I don't think that's necessarily true, particularly if there was a block of eight or so non-EZ countries; Britain would be the natural leader of them. Simply by weight of numbers, they'd have to listen (but also because the outer group would be the awkward squad).
It would all depend on the extent to which the EUelite were prepared to accept and accommodate the reality of a growing scepticism.
Well all the countries not currently in the EMU are obliged to join except the UK and Denmark, Denmark is in ERM II though so it's currency is pegged to the Euro. Sweden are using a loophole to keep themselves out indefinitely under an older set of entry rules. Every other nation must join the EMU which makes it 25 vs 3, or 26 vs 2 because Denmark are in ERM II.
This idea that there will be an outer bloc of non-EMU nations is a complete fallacy, it just isn't going to happen, joining the EMU is now a requirement of joining the EU, a point the SNP spectacularly failed to address in the independence campaign.
Why would temporarily non-EMU nations cosy up to the UK and possibly Swe/Den when they are going to be in the other club at some point anyway?
As for accepting growing scepticism, well I think we're back to wishful thinking again, there is no evidence that the EU has taken even the slightest notice of growing scepticism. The EUParl has the highest proportion of sceptics and outers ever and how did the EU react? They made an arch-federalist the EC president and his leftist mirror image the EUParl president.
Although joining the EZ is a commitment in theory, in practice the Poles have as much of a get-out as the Swedes. There is, for example, no conveyor belt to joining ERM II. Poland has been a member of the EU now for 12 years and is nowhere near Euro adoption yet, nor does it seem likely any time soon; the Czechs likewise. Rather than forcing these countries to adopt something they don't want to, surely better to formalise their current state while leaving the door open for the future?
No surprises I suppose with the Hillsborough verdicts, I had thought it inevitable that a lay jury would come to the conclusions they have, unless the evidence had very clearly made it impossible for them to do so. As others have said below, I find it hard to reconcile the finding that "no Liverpool fans at all are in any way culpable" for what happened or contributing to it, but that may be influenced by what I have heard/read/assumed over the years and I clearly didn't spend the last 2 years listening to all the evidence and testimony day in day out. But it feels an unsettling conclusion to me to be able to so clearly and explicitly exonerate all the fans. I suppose that though may be preferable to the jury not having made that conclusion and the "fight" interminably going on to then "clear their names".
Apologies for my natural cynicism coming to the fore at what is clearly an emotional time for a large number of people.
I wonder if Merseyside will be raising a glass to David Cameron today for giving them the inquest which has brought them justice? Blair, Brown, Straw et al did not get them to this day, a Tory PM did....
There was a huge crush at Hillsborough for the Spurs v Wolves semi-final a few years before. As with Liverpool v Forest, they gave the better supported club the smaller end. But unlike that game, they opened the terracing gates to let the Spurs fans out onto the pitch once the crush was really on. Incredibly, the whole game was played with fans sitting on the grass only a few inches behind the perimeter lines.
Leeds in the semi v Coventry in 1987 as well.
The year the Sky Blues went on to win the FA Cup, and then conquer Euro.. oh wait.
Off topic, today is 30th anniversary of Chernobyl disaster. For some reason the Ukranian Mrs Sandpit doesn't want me to go on the tour around the deserted town when we visit in the summer
There was a huge crush at Hillsborough for the Spurs v Wolves semi-final a few years before. As with Liverpool v Forest, they gave the better supported club the smaller end. But unlike that game, they opened the terracing gates to let the Spurs fans out onto the pitch once the crush was really on. Incredibly, the whole game was played with fans sitting on the grass only a few inches behind the perimeter lines.
Leeds in the semi v Coventry in 1987 as well.
The year the Sky Blues went on to win the FA Cup, and then conquer Euro.. oh wait.
I think that rankles with supporters from a number of clubs. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you say Hillsborough to most people they'll know what you're talking about. Say Heysel, however.....
I would like to know more how they reached this decision.
From what I've read in the last few minutes I think the people by the turnstiles were unaware that there was any problem in the grounds. According to wikipedia, the Taylor report described them moving in to the stadium at a fast walk. I'm not sure how that makes them responsible, given that's how they'd be walking in if there wasn't a problem.
But is it true that people went in illegally i.e without tickets of their own free will? Or were they "forced" to go through by the police. If it was the former, I don't understand how you can answer no to this question (I should add I have real issue with the jury being forced to answer a questionnaire of questions which are not their own with yes or no responses).
I don't know the answer, but it seems an important part of the story.
The wikipedia article states that the Taylor report dismissed this:
The possibility of fans attempting to gain entry without tickets or with forged tickets was suggested as a contributing factor. South Yorkshire Police suggested the late arrival of fans amounted to a conspiracy to gain entry without tickets. However, analysis of the electronic monitoring system, Health and Safety Executive analysis, and eyewitness accounts showed that the total number of people who entered the Leppings Lane end was below the official capacity of the stand. Eye witness reports suggested that tickets were available on the day and tickets for the Leppings Lane end were on sale from Anfield until the day before. The report dismissed the conspiracy theory.
I'm not sure Wikipedia is unbiased on this one.
The question is not whether there was space in the stand, it's how quickly fans entered the ground. A regular trickle, as regulated by turnstiles, allows fans to find a place on the terrace; a rapid flood - caused, for example, by many fans coming through an open gate - gives them little time or space to fan out and forced them on into the central pen.
Which is why the police were criticised for opening the turnstiles, no? In terms of fan responsibility I'd have thought the more pertinent question was whether behaviour outside the ground contributed to the police decision to open the gate.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
Football fans are excited crowds. That's why it's the responsibility of the authorities to manage how they get into the stadia, with proper queues and barriers outside the ground and staff and not telling fans to go into an already overcrowded area. The authorities failed. It is right they be held responsible.
I don't dispute that there were gross failings on the part of many authorities, the SYP above all. However, the notion that "no behaviour on the part of football supporters ...caused or contributed to the deaths" is something I simply can't agree with because had they stayed outside until let in through the turnstiles, it wouldn't have happened.
That struck me as a bizarre statement. It was obviously a contributing factor to some extent.
Yes - my father worked a game at Highbury before Hillsborough and said the same thing nearly happened there, and it was due to the liverpool fans actions, but that the crowd control was better. Apparently liverpool supporters at that time had a bad rep for turning up to all ticket games without tickets and charging the gates, and generally causing trouble.
I was with my Arsenal supporting mates at Highbury for John Barnes's first Liverpool game. He had bananas thrown at him by Liverpool fans throughout. It was shocking to see as neither Arsenal nor Spurs had reputations for giving black players a hard time, so it wasn't something you saw very much in Norf London.
There was a huge crush at Hillsborough for the Spurs v Wolves semi-final a few years before. As with Liverpool v Forest, they gave the better supported club the smaller end. But unlike that game, they opened the terracing gates to let the Spurs fans out onto the pitch once the crush was really on. Incredibly, the whole game was played with fans sitting on the grass only a few inches behind the perimeter lines.
Leeds in the semi v Coventry in 1987 as well.
