Turnout for 1975 referendum = 65% Turnout for Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% A drop of more than 1/10th. Turnout for GE2015 = 66.4% therefore 1/10th lower brings the referendum in at around 60%.
On immigration, Voters are like football fans. They don;t care where the F the person comes from, what colour/religion/race he is, as long as he gives 110% , doesn;t get sent off too often and turns up to sign autographs at the local children's hospital every now and then.
I've never seen an immigrant turn up to a children's hospital to sign autographs...
Not saying they don't, just that I've not seen it.
Marcin Waselewski and Christian Fuchs were doing autographs in the Leicester Childrens hospital the other week. Very popular they were too.
Yes, but they are footballers...
Sorry perhaps I should have been clearer, I have not seen or heard of non celebrity immigrants doing autographs in hospitals. That would be odd. Just like non celebrity locals...
Many of our non-celebrity immigrants write autographs in hospitals all the time: in the medical notes, in the nursing care plan, on prescriptions etc etc :-)
On the subject of the Turkish hordes I see the the lineup has been announced for tonights "friendly".
A short drone strike may be in order to keep Jonny Turk off the sacred English turf of the Emirates *.Stadium
* (note: sounds suspiciously foreign; best check that it is in England)
A bit late for that; Özil regularly plays there for Arsenal.
Apparently it is at the Etihad. Sounds a lot more English the the Emirates!
Wasn't St Etihad a saxon king?
Do you mean Aethelred? He wasn't a saint, he was just Unready.
Actually he was a pun. Ethel meant noble (like modern German "edel") and red was "advise" ( modern German "raten"). So he was "well advised, badly advised".
How the long winter nights must simply have flown by in the 11th century mead hall with such wit.
What impact on turnout do we think Euro 2016 will have? There are no matches on the 23rd, but surely the football will crowd out politics for a large segment of the population?
Glastonbury as well means that 100,000 people need to get their postal votes sorted...
On immigration, Voters are like football fans. They don;t care where the F the person comes from, what colour/religion/race he is, as long as he gives 110% , doesn;t get sent off too often and turns up to sign autographs at the local children's hospital every now and then.
I've never seen an immigrant turn up to a children's hospital to sign autographs...
Not saying they don't, just that I've not seen it.
Marcin Waselewski and Christian Fuchs were doing autographs in the Leicester Childrens hospital the other week. Very popular they were too.
Yes, but they are footballers...
Sorry perhaps I should have been clearer, I have not seen or heard of non celebrity immigrants doing autographs in hospitals. That would be odd. Just like non celebrity locals...
Many of our non-celebrity immigrants write autographs in hospitals all the time: in the medical notes, in the nursing care plan, on prescriptions etc etc :-)
On the subject of the Turkish hordes I see the the lineup has been announced for tonights "friendly".
A short drone strike may be in order to keep Jonny Turk off the sacred English turf of the Emirates *.Stadium
* (note: sounds suspiciously foreign; best check that it is in England)
A bit late for that; Özil regularly plays there for Arsenal.
Apparently it is at the Etihad. Sounds a lot more English the the Emirates!
Wasn't St Etihad a saxon king?
Do you mean Aethelred? He wasn't a saint, he was just Unready.
Actually he was a pun. Ethel meant noble (like modern German "edel") and red was "advise" ( modern German "raten"). So he was "well advised, badly advised".
How the long winter nights must simply have flown by in the 11th century mead hall with such wit.
I was trying to make a pun of my own about his being Unready therefore presumably maintaining one of the traditional qualifications for sainthood. Clearly the long summer evening is dragging...
What impact on turnout do we think Euro 2016 will have? There are no matches on the 23rd, but surely the football will crowd out politics for a large segment of the population?
Glastonbury as well means that 100,000 people need to get their postal votes sorted...
Glastonbury attendees are more likely to be Remainers. (Young, naïve, left-wing) - keep quiet.
Turnout for 1975 referendum = 65% Turnout for Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% A drop of more than 1/10th. Turnout for GE2015 = 66.4% therefore 1/10th lower brings the referendum in at around 60%.
This is not 75, the EU did not exist in 75 and is not the same vote.
I'd be surprised if turnout is not at at least 65%.
What impact on turnout do we think Euro 2016 will have? There are no matches on the 23rd, but surely the football will crowd out politics for a large segment of the population?
Glastonbury as well means that 100,000 people need to get their postal votes sorted...
Genuine question. Is there a rule about members of the public not voting while under the influence of narcotics? Because if so that's another factor t consider for the Glastonbury thousands.
They also need to get their place of residence sorted out as well, of course, given that some may have been registered in their university maugre their consent...
What impact on turnout do we think Euro 2016 will have? There are no matches on the 23rd, but surely the football will crowd out politics for a large segment of the population?
Glastonbury as well means that 100,000 people need to get their postal votes sorted...
TBF how many of that 100k are even registered to vote, let alone would vote if the vote was on a non-Glasto day anyway?
Just when I thought some Leavers couldn't sink any lower
A Brexit campaign backed by Nigel Farage targeted National Front supporters with adverts on Facebook.
The white nationalists were among a range of political groups hit with paid-for advertising earlier this year on behalf of Leave.EU.
The group's message showed a British bulldog chewing up the EU flag with the message: "Help us win our country back".
Leave.EU said the far-right group, along with the BNP, EDL and Britain First, was chosen by an external agency which had been briefed to find people right across the political spectrum.
But a campaign spokesman admitted the briefing was "perhaps naive" and said: "It was probably a mistake."
To be cynical, it was a mistake because those groups are almost certainly already in the bag.
You can tell by those on this site
Really? You think those voting leave on this site are BNP or National Front voters?
If so, can you canvas for Remain please? Leave needs all the help it can get at the moment.
Not all or even most. There was an article by Nick Cohen where he said when you get to know people's views on certain issues you can fill in the blanks on several others. I agree with him. When you've read 10- 20,000 posts from the same posters filling the blanks is pretty easy
What impact on turnout do we think Euro 2016 will have? There are no matches on the 23rd, but surely the football will crowd out politics for a large segment of the population?
Glastonbury as well means that 100,000 people need to get their postal votes sorted...
I'm hoping for early exit for England courtesy of a dreadful refereeing decision preferably by a French or German ref.
Seriously, I think turnout is really difficult to call. When we were asked to give our predictions I think I went something like 72% - it will almost certainly be lower than that. One of the things I find hardest to comprehend is that some people just don't vote. I get that at any one election circumstances might mean someone happens not to vote, but there is a big chunk of the population who just don't bother.
What impact on turnout do we think Euro 2016 will have? There are no matches on the 23rd, but surely the football will crowd out politics for a large segment of the population?
Glastonbury as well means that 100,000 people need to get their postal votes sorted...
Genuine question. Is there a rule about members of the public not voting while under the influence of narcotics? Because if so that's another factor t consider for the Glastonbury thousands.
They also need to get their place of residence sorted out as well, of course, given that some may have been registered in their university maugre their consent...
I thought that can't happen anymore since individual registration was introduced.
Just when I thought some Leavers couldn't sink any lower
A Brexit campaign backed by Nigel Farage targeted National Front supporters with adverts on Facebook.
The white nationalists were among a range of political groups hit with paid-for advertising earlier this year on behalf of Leave.EU.
The group's message showed a British bulldog chewing up the EU flag with the message: "Help us win our country back".
Leave.EU said the far-right group, along with the BNP, EDL and Britain First, was chosen by an external agency which had been briefed to find people right across the political spectrum.
But a campaign spokesman admitted the briefing was "perhaps naive" and said: "It was probably a mistake."
