Mr. Sykes, I'd urge you to consider the (sensible) arguments and vote the way you think is in the country's long term interests.
The campaigns have been dire but the vote isn't about approving either of them, but the fate of the nation.
Put in those terms, it probably has to be a cautious "safety first" - Remain.
Or, as that implies an endorsement of BSIE's scare stories and Cameron's non-deal, perhaps "abstain and reluctantly hope for remain".
Since Remain looks highly likely to win, the aim of the cautious voter should surely be to ensure it's a slim victory so as not to give the victors the cockiness to sign us up to everything going.
Yes, that's a fair point. I had thought that if, as I assumed some months ago would be the case, Remain was streets ahead I would vote Leave as a "keep them in check" vote.
But it looks to close for comfort, as things stand anyway....
I honestly can't think of any Tory MP who seems fit to assume the mantle of PM when Cameron goes, other than (with great reluctance) Osborne or Boris.
Cameron, Osborne and Boris are the only 3 big beasts in the Tory jungle. It has to be one of them.
To be honest, assuming he survives next month's outcome, and despite how madly he has infuriated me at times over the past decade, I think the Tories' best hope is to persuade Cameron to do a u turn and win a third term in 2020....
I think I would add May to the list of big beasts. However, I think a fresher face will be needed by the Tories for 2020, and one of the 2010 intake who has risen to ministerial office now / cabinet by 2018/19 may well be the right choice.
On topic, this is a good call. Andrea Leadsom is quite local to me and she is well-regarded in the area as a hard working and credible MP. Who has enhanced their reputation by being part of the Leave Campaign? I'd suggest her, Dominic Raab, Gisela Stuart - and go no further.
Oddly if I had to suggest the biggest traveller in the other direction, I'd go for Priti Patel. I'm struggling to understand why, but there's something about her views and the way she conducts herself that makes me very nervous about her having a prominent role in Government, even her current role. Is it just me?
Not just you, I've done a piece for next week on Priti Patel that I'm sure some will call a hatchet job.
She is quite fit though.
I'm not that shallow. Ahem
I am and it probably explains why I was one of Liz's 4%ers
Voters in the sample who initially told Survation they were undecided were then “squeezed” with the question:
“If the referendum was today and you had to choose, would you Vote for the UK to leave the European Union / Vote for the UK to remain a member of the European Union, or would you not vote?”
Some of these undecided respondents then stated their preference for leave or remain after this “squeeze” question. Adding back these respondents the initial leave/remain voting intention had the effect of a slight (1%) boost to the Remain figure:
On topic, this is a good call. Andrea Leadsom is quite local to me and she is well-regarded in the area as a hard working and credible MP. Who has enhanced their reputation by being part of the Leave Campaign? I'd suggest her, Dominic Raab, Gisela Stuart - and go no further.
Oddly if I had to suggest the biggest traveller in the other direction, I'd go for Priti Patel. I'm struggling to understand why, but there's something about her views and the way she conducts herself that makes me very nervous about her having a prominent role in Government, even her current role. Is it just me?
Not just you, I've done a piece for next week on Priti Patel that I'm sure some will call a hatchet job.
She is quite fit though.
I'm not that shallow. Ahem
I am and it probably explains why I was one of Liz's 4%ers
In that case you should have been backing Yvette Cooper.
My view would be her as Chancellor, and Gove as Foreign Secretary, as a Brexit dream team.
Won't happen. Chancellor is too big a jump and besides, unless you have a new PM, Cameron isn't going to leave Osborne without either other top three job.
Leadsom at BIS would work.
I disagree. I think she could do it. She has lots of talent, worked in the City, and has experience as economic secretary to the Treasury.
BIS would be a bit of an insult, in my view.
She's a junior minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. How on earth would a move to *any* cabinet post - never mind one probably more senior than her current department - be an insult?
She has worked as Economic Secretary to the Treasury and in the City. She has shown leadership, competence and capability in her brief, and through her TV interviews, press articles and leadership of Fresh Start.
She is only a junior minister because Osborne has artificially held her career back. And far more qualified for the role than he was with *no* government experience at all when he came to office in 2010, and just a modern history degree and life in politics.