The year the Sky Blues went on to win the FA Cup, and then conquer Euro.. oh wait.
I think that rankles with supporters from a number of clubs. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you say Hillsborough to most people they'll know what you're talking about. Say Heysel, however.....
Well I can't see ourselves, Norwich and say Wimbledon getting back to the halycon days of European competition any time soon
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
Were you at the inquest?
No?
pipe down then.
It's near kick-off, it's the cup semi-final, someone opens a gate in front of you. What do you do? Casually stroll along, mindful of health and safety? Pause to do a risk assessment?
The police effectively told the fans that "proper queueing" was no longer required by the act of opening the gates. Fans therefore did nothing wrong. Most importantly I choose to believe the jury who have been presented exhaustively with the facts, unlike you.
It was 9-0 on this question.
Well then we disagree. The police / FA should have delayed the kick-off but that's beside the point. Question: *why* did the police open the gate?
I'm perfectly entitled to have a view. If people weren't allowed to speak up when they disagreed with the official view then we wouldn't even have had a second hearing.
There was a huge crush at Hillsborough for the Spurs v Wolves semi-final a few years before. As with Liverpool v Forest, they gave the better supported club the smaller end. But unlike that game, they opened the terracing gates to let the Spurs fans out onto the pitch once the crush was really on. Incredibly, the whole game was played with fans sitting on the grass only a few inches behind the perimeter lines.
Leeds in the semi v Coventry in 1987 as well.
The year the Sky Blues went on to win the FA Cup, and then conquer Euro.. oh wait.
I think that rankles with supporters from a number of clubs. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you say Hillsborough to most people they'll know what you're talking about. Say Heysel, however.....
Well I can't see ourselves, Norwich and say Wimbledon getting back to the halycon days of European competition any time soon
The number of people who are effectively bullied/shamed into taking cautions is a national scandal.
The conversation goes something like this
'Accept a caution, or you'll be charged, you might be placed on remand, it'll be in the papers, your family will be embarrassed, or you can accept a caution and walk out of here without a stain on your character'
Frightened person accepts caution, thinks nothing of it, few years later applies for a job that requires a CRB/DBS and turns out they do have a stain on their character.
Am I right in thinking there are circumstances when the police can force a caution on someone if they want it or not? For example, a officer believes that a minor has admitted acting in a way that constitutes a 'crime', even if the minor does not think they have done anything wrong?
No surprises I suppose with the Hillsborough verdicts, I had thought it inevitable that a lay jury would come to the conclusions they have, unless the evidence had very clearly made it impossible for them to do so. As others have said below, I find it hard to reconcile the finding that "no Liverpool fans at all are in any way culpable" for what happened or contributing to it, but that may be influenced by what I have heard/read/assumed over the years and I clearly didn't spend the last 2 years listening to all the evidence and testimony day in day out. But it feels an unsettling conclusion to me to be able to so clearly and explicitly exonerate all the fans. I suppose that though may be preferable to the jury not having made that conclusion and the "fight" interminably going on to then "clear their names".
Apologies for my natural cynicism coming to the fore at what is clearly an emotional time for a large number of people.
I wonder if Merseyside will be raising a glass to David Cameron today for giving them the inquest which has brought them justice? Blair, Brown, Straw et al did not get them to this day, a Tory PM did....
This is Liverpool we are talking about, instead I think we might be hearing stuff about Thatcher government etc...
chestnut - but pollsters predicted Ukip's vote share quite well in the election. But they got Labour too high and the Tories too low. And no-one saw the Lib Dem massacre of seats.
The pollsters consistently underscored the joint Con/UKIP tally - i.e. the right wing.
Where they got the Tories right, they underscored UKIP. Where they got UKIP right, they underscored the Tories.
CON/UKIP Combined - Phone polls
08 Apr Com Res 46 12 Apr Ashcroft 46 12 Apr ICM 46 15 Apr Ipsos 43 19 Apr Ashcroft 47 19 Apr ICM 45 22 Apr Comres 46 26 Apr ICM 48 26 Apr Ashcroft 47 28 Apr Comres 46 29 Apr Ipsos 45 03 May Ashcroft 44 05 May Comres 49 06 May Ipsos 47 06 May Ashcroft 44 06 May Comres 47 06 May ICM 45 07 May REAL 50.6
Unless they have successfully re-weighted, there appears to be a problem.
There was a huge crush at Hillsborough for the Spurs v Wolves semi-final a few years before. As with Liverpool v Forest, they gave the better supported club the smaller end. But unlike that game, they opened the terracing gates to let the Spurs fans out onto the pitch once the crush was really on. Incredibly, the whole game was played with fans sitting on the grass only a few inches behind the perimeter lines.
Leeds in the semi v Coventry in 1987 as well.
The year the Sky Blues went on to win the FA Cup, and then conquer Euro.. oh wait.
That's the one.
Arguments about the culpability of Liverpool fans are beside the point (google the Channel 4 documentary from the 90s which I think is still on youtube - it has some grainy CCTV showing very unambiguously what happened when that gate was opened). As Cyclefree says the responsibility is all with the authorities, especially in the circumstances of 80s football, to ensure a safe environment. But as anyone who went to football in those days knows fan safety was not, how shall we say, high on the priority list. I hope that some of the people in charge go to jail.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
Football fans are excited crowds. That's why it's the responsibility of the authorities to manage how they get into the stadia, with proper queues and barriers outside the ground and staff and not telling fans to go into an already overcrowded area. The authorities failed. It is right they be held responsible.
I don't dispute that there were gross failings on the part of many authorities, the SYP above all. However, the notion that "no behaviour on the part of football supporters ...caused or contributed to the deaths" is something I simply can't agree with because had they stayed outside until let in through the turnstiles, it wouldn't have happened.
I can't really see it myself either.
TBH, I think it's a combination of which juror would say Yes, and the feeling that 96 unlawful deaths is more than enough pain endured by the families of the supporters. What would blaming the fans achieve now almost 3 decades on? Nothing. SYC have enough culpability for everyone.
There was a huge crush at Hillsborough for the Spurs v Wolves semi-final a few years before. As with Liverpool v Forest, they gave the better supported club the smaller end. But unlike that game, they opened the terracing gates to let the Spurs fans out onto the pitch once the crush was really on. Incredibly, the whole game was played with fans sitting on the grass only a few inches behind the perimeter lines.
Leeds in the semi v Coventry in 1987 as well.
The year the Sky Blues went on to win the FA Cup, and then conquer Euro.. oh wait.
I think that rankles with supporters from a number of clubs. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you say Hillsborough to most people they'll know what you're talking about. Say Heysel, however.....
Well I can't see ourselves, Norwich and say Wimbledon getting back to the halycon days of European competition any time soon
Or Oxford United or Luton Town!
I don't know what you mean, the Canaries will be in the Champions' League soon enough #otbc
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
Were you at the inquest?
No?
pipe down then.
It's near kick-off, it's the cup semi-final, someone opens a gate in front of you. What do you do? Casually stroll along, mindful of health and safety? Pause to do a risk assessment?
