@ProfBrianCox: I'm fed up with Tory school chums plotting to remove Cameron etc. The UK is not your plaything. You want to change PM, call an election.
Oh good, I knew I detested him for some reason.
It's probably because he's much too logical and scientific about things and has a sense of humour.
Could be. I'd always thought it was because he's clearly a huge nerd yet has this rather delusional 'I'm making science cool' schtick going on. Surely you'd have to have some cool in the first place to be donating any of it to physics.
Given that he's a media Prof, he'd be better off spending his time trying to salvage Oxford University from the reputation they are building for moral cowardice:
Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
Or is there another reason?
It's because I'm genuinely gobsmacked at the inconsistency of many Leavers, in this case the palpably bonkers outrage at one US politician 'interfering' and not at another US politician 'interfering'. If I keep repeating my astonishment, it's because I'm so struck by the phenomenon; it really is the most striking thing about the whole referendum.
Although I can 100% guarantee that I'll be misrepresented, let me make clear that I'm not referring to the proposition that Obama shouldn't have commented at all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. What is not perfectly reasonable is to be so outraged by one and not the other.
I genuinely don't understand why so many on the Leave side are purblind on issues like this. It's hardly controversial to point out that Trump and Obama were both expressing an opinion on whether the UK should vote for Brexit, and were both expressing an opinion on how hard it would be to negotiate a trade deal with the US. It utterly baffles me that anyone can, with a straight face, argue that only one of those was outrageous.
1 is a bloke with a dodgy past. The other is the President.
The Nazis drew up the “basic plan” for the European Union decades before it was actually established, a Ukip MEP has claimed.
Gerard Batten on Monday stepped up to defend Boris Johnson, who on Sunday attracted criticism for likening the EU’s aims to those of Adolf Hitler.
Mr Batten however suggested Mr Johnson had actually underplayed the connections between the EU and the Nazis, and that the bloc had “closer links” with the fascists than many realized.
Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
Or is there another reason?
It's because I'm genuinely gobsmacked at the inconsistency of many Leavers, in this case the palpably bonkers outrage at one US politician 'interfering' and not at another US politician 'interfering'. If I keep repeating my astonishment, it's because I'm so struck by the phenomenon; it really is the most striking thing about the whole referendum.
Although I can 100% guarantee that I'll be misrepresented, let me make clear that I'm not referring to the proposition that Obama shouldn't have commented at all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. What is not perfectly reasonable is to be so outraged by one and not the other.
I genuinely don't understand why so many on the Leave side are purblind on issues like this. It's hardly controversial to point out that Trump and Obama were both expressing an opinion on whether the UK should vote for Brexit, and were both expressing an opinion on how hard it would be to negotiate a trade deal with the US. It utterly baffles me that anyone can, with a straight face, argue that only one of those was outrageous.
Clowns to the left of you, jokers to the right....
The Nazis drew up the “basic plan” for the European Union decades before it was actually established, a Ukip MEP has claimed.
Gerard Batten on Monday stepped up to defend Boris Johnson, who on Sunday attracted criticism for likening the EU’s aims to those of Adolf Hitler.
Mr Batten however suggested Mr Johnson had actually underplayed the connections between the EU and the Nazis, and that the bloc had “closer links” with the fascists than many realized.
Good afternoon all. Tried to put a modest £20 on Cammo doing the disappearing trick at 16/1 at my local Paddy Power and they said, nothing doing; we ain't got such a bet. Sigh.
So I read on here today from Mr Meeks that with regard to immigrant labour the laws of supply and demand may not apply to the price labour gets. So tear up those economic text books here is the great Mr Meeks who has cast doubt on one of the few rules of economics that used to be regarded as a fact until along came Mr Meeks. A real WTF moment. This is of course an emotive point for those poor feckers who know people that have seen their wages cut through the use of imported labour..... Here is the text from wikipedia which may now need to be re-written...... " For example, assume that someone invents a better way of growing wheat so that the cost of growing a given quantity of wheat decreases. Otherwise stated, producers will be willing to supply more wheat at every price and this shifts the supply curve S1 outward, to S2—an increase in supply. This increase in supply causes the equilibrium price to decrease from P1 to P2." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
The Nazis drew up the “basic plan” for the European Union decades before it was actually established, a Ukip MEP has claimed.
Gerard Batten on Monday stepped up to defend Boris Johnson, who on Sunday attracted criticism for likening the EU’s aims to those of Adolf Hitler.
Mr Batten however suggested Mr Johnson had actually underplayed the connections between the EU and the Nazis, and that the bloc had “closer links” with the fascists than many realized.
New analysis of Ipsos MORI’s Issues Index also shows the importance of age and generation to attitudes on immigration (as shown in Figure 11). Each generation was similarly unconcerned in the mid-1990s, with concern increasing for all in the late 1990s, but at varying rates. In particular, a generation gap opened up, with the oldest cohort most likely to be concerned and the youngest least: by 2013, the pre-war generation were nearly twice as likely as generation Y to consider immigration a problem.
I think this shows who hasn't got a clue.
Yep,posters like you,I live the real life of poor mass immigration of the last few years and I can tell you that it isn't just the oldies who are concerned by immigration,its all age groups and British born immigrants.
You'll forgive me if I give more credence to an impartial survey than your incoherent ramblings.
And you can shove your supposed impartial survey up your @rse,I live with the real consequences of poor mass immigration of the last few years.
I suspect that the blame for your frustration lies with your evident cognitive deficiencies rather than immigrants.
The blame lies with the government of the day and people like you who thinks everything is ok when immigration comes top of most polls of people concerns.
