Cameron, Osborne and Co are laughing all the way to the bank. And you come along, Mr Thompson, and tell us we can vote out the government? That may be the case in Australia, but then you have a much better voting system.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why smoking crack is a Bad Thing.
And Conservatives don't care about animal welfare?
If the government tries to repeal those laws then the public can vote out the government. Its called democracy. Its possible for a party the public loses faith in to lose almost all of their seats in fact (see Canadian Tories and British Liberals and British Lib Dems as examples).
Quite untrue, Mr Thompson. In fact, it is nonsense. We have a broken electoral system, which means that a small group of people can take absolute power, despite getting under 25% of the electorate to vote for them.
This small group of people operates in the interests of the very rich and powerful.
So they have money pouring out of the windows.
So much that they can swamp any constituency and effectively buy all the votes they need. In theory the Electoral Commission makes sure they respect the limits on overspending. In practice the Electoral Commission is a broken reed.
Cameron, Osborne and Co are laughing all the way to the bank. And you come along, Mr Thompson, and tell us we can vote out the government? That may be the case in Australia, but then you have a much better voting system.
You are factually incorrect. Firstly the government got 36.8% of votes cast not 25%. There is no voting system in any nation anywhere in the world where votes not cast are counted and effect the outcome so don't be disingenous. If you want to start counting non-voters then there is an old saying that "if you don't vote, you can't complain about the outcome". Given that, this government has the implicit backing of over 58% of the nation (Tory voters and non-voters). While losing parties only added up to 41.7% of the electorate.
So lets not play fast and loose with massaged, dishonest figures.
EDIT: As for the Australian voting system, in case you've forgotten we had a referendum about that. By two votes to one that was rejected. Have you forgotten that already?
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
It's like suggesting that someone from an Irish Nationalist background is not well-disposed towards the UK. It may or may not be true, but it's hardly outrageous.
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. He was born in the US and was raised by his American mother and her American family. His Kenyan grandfather - who he did not meet, as far as I know - was imprisoned by the British. Obama referred to it in a book he wrote. And that's it.
So Farage was right then....
No, he wasn't. He asserted - without a shred of evidence - that Obama is anti-British.
You said he does not have a Kenyan background, he does. He removed a bust of Winston Churchill, he is the only person I have known to refer to BP as British Petroleum as it suited his agenda, need I go on?
He did not remove Churchill's bust.
Plenty of people refer to BP as British Petroleum:
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. His background is American.
If Obama was any good at say football, could he have played for Kenya?
"There is no evidence that Obama personally decided to return the bust; given the economic crisis at the time, one imagines he had bigger issues on his mind."
I don't know if Obama could have played for Kenya. What I do know is that he was born in the US and raised by his American family.
Yes you do, you clearly stated he had a Kenyan grandfather, which would make him eligible. You also stated that said grandfather was banged up by the British, which is hardly likely to endear us to him.
His behavior over Deepwater was appalling, the man doesn't like us. As for the bust thing, I know who I believe.
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
No I don't suppose you do but there you go.
Irrespective of the gutter politics does it make sense to insult people like Obama. If, heaven help us, Leave win I hope Obama tells Boris & Farage to take a running jump when they come cap in hand asking for their independent trade deal with the US.
Obama won't be President.
He will be there for 6 months, plenty of time to let them know what he thinks.
I've had a wee look at the Holyrood constituency betting markets and I think there may actually be a smidge of value.
South of Scotland is a tough Area for the SNP, currently all 3 border constituencies are non-SNP, Conservative, Labour and Conservative respectively from West to East.
Galloway & West Dumfries is currently Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition but with a majority of only 862, with the SNP in second place. This looks a slam dunk SNP gain but Ladbrokes are rating it as only a 63% chance of a gain. I will be backing this one all day long.
The analogous Westminster constituency takes in all of Dumfries whilst the Holyrood constituency takes in only half of it but with no Lib Dem presence to speak of I can only see the Labour vote breaking heavily for the SNP as they did last year. 4/7 Looks like a great price to back the SNP here.
Dumfriesshire is vastly harder to call.
There is a real sense of disappointment amongst the Anti-Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition voters that they failed to kick out Mundell by a scant few hundred votes and the idea of his son getting a seat doesn't sit well with them. the Labour vote will drop, it will only go to the SNP. It would require a 7.5 point swing to the SNP for Lab to get them over the line.
Etrrick, roxburgh & Berwicks is a 1/8 Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition hold. I can't disagree with that. SNP won the Westminster version by a whisker and the Holyrood configuration is less favorable to them.
So SNP in Galloway & West Dumfries, Labour in Dumfriesshire with an SNP saver. ER&B to be left alone.
