They essentially see Leaving as a philosophically UKIP project involving getting into bed with Farage and Gove and Boris and don't even give it the time of day - it's out there with banning trade unions and bringing back hanging.
This is the Meeks Fallacy. It looks at an issue as a factor of who else supports it, rather than considering it on its merits. It the same mindset that exacerbated Rotherham when people decided that since the informer was a prominent member of the BNP is could not possibly be true.
If one looks at a policy in terms of how it burnishes or tarnishes one's image by association with its supporters, rather than on its own merits, it should be considered that one might have left the path of wisdom
There are saints and villains on both sides of this debate.
Indeed. So it's best to discount them and look at the issues. Saying that something is a bad idea because supports it seems a rather superficial approach to life.
I don't think Remain is a bad idea because Gerry Adams thinks it's a good idea, I think it's a bad idea because we can't kick the buggers out, which is essential in any democratic government.
An anarchist (my son) would say that whoever he votes for, the Government always gets in.
There was a genuine view that in respect of equality and women's rights in particular that pressure from the EU had resulted in changes to UK law that we might have struggled to make on our own. Personally, I think there is something in that. The evangelical approach of the Nordic countries in particular probably made the EU legislation go further than many countries including ours would have done on their own.
So yes, a contempt for democracy then. The British people can't be trusted (or are too oafish) to elect a government that will pass the right laws, as approved of by the progressive middle classes, so it has to be foisted on them by an external organisation run by people they didn't elect. Its the same mindset as the missionaries in Africa and South America a century ago, contempt for local views and social mores that need to be made to see the light.
I've always been of the view that employment law should exclusively belong to national governments, rather than being determined at pan-European level.
I'm sure we can all find individual bits of legislation that we like, which would not have been implemented outside the EU, but I'd still prefer to see legislation made by people who are accountable for it to national electorates.
I'll have time for all these "restoring democracy to the British people" arguments when we no longer have a voting system that ignores c.40% of the population.
They essentially see Leaving as a philosophically UKIP project involving getting into bed with Farage and Gove and Boris and don't even give it the time of day - it's out there with banning trade unions and bringing back hanging.
This is the Meeks Fallacy. It looks at an issue as a factor of who else supports it, rather than considering it on its merits. It the same mindset that exacerbated Rotherham when people decided that since the informer was a prominent member of the BNP is could not possibly be true.
If one looks at a policy in terms of how it burnishes or tarnishes one's image by association with its supporters, rather than on its own merits, it should be considered that one might have left the path of wisdom
There are saints and villains on both sides of this debate.
Indeed. So it's best to discount them and look at the issues. Saying that something is a bad idea because supports it seems a rather superficial approach to life.
I don't think Remain is a bad idea because Gerry Adams thinks it's a good idea, I think it's a bad idea because we can't kick the buggers out, which is essential in any democratic government.
An anarchist (my son) would say that whoever he votes for, the Government always gets in.
There is some truth in that. It doesn't matter who you vote for, 98% of the policy is going to be the same. I think that is why competence counts so high with voters, if you are going to get the same policies you might as well elect the party that are not going to f*ck it up.
The thing is it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that it's still not true. No Leavers, most especially the more vociferous ones on here, are going to be in charge of anything.
But the PB brain trust keep telling us Dave will resign immediately and a Leaver will take over.
Are they wrong?
A future with Boris as PM is a likely by-product of a Leave victory. When voters are weighing the pros and cons I suspect this'll weigh heavily.
Or Michael Gove. I've test run this idea in a few conversations and the usual reaction is as if I'd offered Dracula a garlic clove.
Why I think polls this far out ignore some very salient considerations just before the vote none of which are helpful to Leave
They essentially see Leaving as a philosophically UKIP project involving getting into bed with Farage and Gove and Boris and don't even give it the time of day - it's out there with banning trade unions and bringing back hanging.
This is the Meeks Fallacy. It looks at an issue as a factor of who else supports it, rather than considering it on its merits. It the same mindset that exacerbated Rotherham when people decided that since the informer was a prominent member of the BNP is could not possibly be true.
If one looks at a policy in terms of how it burnishes or tarnishes one's image by association with its supporters, rather than on its own merits, it should be considered that one might have left the path of wisdom
There are saints and villains on both sides of this debate.
Indeed. So it's best to discount them and look at the issues. Saying that something is a bad idea because [unsavoury person or organisation] supports it seems a rather superficial approach to life.
I don't think Remain is a bad idea because Gerry Adams thinks it's a good idea, I think it's a bad idea because we can't kick the buggers out, which is essential in any democratic government.
Exactly - I don't give a toss which individuals on the Remain/Leave side myself - who they use to deliver a message is fair game, but it wouldn't alter my vote. Strikes me as very silly given this is a strategic decision.
'We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.
Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.
I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.
That change is largely our doing.'
----------------------
The degree of protectionism has declined over the years but it is I think more significant than you allow Robert, and extends beyond agriculture - note the links I sent you yesterday. The upshot of that is that leaving the system has more benefits to the UK consumer and the economy than just lower food prices.
Nevertheless I agree with your broad argument, i.e. this is really about Britain's political future.
The thing is it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that it's still not true. No Leavers, most especially the more vociferous ones on here, are going to be in charge of anything.
But the PB brain trust keep telling us Dave will resign immediately and a Leaver will take over.
Are they wrong?
A future with Boris as PM is a likely by-product of a Leave victory. When voters are weighing the pros and cons I suspect this'll weigh heavily.
Or Michael Gove. I've test run this idea in a few conversations and the usual reaction is as if I'd offered Dracula a garlic clove.
Why I think polls this far out ignore some very salient considerations which will be major questions just before the vote none of which are helpful to Leave
Not sure the sort of people you guys will mingle with are the target demographic of someone like Gove Metropolitan liberal elite wouldn't vote for principled conviction conservative politician shocker!