Stop shifting the goalposts. Mr Meeks suggested that the elderly are more worried than the young about immigration. You disputed that. I posted a link to a poll showing that about 40% of the elderly consider immigration an important issue as opposed to about 22% of youth, thus supporting Mr Meeks' suggestion. That's all.
Nobody has suggested that "everything is OK when immigration comes top of most polls of people concerns." You just made that up.
Chortle, however last week he got very cross with me when I ridiculed his claims to be an "independent thinker".
Ah, was that when you said I was posting my views here to advance my political career?
No, I didn't get cross, I thought it was absolutely hilarious. Unlike you, I don't have a failed political career to advance, and if I did I wouldn't be posting on here to attempt to advance it.
Immigration may or may not hold down wages (the evidence is patchy). It is unlikely to be the main driver of low wage growth in recent years.
In any case, suggesting that this is the vector for Leave's support misses the points that:
1) it is oldies (who are usually retired or shortly to retire) who get most exercised by immigration; and
2) it is people in areas with low immigration who get most exercised by it.
It's all much more explicable by the simpler explanation of xenophobia.
Your no 1 point is bull and just proves to me you haven't a clue on immigration .
Alistair I would accept that a small minority of people who are concerned about immigration are xenophobes who don't want any immigration at all but for most people this isn't the case. I would say the main concerns are:
1) We have no control over numbers from the EU. If a million more people decided to come here tomorrow there is nothing we could do 2) The perception that people who come over can claim benefits and jump the housing queue before contributing anything 3) It is nigh on impossible to kick out bad apples like Abu Qatada or people who commit crimes 4) The impact on wages and housing costs
If we had an Australian style system and a maximum limit of say 50k per year, then I think immigration would mostly disappear as an issue.
Agree with most of that but I would even go up to 100k or over if we needed highly skilled immigration .
The Nazis drew up the “basic plan” for the European Union decades before it was actually established, a Ukip MEP has claimed.
Gerard Batten on Monday stepped up to defend Boris Johnson, who on Sunday attracted criticism for likening the EU’s aims to those of Adolf Hitler.
Mr Batten however suggested Mr Johnson had actually underplayed the connections between the EU and the Nazis, and that the bloc had “closer links” with the fascists than many realized.
Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
Or is there another reason?
It's because I'm genuinely gobsmacked at the inconsistency of many Leavers, in this case the palpably bonkers outrage at one US politician 'interfering' and not at another US politician 'interfering'. If I keep repeating my astonishment, it's because I'm so struck by the phenomenon; it really is the most striking thing about the whole referendum.
Although I can 100% guarantee that I'll be misrepresented, let me make clear that I'm not referring to the proposition that Obama shouldn't have commented at all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. What is not perfectly reasonable is to be so outraged by one and not the other.
I genuinely don't understand why so many on the Leave side are purblind on issues like this. It's hardly controversial to point out that Trump and Obama were both expressing an opinion on whether the UK should vote for Brexit, and were both expressing an opinion on how hard it would be to negotiate a trade deal with the US. It utterly baffles me that anyone can, with a straight face, argue that only one of those was outrageous.
One gave an off the cuff remark in an interview and the other came here and had two massive set-pieces with the whole lobby in attendance to denounce Brexit with a script written by Number 10. I'm not sure how they are comparable in anyone's mind but your's Richard.
One presumes that the lefties will condemn the latest failure to declare "bussing expenses" as rigorously as they condemned the Tories? No doubt Plod will launch an immediate investigation.
Hat tip Guido and Co.
"On April 4 2015, MPs and activists boarded a Labour Express battle bus to Pudsey in order to help the local campaign there. Labour was bussing activists – “troops” as they called them – to a key marginal seat to knock on doors. This should have been declared in the local campaign spend for the short campaign. As you can see below, it wasn’t…"
Chortle, however last week he got very cross with me when I ridiculed his claims to be an "independent thinker".
Ah, was that when you said I was posting my views here to advance my political career?
No, I didn't get cross, I thought it was absolutely hilarious. Unlike you, I don't have a failed political career to advance, and if I did I wouldn't be posting on here to attempt to advance it.
No, I suggested TSE had a career to advance and that you were an unthinking sycophantic toady.
I'm not sure many sprung to your defence.
Yes, I had a short, fulfilling but failed political career, standing for what you believe in is something that you simply can't reconcile or comprehend. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of,.
One gave an off the cuff remark in an interview and the other came here and had two massive set-pieces with the whole lobby in attendance to denounce Brexit with a script written by Number 10. I'm not sure how they are comparable in anyone's mind but your's Richard.
Oh, they are not comparable in impact, of course.
But, there you go again, proving my point about normally sensible people once again: 'a script written by Number 10'.
I mean, really? You think the President of the United States reads out scripts written by Osborne or Cameron? Have you considered the possibility that Obama might simply have been telling it like he sees it?
Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
Or is there another reason?
It's because I'm genuinely gobsmacked at the inconsistency of many Leavers, in this case the palpably bonkers outrage at one US politician 'interfering' and not at another US politician 'interfering'. If I keep repeating my astonishment, it's because I'm so struck by the phenomenon; it really is the most striking thing about the whole referendum.
Although I can 100% guarantee that I'll be misrepresented, let me make clear that I'm not referring to the proposition that Obama shouldn't have commented at all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. What is not perfectly reasonable is to be so outraged by one and not the other.
I genuinely don't understand why so many on the Leave side are purblind on issues like this. It's hardly controversial to point out that Trump and Obama were both expressing an opinion on whether the UK should vote for Brexit, and were both expressing an opinion on how hard it would be to negotiate a trade deal with the US. It utterly baffles me that anyone can, with a straight face, argue that only one of those was outrageous.