If anyone ever gets to the point of putting up markets for the regional lists, backing the SCons No.1 Glasgow candidate Adam WATP Tomkins might be inadvisable.
LOL all those idiots who voted NO to save their jobs will be wondering why they were stupid enough to trust a Tory promise.
No, we voted NAW because of Salmond's lies and his cult of eejits. If we had voted for Independence, the self deluded clown would have bankrupted Scotland and within a few years, would have been begging England to take us back, and we would have had to accept far worse terms than we have now. We also realised that the cult would have made life unbearable for any unbeliever. You and the cult thought we were cabbages, but son, we weren't that green. You lost. Get over it. The SNP are a one trick pony, now with one leg broken, but will hirple along for a time while Sturgeon offers vague promises to the cult and, hopefully, in a few years the carcass will be buried and forgotten.
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
It's like suggesting that someone from an Irish Nationalist background is not well-disposed towards the UK. It may or may not be true, but it's hardly outrageous.
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. He was born in the US and was raised by his American mother and her American family. His Kenyan grandfather - who he did not meet, as far as I know - was imprisoned by the British. Obama referred to it in a book he wrote. And that's it.
So Farage was right then....
No, he wasn't. He asserted - without a shred of evidence - that Obama is anti-British.
You said he does not have a Kenyan background, he does. He removed a bust of Winston Churchill, he is the only person I have known to refer to BP as British Petroleum as it suited his agenda, need I go on?
He did not remove Churchill's bust.
Plenty of people refer to BP as British Petroleum:
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. His background is American.
Eurozone integration deepening over the next decade seems all but certain. QMV mass gives them the right to impose what they wish on the rest of the EU. And suppose we get the choice of joining the euro or leaving the EU?
Today, we'd vote to leave on that basis. But years down the line, that may not be the case.
If we were given that choice, I would anticipate that the Great and the Good, and the foreign leaders, would favour our joining the Euro.
Our opt out is enshrined in treaty. In any case we could leave if it was forced upon us (which is never going to happen, not least because the Eurozone has enough problems without us adding to its internal strains)
Eurozone integration deepening over the next decade seems all but certain. QMV mass gives them the right to impose what they wish on the rest of the EU. And suppose we get the choice of joining the euro or leaving the EU?
Today, we'd vote to leave on that basis. But years down the line, that may not be the case.
If we were given that choice, I would anticipate that the Great and the Good, and the foreign leaders, would favour our joining the Euro.
If Blair had called one in 2002 we would have got exactly the same shit during a pro-euro referendum campaign as we're getting now, probably with not a handful of Tory turncoats joining in too.
Working against it would have been the strong day-to-day brand and use of the pound, plus the fact it was the status quo.
I you can recommend me a good place for British Salamis and similar then I would be all ears. I love the taste of the continental preserved pork products but cannot stomach the animal welfare conditions so I do not purchase them,
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
It's like suggesting that someone from an Irish Nationalist background is not well-disposed towards the UK. It may or may not be true, but it's hardly outrageous.
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. He was born in the US and was raised by his American mother and her American family. His Kenyan grandfather - who he did not meet, as far as I know - was imprisoned by the British. Obama referred to it in a book he wrote. And that's it.
So Farage was right then....
No, he wasn't. He asserted - without a shred of evidence - that Obama is anti-British.
You said he does not have a Kenyan background, he does. He removed a bust of Winston Churchill, he is the only person I have known to refer to BP as British Petroleum as it suited his agenda, need I go on?
On the basis of how BP were treated after Deepwater, Obama should never be allowed into this country.
Not a major issue for those of us on this side of the pond, but the argument over this rubbish has become quite a major problem for North Carolina vs everyone else. Surprisingly, and somewhat unexpectedly, Trump is on the side of everyone else. New advisers already at work?
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
No I don't suppose you do but there you go.
Irrespective of the gutter politics does it make sense to insult people like Obama. If, heaven help us, Leave win I hope Obama tells Boris & Farage to take a running jump when they come cap in hand asking for their independent trade deal with the US.
Obama won't be President.
He will be there for 6 months, plenty of time to let them know what he thinks.
And his most likely successor will be Hillary. Not that either Trump or Cruz are going to be Anglophile, both being in the tradition of US isolationism.
Eurozone integration deepening over the next decade seems all but certain. QMV mass gives them the right to impose what they wish on the rest of the EU. And suppose we get the choice of joining the euro or leaving the EU?
Today, we'd vote to leave on that basis. But years down the line, that may not be the case.
If we were given that choice, I would anticipate that the Great and the Good, and the foreign leaders, would favour our joining the Euro.
If Blair had called one in 2002 we would have got exactly the same shit during a pro-euro referendum campaign as we're getting now, probably with not a handful of Tory turncoats joining in too.