A very enjoyable article for Borisphobes. Whether Boris has destroyed the chances of Leave or the Leave campaign has destroyed the ambitions of Boris we have yet to find out. It could well be both.
How appropriate that on this 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death we should be reminded of one of his most intriguing and duplicitous characters, Iago "In following him I follow but myself......."
Or indeed
It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury Signifying nothing.
A very enjoyable article for Borisphobes. Whether Boris has destroyed the chances of Leave or the Leave campaign has destroyed the ambitions of Boris we have yet to find out. It could well be both.
How appropriate that on this 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death we should be reminded of one of his most intriguing and duplicitous characters, Iago "In following him I follow but myself......."
Or indeed
It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury Signifying nothing.
England, bound in with the triumphant sea Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame, With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds: That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
Mr. Indigo, silence, poor person! Get back up that chimney!
Mr. 1000, did you see my post below regarding MikeK?
Hmmm... he's not banned...
In fact he's set up as a "Verified User. Bypasses Spam Filter".
This may need some investigation.
Right: I've forced a password reset, and hopefully it'll work for him after that.
Not sure how else I raise this so apologies but overtime I enter the site and want to comment I have to reset my password. It has been like that for 3 years. Not very tech so may be me.
Hallelujah Hunt has recognised the reality that running even a whelk stall is beyond him. Cameron shows admirable loyalty but even he must realize the damage Hunt is doing.
Memories of Labour's shock 2015 defeat still haunt Sadiq Khan's campaign
Were Khan to lose now it would be a shock beyond anything seen at last year's general election, where the polls at least suggested the two parties were neck-and-neck. And yet if you speak to senior people in the party you can detect a real nervousness about the result.
"I don't believe the polls," one source close to Khan told me. "I think we're ahead but not by anything like what they suggest."
Labour's pessimism is partly based on what activists are telling them. Whatever Khan may say publicly, The Tories' relentlessly negative campaign, in which he has been accused of "giving cover" to Islamic extremists, has rattled the party.
A very enjoyable article for Borisphobes. Whether Boris has destroyed the chances of Leave or the Leave campaign has destroyed the ambitions of Boris we have yet to find out. It could well be both.
How appropriate that on this 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death we should be reminded of one of his most intriguing and duplicitous characters, Iago "In following him I follow but myself......."
Or indeed
It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury Signifying nothing.
Even better but I didnt think it a good idea to get the Scots involved
I don't understand the 'it's better to stay in so we can alter things' meme.
(1) We've been in 40 odd years and had a say in minor points only. The direction of travel has not been altered, merely delayed by events. (2) Cameron went to the EU with the threat of British withdrawal hanging over him. Result ... the square root of f*ck all. (3) No current party we are likely to elect is remotely interested in altering things anyway. The Establishment has decided. (4) Having voted Remain in a referendum, why would the Eurocrats be interested in our proposed changes?
We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.
Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.
I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.
That change is largely our doing.
One wonders whether Obama's desperation to keep us in because he knows without our involvement the TTIP is dead in the water.
I'll have time for all these "restoring democracy to the British people" arguments when we no longer have a voting system that ignores c.40% of the population.
Any voting system does so that's moot.
Quite untrue, Mr Thompson, as you very well ought to know.
A very enjoyable article for Borisphobes. Whether Boris has destroyed the chances of Leave or the Leave campaign has destroyed the ambitions of Boris we have yet to find out. It could well be both.
How appropriate that on this 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death we should be reminded of one of his most intriguing and duplicitous characters, Iago "In following him I follow but myself......."
Or indeed
It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury Signifying nothing.
Even better but I didnt think it a good idea to get the Scots involved
The thing is it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that it's still not true. No Leavers, most especially the more vociferous ones on here, are going to be in charge of anything.
But the PB brain trust keep telling us Dave will resign immediately and a Leaver will take over.
Are they wrong?
A future with Boris as PM is a likely by-product of a Leave victory. When voters are weighing the pros and cons I suspect this'll weigh heavily.
Or Michael Gove. I've test run this idea in a few conversations and the usual reaction is as if I'd offered Dracula a garlic clove.
Why I think polls this far out ignore some very salient considerations which will be major questions just before the vote none of which are helpful to Leave
Not sure the sort of people you guys will mingle with are the target demographic of someone like Gove Metropolitan liberal elite wouldn't vote for principled conviction conservative politician shocker!
Gove comes 84 out of 84 on the trustworthyness index. He is so unpopular Cameron had to move him to a low profile department before the last election. But you make the point. It would be a Leaver which can only mean Gove or Boris.
I'll have time for all these "restoring democracy to the British people" arguments when we no longer have a voting system that ignores c.40% of the population.
Any voting system does so that's moot.
Quite untrue, Mr Thompson, as you very well ought to know.
Time for a thread on STV, I think, Mr Eagles.
Even under STV the government could not include 40% of voters.
Mr Brind, what about the Labour voters concerned about immigration? Is the party just going to drive them away?
The voters most concerned about immigration are in the socio-economic groups which are least likely to vote.
And yet the kipper inclined voters won the last Euro elections, which suggests some issues get them off the sofa to vote.
UKIP won the Euros with 26% of the vote on a 35% turnout. So about 8% of the electorate voted for them. Hence the collapse to 1 seat in a GE with a 60%+ turnout.
This of course is why despite all the fine words about "democracy" Leave are desperately hoping for a really low turnout in June.
Everyone has the democratic choice to not vote.
I understand that but it's still a bit of an indictment of the "Cry Freedom" campaign that their best hope is that they can sneak through on the back of the OAPs on low turnout.
@RobDotHutton: I'd be interested to see polling on the idea that, if there's extra money for the NHS, the govt should spend it paying doctors more.
How about paying for more Drs.
Junior Drs are not asking for a pay rise.