The police effectively told the fans that "proper queueing" was no longer required by the act of opening the gates. Fans therefore did nothing wrong. Most importantly I choose to believe the jury who have been presented exhaustively with the facts, unlike you.
It was 9-0 on this question.
Well then we disagree. The police / FA should have delayed the kick-off but that's beside the point. Question: *why* did the police open the gate?
I'm perfectly entitled to have a view. If people weren't allowed to speak up when they disagreed with the official view then we wouldn't even have had a second hearing.
There was a huge crush at Hillsborough for the Spurs v Wolves semi-final a few years before. As with Liverpool v Forest, they gave the better supported club the smaller end. But unlike that game, they opened the terracing gates to let the Spurs fans out onto the pitch once the crush was really on. Incredibly, the whole game was played with fans sitting on the grass only a few inches behind the perimeter lines.
Leeds in the semi v Coventry in 1987 as well.
The year the Sky Blues went on to win the FA Cup, and then conquer Euro.. oh wait.
I think that rankles with supporters from a number of clubs. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you say Hillsborough to most people they'll know what you're talking about. Say Heysel, however.....
Well I can't see ourselves, Norwich and say Wimbledon getting back to the halycon days of European competition any time soon
Or Oxford United or Luton Town!
I don't know what you mean, the Canaries will be in the Championship soon enough #otbc
I don't think that's necessarily true, particularly if there was a block of eight or so non-EZ countries; Britain would be the natural leader of them. Simply by weight of numbers, they'd have to listen (but also because the outer group would be the awkward squad).
It would all depend on the extent to which the EUelite were prepared to accept and accommodate the reality of a growing scepticism.
Well all the countries not currently in the EMU are obliged to join except the UK and Denmark, Denmark is in ERM II though so it's currency is pegged to the Euro. Sweden are using a loophole to keep themselves out indefinitely under an older set of entry rules. Every other nation must join the EMU which makes it 25 vs 3, or 26 vs 2 because Denmark are in ERM II.
This idea that there will be an outer bloc of non-EMU nations is a complete fallacy, it just isn't going to happen, joining the EMU is now a requirement of joining the EU, a point the SNP spectacularly failed to address in the independence campaign.
Why would temporarily non-EMU nations cosy up to the UK and possibly Swe/Den when they are going to be in the other club at some point anyway?
As for accepting growing scepticism, well I think we're back to wishful thinking again, there is no evidence that the EU has taken even the slightest notice of growing scepticism. The EUParl has the highest proportion of sceptics and outers ever and how did the EU react? They made an arch-federalist the EC president and his leftist mirror image the EUParl president.
Although joining the EZ is a commitment in theory, in practice the Poles have as much of a get-out as the Swedes. There is, for example, no conveyor belt to joining ERM II. Poland has been a member of the EU now for 12 years and is nowhere near Euro adoption yet, nor does it seem likely any time soon; the Czechs likewise. Rather than forcing these countries to adopt something they don't want to, surely better to formalise their current state while leaving the door open for the future?
The EU has already said the Swedish loophole is not going to be available for the 2004 entrants, they will have to join the EMU whether they want to or not. Estonia took a huge amount of pain when they joined recently despite there not being much public support for it. With Poland one gets a sense that the EU may not try and push them around too much given that their PPP per capita is now above 50% of German PPP per capita and they have a population of almost 40m making them one of the more highly populated nations giving them significant QMV weight.
There was a huge crush at Hillsborough for the Spurs v Wolves semi-final a few years before. As with Liverpool v Forest, they gave the better supported club the smaller end. But unlike that game, they opened the terracing gates to let the Spurs fans out onto the pitch once the crush was really on. Incredibly, the whole game was played with fans sitting on the grass only a few inches behind the perimeter lines.
Leeds in the semi v Coventry in 1987 as well.
The year the Sky Blues went on to win the FA Cup, and then conquer Euro.. oh wait.
I think that rankles with supporters from a number of clubs. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you say Hillsborough to most people they'll know what you're talking about. Say Heysel, however.....
Well I can't see ourselves, Norwich and say Wimbledon getting back to the halycon days of European competition any time soon
Or Oxford United or Luton Town!
I don't know what you mean, the Canaries will be in the Champions' League soon enough #otbc
Champion*ship*, I think you mean. Looking forward to the Bantams visiting next season.
The number of people who are effectively bullied/shamed into taking cautions is a national scandal.
The conversation goes something like this
'Accept a caution, or you'll be charged, you might be placed on remand, it'll be in the papers, your family will be embarrassed, or you can accept a caution and walk out of here without a stain on your character'
Frightened person accepts caution, thinks nothing of it, few years later applies for a job that requires a CRB/DBS and turns out they do have a stain on their character.
Am I right in thinking there are circumstances when the police can force a caution on someone if they want it or not? For example, a officer believes that a minor has admitted acting in a way that constitutes a 'crime', even if the minor does not think they have done anything wrong?
Not sure, but I don't know about the rules pertaining to minors.
Always, if they had such a strong case, they would take it to court, and not offer a caution.
The number of people who are effectively bullied/shamed into taking cautions is a national scandal.
The conversation goes something like this
'Accept a caution, or you'll be charged, you might be placed on remand, it'll be in the papers, your family will be embarrassed, or you can accept a caution and walk out of here without a stain on your character'
Frightened person accepts caution, thinks nothing of it, few years later applies for a job that requires a CRB/DBS and turns out they do have a stain on their character.
When I lived in Denmark, they joined the EU and I thought they no longer required me to register as a foreign resident, so I stopped doing it. After a couple of years, I was called in and had this conversation with a police officer:
"We are considering charging you with a breach of the rules of residency. If convicted, you will be subject to a heavy fine. You can, however, opt to accept it as a misdemeanor, in which case you will be fined a much lesser amount. Do you wish to do that? You can if you wish take legal advice before deciding."
"Er......er....I think I'll take legal advice."
"Hmm. I think we'll just drop the case."
He was scrupulously polite throughout, but I did feel the instant U-turn was striking.
It is the projected national share that is really interesting, not the headline grabbing seat change from the heady days post-Omnishambles budget.
See my post towards the end of the previous thread with the latest 2 forecasts from R and T and Stephen Fisher and one of my own for local election gains and losses .
On topic, I am disappointed at the lack of gloating about the first post Obama poll, SeanT aside. For the last few days we have been told how Obama's intervention is a slam dunk, blowing the Leave economic case out of the water and other metephors. And then the first - and its a phone - poll comes along which may show that Obama's intervention has brought the shift to Remain to a juddering halt. This is still not over.
The number of people who are effectively bullied/shamed into taking cautions is a national scandal.
The conversation goes something like this
'Accept a caution, or you'll be charged, you might be placed on remand, it'll be in the papers, your family will be embarrassed, or you can accept a caution and walk out of here without a stain on your character'
Frightened person accepts caution, thinks nothing of it, few years later applies for a job that requires a CRB/DBS and turns out they do have a stain on their character.