Working against it would have been the strong day-to-day brand and use of the pound, plus the fact it was the status quo.
But just how close would it have been?
It wouldn't have been close. We would have retained Sterling by a large margin.
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
No I don't suppose you do but there you go.
Irrespective of the gutter politics does it make sense to insult people like Obama. If, heaven help us, Leave win I hope Obama tells Boris & Farage to take a running jump when they come cap in hand asking for their independent trade deal with the US.
Obama won't be President.
He will be there for 6 months, plenty of time to let them know what he thinks.
The SNP are a one trick pony, now with one leg broken, but will hirple along for a time while Sturgeon offers vague promises to the cult and, hopefully, in a few years the carcass will be buried and forgotten.
This is pretty ineffectual stuff. The SNP are about to win all but three or four constituencies.
Perusing the Conservative manifesto I see they are suggesting a surprising radical plan to improve educational standards by simplifying the English language to contain just the words "Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition"
Eurozone integration deepening over the next decade seems all but certain. QMV mass gives them the right to impose what they wish on the rest of the EU. And suppose we get the choice of joining the euro or leaving the EU?
Today, we'd vote to leave on that basis. But years down the line, that may not be the case.
If we were given that choice, I would anticipate that the Great and the Good, and the foreign leaders, would favour our joining the Euro.
If Blair had called one in 2002 we would have got exactly the same shit during a pro-euro referendum campaign as we're getting now, probably with not a handful of Tory turncoats joining in too.
Working against it would have been the strong day-to-day brand and use of the pound, plus the fact it was the status quo.
But just how close would it have been?
I think that Blair might well have pulled it off, at the height of his powers.
Dr. Foxinsox, empire-building is what the EU does.
Not unlike the ox carrying a scorpion across a raging river. The ox is persuaded because the scorpion points out if it stings the ox, both will drown. And then the scorpion stings it anyway, because that's its nature.
Eurozone integration deepening over the next decade seems all but certain. QMV mass gives them the right to impose what they wish on the rest of the EU. And suppose we get the choice of joining the euro or leaving the EU?
Today, we'd vote to leave on that basis. But years down the line, that may not be the case.
If we were given that choice, I would anticipate that the Great and the Good, and the foreign leaders, would favour our joining the Euro.
If Blair had called one in 2002 we would have got exactly the same shit during a pro-euro referendum campaign as we're getting now, probably with not a handful of Tory turncoats joining in too.
Working against it would have been the strong day-to-day brand and use of the pound, plus the fact it was the status quo.
But just how close would it have been?
I think that Blair might well have pulled it off, at the height of his powers.
The campaign would be do you want The Queen on your money or some Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey?
Perusing the Conservative manifesto I see they are suggesting a surprising radical plan to improve educational standards by simplifying the English language to contain just the words "Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition"
The SNP were hoping to go one better. They put 31 pictures of Nicola in the manifesto so that even their supporters who can't read know where to put their mark...
That may be true. But that does not mean that those voters will vote Leave on June 23rd. And that is the point which those leaders of the Leave campaign are missing.
While they're busy saying rude things or accusing this or that foreign leader of hypocrisy or anti-Britishness or thinking the EU has ruined the cheese the moon is made of, the voters have probably absorbed two facts: (1) leaving will cost them ca. 4 grand; and (2) no-one important around the world seems to think it a good idea.
Precisely right. It's not the effect of any one intervention, it's the cumulative effect of sowing doubt in voters' minds which will be significant. As I've said many times, the Remain side don't need to win the argument, they only need to sow doubt about the leap in the dark. The Leave side's knee-jerk reaction of trying to trash anyone who warns about the leap in the dark won't help one iota in this, in fact it is likely to be counter-productive.
It makes me feel better though.
It's just so much fun calling Remainers quislings, cowards and traitors.
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
It's like suggesting that someone from an Irish Nationalist background is not well-disposed towards the UK. It may or may not be true, but it's hardly outrageous.
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. He was born in the US and was raised by his American mother and her American family. His Kenyan grandfather - who he did not meet, as far as I know - was imprisoned by the British. Obama referred to it in a book he wrote. And that's it.
So Farage was right then....
No, he wasn't. He asserted - without a shred of evidence - that Obama is anti-British.
You said he does not have a Kenyan background, he does. He removed a bust of Winston Churchill, he is the only person I have known to refer to BP as British Petroleum as it suited his agenda, need I go on?
On the basis of how BP were treated after Deepwater, Obama should never be allowed into this country.
Eurozone integration deepening over the next decade seems all but certain. QMV mass gives them the right to impose what they wish on the rest of the EU. And suppose we get the choice of joining the euro or leaving the EU?
Today, we'd vote to leave on that basis. But years down the line, that may not be the case.