Strangely Hunt wants to give one to those Drs in specialties who dont need to work weekends like Dermatology and give a pay cut to those in Emergency Care who do.
Crikey after weeks of swivel-eyed Meekism we get a Brind article appears that seems sane and balanced!
More seriously I do wonder if junior doctors strike is being played to london underground rules - in that when they've been on strike long enough that the pay saved can now be given as a concession to end the dispute?
Memories of Labour's shock 2015 defeat still haunt Sadiq Khan's campaign
Were Khan to lose now it would be a shock beyond anything seen at last year's general election, where the polls at least suggested the two parties were neck-and-neck. And yet if you speak to senior people in the party you can detect a real nervousness about the result.
"I don't believe the polls," one source close to Khan told me. "I think we're ahead but not by anything like what they suggest."
Labour's pessimism is partly based on what activists are telling them. Whatever Khan may say publicly, The Tories' relentlessly negative campaign, in which he has been accused of "giving cover" to Islamic extremists, has rattled the party.
So the Junior doctors ensure that the voters are giving the NHS their full attention, and the voters notice viscerally for the first time that it is underfunded, then along comes that nice Mr Gove and tells everyone that if we leave the EU there will be lots of money freed up for the NHS, and if we stay in there there will be 3 million more people and no more money. I wonder if they doctors realise how much of a gift they are giving Leave.
Expectations stay overwhelmingly in favour of an In vote come June. Almost three fifths (57 per cent) of voters still believe the Remain camp will win the day, with only 21 per cent believing the same for Leave and just under a quarter (22 per cent) of people unsure of the outcome. These expectations will have been reinforced by those in the Remain campaign who are claiming that the contest is almost over.
This vast gap in expectation means that the Remain campaign is still largely at risk of voter complacency. Many of their supporters will expect to win the referendum and thus fail to recognise the significance of their own vote.
I would be interested to know what Leave-minded Conservatives made of May's speech yesterday. Mollified to any degree, left cold, or saw it as transparent scheming?
They essentially see Leaving as a philosophically UKIP project involving getting into bed with Farage and Gove and Boris and don't even give it the time of day - it's out there with banning trade unions and bringing back hanging.
This is the Meeks Fallacy. It looks at an issue as a factor of who else supports it, rather than considering it on its merits. It the same mindset that exacerbated Rotherham when people decided that since the informer was a prominent member of the BNP is could not possibly be true.
If one looks at a policy in terms of how it burnishes or tarnishes one's image by association with its supporters, rather than on its own merits, it should be considered that one might have left the path of wisdom
There are saints and villains on both sides of this debate.
Indeed. So it's best to discount them and look at the issues. Saying that something is a bad idea because [unsavoury person or organisation] supports it seems a rather superficial approach to life.
I don't think Remain is a bad idea because Gerry Adams thinks it's a good idea, I think it's a bad idea because we can't kick the buggers out, which is essential in any democratic government.
Paying attention to who is advancing a proposition is a heuristic that humans use at every turn. It's often the only basis on which we make a decision. It can lead to incorrect conclusions, like any heuristic, but it is also incredibly useful.
It may be that positive views of the advocate for a cause matter more than negative ones, but there must be experiments that have been done to test that. Ie, I suspect it weighs more that one does trust Gove, Farage, Cameron, Obama, whoever, than that one doesn't trust Galloway or Adams, simply because on a complex question most people are probably rated as not-trustworthy by our brains. (Trust in this context, of course, just means "worth listening to on this subject" not "someone I think should be canonised.")
Mr Brind, what about the Labour voters concerned about immigration? Is the party just going to drive them away?
The voters most concerned about immigration are in the socio-economic groups which are least likely to vote.
And yet the kipper inclined voters won the last Euro elections, which suggests some issues get them off the sofa to vote.
UKIP won the Euros with 26% of the vote on a 35% turnout. So about 8% of the electorate voted for them. Hence the collapse to 1 seat in a GE with a 60%+ turnout.
This of course is why despite all the fine words about "democracy" Leave are desperately hoping for a really low turnout in June.
It was also to do with people voting differently at different elections. UKIP won 4.38m votes in the 2014 Euros but only 3.88m votes at the 2015 GE despite the higher turnout.
I would be interested to know what Leave-minded Conservatives made of May's speech yesterday. Mollified to any degree, left cold, or saw it as transparent scheming?
I don't understand the 'it's better to stay in so we can alter things' meme.
(1) We've been in 40 odd years and had a say in minor points only. The direction of travel has not been altered, merely delayed by events. (2) Cameron went to the EU with the threat of British withdrawal hanging over him. Result ... the square root of f*ck all. (3) No current party we are likely to elect is remotely interested in altering things anyway. The Establishment has decided. (4) Having voted Remain in a referendum, why would the Eurocrats be interested in our proposed changes?
We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.
Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.
I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.
That change is largely our doing.
One wonders whether Obama's desperation to keep us in because he knows without our involvement the TTIP is dead in the water.
'We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.
Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.
I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.
That change is largely our doing.'
----------------------
The degree of protectionism has declined over the years but it is I think more significant than you allow Robert, and extends beyond agriculture - note the links I sent you yesterday. The upshot of that is that leaving the system has more benefits to the UK consumer and the economy than just lower food prices.
Nevertheless I agree with your broad argument, i.e. this is really about Britain's political future.
@TSE - both sides will do what maximises their votes
Remain will claim economic apocalypse and us becoming a pariah state if we go Leave will claim the destruction of the NHS and inundation with terrorists if we stay
Both are absurd, and poor arguments far removed from the real issues of EU membership, but that's politics.
Hmm Whittingdale apparently got a 2:2 and wanted to be an astronaut, also enjoys belting out Meatloaf and Deep purple on the karaoke.
Perhaps he should stay afterall
I've never understood how anyone could not want to be an astronaut if they could. But in polls people put librarian and accountant higher in their lists of fantasy occupations.