Don't think this has been posted, YouGov article on differential turnout in the EURef: http://tinyurl.com/jrcp5qh
They also have an interactive tool to show how turnout by different groups could affect the result: http://tinyurl.com/h7rekht
That's an interesting tool. If turnout is lower than 50% looks like leave. With this level of negative campaigning likely to drive turnout down you have to wonder what Cameron's plan was?
Could it be that he wants to thow it in such a way as to look like he meant to win but didn't?
Don't think this has been posted, YouGov article on differential turnout in the EURef: http://tinyurl.com/jrcp5qh
They also have an interactive tool to show how turnout by different groups could affect the result: http://tinyurl.com/h7rekht
That's an interesting tool. If turnout is lower than 50% looks like leave. With this level of negative campaigning likely to drive turnout down you have to wonder what Cameron's plan was?
Could it be that he wants to thow it in such a way as to look like he meant to win but didn't?
If turnout is lower tha 50% then the Remain ABs will walk it.
Just when I thought some Leavers couldn't sink any lower
A Brexit campaign backed by Nigel Farage targeted National Front supporters with adverts on Facebook.
The white nationalists were among a range of political groups hit with paid-for advertising earlier this year on behalf of Leave.EU.
The group's message showed a British bulldog chewing up the EU flag with the message: "Help us win our country back".
Leave.EU said the far-right group, along with the BNP, EDL and Britain First, was chosen by an external agency which had been briefed to find people right across the political spectrum.
But a campaign spokesman admitted the briefing was "perhaps naive" and said: "It was probably a mistake."
To be cynical, it was a mistake because those groups are almost certainly already in the bag.
You can tell by those on this site
Really? You think those voting leave on this site are BNP or National Front voters?
If so, can you canvas for Remain please? Leave needs all the help it can get at the moment.
Not all or even most. There was an article by Nick Cohen where he said when you get to know people's views on certain issues you can fill in the blanks on several others. I agree with him. When you've read 10- 20,000 posts from the same posters filling the blanks is pretty easy
In my experience that isn't the case. I find it an odd argument to make as well. You can believe it if you wish, but please please canvas for Remain.
Don't think this has been posted, YouGov article on differential turnout in the EURef: http://tinyurl.com/jrcp5qh
They also have an interactive tool to show how turnout by different groups could affect the result: http://tinyurl.com/h7rekht
That's an interesting tool. If turnout is lower than 50% looks like leave. With this level of negative campaigning likely to drive turnout down you have to wonder what Cameron's plan was?
Could it be that he wants to thow it in such a way as to look like he meant to win but didn't?
If turnout is lower tha 50% then the Remain ABs will walk it.
Some of the firmly LEAVE Cornish family members have started to wobble. My brother in law, a resolute (and surprising) LEAVER, has started equivocating.
On the other hand: I went passed a REMAIN stall in East Finchley, N London, yesterday. The REMAINIAC campaigners looked thoroughly disheartened, as a lot of people were bluntly refusing the leaflets.
In theory Cornwall should be as good for OUT as North London is for IN.
My Nojam predix remain the same:
REMAIN 56 LEAVE 44
Interesting. The leavers were doing well in Mid Sussex the other day which will no doubt please the local MP.
Some of the firmly LEAVE Cornish family members have started to wobble. My brother in law, a resolute (and surprising) LEAVER, has started equivocating.
On the other hand: I went passed a REMAIN stall in East Finchley, N London, yesterday. The REMAINIAC campaigners looked thoroughly disheartened, as a lot of people were bluntly refusing the leaflets.
In theory Cornwall should be as good for OUT as North London is for IN.
My Nojam predix remain the same:
REMAIN 56 LEAVE 44
Interesting. The leavers were doing well in Mid Sussex the other day which will no doubt please the local MP.
The cows in south Devon are solidly LEAVE. They have put up loads of posters in their fields...
Don't think this has been posted, YouGov article on differential turnout in the EURef: http://tinyurl.com/jrcp5qh
They also have an interactive tool to show how turnout by different groups could affect the result: http://tinyurl.com/h7rekht
That's an interesting tool. If turnout is lower than 50% looks like leave. With this level of negative campaigning likely to drive turnout down you have to wonder what Cameron's plan was?
Could it be that he wants to thow it in such a way as to look like he meant to win but didn't?
If turnout is lower tha 50% then the Remain ABs will walk it.
Brave.
Not really since I'm backing Leave. ABs vote if the turnout is so low then their vote will disproportionately count.
Some of the firmly LEAVE Cornish family members have started to wobble. My brother in law, a resolute (and surprising) LEAVER, has started equivocating.
On the other hand: I went passed a REMAIN stall in East Finchley, N London, yesterday. The REMAINIAC campaigners looked thoroughly disheartened, as a lot of people were bluntly refusing the leaflets.
In theory Cornwall should be as good for OUT as North London is for IN.
My Nojam predix remain the same:
REMAIN 56 LEAVE 44
Interesting. The leavers were doing well in Mid Sussex the other day which will no doubt please the local MP.
The cows in south Devon are solidly LEAVE. They have put up loads of posters in their fields...
Yet to see a REMAIN poster. Anywhere..
Winning here? (Hope it doesn't work out like that)
What impact on turnout do we think Euro 2016 will have? There are no matches on the 23rd, but surely the football will crowd out politics for a large segment of the population?
Glastonbury as well means that 100,000 people need to get their postal votes sorted...
TBF how many of that 100k are even registered to vote, let alone would vote if the vote was on a non-Glasto day anyway?
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, say something like: "Of course, the expansion of the EU is not likely to end with Romania and Bulgaria. There are other countries, with larger and poorer populations, that could join in the longer term - such as Belorussia, Ukraine and Turkey." Which would at least have the benefit of being factually true.
The core of my Brexit thesis has always been a simple one: we are not - and will never be - happy members of the EU club. Our legal and democratic systems, as well as our history and philosophy, are very different. Attempting to fit our culture into the EU system is never going to make us happy, and isn't going to work for the EU either.
It would be better for both us and the EU if we were to leave. Not in rancour, but because our membership diminishes both us and the EU. We'll be better friends with the EU if we are not constantly chafing at its restrictions. And they'll be able to make the institutional reform needed to make their currency union work.
Don't think this has been posted, YouGov article on differential turnout in the EURef: http://tinyurl.com/jrcp5qh
They also have an interactive tool to show how turnout by different groups could affect the result: http://tinyurl.com/h7rekht
That's an interesting tool. If turnout is lower than 50% looks like leave. With this level of negative campaigning likely to drive turnout down you have to wonder what Cameron's plan was?
Could it be that he wants to thow it in such a way as to look like he meant to win but didn't?
If turnout is lower tha 50% then the Remain ABs will walk it.
Brave.
Not really since I'm backing Leave. ABs vote if the turnout is so low then their vote will disproportionately count.
Don't think this has been posted, YouGov article on differential turnout in the EURef: http://tinyurl.com/jrcp5qh
They also have an interactive tool to show how turnout by different groups could affect the result: http://tinyurl.com/h7rekht
That's an interesting tool. If turnout is lower than 50% looks like leave. With this level of negative campaigning likely to drive turnout down you have to wonder what Cameron's plan was?
Could it be that he wants to thow it in such a way as to look like he meant to win but didn't?
If turnout is lower tha 50% then the Remain ABs will walk it.
Brave.
Not really since I'm backing Leave. ABs vote if the turnout is so low then their vote will disproportionately count.
Some of the firmly LEAVE Cornish family members have started to wobble. My brother in law, a resolute (and surprising) LEAVER, has started equivocating.