If we were given that choice, I would anticipate that the Great and the Good, and the foreign leaders, would favour our joining the Euro.
If Blair had called one in 2002 we would have got exactly the same shit during a pro-euro referendum campaign as we're getting now, probably with not a handful of Tory turncoats joining in too.
Working against it would have been the strong day-to-day brand and use of the pound, plus the fact it was the status quo.
But just how close would it have been?
I think that Blair might well have pulled it off, at the height of his powers.
Yes, I tend to agree. It's easy to forget now just how dominant Blair and New Labour generally were at the time. They could easily have painted those opposed to the Euro as out-of-touch nutters. Plus of course at the time the transition towards the Euro seemed to be going quite smoothly.
That may be true. But that does not mean that those voters will vote Leave on June 23rd. And that is the point which those leaders of the Leave campaign are missing.
While they're busy saying rude things or accusing this or that foreign leader of hypocrisy or anti-Britishness or thinking the EU has ruined the cheese the moon is made of, the voters have probably absorbed two facts: (1) leaving will cost them ca. 4 grand; and (2) no-one important around the world seems to think it a good idea.
Precisely right. It's not the effect of any one intervention, it's the cumulative effect of sowing doubt in voters' minds which will be significant. As I've said many times, the Remain side don't need to win the argument, they only need to sow doubt about the leap in the dark. The Leave side's knee-jerk reaction of trying to trash anyone who warns about the leap in the dark won't help one iota in this, in fact it is likely to be counter-productive.
It makes me feel better though.
It's just so much fun calling Remainers quislings, cowards and traitors.
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
It's like suggesting that someone from an Irish Nationalist background is not well-disposed towards the UK. It may or may not be true, but it's hardly outrageous.
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. He was born in the US and was raised by his American mother and her American family. His Kenyan grandfather - who he did not meet, as far as I know - was imprisoned by the British. Obama referred to it in a book he wrote. And that's it.
So Farage was right then....
No, he wasn't. He asserted - without a shred of evidence - that Obama is anti-British.
You said he does not have a Kenyan background, he does. He removed a bust of Winston Churchill, he is the only person I have known to refer to BP as British Petroleum as it suited his agenda, need I go on?
He did not remove Churchill's bust.
Plenty of people refer to BP as British Petroleum:
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. His background is American.
The Leave campaign needs to make clears that Remain means more domination by the Eurozone, and free movement for 65 million Ukrainians and 75 million Turks.
Do you have a source for the population of Ukraine being 65 million
Turkey is a more realistic prospect.
Not while Greece & Cyprus each have a Veto its not......
While the Greeks are dependent on German money, and the Germans are dependent on the Turks to manage their immigration problems, what the Greeks and Cypriots want is subject to leverage.
I don't think the man in the street will be too bothered by it.
It's probably unfair, but I don't see anything "disgusting" about it.
I don't get what's "disgusting", either.
It's like suggesting that someone from an Irish Nationalist background is not well-disposed towards the UK. It may or may not be true, but it's hardly outrageous.
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. He was born in the US and was raised by his American mother and her American family. His Kenyan grandfather - who he did not meet, as far as I know - was imprisoned by the British. Obama referred to it in a book he wrote. And that's it.
So Farage was right then....
No, he wasn't. He asserted - without a shred of evidence - that Obama is anti-British.
You said he does not have a Kenyan background, he does. He removed a bust of Winston Churchill, he is the only person I have known to refer to BP as British Petroleum as it suited his agenda, need I go on?
On the basis of how BP were treated after Deepwater, Obama should never be allowed into this country.
I know Gita Saghal is not Muslim. Labour make a big point of being a feminist party and yet has been a bit quiet in challenging the anti-feminism of some in the Muslim community.
I don't want to prolong this debate unnecessarily. I would just say three things:-
1. There hasn't been anything like the same connections between the Tories and extremists in the Muslim community as there has in Labour. Cameron, to his credit, has tried address extremism and the reasons for it. Too many of those Labour has associated with are working actively to undermine the Prevent programme. One would have thought that Labour would see the problems with that.
2. If community leaders have unpalatable associations (and setting aside whether parties should be dealing with "leaders" rather than with voters) it would be better not to deal with them or to challenge them. There is very little evidence of Labour doing the latter.
3. I can only call it as I see it. I do not see Labour working with the liberals there are in the Muslim community. Your last sentence nails it. Labour are interested in the votes and it that means that they will abandon their principles and associate with extremists if they think they will bring them votes then that is what they will do. And they will have to live with the consequences. One of which will be that some voters will associate them with extremists and terrorists and their sympathisers. That does not seem to me to be a sensible course to take. But there we are.