One gave an off the cuff remark in an interview and the other came here and had two massive set-pieces with the whole lobby in attendance to denounce Brexit with a script written by Number 10. I'm not sure how they are comparable in anyone's mind but your's Richard.
Yes one behaved like a corporate seagull, flew in ate all the food and cr*pped on the place by denigrating us and the other one said he wants to be friends in the face of the insults heaped upon him.
@VapidBilge (good name, can't think where you got it from) - Employment rates are at an all time high, job vacancy rates are touching all time highs, unemployment rates are at a ten year low. So the increase in the supply of labour is not keeping up with the increased demand for it.
In those circumstances, we can reasonably conclude that immigration isn't the main thing holding down wage rises.
Of course it is, if you flood the market with cheap labour you compress wages.
Its why brain surgeons get paid more than roadsweepers.
I'd be tempted to recruit lots and lots of overseas pension lawyers
Let them eat cake, says Meeks.
@:tykejohnnie
I haven't been affected by immigration one way or another directly, but I've had hundreds of conversations along the lines of your posts, and I've spent time in Bradford. Don't be dissuaded (not that you will) by the poncy effete elite who call you a racist xenophobe, their time will come.
Thanks Mr Blackburn,they must be millions of us thickO's according Feersumenjineeya worried or have concerns about the numbers or Quality of immigration.
Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
Or is there another reason?
It's because I'm genuinely gobsmacked at the inconsistency of many Leavers, in this case the palpably bonkers outrage at one US politician 'interfering' and not at another US politician 'interfering'. If I keep repeating my astonishment, it's because I'm so struck by the phenomenon; it really is the most striking thing about the whole referendum.
Although I can 100% guarantee that I'll be misrepresented, let me make clear that I'm not referring to the proposition that Obama shouldn't have commented at all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. What is not perfectly reasonable is to be so outraged by one and not the other.
I genuinely don't understand why so many on the Leave side are purblind on issues like this. It's hardly controversial to point out that Trump and Obama were both expressing an opinion on whether the UK should vote for Brexit, and were both expressing an opinion on how hard it would be to negotiate a trade deal with the US. It utterly baffles me that anyone can, with a straight face, argue that only one of those was outrageous.
1 is a bloke with a dodgy past. The other is the President.
(I'm here all night)
Don't mess with Donald Trump or they'll be hell toupee.
No, I suggested TSE had a career to advance and that you were an unthinking sycophantic toady.
I'm sure Cameron and Osborne have been watching my sycophancy with great attention, in between knobbling the G20 finance ministers, squaring the IMF, writing scripts for Obama, infiltrating the NIESR, dragooning eight former US treasury secretaries, and putting pressure on all the world's investment banks.
One gave an off the cuff remark in an interview and the other came here and had two massive set-pieces with the whole lobby in attendance to denounce Brexit with a script written by Number 10. I'm not sure how they are comparable in anyone's mind but your's Richard.
Oh, they are not comparable in impact, of course.
But, there you go again, proving my point about normally sensible people once again: 'a script written by Number 10'.
I mean, really? You think the President of the United States reads out scripts written by Osborne or Cameron? Have you considered the possibility that Obama might simply have been telling it like he sees it?
I believe you are usually a sensible person who understand the way the world works.
Do you really believe that all these foreign leaders would be sticking their oar in without being requested to do so by No 10? Trading in favours is the way that international diplomacy works.
If you accept that point, then do you really believe that Downing Street would not have had prior sight of / input into Obama's comments? Of course he would not have said anything he didn't want to say, but he if he would not have been (in their view) supportive of the Remain case then they simply wouldn't have invited him to speak.
One gave an off the cuff remark in an interview and the other came here and had two massive set-pieces with the whole lobby in attendance to denounce Brexit with a script written by Number 10. I'm not sure how they are comparable in anyone's mind but your's Richard.
Oh, they are not comparable in impact, of course.
But, there you go again, proving my point about normally sensible people once again: 'a script written by Number 10'.
I mean, really? You think the President of the United States reads out scripts written by Osborne or Cameron? Have you considered the possibility that Obama might simply have been telling it like he sees it?
Well, yes? It's easy for him and as many people have said, "back of the queue" is a British idiom. Americans wouldn't use it.
"Brexit would cost hundreds of billions, warns Osborne"
Times are flashing up an article.
So we've moved from merely billions to hundreds of billions. Desperate stuff really.
Just seen the alert - FFS. I expect that to get a giant raspberry in the comments too. Talk about intelligence insulting. It's making 24hrs to save the NHS look plausible
"Brexit would cost hundreds of billions, warns Osborne"
Times are flashing up an article.
So we've moved from merely billions to hundreds of billions. Desperate stuff really.
PLEASE tell me he's said 'hundreds of billions'.
Coming up at 5pm: Brexit would cost hundreds of billions, warns Osborne - George Osborne warns that Brexit would cost £200bn in lost investment and £200bn in trade each year
Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
Or is there another reason?
It's because I'm genuinely gobsmacked at the inconsistency of many Leavers, in this case the palpably bonkers outrage at one US politician 'interfering' and not at another US politician 'interfering'. If I keep repeating my astonishment, it's because I'm so struck by the phenomenon; it really is the most striking thing about the whole referendum.
Although I can 100% guarantee that I'll be misrepresented, let me make clear that I'm not referring to the proposition that Obama shouldn't have commented at all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. What is not perfectly reasonable is to be so outraged by one and not the other.
I genuinely don't understand why so many on the Leave side are purblind on issues like this. It's hardly controversial to point out that Trump and Obama were both expressing an opinion on whether the UK should vote for Brexit, and were both expressing an opinion on how hard it would be to negotiate a trade deal with the US. It utterly baffles me that anyone can, with a straight face, argue that only one of those was outrageous.