On the other hand: I went passed a REMAIN stall in East Finchley, N London, yesterday. The REMAINIAC campaigners looked thoroughly disheartened, as a lot of people were bluntly refusing the leaflets.
In theory Cornwall should be as good for OUT as North London is for IN.
My Nojam predix remain the same:
REMAIN 56 LEAVE 44
Interesting. The leavers were doing well in Mid Sussex the other day which will no doubt please the local MP.
The cows in south Devon are solidly LEAVE. They have put up loads of posters in their fields...
Yet to see a REMAIN poster. Anywhere..
I've seen about two dozen "Better In" posters in London, mostly around Hampstead and St John's Wood. Of course, it's likely that the people in those homes are American, Spanish or French, so I wouldn't read too much into it.
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, say something like: "Of course, the expansion of the EU is not likely to end with Romania and Bulgaria. There are other countries, with larger and poorer populations, that could join in the longer term - such as Belorussia, Ukraine and Turkey." Which would at least have the benefit of being factually true.
The core of my Brexit thesis has always been a simple one: we are not - and will never be - happy members of the EU club. Our legal and democratic systems, as well as our history and philosophy, are very different. Attempting to fit our culture into the EU system is never going to make us happy, and isn't going to work for the EU either.
It would be better for both us and the EU if we were to leave. Not in rancour, but because our membership diminishes both us and the EU. We'll be better friends with the EU if we are not constantly chafing at its restrictions. And they'll be able to make the institutional reform needed to make their currency union work.
1. The currency union can't work. It's like the Gold Standard.
2. The EU doesn't appear to want to reform and its people are beginning to resent that.
Leaving will at least give the reformers a chance to insist on reform. However until they work out a way to ditch the Euro the EU will face years of stagnation.
Don't think this has been posted, YouGov article on differential turnout in the EURef: http://tinyurl.com/jrcp5qh
They also have an interactive tool to show how turnout by different groups could affect the result: http://tinyurl.com/h7rekht
That's an interesting tool. If turnout is lower than 50% looks like leave. With this level of negative campaigning likely to drive turnout down you have to wonder what Cameron's plan was?
Could it be that he wants to thow it in such a way as to look like he meant to win but didn't?
If turnout is lower tha 50% then the Remain ABs will walk it.
Brave.
Not really since I'm backing Leave. ABs vote if the turnout is so low then their vote will disproportionately count.
According to the tool, using an raw 4-point Remain lead and the self-reported likelihood to vote by the various social classes and age groups as measured by YouGov, Leave wins on a turnout of 53% or less. It's 50/50 between 54% and 69% turnout.
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, say something like: "Of course, the expansion of the EU is not likely to end with Romania and Bulgaria. There are other countries, with larger and poorer populations, that could join in the longer term - such as Belorussia, Ukraine and Turkey." Which would at least have the benefit of being factually true.
The core of my Brexit thesis has always been a simple one: we are not - and will never be - happy members of the EU club. Our legal and democratic systems, as well as our history and philosophy, are very different. Attempting to fit our culture into the EU system is never going to make us happy, and isn't going to work for the EU either.
It would be better for both us and the EU if we were to leave. Not in rancour, but because our membership diminishes both us and the EU. We'll be better friends with the EU if we are not constantly chafing at its restrictions. And they'll be able to make the institutional reform needed to make their currency union work.
Leave need to pick apart examples of regulations and directives that hold our economy back, IMHO, and make these real to ordinary voters in £££ lost, IMHO.
Just when I thought some Leavers couldn't sink any lower
A Brexit campaign backed by Nigel Farage targeted National Front supporters with adverts on Facebook.
The white nationalists were among a range of political groups hit with paid-for advertising earlier this year on behalf of Leave.EU.
The group's message showed a British bulldog chewing up the EU flag with the message: "Help us win our country back".
Leave.EU said the far-right group, along with the BNP, EDL and Britain First, was chosen by an external agency which had been briefed to find people right across the political spectrum.
But a campaign spokesman admitted the briefing was "perhaps naive" and said: "It was probably a mistake."
To be cynical, it was a mistake because those groups are almost certainly already in the bag.
You can tell by those on this site
Really? You think those voting leave on this site are BNP or National Front voters?
If so, can you canvas for Remain please? Leave needs all the help it can get at the moment.
Not all or even most. There was an article by Nick Cohen where he said when you get to know people's views on certain issues you can fill in the blanks on several others. I agree with him. When you've read 10- 20,000 posts from the same posters filling the blanks is pretty easy
In my experience that isn't the case. I find it an odd argument to make as well. You can believe it if you wish, but please please canvas for Remain.
This is the article. The first paragraph in particular. I think it's uncomfortably true.
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, say something like: "Of course, the expansion of the EU is not likely to end with Romania and Bulgaria. There are other countries, with larger and poorer populations, that could join in the longer term - such as Belorussia, Ukraine and Turkey." Which would at least have the benefit of being factually true.
The core of my Brexit thesis has always been a simple one: we are not - and will never be - happy members of the EU club. Our legal and democratic systems, as well as our history and philosophy, are very different. Attempting to fit our culture into the EU system is never going to make us happy, and isn't going to work for the EU either.
It would be better for both us and the EU if we were to leave. Not in rancour, but because our membership diminishes both us and the EU. We'll be better friends with the EU if we are not constantly chafing at its restrictions. And they'll be able to make the institutional reform needed to make their currency union work.
PB is full of clever, right-wing, intellectual people who are motivated by the legal and philosophical case for Brexit.
However, out in the country as a whole, the only majority for LEAVE involves people who are agitated by Muslims and foreigners, and who can be convinced that Muslims are a more clear and present danger than what the boffins say about the economy. It is a low-return and high-risk strategy, but perhaps that means it is the only one that can possibly work.
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, say something like: "Of course, the expansion of the EU is not likely to end with Romania and Bulgaria. There are other countries, with larger and poorer populations, that could join in the longer term - such as Belorussia, Ukraine and Turkey." Which would at least have the benefit of being factually true.
The core of my Brexit thesis has always been a simple one: we are not - and will never be - happy members of the EU club. Our legal and democratic systems, as well as our history and philosophy, are very different. Attempting to fit our culture into the EU system is never going to make us happy, and isn't going to work for the EU either.
It would be better for both us and the EU if we were to leave. Not in rancour, but because our membership diminishes both us and the EU. We'll be better friends with the EU if we are not constantly chafing at its restrictions. And they'll be able to make the institutional reform needed to make their currency union work.
Leave need to pick apart examples of regulations and directives that hold our economy back, IMHO, and make these real to ordinary voters in £££ lost, IMHO.
That's actually quite easy. The mortgages one is bonkers. New mortgages need to pass an affordability test (not against but would rather it was set locally) but that also applies to re-mortgaging to a cheaper mortgage which still fails the test unless it is with the same lender which is unlikely as you are more likely to get competition between lenders.
1. The currency union can't work. It's like the Gold Standard.
2. The EU doesn't appear to want to reform and its people are beginning to resent that.
Leaving will at least give the reformers a chance to insist on reform. However until they work out a way to ditch the Euro the EU will face years of stagnation.
I'm afraid I don't agree with you - at least about 1. Over the past 400 years, there have been fixed currency arrangements - mostly tied to gold, but sometimes tied to each other - for far more time than there have been floating currency ones. China, Hong Kong, the Baltic States - the rock of each of their prosperity was based on the deliberate abrogation of monetary authority.
