Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 1 would result in riots. Scenario 2 would result in stern letters to the London Review of Books.
But more seriously, I think reversing the decision of the British people when the result is not the status quo would play out terribly, and far worse than the opposite.
2. The REMAINIANS are whistling to keep their spirits up and relying on the wrongness of online polls. This strikes me as stupid. No one knows with euroref. The vote is sui generis. Turnout is all and that is utterly unpredictable.
Indeed.
A lot is going to come down to whether turnout patterns and motivations are more like a European election or a general election. Some people (Mark Senior this morning comes to mind) are convinced it will be more like a general election. I'm not so sure.
In the last Euros in 2014, the kippers did come first, but even then on 26.6% so very far from a majority. Add in the other anti-EU fringe parties and it comes to 30% ish. The Tories were on 23%
So even on a Euro turnout of 30-35% it is far from clear that Leave has it made.
My point is that at a euro election, UKIP consistently outperform their general/local election results.
Possibly so, but still not enough. Even doubling last weeks national voteshare is not enough.
Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
I find it hard to believe that a party will get more than 50% of the vote, or exceed the number of Remain/Leave votes.
I should have been clearer the referendum was going to have a low turnout.
Say 40% to 45% and the general election close to 70%
So would give the winning side(s) at a general election a larger mandate than the referendum winning side.
Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 1 - I suspect the hardcore Leavers would go en masse for whichever party promised to follow through in any case, to avoid just such a situation.
Scenario 2 - Having maintained it's something that need's a referendum, I don't see how any party would credibly argue winning a GE, which would be on less than the vote, was more of a mandate.
My own theory based on nothing but intuition is Dave wants to win this by a large majority on a high turnout to settle the matter for a generation.
I mean he's destroyed the Lib Dems, driven Labour mad, he just wants to destroy the Tory EU obsessives and make it a hat trick.
Exactly right. It's an absolutely massive potential prize if he can bring it off, and a massive disaster if he can't. Of course he's throwing the kitchen sink at it; he's not daft.
The massive potential prize of.....destroying the Tory party?
The massive potential prize of rescuing the Tory Party from this issue which has been a millstone around its neck for a quarter of a century.
That might have worked if Cameron hadn't divided his own party with 2016 antics.
Rising above the fray and bringing off a remain victory would have worked. Coming out for Leave and then getting a better deal might have worked Coming out for Leave and getting a resounding leave vote might have worked
So, in choosing the 4th best option for party unity and being on the winning side, you'll forgive my cynicism that his current strategy will help the party in the short, medium or long term.
Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 1 could happen if there were another referendum that was won after a mind-focusing campaign, as in the Irish cases.
The problem with Scenario 2 is the early election. I don't see who would precipitate it, or why.
My own theory based on nothing but intuition is Dave wants to win this by a large majority on a high turnout to settle the matter for a generation.
I mean he's destroyed the Lib Dems, driven Labour mad, he just wants to destroy the Tory EU obsessives and make it a hat trick.
Exactly right. It's an absolutely massive potential prize if he can bring it off, and a massive disaster if he can't. Of course he's throwing the kitchen sink at it; he's not daft.
The massive potential prize of.....destroying the Tory party?
The massive potential prize of rescuing the Tory Party from this issue which has been a millstone around its neck for a quarter of a century.
That might have worked if Cameron hadn't divided his own party with 2016 antics.
Rising above the fray and bringing off a remain victory would have worked. Coming out for Leave and then getting a better deal might have worked Coming out for Leave and getting a resounding leave vote might have worked
So, in choosing the 4th best option for party unity and being on the winning side, you'll forgive my cynicism that his current strategy will help the party in the short, medium or long term.
He hasn't divided his own party. It was already divided, but he has skilfully managed to keep the lid on that for a decade.
I agree option 1 would have been the best option, but it wasn't really available. I mean, would you leave Stuart Rose to run a campaign?
Option 2 was not possible; there was no better deal available ,alas. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair had given away most of the bargaining chips.
Option 3 is fine if you genuinely believe in it, but he doesn't, and he's a man of principle, so he's not going to dissemble over it.
That leaves Option 4: Go for it. So he did. We'll see if it works - those who are writing it off might be right, but alternatively they might be adding themselves to the long list of those who have under-estimated him and Osborne.
Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 1 would result in riots. Scenario 2 would result in stern letters to the London Review of Books.
But more seriously, I think reversing the decision of the British people when the result is not the status quo would play out terribly, and far worse than the opposite.
My US hedge fund customer was again pushing this line about the government ignoring a narrow LEAVE vote today, with a new variant being an alliance of Labour, Lib Dems and Cameron ar*elickers (my phrase) uniting to prevent Brexit.
Funnily enough, the idea of forcing a dissolution of parliament and fighting an election with this alliance of horrors was mentioned as well.
He's very well connected. I think these kinds of crazed ideas are being discussed in some Westminster circles.
My own theory based on nothing but intuition is Dave wants to win this by a large majority on a high turnout to settle the matter for a generation.
I mean he's destroyed the Lib Dems, driven Labour mad, he just wants to destroy the Tory EU obsessives and make it a hat trick.
Exactly right. It's an absolutely massive potential prize if he can bring it off, and a massive disaster if he can't. Of course he's throwing the kitchen sink at it; he's not daft.
The massive potential prize of.....destroying the Tory party?
The massive potential prize of rescuing the Tory Party from this issue which has been a millstone around its neck for a quarter of a century.
That might have worked if Cameron hadn't divided his own party with 2016 antics.
Rising above the fray and bringing off a remain victory would have worked. Coming out for Leave and then getting a better deal might have worked Coming out for Leave and getting a resounding leave vote might have worked
So, in choosing the 4th best option for party unity and being on the winning side, you'll forgive my cynicism that his current strategy will help the party in the short, medium or long term.
He hasn't divided his own party. It was already divided, but he has skilfully managed to keep the lid on that for a decade.
I agree option 1 would have been the best option, but it wasn't really available. I mean, would you leave Stuart Rose to run a campaign?
Option 2 was not possible; there was no better deal available ,alas. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair had given away most of the bargaining chips.
Option 3 is fine if you genuinely believe in it, but he doesn't, and he's a man of principle, so he's not going to dissemble over it.
That leaves Option 4: Go for it. So he did. We'll see if it works - those who are writing off might be right, but alternatively they might be adding themselves to the long list of those who have under-estimated him and Osborne.
I actually generally agree (though I think you are wrong about 2, was this really the best deal?!) - the divide was already there, he's not a Leaver despite making skeptic noises, so he needed to win big and go for it if that was what he thinks. I think he's wrong, but the idea there could have been party unity is a fantasy of Leavers not born of reality, even if, had Cameron been for Leave, it would have been a bit easier, party wise.
My own theory based on nothing but intuition is Dave wants to win this by a large majority on a high turnout to settle the matter for a generation.
I mean he's destroyed the Lib Dems, driven Labour mad, he just wants to destroy the Tory EU obsessives and make it a hat trick.
Exactly right. It's an absolutely massive potential prize if he can bring it off, and a massive disaster if he can't. Of course he's throwing the kitchen sink at it; he's not daft.
The massive potential prize of.....destroying the Tory party?
The massive potential prize of rescuing the Tory Party from this issue which has been a millstone around its neck for a quarter of a century.
That might have worked if Cameron hadn't divided his own party with 2016 antics.
Rising above the fray and bringing off a remain victory would have worked. Coming out for Leave and then getting a better deal might have worked Coming out for Leave and getting a resounding leave vote might have worked
So, in choosing the 4th best option for party unity and being on the winning side, you'll forgive my cynicism that his current strategy will help the party in the short, medium or long term.
He hasn't divided his own party. It was already divided, but he has skilfully managed to keep the lid on that for a decade.
I agree option 1 would have been the best option, but it wasn't really available. I mean, would you leave Stuart Rose to run a campaign?
Option 2 was not possible; there was no better deal available ,alas. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair had given away most of the bargaining chips.
Option 3 is fine if you genuinely believe in it, but he doesn't, and he's a man of principle, so he's not going to dissemble over it.
That leaves Option 4: Go for it. So he did. We'll see if it works - those who are writing it off might be right, but alternatively they might be adding themselves to the long list of those who have under-estimated him and Osborne.