Am I right in thinking there are circumstances when the police can force a caution on someone if they want it or not? For example, a officer believes that a minor has admitted acting in a way that constitutes a 'crime', even if the minor does not think they have done anything wrong?
Not sure, but I don't know about the rules pertaining to minors.
The reason I ask is I am sure that I read an article a couple of years ago where a lawyer gave an example of a caution being forced on a minor under those circumstances. The author's point being that such a procedure though legal was unjust. Unfortunately I can not turn the article up again through Google to check the details. (I am not a lawyer.)
@rowenamason: Naz Shah has stepped down from her role as PPS to the shadow chancellor John McDonnell
Good. Labour seemingly have a big problem they need to deal with.
Not that they will of course. One minor resignation from the shadow juniors is unremarkable. She should be forced to resign the party whip for her comments.
On topic, I am disappointed at the lack of gloating about the first post Obama poll, SeanT aside. For the last few days we have been told how Obama's intervention is a slam dunk, blowing the Leave economic case out of the water and other metephors. And then the first - and its a phone - poll comes along which may show that Obama's intervention has brought the shift to Remain to a juddering halt. This is still not over.
I don't want the hope. It makes the disappointment worse.
I'm satisfied that a point has been made, that you should wait for the polling before deciding whether something has been a 'disaster' for one side.
On topic, I am disappointed at the lack of gloating about the first post Obama poll, SeanT aside. For the last few days we have been told how Obama's intervention is a slam dunk, blowing the Leave economic case out of the water and other metephors. And then the first - and its a phone - poll comes along which may show that Obama's intervention has brought the shift to Remain to a juddering halt. This is still not over.
I don't want the hope. It makes the disappointment worse.
I'm satisfied that a point has been made, that you should wait for the polling before deciding whether something has been a 'disaster' for one side.
Very good point. Although I would be delighted if he kept intervening.
I'll always remember being told that people like Naz Shah were the way to oust dinosaurs like Galloway, moderate Muslims. I remember being sceptical at the time that someone moderate would be elected in Bradford. I fear I have been proven right.
It is the projected national share that is really interesting, not the headline grabbing seat change from the heady days post-Omnishambles budget.
All will depend on turnout and regional variances. That said, these geezers have proper data. If anybody knows, they do. On the streets, Labour certainly doing less than 4 years ago. But, with Cameron screwing the Tories, it is hard to say what the outcome will be. Libs confident off a slight push upwards, 1 or 2 %. Labour probably braced for small losses.
@rowenamason: Naz Shah has stepped down from her role as PPS to the shadow chancellor John McDonnell
Of course she has.
She needs the time to work on her "resettlement plan" .... train time tables to finish, camps to be planned, guards to be recruited, race assignment qualifications.
And a final solution as to where the conference of interested parties is to held. Springtime in Berlin is nice, down by lake Wannsee. Couldn't possibly pick a better spot.
@rowenamason: Naz Shah has stepped down from her role as PPS to the shadow chancellor John McDonnell
Of course she has.
She needs the time to work on her "resettlement plan" .... train time tables to finish, camps to be planned, guards to be recruited, race assignment qualifications.
And a final solution as to where the conference of interested parties is to held. Springtime in Berlin is nice, down by lake Wannsee. Couldn't possibly pick a better spot.
If we assume that MPs in general instinctively know where they get their votes from, its pretty depressing, really.
@rowenamason: Naz Shah has stepped down from her role as PPS to the shadow chancellor John McDonnell
Good. Labour seemingly have a big problem they need to deal with.
Not that they will of course. One minor resignation from the shadow juniors is unremarkable. She should be forced to resign the party whip for her comments.
She's on the HASC too. Surely that's untenable for starters. What's Vaz doing about this...
I'll always remember being told that people like Naz Shah were the way to oust dinosaurs like Galloway, moderate Muslims. I remember being sceptical at the time that someone moderate would be elected in Bradford. I fear I have been proven right.
It is the projected national share that is really interesting, not the headline grabbing seat change from the heady days post-Omnishambles budget.
All will depend on turnout and regional variances. That said, these geezers have proper data. If anybody knows, they do. On the streets, Labour certainly doing less than 4 years ago. But, with Cameron screwing the Tories, it is hard to say what the outcome will be. Libs confident off a slight push upwards, 1 or 2 %. Labour probably braced for small losses.
Lib up 1 or 2% on when? The LDs NEV in 2012 was 16%:
Thanks. I think a lot of people in this country get done over by dodgy contracts and straw man threats.
My wife is a lawyer, and almost always smokes this stuff out so we're alright, but I've never thought it's fair on those who can't afford legal advice or simply don't understand and are stressed/scared.
I have read some people allege they have been bullied by a certain animal charity. Given the option to hand over their animals and pay the charities costs of investigation (expensive yet never broken down) or face a private prosecution, with their details appearing in the local paper with a report that they are being charged with cruelty/neglect/whatever to animals. Along with the hassle of all kinds that would bring. Of course whether such a prosecution would go anywhere is by the by...
Or the "local civil recovery scheme", as advertised in your friendly local supermarket, which sends letters demanding high costs for investigating individuals alleged shoplifting. Shoplifting allegations that have not been tested of course.
BTW A drop in the ocean compared to your efforts, but I have ordered 1000 out leaflets.
I'll always remember being told that people like Naz Shah were the way to oust dinosaurs like Galloway, moderate Muslims. I remember being sceptical at the time that someone moderate would be elected in Bradford. I fear I have been proven right.
She probably is moderate for the constituency.
How I cheered and raised a glass to her as she ended Galloway's career in Bradford. Now it seems that she is more royalist than the old king.
It is the projected national share that is really interesting, not the headline grabbing seat change from the heady days post-Omnishambles budget.
All will depend on turnout and regional variances. That said, these geezers have proper data. If anybody knows, they do. On the streets, Labour certainly doing less than 4 years ago. But, with Cameron screwing the Tories, it is hard to say what the outcome will be. Libs confident off a slight push upwards, 1 or 2 %. Labour probably braced for small losses.
Lib up 1 or 2% on when? The LDs NEV in 2012 was 16%:
@rowenamason: Naz Shah has stepped down from her role as PPS to the shadow chancellor John McDonnell
Of course she has.
She needs the time to work on her "resettlement plan" .... train time tables to finish, camps to be planned, guards to be recruited, race assignment qualifications.
And a final solution as to where the conference of interested parties is to held. Springtime in Berlin is nice, down by lake Wannsee. Couldn't possibly pick a better spot.
If we assume that MPs in general instinctively know where they get their votes from, its pretty depressing, really.
I'm afraid it comes as little surprise. There is a nasty streak of rabid antisemitism running through a minority of the Labour party and has been for some years. The inability and unwillingness of the party to deal with the issue is a stain on the party. Bad publicity seems to be the only motivator for action.
On topic, I am disappointed at the lack of gloating about the first post Obama poll, SeanT aside. For the last few days we have been told how Obama's intervention is a slam dunk, blowing the Leave economic case out of the water and other metephors. And then the first - and its a phone - poll comes along which may show that Obama's intervention has brought the shift to Remain to a juddering halt. This is still not over.