The thing is with fixed currency arrangements is that they are hard. You need to have an economic model with high levels of labour market flexibility to allow prices to adjust. In other words, you need to be able to carry out an internal devaluation. What you can't have is high levels of labour market protection and a fixed currency. The economic models of Spain, Greece and Italy pre the Euro were based on inflexible labour markets combined with ever depreciating currencies. In other words, the exchange rate worked to eradicate the inflexibilities of the labour market. That was no longer possible in the Eurozone. And their relative wages soared. Spain has learned its lesson. It now has - from one of the most scloretic labour markets in Europe - one of the most flexible. Inward investment has flowed in, the economy is growing rapidly again, and employment is rising fast. (And the country is doing this while running a current account surplus. Believe it or not, Spain is now the second largest car maker in Europe after Germany.)
The Eurozone may very well fail. But it won't fail because it's a fixed currency framework. It will fail because the polticians in many of the peripheral countries will not want to make their labour markets flexible enough to deal with the new environment.
'Trump and Clinton are currently the two most unpopular likely presidential nominees in the history of the NBC/WSJ poll.
Thirty four percent of registered voters have a positive opinion of Clinton, versus 54 percent who have a negative opinion (-20) — a slight uptick from her minus-24 score last month. Trump’s rating is even worse than Clinton’s: Twenty nine percent have a positive opinion of him, while 58 percent have a negative opinion (-29) — an improvement from his minus-41 score in April.
“This has never been matched, or even close to being matched,” Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, says of these negative ratings for Trump and Clinton.
Forty Seven Percent Would Consider a Third-Party Candidate Asked if they would consider a third-party candidate if Clinton and Trump were the major party nominees, 47 percent of registered voters say yes — a higher percentage than those who said yes on a similar question in 2008 and 2012.' http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726
Q: (AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS) How about if the candidates were (Hillary Clinton, the Democrat), (Donald Trump, the Republican) and Mitt Romney, running as an independent candidate, for whom would you vote? Would you lean toward (Clinton), (Trump) or Romney?
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, say something like: "Of course, the expansion of the EU is not likely to end with Romania and Bulgaria. There are other countries, with larger and poorer populations, that could join in the longer term - such as Belorussia, Ukraine and Turkey." Which would at least have the benefit of being factually true.
The core of my Brexit thesis has always been a simple one: we are not - and will never be - happy members of the EU club. Our legal and democratic systems, as well as our history and philosophy, are very different. Attempting to fit our culture into the EU system is never going to make us happy, and isn't going to work for the EU either.
It would be better for both us and the EU if we were to leave. Not in rancour, but because our membership diminishes both us and the EU. We'll be better friends with the EU if we are not constantly chafing at its restrictions. And they'll be able to make the institutional reform needed to make their currency union work.
PB is full of clever, right-wing, intellectual people who are motivated by the legal and philosophical case for Brexit.
However, out in the country as a whole, the only majority for LEAVE involves people who are agitated by Muslims and foreigners, and who can be convinced that Muslims are a more clear and present danger than what the boffins say about the economy. It is a low-return and high-risk strategy, but perhaps that means it is the only one that can possibly work.
I have always felt that EFTA/EEA was a sensible destination. Contrary to the claims of many, it would enable sensible regulation of immigation (and through the price mechanism, rather than some absurd system of quotas). It would take us out of EU regulation of (for Sunil and Sandy) railways. It would preserve access to the Single Market and Passporting for financial services. And it would massively diminish the bills to the Treasury.
In other words, it would be popular with small business because leaving would not entail much risk.
Many of the x thousand pounds claims would simply not be possible if EFTA/EEA were the destination.
Just when I thought some Leavers couldn't sink any lower
A Brexit campaign backed by Nigel Farage targeted National Front supporters with adverts on Facebook.
The white nationalists were among a range of political groups hit with paid-for advertising earlier this year on behalf of Leave.EU.
The group's message showed a British bulldog chewing up the EU flag with the message: "Help us win our country back".
Leave.EU said the far-right group, along with the BNP, EDL and Britain First, was chosen by an external agency which had been briefed to find people right across the political spectrum.
But a campaign spokesman admitted the briefing was "perhaps naive" and said: "It was probably a mistake."
To be cynical, it was a mistake because those groups are almost certainly already in the bag.
You can tell by those on this site
Really? You think those voting leave on this site are BNP or National Front voters?
If so, can you canvas for Remain please? Leave needs all the help it can get at the moment.
Not all or even most. There was an article by Nick Cohen where he said when you get to know people's views on certain issues you can fill in the blanks on several others. I agree with him. When you've read 10- 20,000 posts from the same posters filling the blanks is pretty easy
In my experience that isn't the case. I find it an odd argument to make as well. You can believe it if you wish, but please please canvas for Remain.
This is the article. The first paragraph in particular. I think it's uncomfortably true.
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, say something like: "Of course, the expansion of the EU is not likely to end with Romania and Bulgaria. There are other countries, with larger and poorer populations, that could join in the longer term - such as Belorussia, Ukraine and Turkey." Which would at least have the benefit of being factually true.
The core of my Brexit thesis has always been a simple one: we are not - and will never be - happy members of the EU club. Our legal and democratic systems, as well as our history and philosophy, are very different. Attempting to fit our culture into the EU system is never going to make us happy, and isn't going to work for the EU either.
It would be better for both us and the EU if we were to leave. Not in rancour, but because our membership diminishes both us and the EU. We'll be better friends with the EU if we are not constantly chafing at its restrictions. And they'll be able to make the institutional reform needed to make their currency union work.
Robert - That's an entirely sensible position but unfortunately you're dealing with a LEAVE "leadership" who enjoy all the focus, solidarity and co-ordination of message of whoopee cushion on speed.
National trend to Trump filtering through to swing state polls.
Clinton by just one point in Florida...
5/16-5/19 2016 Florida President Clinton 43% Trump 42% CBS/YouGov
If you believe in the "trend" then Trump will end up at about 65 per cent. It's more likely that he benefits from the reluctance of some primary voters to express support for their less-favoured candidates, which was strongly evident for Trump in places like Utah.
The past week, I've had some of the first signs of anyone in "the real world" caring about the Referendum. I've seen two people wandering round Chester wearing "Vote Leave" tshirts.
1. The currency union can't work. It's like the Gold Standard.
2. The EU doesn't appear to want to reform and its people are beginning to resent that.
Leaving will at least give the reformers a chance to insist on reform. However until they work out a way to ditch the Euro the EU will face years of stagnation.
I'm afraid I don't agree with you - at least about 1. Over the past 400 years, there have been fixed currency arrangements - mostly tied to gold, but sometimes tied to each other - for far more time than there have been floating currency ones. China, Hong Kong, the Baltic States - the rock of each of their prosperity was based on the deliberate abrogation of monetary authority.
The thing is with fixed currency arrangements is that they are hard. You need to have an economic model with high levels of labour market flexibility to allow prices to adjust. In other words, you need to be able to carry out an internal devaluation. What you can't have is high levels of labour market protection and a fixed currency. The economic models of Spain, Greece and Italy pre the Euro were based on inflexible labour markets combined with ever depreciating currencies. In other words, the exchange rate worked to eradicate the inflexibilities of the labour market. That was no longer possible in the Eurozone. And their relative wages soared. Spain has learned its lesson. It now has - from one of the most scloretic labour markets in Europe - one of the most flexible. Inward investment has flowed in, the economy is growing rapidly again, and employment is rising fast. (And the country is doing this while running a current account surplus. Believe it or not, Spain is now the second largest car maker in Europe after Germany.)
The Eurozone may very well fail. But it won't fail because it's a fixed currency framework. It will fail because the polticians in many of the peripheral countries will not want to make their labour markets flexible enough to deal with the new environment.