Thanks for the honest reply Richard.
Stuart Rose has come out of this campaign really rather well.....for Leave.
Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 1 would result in riots. Scenario 2 would result in stern letters to the London Review of Books.
But more seriously, I think reversing the decision of the British people when the result is not the status quo would play out terribly, and far worse than the opposite.
My US hedge fund customer was again pushing this line about the government ignoring a narrow LEAVE vote today, with a new variant being an alliance of Labour, Lib Dems and Cameron ar*elickers (my phrase) uniting to prevent Brexit.
Funnily enough, the idea of forcing a dissolution of parliament and fighting an election with this alliance of horrors was mentioned as well.
He's very well connected. I think these kinds of crazed ideas are being discussed in some Westminster circles.
Surely at this point the Tory Party would act and remove the posh boys?
Forget pockets, that would be a great poster image.
While the message of the image is effective, I feel the pocket one is still better, it looks less awkward and fake, I feel giant person/little person in pocket just works better visually.
My own theory based on nothing but intuition is Dave wants to win this by a large majority on a high turnout to settle the matter for a generation.
I mean he's destroyed the Lib Dems, driven Labour mad, he just wants to destroy the Tory EU obsessives and make it a hat trick.
Exactly right. It's an absolutely massive potential prize if he can bring it off, and a massive disaster if he can't. Of course he's throwing the kitchen sink at it; he's not daft.
The massive potential prize of.....destroying the Tory party?
The massive potential prize of rescuing the Tory Party from this issue which has been a millstone around its neck for a quarter of a century.
That might have worked if Cameron hadn't divided his own party with 2016 antics.
Rising above the fray and bringing off a remain victory would have worked. Coming out for Leave and then getting a better deal might have worked Coming out for Leave and getting a resounding leave vote might have worked
So, in choosing the 4th best option for party unity and being on the winning side, you'll forgive my cynicism that his current strategy will help the party in the short, medium or long term.
He hasn't divided his own party.
Nonsense. If he'd come out for Leave he would have had 90% of the party with him.
Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 1 would result in riots. Scenario 2 would result in stern letters to the London Review of Books.
But more seriously, I think reversing the decision of the British people when the result is not the status quo would play out terribly, and far worse than the opposite.
My US hedge fund customer was again pushing this line about the government ignoring a narrow LEAVE vote today, with a new variant being an alliance of Labour, Lib Dems and Cameron ar*elickers (my phrase) uniting to prevent Brexit.
Funnily enough, the idea of forcing a dissolution of parliament and fighting an election with this alliance of horrors was mentioned as well.
He's very well connected. I think these kinds of crazed ideas are being discussed in some Westminster circles.
Surely at this point the Tory Party would act and remove the posh boys?
You'd think so. But if you do the maths they might only need a few dozen acolytes/ar*elickers to make something like this work. Cameron as Ramsay MacDonald...
I think it's pretty far-fetched. But it's an indication of how desperate parts of our political and bureaucratic establishment are to keep us in the EU.
Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 1 would result in riots. Scenario 2 would result in stern letters to the London Review of Books.
But more seriously, I think reversing the decision of the British people when the result is not the status quo would play out terribly, and far worse than the opposite.
My US hedge fund customer was again pushing this line about the government ignoring a narrow LEAVE vote today, with a new variant being an alliance of Labour, Lib Dems and Cameron ar*elickers (my phrase) uniting to prevent Brexit.
Funnily enough, the idea of forcing a dissolution of parliament and fighting an election with this alliance of horrors was mentioned as well.
He's very well connected. I think these kinds of crazed ideas are being discussed in some Westminster circles.
Surely at this point the Tory Party would act and remove the posh boys?
David Cameron has forgotten his history': Furious veterans turn on the PM for 'horrific decision to put words in the mouths of Second World War soldiers' in his bid to keep Britain in the EU
Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 1 would result in riots. Scenario 2 would result in stern letters to the London Review of Books.
But more seriously, I think reversing the decision of the British people when the result is not the status quo would play out terribly, and far worse than the opposite.
My US hedge fund customer was again pushing this line about the government ignoring a narrow LEAVE vote today, with a new variant being an alliance of Labour, Lib Dems and Cameron ar*elickers (my phrase) uniting to prevent Brexit.