Yeah, I don't see us reaching detailed agreement any time, but thanks for taking the time to discuss. I would only comment that a large proportion of this criticism is appropriately levelled at "politicians" rather than "Labour politicians" as the various alliances in Tooting have clearly shown; the attempts of Crosby et al to poison the discourse by pretending this is not the case when they have an opportunity to leverage an opponent's Muslim heritage to their advantage are going to be harmful to community cohesion and end up excluding the very moderate voices that we are trying to support against extremism; that's not a positive outcome for keeping anyone safe. But there we are.
Eurozone integration deepening over the next decade seems all but certain. QMV mass gives them the right to impose what they wish on the rest of the EU. And suppose we get the choice of joining the euro or leaving the EU?
Today, we'd vote to leave on that basis. But years down the line, that may not be the case.
If we were given that choice, I would anticipate that the Great and the Good, and the foreign leaders, would favour our joining the Euro.
If Blair had called one in 2002 we would have got exactly the same shit during a pro-euro referendum campaign as we're getting now, probably with not a handful of Tory turncoats joining in too.
Working against it would have been the strong day-to-day brand and use of the pound, plus the fact it was the status quo.
But just how close would it have been?
I think that Blair might well have pulled it off, at the height of his powers.
The campaign would be do you want The Queen on your money or some Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey?
The campaign would have been along the lines that the sensible moderate people (eg Tony Blair, Paddy Ashdown, Ken Clarke, Charles Kennedy) , big businesses, trade unions, the CBI, the FT, the Economist, foreign leaders, all saw Euro membership as the future, whereas only the stuck in the mud little Englanders wanted to keep Sterling.
That may be true. But that does not mean that those voters will vote Leave on June 23rd. And that is the point which those leaders of the Leave campaign are missing.
While they're busy saying rude things or accusing this or that foreign leader of hypocrisy or anti-Britishness or thinking the EU has ruined the cheese the moon is made of, the voters have probably absorbed two facts: (1) leaving will cost them ca. 4 grand; and (2) no-one important around the world seems to think it a good idea.
Precisely right. It's not the effect of any one intervention, it's the cumulative effect of sowing doubt in voters' minds which will be significant. As I've said many times, the Remain side don't need to win the argument, they only need to sow doubt about the leap in the dark. The Leave side's knee-jerk reaction of trying to trash anyone who warns about the leap in the dark won't help one iota in this, in fact it is likely to be counter-productive.
It makes me feel better though.
It's just so much fun calling Remainers quislings, cowards and traitors.
Yet you want to deny others the fun of calling Leavers fruitcakes and loons. Spoil-sport!
The SNP are a one trick pony, now with one leg broken, but will hirple along for a time while Sturgeon offers vague promises to the cult and, hopefully, in a few years the carcass will be buried and forgotten.
This is pretty ineffectual stuff. The SNP are about to win all but three or four constituencies.
Perusing the Conservative manifesto I see they are suggesting a surprising radical plan to improve educational standards by simplifying the English language to contain just the words "Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition"
twitter.com/leomiklasz/status/722382350085189633
Anyone who doesn't know she's a Tory is living under a rock.
The SNP are a one trick pony, now with one leg broken, but will hirple along for a time while Sturgeon offers vague promises to the cult and, hopefully, in a few years the carcass will be buried and forgotten.
This is pretty ineffectual stuff. The SNP are about to win all but three or four constituencies.
Perusing the Conservative manifesto I see they are suggesting a surprising radical plan to improve educational standards by simplifying the English language to contain just the words "Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition"
That may be true. But that does not mean that those voters will vote Leave on June 23rd. And that is the point which those leaders of the Leave campaign are missing.
While they're busy saying rude things or accusing this or that foreign leader of hypocrisy or anti-Britishness or thinking the EU has ruined the cheese the moon is made of, the voters have probably absorbed two facts: (1) leaving will cost them ca. 4 grand; and (2) no-one important around the world seems to think it a good idea.
Precisely right. It's not the effect of any one intervention, it's the cumulative effect of sowing doubt in voters' minds which will be significant. As I've said many times, the Remain side don't need to win the argument, they only need to sow doubt about the leap in the dark. The Leave side's knee-jerk reaction of trying to trash anyone who warns about the leap in the dark won't help one iota in this, in fact it is likely to be counter-productive.
It makes me feel better though.
It's just so much fun calling Remainers quislings, cowards and traitors.
That may be true. But that does not mean that those voters will vote Leave on June 23rd. And that is the point which those leaders of the Leave campaign are missing.
While they're busy saying rude things or accusing this or that foreign leader of hypocrisy or anti-Britishness or thinking the EU has ruined the cheese the moon is made of, the voters have probably absorbed two facts: (1) leaving will cost them ca. 4 grand; and (2) no-one important around the world seems to think it a good idea.
