If the Tory Remainers seriously thought they were going to walk this referendum then they are utter morons. Anyone with half a brain could have told them it would be too close to call. Not understanding this shows Corbynesque levels of political judgement. And then on the other side you've got the increasingly ridiculous Boris, IDS, Patel, Grayling et al. God help us all!!
It's likely that Labour voters in many parts of the country will split roughly 50/50, especially outside the big cities. Cameron should have factored that into his calculations.
It's increasingly clear that the only calculation Dave made was about the bone he needed to throw to the Tory right back in 2012. Labour voters were automatically assumed to be pro-Remain. I suspect most who vote will be. But a hell of a lot won't turnout. This is not their argument.
I have heard Labour voters say similar. They simply do not understand the EU enough to be able to comfortably back a side.
Maybe this will change closer to the date of the referendum.
What has thrown Dave and Remain is not the polls, they were expecting maybe 70 Tory MPs and from the cabinet IDS and Grayling to back Leave.
They weren't expecting nearly half the Party backing Leave as well as Boris and Gove on Leave too.
Really? Well maybe that ham-faced idiot of a PM should have done what he said he would do and come back with a renegotiation agreement that wasn't laughable. It is an entirely self-inflicted blunder, it serves him right if he can't command much support anymore.
Indeed. Dave had numerous options available to him such as saying the deal was crap and campaigning to leave, saying the deal is crap but he will keep trying for something better, etc. He brought this all on himself.
Now here's a thing. I was with a group of very switched on US hedge fund guys today who were very keen indeed to explore the notion that a LEAVE vote might somehow be ignored by the government/parliament. I wonder where they could have got that idea.
50.5% Leave and 49.5% Remain on a sub 60% turnout would be interesting. I don't think they would dare to ignore the result though.
Patrick Kidd Turns out that Ian Botham is more influential than Barack Obama after all https://t.co/sRZ8BFvcix
He clearly appeals to the demographic that believes England is an island :-)
Trying to work out if you are implying he appeals to everyone or just Little Englanders. (And yes, I get that England is not, per se, an island, but rather located on one)
In reality I doubt his endorsement made much difference to anything. He came across as seeing himself as English and the issue as an English one. I think he is right. This referendum is not really about the UK, it's about England and where England sees itself in the world.
If the Tory Remainers seriously thought they were going to walk this referendum then they are utter morons. Anyone with half a brain could have told them it would be too close to call. Not understanding this shows Corbynesque levels of political judgement. And then on the other side you've got the increasingly ridiculous Boris, IDS, Patel, Grayling et al. God help us all!!
It's likely that Labour voters in many parts of the country will split roughly 50/50, especially outside the big cities. Cameron should have factored that into his calculations.
It's increasingly clear that the only calculation Dave made was about the bone he needed to throw to the Tory right back in 2012. Labour voters were automatically assumed to be pro-Remain. I suspect most who vote will be. But a hell of a lot won't turnout. This is not their argument.
I have heard Labour voters say similar. They simply do not understand the EU enough to be able to comfortably back a side.
Maybe this will change closer to the date of the referendum.
If we go back to the turnout issue then we find the same as before. For instance in the latest ICM poll Leave has a 2 point lead, but with those 10/10 certain to vote that lead expanded to 8.5 points.
“It’s no secret that Ted Cruz has some trouble with likeability,” the Republican strategist Harland Dorrinson said. “What better way to fix that than by choosing Carly Fiorina, a person everyone is absolutely crazy about?”
This referendum is not really about the UK, it's about England and where England sees itself in the world.
Interesting. So do you think, in a way, that this referendum, and the way it is progressing, is partly a result of Sindy or at least strongly linked to it?
What has thrown Dave and Remain is not the polls, they were expecting maybe 70 Tory MPs and from the cabinet IDS and Grayling to back Leave.
They weren't expecting nearly half the Party backing Leave as well as Boris and Gove on Leave too.
Really? Well maybe that ham-faced idiot of a PM should have done what he said he would do and come back with a renegotiation agreement that wasn't laughable. It is an entirely self-inflicted blunder, it serves him right if he can't command much support anymore.
Indeed. Dave had numerous options available to him such as saying the deal was crap and campaigning to leave, saying the deal is crap but he will keep trying for something better, etc. He brought this all on himself.
Now here's a thing. I was with a group of very switched on US hedge fund guys today who were very keen indeed to explore the notion that a LEAVE vote might somehow be ignored by the government/parliament. I wonder where they could have got that idea.
50.5% Leave and 49.5% Remain on a sub 60% turnout would be interesting. I don't think they would dare to ignore the result though.
Well, funnily enough those were almost exactly the numbers they quoted,
And then there was a suggestion that some Conservative MPs would refuse to support the necessary parliamentary moves to execute the referendum decision.
I'm late to the party tonight, but have we done the Cruz/Fiorina discussion?
Well I can tell you that the New York Times found out that Cruz was losing to Trump by double digits in Indiana, hence the desperate attempts of the last few days from the Cruz camp with the Kasich deal and then the Fiorina thing.
Yes, much truth there. As I said before, europhiles do not understand the eurosceptic mindset. They don't realise this is VISCERAL for many people: Nationhood. Sovereignty. Betrayal. For europhiles it's just about money and hoover laws and boring stuff. Why the fuss.
The same argument applies in reverse, as you're articulated in the past. You can make a visceral argument in favour of Europe and against the anachronistic and legalistic way of defining sovereignty.
One hundred years ago Europe was collectively going mad tearing itself to pieces and surrendering its global leadership role. Subsequently the UK came out of WWII as the only moral victor which blinded us to how diminished we were and the importance of Making Europe Great Again. That mission is just as important today and as one of the great nations of Europe we shouldn't ever stand aside and think that we're better off leaving them to it.
Indeed. For me, as a keen Remainer, the EU represents a triumph of cooperation for the people of Europe. No more dictatorial rule and pointless wars. Combined efforts on supranational issues such as fisheries and climate change. Freedom to live, work and trade across the whole continent that would have been unimaginable just a few generations ago. Sure, the EU has its flaws, as does any cooperative endeavour, but I would see Brexit as an ominous step back towards the primitive tribalism of the past, and I have some difficulty understanding the evident enthusiasm of so many to do so.
“It’s no secret that Ted Cruz has some trouble with likeability,” the Republican strategist Harland Dorrinson said. “What better way to fix that than by choosing Carly Fiorina, a person everyone is absolutely crazy about?”