Funnily enough, the idea of forcing a dissolution of parliament and fighting an election with this alliance of horrors was mentioned as well.
He's very well connected. I think these kinds of crazed ideas are being discussed in some Westminster circles.
Surely at this point the Tory Party would act and remove the posh boys?
'Absolute monarchy......moderated by regicide.'
Same number of US Presidents and Russian Tsars have been assassinated/murdered = 4.
(though five Tsars if you include Nicholas II in 1918).
Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 1 would result in riots. Scenario 2 would result in stern letters to the London Review of Books.
But more seriously, I think reversing the decision of the British people when the result is not the status quo would play out terribly, and far worse than the opposite.
My US hedge fund customer was again pushing this line about the government ignoring a narrow LEAVE vote today, with a new variant being an alliance of Labour, Lib Dems and Cameron ar*elickers (my phrase) uniting to prevent Brexit.
Funnily enough, the idea of forcing a dissolution of parliament and fighting an election with this alliance of horrors was mentioned as well.
He's very well connected. I think these kinds of crazed ideas are being discussed in some Westminster circles.
Surely at this point the Tory Party would act and remove the posh boys?
You'd think so. But if you do the maths they might only need a few dozen acolytes/ar*elickers to make something like this work. Cameron as Ramsay MacDonald...
I think it's pretty far-fetched. But it's an indication of how desperate parts of our political and bureaucratic establishment are to keep us in the EU.
Don't use up all your tinfoil up just yet. You will need some in reserve for the next few weeks!
So, if there are many people voting remain because they think the benefit freeze will slow immigration down, what will happen to their votes if the Treasury prediction becomes true?
In which case, it's our duty to show leadership and vote leave.
This from the article - lol
It comes as it emerged people in Ireland have been encouraged to 'phone a friend' in the UK - and persuade them to vote 'remain' in the 'Brexit' referendum next month.
I'm waiting for my phone call from phone a friend ;-)
Just playing around with my latest spreadsheet creation [it's a good one!], and I notice that Trump could win by adding only three states to Romney's total.
PA, FL and NJ would take him to 269, and to the House where presumably he would win...
Ryan will probably change his tune. I think his earlier statement was a last-ditch attempt to get some leverage on Trump and it obviously failed.
A pretty qualified endorsement - '"You have to listen to people that have chosen the nominee of our Republican Party," McCain said. "I think it would be foolish to ignore them." At the same time, McCain would not commit to appearing on the same campaign stage as Trump, a tacit acknowledgment of the balancing act the Arizona senator needs to perform as he faces re-election this fall. He needs to court Trump backers in a state that the candidate handily won during the primary season, while also reaching out to independents, Latinos and women voters -- many of whom view the real estate mogul unfavorably. RELATED: GOP luminaries pick sides on Trump as GOP rift widens "A lot of things would have to happen," McCain said when asked if he would stump with his party's nominee. He said there'd have to be a condition first: "I think it's important for Donald Trump to express his appreciation for veterans, not John McCain, but veterans who were incarcerated as prisoners of war." http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/08/politics/john-mccain-donald-trump/index.html
This is all getting too ridiculous, and there's still over a month to go.
Tell me about it. Cameron cites WWIII, Boris fights for freedom, and the Sun's got a new Photoshop for Xmas. This is perhaps not the clear-eyed cost/benefit analysis I was hoping for.
'So, if there are many people voting remain because they think the benefit freeze will slow immigration down, what will happen to their votes if the Treasury prediction becomes true?'
The same people that think we will have world war 3 if we Leave ?
Any small reduction that may or may not result from the benefit freeze will be dwarfed by the surge in immigration resulting from the 'Living Wage' , a basic wage rate that is much higher than most EU countries.
Ryan will probably change his tune. I think his earlier statement was a last-ditch attempt to get some leverage on Trump and it obviously failed.
Well, McCain won't commit to making appearances with Trump. Some endorsement.
The Ryan-Trump meeting can only have 1 of 3 results -
1) they resolve their differences and work together 2) they agree to differ but not fight each other 3) they cannot see eye to eye at all and take up cudgels against each other.
Ryan is a sincere person - he will bend over backwards to work with Trump without giving way on his principles.