Precisely right. It's not the effect of any one intervention, it's the cumulative effect of sowing doubt in voters' minds which will be significant. As I've said many times, the Remain side don't need to win the argument, they only need to sow doubt about the leap in the dark. The Leave side's knee-jerk reaction of trying to trash anyone who warns about the leap in the dark won't help one iota in this, in fact it is likely to be counter-productive.
It makes me feel better though.
It's just so much fun calling Remainers quislings, cowards and traitors.
Yet you want to deny others the fun of calling Leavers fruitcakes and loons. Spoil-sport!
I don;t think that remainers are quislings cowards and traitors.
I do think that anybody who rates short term economic benefits over long term liberty is a complete fool.
Has any University come out for Brexit ? Has any Trades Union, apart from an extreme left one, come out for Brexit ? Most Business organisations have come out for REMAIN.
Perhaps I might back Brexit after all. Paging Mortimer
twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/723495577938464768
Has any University come out for Brexit ? Has any Trades Union, apart from an extreme left one, come out for Brexit ? Most Business organisations have come out for REMAIN.
Eurozone integration deepening over the next decade seems all but certain. QMV mass gives them the right to impose what they wish on the rest of the EU. And suppose we get the choice of joining the euro or leaving the EU?
Today, we'd vote to leave on that basis. But years down the line, that may not be the case.
If we were given that choice, I would anticipate that the Great and the Good, and the foreign leaders, would favour our joining the Euro.
If Blair had called one in 2002 we would have got exactly the same shit during a pro-euro referendum campaign as we're getting now, probably with not a handful of Tory turncoats joining in too.
Working against it would have been the strong day-to-day brand and use of the pound, plus the fact it was the status quo.
But just how close would it have been?
I think that Blair might well have pulled it off, at the height of his powers.
The campaign would be do you want The Queen on your money or some Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey?
The campaign would have been along the lines that the sensible moderate people (eg Tony Blair, Paddy Ashdown, Ken Clarke, Charles Kennedy) , big businesses, trade unions, the CBI, the FT, the Economist, foreign leaders, all saw Euro membership as the future, whereas only the stuck in the mud little Englanders wanted to keep Sterling.
I think the pound in people's pocket is something the country would never give up.
Has any University come out for Brexit ? Has any Trades Union, apart from an extreme left one, come out for Brexit ? Most Business organisations have come out for REMAIN.
Why ?
People who benefit from the status quo favour the status quo.
That may be true. But that does not mean that those voters will vote Leave on June 23rd. And that is the point which those leaders of the Leave campaign are missing.
While they're busy saying rude things or accusing this or that foreign leader of hypocrisy or anti-Britishness or thinking the EU has ruined the cheese the moon is made of, the voters have probably absorbed two facts: (1) leaving will cost them ca. 4 grand; and (2) no-one important around the world seems to think it a good idea.
Precisely right. It's not the effect of any one intervention, it's the cumulative effect of sowing doubt in voters' minds which will be significant. As I've said many times, the Remain side don't need to win the argument, they only need to sow doubt about the leap in the dark. The Leave side's knee-jerk reaction of trying to trash anyone who warns about the leap in the dark won't help one iota in this, in fact it is likely to be counter-productive.
It makes me feel better though.
It's just so much fun calling Remainers quislings, cowards and traitors.
Yet you want to deny others the fun of calling Leavers fruitcakes and loons. Spoil-sport!
What stood out to me from the focus group is that Leave need to drum home the message that voting for "Remain" does not equal voting for the status quo.
Some of us have been saying that from the start.
The Leave campaign - so far - should win awards for how sh*t it is.
Disagree. Remain is not the status quo can only be understood as a double negative. LEAVE needs to present a clear and credible set of benefits: Leave means (a), (b), (c) ... And stick to it. No agenda on bringing down the EU or changing it. What other countries want to do is up to them.
The problem is that Leave is disparate bunch of people that don't agree on anything much beyond leaving the EU.
As it's the one in the (PB) news atm, you can see from eg Neil Woodford's Capital Economics report into Brexit that a), b) and c) are far from clear cut or quantifiable.
Leave don't have to win the economics argument. They just have to not lose it. Which I understood to be Neil Woodford's point. So the benefits could be:
(a) We get more control over who stays in our country; (b) We apply the laws we want to apply; (c) We happily work with everyone, including the EU, especially the EU, for the benefit of Britain.
Q: Mr Brexit Campaign Leader, what do you think of the EU? A: I wish them well. I don't want to be a member, but as long as our partners do, the EU will be our no 1 relationship.
That may be true. But that does not mean that those voters will vote Leave on June 23rd. And that is the point which those leaders of the Leave campaign are missing.