LOL. Got this email from the Cruz campaign 44 minutes AFTER he told the world (and no, I am not nor have ever been a Cruz supporter. I would even prefer a President Trump to a President Cruz):
"Cruz For President
"Tim,
"I wanted you to be the first to know.
"It's my honor and privilege to introduce you to Carly Fiorina – the next Vice President of the United States.
"Carly and I are about to go on stage to make this important announcement official, but I wanted you – one of my closest and most loyal supporters – to hear it from me first. ....."
PS and everyone is so crazy about Fiorina that she didn't win a single delegate.
If the Tory Remainers seriously thought they were going to walk this referendum then they are utter morons. Anyone with half a brain could have told them it would be too close to call. Not understanding this shows Corbynesque levels of political judgement. And then on the other side you've got the increasingly ridiculous Boris, IDS, Patel, Grayling et al. God help us all!!
It's likely that Labour voters in many parts of the country will split roughly 50/50, especially outside the big cities. Cameron should have factored that into his calculations.
It's increasingly clear that the only calculation Dave made was about the bone he needed to throw to the Tory right back in 2012. Labour voters were automatically assumed to be pro-Remain. I suspect most who vote will be. But a hell of a lot won't turnout. This is not their argument.
I have heard Labour voters say similar. They simply do not understand the EU enough to be able to comfortably back a side.
Maybe this will change closer to the date of the referendum.
If we go back to the turnout issue then we find the same as before. For instance in the latest ICM poll Leave has a 2 point lead, but with those 10/10 certain to vote that lead expanded to 8.5 points.
based on that it could even be a bigger lead. 10/10 certainty declarations are usually based on what the voter says. Young voters typically overestimate whether they will vote or not.
Yes, much truth there. As I said before, europhiles do not understand the eurosceptic mindset. They don't realise this is VISCERAL for many people: Nationhood. Sovereignty. Betrayal. For europhiles it's just about money and hoover laws and boring stuff. Why the fuss.
The same argument applies in reverse, as you're articulated in the past. You can make a visceral argument in favour of Europe and against the anachronistic and legalistic way of defining sovereignty.
One hundred years ago Europe was collectively going mad tearing itself to pieces and surrendering its global leadership role. Subsequently the UK came out of WWII as the only moral victor which blinded us to how diminished we were and the importance of Making Europe Great Again. That mission is just as important today and as one of the great nations of Europe we shouldn't ever stand aside and think that we're better off leaving them to it.
Indeed. For me, as a keen Remainer, the EU represents a triumph of cooperation for the people of Europe. No more dictatorial rule and pointless wars. Combined efforts on supranational issues such as fisheries and climate change. Freedom to live, work and trade across the whole continent that would have been unimaginable just a few generations ago. Sure, the EU has its flaws, as does any cooperative endeavour, but I would see Brexit as an ominous step back towards the primitive tribalism of the past, and I have some difficulty understanding the evident enthusiasm of so many to do so.
Britain before 1973 was an example of "primitive tribalism"? I thought we were helping to do a lot of civilised things before 1973 like defeating fascism in 1939-45.
This referendum is not really about the UK, it's about England and where England sees itself in the world.
Interesting. So do you think, in a way, that this referendum, and the way it is progressing, is partly a result of Sindy or at least strongly linked to it?
It's part of a long-term process, I'd say. I think it will end up with the UK as it's currently constructed ceasing to be. Botham framing it in terms of England undoubtedly reflects a strongly held sentiment among Leavers. Gove's is the only non-English accent prominently involved in the campaign and his seat is in Surrey. The Scots and the Welsh are watching on, essentially powerless to affect the debate.
“It’s no secret that Ted Cruz has some trouble with likeability,” the Republican strategist Harland Dorrinson said. “What better way to fix that than by choosing Carly Fiorina, a person everyone is absolutely crazy about?”
PS and everyone is so crazy about Fiorina that she didn't win a single delegate.
Yes, much truth there. As I said before, europhiles do not understand the eurosceptic mindset. They don't realise this is VISCERAL for many people: Nationhood. Sovereignty. Betrayal. For europhiles it's just about money and hoover laws and boring stuff. Why the fuss.
The same argument applies in reverse, as you're articulated in the past. You can make a visceral argument in favour of Europe and against the anachronistic and legalistic way of defining sovereignty.
One hundred years ago Europe was collectively going mad tearing itself to pieces and surrendering its global leadership role. Subsequently the UK came out of WWII as the only moral victor which blinded us to how diminished we were and the importance of Making Europe Great Again. That mission is just as important today and as one of the great nations of Europe we shouldn't ever stand aside and think that we're better off leaving them to it.
Indeed. For me, as a keen Remainer, the EU represents a triumph of cooperation for the people of Europe. No more dictatorial rule and pointless wars. Combined efforts on supranational issues such as fisheries and climate change. Freedom to live, work and trade across the whole continent that would have been unimaginable just a few generations ago. Sure, the EU has its flaws, as does any cooperative endeavour, but I would see Brexit as an ominous step back towards the primitive tribalism of the past, and I have some difficulty understanding the evident enthusiasm of so many to do so.
Britain before 1973 was an example of "primitive tribalism"? I thought we were helping to do a lot of civilised things before 1973 like defeating fascism in 1939-45.
And conglomerate corporations frequently split in order to survive, especially when the whole is too sclerotic to seize opportunities in a timely manner.
“It’s no secret that Ted Cruz has some trouble with likeability,” the Republican strategist Harland Dorrinson said. “What better way to fix that than by choosing Carly Fiorina, a person everyone is absolutely crazy about?”
LOL. Got this email from the Cruz campaign 44 minutes AFTER he told the world (and no, I am not nor have ever been a Cruz supporter. I would even prefer a President Trump to a President Cruz):
"Cruz For President
"Tim,
"I wanted you to be the first to know.
"It's my honor and privilege to introduce you to Carly Fiorina – the next Vice President of the United States.
"Carly and I are about to go on stage to make this important announcement official, but I wanted you – one of my closest and most loyal supporters – to hear it from me first. ....."
PS and everyone is so crazy about Fiorina that she didn't win a single delegate.
at least Betfair is up-to-date, she is 7 for GOP VP candidate and Cruz is 7 for GOP nominee.
I'm late to the party tonight, but have we done the Cruz/Fiorina discussion?