Now, now, no gloating. No need to mimic the bad behaiour of advocates for REMAIN. Let us keep up our higher standards.
It is the projected national share that is really interesting, not the headline grabbing seat change from the heady days post-Omnishambles budget.
All will depend on turnout and regional variances. That said, these geezers have proper data. If anybody knows, they do. On the streets, Labour certainly doing less than 4 years ago. But, with Cameron screwing the Tories, it is hard to say what the outcome will be. Libs confident off a slight push upwards, 1 or 2 %. Labour probably braced for small losses.
Lib up 1 or 2% on when? The LDs NEV in 2012 was 16%:
I know some very esteemed psephologists disagree, but I think comparing the NEV to 2011 is more correct than 2012.
For then you get 2011 -> 16; 12 -> 17; 13 -> 18 14 -> 19.; 15 -> 20
If you carry on with 4 yr local cycles and 5 year GE cycles then you end up with 2015 -> 19 (Which compares a GE year to a non GE).
The picture isn't good for Labour however you look at it though.
In terms of the parliamentary cycle, that's fair enough. But in gains and losses - which is where the headline will be - 2012 is the right comparison. Also, using 2012 means you're comparing like-with-like in terms of *which* seats and councils were contested.
It is the projected national share that is really interesting, not the headline grabbing seat change from the heady days post-Omnishambles budget.
All will depend on turnout and regional variances. That said, these geezers have proper data. If anybody knows, they do. On the streets, Labour certainly doing less than 4 years ago. But, with Cameron screwing the Tories, it is hard to say what the outcome will be. Libs confident off a slight push upwards, 1 or 2 %. Labour probably braced for small losses.
Lib up 1 or 2% on when? The LDs NEV in 2012 was 16%:
I know some very esteemed psephologists disagree, but I think comparing the NEV to 2011 is more correct than 2012.
For then you get 2011 -> 16; 12 -> 17; 13 -> 18 14 -> 19.; 15 -> 20
If you carry on with 4 yr local cycles and 5 year GE cycles then you end up with 2015 -> 19 (Which compares a GE year to a non GE).
The picture isn't good for Labour however you look at it though.
In terms of the parliamentary cycle, that's fair enough. But in gains and losses - which is where the headline will be - 2012 is the right comparison. Also, using 2012 means you're comparing like-with-like in terms of *which* seats and councils were contested.
Is that somewhat priced in when the NEV is computed?
On topic, I am disappointed at the lack of gloating about the first post Obama poll, SeanT aside. For the last few days we have been told how Obama's intervention is a slam dunk, blowing the Leave economic case out of the water and other metephors. And then the first - and its a phone - poll comes along which may show that Obama's intervention has brought the shift to Remain to a juddering halt. This is still not over.
Did that many people on here say that about Obama? It seemed to be much more about whether he had demeaned, talked down, insulted etc the UK by intervening, and about Boris's uppity African comments. My feelings about the outcome remain what they were: too close to call, with Leave having a great chance. I expect them to win.
It is the projected national share that is really interesting, not the headline grabbing seat change from the heady days post-Omnishambles budget.
All will depend on turnout and regional variances. That said, these geezers have proper data. If anybody knows, they do. On the streets, Labour certainly doing less than 4 years ago. But, with Cameron screwing the Tories, it is hard to say what the outcome will be. Libs confident off a slight push upwards, 1 or 2 %. Labour probably braced for small losses.
Lib up 1 or 2% on when? The LDs NEV in 2012 was 16%:
I know some very esteemed psephologists disagree, but I think comparing the NEV to 2011 is more correct than 2012.
For then you get 2011 -> 16; 12 -> 17; 13 -> 18 14 -> 19.; 15 -> 20
If you carry on with 4 yr local cycles and 5 year GE cycles then you end up with 2015 -> 19 (Which compares a GE year to a non GE).
The picture isn't good for Labour however you look at it though.
In terms of the parliamentary cycle, that's fair enough. But in gains and losses - which is where the headline will be - 2012 is the right comparison. Also, using 2012 means you're comparing like-with-like in terms of *which* seats and councils were contested.
The local cycle being 4 and GE cycle being 5 creates an annoyingly long 20 year metacycle !
On topic, I am disappointed at the lack of gloating about the first post Obama poll, SeanT aside. For the last few days we have been told how Obama's intervention is a slam dunk, blowing the Leave economic case out of the water and other metephors. And then the first - and its a phone - poll comes along which may show that Obama's intervention has brought the shift to Remain to a juddering halt. This is still not over.
Now, now, no gloating. No need to mimic the bad behaiour of advocates for REMAIN. Let us keep up our higher standards.
I can only imagine what we'd be enduring if this poll had gone the other way.
It is the projected national share that is really interesting, not the headline grabbing seat change from the heady days post-Omnishambles budget.
All will depend on turnout and regional variances. That said, these geezers have proper data. If anybody knows, they do. On the streets, Labour certainly doing less than 4 years ago. But, with Cameron screwing the Tories, it is hard to say what the outcome will be. Libs confident off a slight push upwards, 1 or 2 %. Labour probably braced for small losses.
Lib up 1 or 2% on when? The LDs NEV in 2012 was 16%:
I know some very esteemed psephologists disagree, but I think comparing the NEV to 2011 is more correct than 2012.
For then you get 2011 -> 16; 12 -> 17; 13 -> 18 14 -> 19.; 15 -> 20
If you carry on with 4 yr local cycles and 5 year GE cycles then you end up with 2015 -> 19 (Which compares a GE year to a non GE).
The picture isn't good for Labour however you look at it though.
In terms of the parliamentary cycle, that's fair enough. But in gains and losses - which is where the headline will be - 2012 is the right comparison. Also, using 2012 means you're comparing like-with-like in terms of *which* seats and councils were contested.
Is that somewhat priced in when the NEV is computed?
The NEV is what it is and can be calculated from 2012.
The correct comparator for that NEV is 2011 though I think.
It is the projected national share that is really interesting, not the headline grabbing seat change from the heady days post-Omnishambles budget.
All will depend on turnout and regional variances. That said, these geezers have proper data. If anybody knows, they do. On the streets, Labour certainly doing less than 4 years ago. But, with Cameron screwing the Tories, it is hard to say what the outcome will be. Libs confident off a slight push upwards, 1 or 2 %. Labour probably braced for small losses.
Lib up 1 or 2% on when? The LDs NEV in 2012 was 16%:
I know some very esteemed psephologists disagree, but I think comparing the NEV to 2011 is more correct than 2012.
For then you get 2011 -> 16; 12 -> 17; 13 -> 18 14 -> 19.; 15 -> 20
If you carry on with 4 yr local cycles and 5 year GE cycles then you end up with 2015 -> 19 (Which compares a GE year to a non GE).
The picture isn't good for Labour however you look at it though.
In terms of the parliamentary cycle, that's fair enough. But in gains and losses - which is where the headline will be - 2012 is the right comparison. Also, using 2012 means you're comparing like-with-like in terms of *which* seats and councils were contested.
