@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
I hate hearing people saying pompously, as John Patten said pompously the other day on the radio, that a thing cannot be very unique or nearly unique - it is either unique or it is not.
Now, this to me is the kind of pedantic rule-of-iron that a third- rate schoolteacher falls back on. Not only that, but it is demonstrably untrue. For example, if there were two unicorns left in the world, and one was very ill, then the other one would be nearly unique . . .
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
52% voted Leave.
A minority of Leave voters did so due to immigration concerns. And they shouldn't get to wreck the economy for everyone else
Many reluctant Remainers still feel unhappy about levels of immigration.
Perhaps, but still not a majority. Since we are now apparently governed on the basis of ideas that have 52% support, shouldn't we acting in concert with the majority opinion on this?
Not sure I'd agree. He's still pushing the 'austerity lost it' line that was proposed by that silly woman Angela Eagle on the night. In reality, it was economic decay - the loss of semi-skilled well paid jobs - coupled to fierce competition from migrants all over Europe for the unskilled jobs, keeping wages very low, that lost it. This has of course also made redistributing economic wealth downwards very much harder - so profits have gone up and wages have stagnated, therefore even before the crash inequality was growing rapidly (under Blair, wealth was more unequally distributed than at any time since the 1930s). And that has been going on for at least 17 years. One month's campaigning led by a bunch of idiots appointed for their political connections despite a manifest lack of talent and zero knowledge of life outside a narrowly defined area was hardly going to change that.
The problem is that the rich, i.e. most politicians don't get that as cheap labour benefits them hugely, so they make the false assumption that what benefits them benefits their voters. They seem genuinely bewildered by the idea that it doesn't and unable to comprehend just how far it is their fault for putting profit margins ahead of their voters' financial interests.
It is however appropriate that Will Straw was in charge of BSE - he's been spouting mad bull ever since that drugs bust in '98(?).
The sense of "what the fuck were they thinking?" started with the name that gave the initials BSE - and never really lifted itself above the levels of presenting us with New Coke.
Agreed. Whilst there are a few nuggets in that Behr story ('knives to a gun fight' - a favourite phrase around these parts), it sounds like a defence of some weak strategy and the political operatives that defined it...
Unless you include MacDonald, who was not only forced out but expelled from the party into the bargain: something wholly unique in Labour's history.
I always think of RM as leading a breakaway faction in 1931 rather than being forced out. Henderson's succession and the expulsion merely recognised a fait accompli as far as I can judge. Although it is a rather theoretical distinction I suppose.
Not forgetting that Labour had a legitimate grievance given it was the second time he had led a splinter group (1914 being the previous time) and damaged the party's credibility in doing so. They had accepted him back after that, even made him their first official leader in 1922, and they had a right to expect he would be grateful.
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
52% voted Leave.
A minority of Leave voters did so due to immigration concerns. And they shouldn't get to wreck the economy for everyone else
Many reluctant Remainers still feel unhappy about levels of immigration.
Perhaps, but still not a majority. Since we are now apparently governed on the basis of ideas that have 52% support, shouldn't we acting in concert with the majority opinion on this?
Immigration has been at, or near, the top of voters issues for years. I think it is the majority view.
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
Oh Charles, did they not teach you anything at Eton?
When we use quite with a non-gradable adjective or adverb (an extreme adjective or adverb has a maximum and/or minimum, for example right – wrong), it usually means ‘very’, ‘totally’ or ‘completely’: The scenery was quite incredible. Helen had said the food was awful here. She was quite right. Steve Jobs, the chairman of Pixar, is quite obviously fond of computers
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
They will not be inconvenienced. Leave voters either holiday in Skegness or the Isle of Wight, or fly low budget airlines from places like Stanstead and Luton.
I wonder why so many people voted Leave
I often holiday in the IoW, or fly from Luton and Stansted. I draw the line at Skegness as once is enough!
You will find your beloved WWC holidaying in these places rather than from Heathrow.
Not sure I'd agree. He's still pushing the 'austerity lost it' line that was proposed by that silly woman Angela Eagle on the night. In reality, it was economic decay - the loss of semi-skilled well paid jobs - coupled to fierce competition from migrants all over Europe for the unskilled jobs, keeping wages very low, that lost it. This has of course also made redistributing economic wealth downwards very much harder - so profits have gone up and wages have stagnated, therefore even before the crash inequality was growing rapidly (under Blair, wealth was more unequally distributed than at any time since the 1930s). And that has been going on for at least 17 years. One month's campaigning led by a bunch of idiots appointed for their political connections despite a manifest lack of talent and zero knowledge of life outside a narrowly defined area was hardly going to change that.
The problem is that the rich, i.e. most politicians don't get that as cheap labour benefits them hugely, so they make the false assumption that what benefits them benefits their voters. They seem genuinely bewildered by the idea that it doesn't and unable to comprehend just how far it is their fault for putting profit margins ahead of their voters' financial interests.