I suspect it weighs more that one does trust Gove, Farage, Cameron, Obama, whoever, than that one doesn't trust Galloway or Adams, simply because on a complex question most people are probably rated as not-trustworthy by our brains. (Trust in this context, of course, just means "worth listening to on this subject" not "someone I think should be canonised.")
I think there is some truth in that, however outside tribalists, of which we have plenty on this site, most voters probably don't trust many politicians that much, or even at all, especially after the all "Cash for X" scandals and the expenses fiasco. This is why I think the PB Tories are so perplexed that the whole country is not queuing up for Remain, I mean how is it that people don't trust Dave like they do
Memories of Labour's shock 2015 defeat still haunt Sadiq Khan's campaign
Were Khan to lose now it would be a shock beyond anything seen at last year's general election, where the polls at least suggested the two parties were neck-and-neck. And yet if you speak to senior people in the party you can detect a real nervousness about the result.
"I don't believe the polls," one source close to Khan told me. "I think we're ahead but not by anything like what they suggest."
Labour's pessimism is partly based on what activists are telling them. Whatever Khan may say publicly, The Tories' relentlessly negative campaign, in which he has been accused of "giving cover" to Islamic extremists, has rattled the party.
People who disagreed with Mike about the ruthlessness of the Tory machine could be in for a surprise. It's not going to be anything like 58-42 as the polls suggest, but I don't know if the last minute swing is going to be large enough to overturn what has been seen as a very low energy campaign.
'We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.
Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.
I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.
That change is largely our doing.'
----------------------
The degree of protectionism has declined over the years but it is I think more significant than you allow Robert, and extends beyond agriculture - note the links I sent you yesterday. The upshot of that is that leaving the system has more benefits to the UK consumer and the economy than just lower food prices.
Nevertheless I agree with your broad argument, i.e. this is really about Britain's political future.
Errrr, you're quoting someone else not me...
Sorry - I messed that up: the bit I was trying to respond to was this
'I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.
I'll have time for all these "restoring democracy to the British people" arguments when we no longer have a voting system that ignores c.40% of the population.
Any voting system does so that's moot.
Quite untrue, Mr Thompson, as you very well ought to know.
Time for a thread on STV, I think, Mr Eagles.
Even under STV the government could not include 40% of voters.
A strange assertion, Mr Thompson. Of course it could.
The STV system is based on transferable votes.
You have to bear in mind that, in this country, increasingly people are not wedded to a single party. So though their first choice might be party X, they would not mind supporting party Y, and would even go so far as being not displeased if party Z got elected - just as long as it was not party Q.
Both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party want to see everything in terms of black or white, a simple polar choice. I think you do too. It explaiins why our single-party governments behave with such arrogance. And why they are so unpopular.
The thing is it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that it's still not true. No Leavers, most especially the more vociferous ones on here, are going to be in charge of anything.
But the PB brain trust keep telling us Dave will resign immediately and a Leaver will take over.
Are they wrong?
A future with Boris as PM is a likely by-product of a Leave victory. When voters are weighing the pros and cons I suspect this'll weigh heavily.
Or Michael Gove. I've test run this idea in a few conversations and the usual reaction is as if I'd offered Dracula a garlic clove.
Why I think polls this far out ignore some very salient considerations which will be major questions just before the vote none of which are helpful to Leave
Not sure the sort of people you guys will mingle with are the target demographic of someone like Gove Metropolitan liberal elite wouldn't vote for principled conviction conservative politician shocker!
Gove comes 84 out of 84 on the trustworthyness index. He is so unpopular Cameron had to move him to a low profile department before the last election. But you make the point. It would be a Leaver which can only mean Gove or Boris.
If Leave decide to major on immigration from now on where does that leave Boris? Boris is a self-confessed immigration fan and has even advocated an illegals' amnesty. If he goes all Kippery on the issue then he might look disingenuous; if he's consistent with his past views then Leave may appear fractured and void of coherence. How will this help Boris's career, is all I'm saying?
The Remain campaign are now literally using the words "For the children" in their Tweets. When you are parroting lines from Simpsons stereotypes, you really have lost the argument.
Mr Brind, what about the Labour voters concerned about immigration? Is the party just going to drive them away?
The voters most concerned about immigration are in the socio-economic groups which are least likely to vote.
And yet the kipper inclined voters won the last Euro elections, which suggests some issues get them off the sofa to vote.
UKIP won the Euros with 26% of the vote on a 35% turnout. So about 8% of the electorate voted for them. Hence the collapse to 1 seat in a GE with a 60%+ turnout.
This of course is why despite all the fine words about "democracy" Leave are desperately hoping for a really low turnout in June.
It was also to do with people voting differently at different elections. UKIP won 4.38m votes in the 2014 Euros but only 3.88m votes at the 2015 GE despite the higher turnout.
Voters could have swept an avowedly anti-EU party into power. They chose not to. Instead, in every election since 1979 they have given the majority of their votes to pro-EU parties. And now we have this referendum on whether to stay in. If that is not democracy, I don't know what is.
I would be interested to know what Leave-minded Conservatives made of May's speech yesterday. Mollified to any degree, left cold, or saw it as transparent scheming?
It was the right approach to supporting REMAIN that Cameron should have followed. Mrs May told Cameron and Osborne how to be the party Leader. She also set an example to most of the REMAIN people in cabinet on how to look credible.
Quite right too . The buck stops at the top . Any deaths are the responsibility of Hunt who should be prosecuted for manslaughter should there be any .
I don't understand the 'it's better to stay in so we can alter things' meme.
(1) We've been in 40 odd years and had a say in minor points only. The direction of travel has not been altered, merely delayed by events. (2) Cameron went to the EU with the threat of British withdrawal hanging over him. Result ... the square root of f*ck all. (3) No current party we are likely to elect is remotely interested in altering things anyway. The Establishment has decided. (4) Having voted Remain in a referendum, why would the Eurocrats be interested in our proposed changes?
