At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
Personality wise Clinton is more like Dukakis, a technocrat if ever there was one, Sanders is a tub thumping populist much like Trump
Why is the "technocrat" Clinton defeating "tub thumping" Sanders and Trump in polling?
She defeats Sanders in polls of Democrats, although even there he is running her close but he does better than her in general election polling
General Election polls which show Clinton losing to Sanders or Kasich or whoever only provide evidence of a resistance to electing Hillary Rodham Clinton to the White House. They underline why Trump has a fantastic shot at beating her.
General election polls show both Sanders and Clinton beating Trump. Of course Hillary is beatable, Obama beat her for a reason and the Dems have been in the White House for eight years. We're Kasich the GOP nominee Hillary would almost certainly lose, by picking Trump Hillary is the most likely but not certain winner
As it stands at the moment Hilary will be President... But who knows what's going to come out about the Clinton's between now and November...
I reckon Trump is one major Clinton scandal away from becoming POTUS.
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
Personality wise Clinton is more like Dukakis, a technocrat if ever there was one, Sanders is a tub thumping populist much like Trump
Why is the "technocrat" Clinton defeating "tub thumping" Sanders and Trump in polling?
She defeats Sanders in polls of Democrats, although even there he is running her close but he does better than her in general election polling
General Election polls which show Clinton losing to Sanders or Kasich or whoever only provide evidence of a resistance to electing Hillary Rodham Clinton to the White House. They underline why Trump has a fantastic shot at beating her.
General election polls show both Sanders and Clinton beating Trump. Of course Hillary is beatable, Obama beat her for a reason and the Dems have been in the White House for eight years. We're Kasich the GOP nominee Hillary would almost certainly lose, by picking Trump Hillary is the most likely but not certain winner
As it stands at the moment Hilary will be President... But who knows what's going to come out about the Clinton's between now and November...
I reckon Trump is one major Clinton scandal away from becoming POTUS.
Amen. But which scandal..
With Mr and Mrs Clinton you wouldn't rule anything out...
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
Idiotic. Some honourable Leavers on PB.com, such as Kle and Richard Tyndall, have already condemned this 'EU = Adolf' offensiveness in the strongest terms. Why the likes of IDS and Rees-Mogg have sought to pile in and add fuel to the fire is beyond me. The conceit is indefensible, and attempting to do so just looks arrogant and twisted. The serious Leavers must despair of their leadership.
Believe me, I value your view on my honourability as much as a piece of navel lint, but I must point out it seems not to have occurred to you that people might find validity in Boris's comparison that they don't find in Ken's. They are, after all, different comparisons.
If I understand Plato's post below correctly, Boris thinks Hitler was trying to recreate a golden age of prosperity. So you are right: they are different comparisons. Unfortunately, Boris's comparison is actually worse than Ken's.
Do you or William Glen think Hitler didn't want prosperity? Surely that's exactly what he wanted, just on his own terms.
(last post before I go back to work). I don't know what William Glen thinks but I'm *damn* sure Hitler didn't want prosperity. His was a mangled psyche projecting his obsessions on an entire continent, with sufficient charisma to enlist a power-mad populace to help him, creating a philosophy that would only have ended when the lat two humans left alive had their hands around each other's throats . Aryanism was full-on ridiculous, Hitler was criminally insane, and prosperity was the last thing on his unhinged mind.
So no, I'm very sure Hitler didn't want prosperity.
On thread- you've made a very good observation here Mike. Quite why David Davis has faded into obscurity is a mystery. He is a very able performer, likeable, charismatic, charming, articulate, an easy communicator, credible and believable.
On thread- you've made a very good observation here Mike. Quite why David Davis has faded into obscurity is a mystery. He is a very able performer, likeable, charismatic, charming, articulate, an easy communicator, credible and believable.
His dislike of Cameron obviously hindered him through the Cameroon years (coming to an end 2016/17)
Boris's argument is: * Rome built a superstate * Napoleon tried to build a superstate * Hitler tried to build a superstate * EU tries to build a superstate * Therefore EU=Hitler
That's not actually logic, as illustrated thus: * Rome build roads * Napoleon built roads * Hitler built roads * Truman built roads * Therefore Truman=Hitler
I'm sure somebody more industrious than I will be able to google the logical fallacy here. But I have work to do today, so laters, peeps.
Perhaps the relative frequency of road-building and European superstate-building is something that ought to be looked at. European empires we can count on fingers. Roads are probably built every minute. Your comparison is ridiculous.
Remain's campaign seems to be shouting "£4,300" at the top of their voices, and if anyone points out how fabricated it is, to respond by shouting louder. The very crux of the Remain campaign is a big lie, and every Remain politician backing the number is a disgrace.
LOL
Boris "carved £350 million" into a piece of steel and if anyone points out how fabricated it is, they respond by shouting louder. The very crux of the BREXIT campaign is a big lie, and every BREXIT politician backing the number is a disgrace.
Unfortunately I think that the legendary Boris laziness is spreading to his verbal output as well. He has been able to get away for so long now with saying whatever he likes because people ssy "oh that's just Boris" that he has got into the mindset where he believes he can say anything he likes without repercussions. Actually having to consider the implications of what he is going to say is hard work and he just doesn't bother.
It is why he will become more of a liability -or at least less of an asset - to Leave as time passes.
To be honest I'm not sure if Boris is a net liability for Leave.
Where I think his style of politics would go horribly awry is if he becomes Prime Minister.
On that I am in absolute agreement. I would be very unhappy to see either Boris or Nigel within a hundred miles of PM. I think the both lack the intellectual rigour for the position.
I am in a tiny minority it seems who would be very happy with Gove as PM. But I am also fortunate that he has categorically rules out ever standing for the position so I don't have to worry that my judgement might be found to be faulty on that score.
The one Leave Tory I would definitely not want to see as PM is Patel. Her support for the death penalty makes her completely unacceptable for me.
(last post before I go back to work). I don't know what William Glen thinks but I'm *damn* sure Hitler didn't want prosperity. His was a mangled psyche projecting his obsessions on an entire continent, with sufficient charisma to enlist a power-mad populace to help him, creating a philosophy that would only have ended when the lat two humans left alive had their hands around each other's throats . Aryanism was full-on ridiculous, Hitler was criminally insane, and prosperity was the last thing on his unhinged mind.
So no, I'm very sure Hitler didn't want prosperity.
Then I think you should return to your dictionary:
Of course he wanted prosperity. The fact he was deluded, his philosophy was ridiculous, he was a psychopath etc., bears no relevance on this question. Of course he wanted prosperity, of course he wanted a golden age (what was his fantasy of a 1000 year reich if not that?) - he just wanted it for his master-race, on his terms, and death for anyone who got in the way. Doesn't mean he didn't want prosperity - or peace for that matter. Are we saying if the world had surrendered to him without any fighting he would have refused?
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
Only if theories are right and the public notice his point, rather than vaguely take note there is a row about Hitler comments. That the EU wants to build a superstate is not in doubt by anyone but the most ardent of Remainers.
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
That is not the question at hand. Everyone knows that is what the EU are trying to do because they are quite open about it. If Boris had stuck with analogies to the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Hapsburgs or Napoleon that would have been fine. It would have caused no end of debate but it would have been a reasonable assertion.
But equating the EU with one of the greatest mass murderers in world history just destroys any argument he might reasonably have made. It was a stupid mistake (whether intentional or not) and not one that should be supported or excused.