1 is a bloke with a dodgy past. The other is the President.
(I'm here all night)
Don't mess with Donald Trump or they'll be hell toupee.
Charles, I expect more class and decorum from you.
I mean that's the sort of filthy innuendo, a working class Northerner like me would come up with.
I'd put in down to Charles's having to consort with those rough types in NW8 .... he's having to quaff cheap prosecco, and nosh on Iceland sausage rolls and Artic roll from the Co-op at family functions now.
Charles, I expect more class and decorum from you.
I mean that's the sort of filthy innuendo, a working class Northerner like me would come up with.
Working class northerner? You? Your dad was a physician of some sorts wasn't he, and you are a lawyer. Come of it Mr Eagles you are as about as much working class as Cameron
I believe you are usually a sensible person who understand the way the world works.
Do you really believe that all these foreign leaders would be sticking their oar in without being requested to do so by No 10? Trading in favours is the way that international diplomacy works.
If you accept that point, then do you really believe that Downing Street would not have had prior sight of / input into Obama's comments? Of course he would not have said anything he didn't want to say, but he if he would not have been (in their view) supportive of the Remain case then they simply wouldn't have invited him to speak.
They would have known in advance that he was going to make an intervention, and would certainly have let it be known that they would welcome it.
Two little bytes of information on potential future Labour MPs or candidates:
Shami Chakrabarti has announced she has recently joined the party;
Dr Palmer, of this parish, has, I believe, announced on his blog that he has returned to a more active political role and is considering selections.
Shami must be one of the most overrated public figures around.
Andy Burnham once slagged her off, and had to apologise, so she must not be all that bad.
She has two big faults to my mind:-
1. Her espousal of liberal principles is not very consistent. And not particularly principled either. 2. She has not thought hard enough - or at all, were I to be unkind - about how to maintain liberal principles when they are under assault from those who don't believe in them, the paradox that too much tolerance of intolerance can allow intolerance to win and to destroy the very liberalism you are claiming to espouse.
The need to maintain and argue vigorously for Western liberalism - a muscular confident liberalism - not the mushy "we are to blame for everything" liberal self-delusion which often masquerades as real liberalism needed a much better defender than it got in her. Who has even followed her at Liberty?
Other than that she's OK. Mind you there is stuff in her personal life which may mean she may not want the exposure of public life. Nothing shocking to my mind just private stuff but the sort of stuff that papers can turn into a something, if they were minded to.
She's a bit of a goer, by all accounts.
Is she?
She seems totally humourless to me. I can't recall her ever laughing or smiling or thinking the appropriate response to any joke is anything other is to earnestly shake her head at it, and demand a retraction or apology.
"Brexit would cost hundreds of billions, warns Osborne"
Times are flashing up an article.
So we've moved from merely billions to hundreds of billions. Desperate stuff really.
PLEASE tell me he's said 'hundreds of billions'.
Coming up at 5pm: Brexit would cost hundreds of billions, warns Osborne - George Osborne warns that Brexit would cost £200bn in lost investment and £200bn in trade each year
Don't panic Mr Mainwaring.
This is where they've lost it, sensible discussion has gone out of the window, the queues round the block when N Rock went tits up are nothing, that'll be us queueing for bread.
One gave an off the cuff remark in an interview and the other came here and had two massive set-pieces with the whole lobby in attendance to denounce Brexit with a script written by Number 10. I'm not sure how they are comparable in anyone's mind but your's Richard.
Oh, they are not comparable in impact, of course.
But, there you go again, proving my point about normally sensible people once again: 'a script written by Number 10'.
I mean, really? You think the President of the United States reads out scripts written by Osborne or Cameron? Have you considered the possibility that Obama might simply have been telling it like he sees it?
Well, yes? It's easy for him and as many people have said, "back of the queue" is a British idiom. Americans wouldn't use it.
Charles, I expect more class and decorum from you.
I mean that's the sort of filthy innuendo, a working class Northerner like me would come up with.
Working class northerner? You? Your dad was a physician of some sorts wasn't he, and you are a lawyer. Come of it Mr Eagles you are as about as much working class as Cameron
I'm from the North, I work, that makes me a working class Northerner doesn't it ?
Charles, I expect more class and decorum from you.
I mean that's the sort of filthy innuendo, a working class Northerner like me would come up with.
I'd put in down to Charles's having to consort with those rough types in NW8 .... he's having to quaff cheap prosecco, and nosh on Iceland sausage rolls and Artic roll from the Co-op at family functions now.
They charge 89p for Shreddies at Iceland vs £2.79 at Tesco...
@VapidBilge (good name, can't think where you got it from) - Employment rates are at an all time high, job vacancy rates are touching all time highs, unemployment rates are at a ten year low. So the increase in the supply of labour is not keeping up with the increased demand for it.
In those circumstances, we can reasonably conclude that immigration isn't the main thing holding down wage rises.
Of course it is, if you flood the market with cheap labour you compress wages.
Its why brain surgeons get paid more than roadsweepers.
I'd be tempted to recruit lots and lots of overseas pension lawyers
I'm sure Mr Meeks can defend himself against you easily but Law firms have frequently recruited large numbers of Australian and NZ lawyers generally in areas such as corporate, banking and capital markets where skills are easily transferable. Pensions combines esoteric and real local knowledge so overseas recruitment is significantly harder. Like tax, it's generally a repository of really bright people. The competition between law firms is real and pricing for any given matter can vary widely.
But you don't want facts you want to write WTF and cut and paste articles without any evidence of having considered them.
Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
Or is there another reason?
It's because I'm genuinely gobsmacked at the inconsistency of many Leavers, in this case the palpably bonkers outrage at one US politician 'interfering' and not at another US politician 'interfering'. If I keep repeating my astonishment, it's because I'm so struck by the phenomenon; it really is the most striking thing about the whole referendum.