We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.
Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.
I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.
That change is largely our doing.
One wonders whether Obama's desperation to keep us in because he knows without our involvement the TTIP is dead in the water.
That's an extremely interesting observation.
Yet supposedly all the financial companies are going to move from the UK, which will get a deal with the USA, to the EU, which won't.
The Remain campaign are now literally using the words "For the children" in their Tweets. When you are parroting lines from Simpsons stereotypes, you really have lost the argument.
Unhappy marriage, partner with major problems, let us stay together for the children.....
Battered partner wants to leave for a refuge told that worse beatings will follow if they go...
If Leave decide to major on immigration from now on where does that leave Boris? Boris is a self-confessed immigration fan and has even advocated an illegals' amnesty. If he goes all Kippery on the issue then he might look disingenuous; if he's consistent with his past views then Leave may appear fractured and void of coherence. How will this help Boris's career, is all I'm saying?
Because they are not the same thing.
President Obama has tightened visa requirements for H and L class visa significantly over the last couple of years ("reduces immigration") but at the same time made the several executive orders to defer action (defacto amnesty) against illegal immigrants.
Its one thing to say you need to limit the number of people coming into the country each year, its another to say that people already in the country that there is no realistic chance of removing from the country should be brought into society and become taxpayers and contributors.
If Leave decide to major on immigration from now on where does that leave Boris? Boris is a self-confessed immigration fan and has even advocated an illegals' amnesty. If he goes all Kippery on the issue then he might look disingenuous; if he's consistent with his past views then Leave may appear fractured and void of coherence. How will this help Boris's career, is all I'm saying?
Boris gave up trying to look credible or consistent weeks ago. He's campaigning for the Tory leadership and that's all.
I'll have time for all these "restoring democracy to the British people" arguments when we no longer have a voting system that ignores c.40% of the population.
Any voting system does so that's moot.
Quite untrue, Mr Thompson, as you very well ought to know.
Time for a thread on STV, I think, Mr Eagles.
Even under STV the government could not include 40% of voters.
A strange assertion, Mr Thompson. Of course it could.
The STV system is based on transferable votes.
You have to bear in mind that, in this country, increasingly people are not wedded to a single party. So though their first choice might be party X, they would not mind supporting party Y, and would even go so far as being not displeased if party Z got elected - just as long as it was not party Q.
Both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party want to see everything in terms of black or white, a simple polar choice. I think you do too. It explains why our single-party governments behave with such arrogance. And why they are so unpopular.
Although the most unpopular party in the last government was neither of those two. It's not just about who ends up in power, it's about the compromises that have to be made to get there.
The thing is it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that it's still not true. No Leavers, most especially the more vociferous ones on here, are going to be in charge of anything.
But the PB brain trust keep telling us Dave will resign immediately and a Leaver will take over.
Are they wrong?
A future with Boris as PM is a likely by-product of a Leave victory. When voters are weighing the pros and cons I suspect this'll weigh heavily.
Or Michael Gove. I've test run this idea in a few conversations and the usual reaction is as if I'd offered Dracula a garlic clove.
Why I think polls this far out ignore some very salient considerations which will be major questions just before the vote none of which are helpful to Leave
Not sure the sort of people you guys will mingle with are the target demographic of someone like Gove Metropolitan liberal elite wouldn't vote for principled conviction conservative politician shocker!
Gove comes 84 out of 84 on the trustworthyness index. He is so unpopular Cameron had to move him to a low profile department before the last election. But you make the point. It would be a Leaver which can only mean Gove or Boris.
Graham Brady for back bench loyalty.
I doubt it. Though apparently quite nice he's not too bright. Apparently he's known as 'thicko' in Hale and there are so many footballers wives living there they'd know one one when they saw one
The Remain campaign are now literally using the words "For the children" in their Tweets. When you are parroting lines from Simpsons stereotypes, you really have lost the argument.
Unhappy marriage, partner with major problems, let us stay together for the children.....
Battered partner wants to leave for a refuge told that worse beatings will follow if they go...
Just plain wrong.
Marriage with a few problems , one decides to break up marriage commits suicide and takes the lives of children with them .
They essentially see Leaving as a philosophically UKIP project involving getting into bed with Farage and Gove and Boris and don't even give it the time of day - it's out there with banning trade unions and bringing back hanging.
If one looks at a policy in terms of how it burnishes or tarnishes one's image by association with its supporters, rather than on its own merits, it should be considered that one might have left the path of wisdom
They essentially see Leaving as a philosophically UKIP project involving getting into bed with Farage and Gove and Boris and don't even give it the time of day - it's out there with banning trade unions and bringing back hanging.
If one looks at a policy in terms of how it burnishes or tarnishes one's image by association with its supporters, rather than on its own merits, it should be considered that one might have left the path of wisdom
Politics of the snob?
You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment
The Remain campaign are now literally using the words "For the children" in their Tweets. When you are parroting lines from Simpsons stereotypes, you really have lost the argument.
Unhappy marriage, partner with major problems, let us stay together for the children.....
Battered partner wants to leave for a refuge told that worse beatings will follow if they go...
Just plain wrong.
Marriage with a few problems , one decides to break up marriage commits suicide and takes the lives of children with them .
The Remain campaign are now literally using the words "For the children" in their Tweets. When you are parroting lines from Simpsons stereotypes, you really have lost the argument.
Looking forward to the interests of the next generation or looking back misty-eyed to a past that will never come again?
The Remain campaign are now literally using the words "For the children" in their Tweets. When you are parroting lines from Simpsons stereotypes, you really have lost the argument.
Unhappy marriage, partner with major problems, let us stay together for the children.....
Battered partner wants to leave for a refuge told that worse beatings will follow if they go...
Just plain wrong.