OK... Argument accepted. Still, I don't think that many countries including France have joined up those dots and prefer to sing La La La La very loudly at the idea of internal reform. I also think it would be jolly jolly nice if they had been asked.
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, say something like: "Of course, the expansion of the EU is not likely to end with Romania and Bulgaria. There are other countries, with larger and poorer populations, that could join in the longer term - such as Belorussia, Ukraine and Turkey." Which would at least have the benefit of being factually true.
The core of my Brexit thesis has always been a simple one: we are not - and will never be - happy members of the EU club. Our legal and democratic systems, as well as our history and philosophy, are very different. Attempting to fit our culture into the EU system is never going to make us happy, and isn't going to work for the EU either.
It would be better for both us and the EU if we were to leave. Not in rancour, but because our membership diminishes both us and the EU. We'll be better friends with the EU if we are not constantly chafing at its restrictions. And they'll be able to make the institutional reform needed to make their currency union work.
PB is full of clever, right-wing, intellectual people who are motivated by the legal and philosophical case for Brexit.
However, out in the country as a whole, the only majority for LEAVE involves people who are agitated by Muslims and foreigners, and who can be convinced that Muslims are a more clear and present danger than what the boffins say about the economy. It is a low-return and high-risk strategy, but perhaps that means it is the only one that can possibly work.
I have always felt that EFTA/EEA was a sensible destination. Contrary to the claims of many, it would enable sensible regulation of immigation (and through the price mechanism, rather than some absurd system of quotas). It would take us out of EU regulation of (for Sunil and Sandy) railways. It would preserve access to the Single Market and Passporting for financial services. And it would massively diminish the bills to the Treasury.
In other words, it would be popular with small business because leaving would not entail much risk.
Many of the x thousand pounds claims would simply not be possible if EFTA/EEA were the destination.
And Cameron would say "we wouldn't get an inch more control over immigration".
1. The currency union can't work. It's like the Gold Standard.
2. The EU doesn't appear to want to reform and its people are beginning to resent that.
Leaving will at least give the reformers a chance to insist on reform. However until they work out a way to ditch the Euro the EU will face years of stagnation.
I'm afraid I don't agree with you - at least about 1. Over the past 400 years, there have been fixed currency arrangements - mostly tied to gold, but sometimes tied to each other - for far more time than there have been floating currency ones. China, Hong Kong, the Baltic States - the rock of each of their prosperity was based on the deliberate abrogation of monetary authority.
The thing is with fixed currency arrangements is that they are hard. You need to have an economic model with high levels of labour market flexibility to allow prices to adjust. In other words, you need to be able to carry out an internal devaluation. What you can't have is high levels of labour market protection and a fixed currency. The economic models of Spain, Greece and Italy pre the Euro were based on inflexible labour markets combined with ever depreciating currencies. In other words, the exchange rate worked to eradicate the inflexibilities of the labour market. That was no longer possible in the Eurozone. And their relative wages soared. Spain has learned its lesson. It now has - from one of the most scloretic labour markets in Europe - one of the most flexible. Inward investment has flowed in, the economy is growing rapidly again, and employment is rising fast. (And the country is doing this while running a current account surplus. Believe it or not, Spain is now the second largest car maker in Europe after Germany.)
The Eurozone may very well fail. But it won't fail because it's a fixed currency framework. It will fail because the polticians in many of the peripheral countries will not want to make their labour markets flexible enough to deal with the new environment.
I dunno.
There are at least three Spaniards at work I know, plus I am served coffee at the train station by an Eastern European and lunch by someone of Mediterranean origin.
By labour market flexibility you may mean emigration.
1. The currency union can't work. It's like the Gold Standard.
2. The EU doesn't appear to want to reform and its people are beginning to resent that.
Leaving will at least give the reformers a chance to insist on reform. However until they work out a way to ditch the Euro the EU will face years of stagnation.
I'm afraid I don't agree with you - at least about 1. Over the past 400 years, there have been fixed currency arrangements - mostly tied to gold, but sometimes tied to each other - for far more time than there have been floating currency ones. China, Hong Kong, the Baltic States - the rock of each of their prosperity was based on the deliberate abrogation of monetary authority.
The thing is with fixed currency arrangements is that they are hard. You need to have an economic model with high levels of labour market flexibility to allow prices to adjust. In other words, you need to be able to carry out an internal devaluation. What you can't have is high levels of labour market protection and a fixed currency. The economic models of Spain, Greece and Italy pre the Euro were based on inflexible labour markets combined with ever depreciating currencies. In other words, the exchange rate worked to eradicate the inflexibilities of the labour market. That was no longer possible in the Eurozone. And their relative wages soared. Spain has learned its lesson. It now has - from one of the most scloretic labour markets in Europe - one of the most flexible. Inward investment has flowed in, the economy is growing rapidly again, and employment is rising fast. (And the country is doing this while running a current account surplus. Believe it or not, Spain is now the second largest car maker in Europe after Germany.)
The Eurozone may very well fail. But it won't fail because it's a fixed currency framework. It will fail because the polticians in many of the peripheral countries will not want to make their labour markets flexible enough to deal with the new environment.
Whether they're right or wrong, currency unions represent an unattractive philosophy in this day and age. If wages rise too fast, then the workers need a sharp dose of unemployment to put things right.
The past week, I've had some of the first signs of anyone in "the real world" caring about the Referendum. I've seen two people wandering round Chester wearing "Vote Leave" tshirts.
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, say something like: "Of course, the expansion of the EU is not likely to end with Romania and Bulgaria. There are other countries, with larger and poorer populations, that could join in the longer term - such as Belorussia, Ukraine and Turkey." Which would at least have the benefit of being factually true.
The core of my Brexit thesis has always been a simple one: we are not - and will never be - happy members of the EU club. Our legal and democratic systems, as well as our history and philosophy, are very different. Attempting to fit our culture into the EU system is never going to make us happy, and isn't going to work for the EU either.
It would be better for both us and the EU if we were to leave. Not in rancour, but because our membership diminishes both us and the EU. We'll be better friends with the EU if we are not constantly chafing at its restrictions. And they'll be able to make the institutional reform needed to make their currency union work.
Many of the x thousand pounds claims would simply not be possible if EFTA/EEA were the destination.
And Cameron would say "we wouldn't get an inch more control over immigration".
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, saion work.
PB is full of clever, right-wing, intellectual people who are motivated by the legal and philosophical case for Brexit.
However, out in the country as a whole, the only majority for LEAVE involves people who are agitated by Muslims and foreigners, and who can be convinced that Muslims are a more clear and present danger than what the boffins say about the economy. It is a low-return and high-risk strategy, but perhaps that means it is the only one that can possibly work.
I have always felt that EFTA/EEA was a sensible destination. Contrary to the claims of many, it would enable sensible regulation of immigation (and through the price mechanism, rather than some absurd system of quotas). It would take us out of EU regulation of (for Sunil and Sandy) railways. It would preserve access to the Single Market and Passporting for financial services. And it would massively diminish the bills to the Treasury.
In other words, it would be popular with small business because leaving would not entail much risk.
Many of the x thousand pounds claims would simply not be possible if EFTA/EEA were the destination.
It does my head in that Leave can't get a coherent alternative.
On the other hand it probably also does Remain's head in too. If leave said we want X we'd be bomabarded by nonsense that X means automatic death, penury and a Jimmy Savile in every home.
Is wrestling fog harder to deal with than a clear position ?
What impact on turnout do we think Euro 2016 will have? There are no matches on the 23rd, but surely the football will crowd out politics for a large segment of the population?