Although I can 100% guarantee that I'll be misrepresented, let me make clear that I'm not referring to the proposition that Obama shouldn't have commented at all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. What is not perfectly reasonable is to be so outraged by one and not the other.
I genuinely don't understand why so many on the Leave side are purblind on issues like this. It's hardly controversial to point out that Trump and Obama were both expressing an opinion on whether the UK should vote for Brexit, and were both expressing an opinion on how hard it would be to negotiate a trade deal with the US. It utterly baffles me that anyone can, with a straight face, argue that only one of those was outrageous.
1 is a bloke with a dodgy past. The other is the President.
(I'm here all night)
Don't mess with Donald Trump or they'll be hell toupee.
Alright, keep your hair on.
As on election night rcs1000 said to his father ....
Charles, I expect more class and decorum from you.
I mean that's the sort of filthy innuendo, a working class Northerner like me would come up with.
I'd put in down to Charles's having to consort with those rough types in NW8 .... he's having to quaff cheap prosecco, and nosh on Iceland sausage rolls and Artic roll from the Co-op at family functions now.
They charge 89p for Shreddies at Iceland vs £2.79 at Tesco...
Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
Or is there another reason?
It's because I'm genuinely gobsmacked at the inconsistency of many Leavers, in this case the palpably bonkers outrage at one US politician 'interfering' and not at another US politician 'interfering'. If I keep repeating my astonishment, it's because I'm so struck by the phenomenon; it really is the most striking thing about the whole referendum.
Although I can 100% guarantee that I'll be misrepresented, let me make clear that I'm not referring to the proposition that Obama shouldn't have commented at all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. What is not perfectly reasonable is to be so outraged by one and not the other.
I genuinely don't understand why so many on the Leave side are purblind on issues like this. It's hardly controversial to point out that Trump and Obama were both expressing an opinion on whether the UK should vote for Brexit, and were both expressing an opinion on how hard it would be to negotiate a trade deal with the US. It utterly baffles me that anyone can, with a straight face, argue that only one of those was outrageous.
One gave an off the cuff remark in an interview and the other came here and had two massive set-pieces with the whole lobby in attendance to denounce Brexit with a script written by Number 10. I'm not sure how they are comparable in anyone's mind but your's Richard.
I think it's slightly naïve to believe that the parameters of the interview were not discussed with Trump in advance and that he was not told he would be asked certain questions. And, of course, he could just have said No Comment.
I see that some people have taken the misquote seriously!
Calm down, dears:
[Osborne] said Treasury analysis suggested Britain could lose out on up to £200bn of trade by 2030, if it left the EU and reverted to World Trade Organization trading rules
Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
Or is there another reason?
It's because I'm genuinely gobsmacked at the inconsistency of many Leavers, in this case the palpably bonkers outrage at one US politician 'interfering' and not at another US politician 'interfering'. If I keep repeating my astonishment, it's because I'm so struck by the phenomenon; it really is the most striking thing about the whole referendum.
Although I can 100% guarantee that I'll be misrepresented, let me make clear that I'm not referring to the proposition that Obama shouldn't have commented at all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. What is not perfectly reasonable is to be so outraged by one and not the other.
I genuinely don't understand why so many on the Leave side are purblind on issues like this. It's hardly controversial to point out that Trump and Obama were both expressing an opinion on whether the UK should vote for Brexit, and were both expressing an opinion on how hard it would be to negotiate a trade deal with the US. It utterly baffles me that anyone can, with a straight face, argue that only one of those was outrageous.
1 is a bloke with a dodgy past. The other is the President.
(I'm here all night)
Don't mess with Donald Trump or they'll be hell toupee.
Alright, keep your hair on.
Which reminds me ....
I'm hearing a rumour that the first act of President Trump will be rename the Presidential aircraft - Hair Force One ....
Charles, I expect more class and decorum from you.
I mean that's the sort of filthy innuendo, a working class Northerner like me would come up with.
I'd put in down to Charles's having to consort with those rough types in NW8 .... he's having to quaff cheap prosecco, and nosh on Iceland sausage rolls and Artic roll from the Co-op at family functions now.
They charge 89p for Shreddies at Iceland vs £2.79 at Tesco...
Charles, I expect more class and decorum from you.
I mean that's the sort of filthy innuendo, a working class Northerner like me would come up with.
I'd put in down to Charles's having to consort with those rough types in NW8 .... he's having to quaff cheap prosecco, and nosh on Iceland sausage rolls and Artic roll from the Co-op at family functions now.
They charge 89p for Shreddies at Iceland vs £2.79 at Tesco...
Charles, I expect more class and decorum from you.
I mean that's the sort of filthy innuendo, a working class Northerner like me would come up with.
I'd put in down to Charles's having to consort with those rough types in NW8 .... he's having to quaff cheap prosecco, and nosh on Iceland sausage rolls and Artic roll from the Co-op at family functions now.
They charge 89p for Shreddies at Iceland vs £2.79 at Tesco...
What's not to like?
Just as a matter of interest, how close is the nearest Iceland to St John's Wood High Street?
Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
Or is there another reason?
It's because I'm genuinely gobsmacked at the inconsistency of many Leavers, in this case the palpably bonkers outrage at one US politician 'interfering' and not at another US politician 'interfering'. If I keep repeating my astonishment, it's because I'm so struck by the phenomenon; it really is the most striking thing about the whole referendum.
Although I can 100% guarantee that I'll be misrepresented, let me make clear that I'm not referring to the proposition that Obama shouldn't have commented at all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. What is not perfectly reasonable is to be so outraged by one and not the other.