Remain have lined up a series of heavyweight commentators from all round the World.
The Brexit reply has been
SHUT UP!
SACK HIM!
HITLER!
Only one of these campaigns is exhibiting signs of panic...
Remain's campaign seems to be shouting "£4,300" at the top of their voices, and if anyone points out how fabricated it is, to respond by shouting louder. The very crux of the Remain campaign is a big lie, and every Remain politician backing the number is a disgrace.
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
Personality wise Clinton is more like Dukakis, a technocrat if ever there was one, Sanders is a tub thumping populist much like Trump
Why is the "technocrat" Clinton defeating "tub thumping" Sanders and Trump in polling?
She defeats Sanders in polls of Democrats, although even there he is running her close but he does better than her in general election polling
Somewhat like saying Man City might beat Athletico Madrid in the final of the Champions League if only City had beaten Real Madrid in the semi.
Irrelevant.
Not completely, if Sanders wins every remaining primary and California by a landslide he could still be nominee, if Hillary is forced to withdraw over her emails he could also be nominee at the convention. Unlikely but not completely impossible
On thread- you've made a very good observation here Mike. Quite why David Davis has faded into obscurity is a mystery. He is a very able performer, likeable, charismatic, charming, articulate, an easy communicator, credible and believable.
But not a non-nasty Tory in the eyes of non -Tories. He is a Tory's Tory. And that, sadly, doesn't win votes, at the margin.
My personal view is I would put him in a bucket with IDS (and Jezza) of him thinking the world can and should be made into how he wants it to be, rather than modified slightly from where it is. Not quite getting that politics is the art of the possible and the aim is to achieve the best outcome possible, not the best possible outcome.
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
That is not the question at hand. Everyone knows that is what the EU are trying to do because they are quite open about it.
That's why Jacob Rees'Mogg's defence of the comment (I think it was him) was also stupid, about the difference being the EU is trying take over Europe by stealth - as one thing often pointed out by Leavers is that the EU's drive to integration into a superstate is openly stated with the goal of ever closer integration.
Unfortunately I think that the legendary Boris laziness is spreading to his verbal output as well. He has been able to get away for so long now with saying whatever he likes because people ssy "oh that's just Boris" that he has got into the mindset where he believes he can say anything he likes without repercussions. Actually having to consider the implications of what he is going to say is hard work and he just doesn't bother.
It is why he will become more of a liability -or at least less of an asset - to Leave as time passes.
To be honest I'm not sure if Boris is a net liability for Leave.
Where I think his style of politics would go horribly awry is if he becomes Prime Minister.
On that I am in absolute agreement. I would be very unhappy to see either Boris or Nigel within a hundred miles of PM. I think the both lack the intellectual rigour for the position.
I am in a tiny minority it seems who would be very happy with Gove as PM. But I am also fortunate that he has categorically rules out ever standing for the position so I don't have to worry that my judgement might be found to be faulty on that score.
The one Leave Tory I would definitely not want to see as PM is Patel. Her support for the death penalty makes her completely unacceptable for me.
I reluctantly back Remain but Patel's support for the death penalty is not a problem for me, albeit I would only support it for serial killers
Unfortunately I think that the legendary Boris laziness is spreading to his verbal output as well. He has been able to get away for so long now with saying whatever he likes because people ssy "oh that's just Boris" that he has got into the mindset where he believes he can say anything he likes without repercussions. Actually having to consider the implications of what he is going to say is hard work and he just doesn't bother.
It is why he will become more of a liability -or at least less of an asset - to Leave as time passes.
To be honest I'm not sure if Boris is a net liability for Leave.
Where I think his style of politics would go horribly awry is if he becomes Prime Minister.
On that I am in absolute agreement. I would be very unhappy to see either Boris or Nigel within a hundred miles of PM. I think the both lack the intellectual rigour for the position.
I am in a tiny minority it seems who would be very happy with Gove as PM. But I am also fortunate that he has categorically rules out ever standing for the position so I don't have to worry that my judgement might be found to be faulty on that score.
The one Leave Tory I would definitely not want to see as PM is Patel. Her support for the death penalty makes her completely unacceptable for me.
Looks like dodgy dave's cunning plan to reunite the Conservatives is hitting another problemette: quite a number of the 2015 entrants aren't disciplined or indeed Conservative.
Unfortunately I think that the legendary Boris laziness is spreading to his verbal output as well. He has been able to get away for so long now with saying whatever he likes because people ssy "oh that's just Boris" that he has got into the mindset where he believes he can say anything he likes without repercussions. Actually having to consider the implications of what he is going to say is hard work and he just doesn't bother.
It is why he will become more of a liability -or at least less of an asset - to Leave as time passes.
To be honest I'm not sure if Boris is a net liability for Leave.
Where I think his style of politics would go horribly awry is if he becomes Prime Minister.
On that I am in absolute agreement. I would be very unhappy to see either Boris or Nigel within a hundred miles of PM. I think the both lack the intellectual rigour for the position.
I am in a tiny minority it seems who would be very happy with Gove as PM. But I am also fortunate that he has categorically rules out ever standing for the position so I don't have to worry that my judgement might be found to be faulty on that score.
The one Leave Tory I would definitely not want to see as PM is Patel. Her support for the death penalty makes her completely unacceptable for me.
You big EU-esque softy, you.
Hardly. I simply don't believe that it is acceptable to give that sort of power to the State. It is also the reasoning that underlies my opposition to the EU. Statism in any form is something to be fought against.
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
That is not the question at hand. Everyone knows that is what the EU are trying to do because they are quite open about it. If Boris had stuck with analogies to the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Hapsburgs or Napoleon that would have been fine. It would have caused no end of debate but it would have been a reasonable assertion.
But equating the EU with one of the greatest mass murderers in world history just destroys any argument he might reasonably have made. It was a stupid mistake (whether intentional or not) and not one that should be supported or excused.
Sorry but I see no logic here. Why on earth leave an analogy out if it's as valid historically as the others you are using? To avoid upsetting the professionally offended?
The first time I heard the Hitler comparison, many years ago, I thought 'Oh, I've never thought of it that way, I suppose it's true in a way'.
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
That is not the question at hand. Everyone knows that is what the EU are trying to do because they are quite open about it. If Boris had stuck with analogies to the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Hapsburgs or Napoleon that would have been fine. It would have caused no end of debate but it would have been a reasonable assertion.
But equating the EU with one of the greatest mass murderers in world history just destroys any argument he might reasonably have made. It was a stupid mistake (whether intentional or not) and not one that should be supported or excused.
Sorry but I see no logic here. Why on earth leave an analogy out if it's as valid historically as the others you are using? To avoid upsetting the professionally offended?
The first time I heard the Hitler comparison, many years ago, I thought 'Oh, I've never thought of it that way, I suppose it's true in a way'.
Because when most people hear the word Hitler they think of Genocide. Not least of all because that is the emphasis that has been put on his name and legacy in schools for the last 20 years or so.
Bottom line is that if Boris had not included Hitler the discussion would be over the fairly unanswerable assertion that the EU desires (and needs) to be a single state. As it is the main headline in most people's eyes is Boris compares EU to Genocidal lunatic.
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
Personality wise Clinton is more like Dukakis, a technocrat if ever there was one, Sanders is a tub thumping populist much like Trump
Why is the "technocrat" Clinton defeating "tub thumping" Sanders and Trump in polling?