In other news, Republican juggernaut - - Sarah Palin has offered her support to anyone who challenges Ryan's re-election in WS this year
Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 1 would result in riots. Scenario 2 would result in stern letters to the London Review of Books.
But more seriously, I think reversing the decision of the British people when the result is not the status quo would play out terribly, and far worse than the opposite.
My US hedge fund customer was again pushing this line about the government ignoring a narrow LEAVE vote today, with a new variant being an alliance of Labour, Lib Dems and Cameron ar*elickers (my phrase) uniting to prevent Brexit.
Funnily enough, the idea of forcing a dissolution of parliament and fighting an election with this alliance of horrors was mentioned as well.
He's very well connected. I think these kinds of crazed ideas are being discussed in some Westminster circles.
Surely at this point the Tory Party would act and remove the posh boys?
You'd think so. But if you do the maths they might only need a few dozen acolytes/ar*elickers to make something like this work. Cameron as Ramsay MacDonald...
I think it's pretty far-fetched. But it's an indication of how desperate parts of our political and bureaucratic establishment are to keep us in the EU.
Don't use up all your tinfoil up just yet. You will need some in reserve for the next few weeks!
Didn't you say the same thing about the EU's Common External Energy Policy???
john_zims - The Polish husband of one of my mother's carers says people cannot afford to have children in Poland, that there is no family support. A Lithuanian girl carer who is a single mother tells me it would be impossible for her to live independently in Lithuania - there is no housing support. A Hungarian girl carer tells me how low wages are for her family in Hungary. I didn't ask, just things they mentioned in passing. England is seen as a rich and growing country. The benefit cap is not going to work. There will just be more gangmasters taking advantage...
john_zims - The Polish husband of one of my mother's carers says people cannot afford to have children in Poland, that there is no family support. A Lithuanian girl carer who is a single mother tells me it would be impossible for her to live independently in Lithuania - there is no housing support. A Hungarian girl carer tells me how low wages are for her family in Hungary. I didn't ask, just things they mentioned in passing. England is seen as a rich and growing country. The benefit cap is not going to work. There will just be more gangmasters taking advantage...
The benefit cap is not aimed at Eastern Europeans, most of whom work very hard, it is aimed at the domestic population
Just playing around with my latest spreadsheet creation [it's a good one!], and I notice that Trump could win by adding only three states to Romney's total.
PA, FL and NJ would take him to 269, and to the House where presumably he would win...
Yes, well he has no chance of winning NJ and on present polls trails in Utah which kind of puts a spanner in the works there!
Obama won that county in 2012 by 24 points and carried Florida by 1 point, so not much difference. I think Trump is now only just behind Hillary in Florida if he is 27 points behind in Miami.
@tnewtondunn: EXCL: Germany secretly controlled PM’s EU renegotiation and sabotaged migrants emergency brake - bombshell IDS claim https://t.co/TyABMTOjEl
Should REMAIN win I imagine Cameron will have Frau Merkel puuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiinnnnnnggggggg down the phone on 24th June...
Nicholas Ridley correctly called the EU "a German racket". He was fired for speaking the truth.
It's the best solution yet found to the problem of how to manage a European system in which Germany is inevitably the most powerful component.
Best solution for whom? Germany, of course.
For all concerned. Germany's recent relatively strong position is down to hard-headed policies to remain competitive in the face of globalisation and cheap labour in China. It has little to do with the EU or Euro.
Just playing around with my latest spreadsheet creation [it's a good one!], and I notice that Trump could win by adding only three states to Romney's total.
PA, FL and NJ would take him to 269, and to the House where presumably he would win...
3 states you should keep an eye on:
Florida Ohio Pennsylvania
In that order.
Now Trump not being a total wash with cubans in Miami as that poll shows, gives him the opportunity to score a win there, Romney came within 1 point of victory despite losing Miami by 24. Without Florida it wont really matter if Trump wins Ohio or Pennsylvania, but he can't win just with Florida.
Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 1 would result in riots. Scenario 2 would result in stern letters to the London Review of Books.
But more seriously, I think reversing the decision of the British people when the result is not the status quo would play out terribly, and far worse than the opposite.