I genuinely don't understand why so many on the Leave side are purblind on issues like this. It's hardly controversial to point out that Trump and Obama were both expressing an opinion on whether the UK should vote for Brexit, and were both expressing an opinion on how hard it would be to negotiate a trade deal with the US. It utterly baffles me that anyone can, with a straight face, argue that only one of those was outrageous.
1 is a bloke with a dodgy past. The other is the President.
(I'm here all night)
Don't mess with Donald Trump or they'll be hell toupee.
Alright, keep your hair on.
Which reminds me ....
I'm hearing a rumour that the first act of President Trump will be rename the Presidential aircraft - Hair Force One ....
His first trip to Camp David might inspire a new nickname for our PM.
When one considers that our largest sector deficit is finished manufactured goods, would the EU really want to start imposing tariffs and barriers for goods that could probably be produced in the UK for the same cost if there was less inertia?
Charles, I expect more class and decorum from you.
I mean that's the sort of filthy innuendo, a working class Northerner like me would come up with.
I'd put in down to Charles's having to consort with those rough types in NW8 .... he's having to quaff cheap prosecco, and nosh on Iceland sausage rolls and Artic roll from the Co-op at family functions now.
They charge 89p for Shreddies at Iceland vs £2.79 at Tesco...
What's not to like?
Just as a matter of interest, how close is the nearest Iceland to St John's Wood High Street?
I see that some people have taken the misquote seriously!
Calm down, dears:
[Osborne] said Treasury analysis suggested Britain could lose out on up to £200bn of trade by 2030, if it left the EU and reverted to World Trade Organization trading rules
This is a very effective Leave tactic, though. Because they are not able to engage with the argument they seek instead to distort what the argument is. They are very cleverly creating a meme that everything Remain says is wildly over the top and so can be safely ignored. Remain have to find a way round that. It's straight out of the SNP's Indy playbook.
I see that some people have taken the misquote seriously!
Calm down, dears:
[Osborne] said Treasury analysis suggested Britain could lose out on up to £200bn of trade by 2030, if it left the EU and reverted to World Trade Organization trading rules
Mr. Max, given the absence of tariffs on Iceland, Turkey, and all points in between it would be an act of singular vindictiveness to uniquely seek to impose them upon us.
I see that some people have taken the misquote seriously!
Calm down, dears:
[Osborne] said Treasury analysis suggested Britain could lose out on up to £200bn of trade by 2030, if it left the EU and reverted to World Trade Organization trading rules
Charles, I expect more class and decorum from you.
I mean that's the sort of filthy innuendo, a working class Northerner like me would come up with.
I'd put in down to Charles's having to consort with those rough types in NW8 .... he's having to quaff cheap prosecco, and nosh on Iceland sausage rolls and Artic roll from the Co-op at family functions now.
They charge 89p for Shreddies at Iceland vs £2.79 at Tesco...
What's not to like?
Just as a matter of interest, how close is the nearest Iceland to St John's Wood High Street?
There's one in East Finchley.
That would come under the heading of "not that close" then.
I see that some people have taken the misquote seriously!
Calm down, dears:
[Osborne] said Treasury analysis suggested Britain could lose out on up to £200bn of trade by 2030, if it left the EU and reverted to World Trade Organization trading rules
This is a very effective Leave tactic, though. Because they are not able to engage with the argument they seek instead to distort what the argument is. They are very cleverly creating a meme that everything Remain says is wildly over the top and so can be safely ignored. Remain have to find a way round that. It's straight out of the SNP's Indy playbook.
Oh come on SO its nothing of the sort, its about ridiculing outrageous claims. Look at Osborne, Cable and Balls lined up on the runway, I mean who on earth thought that was a good idea? What they said was irrelevant.
Remain are doing a Spurs, a predictable choke to the merriment of the opposition.
This is a very effective Leave tactic, though. Because they are not able to engage with the argument they seek instead to distort what the argument is. They are very cleverly creating a meme that everything Remain says is wildly over the top and so can be safely ignored. Remain have to find a way round that. It's straight out of the SNP's Indy playbook.
In this case I think it was a misquote by the Times, but it's indicative that people didn't engage brain and immediately see that Osborne couldn't possibly have said that.
On your main point, I'm not sure that it is a smart approach by the Leave campaign. It might be, but the risk from their point of view is that voters agree that the warnings are over the top, but conclude that there might be something in them. As I've said before, Remain only need to sow enough doubt, not win the argument.
Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
Or is there another reason?
It's because I'm genuinely gobsmacked at the inconsistency of many Leavers, in this case the palpably bonkers outrage at one US politician 'interfering' and not at another US politician 'interfering'. If I keep repeating my astonishment, it's because I'm so struck by the phenomenon; it really is the most striking thing about the whole referendum.
Although I can 100% guarantee that I'll be misrepresented, let me make clear that I'm not referring to the proposition that Obama shouldn't have commented at all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. What is not perfectly reasonable is to be so outraged by one and not the other.
I genuinely don't understand why so many on the Leave side are purblind on issues like this. It's hardly controversial to point out that Trump and Obama were both expressing an opinion on whether the UK should vote for Brexit, and were both expressing an opinion on how hard it would be to negotiate a trade deal with the US. It utterly baffles me that anyone can, with a straight face, argue that only one of those was outrageous.
1 is a bloke with a dodgy past. The other is the President.
(I'm here all night)
Don't mess with Donald Trump or they'll be hell toupee.
Alright, keep your hair on.
Which reminds me ....
I'm hearing a rumour that the first act of President Trump will be rename the Presidential aircraft - Hair Force One ....
His first trip to Camp David might inspire a new nickname for our PM.
And the first meeting with Mrs Trump - the new First Lady ....