Glastonbury as well means that 100,000 people need to get their postal votes sorted...
Genuine question. Is there a rule about members of the public not voting while under the influence of narcotics? Because if so that's another factor t consider for the Glastonbury thousands.
They also need to get their place of residence sorted out as well, of course, given that some may have been registered in their university maugre their consent...
Re narcotics: I don't see how there can be such a rule. If you have a postal vote, no-one knows whether you're under any influence at all. If you vote in person, surely the only thing that stands between you & your ballot paper is whether your behaviour is such as to get you removed.
I've never noticed a breathalyser being used at a polling station either.
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, say something like: "Of course, the expansion of the EU is not likely to end with Romania and Bulgaria. There are other countries, with larger and poorer populations, that could join in the longer term - such as Belorussia, Ukraine and Turkey." Which would at least have the benefit of being factually true.
The core of my Brexit thesis has always been a simple one: we are not - and will never be - happy members of the EU club. Our legal and democratic systems, as well as our history and philosophy, are very different. Attempting to fit our culture into the EU system is never going to make us happy, and isn't going to work for the EU either.
It would be better for both us and the EU if we were to leave. Not in rancour, but because our membership diminishes both us and the EU. We'll be better friends with the EU if we are not constantly chafing at its restrictions. And they'll be able to make the institutional reform needed to make their currency union work.
Many of the x thousand pounds claims would simply not be possible if EFTA/EEA were the destination.
And Cameron would say "we wouldn't get an inch more control over immigration".
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, say something like: "Of course, the expansion of the EU is not likely to end with Romania and Bulgaria. There are other countries, with larger and poorer populations, that could join in the longer term - such as Belorussia, Ukraine and Turkey." Which would at least have the benefit of being factually true.
The core of my Brexit thesis has always been a simple one: we are not - and will never be - happy members of the EU club. Our legal and democratic systems, as well as our history and philosophy, are very different. Attempting to fit our culture into the EU system is never going to make us happy, and isn't going to work for the EU either.
It would be better for both us and the EU if we were to leave. Not in rancour, but because our membership diminishes both us and the EU. We'll be better friends with the EU if we are not constantly chafing at its restrictions. And they'll be able to make the institutional reform needed to make their currency union work.
PB is full of clever, right-wing, intellectual people who are motivated by the legal and philosophical case for Brexit.
However, out in the country as a whole, the only majority for LEAVE involves people who are agitated by Muslims and foreigners, and who can be convinced that Muslims are a more clear and present danger than what the boffins say about the economy. It is a low-return and high-risk strategy, but perhaps that means it is the only one that can possibly work.
I have always felt that EFTA/EEA was a sensible destination. Contrary to the claims of many, it would enable sensible regulation of immigation (and through the price mechanism, rather than some absurd system of quotas). It would take us out of EU regulation of (for Sunil and Sandy) railways. It would preserve access to the Single Market and Passporting for financial services. And it would massively diminish the bills to the Treasury.
In other words, it would be popular with small business because leaving would not entail much risk.
Many of the x thousand pounds claims would simply not be possible if EFTA/EEA were the destination.
And Cameron would say "we wouldn't get an inch more control over immigration".
We would as the EEA allows for an emergency brake to be triggered unilaterally.
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, say something like: "Of course, the expansion of the EU is not likely to end with Romania and Bulgaria. There are other countries, with larger and poorer populations, that could join in the longer term - such as Belorussia, Ukraine and Turkey." Which would at least have the benefit of being factually true.
The core of my Brexit thesis has always been a simple one: we are not - and will never be - happy members of the EU club. Our legal and democratic systems, as well as our history and philosophy, are very different. Attempting to fit our culture into the EU system is never going to make us happy, and isn't going to work for the EU either.
It would be better for both us and the EU if we were to leave. Not in rancour, but because our membership diminishes both us and the EU. We'll be better friends with the EU if we are not constantly chafing at its restrictions. And they'll be able to make the institutional reform needed to make their currency union work.
PB is full of clever, right-wing, intellectual people who are motivated by the legal and philosophical case for Brexit.
However, out in the country as a whole, the only majority for LEAVE involves people who are agitated by Muslims and foreigners, and who can be convinced that Muslims are a more clear and present danger than what the boffins say about the economy. It is a low-return and high-risk strategy, but perhaps that means it is the only one that can possibly work.
I have always felt that EFTA/EEA was a sensible destination. Contrary to the claims of many, it would enable sensible regulation of immigation (and through the price mechanism, rather than some absurd system of quotas). It would take us out of EU regulation of (for Sunil and Sandy) railways. It would preserve access to the Single Market and Passporting for financial services. And it would massively diminish the bills to the Treasury.
In other words, it would be popular with small business because leaving would not entail much risk.
Many of the x thousand pounds claims would simply not be possible if EFTA/EEA were the destination.
And Cameron would say "we wouldn't get an inch more control over immigration".
1. The currency union can't work. It's like the Gold Standard.
2. The EU doesn't appear to want to reform and its people are beginning to resent that.
Leaving will at least give the reformers a chance to insist on reform. However until they work out a way to ditch the Euro the EU will face years of stagnation.
I'm afraid I don't agree with you - at least about 1. Over the past 400 years, there have been fixed currency arrangements - mostly tied to gold, but sometimes tied to each other - for far more time than there have been floating currency ones. China, Hong Kong, the Baltic States - the rock of each of their prosperity was based on the deliberate abrogation of monetary authority.
The thing is with fixed currency arrangements is that they are hard. You need to have an economic model with high levels of labour market flexibility to allow prices to adjust. In other words, you need to be able to carry out an internal devaluation. What you can't have is high levels of labour market protection and a fixed currency. The economic models of Spain, Greece and Italy pre the Euro were based on inflexible labour markets combined with ever depreciating currencies. In other words, the exchange rate worked to eradicate the inflexibilities of the labour market. That was no longer possible in the Eurozone. And their relative wages soared. Spain has learned its lesson. It now has - from one of the most scloretic labour markets in Europe - one of the most flexible. Inward investment has flowed in, the economy is growing rapidly again, and employment is rising fast. (And the country is doing this while running a current account surplus. Believe it or not, Spain is now the second largest car maker in Europe after Germany.)
The Eurozone may very well fail. But it won't fail because it's a fixed currency framework. It will fail because the polticians in many of the peripheral countries will not want to make their labour markets flexible enough to deal with the new environment.
Whether they're right or wrong, currency unions represent an unattractive philosophy in this day and age. If wages rise too fast, then the workers need a sharp dose of unemployment to put things right.
Or for wages to be able to fall. It's noticeable that the USA for instance while a single nation actually has relatively very few labour regulations set by the Federal government. The idea of the US Federal Government passing regulations like the EU has in the Working Time Directive etc is a total non starter.
Those who support the idea of a United States of Europe miss what it is that makes the United States of America successful in the first place.
What impact on turnout do we think Euro 2016 will have? There are no matches on the 23rd, but surely the football will crowd out politics for a large segment of the population?
Glastonbury as well means that 100,000 people need to get their postal votes sorted...
Glastonbury attendees are more likely to be Remainers. (Young, naïve, left-wing) - keep quiet.
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
PB is full of clever, right-wing, intellectual people who are motivated by the legal and philosophical case for Brexit.
However, out in the country as a whole, the only majority for LEAVE involves people who are agitated by Muslims and foreigners, and who can be convinced that Muslims are a more clear and present danger than what the boffins say about the economy. It is a low-return and high-risk strategy, but perhaps that means it is the only one that can possibly work.