I see no reason why she shouldn't jump straight into that role and I think she'd do a bloody good job.
'No' reason? I can think of several, both in terms of government experience and practical politics. I also think it'd be unfair on her to drop her into a position like that as the media scrutiny would be extremely intense following such a promotion and any failings would be magnified more than normal.
It won't happen though. There are other, bigger, beasts who would have a claim on the Treasury were Osborne to be moved and while they might accept being passed over for one of their own, they'll kick up a fuss if they're all passed over - and Cameron is in a weak position to see off that sort of challenge.
I would have Leadsom at BIS, Gove at No. 11 and demote Osborne.
Additionally I would give Patel a promotion. Not sure what to do with Boris.
I would make Boris Chairman of the Conservative Party. Ultimately, I don't think he's a good enough manager to take on a major ministerial role.
Mr. Sykes, I'd urge you to consider the (sensible) arguments and vote the way you think is in the country's long term interests.
The campaigns have been dire but the vote isn't about approving either of them, but the fate of the nation.
Put in those terms, it probably has to be a cautious "safety first" - Remain.
Or, as that implies an endorsement of BSIE's scare stories and Cameron's non-deal, perhaps "abstain and reluctantly hope for remain".
A vote for remain is a vote for federalisation, it isn't a safety first approach. Unfortunately there isn't a safety first approach.
The others can progress the federal project if they want. The UK won't be part of that - we'll either leave in the next 2 years after a Leave vote this year, or leave further down the line if the EU doesn't by then split into the federal "core" and the "associates" on the periphery.
Cameron's deal offered us little, but it clearly put a marker down that the UK won't be frogmarched into a federal superstate.
Voters in the sample who initially told Survation they were undecided were then “squeezed” with the question:
“If the referendum was today and you had to choose, would you Vote for the UK to leave the European Union / Vote for the UK to remain a member of the European Union, or would you not vote?”
Some of these undecided respondents then stated their preference for leave or remain after this “squeeze” question. Adding back these respondents the initial leave/remain voting intention had the effect of a slight (1%) boost to the Remain figure:
Can anyone, ANYONE, tell me why it's a good thing to try and squeeze undecided?
Voters in the sample who initially told Survation they were undecided were then “squeezed” with the question:
“If the referendum was today and you had to choose, would you Vote for the UK to leave the European Union / Vote for the UK to remain a member of the European Union, or would you not vote?”
Some of these undecided respondents then stated their preference for leave or remain after this “squeeze” question. Adding back these respondents the initial leave/remain voting intention had the effect of a slight (1%) boost to the Remain figure:
Can anyone, ANYONE, tell me why it's a good thing to try and squeeze undecided?
Because we all love a good squeeze?
I think the reality is, it is felt the DKs are a good indicator of how the campaigns are going.
For example during the Indyref and AV Ref, DKs were breaking for the status quo, even when the status quo was just ahead or just behind.
So.. why 18% DKs with Survation but only 3% with ORB?
Something's not right here.
ORB really do force the choice, the ones who are DK's are in fact WNVs
No. The DK's in ORB are those who are 10/10 to vote but don't know which way. I know we are an awkward group but we do exist!
Schrodinger's voters.
There's still a month to go and I could be persuaded either way (if any of the campaigns are interested in addressing the undecided voter rather than attacking each other or themselves). I do, however, believe that it's a really important decision and I don't want to blame myself later for not having had a say in the result.
I would much rather have a diet of Scandanavian Noir, Spanish Cinema and even German comedy to the cast offs of middle american pap. I don't mind a bit of that stuff but I do want variety.
Too often we get the choice of dozens of identical programmes with only an illusion of choice.
So.. why 18% DKs with Survation but only 3% with ORB?
Something's not right here.
ORB really do force the choice, the ones who are DK's are in fact WNVs
No. The DK's in ORB are those who are 10/10 to vote but don't know which way. I know we are an awkward group but we do exist!
Schrodinger's voters.
There's still a month to go and I could be persuaded either way (if any of the campaigns are interested in addressing the undecided voter rather than attacking each other or themselves). I do, however, believe that it's a really important decision and I don't want to blame myself later for not having had a say in the result.