There was a great snarky headline for that on Fark, "Ted Cruz concedes California".
Still, they can stay up all night in campaign hotels and tell each other how much they hate Trump. That's if Cruz isn't in another room with [Redacted].
Yes, much truth there. As I said before, europhiles do not understand the eurosceptic mindset. They don't realise this is VISCERAL for many people: Nationhood. Sovereignty. Betrayal. For europhiles it's just about money and hoover laws and boring stuff. Why the fuss.
The same argument applies in reverse, as you're articulated in the past. You can make a visceral argument in favour of Europe and against the anachronistic and legalistic way of defining sovereignty.
One hundred years ago Europe was collectively going mad tearing itself to pieces and surrendering its global leadership role. Subsequently the UK came out of WWII as the only moral victor which blinded us to how diminished we were and the importance of Making Europe Great Again. That mission is just as important today and as one of the great nations of Europe we shouldn't ever stand aside and think that we're better off leaving them to it.
Indeed. For me, as a keen Remainer, the EU represents a triumph of cooperation for the people of Europe. No more dictatorial rule and pointless wars. Combined efforts on supranational issues such as fisheries and climate change. Freedom to live, work and trade across the whole continent that would have been unimaginable just a few generations ago. Sure, the EU has its flaws, as does any cooperative endeavour, but I would see Brexit as an ominous step back towards the primitive tribalism of the past, and I have some difficulty understanding the evident enthusiasm of so many to do so.
Britain before 1973 was an example of "primitive tribalism"? I thought we were helping to do a lot of civilised things before 1973 like defeating fascism in 1939-45.
And conglomerate corporations frequently split in order to survive, especially when the whole is too sclerotic to seize opportunities in a timely manner.
Right, so it's obviously time for the City of London to shed itself of its host and for Cornwall to bring in a troubleshooter leader from the hospitality industry...
I'm late to the party tonight, but have we done the Cruz/Fiorina discussion?
There was a great snarky headline for that on Fark, "Ted Cruz concedes California".
Still, they can stay up all night in campaign hotels and tell each other how much they hate Trump. That's if Cruz isn't in another room with [Redacted].
Yes, much truth there. As I said before, europhiles do not understand the eurosceptic mindset. They don't realise this is VISCERAL for many people: Nationhood. Sovereignty. Betrayal. For europhiles it's just about money and hoover laws and boring stuff. Why the fuss.
The same argument applies in reverse, as you're articulated in the past. You can make a visceral argument in favour of Europe and against the anachronistic and legalistic way of defining sovereignty.
One hundred years ago Europe was collectively going mad tearing itself to pieces and surrendering its global leadership role. Subsequently the UK came out of WWII as the only moral victor which blinded us to how diminished we were and the importance of Making Europe Great Again. That mission is just as important today and as one of the great nations of Europe we shouldn't ever stand aside and think that we're better off leaving them to it.
Indeed. For me, as a keen Remainer, the EU represents a triumph of cooperation for the people of Europe. No more dictatorial rule and pointless wars. Combined efforts on supranational issues such as fisheries and climate change. Freedom to live, work and trade across the whole continent that would have been unimaginable just a few generations ago. Sure, the EU has its flaws, as does any cooperative endeavour, but I would see Brexit as an ominous step back towards the primitive tribalism of the past, and I have some difficulty understanding the evident enthusiasm of so many to do so.
Britain before 1973 was an example of "primitive tribalism"? I thought we were helping to do a lot of civilised things before 1973 like defeating fascism in 1939-45.
And conglomerate corporations frequently split in order to survive, especially when the whole is too sclerotic to seize opportunities in a timely manner.
Right, so it's obviously time for the City of London to shed itself of its host and for Cornwall to bring in a troubleshooter leader from the hospitality industry...
No, but bigger is not always better. And yes, I do believe that a Britain outside of the EU will fare better economically than a Britain inside the EU, and far better than the average of EU countries.
UKIP are up 7% on the general election and the Tories are down 7%, Labour could be largest party at the next election without adding a single Tory voter. Even if Remain narrowly win (which I still think likely) the UKIP problem will still be there, the Tories will need some swing back to be returned again
Yes, much truth there. As I said before, europhiles do not understand the eurosceptic mindset. They don't realise this is VISCERAL for many people: Nationhood. Sovereignty. Betrayal. For europhiles it's just about money and hoover laws and boring stuff. Why the fuss.
The same argument applies in reverse, as you're articulated in the past. You can make a visceral argument in favour of Europe and against the anachronistic and legalistic way of defining sovereignty.
One hundred years ago Europe was collectively going mad tearing itself to pieces and surrendering its global leadership role. Subsequently the UK came out of WWII as the only moral victor which blinded us to how diminished we were and the importance of Making Europe Great Again. That mission is just as important today and as one of the great nations of Europe we shouldn't ever stand aside and think that we're better off leaving them to it.
Indeed. For me, as a keen Remainer, the EU represents a triumph of cooperation for the people of Europe. No more dictatorial rule and pointless wars. Combined efforts on supranational issues such as fisheries and climate change. Freedom to live, work and trade across the whole continent that would have been unimaginable just a few generations ago. Sure, the EU has its flaws, as does any cooperative endeavour, but I would see Brexit as an ominous step back towards the primitive tribalism of the past, and I have some difficulty understanding the evident enthusiasm of so many to do so.
Yes, much truth there. As I said before, europhiles do not understand the eurosceptic mindset. They don't realise this is VISCERAL for many people: Nationhood. Sovereignty. Betrayal. For europhiles it's just about money and hoover laws and boring stuff. Why the fuss.
The same argument applies in reverse, as you're articulated in the past. You can make a visceral argument in favour of Europe and against the anachronistic and legalistic way of defining sovereignty.
One hundred years ago Europe was collectively going mad tearing itself to pieces and surrendering its global leadership role. Subsequently the UK came out of WWII as the only moral victor which blinded us to how diminished we were and the importance of Making Europe Great Again. That mission is just as important today and as one of the great nations of Europe we shouldn't ever stand aside and think that we're better off leaving them to it.
Indeed. For me, as a keen Remainer, the EU represents a triumph of cooperation for the people of Europe. No more dictatorial rule and pointless wars. Combined efforts on supranational issues such as fisheries and climate change. Freedom to live, work and trade across the whole continent that would have been unimaginable just a few generations ago. Sure, the EU has its flaws, as does any cooperative endeavour, but I would see Brexit as an ominous step back towards the primitive tribalism of the past, and I have some difficulty understanding the evident enthusiasm of so many to do so.