Is that somewhat priced in when the NEV is computed?
The NEV is what it is and can be calculated from 2012.
The correct comparator for that NEV is 2011 though I think.
My point is that the NEV should be independent of what seats were actually contested. So comparing them to 2011 is 'correct' as it is a year after a GE?
I'm satisfied that a point has been made, that you should wait for the polling before deciding whether something has been a 'disaster' for one side.
I am waiting for Richard N. to tell us that the change in the polls has been stored in the deep ocean, and will come out a bit later bringing about catastrophic changes in climate credibility.
It is the projected national share that is really interesting, not the headline grabbing seat change from the heady days post-Omnishambles budget.
All will depend on turnout and regional variances. That said, these geezers have proper data. If anybody knows, they do. On the streets, Labour certainly doing less than 4 years ago. But, with Cameron screwing the Tories, it is hard to say what the outcome will be. Libs confident off a slight push upwards, 1 or 2 %. Labour probably braced for small losses.
Lib up 1 or 2% on when? The LDs NEV in 2012 was 16%:
I know some very esteemed psephologists disagree, but I think comparing the NEV to 2011 is more correct than 2012.
For then you get 2011 -> 16; 12 -> 17; 13 -> 18 14 -> 19.; 15 -> 20
If you carry on with 4 yr local cycles and 5 year GE cycles then you end up with 2015 -> 19 (Which compares a GE year to a non GE).
The picture isn't good for Labour however you look at it though.
In terms of the parliamentary cycle, that's fair enough. But in gains and losses - which is where the headline will be - 2012 is the right comparison. Also, using 2012 means you're comparing like-with-like in terms of *which* seats and councils were contested.
But 2012 to 2016 is not a relevant comparison because it's completely different points in the election cycle. And recent history has shown literally WITHOUT EXCEPTION that governments do better in the first batch of local elections in a cycle [2011/2016] than they do in the second batch [2012/2017].
It's the equivalent of saying "in December 2013, Man Utd had 30 points in the Premier League, but in October 2014, they only had 20 points, therefore they were doing worse in 2014". It's self-evidently not relevant to gauge whether "gains" or "losses" have been made unless you're comparing correlating time periods in the electoral cycle / football season!
Just listened to the 1 o'clock news. A Vote Leave spokesman said that the British people wont have a vote over whether Albania can join the EU. He then pointed out that 5% of their population currently living in the UK is in jail.
The interviewer then reminded him that we have an absolute veto over whether Albania or any other country can join the EU. "The government does but the people don't".
I understand the desire to win at all costs but to try to mislead is absolutely not the way to go. People listening will have hated it.
The interviewer then reminded him that we have an absolute veto over whether Albania or any other country can join the EU. "The government does but the people don't".
I understand the desire to win at all costs but to try to mislead is absolutely not the way to go. People listening will have hated it.
Is that not a relevant point? We wouldn't get a direct vote over whether Albania joined.
Trump on 50 and Cruz nowhere vs Hillary. The nomination race is over.
Anyone banking on the Republicans staying divided and handing the White House to Hillary may be in for a disappointment. They'll be solidly behind Trump before the convention.
Just listened to the 1 o'clock news. A Vote Leave spokesman said that the British people wont have a vote over whether Albania can join the EU. He then pointed out that 5% of their population currently living in the UK is in jail.
The interviewer then reminded him that we have an absolute veto over whether Albania or any other country can join the EU. "The government does but the people don't".
I understand the desire to win at all costs but to try to mislead is absolutely not the way to go. People listening will have hated it.
The people don't get a vote on new entrants to the EU so he is right. It's why they keep bringing up membership for Turkey, our government are in favour even though the people would be close to 99% against. Obviously membership for Turkey is unlikely for reasons people have pointed out, but our government are in favour and are under no obligation to give the people a say on new entrants.
Just listened to the 1 o'clock news. A Vote Leave spokesman said that the British people wont have a vote over whether Albania can join the EU. He then pointed out that 5% of their population currently living in the UK is in jail.
The interviewer then reminded him that we have an absolute veto over whether Albania or any other country can join the EU. "The government does but the people don't".
I understand the desire to win at all costs but to try to mislead is absolutely not the way to go. People listening will have hated it.
That is in no way misleading. There will be no referendum on Albania joining, there isn't even a vote on it in parliament, it's a decision for the government and carried out by an Order in Council.
It is the projected national share that is really interesting, not the headline grabbing seat change from the heady days post-Omnishambles budget.
All will depend on turnout and regional variances. That said, these geezers have proper data. If anybody knows, they do. On the streets, Labour certainly doing less than 4 years ago. But, with Cameron screwing the Tories, it is hard to say what the outcome will be. Libs confident off a slight push upwards, 1 or 2 %. Labour probably braced for small losses.
Lib up 1 or 2% on when? The LDs NEV in 2012 was 16%:
I know some very esteemed psephologists disagree, but I think comparing the NEV to 2011 is more correct than 2012.
For then you get 2011 -> 16; 12 -> 17; 13 -> 18 14 -> 19.; 15 -> 20
If you carry on with 4 yr local cycles and 5 year GE cycles then you end up with 2015 -> 19 (Which compares a GE year to a non GE).
The picture isn't good for Labour however you look at it though.
In terms of the parliamentary cycle, that's fair enough. But in gains and losses - which is where the headline will be - 2012 is the right comparison. Also, using 2012 means you're comparing like-with-like in terms of *which* seats and councils were contested.
But 2012 to 2016 is not a relevant comparison because it's completely different points in the election cycle. And recent history has shown literally WITHOUT EXCEPTION that governments do better in the first batch of local elections in a cycle [2011/2016] than they do in the second batch [2012/2017].
It's the equivalent of saying "in December 2013, Man Utd had 30 points in the Premier League, but in October 2014, they only had 20 points, therefore they were doing worse in 2014". It's self-evidently not relevant to gauge whether "gains" or "losses" have been made unless you're comparing correlating time periods in the electoral cycle / football season!
I think the comparison is with the seats 'up for grabs'.
That said, do you honestly think Labour will have improved on either metric?
Trump on 50 and Cruz nowhere vs Hillary. The nomination race is over.
Anyone banking on the Republicans staying divided and handing the White House to Hillary may be in for a disappointment. They'll be solidly behind Trump before the convention.
It is the projected national share that is really interesting, not the headline grabbing seat change from the heady days post-Omnishambles budget.
All will depend on turnout and regional variances. That said, these geezers have proper data. If anybody knows, they do. On the streets, Labour certainly doing less than 4 years ago. But, with Cameron screwing the Tories, it is hard to say what the outcome will be. Libs confident off a slight push upwards, 1 or 2 %. Labour probably braced for small losses.
Lib up 1 or 2% on when? The LDs NEV in 2012 was 16%:
I know some very esteemed psephologists disagree, but I think comparing the NEV to 2011 is more correct than 2012.
For then you get 2011 -> 16; 12 -> 17; 13 -> 18 14 -> 19.; 15 -> 20
If you carry on with 4 yr local cycles and 5 year GE cycles then you end up with 2015 -> 19 (Which compares a GE year to a non GE).