She defeats Sanders in polls of Democrats, although even there he is running her close but he does better than her in general election polling
Somewhat like saying Man City might beat Athletico Madrid in the final of the Champions League if only City had beaten Real Madrid in the semi.
Irrelevant.
Not completely, if Sanders wins every remaining primary and California by a landslide he could still be nominee, if Hillary is forced to withdraw over her emails he could also be nominee at the convention. Unlikely but not completely impossible
And if Jezza wins Beaconsfield at the 2020 General Election he'll be Prime Minister and Alastair Matlock will be singing the "Red Flag" from the Labour benches in the House of Lords .....
Mr. Tyndall, I agree. Floating voters are the ones who count, and this comes across as hyperbole.
Edited extra bit: during the Farage appearance, one imagines an audience member will ask him if he agrees with Boris that the EU shares Hitler's aspirations, or suchlike.
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
That is not the question at hand. Everyone knows that is what the EU are trying to do because they are quite open about it. If Boris had stuck with analogies to the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Hapsburgs or Napoleon that would have been fine. It would have caused no end of debate but it would have been a reasonable assertion.
But equating the EU with one of the greatest mass murderers in world history just destroys any argument he might reasonably have made. It was a stupid mistake (whether intentional or not) and not one that should be supported or excused.
Sorry but I see no logic here. Why on earth leave an analogy out if it's as valid historically as the others you are using? To avoid upsetting the professionally offended?
The first time I heard the Hitler comparison, many years ago, I thought 'Oh, I've never thought of it that way, I suppose it's true in a way'.
I find it extraordinary that you find it difficult to understand why the analogy is the most ridiculous thing to have come out of the EUref debate. And it is a strong field.
Remain's campaign seems to be shouting "£4,300" at the top of their voices, and if anyone points out how fabricated it is, to respond by shouting louder. The very crux of the Remain campaign is a big lie, and every Remain politician backing the number is a disgrace.
LOL
Boris "carved £350 million" into a piece of steel and if anyone points out how fabricated it is, they respond by shouting louder. The very crux of the BREXIT campaign is a big lie, and every BREXIT politician backing the number is a disgrace.
LOL
Cameron "carved £4,300" into a piece of steel and if anyone points out how fabricated it is, they respond by shouting louder. The very crux of the REMAIN campaign is a big lie, and every REMAIN politician backing the number is a disgrace.
LEAVE have resorted to a totally negative message based on how awful the status quo is, where anyone of any authority is denigrated. REMAIN are using a negative fear-based message based on fear of change, but coupled to limbic appeals to authority figures. If this were Greece, LEAVE might be winning, but as it is (mainly) England, a country with no great tradition of kicking back at authority, REMAIN will win.
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
That is not the question at hand. Everyone knows that is what the EU are trying to do because they are quite open about it. If Boris had stuck with analogies to the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Hapsburgs or Napoleon that would have been fine. It would have caused no end of debate but it would have been a reasonable assertion.
But equating the EU with one of the greatest mass murderers in world history just destroys any argument he might reasonably have made. It was a stupid mistake (whether intentional or not) and not one that should be supported or excused.
Sorry but I see no logic here. Why on earth leave an analogy out if it's as valid historically as the others you are using? To avoid upsetting the professionally offended?
The first time I heard the Hitler comparison, many years ago, I thought 'Oh, I've never thought of it that way, I suppose it's true in a way'.
I find it extraordinary that you find it difficult to understand why the analogy is the most ridiculous thing to have come out of the EUref debate. And it is a strong field.
Why is the analogy ridiculous - I find it hard to refute - same goals, different opus operandi?
Mr. Tyndall, I agree. Floating voters are the ones who count, and this comes across as hyperbole.
Edited extra bit: during the Farage appearance, one imagines an audience member will ask him if he agrees with Boris that the EU shares Hitler's aspirations, or suchlike.
To be fair to Boris, he is only showing how different people tried to bring Europe together in different ways. The media going on about Hitler takes that out of context. (For Ken, it was completely different, he meant it).
To be unfair to Boris, he should have known the risks of using the H word in the current situation.
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
Personality wise Clinton is more like Dukakis, a technocrat if ever there was one, Sanders is a tub thumping populist much like Trump
Why is the "technocrat" Clinton defeating "tub thumping" Sanders and Trump in polling?
She defeats Sanders in polls of Democrats, although even there he is running her close but he does better than her in general election polling
Somewhat like saying Man City might beat Athletico Madrid in the final of the Champions League if only City had beaten Real Madrid in the semi.
Irrelevant.
Not completely, if Sanders wins every remaining primary and California by a landslide he could still be nominee, if Hillary is forced to withdraw over her emails he could also be nominee at the convention. Unlikely but not completely impossible
And if Jezza wins Beaconsfield at the 2020 General Election he'll be Prime Minister and Alastair Matlock will be singing the "Red Flag" from the Labour benches in the House of Lords .....
or probably not.
The latter route is most likely, if Hillary falls under the FBI bus Sanders only needs to persuade a handful of her delegates at the convention to back him to be nominee
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
That is not the question at hand. Everyone knows that is what the EU are trying to do because they are quite open about it. If Boris had stuck with analogies to the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Hapsburgs or Napoleon that would have been fine. It would have caused no end of debate but it would have been a reasonable assertion.
But equating the EU with one of the greatest mass murderers in world history just destroys any argument he might reasonably have made. It was a stupid mistake (whether intentional or not) and not one that should be supported or excused.
Sorry but I see no logic here. Why on earth leave an analogy out if it's as valid historically as the others you are using? To avoid upsetting the professionally offended?
When the point can be made just as well without it, it's not giving in to the 'professionally offended' to not use it - not using it in fact may make the point even better, as it won't distract from the point, I don't see what it hard to understand in the logic of that.
Political speech is afforded higher protections in part because otherwise relevant and decent points may be found amidst irrational invective or worthless commentary, it is recognised good, important points may be made amidst the guff. But why gift to your opponents a method of distracting from your point?
The very same point was made to Remainers about Cameron and WW3 - the tenor of his comments was blatantly trailed to the media, then there was upset no one noticed the nuance of his speech.
The anger from many here is that this could be an instance of the same. Others feel it was not a tactical error of the same level, and we shall see, and it is true Remain are not well placed to take advantage of it, but there's nothing illogical about it. If you want as many people as possible to hear your points, it needs to get their attention, but hopefully also not be easily misinterpreted or misconstrued deliberately by opponents, forcing you into a cycle of apology or explanation.
It all comes down to how waverers are affected by such things (not by individual instances, but the cumulative whole of the campaign), and as people always say, if you're explaining you're losing. Hopefully when Remain bring this up in future to ridicule better put points from Boris, they are not undermined.
This looks like the work of the continuity proto real trotto not petend we know where you live and have not gone asy IRA to me. If it was our middle eastern friends it would have been hidden up someones jumper until going off
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
That is not the question at hand. Everyone knows that is what the EU are trying to do because they are quite open about it. If Boris had stuck with analogies to the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Hapsburgs or Napoleon that would have been fine. It would have caused no end of debate but it would have been a reasonable assertion.
But equating the EU with one of the greatest mass murderers in world history just destroys any argument he might reasonably have made. It was a stupid mistake (whether intentional or not) and not one that should be supported or excused.
Sorry but I see no logic here. Why on earth leave an analogy out if it's as valid historically as the others you are using? To avoid upsetting the professionally offended?
The first time I heard the Hitler comparison, many years ago, I thought 'Oh, I've never thought of it that way, I suppose it's true in a way'.