PM - "Melania, lovely to meet you. Now tell me what attracted you to Donald apart from his $10bn and high blood pressure ...."
I see that some people have taken the misquote seriously!
Calm down, dears:
[Osborne] said Treasury analysis suggested Britain could lose out on up to £200bn of trade by 2030, if it left the EU and reverted to World Trade Organization trading rules
This is a very effective Leave tactic, though. Because they are not able to engage with the argument they seek instead to distort what the argument is. They are very cleverly creating a meme that everything Remain says is wildly over the top and so can be safely ignored. Remain have to find a way round that. It's straight out of the SNP's Indy playbook.
It may be very effective because the scare stories are so obviously implausible, How do you engage with someone spouting complete nonsense? You cannot have a rational debate with a lunatic.
This is a very effective Leave tactic, though. Because they are not able to engage with the argument they seek instead to distort what the argument is. They are very cleverly creating a meme that everything Remain says is wildly over the top and so can be safely ignored. Remain have to find a way round that. It's straight out of the SNP's Indy playbook.
In this case I think it was a misquote by the Times, but it's indicative that people didn't engage brain and immediately see that Osborne couldn't possibly have said that.
On your main point, I'm not sure that it is a smart approach by the Leave campaign. It might be, but the risk from their point of view is that voters agree that the warnings are over the top, but conclude that there might be something in them. As I've said before, Remain only need to sow enough doubt, not win the argument.
Nah, they see three untrustworthy figures stood behind lecterns on a runway. That'll do.
I see that some people have taken the misquote seriously!
Calm down, dears:
[Osborne] said Treasury analysis suggested Britain could lose out on up to £200bn of trade by 2030, if it left the EU and reverted to World Trade Organization trading rules
This is a very effective Leave tactic, though. Because they are not able to engage with the argument they seek instead to distort what the argument is. They are very cleverly creating a meme that everything Remain says is wildly over the top and so can be safely ignored. Remain have to find a way round that. It's straight out of the SNP's Indy playbook.
Oh come on SO its nothing of the sort, its about ridiculing outrageous claims. Look at Osborne, Cable and Balls lined up on the runway, I mean who on earth thought that was a good idea? What they said was irrelevant.
Remain are doing a Spurs, a predictable choke to the merriment of the opposition.
Unfortunately the LEAVE team a doing an Aston Villa ....
I see that some people have taken the misquote seriously!
Calm down, dears:
[Osborne] said Treasury analysis suggested Britain could lose out on up to £200bn of trade by 2030, if it left the EU and reverted to World Trade Organization trading rules
This is a very effective Leave tactic, though. Because they are not able to engage with the argument they seek instead to distort what the argument is. They are very cleverly creating a meme that everything Remain says is wildly over the top and so can be safely ignored. Remain have to find a way round that. It's straight out of the SNP's Indy playbook.
Oh come on SO its nothing of the sort, its about ridiculing outrageous claims. Look at Osborne, Cable and Balls lined up on the runway, I mean who on earth thought that was a good idea? What they said was irrelevant.
Remain are doing a Spurs, a predictable choke to the merriment of the opposition.
The most sensible comments came from O'Leary, interestingly. Unlike the others he has run a successful company, regardless of what you think of Ryanair's customer service
When one considers that our largest sector deficit is finished manufactured goods, would the EU really want to start imposing tariffs and barriers for goods that could probably be produced in the UK for the same cost if there was less inertia?
There will not be tariffs on manufactured goods between the EU and the UK. It is highly unlikely there will be tariffs on services.
The issues, as always, are about using 'regulation' as a non-tariff barrier. NAFTA, for example, prohibits using local standards as an NTB, with the consequence that Canada's standards office has become essentially defunct; everyone simply manufacturers to US and standards and ships into the US.
Remain are doing a Spurs, a predictable choke to the merriment of the opposition.
Punching the bruise....
In the post-Leicester world, absolutely nothing is certain. Apart from Arsenal finishing somewhere between second and fourth. And Spurs being behind them. And Sunderland ending up 17th. And Stoke ninth. But apart from that, anything can happen. The Premier League may not be the best league in the world. It may not be the most exciting. But Leicester just made it the most interesting.
I see that some people have taken the misquote seriously!
Calm down, dears:
[Osborne] said Treasury analysis suggested Britain could lose out on up to £200bn of trade by 2030, if it left the EU and reverted to World Trade Organization trading rules
This is a very effective Leave tactic, though. Because they are not able to engage with the argument they seek instead to distort what the argument is. They are very cleverly creating a meme that everything Remain says is wildly over the top and so can be safely ignored. Remain have to find a way round that. It's straight out of the SNP's Indy playbook.
It may be very effective because the scare stories are so obviously implausible, How do you engage with someone spouting complete nonsense? You cannot have a rational debate with a lunatic.
Never argue with an idiot in the street, passers by can't tell the difference
Charles, I expect more class and decorum from you.
I mean that's the sort of filthy innuendo, a working class Northerner like me would come up with.
I'd put in down to Charles's having to consort with those rough types in NW8 .... he's having to quaff cheap prosecco, and nosh on Iceland sausage rolls and Artic roll from the Co-op at family functions now.
They charge 89p for Shreddies at Iceland vs £2.79 at Tesco...
What's not to like?
Strangely, when I checked the other day their plain flour was twice the price of Waitrose.
Comments
(I'm here all night)
Well done though, good to see you paying attention, good boy.
So tear up those economic text books here is the great Mr Meeks who has cast doubt on one of the few rules of economics that used to be regarded as a fact until along came Mr Meeks.
A real WTF moment. This is of course an emotive point for those poor feckers who know people that have seen their wages cut through the use of imported labour.....
Here is the text from wikipedia which may now need to be re-written......