It is however appropriate that Will Straw was in charge of BSE - he's been spouting mad bull ever since that drugs bust in '98(?).
The paragraph which says it all is:
Cameron gambled everything on the European referendum because he thought the centre was secure. He and George Osborne believed, as one of their cabinet allies told me: “It will be about jobs and the economy and it won’t even be close.”
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
I hate hearing people saying pompously, as John Patten said pompously the other day on the radio, that a thing cannot be very unique or nearly unique - it is either unique or it is not.
Now, this to me is the kind of pedantic rule-of-iron that a third- rate schoolteacher falls back on. Not only that, but it is demonstrably untrue. For example, if there were two unicorns left in the world, and one was very ill, then the other one would be nearly unique . . .
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
Oh Charles, did they not teach you anything at Eton?
When we use quite with a non-gradable adjective or adverb (an extreme adjective or adverb has a maximum and/or minimum, for example right – wrong), it usually means ‘very’, ‘totally’ or ‘completely’: The scenery was quite incredible. Helen had said the food was awful here. She was quite right. Steve Jobs, the chairman of Pixar, is quite obviously fond of computers
And you will find you become quite relaxed about such matters.
Impossible Mr Nashe. No matter what I read, every time I read 'would of' or 'different to' my inner grammar Nazi will immediately start singing the Horst Wessel and raising its right arm.
'The era of just two big parties representing the vast bulk of the country is over and we now see the pent up consequences of pretending that is still the case. We urge Labour Party to lead the country towards a new politics of the 21 st century by embracing proportional representation (PR).
But there is an immediate and obvious consequence of supporting PR, the politics of alliances. The divisions we now see in both main parties and the growing multitude of smaller parties means government will increasingly be through alliances of political parties. We welcome the formation of a progressive alliance of parties that want a more equal, democratic and sustainable society.
Not least because the shift to the right we have witnessed over the last few weeks and the possible rise of an even more populist UKIP-style politics across the country demands a united and effective electoral response from all progressives.'
Edit: two very good articles from William Hague (why did he leave the Commons so young?) and Rafael Behr. There will be many books written about the failure of the Remain campaign to make their case in this referendum.
My tip for today is that Fox won't be the first to be eliminated from the contest....
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
Oh Charles, did they not teach you anything at Eton?
When we use quite with a non-gradable adjective or adverb (an extreme adjective or adverb has a maximum and/or minimum, for example right – wrong), it usually means ‘very’, ‘totally’ or ‘completely’: The scenery was quite incredible. Helen had said the food was awful here. She was quite right. Steve Jobs, the chairman of Pixar, is quite obviously fond of computers
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
52% voted Leave.
A minority of Leave voters did so due to immigration concerns. And they shouldn't get to wreck the economy for everyone else
Many reluctant Remainers still feel unhappy about levels of immigration.
Perhaps, but still not a majority. Since we are now apparently governed on the basis of ideas that have 52% support, shouldn't we acting in concert with the majority opinion on this?
Immigration has been at, or near, the top of voters issues for years. I think it is the majority view.
I'm sure many people would like to control immigration but not at the expense of free movement.
Not sure I'd agree. He's still pushing the 'austerity lost it' line that was proposed by that silly woman Angela Eagle on the night. In reality, it was economic decay - the loss of semi-skilled well paid jobs - coupled to fierce competition from migrants all over Europe for the unskilled jobs, keeping wages very low, that lost it. This has of course also made redistributing economic wealth downwards very much harder - so profits have gone up and wages have stagnated, therefore even before the crash inequality was growing rapidly (under Blair, wealth was more unequally distributed than at any time since the 1930s). And that has been going on for at least 17 years. One month's campaigning led by a bunch of idiots appointed for their political connections despite a manifest lack of talent and zero knowledge of life outside a narrowly defined area was hardly going to change that.
The problem is that the rich, i.e. most politicians don't get that as cheap labour benefits them hugely, so they make the false assumption that what benefits them benefits their voters. They seem genuinely bewildered by the idea that it doesn't and unable to comprehend just how far it is their fault for putting profit margins ahead of their voters' financial interests.
It is however appropriate that Will Straw was in charge of BSE - he's been spouting mad bull ever since that drugs bust in '98(?).
The paragraph which says it all is:
Cameron gambled everything on the European referendum because he thought the centre was secure. He and George Osborne believed, as one of their cabinet allies told me: “It will be about jobs and the economy and it won’t even be close.” Arrogance. That went well.
Because they don't understand jobs and the economy. Nor do Straw, or Brown, or Corbyn, or Miliband. Their connections have always got them cushy jobs at nice rates and they've never had to really fight for anything basic. Even if they lose out in a political game, they won't starve or lose their house.