I find it extraordinary that you find it difficult to understand why the analogy is the most ridiculous thing to have come out of the EUref debate. And it is a strong field.
Why is the analogy ridiculous - I find it hard to refute - same goals, different opus operandi?
Hitler wanted to conquer Europe, kill the undesirables, and create, yes, a superstate. But a dictatorial fascist superstate. You don't get to equate a dictatorial fascist superstate with a group of neighbouring nations who have voluntarily agreed (there's a queue for membership) on a set of rules, primarily trade-based (although expanded I grant you) to make living with each other easier, and which imposes nothing on each member state that that member state doesn't agree with*, and which any nation can leave whenever it wants.
*and please don't conflate arguments about kettle specifications with the subordination of nations by force.
Mr. Tyndall, I agree. Floating voters are the ones who count, and this comes across as hyperbole.
Edited extra bit: during the Farage appearance, one imagines an audience member will ask him if he agrees with Boris that the EU shares Hitler's aspirations, or suchlike.
To be fair to Boris, he is only showing how different people tried to bring Europe together in different ways. The media going on about Hitler takes that out of context. (For Ken, it was completely different, he meant it).
To be unfair to Boris, he should have known the risks of using the H word in the current situation.
I'm in the let's be unfair to Boris camp: he's a tosser.
Even to invoke Hitler is idiocy of the highest order. To try to compare a voluntary union of nations with Hitler's attempt to conquer* Europe turns it up to 11.
*def: overcome and take control (of a place or people) by force.
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
That is not the question at hand. Everyone knows that is what the EU are trying to do because they are quite open about it. If Boris had stuck with analogies to the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Hapsburgs or Napoleon that would have been fine. It would have caused no end of debate but it would have been a reasonable assertion.
But equating the EU with one of the greatest mass murderers in world history just destroys any argument he might reasonably have made. It was a stupid mistake (whether intentional or not) and not one that should be supported or excused.
Sorry but I see no logic here. Why on earth leave an analogy out if it's as valid historically as the others you are using? To avoid upsetting the professionally offended?
The first time I heard the Hitler comparison, many years ago, I thought 'Oh, I've never thought of it that way, I suppose it's true in a way'.
I find it extraordinary that you find it difficult to understand why the analogy is the most ridiculous thing to have come out of the EUref debate. And it is a strong field.
Why is the analogy ridiculous - I find it hard to refute - same goals, different opus operandi?
Hitler wanted to conquer Europe, kill the undesirables, and create, yes, a superstate. But a dictatorial fascist superstate. You don't get to equate a dictatorial fascist superstate with a group of neighbouring nations who have voluntarily agreed (there's a queue for membership) on a set of rules, primarily trade-based (although expanded I grant you) to make living with each other easier, and which imposes nothing on each member state that that member state doesn't agree with*, and which any nation can leave whenever it wants.
*and please don't conflate arguments about kettle specifications with the subordination of nations by force.
Yes - all the poor countries want freebies - courtesy of the UK taxpayer.
Please note that it has been UK standard policy for 300 years to prevent a European Superstate - at the moment the only thing we can do is remove our financing of it.
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
That is not the question at hand. Everyone knows that is what the EU are trying to do because they are quite open about it. If Boris had stuck with analogies to the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Hapsburgs or Napoleon that would have been fine. It would have caused no end of debate but it would have been a reasonable assertion.
But equating the EU with one of the greatest mass murderers in world history just destroys any argument he might reasonably have made. It was a stupid mistake (whether intentional or not) and not one that should be supported or excused.
Sorry but I see no logic here. Why on earth leave an analogy out if it's as valid historically as the others you are using? To avoid upsetting the professionally offended?
The first time I heard the Hitler comparison, many years ago, I thought 'Oh, I've never thought of it that way, I suppose it's true in a way'.
I find it extraordinary that you find it difficult to understand why the analogy is the most ridiculous thing to have come out of the EUref debate. And it is a strong field.
I think it's a valid analogy that was made in the full knowledge it would 'blow up' into a furore. Like a product that has different perceived value as it crosses a border. Whether it has been a disaster or a success, I suppose even if we see more polling soon we won't ever really know. I'm not saying it was a master-stroke (unlike certain PBers regarding the Obama drama), but equally I don't see the damage. No-one is accusing Boris is being racist or anti-Semitic.
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
That is not the question at hand. Everyone knows that is what the EU are trying to do because they are quite open about it. If Boris had stuck with analogies to the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Hapsburgs or Napoleon that would have been fine. It would have caused no end of debate but it would have been a reasonable assertion.
But equating the EU with one of the greatest mass murderers in world history just destroys any argument he might reasonably have made. It was a stupid mistake (whether intentional or not) and not one that should be supported or excused.
Sorry but I see no logic here. Why on earth leave an analogy out if it's as valid historically as the others you are using? To avoid upsetting the professionally offended?
The first time I heard the Hitler comparison, many years ago, I thought 'Oh, I've never thought of it that way, I suppose it's true in a way'.
I find it extraordinary that you find it difficult to understand why the analogy is the most ridiculous thing to have come out of the EUref debate. And it is a strong field.
Why is the analogy ridiculous - I find it hard to refute - same goals, different opus operandi?
Hitler wanted to conquer Europe, kill the undesirables, and create, yes, a superstate. But a dictatorial fascist superstate. You don't get to equate a dictatorial fascist superstate with a group of neighbouring nations who have voluntarily agreed (there's a queue for membership) on a set of rules, primarily trade-based (although expanded I grant you) to make living with each other easier, and which imposes nothing on each member state that that member state doesn't agree with*, and which any nation can leave whenever it wants.
*and please don't conflate arguments about kettle specifications with the subordination of nations by force.
Yes - all the poor countries want freebies - courtesy of the UK taxpayer.
Please note that it has been UK standard policy for 300 years to prevent a European Superstate - at the moment the only thing we can do is remove our financing of it.
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
That is not the question at hand. Ev
But equating the EU with one of the greatest mass murderers in world history just destroys any argument he might reasonably have made. It was a stupid mistake (whether intentional or not) and not one that should be supported or excused.
Sorry but I see no logic here. Why on earth leave an analogy out if it's as valid historically as the others you are using? To avoid upsetting the professionally offended?
The first time I heard the Hitler comparison, many years ago, I thought 'Oh, I've never thought of it that way, I suppose it's true in a way'.
I find it extraordinary that you find it difficult to understand why the analogy is the most ridiculous thing to have come out of the EUref debate. And it is a strong field.
Why is the analogy ridiculous - I find it hard to refute - same goals, different opus operandi?
Hitler wanted to conquer Europe, kill the undesirables, and create, yes, a superstate. But a dictatorial fascist superstate. You don't get to equate a dictatorial fascist superstate with a group of neighbouring nations who have voluntarily agreed (there's a queue for membership) on a set of rules, primarily trade-based (although expanded I grant you) to make living with each other easier, and which imposes nothing on each member state that that member state doesn't agree with*, and which any nation can leave whenever it wants.
*and please don't conflate arguments about kettle specifications with the subordination of nations by force.
Yes - all the poor countries want freebies - courtesy of the UK taxpayer.
Please note that it has been UK standard policy for 300 years to prevent a European Superstate - at the moment the only thing we can do is remove our financing of it.
Was that responding to what I wrote? Didn't seem like it.