" For example, assume that someone invents a better way of growing wheat so that the cost of growing a given quantity of wheat decreases. Otherwise stated, producers will be willing to supply more wheat at every price and this shifts the supply curve S1 outward, to S2—an increase in supply. This increase in supply causes the equilibrium price to decrease from P1 to P2."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
I missed his post about being an independent thinker - brilliant!
Nobody has suggested that "everything is OK when immigration comes top of most polls of people concerns." You just made that up.
No, I didn't get cross, I thought it was absolutely hilarious. Unlike you, I don't have a failed political career to advance, and if I did I wouldn't be posting on here to attempt to advance it.
The Guardian chap reckoned all fantasy is implicitly about social justice. Sir Edric took the opportunity to agree with him.
One presumes that the lefties will condemn the latest failure to declare "bussing expenses" as rigorously as they condemned the Tories? No doubt Plod will launch an immediate investigation.
Hat tip Guido and Co.
"On April 4 2015, MPs and activists boarded a Labour Express battle bus to Pudsey in order to help the local campaign there. Labour was bussing activists – “troops” as they called them – to a key marginal seat to knock on doors. This should have been declared in the local campaign spend for the short campaign. As you can see below, it wasn’t…"
http://order-order.com/2016/05/16/two-more-labour-candidates-didnt-declare-election-buses/
Not the first Labour clerical errors either in this area.
Times are flashing up an article.
So we've moved from merely billions to hundreds of billions. Desperate stuff really.
I'm not sure many sprung to your defence.
Yes, I had a short, fulfilling but failed political career, standing for what you believe in is something that you simply can't reconcile or comprehend. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of,.
But, there you go again, proving my point about normally sensible people once again: 'a script written by Number 10'.
I mean, really? You think the President of the United States reads out scripts written by Osborne or Cameron? Have you considered the possibility that Obama might simply have been telling it like he sees it?
I mean that's the sort of filthy innuendo, a working class Northerner like me would come up with.
'Like a mistress of Boris Johnson, political gamblers should be laying him non stop'
I believe you are usually a sensible person who understand the way the world works.
Do you really believe that all these foreign leaders would be sticking their oar in without being requested to do so by No 10? Trading in favours is the way that international diplomacy works.
If you accept that point, then do you really believe that Downing Street would not have had prior sight of / input into Obama's comments? Of course he would not have said anything he didn't want to say, but he if he would not have been (in their view) supportive of the Remain case then they simply wouldn't have invited him to speak.
Let me guess, they are doing Cameron a favour...
Export of goods and services to the EU - £223bn.
Right.
The Guardian chap was of course spouting utter rubbish, as you so aptly demonstrated. Perhaps he hasn't read much, probably went to Oxford.
Abbreviating people's names is simply unacceptable. Why we add extensions to our names so we can tell each other apart!
(as a younger son, I just get an "ap", unless I am in Galway in which case I also get an honorific "of Ross-on-Corrib")
They're just hoping people will think...
'Well I know that number is ridiculous, and the figure might be lower, but we still lose out, so I'll vote Remain'.
Will it work?
Mr. Eagles, back to the Vikings, lad. [I may use some Yorkshire-Viking slang in a short story I'm working on, if it fits].
Mr. Max, those figures are literally incredible.
She seems totally humourless to me. I can't recall her ever laughing or smiling or thinking the appropriate response to any joke is anything other is to earnestly shake her head at it, and demand a retraction or apology.
This is where they've lost it, sensible discussion has gone out of the window, the queues round the block when N Rock went tits up are nothing, that'll be us queueing for bread.
"£200bn"
Right.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/23/queue-obamas-use-of-british-english-makes-brits-suspicious/
What's not to like?
But you don't want facts you want to write WTF and cut and paste articles without any evidence of having considered them.
Top rated comment BBC: "Donald Trump warning over UK relationship"
5 hours ago
Well I'm not that keen on our Prime Minister either - so Trump has a point.
^ 427 v 80
Daniel Hannan – Verified account @DanHannanMEP
How dare Boris compare the EU to... no, wait, sorry: that's goody-goody federalist Giscard.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DanHannanMEP/status/732174333649506304
Calm down, dears:
[Osborne] said Treasury analysis suggested Britain could lose out on up to £200bn of trade by 2030, if it left the EU and reverted to World Trade Organization trading rules
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/16/osborne-balls-and-cable-unite-to-argue-case-for-remaining-in-eu
I'm hearing a rumour that the first act of President Trump will be rename the Presidential aircraft - Hair Force One ....
Remain are doing a Spurs, a predictable choke to the merriment of the opposition.
On your main point, I'm not sure that it is a smart approach by the Leave campaign. It might be, but the risk from their point of view is that voters agree that the warnings are over the top, but conclude that there might be something in them. As I've said before, Remain only need to sow enough doubt, not win the argument.
PM - "Melania, lovely to meet you. Now tell me what attracted you to Donald apart from his $10bn and high blood pressure ...."
The issues, as always, are about using 'regulation' as a non-tariff barrier. NAFTA, for example, prohibits using local standards as an NTB, with the consequence that Canada's standards office has become essentially defunct; everyone simply manufacturers to US and standards and ships into the US.
Punching the bruise....
In the post-Leicester world, absolutely nothing is certain. Apart from Arsenal finishing somewhere between second and fourth. And Spurs being behind them. And Sunderland ending up 17th. And Stoke ninth. But apart from that, anything can happen. The Premier League may not be the best league in the world. It may not be the most exciting. But Leicester just made it the most interesting.
http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/article/2/10284545/premier-league-review-leicester-city-smash-premier-league-glass-ceiling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bif7PmlIHwc
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/732204563625869312