There was an interesting interview with real estate mogul Barbara Corcoran on CNN a few days ago endorsing Clinton but saying she has absolutely no doubt that Trump will win.
The others can progress the federal project if they want. The UK won't be part of that - we'll either leave in the next 2 years after a Leave vote this year, or leave further down the line if the EU doesn't by then split into the federal "core" and the "associates" on the periphery.
Cameron's deal offered us little, but it clearly put a marker down that the UK won't be frogmarched into a federal superstate.
Major and Blair said the same, even Brown tried to say he'd "protected" us in his Lisbon negotiations. Each time our politicians have said we have been protected or opted-out of the political union, and in turn the ECJ has over-ruled our opt-outs of the political union. This new opt-out will be no different to the Major's opt-out or Blair's rebate giveaway or Brown's "protections" for the City.
This is how it happens:
The EU proposes a treaty which creates an EU treasury, EU taxation and allows the EU to oversee military co-operation between EU member states. These all apply only to EMU nations, as part of Dave's deal the UK government can't veto this treaty because they have limited it to EMU only. The treaty is ratified. The EU passes a whole raft of tax collection and spending laws and begins operating essentially as the government of bloc, taxing, spending and setting "domestic" policy on where the funds should be spent. We are now in the EU state, but have no say in the governance and policy of it since we aren't in the EMU, we are completely and utterly irrelevant, yet we still contribute to the EU budget through our direct contribution.
At this point it is put up or shut up time, do we leave or do we go all in? The campaign will be exactly the same as this one, except project fear will be multiplied by 10, leave will result in Britain being left out in the cold forever, the world is moving to large nation blocs and the UK must be part of this one to make our voice heard etc...
We must avert this by voting to leave today. As I said, neither leave nor remain are safe options, however, with Remain I can't see anything other than another referendum in which the British public are browbeaten by the establishment into voting to become a full part of the EU state.
I would much rather have a diet of Scandanavian Noir, Spanish Cinema and even German comedy to the cast offs of middle american pap. I don't mind a bit of that stuff but I do want variety.
Too often we get the choice of dozens of identical programmes with only an illusion of choice.
If people actually wanted to "have a diet of Scandanavian Noir, Spanish Cinema and even German comedy" the likes of Netflix would provide it. Netflix would have no trouble licensing such "entertainment" and can easily afford to do so.
Netflix unlike the European Commission has a huge amount of data, maybe more than any other organisation on Earth, which reveals what people really want to watch. They take that data and use it to select the programmes they license and produce. Apparently the European Commission thinks it knows Netflix's customers better than Netflix, I doubt that they are correct.
I would much rather have a diet of Scandanavian Noir, Spanish Cinema and even German comedy to the cast offs of middle american pap. I don't mind a bit of that stuff but I do want variety.
Too often we get the choice of dozens of identical programmes with only an illusion of choice.
If people actually wanted to "have a diet of Scandanavian Noir, Spanish Cinema and even German comedy" the likes of Netflix would provide it. Netflix would have no trouble licensing such "entertainment" and can easily afford to do so.
Netflix unlike the European Commission has a huge amount of data, maybe more than any other organisation on Earth, which reveals what people really want to watch. They take that data and use it to select the programmes they license and produce. Apparently the European Commission thinks it knows Netflix's customers better than Netflix, I doubt that they are correct.
Netflix also carry a lot of content because it's cheap, and don't carry a lot because it's expensive/exclusive. Some of their crap stuff is watched because it's there and presumably most of their data about what people "want" to watch is actually what people choose to watch from the limited selection available on Netflix.
If you locked hungry people in KFC for a week, the consumption data wouldn't prove that fried chicken was what they really wanted to eat.
I would much rather have a diet of Scandanavian Noir, Spanish Cinema and even German comedy to the cast offs of middle american pap. I don't mind a bit of that stuff but I do want variety.
Too often we get the choice of dozens of identical programmes with only an illusion of choice.
If people actually wanted to "have a diet of Scandanavian Noir, Spanish Cinema and even German comedy" the likes of Netflix would provide it. Netflix would have no trouble licensing such "entertainment" and can easily afford to do so.