While they're busy saying rude things or accusing this or that foreign leader of hypocrisy or anti-Britishness or thinking the EU has ruined the cheese the moon is made of, the voters have probably absorbed two facts: (1) leaving will cost them ca. 4 grand; and (2) no-one important around the world seems to think it a good idea.
Precisely right. It's not the effect of any one intervention, it's the cumulative effect of sowing doubt in voters' minds which will be significant. As I've said many times, the Remain side don't need to win the argument, they only need to sow doubt about the leap in the dark. The Leave side's knee-jerk reaction of trying to trash anyone who warns about the leap in the dark won't help one iota in this, in fact it is likely to be counter-productive.
Precisely wrong. Suspicion of motives is the only weapon against warnings the 'great and the good'; RN is being deeply disingenuous in his advice against using it, and Cyclefree is well-intentioned but just wrong. Ivory tower tories will lose Leave this referendum.
Which football teams would Boris qualify to play for ?
All four Home Nations, The USA, and Turkey
Can't see any Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish in his ancestry.
If you're a UK citizen and resident, you can play any of the four home countries, so long as you've not played in a competitive match for another's age group team.
The SNP are a one trick pony, now with one leg broken, but will hirple along for a time while Sturgeon offers vague promises to the cult and, hopefully, in a few years the carcass will be buried and forgotten.
This is pretty ineffectual stuff. The SNP are about to win all but three or four constituencies.
Perusing the Conservative manifesto I see they are suggesting a surprising radical plan to improve educational standards by simplifying the English language to contain just the words "Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition"
twitter.com/leomiklasz/status/722382350085189633
Anyone who doesn't know she's a Tory is living under a rock.
Rob, how desperate can it be when they have to hide the TORY to try and get into double digit votes. Pathetic campaign by lickspittle lapdogs.
Ken Clarke tells politics students Vladimir Putin will be the real winner if the UK votes to leave the EU. @universityofnottingham
This is despicable and insulting. What a rat.
I'm so sick and tired of Remainers trying to link our quest for full self-governance to Putin.
Beyond disgusting.
It's not 'beyond disgusting', it's politics. Putin probably would be happy with such a result. I don't regard that as a reason to vote Remain, and I think someone making it their primary factor for doing so has misplaced priorities, as they would if Obama urging is to Remain were the prime reason to do so, but it's fair game to mention even the stupid reasons people might not like one option or the other. People vote on the basis of stupid reasons all the time (I dare say some will feel the reasons I vote are stupid sometimes). It's only a problem if people fall for it, and in that case, given Leave have the better arguments I feel, the problem is not people using disgusting politics, but that people go for it. The wrong type of people, as it were.
Perusing the Conservative manifesto I see they are suggesting a surprising radical plan to improve educational standards by simplifying the English language to contain just the words "Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition"
The SNP were hoping to go one better. They put 31 pictures of Nicola in the manifesto so that even their supporters who can't read know where to put their mark...
I only got 21 when I counted (22 if you include a partial image of her left arm) but given most of them are group shots in a huge montage I suppose she could be one of the stick figures in there if you used a magnifying glass.
Another way of looking at it is pictures of Saint Nicola blessed be her name are on 4 pages of the manifesto as opposed to the six pages of giant, often full page, shots of evil tory Ruth Davidson in the Conservative manifesto
Comments
I'm not disputing that Labour figures have associated with those along the extremist spectrum - although it's somewhat hard to find a political party that hasn't, where the electoral realities of an area mean that community leaders have unpalatable associations. But it's an unjustified jump in reasoning to say that because Labour has certain associations, it is actively avoiding working with "moderates". All else aside, politicians are whores who will associate with anyone who might bring them more votes than they lose.
The big story is what happens to overall economic welfare. And there is a good case to be made that overall welfare will increase after Brexit if we follow liberal trade policies as we should.
As it happens I suspect some kind of deal will be done to preserve the special positions of some industries after Brexit; the City gets to keep its passporting rights in return for European car makers retaining a privileged position in the UK market or similar. That will reduce the adjustment costs - while cutting some of the benefits too of course.
Plenty of people refer to BP as British Petroleum:
Obama does not have a Kenyan background. His background is American.
It'll be interesting to look at the Obama effect.
'Horizon 2020 (H2020) is the EC’s research and innovation funding programme. It runs from 2014-2020 and has a budget of €80 billion.'
http://order-order.com/2016/04/22/boris-is-right-white-house-did-return-churchill-bust/
If Obama was any good at say football, could he have played for Kenya?
This small group of people operates in the interests of the very rich and powerful.
So they have money pouring out of the windows.
So much that they can swamp any constituency and effectively buy all the votes they need. In theory the Electoral Commission makes sure they respect the limits on overspending. In practice the Electoral Commission is a broken reed.