Anyway, not to waste further time on why Hitler's european ambitions are in no way analagous to the EU, we are probably best off trying to prevent the current move towards political unity (if we really want to prevent their ECU) by being inside the damn thing, not outside it, when presumably the remaining 27 nations will be full speed ahead to superstate.
"Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (45% v 21%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (42% v 27%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (39% v 24%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)." Conclusion = LEAVE have a major lead over REMAIN on trust.
Rumor has it that object at Old Trafford certainly really does have the look, not just the smell of a device. That admittedly is not hard to achieve but it really does look like they really did have good reason to pull the game.
More From that Comres poll "The British public remain divided over whether they would be personally better off if Britain left the EU or remained part of it (29% v 33%). Around two in five (38%) say they don’t know how the referendum outcome would personally affect them." Conclusion = REMAIN have a slight lead on the economy.
"Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (45% v 21%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (42% v 27%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (39% v 24%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)."
Sample highly skewed to UKIP supporters like almost all online polls.
Was that responding to what I wrote? Didn't seem like it.
Anyway, not to waste further time on why Hitler's european ambitions are in no way analagous to the EU, we are probably best off trying to prevent the current move towards political unity (if we really want to prevent their ECU) by being inside the damn thing, not outside it, when presumably the remaining 27 nations will be full speed ahead to superstate.
This is one of the big arguments for us Leaving. It is not just a question of the rest of the EU wanting to unify - indeed some of them don't want to. But they have no choice. For the Eurozone to survive it has to unify politically. It is a practical necessity. Currently we are the main obstacle to that.
This comes back to the choice available to us. We either vote to Leave or we vote to stay in an EU committed to unification. There is no other choice available.
The one thing we have no right to do is vote to stay and then carry on trying to block the moves to a single federal state.
From that Comres poll on security "There has been a rise in the proportion of Britons saying national security would be better if Britain left the EU - 42% say it would be stronger if Britain left, compared to 38% who say it would be stronger if Britain remained. This represents an increase of 7 points from March in favour of leaving (35% in March 2016)." http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/independent-sunday-mirror-may-2016-poll/ Conclusion = LEAVE have moved ahead of REMAIN on "security".
From that Comres poll on Immigration "attitudes towards immigration are clear; British adults are more than twice as likely to say the government could control Britain’s borders better if it left the EU (57% v 27% if Britain remains)." Conclusion = LEAVE are miles ahead of REMAIN on immigration.
"Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (45% v 21%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (42% v 27%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (39% v 24%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)."
Sample highly skewed to UKIP supporters like almost all online polls.
And how big is that skewing towards UKIUP supporters ?
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
That is not the question at hand. Everyone knows that is what the EU are trying to do because they are quite open about it. If Boris had stuck with analogies to the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Hapsburgs or Napoleon that would have been fine. It would have caused no end of debate but it would have been a reasonable assertion.
But equating the EU with one of the greatest mass murderers in world history just destroys any argument he might reasonably have made. It was a stupid mistake (whether intentional or not) and not one that should be supported or excused.
Sorry but I see no logic here. Why on earth leave an analogy out if it's as valid historically as the others you are using? To avoid upsetting the professionally offended?
The first time I heard the Hitler comparison, many years ago, I thought 'Oh, I've never thought of it that way, I suppose it's true in a way'.
I find it extraordinary that you find it difficult to understand why the analogy is the most ridiculous thing to have come out of the EUref debate. And it is a strong field.
I think it's a valid analogy that was made in the full knowledge it would 'blow up' into a furore. Like a product that has different perceived value as it crosses a border. Whether it has been a disaster or a success, I suppose even if we see more polling soon we won't ever really know. I'm not saying it was a master-stroke (unlike certain PBers regarding the Obama drama), but equally I don't see the damage. No-one is accusing Boris is being racist or anti-Semitic.
No, but they are accusing him of being an offensive idiot and blowing a complaint out of all proportion.
Hitler - and Napoleon and Charles V and Julius Caesar and anyone else you choose to throw into the mix - attempted to build their empires by force, against the will of occupied and oppressed people. The EU has, however imperfectly at times, been built by democratic countries whose governments are accountable to elected parliaments and whose treaties have in some instances been put directly to electorates.
Britain is currently debating withdrawal. That wasn't an option Hitler gave Poland, Napoleon gave Spain, Charles gave the Netherlands or Caesar gave Gaul. Those who can't see the difference aren't looking, probably deliberately.
That's a very tasty £1,195 winging its way into my SkyBet account. Thank-you Spurs for being the Spursiest football club in the world :-)
Congratulations. At least you're still in next season's Champions League
Just double checked and it's "only" £1,075 so far. The balance is still to be delivered because of the Man Utd postponement - I had top three and top four bets. And the top four one can't be delivered until the Utd game is played. If United win 20-0 I get an extra £250. If they don't I get £125.
"Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (45% v 21%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (42% v 27%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (39% v 24%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)."
Sample highly skewed to UKIP supporters like almost all online polls.
And how big is that skewing towards UKIUP supporters ?
Please give an actual number Mike.
That would allow us to recalibrate the results.
UKIP were on 17% in that poll. Versus 12% NESV that they polled last week.
Remain's campaign seems to be shouting "£4,300" at the top of their voices, and if anyone points out how fabricated it is, to respond by shouting louder. The very crux of the Remain campaign is a big lie, and every Remain politician backing the number is a disgrace.
LOL
Boris "carved £350 million" into a piece of steel and if anyone points out how fabricated it is, they respond by shouting louder. The very crux of the BREXIT campaign is a big lie, and every BREXIT politician backing the number is a disgrace.
LOL
Cameron "carved £4,300" into a piece of steel and if anyone points out how fabricated it is, they respond by shouting louder. The very crux of the REMAIN campaign is a big lie, and every REMAIN politician backing the number is a disgrace.
You see we can all bleat, bleat, bleat.
Big difference is that the National Statistical Authority have ruled twice that LEAVE is wrong to use the the £350m figure and both Cummings and Elliot have had to face the wrath of the Tory chaired Commons Treasury committee.
Was that responding to what I wrote? Didn't seem like it.
Anyway, not to waste further time on why Hitler's european ambitions are in no way analagous to the EU, we are probably best off trying to prevent the current move towards political unity (if we really want to prevent their ECU) by being inside the damn thing, not outside it, when presumably the remaining 27 nations will be full speed ahead to superstate.
This is one of the big arguments for us Leaving. It is not just a question of the rest of the EU wanting to unify - indeed some of them don't want to. But they have no choice. For the Eurozone to survive it has to unify politically. It is a practical necessity. Currently we are the main obstacle to that.
This comes back to the choice available to us. We either vote to Leave or we vote to stay in an EU committed to unification. There is no other choice available.
The one thing we have no right to do is vote to stay and then carry on trying to block the moves to a single federal state.
So if we leave we will have more influence over them doing something or other than if we stay? As with your contention that with Dave's deal we will no longer be able to opt out of initiatives, whereas without one we could (and did - ie the fiscal compact), I find the logic tortuous.
Your last point is interesting. For some reason they are tolerating our 2-speed membership. As such, I would say we have every right to continue to argue the mitigating case vs ever closer union. Of course some things that the EZ are doing are out of our hands (as of course they would be if we were out) but other than that we can be a sensible voice of moderation. If they don't listen to us fine, we have hedged our involvement with Dave's deal.
"Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (45% v 21%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (42% v 27%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (39% v 24%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)." Conclusion = LEAVE have a major lead over REMAIN on trust.