Looks like Trump has reset his campaign tonight a little to be POTUS candidate and not GOP nominee candidate.
His foreign policy talk seems to have gone down like a lead balloon. And this picture is hardly one of someone brimming with confidence and 'Presidential'.
Looks like Trump has reset his campaign tonight a little to be POTUS candidate and not GOP nominee candidate.
His foreign policy talk seems to have gone down like a lead balloon. And this picture is hardly one of someone brimming with confidence and 'Presidential'.
Looks like Trump has reset his campaign tonight a little to be POTUS candidate and not GOP nominee candidate.
His foreign policy talk seems to have gone down like a lead balloon. And this picture is hardly one of someone brimming with confidence and 'Presidential'.
Not sure his supporters give a damn about that speech, but it might be important for the independents and swing voters he needs to get to Pennsylvania Avenue.
Yes, much truth there. As I said before, europhiles do not understand the eurosceptic mindset. They don't realise this is VISCERAL for many people: Nationhood. Sovereignty. Betrayal. For europhiles it's just about money and hoover laws and boring stuff. Why the fuss.
The same argument applies in reverse, as you're articulated in the past. You can make a visceral argument in favour of Europe and against the anachronistic and legalistic way of defining sovereignty.
One hundred years ago Europe was collectively going mad tearing itself to pieces and surrendering its global leadership role. Subsequently the UK came out of WWII as the only moral victor which blinded us to how diminished we were and the importance of Making Europe Great Again. That mission is just as important today and as one of the great nations of Europe we shouldn't ever stand aside and think that we're better off leaving them to it.
Indeed. For me, as a keen Remainer, the EU represents a triumph of cooperation for the people of Europe. No more dictatorial rule and pointless wars. Combined efforts on supranational issues such as fisheries and climate change. Freedom to live, work and trade across the whole continent that would have been unimaginable just a few generations ago. Sure, the EU has its flaws, as does any cooperative endeavour, but I would see Brexit as an ominous step back towards the primitive tribalism of the past, and I have some difficulty understanding the evident enthusiasm of so many to do so.
Where to begin... Cooperation... Tribalism...
Fisheries? Really?
Without a common fisheries policy, it's hard to see how fish stocks could have lasted this long. Given that fish are no respecters of territorial waters, each nation would have had a strong incentive to maximise their catches before the fish were caught by other nations. Tragedy of the commons.
On the matter of balance in this website's leading articles, I had a look at the articles since my little item on the 18th April which can be assessed as "anti REMAIN" because it suggested a mistake by Cameron in his tactics.
Since that article, on the subject of the referendum IMHO there were:- 3 articles proLEAVE/antiREMAIN, 5 articles neutral, 8 articles antiLEAVE/proREMAIN
During that period the evidence in recent polls is that LEAVE has improved vs REMAIN. Does this website have to be balanced? The answer is of course No. Do LEAVE supporters have some justification to complain about it? The answer is Yes. I therefore leave the main authors to think about this.
How about a series of articles digging deep into recent polls to see how valid the weightings and samples they are now using compared to the findings from the review of GE2016? Now that would add some real value to the website compared to what we can read elsewhere.
Jacqui Smith on Sky News paper review: ludicrous for Cameron to have EU referendum in the first place.
Yes but it was coalition policy fodder to be dropped when the tories didn't quite win a majority.. Then they won acmajority and discovered they had no means of avoiding one...
Leavers using "Yes we can" - this is exactly what they need. It's the hope/change angle they were missing but with a bit of cheeky anti-establishment cynicism thrown it. They should drop "Take back control" thing and run with this.
The tables aren't up, but looks like the supplementaries indicate Osborne/Obama/General economic announcements have moved voters to In, think Leave is worse for jobs & the economy
'Without a common fisheries policy, it's hard to see how fish stocks could have lasted this long.'
Before we joined the Common Market and Heath gave up our territorial waters we had a significant and thriving fishing industry which after 40 years of membership has been decimated.
Looks like Osborne's report has worked for Remain.
TSE: What have I done?
Darth Gideon (aka Chancellor Osborne): You are fulfilling your destiny, TSE. Become my apprentice. Learn to use the Daft Side of the Force. There's no turning back now.
TSE: I will do whatever you ask. Just help me save Theresa's political career. I can't live without her. If she resigns, I don't know what I will do.
Darth Gideon: To cheat political osbcurity is a power only one has achieved through centuries of the study of the Force. But if we work together, I know we can discover the secret to eternal AV Threads!
TSE: I pledge myself to your teachings. To the ways of the REMAIN Campaign.
Darth Gideon: Good. Good! The Force is strong with you, TSE. A powerful REMAINER you will become. Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth... Eagles.
So if UKIP clean up in the local elections in May, what does that do to the referendum in June? On the one hand leave get a lot of MOMENTUM and lots of positive media coverage, but on the other they're more closely associated with UKIP and anti-UKIP people are more motivated to turn out.
One of the most unexpected things about the US primary season is that it's quite possible Trump will reach the required number of delegates before Clinton does. Trump currently has about 80% of the target and Clinton roughly 70% (excl. superdelegates).
If the Tory Remainers seriously thought they were going to walk this referendum then they are utter morons. Anyone with half a brain could have told them it would be too close to call. Not understanding this shows Corbynesque levels of political judgement. And then on the other side you've got the increasingly ridiculous Boris, IDS, Patel, Grayling et al. God help us all!!
It's been pretty unedifying so far. For me the highlight to date is May's speech - even though I disagree with her on the ECHR.......I was disappointed by Gove's effort - seemed a bit below par, and of course 'the Albanian model' will run & run.....
The really big betting opportunity over recent weeks, largely missed or seemingly ignored, not least by the clever PB thread writers has been the extraordinary movement in Donald Trump's odds against him becoming the the GOP nominee for POTUS. Just a few short weeks ago these odds on Betfair were around 1.25 (i.e. 1/4 in old money), then two weeks ago the odds lengthened to around 2.0 (i.e. evens), only to shorten back to 1.25 again over the past few days. So two really big opportunities to have made money on the betting exchange over the course of the past 2 - 3 weeks, which frankly was not really identified and majored upon by PB.com, despite now looking so blindingly obvious with the benefit of that wonderful thing known as hindsight.