My US hedge fund customer was again pushing this line about the government ignoring a narrow LEAVE vote today, with a new variant being an alliance of Labour, Lib Dems and Cameron ar*elickers (my phrase) uniting to prevent Brexit.
Funnily enough, the idea of forcing a dissolution of parliament and fighting an election with this alliance of horrors was mentioned as well.
He's very well connected. I think these kinds of crazed ideas are being discussed in some Westminster circles.
Surely at this point the Tory Party would act and remove the posh boys?
'Absolute monarchy......moderated by regicide.'
Same number of US Presidents and Russian Tsars have been assassinated/murdered = 4.
(though five Tsars if you include Nicholas II in 1918).
75% of POTUS assassinations have been on a Friday.
I think David Cameron is copying Zac Goldsmith's losing strategy. He is saying and doing things which make him, and the REMAIN case, look ridiculous and pathetic, thereby alienating wavering voters and sending people rushing into the LEAVE camp. In other words, he is a secret agent for the LEAVE position.
Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2 is a non-starter. A future government could be formed by Leavers who could instigate another referendum - but this time with all the powers of the state on their side. But even Nigel Farage has said a referendum needs to be won before we could leave the EU.
Alistair Meeks thinks a general election might be unavoidable in the event of a Leave vote - that would be fascinating. Quite who would be leading the Tory party and what they'd be advocating I don't know, but I'd have thought one way or another they'd be putting forward a proposal to leave the EU. The discussions on this board show that there is adequate scope for interpreting a Leave vote in many ways.
I'm sure there are many on the Remain side who are not happy that this vote is taking place at all. Whether anyone advocates ignoring the result altogether might depend upon the margin of the leave vote (almost certainly narrow) and the level of turnout. Of course, while the referendum result would be critical to the resulting general election, it certainly wouldn't be the only issue. In fact, I could imagine Jeremy Corbyn completely ignoring the issue of the EU and focussing on what he thinks are the important issues.
Comments
But more seriously, I think reversing the decision of the British people when the result is not the status quo would play out terribly, and far worse than the opposite.
Say 40% to 45% and the general election close to 70%
So would give the winning side(s) at a general election a larger mandate than the referendum winning side.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/09/eu-vote-tory-battle-europe-23-june
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/729785356292329472
Scenario 2 - Having maintained it's something that need's a referendum, I don't see how any party would credibly argue winning a GE, which would be on less than the vote, was more of a mandate.
Rising above the fray and bringing off a remain victory would have worked.
Coming out for Leave and then getting a better deal might have worked
Coming out for Leave and getting a resounding leave vote might have worked
So, in choosing the 4th best option for party unity and being on the winning side, you'll forgive my cynicism that his current strategy will help the party in the short, medium or long term.
But it's a poll of Scottish voters.
The problem with Scenario 2 is the early election. I don't see who would precipitate it, or why.
This referendum is providing masses of amusement.
'The latest is Boris: 'I'm fighting for freedom'.
The clear winner to-day is the infantile world war 3 crap from Cameron.
How on earth did we survive from 1945 - 1973 outside the EU and without a world war ?
I agree option 1 would have been the best option, but it wasn't really available. I mean, would you leave Stuart Rose to run a campaign?
Option 2 was not possible; there was no better deal available ,alas. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair had given away most of the bargaining chips.
Option 3 is fine if you genuinely believe in it, but he doesn't, and he's a man of principle, so he's not going to dissemble over it.
That leaves Option 4: Go for it. So he did. We'll see if it works - those who are writing it off might be right, but alternatively they might be adding themselves to the long list of those who have under-estimated him and Osborne.
Funnily enough, the idea of forcing a dissolution of parliament and fighting an election with this alliance of horrors was mentioned as well.
He's very well connected. I think these kinds of crazed ideas are being discussed in some Westminster circles.
Iain Duncan-Smith says Merkel talked the PM out of his crucial immigration demands
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7138226/Germany-sabotaged-David-Camerons-EU-renegotiation-and-he-let-them-explosive-claims-from-IDS.html
Stuart Rose has come out of this campaign really rather well.....for Leave.
I think it's pretty far-fetched. But it's an indication of how desperate parts of our political and bureaucratic establishment are to keep us in the EU.