Well, Remain started this security meme and took it to absurd lengths (WWIII? ISIS would smile on Brexit?).
So, Remain can hardly complain about being beaten at their own game.
In fact, thanks to the Diyanet, I am optimistic over Turkish immigration, though my economic arguments still stand.
Just Alsergrund in Vienna to come and that's it for today, whole country counted in 2 hours after final polls close, thanks to polling station count and staggered poll close.
TV projection still 50/50, but projecting Van der Bellen to win by 3K votes nationwide once postals counted - he will win Vienna, Vorarlberg, Tirol (projection after postals).
Hofer wins Carinthia, Styria, Burgenland, Salzburg, Lower Austria. Upper Austria may flip to VdB after postals, currently Hofer 50.7%.
Looks like Hofer is nearly 4% ahead with postals to come:
Interesting little piece on Ireland. If Leave wins do we get new passport checks? As you would expect the only significant Northern politician in favour of Brexit is the leader of the DUP.
Surprisingly the Irish Republic are said to be worried. I'd have thought they'd be the big winners. Companies leaving the UK would be falling over themselves to set up in Southern Ireland
Just Alsergrund in Vienna to come and that's it for today, whole country counted in 2 hours after final polls close, thanks to polling station count and staggered poll close.
TV projection still 50/50, but projecting Van der Bellen to win by 3K votes nationwide once postals counted - he will win Vienna, Vorarlberg, Tirol (projection after postals).
Hofer wins Carinthia, Styria, Burgenland, Salzburg, Lower Austria. Upper Austria may flip to VdB after postals, currently Hofer 50.7%.
Looks like Hofer is nearly 4% ahead with postals to come:
What impact on turnout do we think Euro 2016 will have? There are no matches on the 23rd, but surely the football will crowd out politics for a large segment of the population?
Glastonbury as well means that 100,000 people need to get their postal votes sorted...
Glastonbury attendees are more likely to be Remainers. (Young, naïve, left-wing) - keep quiet.
Interesting little piece on Ireland. If Leave wins do we get new passport checks? As you would expect the only significant Northern politician in favour of Brexit is the leader of the DUP.
Surprisingly the Irish Republic are said to be worried. I'd have thought they'd be the big winners. Companies leaving the UK would be falling over themselves to set up in Southern Ireland
Just Alsergrund in Vienna to come and that's it for today, whole country counted in 2 hours after final polls close, thanks to polling station count and staggered poll close.
TV projection still 50/50, but projecting Van der Bellen to win by 3K votes nationwide once postals counted - he will win Vienna, Vorarlberg, Tirol (projection after postals).
Hofer wins Carinthia, Styria, Burgenland, Salzburg, Lower Austria. Upper Austria may flip to VdB after postals, currently Hofer 50.7%.
Looks like Hofer is nearly 4% ahead with postals to come:
Is that a real projection or one you have tampered with to get the result you're looking for?
Just Alsergrund in Vienna to come and that's it for today, whole country counted in 2 hours after final polls close, thanks to polling station count and staggered poll close.
TV projection still 50/50, but projecting Van der Bellen to win by 3K votes nationwide once postals counted - he will win Vienna, Vorarlberg, Tirol (projection after postals).
Hofer wins Carinthia, Styria, Burgenland, Salzburg, Lower Austria. Upper Austria may flip to VdB after postals, currently Hofer 50.7%.
Looks like Hofer is nearly 4% ahead with postals to come:
Is that a real projection or one you have tampered with to get the result you're looking for?
thats the current result prior to counting 900k postals tomorrow
We would as the EEA allows for an emergency brake to be triggered unilaterally.
We would not need to pay benefits to any EU migrants (as Switzerland does not, for example).
And you could require private health insurance for all non UK citizens resident for more than three months, which would have the effect of eliminating all but skilled immigration.
Leave must leave the Turkey story behind, and move on to immigration. Why? Firstly, because it's not true. Secondly, every second that is spent on a non-story like this, is a second that is wasted by our campaign
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, say something like: "Of course, the expansion of the EU is not likely to end with Romania and Bulgaria. There are other countries, with larger and poorer populations, that could join in the longer term - such as Belorussia, Ukraine and Turkey." Which would at least have the benefit of being factually true.
The core of my Brexit thesis has always been a simple one: we are not - and will never be - happy members of the EU club. Our legal and democratic systems, as well as our history and philosophy, are very different. Attempting to fit our culture into the EU system is never going to make us happy, and isn't going to work for the EU either.
It would be better for both us and the EU if we were to leave. Not in rancour, but because our membership diminishes both us and the EU. We'll be better friends with the EU if we are not constantly chafing at its restrictions. And they'll be able to make the institutional reform needed to make their currency union work.
PB is full of clever, right-wing, intellectual people who are motivated by the legal and philosophical case for Brexit.
However, out in the country as a whole, the only majority for LEAVE involves people who are agitated by Muslims and foreigners, and who can be convinced that Muslims are a more clear and present danger than what the boffins say about the economy. It is a low-return and high-risk strategy, but perhaps that means it is the only one that can possibly work.
I am not clever, not right-wing, not intellectual; and I have made up my mind to vote Leave.
My decision has nothing to do with Muslims or foreigners or economics. I simply feel that, on balance, it's the right thing to do.
@rcs1000 has articulated more or less what I can only feel.
Interesting little piece on Ireland. If Leave wins do we get new passport checks? As you would expect the only significant Northern politician in favour of Brexit is the leader of the DUP.
Surprisingly the Irish Republic are said to be worried. I'd have thought they'd be the big winners. Companies leaving the UK would be falling over themselves to set up in Southern Ireland
However, the most significant politician in Northern Ireland *is* the leader of the DUP.
Companies won't be leaving the UK to relocate in the Republic.
Interesting little piece on Ireland. If Leave wins do we get new passport checks? As you would expect the only significant Northern politician in favour of Brexit is the leader of the DUP.
Surprisingly the Irish Republic are said to be worried. I'd have thought they'd be the big winners. Companies leaving the UK would be falling over themselves to set up in Southern Ireland
No. Unless Ireland joins Schengen they stay in the UK Ireland free movement area.
The past week, I've had some of the first signs of anyone in "the real world" caring about the Referendum. I've seen two people wandering round Chester wearing "Vote Leave" tshirts.
Small anecdote I was at wirral rocks last night at tranmere rovers ground full stadium and the support band asked the audience if they were voting in or out virtually everyone shouted out. Either shy remainders or a clear majority for out and there were a few thousand there last night to watch quo
Interesting little piece on Ireland. If Leave wins do we get new passport checks? As you would expect the only significant Northern politician in favour of Brexit is the leader of the DUP.
Surprisingly the Irish Republic are said to be worried. I'd have thought they'd be the big winners. Companies leaving the UK would be falling over themselves to set up in Southern Ireland
No. Unless Ireland joins Schengen they stay in the UK Ireland free movement area.
And those landing in Dublin from Poland? They can enter the UK without passports then?
We would as the EEA allows for an emergency brake to be triggered unilaterally.
We would not need to pay benefits to any EU migrants (as Switzerland does not, for example).
And you could require private health insurance for all non UK citizens resident for more than three months, which would have the effect of eliminating all but skilled immigration.
It really is disappointing that Vote Leave decided to ignore EFTA+EEA as there are plenty of options which could limit immigration.
What impact on turnout do we think Euro 2016 will have? There are no matches on the 23rd, but surely the football will crowd out politics for a large segment of the population?
Glastonbury as well means that 100,000 people need to get their postal votes sorted...
Glastonbury attendees are more likely to be Remainers. (Young, naïve, left-wing) - keep quiet.