Cameron, Osborne and Co are laughing all the way to the bank. And you come along, Mr Thompson, and tell us we can vote out the government? That may be the case in Australia, but then you have a much better voting system.
Anyone buying "Danish Bacon" is supporting animal cruelty. There's a reason why British pork is more expensive than continental cuts and that comes from not torturing the animals.
While they're busy saying rude things or accusing this or that foreign leader of hypocrisy or anti-Britishness or thinking the EU has ruined the cheese the moon is made of, the voters have probably absorbed two facts: (1) leaving will cost them ca. 4 grand; and (2) no-one important around the world seems to think it a good idea.
And if they removed the corrupt MPs who "made a mistake" with their election expenses, they wouldn´t be there now.
I voted for Fox Talbot, photography pioneer.
If we remain, there is no point trying to pretend that there is any point staying outside it as a hostage to fortune, we would be better to get inside and try to make the the EZ more an Anglo/German axis than a Franco/German one.
The reason that Obama (as all US administrations) wants us to stay in is that they fear the French vision of the EU, where it challenges the US for hegemony in the longer term. They would rather have us in there disrupting the main event for as long as possible. We should fear that equally if we are trapped inside as second class members.
Hmm.
Eurozone integration deepening over the next decade seems all but certain. QMV mass gives them the right to impose what they wish on the rest of the EU. And suppose we get the choice of joining the euro or leaving the EU?
Today, we'd vote to leave on that basis. But years down the line, that may not be the case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/27/ted-cruzs-claim-that-one-of-obamas-very-first-acts-was-returning-a-bust-of-churchill/
I don't know if Obama could have played for Kenya. What I do know is that he was born in the US and raised by his American family.
If I recall correctly the instant polls in the election after some things like the debates did not exactly turn out well.
(p.s. I still think he's the worst president in my lifetime!)
I don't want to prolong this debate unnecessarily. I would just say three things:-
1. There hasn't been anything like the same connections between the Tories and extremists in the Muslim community as there has in Labour. Cameron, to his credit, has tried address extremism and the reasons for it. Too many of those Labour has associated with are working actively to undermine the Prevent programme. One would have thought that Labour would see the problems with that.
2. If community leaders have unpalatable associations (and setting aside whether parties should be dealing with "leaders" rather than with voters) it would be better not to deal with them or to challenge them. There is very little evidence of Labour doing the latter.
3. I can only call it as I see it. I do not see Labour working with the liberals there are in the Muslim community. Your last sentence nails it. Labour are interested in the votes and it that means that they will abandon their principles and associate with extremists if they think they will bring them votes then that is what they will do. And they will have to live with the consequences. One of which will be that some voters will associate them with extremists and terrorists and their sympathisers. That does not seem to me to be a sensible course to take. But there we are.
So lets not play fast and loose with massaged, dishonest figures.
EDIT: As for the Australian voting system, in case you've forgotten we had a referendum about that. By two votes to one that was rejected. Have you forgotten that already?
His behavior over Deepwater was appalling, the man doesn't like us. As for the bust thing, I know who I believe.
Working against it would have been the strong day-to-day brand and use of the pound, plus the fact it was the status quo.
But just how close would it have been?
The Trump pivot begins?
Not a major issue for those of us on this side of the pond, but the argument over this rubbish has become quite a major problem for North Carolina vs everyone else. Surprisingly, and somewhat unexpectedly, Trump is on the side of everyone else. New advisers already at work?
Nick Herbert ran a superb campaign at the time.
https://twitter.com/leomiklasz/status/722382350085189633
Not unlike the ox carrying a scorpion across a raging river. The ox is persuaded because the scorpion points out if it stings the ox, both will drown. And then the scorpion stings it anyway, because that's its nature.
It's just so much fun calling Remainers quislings, cowards and traitors.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10077053/Conservative-MSPs-disillusioned-with-Ruth-Davidson.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/22/clyde-shipyard-job-cuts-redundancies-betrayal-unions-scotland?CMP=twt_b-gdnnews
I do think that anybody who rates short term economic benefits over long term liberty is a complete fool.
Why ?
(a) We get more control over who stays in our country;
(b) We apply the laws we want to apply;
(c) We happily work with everyone, including the EU, especially the EU, for the benefit of Britain.
Q: Mr Brexit Campaign Leader, what do you think of the EU?
A: I wish them well. I don't want to be a member, but as long as our partners do, the EU will be our no 1 relationship.
@BBCNormanS: The @MayorofLondon denies accusing Obama of being anti British - "I'm a big fan of Barak Obama"
Another way of looking at it is pictures of Saint Nicola blessed be her name are on 4 pages of the manifesto as opposed to the six pages of giant, often full page, shots of evil tory Ruth Davidson in the Conservative manifesto