Speaking of which, I wonder whether we'll ever see Trump's outright POTUS odds back at the 6.2/6.4 level with Betfair as highlighted by Pulpstar a couple of days ago, which have since shortened to 5.4/5.5 in what was already then and now ever more of a two horse race.
That question gets dangerously close to push-polling in that it seeks to frame the debate as a particular binary choice.
One has to ask how much the issues were explained to them. Did they know for example that we don't have free trade with China, US, Brazil, India or indeed most of our non-EU trading partners, largely because we are in the EU and after many rounds of discussions they are either making slow progress (india has completed 7 rounds of talks without agreement, mercosur is going to be bad for the UK, TTIP is founding) or have been kicked into the long grass (China), and yet we do very large amounts of trade with these countries, all the same.
.....and the run up to the EU breaking a country ( even if it was their own fault) will be right before our own referendum. Great timing guys ....way to go!
I think we will see the decision deferred in some way until the UK votes remain then the EU will surgically remove the Greeks marbles with a blunt spoon.
The really big betting opportunity over recent weeks, largely missed or seemingly ignored, not least by the clever PB thread writers has been the extraordinary movement in Donald Trump's odds against him becoming the the GOP nominee for POTUS. Just a few short weeks ago these odds on Betfair were around 1.25 (i.e. 1/4 in old money), then two weeks ago the odds lengthened to around 2.0 (i.e. evens), only to shorten back to 1.25 again over the past few days. So two really big opportunities to have made money on the betting exchange over the course of the past 2 - 3 weeks, which frankly was not really identified and majored upon by PB.com, despite now looking so blindingly obvious with the benefit of that wonderful thing known as hindsight.
Speaking of which, I wonder whether we'll ever see Trump's outright POTUS odds back at the 6.2/6.4 level with Betfair as highlighted by Pulpstar a couple of days ago, which have since shortened to 5.4/5.5 in what was already then and now ever more of a two horse race.
I'm not an expert and don't follow it closely, but the question that needed to be asked was "had things changed in Wisconsin? Or was that result always going to happen?" I think someone on here said that the hiatus of primaries allowed talk to develop of how Trump would be stopped and people believed it.
Yes, much truth there. As I said before, europhiles do not understand the eurosceptic mindset. They don't realise this is VISCERAL for many people: Nationhood. Sovereignty. Betrayal. For europhiles it's just about money and hoover laws and boring stuff. Why the fuss.
The same argument applies in reverse, as you're articulated in the past. You can make a visceral argument in favour of Europe and against the anachronistic and legalistic way of defining sovereignty.
One hundred years ago Europe was collectively going mad tearing itself to pieces and surrendering its global leadership role. Subsequently the UK came out of WWII as the only moral victor which blinded us to how diminished we were and the importance of Making Europe Great Again. That mission is just as important today and as one of the great nations of Europe we shouldn't ever stand aside and think that we're better off leaving them to it.
Indeed. For me, as a keen Remainer, the EU represents a triumph of cooperation for the people of Europe. No more dictatorial rule and pointless wars. Combined efforts on supranational issues such as fisheries and climate change. Freedom to live, work and trade across the whole continent that would have been unimaginable just a few generations ago. Sure, the EU has its flaws, as does any cooperative endeavour, but I would see Brexit as an ominous step back towards the primitive tribalism of the past, and I have some difficulty understanding the evident enthusiasm of so many to do so.
Where to begin... Cooperation... Tribalism...
Fisheries? Really?
Without a common fisheries policy, it's hard to see how fish stocks could have lasted this long. Given that fish are no respecters of territorial waters, each nation would have had a strong incentive to maximise their catches before the fish were caught by other nations. Tragedy of the commons.
That is a stunningly bad interpretation of reality. It was the CFP which helped destroy fish stocks. One only has to look at two examples - Norwegian waters where staying out of the CFP is probably what saved North and Norwegian Sea fish stocks and the Irish Box where opening up the area to the CFP resulted in a catastrophic collapse.
Very good article in the telegraph today, might be a bit pro-BrExit for some tastes, but if so leave that part to one side and concentrate on the message to the Tories on dropping the narrowness and negativity on policy generally and appealing to a broader electorate, especially the younger voters
There are no positive visions of the future of the sort that could inspire young people, no attempt to explain that centre-Right policies are the ethically correct choice. The Big Society was the only exception but it was sold badly and quietly abandoned.
Even worse, the other Tory tactic is retreat: on bashing banks, on taxes, the living wage, foreign aid and numerous other areas, the Government has accepted that we need Left-wing solutions, just milder ones than Corbyn suggests. The result is endless surrenders: on welfare cuts, on trade union reforms, on Sunday trading.
Jacqui Smith on Sky News paper review: ludicrous for Cameron to have EU referendum in the first place.
You see, this is where I credit Cameron.
Labour would *never* in a million years have allowed a referendum, or even thought about trusting the people, as is perfectly clear from comments from some of the leading politicians of the New Labour years, and their cheerleaders in the media. Some of whom have even suggested blithely "ignoring" a Leave result.
For all his faults, and he has made me furious during this campaign, Cameron made the pledge and is delivering on the pledge*.
(I'll be generous and gloss over, for now, the other EU pledges in the past he hasn't managed to keep, and how he's trying to ensure the deck is well-stacked this time)
The really big betting opportunity over recent weeks, largely missed or seemingly ignored, not least by the clever PB thread writers has been the extraordinary movement in Donald Trump's odds against him becoming the the GOP nominee for POTUS. Just a few short weeks ago these odds on Betfair were around 1.25 (i.e. 1/4 in old money), then two weeks ago the odds lengthened to around 2.0 (i.e. evens), only to shorten back to 1.25 again over the past few days. So two really big opportunities to have made money on the betting exchange over the course of the past 2 - 3 weeks, which frankly was not really identified and majored upon by PB.com, despite now looking so blindingly obvious with the benefit of that wonderful thing known as hindsight.
Speaking of which, I wonder whether we'll ever see Trump's outright POTUS odds back at the 6.2/6.4 level with Betfair as highlighted by Pulpstar a couple of days ago, which have since shortened to 5.4/5.5 in what was already then and now ever more of a two horse race.
I did do a piece a couple of weeks ago suggesting laying off Trump, though that was probably a touch late in the day. However, having tipped him throughout the race at longer odds throughout, that was to some extent banking profits.