Damning. And all self-inflicted. I'd never ever expected so see those appalling stats. And only a year ago he was a hero. Is their any trust polling from Feb/March to compare with?
Mr. Herdson, two points of order: Lots of people did come to see Rome as a positive even if they lived very far from the city. The EU has ignored democratic votes on multiple occasions, either outright ignoring them or forcing a re-run.
Was that responding to what I wrote? Didn't seem like it.
Anyway, not to waste further time on why Hitler's european ambitions are in no way analagous to the EU, we are probably best off trying to prevent the current move towards political unity (if we really want to prevent their ECU) by being inside the damn thing, not outside it, when presumably the remaining 27 nations will be full speed ahead to superstate.
This is one of the big arguments for us Leaving. It is not just a question of the rest of the EU wanting to unify - indeed some of them don't want to. But they have no choice. For the Eurozone to survive it has to unify politically. It is a practical necessity. Currently we are the main obstacle to that.
This comes back to the choice available to us. We either vote to Leave or we vote to stay in an EU committed to unification. There is no other choice available.
The one thing we have no right to do is vote to stay and then carry on trying to block the moves to a single federal state.
So if we leave we will have more influence over them doing something or other than if we stay? As with your contention that with Dave's deal we will no longer be able to opt out of initiatives, whereas without one we could (and did - ie the fiscal compact), I find the logic tortuous.
Your last point is interesting. For some reason they are tolerating our 2-speed membership. As such, I would say we have every right to continue to argue the mitigating case vs ever closer union. Of course some things that the EZ are doing are out of our hands (as of course they would be if we were out) but other than that we can be a sensible voice of moderation. If they don't listen to us fine, we have hedged our involvement with Dave's deal.
We will have no influence whether in or out. It is a matter of necessity for their to be political union. That has been recognised from the very start of the single currency. A vote to remain is a vote for continued unification.
Mr. Herdson, two points of order: Lots of people did come to see Rome as a positive even if they lived very far from the city. The EU has ignored democratic votes on multiple occasions, either outright ignoring them or forcing a re-run.
If you mean the Greek referendum, then why was the EU under any obligation to pay attention? I can democratically decide that I don't want to pay my mortgage, and the bank is under no obligation to accept that.
I notice that not one of Boris's detractors has actually said he is wrong, and that Europe is NOT trying to build a superstate.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
That is not the question at hand. Everyone knows that is what the EU are trying to do because they are quite open about it. If Boris had stuck with analogies to the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Hapsburgs or Napoleon that would have been fine. It would have caused no end of debate but it would have been a reasonable assertion.
But equating the EU with one of the greatest mass murderers in world history just destroys any argument he might reasonably have made. It was a stupid mistake (whether intentional or not) and not one that should be supported or excused.
Sorry but I see no logic here. Why on earth leave an analogy out if it's as valid historically as the others you are using? To avoid upsetting the professionally offended?
The first time I heard the Hitler comparison, many years ago, I thought 'Oh, I've never thought of it that way, I suppose it's true in a way'.
I find it extraordinary that you find it difficult to understand why the analogy is the most ridiculous thing to have come out of the EUref debate. And it is a strong field.
I think it's a valid analogy that was made in the full knowledge it would 'blow up' into a furore. Like a product that has different perceived value as it crosses a border. Whether it has been a disaster or a success, I suppose even if we see more polling soon we won't ever really know. I'm not saying it was a master-stroke (unlike certain PBers regarding the Obama drama), but equally I don't see the damage. No-one is accusing Boris is being racist or anti-Semitic.
No, but they are accusing him of being an offensive idiot and blowing a complaint out of all proportion.
Hitler - and Napoleon and Charles V and Julius Caesar and anyone else you choose to throw into the mix - attempted to build their empires by force, against the will of occupied and oppressed people. The EU has, however imperfectly at times, been built by democratic countries whose governments are accountable to elected parliaments and whose treaties have in some instances been put directly to electorates.
Britain is currently debating withdrawal. That wasn't an option Hitler gave Poland, Napoleon gave Spain, Charles gave the Netherlands or Caesar gave Gaul. Those who can't see the difference aren't looking, probably deliberately.
I don't think there's anyone not seeing the differences. Some are just recognising the similarities.
"Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (45% v 21%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (42% v 27%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (39% v 24%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)."
Sample highly skewed to UKIP supporters like almost all online polls.
And how big is that skewing towards UKIUP supporters ?
Please give an actual number Mike.
That would allow us to recalibrate the results.
UKIP were on 17% in that poll. Versus 12% NESV that they polled last week.
Although that was in a local election where UKIP have never done well.
But lets say that there's 5% too many UKIP supporters in that poll and that if they were replaced they would be by 3% pro EU and 2% anti EU others.
That would give these results:
Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (42% v 24%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (41% v 28%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (36% v 27%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)
Or if they were replaced by 4% pro EU and 1% anti EU:
Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (41% v 25%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (41% v 28%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (35% v 28%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)
So not enough to make a significant difference.
What was it OGH once told us about people who criticize polls they don't like
Seeing as I am on a roll I am going to have a sneaky £20 on Pochettino being gone by Christmas. Given the way this last month has gone at Spurs, if he does not start next season well the press is going to smell blood and Daniel Levy is not a patient man.
Mr. 1000, there are other examples (Nice, Lisbon etc). I didn't have the Greek vote in mind.
Although with treaties, I don't see what is undemocratic about going back and asking again (and again and again).
The governments supported the signing of the treaties, and asked their people to vote. They got a "no" by a small margin, and then made a few (tiny) changes, and asked again.
If they got another "no", they could have made more changes.
And if the people got fed up they could easily have elected a government - such as the FN in France or UKIP in the UK - that had different views, and didn't put the treaty to them.
Mr. Herdson, two points of order: Lots of people did come to see Rome as a positive even if they lived very far from the city. The EU has ignored democratic votes on multiple occasions, either outright ignoring them or forcing a re-run.
Point of order dismissed.
Although Rome was a positive generally once it had established order, it most certainly wasn't so for the indigenous populations while the conquests were taking place, nor if they fancied independence afterwards. That's not to deny the benefits of Rome's rule but it was a dictatorship and - when needs be - a brutal one.
Boris wrote a book about it once - The Dream of Rome. It's probably worth mining for quotes.
The EU hasn't ignored democratic votes. It has sought to accommodate them. No treaty has gone live without all members ratifying (unlike the United States, as an aside, which came into being when the tenth out of thirteen states agreed the constitution). Certainly, some have come under political pressure to come up with an agreement to facilitate a second vote but that vote has taken place all the same - or alternatively, the treaty itself was rewritten.
I'm assuming that you're not counting the Greek election. No country has the right to simply vote itself money from somewhere else.
The ComRes online trust in Cameron/Johnson figures are totally out of line with other firms.
YouGov asked "How much do you trust the following people in regards to the current debate over Britain’s membership of the European Union?
Amongst CON voters the split was DC 47% - 45% trust Boris 48% to 43%
ComRes online has history of overstating UKIP - it was worst pollster at 2014 EUROs giving the purples at 33% share when they got 27%. 2 weeks earlier it had UKIP on 38%
"Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (45% v 21%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (42% v 27%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (39% v 24%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)."
Sample highly skewed to UKIP supporters like almost all online polls.
And how big is that skewing towards UKIUP supporters ?
Please give an actual number Mike.
That would allow us to recalibrate the results.
UKIP were on 17% in that poll. Versus 12% NESV that they polled last week.