Marriage with a few problems , one decides to break up marriage commits suicide and takes the lives of children with them .
Quite right too . The buck stops at the top . Any deaths are the responsibility of Hunt who should be prosecuted for manslaughter should there be any .
Is Leave copying Labour's economic ideas of proposing to spend any Brexit savings ten times over?
I suspect that the public feel Leave's claim to have how ever many billion available from the EU Fee is credible.
Well one advantage there is with this is that the budgetary cost of EU membership is a verifiable number.
By contrast, the REMAIN campaign's claims about the cost of exit are not. They are just figures created by a model simulation, which the public might (and certainly should) be highly sceptical of.
I wonder how many pain suffering patients have had a terrible day today..because their doctor is outside the hospital with a placard..asking for weekends off and more money..
Is Leave copying Labour's economic ideas of proposing to spend any Brexit savings ten times over?
I suspect that the public feel Leave's claim to have how ever many billion available from the EU Fee is credible.
Well one advantage there is with this is that the budgetary cost of EU membership is a verifiable number.
By contrast, the REMAIN campaign's claims about the cost of exit are not. They are just figures created by a model simulation, which the public might (and certainly should) be highly sceptical of.
The other aspect to this is even if Remain nitpicks the £350m - it's still a Big Number. We had this sort of debate ages ago over some manifesto pledge or other, once a number becomes hundreds of millions or tots up to billions - it doesn't matter as the impression is made.
I don't understand the 'it's better to stay in so we can alter things' meme.
(1) We've been in 40 odd years and had a say in minor points only. The direction of travel has not been altered, merely delayed by events. (2) Cameron went to the EU with the threat of British withdrawal hanging over him. Result ... the square root of f*ck all. (3) No current party we are likely to elect is remotely interested in altering things anyway. The Establishment has decided. (4) Having voted Remain in a referendum, why would the Eurocrats be interested in our proposed changes?
We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.
Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.
I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.
That change is largely our doing.
One wonders whether Obama's desperation to keep us in because he knows without our involvement the TTIP is dead in the water.
That's an extremely interesting observation.
It's something we've been discussing at work, the ramifications of Leave on EU external trade policy, the consensus is that without our influence the Germans will lose the will to push forwards with a proper trade agreement with the US and settle for goods trade with fewer barriers and the US aren't going to bother with it in the end as it won't be worth it for them as a major goods importer.
Obviously it is all speculation, but there is a sense that the US would be ready to do a deal with us in the immediate aftermath of a Leave vote because the big EU trade deal would end up losing momentum. If we were to join EFTA and remain in the EEA the consensus is that the US would just change TTIP up a little bit and offer it to the EFTA nations.
We had the discussion because Obama looked absolutely desperate yesterday to drum up German support for the deal.
I wonder how many pain suffering patients have had a terrible day today..because their doctor is outside the hospital with a placard..asking for weekends off and more money..
None , there are undoubtedly some who will have had a terrible day because Hunt is not prepared to negotiate a sensible settlement .
If Leave decide to major on immigration from now on where does that leave Boris? Boris is a self-confessed immigration fan and has even advocated an illegals' amnesty. If he goes all Kippery on the issue then he might look disingenuous; if he's consistent with his past views then Leave may appear fractured and void of coherence. How will this help Boris's career, is all I'm saying?
Because they are not the same thing.
President Obama has tightened visa requirements for H and L class visa significantly over the last couple of years ("reduces immigration") but at the same time made the several executive orders to defer action (defacto amnesty) against illegal immigrants.
Its one thing to say you need to limit the number of people coming into the country each year, its another to say that people already in the country that there is no realistic chance of removing from the country should be brought into society and become taxpayers and contributors.
Possibly true. But as we're always being told around here, 'Try explaining that on the doorstep'. I'm worried for Boris. If Leave are going to go supernova on immigration, there's no end of juicy Boris comments on the subject that journalists can dredge up and flap at Boris. One-to-one interviews aren't his strength - he often appears hesitant and unprepared - so this might become a bit of an ordeal for him and, by proxy, the Leave campaign itself.
I don't understand the 'it's better to stay in so we can alter things' meme.
(1) We've been in 40 odd years and had a say in minor points only. The direction of travel has not been altered, merely delayed by events. (2) Cameron went to the EU with the threat of British withdrawal hanging over him. Result ... the square root of f*ck all. (3) No current party we are likely to elect is remotely interested in altering things anyway. The Establishment has decided. (4) Having voted Remain in a referendum, why would the Eurocrats be interested in our proposed changes?
We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.
Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.
I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.
That change is largely our doing.
Well if the EU have some of the lowest tariffs in the world there won't be any adverse economic effect from trading with them outside the EU.
AND we get cheaper food - as everyone, including REMAINers now admit.
There will be minimal differences - assuming we sign a sensible FTA with the EU - in our trading relationships from Brexit.
Agreed. There will also be minimal differences in free movement of people and net contribution. The only difference will be some loss of influence in EU matters and a major waste of time and confidence as conduct tortuous renegotiations of varius treaties. For no real change. So why bother?
'We had the discussion because Obama looked absolutely desperate yesterday to drum up German support for the deal.'
-----------------------------------------
I think it's pretty clear that US corporate interests have been pressuring the President over TTIP (and indeed, why shouldn't they).
Meanwhile in Germany and elsewhere there are a lot of concerns about it, including (interestingly) concerns that it will reduce the share of intra-EU trade and thereby 'damage' European integration. Which is very revealing about attitudes to trade generally.
I don't understand the 'it's better to stay in so we can alter things' meme.
(1) We've been in 40 odd years and had a say in minor points only. The direction of travel has not been altered, merely delayed by events. (2) Cameron went to the EU with the threat of British withdrawal hanging over him. Result ... the square root of f*ck all. (3) No current party we are likely to elect is remotely interested in altering things anyway. The Establishment has decided. (4) Having voted Remain in a referendum, why would the Eurocrats be interested in our proposed changes?