'Err, I don't think you have quite understood what he said. But never mind.'
Err, you obviously missed Laura Kuenssberg asking Cameron if he was serious about his world war 3 crap.
David Cameron has forgotten his history': Furious veterans turn on the PM for 'horrific decision to put words in the mouths of Second World War soldiers' in his bid to keep Britain in the EU
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3580730/Many-men-died-peace-t-sacrifice-Second-World-War-heroes-appear-pro-EU-film-argue-Brexit-jeopardise-Britain-s-security.html
(though five Tsars if you include Nicholas II in 1918).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3580126/Nearly-half-Europeans-poll-want-votes-EU-like-UK.html
The two are due to meet Thursday in DC
Not looking good for GOP unity.
It comes as it emerged people in Ireland have been encouraged to 'phone a friend' in the UK - and persuade them to vote 'remain' in the 'Brexit' referendum next month.
I'm waiting for my phone call from phone a friend ;-)
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/08/politics/john-mccain-donald-trump/index.html
Ryan will probably change his tune. I think his earlier statement was a last-ditch attempt to get some leverage on Trump and it obviously failed.
PA, FL and NJ would take him to 269, and to the House where presumably he would win...
At the same time, McCain would not commit to appearing on the same campaign stage as Trump, a tacit acknowledgment of the balancing act the Arizona senator needs to perform as he faces re-election this fall. He needs to court Trump backers in a state that the candidate handily won during the primary season, while also reaching out to independents, Latinos and women voters -- many of whom view the real estate mogul unfavorably.
RELATED: GOP luminaries pick sides on Trump as GOP rift widens
"A lot of things would have to happen," McCain said when asked if he would stump with his party's nominee. He said there'd have to be a condition first: "I think it's important for Donald Trump to express his appreciation for veterans, not John McCain, but veterans who were incarcerated as prisoners of war."
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/08/politics/john-mccain-donald-trump/index.html
North Carolina
Hillary Clinton 49%
Donald Trump 40%
'So, if there are many people voting remain because they think the benefit freeze will slow immigration down, what will happen to their votes if the Treasury prediction becomes true?'
The same people that think we will have world war 3 if we Leave ?
Any small reduction that may or may not result from the benefit freeze will be dwarfed by the surge in immigration resulting from the 'Living Wage' , a basic wage rate that is much higher than most EU countries.
The Ryan-Trump meeting can only have 1 of 3 results -
1) they resolve their differences and work together
2) they agree to differ but not fight each other
3) they cannot see eye to eye at all and take up cudgels against each other.
Ryan is a sincere person - he will bend over backwards to work with Trump without giving way on his principles.
In other news, Republican juggernaut -
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/florida/2016/05/8598727/poll-clinton-holds-27-point-lead-over-trump-miami-dade
Miami-Dade County
Hillary 52
Trump 25
Obama won that county in 2012 by 24 points and carried Florida by 1 point, so not much difference.
I think Trump is now only just behind Hillary in Florida if he is 27 points behind in Miami.
Florida
Ohio
Pennsylvania
In that order.
Now Trump not being a total wash with cubans in Miami as that poll shows, gives him the opportunity to score a win there, Romney came within 1 point of victory despite losing Miami by 24.
Without Florida it wont really matter if Trump wins Ohio or Pennsylvania, but he can't win just with Florida.
Goodnight.
Bring back the DDR.
For starters, obv.
OT, it sure is quiet here tonight.
Alistair Meeks thinks a general election might be unavoidable in the event of a Leave vote - that would be fascinating. Quite who would be leading the Tory party and what they'd be advocating I don't know, but I'd have thought one way or another they'd be putting forward a proposal to leave the EU. The discussions on this board show that there is adequate scope for interpreting a Leave vote in many ways.
I'm sure there are many on the Remain side who are not happy that this vote is taking place at all. Whether anyone advocates ignoring the result altogether might depend upon the margin of the leave vote (almost certainly narrow) and the level of turnout. Of course, while the referendum result would be critical to the resulting general election, it certainly wouldn't be the only issue. In fact, I could imagine Jeremy Corbyn completely ignoring the issue of the EU and focussing on what he thinks are the important issues.