The picture isn't good for Labour however you look at it though.
In terms of the parliamentary cycle, that's fair enough. But in gains and losses - which is where the headline will be - 2012 is the right comparison. Also, using 2012 means you're comparing like-with-like in terms of *which* seats and councils were contested.
But 2012 to 2016 is not a relevant comparison because it's completely different points in the election cycle. And recent history has shown literally WITHOUT EXCEPTION that governments do better in the first batch of local elections in a cycle [2011/2016] than they do in the second batch [2012/2017].
It's the equivalent of saying "in December 2013, Man Utd had 30 points in the Premier League, but in October 2014, they only had 20 points, therefore they were doing worse in 2014". It's self-evidently not relevant to gauge whether "gains" or "losses" have been made unless you're comparing correlating time periods in the electoral cycle / football season!
I think the comparison is with the seats 'up for grabs'.
That said, do you honestly think Labour will have improved on either metric?
Possibly - I think there is an outside chance Labour could improve on their 2011 performance (when they lost to the Tories by 1% in the National Estimated Vote).
My prediction as of now would be that the Tories will win this year's NEV by 1-3%, but a tie or a tiny Labour lead wouldn't completely shock me.
Just listened to the 1 o'clock news. A Vote Leave spokesman said that the British people wont have a vote over whether Albania can join the EU. He then pointed out that 5% of their population currently living in the UK is in jail.
The interviewer then reminded him that we have an absolute veto over whether Albania or any other country can join the EU. "The government does but the people don't".
I understand the desire to win at all costs but to try to mislead is absolutely not the way to go. People listening will have hated it.
The people don't get a vote on new entrants to the EU so he is right. It's why they keep bringing up membership for Turkey, our government are in favour even though the people would be close to 99% against. Obviously membership for Turkey is unlikely for reasons people have pointed out, but our government are in favour and are under no obligation to give the people a say on new entrants.
We know our government's position - it is unchanged since last year when the Tories won the election. We have the chance to vote them out in four years' time and elect a party that is opposed to Turkish EU membership. Trust the people.
RICHARD KEMP @COLRICHARDKEMP 2m ago Those who argue Britain voice would be stronger remaining in EU ignore fact that EU plan to expropriate our permanent Security Council seat
On topic, I am disappointed at the lack of gloating about the first post Obama poll, SeanT aside. For the last few days we have been told how Obama's intervention is a slam dunk, blowing the Leave economic case out of the water and other metephors. And then the first - and its a phone - poll comes along which may show that Obama's intervention has brought the shift to Remain to a juddering halt. This is still not over.
I don't want the hope. It makes the disappointment worse.
I'm satisfied that a point has been made, that you should wait for the polling before deciding whether something has been a 'disaster' for one side.
Presumably, with regard to our EU REferendum, Obama's theme is "Hope and No CHange".
I'll always remember being told that people like Naz Shah were the way to oust dinosaurs like Galloway, moderate Muslims. I remember being sceptical at the time that someone moderate would be elected in Bradford. I fear I have been proven right.
She probably is moderate for the constituency.
And that's moderate Islam for you; still full of hate and most still supporting Jihad.
Did anyone else notice that Obama started his big speech from Germany yesterday saying we lived in unprecedentedly peaceful times. What a lack of empathy this guy has hot .... perhaps he was merely referring to falling gun crime in Chicago ....
RICHARD KEMP @COLRICHARDKEMP 2m ago Those who argue Britain voice would be stronger remaining in EU ignore fact that EU plan to expropriate our permanent Security Council seat
Is that before or after they abolish the monarchy and force us to have Tony Blair as our president for life?
RICHARD KEMP @COLRICHARDKEMP 2m ago Those who argue Britain voice would be stronger remaining in EU ignore fact that EU plan to expropriate our permanent Security Council seat
What a nutcase. How in the name of heaven could the EU 'expropriate' our security council seat? What's the mechanism?
Do people really take this utter garbage even remotely seriously? Mind you, it's a useful sanity test.
Thanks. I think a lot of people in this country get done over by dodgy contracts and straw man threats.
My wife is a lawyer, and almost always smokes this stuff out so we're alright, but I've never thought it's fair on those who can't afford legal advice or simply don't understand and are stressed/scared.
I have read some people allege they have been bullied by a certain animal charity. Given the option to hand over their animals and pay the charities costs of investigation (expensive yet never broken down) or face a private prosecution, with their details appearing in the local paper with a report that they are being charged with cruelty/neglect/whatever to animals. Along with the hassle of all kinds that would bring. Of course whether such a prosecution would go anywhere is by the by...
Or the "local civil recovery scheme", as advertised in your friendly local supermarket, which sends letters demanding high costs for investigating individuals alleged shoplifting. Shoplifting allegations that have not been tested of course.
BTW A drop in the ocean compared to your efforts, but I have ordered 1000 out leaflets.
Good for you.
Yes, my wife says that much of what is written in commercial and employment contracts is nonsense and often conflicts with statute law, or is otherwise disproportionate and indefensible.
There's a soft belief out there that if you write any old nonsense into the T&Cs of a contract and then get some ordinary Joe to wet-ink sign it, you've got them by the short and curlies, but it doesn't always work like that.
Particularly since many who write them don't know the meaning of what they're writing or the law themselves.
RICHARD KEMP @COLRICHARDKEMP 2m ago Those who argue Britain voice would be stronger remaining in EU ignore fact that EU plan to expropriate our permanent Security Council seat
They'd have to get it past the Security Council- do you think we might use our veto?
Trump is going to be calling Hilary out as crooked, corrupt and in the pay of the 1% every day from now until November. It's going to be a very nasty campaign indeed.
How fortunate that Trump isn't in the pay of the 1%, what with him being a billionaire and all that.
Isn't that part of why Trump does so well though? He is rich enough that he can't be corrupted like Hillary or Cruz.
In every single debate Trump is going to wave around Hillary's donor list and compare it to his, in every single response he will tear her links to Wall Street to shreds and he will be absolutely ruthless in doing so.
Is - the multiple bankrupt - Donald Trump really that rich? Or is he a thin sliver of equity on top of a bunch of highly leveraged properties?
RICHARD KEMP @COLRICHARDKEMP 2m ago Those who argue Britain voice would be stronger remaining in EU ignore fact that EU plan to expropriate our permanent Security Council seat
They'd have to get it past the Security Council- do you think we might use our veto?
Trump is going to be calling Hilary out as crooked, corrupt and in the pay of the 1% every day from now until November. It's going to be a very nasty campaign indeed.
How fortunate that Trump isn't in the pay of the 1%, what with him being a billionaire and all that.
Isn't that part of why Trump does so well though? He is rich enough that he can't be corrupted like Hillary or Cruz.
In every single debate Trump is going to wave around Hillary's donor list and compare it to his, in every single response he will tear her links to Wall Street to shreds and he will be absolutely ruthless in doing so.
Is - the multiple bankrupt - Donald Trump really that rich? Or is he a thin sliver of equity on top of a bunch of highly leveraged properties?