We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.
Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.
I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.
That change is largely our doing.
One wonders whether Obama's desperation to keep us in because he knows without our involvement the TTIP is dead in the water.
I suspect TTIP is dead in the water anyway. A big majority of Germans are against it and there is growing resistance throughout Europe. Obama is in favour but Clinton may not be, nor Congress.
If you want a form of TTIP for the UK, vote LEAVE. The Tories are very keen on it and a UK/US form of TTIP would eventually lead to the US model of providing public services including health and education..
Mark Senior..You seem a little confused..first you say no one will suffer and then you say those that do will be the sole responsibility of Hunt..Is Hunt the one who is refusing to be in the Hospital alleviating pain..right gotcha..
Hillary has gone backwards all through the race with Bernie too, whereas (Harder to judge with winnowing to 3) Trump has gone forwards all the time (Except maybe Wisconsin)
Mr. Barnesian, trade isn't the only aspect to consider. Legislation and the right to hold to account those who would impose new laws upon us are not small things.
Not sure. If they manage to cut a deal for an FG minority, then yes, quite a nice one. If there's no deal and they drift into another election without a new government being formed, then presumably the markets will be voided. It doesn't look as though there is any other possibility, except conceivably some coalition involving independents.
Incidentally, the whole question of the Irish Water charges which is the main stumbling block is a wonderful example of why you don't want PR. FF are simply using it to play politics.
Mark Senior..You seem a little confused..first you say no one will suffer and then you say those that do will be the sole responsibility of Hunt..Is Hunt the one who is refusing to be in the Hospital alleviating pain..right gotcha..
If they manage to cut a deal for an FG minority, then yes, quite a nice one. If there's no deal, then presumably the markets will be voided. It doesn't look as though there is any other possibility, except conceivably some coalition involving independents.
I hope the market isn't voided as I'm green on all options. I was on a FG minority at 7 and laid some of it at 2.
Mr Brind, what about the Labour voters concerned about immigration? Is the party just going to drive them away?
The voters most concerned about immigration are in the socio-economic groups which are least likely to vote.
And yet the kipper inclined voters won the last Euro elections, which suggests some issues get them off the sofa to vote.
UKIP won the Euros with 26% of the vote on a 35% turnout. So about 8% of the electorate voted for them. Hence the collapse to 1 seat in a GE with a 60%+ turnout.
This of course is why despite all the fine words about "democracy" Leave are desperately hoping for a really low turnout in June.
It was also to do with people voting differently at different elections. UKIP won 4.38m votes in the 2014 Euros but only 3.88m votes at the 2015 GE despite the higher turnout.
Voters could have swept an avowedly anti-EU party into power. They chose not to. Instead, in every election since 1979 they have given the majority of their votes to pro-EU parties. And now we have this referendum on whether to stay in. If that is not democracy, I don't know what is.
Exactly, which harks back to May's speech yesterday.
If the people of Britain really want to leave the EU now, or every five years from 2020, they can do so.
Hillary has gone backwards all through the race with Bernie too, whereas (Harder to judge with winnowing to 3) Trump has gone forwards all the time (Except maybe Wisconsin)
Thank God for the Iowa caucus, they helped me recover.
On topic: Boris is finished, surely? Lots of people in the party like Boris, he's been a great Mayor, he's a fantastic speech-maker, and he has that 'star' quality, but there has always been doubt about how serious a figure he is. That doubt has now been decisively resolved, and not in his favour. I expect he'll stand down at the next election and resume his journalistic and speaking career.
I don't understand the 'it's better to stay in so we can alter things' meme.
(1) We've been in 40 odd years and had a say in minor points only. The direction of travel has not been altered, merely delayed by events. (2) Cameron went to the EU with the threat of British withdrawal hanging over him. Result ... the square root of f*ck all. (3) No current party we are likely to elect is remotely interested in altering things anyway. The Establishment has decided. (4) Having voted Remain in a referendum, why would the Eurocrats be interested in our proposed changes?
We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.
Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.
I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.
That change is largely our doing.
Well if the EU have some of the lowest tariffs in the world there won't be any adverse economic effect from trading with them outside the EU.
AND we get cheaper food - as everyone, including REMAINers now admit.
There will be minimal differences - assuming we sign a sensible FTA with the EU - in our trading relationships from Brexit.
Agreed. There will also be minimal differences in free movement of people and net contribution. The only difference will be some loss of influence in EU matters and a major waste of time and confidence as conduct tortuous renegotiations of varius treaties. For no real change. So why bother?
Whichever Leave option is pursued there will be a very large net contribution reduction. We would end up paying perhaps 20% -25% of current net contributions.
Mr Brind, what about the Labour voters concerned about immigration? Is the party just going to drive them away?
The voters most concerned about immigration are in the socio-economic groups which are least likely to vote.
And yet the kipper inclined voters won the last Euro elections, which suggests some issues get them off the sofa to vote.
UKIP won the Euros with 26% of the vote on a 35% turnout. So about 8% of the electorate voted for them. Hence the collapse to 1 seat in a GE with a 60%+ turnout.
This of course is why despite all the fine words about "democracy" Leave are desperately hoping for a really low turnout in June.
It was also to do with people voting differently at different elections. UKIP won 4.38m votes in the 2014 Euros but only 3.88m votes at the 2015 GE despite the higher turnout.
Voters could have swept an avowedly anti-EU party into power. They chose not to. Instead, in every election since 1979 they have given the majority of their votes to pro-EU parties. And now we have this referendum on whether to stay in. If that is not democracy, I don't know what is.
I completely agree. Voters are happy to use the Euros to send a message but at a General, it's not an issue that many feel strongly enough about. As you say, they've had the option had they wanted to use it.