But yes, there was a big opportunity in a short time to make and then lock a(nother) profit.
How easy was it to foresee that? Not particularly. The drive down in Trump's price was due to him doing silly things at unpredictable moments. While he's always had the capacity to do something stupid (and still does), there was no way of foretelling the abortion row or his excessive (even to him) willingness to pick fights within the party. The combined effect of those made it look like the GOP were heading for a brokered convention, and that anything short of 1237 would be legitimate in denying him the crown.
So the downside. Then the up. Could his NE primary successes have been foreseen on the scale they came in at? Yes, there was polling but Trump outperformed it. We could - and should - have foreseen that New York would probably act as a boost but it still all turned on Trump not doubling down on his errors. To his credit, he has put past blunders behind him by admitting his errors - but anticipating his rebound meant anticipating his not making any more which was something of a stab in the dark. His odds were rather like a cricket match where the batting side recovers from a collapse with a good partnership but it'd only take one wicket to throw them back again - and the batsmen at the crease have a history of swinging out.
Just to follow up on PtP's comment again, the site has been dominated by the referendum recently, which as the major domestic political event in non-metropolitan England at the moment isn't surprising. It has consequences well beyond June.
But it has crowded out the abundance of other markets to some extent. Not only the US presidential but the coverage given the Scottish election, compared to that given in 2011, is much less. That's unsurprising: there was less going on in 2011 (though we did have a referendum then too).
The really big betting opportunity over recent weeks, largely missed or seemingly ignored, not least by the clever PB thread writers has been the extraordinary movement in Donald Trump's odds against him becoming the the GOP nominee for POTUS. Just a few short weeks ago these odds on Betfair were around 1.25 (i.e. 1/4 in old money), then two weeks ago the odds lengthened to around 2.0 (i.e. evens), only to shorten back to 1.25 again over the past few days. So two really big opportunities to have made money on the betting exchange over the course of the past 2 - 3 weeks, which frankly was not really identified and majored upon by PB.com, despite now looking so blindingly obvious with the benefit of that wonderful thing known as hindsight.
Speaking of which, I wonder whether we'll ever see Trump's outright POTUS odds back at the 6.2/6.4 level with Betfair as highlighted by Pulpstar a couple of days ago, which have since shortened to 5.4/5.5 in what was already then and now ever more of a two horse race.
The 1.5 for no second ballot tipped up by White Rabbit (Now 1.4) is a huge price at Paddy's still
Jacqui Smith on Sky News paper review: ludicrous for Cameron to have EU referendum in the first place.
You see, this is where I credit Cameron.
Labour would *never* in a million years have allowed a referendum, or even thought about trusting the people, as is perfectly clear from comments from some of the leading politicians of the New Labour years, and their cheerleaders in the media. Some of whom have even suggested blithely "ignoring" a Leave result.
For all his faults, and he has made me furious during this campaign, Cameron made the pledge and is delivering on the pledge*.
(I'll be generous and gloss over, for now, the other EU pledges in the past he hasn't managed to keep, and how he's trying to ensure the deck is well-stacked this time)
Didn't Cameron make the referendum pledge, when he and everyone else thought that Labour would win the GE last year, and so never expected to be PM?
(I'll be generous and gloss over, for now, the other EU pledges in the past he hasn't managed to keep, and how he's trying to ensure the deck is well-stacked this time)
And that the expectation was to drop this one in coalition talks until he unexpectedly got a majority, and was lumbered with it.
That question gets dangerously close to push-polling in that it seeks to frame the debate as a particular binary choice.
Not necessarily. Opponents of independence in Scotland, almost to a man and woman, think that it would be bad for the Scottish economy. Supporters , again almost to a man and woman, think that it would it would make no difference or may even help the economy, No-one claims to support a position on principle thinking there's a detriment.
In this case, supporters of Brexit believe there's no economic risk to Britain leaving the free trade arrangements with the EU.
Just to follow up on PtP's comment again, the site has been dominated by the referendum recently, which as the major domestic political event in non-metropolitan England at the moment isn't surprising. It has consequences well beyond June.
Hear hear.
Perhaps if we could drop half the articles ramping for Remain which heavily outnumber those for Leave (yes, we all know the reasons why) and include more articles on other topics I am sure tempers would be less frayed all around.
In this case, supporters of Brexit believe there's no economic risk to Britain leaving the free trade arrangements with the EU.
I think that is the minority of Leaver's, most acknowledge the potential for some modest short terms economic issues, but feel they have been massively overblown in terms of both scale and duration, and that that would be easily outweighed in the medium to long term by stronger performance.
My problem with this poll is the implication that trade would stop or get dramatically worse with the EU outside of the four freedoms, and I am not sure there is much evidence for that, people will still want to buy and sell the same things, the changes in tariffs will be miniscule, and unlikely to have much effect, there will be some inconvenience and hence loss of profit to some companies who compete in those markets, but they will get over it, and over time will expand into other markets to compensate. Ultimately all sorts of non-EU countries (China! USA!) with no free trade agreement sell very successfully into the EU right now, to it is fatuous to suggest we could not.
The really big betting opportunity over recent weeks, largely missed or seemingly ignored, not least by the clever PB thread writers has been the extraordinary movement in Donald Trump's odds against him becoming the the GOP nominee for POTUS. Just a few short weeks ago these odds on Betfair were around 1.25 (i.e. 1/4 in old money), then two weeks ago the odds lengthened to around 2.0 (i.e. evens), only to shorten back to 1.25 again over the past few days. So two really big opportunities to have made money on the betting exchange over the course of the past 2 - 3 weeks, which frankly was not really identified and majored upon by PB.com, despite now looking so blindingly obvious with the benefit of that wonderful thing known as hindsight.
Speaking of which, I wonder whether we'll ever see Trump's outright POTUS odds back at the 6.2/6.4 level with Betfair as highlighted by Pulpstar a couple of days ago, which have since shortened to 5.4/5.5 in what was already then and now ever more of a two horse race.
That's very true. There were some useful BTL posts (particularly in the first phase) that I remember but it's not something the site highlighted.
Jacqui Smith on Sky News paper review: ludicrous for Cameron to have EU referendum in the first place.
You see, this is where I credit Cameron.