Netflix unlike the European Commission has a huge amount of data, maybe more than any other organisation on Earth, which reveals what people really want to watch. They take that data and use it to select the programmes they license and produce. Apparently the European Commission thinks it knows Netflix's customers better than Netflix, I doubt that they are correct.
Its not that they know the audience better, just that they do not want the bad driving out the good. Europe has a fascinating and rich cultural history which I do not want to be steamrollered by middle american schmalz. There is plenty of room for that in the other 80% of programming.
Virtually all nations support local cultural activities, and ensuring a wider audience for these is a good thing. Our own government does it outside the EU and even Leicester City Council does it for local programmes.
@faisalislam: WTO boss: "pretty much all" UK global trade has to be negotiated post Brexit. Brits "will have to pay" £9bn tariffs: https://t.co/bdhF0cxE6u
I would much rather have a diet of Scandanavian Noir, Spanish Cinema and even German comedy to the cast offs of middle american pap. I don't mind a bit of that stuff but I do want variety.
Too often we get the choice of dozens of identical programmes with only an illusion of choice.
Europhiles seem to favour protectionist and nanny state policies. Mandatory quotas on what the likes of Netflix have to show will not drive up standards.
If you want to watch trendy Scandinavian noir there is nothing stopping you from buying a DVD or signing up to a streaming service that does offer it.
Next scheduled poll is Lord Ashcroft's 5,000 sample poll*, out tomorrow
*Before anyone gets overexcited, the MOE on that poll is circa 1.5% as opposed to 3% for a 1,000 strong poll.
Systematic bias is a far bigger issue than any MoE concern. It is obviously there in either the phone polls or the online polls, perhaps even both.
I understand that the case for saying the online polls overstate Leave is that Leavers are more politically engaged and probably older/retired so have more time to answer online surveys. This (allegedly) means they are likely to respond more quickly than Remainers and because online polling systems stop accepting responses from the various defined groups of voters when sampling quotas have been filled if the split of Leave/Remain amongst quick responders is not the same as the population as a whole the result of the poll will be unrepresentative.
This theory seems to have some logic to it - and clearly the punters and bookies believe it - but what is the counter-argument against phone polling? If we accept the online polls are right the phone polls must exaggerate Remain so why would Remainers be more likely to respond to phone calls than Leavers?
Next scheduled poll is Lord Ashcroft's 5,000 sample poll*, out tomorrow
*Before anyone gets overexcited, the MOE on that poll is circa 1.5% as opposed to 3% for a 1,000 strong poll.
Systematic bias is a far bigger issue than any MoE concern. It is obviously there in either the phone polls or the online polls, perhaps even both.
I understand that the case for saying the online polls overstate Leave is that Leavers are more politically engaged and probably older/retired so have more time to answer online surveys. This (allegedly) means they are likely to respond more quickly than Remainers and because online polling systems stop accepting responses from the various defined groups of voters when sampling quotas have been filled if the split of Leave/Remain amongst quick responders is not the same as the population as a whole the result of the poll will be unrepresentative.
This theory seems to have some logic to it - and clearly the punters and bookies believe it - but what is the counter-argument against phone polling? If we accept the online polls are right the phone polls must exaggerate Remain so why would Remainers be more likely to respond to phone calls than Leavers?
Anecdote alert. I almost never answer “unknown” phone calls and, although I get regular emails from Yougov and I’m saving up to get to 5000 points(!) I’ve never been asked about the EU by them. I’ve not been canvassed, either, although there have been a couple of pub chats, during one of which I was told that “as I wasn’t really English, I wouldn’t understand why they (the speaker) felt so strongly about Leaving".” The ‘not really English’ is due to me being part Welsh! During the other chat, with some Labour Party members, everyone was for RemaIN!
Comments
But it looks to close for comfort, as things stand anyway....
Voters in the sample who initially told Survation they were undecided were then “squeezed” with the question:
“If the referendum was today and you had to choose, would you Vote for the UK to leave the European Union / Vote for the UK to remain a member of the European Union, or would you not vote?”