On topic: Boris is finished, surely? Lots of people in the party like Boris, he's been a great Mayor, he's a fantastic speech-maker, and he has that 'star' quality, but there has always been doubt about how serious a figure he is. That doubt has now been decisively resolved, and not in his favour. I expect he'll stand down at the next election and resume his journalistic and speaking career.
As TSE and I have both been saying, he won't make the final two.
Comments
'We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.
Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.
I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.
That change is largely our doing.'
----------------------
The degree of protectionism has declined over the years but it is I think more significant than you allow Robert, and extends beyond agriculture - note the links I sent you yesterday. The upshot of that is that leaving the system has more benefits to the UK consumer and the economy than just lower food prices.
Nevertheless I agree with your broad argument, i.e. this is really about Britain's political future.
It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
Not sure how else I raise this so apologies but overtime I enter the site and want to comment I have to reset my password. It has been like that for 3 years. Not very tech so may be me.
Memories of Labour's shock 2015 defeat still haunt Sadiq Khan's campaign
Were Khan to lose now it would be a shock beyond anything seen at last year's general election, where the polls at least suggested the two parties were neck-and-neck. And yet if you speak to senior people in the party you can detect a real nervousness about the result.
"I don't believe the polls," one source close to Khan told me. "I think we're ahead but not by anything like what they suggest."
Labour's pessimism is partly based on what activists are telling them. Whatever Khan may say publicly, The Tories' relentlessly negative campaign, in which he has been accused of "giving cover" to Islamic extremists, has rattled the party.
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/04/26/memories-of-labour-s-shock-2015-defeat-still-haunt-sadiq-kha
Time for a thread on STV, I think, Mr Eagles.
Hardly Rosemary and Thyme
Junior Drs are not asking for a pay rise.
Strangely Hunt wants to give one to those Drs in specialties who dont need to work weekends like Dermatology and give a pay cut to those in Emergency Care who do.
Guess which posts are already problematic to fill
More seriously I do wonder if junior doctors strike is being played to london underground rules - in that when they've been on strike long enough that the pay saved can now be given as a concession to end the dispute?
One man's LEAVE Cumbria is another man's REMAIN in Ceredigion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-36130437
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/724865653589561345
It may be that positive views of the advocate for a cause matter more than negative ones, but there must be experiments that have been done to test that. Ie, I suspect it weighs more that one does trust Gove, Farage, Cameron, Obama, whoever, than that one doesn't trust Galloway or Adams, simply because on a complex question most people are probably rated as not-trustworthy by our brains. (Trust in this context, of course, just means "worth listening to on this subject" not "someone I think should be canonised.")
Oh my god, it's incredible
Perhaps he should stay afterall
That change is largely our doing.'
----------------------
The degree of protectionism has declined over the years but it is I think more significant than you allow Robert, and extends beyond agriculture - note the links I sent you yesterday. The upshot of that is that leaving the system has more benefits to the UK consumer and the economy than just lower food prices.
Nevertheless I agree with your broad argument, i.e. this is really about Britain's political future.
Errrr, you're quoting someone else not me...
Remain will claim economic apocalypse and us becoming a pariah state if we go
Leave will claim the destruction of the NHS and inundation with terrorists if we stay
Both are absurd, and poor arguments far removed from the real issues of EU membership, but that's politics.
Sorry - I messed that up: the bit I was trying to respond to was this
'I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.
That change is largely our doing.'
The STV system is based on transferable votes.
You have to bear in mind that, in this country, increasingly people are not wedded to a single party. So though their first choice might be party X, they would not mind supporting party Y, and would even go so far as being not displeased if party Z got elected - just as long as it was not party Q.
Both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party want to see everything in terms of black or white, a simple polar choice. I think you do too. It explaiins why our single-party governments behave with such arrogance. And why they are so unpopular.
Battered partner wants to leave for a refuge told that worse beatings will follow if they go...
Just plain wrong.
President Obama has tightened visa requirements for H and L class visa significantly over the last couple of years ("reduces immigration") but at the same time made the several executive orders to defer action (defacto amnesty) against illegal immigrants.
Its one thing to say you need to limit the number of people coming into the country each year, its another to say that people already in the country that there is no realistic chance of removing from the country should be brought into society and become taxpayers and contributors.
http://order-order.com/2016/04/26/labour-mp-israelis-should-face-transportation-out-of-middle-east/
Oh it is ok now that she said sorry and it was a long time ago... what 2 years....oops.
By contrast, the REMAIN campaign's claims about the cost of exit are not. They are just figures created by a model simulation, which the public might (and certainly should) be highly sceptical of.
Obviously it is all speculation, but there is a sense that the US would be ready to do a deal with us in the immediate aftermath of a Leave vote because the big EU trade deal would end up losing momentum. If we were to join EFTA and remain in the EEA the consensus is that the US would just change TTIP up a little bit and offer it to the EFTA nations.
We had the discussion because Obama looked absolutely desperate yesterday to drum up German support for the deal.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/crisis-for-kenny-as-fianna-fil-rejects-offer-on-water-charges-34659498.html
'We had the discussion because Obama looked absolutely desperate yesterday to drum up German support for the deal.'
-----------------------------------------
I think it's pretty clear that US corporate interests have been pressuring the President over TTIP (and indeed, why shouldn't they).
Meanwhile in Germany and elsewhere there are a lot of concerns about it, including (interestingly) concerns that it will reduce the share of intra-EU trade and thereby 'damage' European integration. Which is very revealing about attitudes to trade generally.
If you want a form of TTIP for the UK, vote LEAVE. The Tories are very keen on it and a UK/US form of TTIP would eventually lead to the US model of providing public services including health and education..
Incidentally, the whole question of the Irish Water charges which is the main stumbling block is a wonderful example of why you don't want PR. FF are simply using it to play politics.
If the people of Britain really want to leave the EU now, or every five years from 2020, they can do so.