I worry about this disconnect. The bigger it grows, the greater the risk of civil strife.
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
Oh Charles, did they not teach you anything at Eton?
When we use quite with a non-gradable adjective or adverb (an extreme adjective or adverb has a maximum and/or minimum, for example right – wrong), it usually means ‘very’, ‘totally’ or ‘completely’: The scenery was quite incredible. Helen had said the food was awful here. She was quite right. Steve Jobs, the chairman of Pixar, is quite obviously fond of computers
What is fascinating, though, is that a growing number of MPs, peers, candidates and advisers now believe that it is time to start again with a new party of the centre left. Three months ago it was seen as foolish, or even heretical, to suggest such a thing, but since the EU referendum the idea has become mainstream. The Brexit vote has changed everything, with a former cabinet minister talking of the exciting possibilities for a “party of the 48 per cent”.
The plot against Mr Corbyn is not just creeping along pathetically, then, it is creeping along pathetically towards a mediocre destination. If the only victim were Labour itself, there would no pity in this. But the party’s retirement from serious politics allows a riven Conservative government on a rightwing trajectory to go unopposed. It also leaves the 48 per cent of voters who wanted to remain in the EU without a UK-wide party of any stature to get behind.
By all means, Labour MPs must try to remove Mr Corbyn and replace him with a plausible prime minister. But if the mission fails, political logic and the national interest both argue for a breakaway, which might unfold as follows. The 170-plus MPs who repudiated their leader last week would resign the Labour whip and sit as a new party of the pro-European centre left under leadership of their choosing. As the largest non-government group in the House of Commons, they would constitute the new official opposition, with all the privileges that entails. If Mr Corbyn’s residual Labour had fewer MPs than the Scottish National party’s 54, its struggle for visibility would be hopeless.
Not sure I'd agree. He's still pushing the 'austerity lost it' line that was proposed by that silly woman Angela Eagle on the night. In reality, it was economic decay - the loss of semi-skilled well paid jobs - coupled to fierce competition from migrants all over Europe for the unskilled jobs, keeping wages very low, that lost it. This has of course also made redistributing economic wealth downwards very much harder - so profits have gone up and wages have stagnated, therefore even before the crash inequality was growing rapidly (under Blair, wealth was more unequally distributed than at any time since the 1930s). And that has been going on for at least 17 years. One month's campaigning led by a bunch of idiots appointed for their political connections despite a manifest lack of talent and zero knowledge of life outside a narrowly defined area was hardly going to change that.
The problem is that the rich, i.e. most politicians don't get that as cheap labour benefits them hugely, so they make the false assumption that what benefits them benefits their voters. They seem genuinely bewildered by the idea that it doesn't and unable to comprehend just how far it is their fault for putting profit margins ahead of their voters' financial interests.
It is however appropriate that Will Straw was in charge of BSE - he's been spouting mad bull ever since that drugs bust in '98(?).
The paragraph which says it all is:
Cameron gambled everything on the European referendum because he thought the centre was secure. He and George Osborne believed, as one of their cabinet allies told me: “It will be about jobs and the economy and it won’t even be close.”
Arrogance. That went well.
"It's not (always) the economy, stupid" is something that politicians should learn off by heart.
It should always have been clear it would be close. The trend, in opinion polls, was obvious from the Autumn onwards.
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
Oh Charles, did they not teach you anything at Eton?
When we use quite with a non-gradable adjective or adverb (an extreme adjective or adverb has a maximum and/or minimum, for example right – wrong), it usually means ‘very’, ‘totally’ or ‘completely’: The scenery was quite incredible. Helen had said the food was awful here. She was quite right. Steve Jobs, the chairman of Pixar, is quite obviously fond of computers
And you will find you become quite relaxed about such matters.
Impossible Mr Nashe. No matter what I read, every time I read 'would of' or 'different to' my inner grammar Nazi will immediately start singing the Horst Wessel and raising its right arm.
Kamm distinguishes what is a mistake from what is a matter of stylistic preference - so he has no problem with 'different to', whereas 'would of' needs to be corrected.
She's clearly nervous. Is the good Mr @Mortimer hinting that Leadsom might even finish below the egregious Dr Fox (who is not to be confused with our valued fellow poster Dr FoxinSoxuk)?
Now that would be a humiliation for Leave and another very personal blow to Johnson.
(Incidentally re Leadsom's children - I had the mischievous thought that if fecundity were the only qualification, Bonking Boris would be nailed on!)
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
52% voted Leave.
A minority of Leave voters did so due to immigration concerns. And they shouldn't get to wreck the economy for everyone else
Many reluctant Remainers still feel unhappy about levels of immigration.
Perhaps, but still not a majority. Since we are now apparently governed on the basis of ideas that have 52% support, shouldn't we acting in concert with the majority opinion on this?