Interesting little piece on Ireland. If Leave wins do we get new passport checks? As you would expect the only significant Northern politician in favour of Brexit is the leader of the DUP.
Surprisingly the Irish Republic are said to be worried. I'd have thought they'd be the big winners. Companies leaving the UK would be falling over themselves to set up in Southern Ireland
No. Unless Ireland joins Schengen they stay in the UK Ireland free movement area.
And those landing in Dublin from Poland? They can enter the UK without passports then?
Us Northerners can have both a UK and irish passport. So Brit cirizens and EU citizens at the same time. Needless to say if we Leave us Europeans will be voting to keep riffraff ad directors out of our country.
Comments
Turnout for Oct 1974 GE = 72.8%
A drop of more than 1/10th.
Turnout for GE2015 = 66.4% therefore 1/10th lower brings the referendum in at around 60%.
How the long winter nights must simply have flown by in the 11th century mead hall with such wit.
Glastonbury as well means that 100,000 people need to get their postal votes sorted...
http://tinyurl.com/jrcp5qh
They also have an interactive tool to show how turnout by different groups could affect the result:
http://tinyurl.com/h7rekht
I'd be surprised if turnout is not at at least 65%.
They also need to get their place of residence sorted out as well, of course, given that some may have been registered in their university maugre their consent...
Seriously, I think turnout is really difficult to call. When we were asked to give our predictions I think I went something like 72% - it will almost certainly be lower than that. One of the things I find hardest to comprehend is that some people just don't vote. I get that at any one election circumstances might mean someone happens not to vote, but there is a big chunk of the population who just don't bother.
Could it be that he wants to thow it in such a way as to look like he meant to win but didn't?
Be LEAVE!
* just for tonight
Yet to see a REMAIN poster. Anywhere..
https://twitter.com/BenedictMPWhite/status/734359489374216192
If we are going to win this, we need to be focused and disciplined. Turkey joining in 2026, presumably following Greece and Cyprus leaving the EU, is just not a story that resonates with voters.
If we want to include it, say something like: "Of course, the expansion of the EU is not likely to end with Romania and Bulgaria. There are other countries, with larger and poorer populations, that could join in the longer term - such as Belorussia, Ukraine and Turkey." Which would at least have the benefit of being factually true.
The core of my Brexit thesis has always been a simple one: we are not - and will never be - happy members of the EU club. Our legal and democratic systems, as well as our history and philosophy, are very different. Attempting to fit our culture into the EU system is never going to make us happy, and isn't going to work for the EU either.
It would be better for both us and the EU if we were to leave. Not in rancour, but because our membership diminishes both us and the EU. We'll be better friends with the EU if we are not constantly chafing at its restrictions. And they'll be able to make the institutional reform needed to make their currency union work.
As a former Director General of the CBI, I'd have thought that'd be huge news:
http://www.digbylordjones.com/
2. The EU doesn't appear to want to reform and its people are beginning to resent that.
Leaving will at least give the reformers a chance to insist on reform. However until they work out a way to ditch the Euro the EU will face years of stagnation.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/apr/30/labour-antisemitism-ken-livingstone-george-galloway
However, out in the country as a whole, the only majority for LEAVE involves people who are agitated by Muslims and foreigners, and who can be convinced that Muslims are a more clear and present danger than what the boffins say about the economy. It is a low-return and high-risk strategy, but perhaps that means it is the only one that can possibly work.
Well meaning but very very flawed.
The thing is with fixed currency arrangements is that they are hard. You need to have an economic model with high levels of labour market flexibility to allow prices to adjust. In other words, you need to be able to carry out an internal devaluation. What you can't have is high levels of labour market protection and a fixed currency. The economic models of Spain, Greece and Italy pre the Euro were based on inflexible labour markets combined with ever depreciating currencies. In other words, the exchange rate worked to eradicate the inflexibilities of the labour market. That was no longer possible in the Eurozone. And their relative wages soared. Spain has learned its lesson. It now has - from one of the most scloretic labour markets in Europe - one of the most flexible. Inward investment has flowed in, the economy is growing rapidly again, and employment is rising fast. (And the country is doing this while running a current account surplus. Believe it or not, Spain is now the second largest car maker in Europe after Germany.)
The Eurozone may very well fail. But it won't fail because it's a fixed currency framework. It will fail because the polticians in many of the peripheral countries will not want to make their labour markets flexible enough to deal with the new environment.
Q: (AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS) How about if the candidates were (Hillary Clinton, the Democrat), (Donald Trump, the Republican) and Mitt Romney, running as an independent candidate, for whom would you vote? Would you lean toward (Clinton), (Trump) or Romney?
Clinton 37
Trump 35
Romney 22
Clinton by just one point in Florida...
5/16-5/19
2016 Florida President
Clinton 43% Trump 42%
CBS/YouGov
In other words, it would be popular with small business because leaving would not entail much risk.
Many of the x thousand pounds claims would simply not be possible if EFTA/EEA were the destination.
(I don't dispute that the sort of people who look for Jews under the bed are not the sort a respectable person would invite around for tea...)
It's more likely that he benefits from the reluctance of some primary voters to express support for their less-favoured candidates, which was strongly evident for Trump in places like Utah.
Clinton 44
Trump 39
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/battleground-poll-ohio-and-florida-show-tight-races-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7i&linkId=24754333
There are at least three Spaniards at work I know, plus I am served coffee at the train station by an Eastern European and lunch by someone of Mediterranean origin.
By labour market flexibility you may mean emigration.
Ohio
Sanders 48 Trump 39
Florida
Sanders 44 Trump 44
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/battleground-poll-ohio-and-florida-show-tight-races-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7i&linkId=24754333
I have read some stuff on EU regs that is bizarre though.
So how many words in the duck egg directive?
On the other hand it probably also does Remain's head in too. If leave said we want X we'd be bomabarded by nonsense that X means automatic death, penury and a Jimmy Savile in every home.
Is wrestling fog harder to deal with than a clear position ?
Clinton 44 .. Trump 39
Sanders 48 .. Trump 39
https://www.scribd.com/doc/313450292/CBS-News-2016-Battleground-Tracker-Ohio-May-22
I've never noticed a breathalyser being used at a polling station either.
Oh, and good evening everyone.
Those who support the idea of a United States of Europe miss what it is that makes the United States of America successful in the first place.
https://twitter.com/donteuleave/status/734065883354660864
So, Remain can hardly complain about being beaten at their own game.
In fact, thanks to the Diyanet, I am optimistic over Turkish immigration, though my economic arguments still stand.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/world/europe/more-than-islam-origin-is-a-marker-for-terror-among-brussels-immigrants.html?_r=0
Surprisingly the Irish Republic are said to be worried. I'd have thought they'd be the big winners. Companies leaving the UK would be falling over themselves to set up in Southern Ireland
Hofer needs to keep the difference to under 16%
It covers all eggs (not just ducks) and also covers regulation of eggs coming into the EU, and it's 8,844 words.
However, we in the UK outstrip this handily. The Red Lion Egg Code (found here) is 190 pages long, and is 42,000 words long.
And you could require private health insurance for all non UK citizens resident for more than three months, which would have the effect of eliminating all but skilled immigration.
A classic poachers goal.
My decision has nothing to do with Muslims or foreigners or economics. I simply feel that, on balance, it's the right thing to do.
@rcs1000 has articulated more or less what I can only feel.
(edited to remove redundant word)
Companies won't be leaving the UK to relocate in the Republic.
Bonkers. The lot of them. They should be taken out. And left there until the apologise.