Although that was a different election. UKIP always underperform their GE share in local elections and overperform it in EP elections.
"Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (45% v 21%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (42% v 27%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (39% v 24%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)."
Sample highly skewed to UKIP supporters like almost all online polls.
Mike, a skewing (if you are right) of a few % to UKIP is not going to make much difference to 20% leads for LEAVE over REMAIN in the figures on "truth".
"Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (45% v 21%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (42% v 27%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (39% v 24%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)."
Sample highly skewed to UKIP supporters like almost all online polls.
And how big is that skewing towards UKIUP supporters ?
Please give an actual number Mike.
That would allow us to recalibrate the results.
It's similar to the Cosmological Constant : it's big enough to validate the observers view.
In this case, all you need to know is the Remainians are for REMAINing, so pick a suitable number.
"Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (45% v 21%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (42% v 27%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (39% v 24%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)."
Sample highly skewed to UKIP supporters like almost all online polls.
And how big is that skewing towards UKIUP supporters ?
Please give an actual number Mike.
That would allow us to recalibrate the results.
UKIP were on 17% in that poll. Versus 12% NESV that they polled last week.
Although that was in a local election where UKIP have never done well.
But lets say that there's 5% too many UKIP supporters in that poll and that if they were replaced they would be by 3% pro EU and 2% anti EU others.
That would give these results:
Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (42% v 24%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (41% v 28%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (36% v 27%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)
Or if they were replaced by 4% pro EU and 1% anti EU:
Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (41% v 25%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (41% v 28%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (35% v 28%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)
So not enough to make a significant difference.
What was it OGH once told us about people who criticize polls they don't like
It's not just that. There's a feeling that online polls are skewed with too many Eurosceptic Tory voters.
Is why the BES is so useful.
I'm coming to the conclusion it is nigh on difficult to get a representative sample for GB wide polling.
Mr. Herdson, two points of order: Lots of people did come to see Rome as a positive even if they lived very far from the city. The EU has ignored democratic votes on multiple occasions, either outright ignoring them or forcing a re-run.
Point of order dismissed.
Although Rome was a positive generally once it had established order, it most certainly wasn't so for the indigenous populations while the conquests were taking place, nor if they fancied independence afterwards. That's not to deny the benefits of Rome's rule but it was a dictatorship and - when needs be - a brutal one.
Boris wrote a book about it once - The Dream of Rome. It's probably worth mining for quotes.
The EU hasn't ignored democratic votes. It has sought to accommodate them. No treaty has gone live without all members ratifying (unlike the United States, as an aside, which came into being when the tenth out of thirteen states agreed the constitution). Certainly, some have come under political pressure to come up with an agreement to facilitate a second vote but that vote has taken place all the same - or alternatively, the treaty itself was rewritten.
I'm assuming that you're not counting the Greek election. No country has the right to simply vote itself money from somewhere else.
Countries normally vote themselves money from sometime else.
Namely the future.
Have fun paying back your share of Osborne's £172bn of overborrowing.
And a very good evening to one and all and thanks as ever for the discussion PB provides.
"Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (45% v 21%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (42% v 27%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (39% v 24%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)."
Sample highly skewed to UKIP supporters like almost all online polls.
And how big is that skewing towards UKIUP supporters ?
Please give an actual number Mike.
That would allow us to recalibrate the results.
UKIP were on 17% in that poll. Versus 12% NESV that they polled last week.
Although that was in a local election where UKIP have never done well.
But lets say that there's 5% too many UKIP supporters in that poll and that if they were replaced they would be by 3% pro EU and 2% anti EU others.
That would give these results:
Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (42% v 24%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (41% v 28%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (36% v 27%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)
Or if they were replaced by 4% pro EU and 1% anti EU:
Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (41% v 25%). Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (41% v 28%). Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (35% v 28%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)
So not enough to make a significant difference.
What was it OGH once told us about people who criticize polls they don't like
It's not just that. There's a feeling that online polls are skewed with too many Eurosceptic Tory voters.
Is why the BES is so useful.
I'm coming to the conclusion it is nigh on difficult to get a representative sample for GB wide polling.
I believe there's a poll out on the 25th of next month which is quite likely to be representative. Perhaps we should all wait for that.
Comments
So no, I'm very sure Hitler didn't want prosperity.
Quite why David Davis has faded into obscurity is a mystery. He is a very able performer, likeable, charismatic, charming, articulate, an easy communicator, credible and believable.
IO IO, and off to work we go...
Boris "carved £350 million" into a piece of steel and if anyone points out how fabricated it is, they respond by shouting louder. The very crux of the BREXIT campaign is a big lie, and every BREXIT politician backing the number is a disgrace.
I am in a tiny minority it seems who would be very happy with Gove as PM. But I am also fortunate that he has categorically rules out ever standing for the position so I don't have to worry that my judgement might be found to be faulty on that score.
The one Leave Tory I would definitely not want to see as PM is Patel. Her support for the death penalty makes her completely unacceptable for me.
And that is why what he said is quite clever.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/prosperity
Of course he wanted prosperity. The fact he was deluded, his philosophy was ridiculous, he was a psychopath etc., bears no relevance on this question. Of course he wanted prosperity, of course he wanted a golden age (what was his fantasy of a 1000 year reich if not that?) - he just wanted it for his master-race, on his terms, and death for anyone who got in the way. Doesn't mean he didn't want prosperity - or peace for that matter. Are we saying if the world had surrendered to him without any fighting he would have refused?
https://twitter.com/johnscheerhout/status/731868013620830213
But equating the EU with one of the greatest mass murderers in world history just destroys any argument he might reasonably have made. It was a stupid mistake (whether intentional or not) and not one that should be supported or excused.
My personal view is I would put him in a bucket with IDS (and Jezza) of him thinking the world can and should be made into how he wants it to be, rather than modified slightly from where it is. Not quite getting that politics is the art of the possible and the aim is to achieve the best outcome possible, not the best possible outcome.
https://tinyurl.com/gldx4gt
They'll fit in well with the 140+ MPs he's alienated by coming out as the EU's greatest supporter.
Bye bye dave.
Fears of ISIS chemical attack on England vs Russia Euro 2016 as French security forces run terror drill
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/fears-isis-chemical-attack-england-7639713
The first time I heard the Hitler comparison, many years ago, I thought 'Oh, I've never thought of it that way, I suppose it's true in a way'.
Bottom line is that if Boris had not included Hitler the discussion would be over the fairly unanswerable assertion that the EU desires (and needs) to be a single state. As it is the main headline in most people's eyes is Boris compares EU to Genocidal lunatic.
But isn't 3rd place Spurs best finish in ages?
or probably not.
Edited extra bit: during the Farage appearance, one imagines an audience member will ask him if he agrees with Boris that the EU shares Hitler's aspirations, or suchlike.
Cameron "carved £4,300" into a piece of steel and if anyone points out how fabricated it is, they respond by shouting louder. The very crux of the REMAIN campaign is a big lie, and every REMAIN politician backing the number is a disgrace.
You see we can all bleat, bleat, bleat.
REMAIN are using a negative fear-based message based on fear of change, but coupled to limbic appeals to authority figures.
If this were Greece, LEAVE might be winning, but as it is (mainly) England, a country with no great tradition of kicking back at authority, REMAIN will win.
http://m.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14493678.Why_Scotland_should_quit/
To be fair to Boris, he is only showing how different people tried to bring Europe together in different ways. The media going on about Hitler takes that out of context. (For Ken, it was completely different, he meant it).