Labour would *never* in a million years have allowed a referendum, or even thought about trusting the people, as is perfectly clear from comments from some of the leading politicians of the New Labour years, and their cheerleaders in the media. Some of whom have even suggested blithely "ignoring" a Leave result.
For all his faults, and he has made me furious during this campaign, Cameron made the pledge and is delivering on the pledge*.
(I'll be generous and gloss over, for now, the other EU pledges in the past he hasn't managed to keep, and how he's trying to ensure the deck is well-stacked this time)
Didn't Cameron make the referendum pledge, when he and everyone else thought that Labour would win the GE last year, and so never expected to be PM?
No, up until May last year he was still angling for a second coalition with the Lib Dems. He expected 20-30 LDs left rather than eight. The pledge was certainly made in part to kick the can down the road in the last parliament but was made in good faith all the same.
Worth noting that the LDs offered an In/Out referendum in 2005 on the Constitution, so would have found the concept difficult to reject
That question gets dangerously close to push-polling in that it seeks to frame the debate as a particular binary choice.
Not necessarily. Opponents of independence in Scotland, almost to a man and woman, think that it would be bad for the Scottish economy. Supporters , again almost to a man and woman, think that it would it would make no difference or may even help the economy, No-one claims to support a position on principle thinking there's a detriment.
In this case, supporters of Brexit believe there's no economic risk to Britain leaving the free trade arrangements with the EU.
We should also know the exact question asked.
The question -- at least as it can be inferred from the tweet -- implies there will be a trade embargo should one side win. That is what push-polling is.
Just to follow up on PtP's comment again, the site has been dominated by the referendum recently, which as the major domestic political event in non-metropolitan England at the moment isn't surprising. It has consequences well beyond June.
But it has crowded out the abundance of other markets to some extent. Not only the US presidential but the coverage given the Scottish election, compared to that given in 2011, is much less. That's unsurprising: there was less going on in 2011 (though we did have a referendum then too).
The thing is, the referendum discussion rarely touches on betting at all.
That question gets dangerously close to push-polling in that it seeks to frame the debate as a particular binary choice.
Not necessarily. Opponents of independence in Scotland, almost to a man and woman, think that it would be bad for the Scottish economy. Supporters , again almost to a man and woman, think that it would it would make no difference or may even help the economy, No-one claims to support a position on principle thinking there's a detriment.
In this case, supporters of Brexit believe there's no economic risk to Britain leaving the free trade arrangements with the EU.
We should also know the exact question asked.
The question -- at least as it can be inferred from the tweet -- implies there will be a trade embargo should one side win. That is what push-polling is.
You're right. You were referring to the question and I was really talking about the answer. It would be useful to know what the actual question was though. Tweets have a tendency to misrepresent polls.
Labour had a bit of a PR mare yesterday. What they need now is a calm and steady hand, someone renowned for their PR nous, a guaranteed media performer, unlikely to gaffe.
Step forward Lucy Powell...
@PolhomeEditor: Lucy Powell refuses to say she'd be happy to sit alongside Naz Shah in the Commons. "I don't want to pre-determine the investigation."
Jacqui Smith on Sky News paper review: ludicrous for Cameron to have EU referendum in the first place.
You see, this is where I credit Cameron.
Labour would *never* in a million years have allowed a referendum, or even thought about trusting the people, as is perfectly clear from comments from some of the leading politicians of the New Labour years, and their cheerleaders in the media. Some of whom have even suggested blithely "ignoring" a Leave result.
For all his faults, and he has made me furious during this campaign, Cameron made the pledge and is delivering on the pledge*.
(I'll be generous and gloss over, for now, the other EU pledges in the past he hasn't managed to keep, and how he's trying to ensure the deck is well-stacked this time)
Didn't Cameron make the referendum pledge, when he and everyone else thought that Labour would win the GE last year, and so never expected to be PM?
He made the pledge to get him through a difficult political moment when the Tory right had him over a barrel. Without that there'd be no referendum now. Within Labour the same dynamics don't exist so it's not something a Labour leader would ever be forced into doing.
The really big betting opportunity over recent weeks, largely missed or seemingly ignored, not least by the clever PB thread writers has been the extraordinary movement in Donald Trump's odds against him becoming the the GOP nominee for POTUS. Just a few short weeks ago these odds on Betfair were around 1.25 (i.e. 1/4 in old money), then two weeks ago the odds lengthened to around 2.0 (i.e. evens), only to shorten back to 1.25 again over the past few days. So two really big opportunities to have made money on the betting exchange over the course of the past 2 - 3 weeks, which frankly was not really identified and majored upon by PB.com, despite now looking so blindingly obvious with the benefit of that wonderful thing known as hindsight.
Speaking of which, I wonder whether we'll ever see Trump's outright POTUS odds back at the 6.2/6.4 level with Betfair as highlighted by Pulpstar a couple of days ago, which have since shortened to 5.4/5.5 in what was already then and now ever more of a two horse race.
I'm not an expert and don't follow it closely, but the question that needed to be asked was "had things changed in Wisconsin? Or was that result always going to happen?" I think someone on here said that the hiatus of primaries allowed talk to develop of how Trump would be stopped and people believed it.
That was me, the betting market has been a battle between NeverTrumps and reality. Every time Trump won a primary reality pushed his price in, every time there was a pause NeverTrumps pushed his price out. The big gap before New York allowed NeverTrumps plenty of time to chuck their money away pushing his price way put with talk of delegate shennanigans at a brokered convention.
Alas I didn't follow my own excellent advice and stick more on Trump when he went above evens pre new York.
Comments
Maybe this will change closer to the date of the referendum.
For instance in the latest ICM poll Leave has a 2 point lead, but with those 10/10 certain to vote that lead expanded to 8.5 points.
“It’s no secret that Ted Cruz has some trouble with likeability,” the Republican strategist Harland Dorrinson said. “What better way to fix that than by choosing Carly Fiorina, a person everyone is absolutely crazy about?”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwA-5RleSBydcW41TmdEZXRVTFk/view?pref=2&pli=1
And then there was a suggestion that some Conservative MPs would refuse to support the necessary parliamentary moves to execute the referendum decision.
Again, one wonders where these ideas came from.
LOL. Got this email from the Cruz campaign 44 minutes AFTER he told the world (and no, I am not nor have ever been a Cruz supporter. I would even prefer a President Trump to a President Cruz):
"Cruz For President
"Tim,
"I wanted you to be the first to know.