Either way, he seems financially independent and not forever sniffing the air for 'foundation' donations like a bisto kid, a la Billary.
The EU has already said the Swedish loophole is not going to be available for the 2004 entrants, they will have to join the EMU whether they want to or not. Estonia took a huge amount of pain when they joined recently despite there not being much public support for it. With Poland one gets a sense that the EU may not try and push them around too much given that their PPP per capita is now above 50% of German PPP per capita and they have a population of almost 40m making them one of the more highly populated nations giving them significant QMV weight.
Re Estonia: where's your source for little public support? When I saw the stats, the Baltics were all very keen on the Euro.
(Of course, they've never really had free floating currencies. They all tied - with incredibly narrow bands - their currencies to the Deutschmark and then the Euro.)
RICHARD KEMP @COLRICHARDKEMP 2m ago Those who argue Britain voice would be stronger remaining in EU ignore fact that EU plan to expropriate our permanent Security Council seat
They'd have to get it past the Security Council- do you think we might use our veto?
Comments
Apologies for my natural cynicism coming to the fore at what is clearly an emotional time for a large number of people.
I wonder if Merseyside will be raising a glass to David Cameron today for giving them the inquest which has brought them justice? Blair, Brown, Straw et al did not get them to this day, a Tory PM did....
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/724925779696607232
Even her Name is half NAZI.
I'm perfectly entitled to have a view. If people weren't allowed to speak up when they disagreed with the official view then we wouldn't even have had a second hearing.
Where they got the Tories right, they underscored UKIP. Where they got UKIP right, they underscored the Tories.
CON/UKIP Combined - Phone polls
08 Apr Com Res 46
12 Apr Ashcroft 46
12 Apr ICM 46
15 Apr Ipsos 43
19 Apr Ashcroft 47
19 Apr ICM 45
22 Apr Comres 46
26 Apr ICM 48
26 Apr Ashcroft 47
28 Apr Comres 46
29 Apr Ipsos 45
03 May Ashcroft 44
05 May Comres 49
06 May Ipsos 47
06 May Ashcroft 44
06 May Comres 47
06 May ICM 45
07 May REAL 50.6
Unless they have successfully re-weighted, there appears to be a problem.
Corbyn due for a thrashing?
https://twitter.com/MikkiL/status/724778237759492096
Arguments about the culpability of Liverpool fans are beside the point (google the Channel 4 documentary from the 90s which I think is still on youtube - it has some grainy CCTV showing very unambiguously what happened when that gate was opened). As Cyclefree says the responsibility is all with the authorities, especially in the circumstances of 80s football, to ensure a safe environment. But as anyone who went to football in those days knows fan safety was not, how shall we say, high on the priority list. I hope that some of the people in charge go to jail.
Anyway, time for me to be off.
"These centre on the boundaries for plain and premium time, and punitive rates for exceeding working time regulations."
These are the exact words on BMA FAQ on today's strike, explaining where the negotiation problems lie.
Am I missing something or does this list basically say we want more cash for working at weekends than has been offered?
"We are considering charging you with a breach of the rules of residency. If convicted, you will be subject to a heavy fine. You can, however, opt to accept it as a misdemeanor, in which case you will be fined a much lesser amount. Do you wish to do that? You can if you wish take legal advice before deciding."
"Er......er....I think I'll take legal advice."
"Hmm. I think we'll just drop the case."
He was scrupulously polite throughout, but I did feel the instant U-turn was striking.
Trump 50 .. Cruz 26 .. Kasich 17
Clinton 52 .. Sanders 42
Clinton 44 .. Trump 36
Clinton 43 .. Cruz 33
https://www.scribd.com/doc/310414560/NBC-News-SurveyMonkey-Toplines-and-Methodology-4-18-4-24?secret_password=DLzdV7xPADves03Hteeq
Not that they will of course. One minor resignation from the shadow juniors is unremarkable. She should be forced to resign the party whip for her comments.
I'm satisfied that a point has been made, that you should wait for the polling before deciding whether something has been a 'disaster' for one side.
https://twitter.com/JBeattieMirror/status/724936934204792833
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/labour-mp-backed-calls-to-relocate-israel-to-america/
She needs the time to work on her "resettlement plan" .... train time tables to finish, camps to be planned, guards to be recruited, race assignment qualifications.
And a final solution as to where the conference of interested parties is to held. Springtime in Berlin is nice, down by lake Wannsee. Couldn't possibly pick a better spot.
My village has a couple of peacocks and they can be heard from a tremendous distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2012
Or the "local civil recovery scheme", as advertised in your friendly local supermarket, which sends letters demanding high costs for investigating individuals alleged shoplifting. Shoplifting allegations that have not been tested of course.
BTW A drop in the ocean compared to your efforts, but I have ordered 1000 out leaflets.
For then you get 2011 -> 16; 12 -> 17; 13 -> 18 14 -> 19.; 15 -> 20
If you carry on with 4 yr local cycles and 5 year GE cycles then you end up with 2015 -> 19 (Which compares a GE year to a non GE).
The picture isn't good for Labour however you look at it though.
http://www.cityam.com/239672/influential-government-committee-calls-on-civil-servant-to-answer-questions-on-his-award-winning-brexit-essay
The PM's attempt to suppress BrExit information on a technicality isn't going down well
The correct comparator for that NEV is 2011 though I think.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36142529
It's the equivalent of saying "in December 2013, Man Utd had 30 points in the Premier League, but in October 2014, they only had 20 points, therefore they were doing worse in 2014". It's self-evidently not relevant to gauge whether "gains" or "losses" have been made unless you're comparing correlating time periods in the electoral cycle / football season!
The interviewer then reminded him that we have an absolute veto over whether Albania or any other country can join the EU. "The government does but the people don't".
I understand the desire to win at all costs but to try to mislead is absolutely not the way to go. People listening will have hated it.
Anyone banking on the Republicans staying divided and handing the White House to Hillary may be in for a disappointment. They'll be solidly behind Trump before the convention.
That said, do you honestly think Labour will have improved on either metric?
My prediction as of now would be that the Tories will win this year's NEV by 1-3%, but a tie or a tiny Labour lead wouldn't completely shock me.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/brazils-giant-problem-1461359723
Europhiles take note!
Those who argue Britain voice would be stronger remaining in EU ignore fact that EU plan to expropriate our permanent Security Council seat
Perhaps Don can do an article on the phenomenon for us.
Do people really take this utter garbage even remotely seriously? Mind you, it's a useful sanity test.
Yes, my wife says that much of what is written in commercial and employment contracts is nonsense and often conflicts with statute law, or is otherwise disproportionate and indefensible.
There's a soft belief out there that if you write any old nonsense into the T&Cs of a contract and then get some ordinary Joe to wet-ink sign it, you've got them by the short and curlies, but it doesn't always work like that.
Particularly since many who write them don't know the meaning of what they're writing or the law themselves.
(Of course, they've never really had free floating currencies. They all tied - with incredibly narrow bands - their currencies to the Deutschmark and then the Euro.)