To be unfair to Boris, he should have known the risks of using the H word in the current situation.
Political speech is afforded higher protections in part because otherwise relevant and decent points may be found amidst irrational invective or worthless commentary, it is recognised good, important points may be made amidst the guff. But why gift to your opponents a method of distracting from your point?
The very same point was made to Remainers about Cameron and WW3 - the tenor of his comments was blatantly trailed to the media, then there was upset no one noticed the nuance of his speech.
The anger from many here is that this could be an instance of the same. Others feel it was not a tactical error of the same level, and we shall see, and it is true Remain are not well placed to take advantage of it, but there's nothing illogical about it. If you want as many people as possible to hear your points, it needs to get their attention, but hopefully also not be easily misinterpreted or misconstrued deliberately by opponents, forcing you into a cycle of apology or explanation.
It all comes down to how waverers are affected by such things (not by individual instances, but the cumulative whole of the campaign), and as people always say, if you're explaining you're losing. Hopefully when Remain bring this up in future to ridicule better put points from Boris, they are not undermined.
https://t.co/06SXt42H4f
*and please don't conflate arguments about kettle specifications with the subordination of nations by force.
Even to invoke Hitler is idiocy of the highest order. To try to compare a voluntary union of nations with Hitler's attempt to conquer* Europe turns it up to 11.
*def: overcome and take control (of a place or people) by force.
Please note that it has been UK standard policy for 300 years to prevent a European Superstate - at the moment the only thing we can do is remove our financing of it.
Hitler was not trying to create a European superstate (and neither are the EU)
Hitler wanted a 1000 year Reich, a single German state that just happened to have larger borders
Anyway, not to waste further time on why Hitler's european ambitions are in no way analagous to the EU, we are probably best off trying to prevent the current move towards political unity (if we really want to prevent their ECU) by being inside the damn thing, not outside it, when presumably the remaining 27 nations will be full speed ahead to superstate.
"Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (45% v 21%).
Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (42% v 27%).
Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (39% v 24%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)."
Conclusion = LEAVE have a major lead over REMAIN on trust.
Miss Plato, bit surprised. We'll see how that goes. Can't imagine it happening here.
"The British public remain divided over whether they would be personally better off if Britain left the EU or remained part of it (29% v 33%). Around two in five (38%) say they don’t know how the referendum outcome would personally affect them."
Conclusion = REMAIN have a slight lead on the economy.
This comes back to the choice available to us. We either vote to Leave or we vote to stay in an EU committed to unification. There is no other choice available.
The one thing we have no right to do is vote to stay and then carry on trying to block the moves to a single federal state.
"There has been a rise in the proportion of Britons saying national security would be better if Britain left the EU - 42% say it would be stronger if Britain left, compared to 38% who say it would be stronger if Britain remained. This represents an increase of 7 points from March in favour of leaving (35% in March 2016)."
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/independent-sunday-mirror-may-2016-poll/
Conclusion = LEAVE have moved ahead of REMAIN on "security".
"attitudes towards immigration are clear; British adults are more than twice as likely to say the government could control Britain’s borders better if it left the EU (57% v 27% if Britain remains)."
Conclusion = LEAVE are miles ahead of REMAIN on immigration.
Please give an actual number Mike.
That would allow us to recalibrate the results.
Hitler - and Napoleon and Charles V and Julius Caesar and anyone else you choose to throw into the mix - attempted to build their empires by force, against the will of occupied and oppressed people. The EU has, however imperfectly at times, been built by democratic countries whose governments are accountable to elected parliaments and whose treaties have in some instances been put directly to electorates.
Britain is currently debating withdrawal. That wasn't an option Hitler gave Poland, Napoleon gave Spain, Charles gave the Netherlands or Caesar gave Gaul. Those who can't see the difference aren't looking, probably deliberately.
Boris was right, the EU is a Nazi dictatorship.
Boris was right, but the EU are merely emulating the nice bits of Adolf's prospectus.
Perhaps Boris is doing a little experiment with us all - throw Adolf into the mix and see just how far his supporters are prepared to go.
There has been no intervention on the £4300.
All they do is whine and tell lies
Your last point is interesting. For some reason they are tolerating our 2-speed membership. As such, I would say we have every right to continue to argue the mitigating case vs ever closer union. Of course some things that the EZ are doing are out of our hands (as of course they would be if we were out) but other than that we can be a sensible voice of moderation. If they don't listen to us fine, we have hedged our involvement with Dave's deal.
Doesn't really sound like an ISIS (inspired) MO. You don't get your 72 virgins by wiring up the bogs and running off.
Lots of people did come to see Rome as a positive even if they lived very far from the city.
The EU has ignored democratic votes on multiple occasions, either outright ignoring them or forcing a re-run.
He says Boris is wrong
But lets say that there's 5% too many UKIP supporters in that poll and that if they were replaced they would be by 3% pro EU and 2% anti EU others.
That would give these results:
Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (42% v 24%).
Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (41% v 28%).
Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (36% v 27%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)
Or if they were replaced by 4% pro EU and 1% anti EU:
Britons are more than twice as likely to say Boris Johnson would tell the truth about the EU than David Cameron (41% v 25%).
Conservative voters also say Boris Johnson is more likely to tell the truth about the EU than the Prime Minister (41% v 28%).
Similarly, Britons tend to say the campaigners for leaving the EU are more likely to tell the truth than the remain campaigners (35% v 28%), although a significant minority say they don’t know (38%)
So not enough to make a significant difference.
What was it OGH once told us about people who criticize polls they don't like
Unless you are really proposing that a Remain vote will see the UK joining the Euro, in which case, have a lie down
The governments supported the signing of the treaties, and asked their people to vote. They got a "no" by a small margin, and then made a few (tiny) changes, and asked again.
If they got another "no", they could have made more changes.
And if the people got fed up they could easily have elected a government - such as the FN in France or UKIP in the UK - that had different views, and didn't put the treaty to them.
Although Rome was a positive generally once it had established order, it most certainly wasn't so for the indigenous populations while the conquests were taking place, nor if they fancied independence afterwards. That's not to deny the benefits of Rome's rule but it was a dictatorship and - when needs be - a brutal one.
Boris wrote a book about it once - The Dream of Rome. It's probably worth mining for quotes.
The EU hasn't ignored democratic votes. It has sought to accommodate them. No treaty has gone live without all members ratifying (unlike the United States, as an aside, which came into being when the tenth out of thirteen states agreed the constitution). Certainly, some have come under political pressure to come up with an agreement to facilitate a second vote but that vote has taken place all the same - or alternatively, the treaty itself was rewritten.
I'm assuming that you're not counting the Greek election. No country has the right to simply vote itself money from somewhere else.
YouGov asked "How much do you trust the following people in regards to the current debate over Britain’s membership of the European Union?
Amongst CON voters the split was DC 47% - 45% trust Boris 48% to 43%
ComRes online has history of overstating UKIP - it was worst pollster at 2014 EUROs giving the purples at 33% share when they got 27%. 2 weeks earlier it had UKIP on 38%
In this case, all you need to know is the Remainians are for REMAINing, so pick a suitable number.
Is why the BES is so useful.
I'm coming to the conclusion it is nigh on difficult to get a representative sample for GB wide polling.
Namely the future.
Have fun paying back your share of Osborne's £172bn of overborrowing.
And a very good evening to one and all and thanks as ever for the discussion PB provides.