"It's my honor and privilege to introduce you to Carly Fiorina – the next Vice President of the United States.
"Carly and I are about to go on stage to make this important announcement official, but I wanted you – one of my closest and most loyal supporters – to hear it from me first. ....."
PS and everyone is so crazy about Fiorina that she didn't win a single delegate.
10/10 certainty declarations are usually based on what the voter says. Young voters typically overestimate whether they will vote or not.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-reaction-222544
PS I do understand that the policy geeks who trashed him today are precisely those who failed to understand the rise of Trumpism ...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/27/tusk-rejects-tsipras-request-eu-summit-greece-bailout
debt maturing in July.
'Without a common fisheries policy, it's hard to see how fish stocks could have lasted this long.'
Before we joined the Common Market and Heath gave up our territorial waters we had a significant and thriving fishing industry which after 40 years of membership has been decimated.
"Broadheath ward election in Widnes due to be uncontested for third successive year"
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/local-news/broadheath-ward-election-widnes-due-11206972
Darth Gideon (aka Chancellor Osborne): You are fulfilling your destiny, TSE. Become my apprentice. Learn to use the Daft Side of the Force. There's no turning back now.
TSE: I will do whatever you ask. Just help me save Theresa's political career. I can't live without her. If she resigns, I don't know what I will do.
Darth Gideon: To cheat political osbcurity is a power only one has achieved through centuries of the study of the Force. But if we work together, I know we can discover the secret to eternal AV Threads!
TSE: I pledge myself to your teachings. To the ways of the REMAIN Campaign.
Darth Gideon: Good. Good! The Force is strong with you, TSE. A powerful REMAINER you will become. Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth... Eagles.
TSE: Thank you... my Master.
Darth Gideon: Lord Eagles... rise.
Boris knows how to best US Presidential level nay sayers.
2 out of 2, so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uus-qT8FIIE
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/30/upshot/trump-clinton-delegate-calculator.html
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/2016-donald-trump-blame-tv-cable-news-media-campbell-brown-campaign-cnn-fox-msnbc-213839
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/2016-heffernan-twitter-media-donald-trump-barack-obama-telemprompter-president-213825
So two really big opportunities to have made money on the betting exchange over the course of the past 2 - 3 weeks, which frankly was not really identified and majored upon by PB.com, despite now looking so blindingly obvious with the benefit of that wonderful thing known as hindsight.
Speaking of which, I wonder whether we'll ever see Trump's outright POTUS odds back at the 6.2/6.4 level with Betfair as highlighted by Pulpstar a couple of days ago, which have since shortened to 5.4/5.5 in what was already then and now ever more of a two horse race.
12:32AM
meanwhile, here's a thing:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/27/tusk-rejects-tsipras-request-eu-summit-greece-bailout
debt maturing in July
.....and the run up to the EU breaking a country ( even if it was their own fault) will be right before our own referendum. Great timing guys ....way to go!
I think we will see the decision deferred in some way until the UK votes remain then the EU will surgically remove the Greeks marbles with a blunt spoon.
He's a disgrace and I can't wait to see the Tory party bring him down.
Although expect Nabavi & Co to come along and try to justify it shortly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/27/only-brexit-can-force-the-tories-to-abandon-fear-and-win-young-h/
Labour would *never* in a million years have allowed a referendum, or even thought about trusting the people, as is perfectly clear from comments from some of the leading politicians of the New Labour years, and their cheerleaders in the media. Some of whom have even suggested blithely "ignoring" a Leave result.
For all his faults, and he has made me furious during this campaign, Cameron made the pledge and is delivering on the pledge*.
(I'll be generous and gloss over, for now, the other EU pledges in the past he hasn't managed to keep, and how he's trying to ensure the deck is well-stacked this time)
But yes, there was a big opportunity in a short time to make and then lock a(nother) profit.
How easy was it to foresee that? Not particularly. The drive down in Trump's price was due to him doing silly things at unpredictable moments. While he's always had the capacity to do something stupid (and still does), there was no way of foretelling the abortion row or his excessive (even to him) willingness to pick fights within the party. The combined effect of those made it look like the GOP were heading for a brokered convention, and that anything short of 1237 would be legitimate in denying him the crown.
So the downside. Then the up. Could his NE primary successes have been foreseen on the scale they came in at? Yes, there was polling but Trump outperformed it. We could - and should - have foreseen that New York would probably act as a boost but it still all turned on Trump not doubling down on his errors. To his credit, he has put past blunders behind him by admitting his errors - but anticipating his rebound meant anticipating his not making any more which was something of a stab in the dark. His odds were rather like a cricket match where the batting side recovers from a collapse with a good partnership but it'd only take one wicket to throw them back again - and the batsmen at the crease have a history of swinging out.
Gave the Times a quick glance this morning and it's full of woe for the economy, with a Brexit or no.
But it has crowded out the abundance of other markets to some extent. Not only the US presidential but the coverage given the Scottish election, compared to that given in 2011, is much less. That's unsurprising: there was less going on in 2011 (though we did have a referendum then too).
In this case, supporters of Brexit believe there's no economic risk to Britain leaving the free trade arrangements with the EU.
We should also know the exact question asked.
Perhaps if we could drop half the articles ramping for Remain which heavily outnumber those for Leave (yes, we all know the reasons why) and include more articles on other topics I am sure tempers would be less frayed all around.
My problem with this poll is the implication that trade would stop or get dramatically worse with the EU outside of the four freedoms, and I am not sure there is much evidence for that, people will still want to buy and sell the same things, the changes in tariffs will be miniscule, and unlikely to have much effect, there will be some inconvenience and hence loss of profit to some companies who compete in those markets, but they will get over it, and over time will expand into other markets to compensate. Ultimately all sorts of non-EU countries (China! USA!) with no free trade agreement sell very successfully into the EU right now, to it is fatuous to suggest we could not.
Worth noting that the LDs offered an In/Out referendum in 2005 on the Constitution, so would have found the concept difficult to reject
Labour had a bit of a PR mare yesterday. What they need now is a calm and steady hand, someone renowned for their PR nous, a guaranteed media performer, unlikely to gaffe.
Step forward Lucy Powell...
@PolhomeEditor: Lucy Powell refuses to say she'd be happy to sit alongside Naz Shah in the Commons. "I don't want to pre-determine the investigation."
Alas I didn't follow my own excellent advice and stick more on Trump when he went above evens pre new York.