Some of these undecided respondents then stated their preference for leave or remain after this “squeeze” question. Adding back these respondents the initial leave/remain voting intention had the effect of a slight (1%) boost to the Remain figure:
But it would be very different. You don't vote, you don't get.
You do vote, you get the lot.
*Before anyone gets overexcited, the MOE on that poll is circa 1.5% as opposed to 3% for a 1,000 strong poll.
Cameron's deal offered us little, but it clearly put a marker down that the UK won't be frogmarched into a federal superstate.
British Airways boss hits back at claims that Brexit would raise air fares | via @telebusiness https://t.co/qRWjdUGmt2
#Brexit best for UK
https://twitter.com/vexmark/status/735454321597284356
I think the reality is, it is felt the DKs are a good indicator of how the campaigns are going.
For example during the Indyref and AV Ref, DKs were breaking for the status quo, even when the status quo was just ahead or just behind.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-susana-martinez-not-doing-job
Remember the bouncy weekly polls?
Sorry, lefty journalist
@JGForsyth: Eagle's questions are too long now, mini-speeches which don't work as well as direct questions
@PolhomeEditor: Labour MPs roared their approval of Angela Eagle at the start of #PMQs. Seem a bit subdued now.
@PolhomeEditor: Osborne won that hands down IMHO #PMQs
Professor Orazio Pietro Attanasio
I wonder if he might be a Remainer?
I would much rather have a diet of Scandanavian Noir, Spanish Cinema and even German comedy to the cast offs of middle american pap. I don't mind a bit of that stuff but I do want variety.
Too often we get the choice of dozens of identical programmes with only an illusion of choice.
Sign of a petulant man, I'm afraid.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjTfP3fXAAAC0CV.jpg
If anything, they were ahead of the curve.
For all those interested in Leadsom, this is her recent article in City am.
This is how it happens:
The EU proposes a treaty which creates an EU treasury, EU taxation and allows the EU to oversee military co-operation between EU member states. These all apply only to EMU nations, as part of Dave's deal the UK government can't veto this treaty because they have limited it to EMU only. The treaty is ratified. The EU passes a whole raft of tax collection and spending laws and begins operating essentially as the government of bloc, taxing, spending and setting "domestic" policy on where the funds should be spent. We are now in the EU state, but have no say in the governance and policy of it since we aren't in the EMU, we are completely and utterly irrelevant, yet we still contribute to the EU budget through our direct contribution.
At this point it is put up or shut up time, do we leave or do we go all in? The campaign will be exactly the same as this one, except project fear will be multiplied by 10, leave will result in Britain being left out in the cold forever, the world is moving to large nation blocs and the UK must be part of this one to make our voice heard etc...
We must avert this by voting to leave today. As I said, neither leave nor remain are safe options, however, with Remain I can't see anything other than another referendum in which the British public are browbeaten by the establishment into voting to become a full part of the EU state.
Netflix unlike the European Commission has a huge amount of data, maybe more than any other organisation on Earth, which reveals what people really want to watch. They take that data and use it to select the programmes they license and produce. Apparently the European Commission thinks it knows Netflix's customers better than Netflix, I doubt that they are correct.
If you locked hungry people in KFC for a week, the consumption data wouldn't prove that fried chicken was what they really wanted to eat.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Virtually all nations support local cultural activities, and ensuring a wider audience for these is a good thing. Our own government does it outside the EU and even Leicester City Council does it for local programmes.
Who wants to Leave home, when they can Remain in the busom of their family ;-)
If you want to watch trendy Scandinavian noir there is nothing stopping you from buying a DVD or signing up to a streaming service that does offer it.
This theory seems to have some logic to it - and clearly the punters and bookies believe it - but what is the counter-argument against phone polling? If we accept the online polls are right the phone polls must exaggerate Remain so why would Remainers be more likely to respond to phone calls than Leavers?
I’ve not been canvassed, either, although there have been a couple of pub chats, during one of which I was told that “as I wasn’t really English, I wouldn’t understand why they (the speaker) felt so strongly about Leaving".” The ‘not really English’ is due to me being part Welsh!
During the other chat, with some Labour Party members, everyone was for RemaIN!