Immigration has been at, or near, the top of voters issues for years. I think it is the majority view.
I'm sure many people would like to control immigration but not at the expense of free movement.
The problem is how many real use or believe the price?
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
Has Dave said who he is supporting or given tacit to support to any of the candidates>?
The outgoing PM has said he'll remain neutral in the battle to choose his successor, and I don't think Osborne has said anything on the subject either. That said the majority of the Cameroons are clearly backing May, with a few going towards Crabb.
She's clearly nervous. Is the good Mr @Mortimer hinting that Leadsom might even finish below the egregious Dr Fox (who is not to be confused with our valued fellow poster Dr FoxinSoxuk)?
Now that would be a humiliation for Leave and another very personal blow to Johnson.
(Incidentally re Leadsom's children - I had the mischievous thought that if fecundity were the only qualification, Bonking Boris would be nailed on!)
Mad Nad thinks MP's votes should reflect the result of an opinion poll.. Sher really is bonkers.
Edit: two very good articles from William Hague (why did he leave the Commons so young?) and Rafael Behr. There will be many books written about the failure of the Remain campaign to make their case in this referendum.
My tip for today is that Fox won't be the first to be eliminated from the contest....
(but I can't see him surviving the second round).
DYOR!
Ooh, interesting. Who do you think is first to go then, Crabb?
I'm done betting on this now, made money laying Johnson and Osborne and have good bets on May and Gove.
It's getting incredibly difficult to disassociate ones own preference from impartial analysis of what might actually happen, and I guess I can't be the only one here with that problem!
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
What is fascinating, though, is that a growing number of MPs, peers, candidates and advisers now believe that it is time to start again with a new party of the centre left. Three months ago it was seen as foolish, or even heretical, to suggest such a thing, but since the EU referendum the idea has become mainstream. The Brexit vote has changed everything, with a former cabinet minister talking of the exciting possibilities for a “party of the 48 per cent”.
The plot against Mr Corbyn is not just creeping along pathetically, then, it is creeping along pathetically towards a mediocre destination. If the only victim were Labour itself, there would no pity in this. But the party’s retirement from serious politics allows a riven Conservative government on a rightwing trajectory to go unopposed. It also leaves the 48 per cent of voters who wanted to remain in the EU without a UK-wide party of any stature to get behind.
By all means, Labour MPs must try to remove Mr Corbyn and replace him with a plausible prime minister. But if the mission fails, political logic and the national interest both argue for a breakaway, which might unfold as follows. The 170-plus MPs who repudiated their leader last week would resign the Labour whip and sit as a new party of the pro-European centre left under leadership of their choosing. As the largest non-government group in the House of Commons, they would constitute the new official opposition, with all the privileges that entails. If Mr Corbyn’s residual Labour had fewer MPs than the Scottish National party’s 54, its struggle for visibility would be hopeless.
But would they carry Labour voters? That's the question.
And if we are talking new parties then we are not just talking MPs. At every level of government, elected representatives would need to make a choice, and there are tons of labour controlled councils where the process would be both traumatic and throw up all sorts of comsequences in terms of which party(ies) are in charge. Plus of course higher profile people in the devolved parliaments, House of Lords, MEPs etc. would have the same choice. It could be chaotic, and will/would certainly be interesting!
Anyone involved with managing PB isn't going to get a break any time soon...
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
52% voted Leave.
A minority of Leave voters did so due to immigration concerns. And they shouldn't get to wreck the economy for everyone else
Many reluctant Remainers still feel unhappy about levels of immigration.
Perhaps, but still not a majority. Since we are now apparently governed on the basis of ideas that have 52% support, shouldn't we acting in concert with the majority opinion on this?
Immigration has been at, or near, the top of voters issues for years. I think it is the majority view.
I'm sure many people would like to control immigration but not at the expense of free movement.
The problem is how many real use or believe the price?
That's supposed to be realise or believe the price.
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
52% voted Leave.
A minority of Leave voters did so due to immigration concerns. And they shouldn't get to wreck the economy for everyone else
Many reluctant Remainers still feel unhappy about levels of immigration.
Perhaps, but still not a majority. Since we are now apparently governed on the basis of ideas that have 52% support, shouldn't we acting in concert with the majority opinion on this?
Immigration has been at, or near, the top of voters issues for years. I think it is the majority view.
I'm sure many people would like to control immigration but not at the expense of free movement.
The problem is how many real use or believe the price?
Most British people are never going to live or work in other EU member States.
Has Dave said who he is supporting or given tacit to support to any of the candidates>?
Last week there was some talk that gov't whips were suggesting MPs support Ms May.
His ex-speech writer is backing Gove, Clare Foges is seen as his unofficial Times mouthpiece. An olive branch in return for axing Boris? So much Kremlinology.
Edit: two very good articles from William Hague (why did he leave the Commons so young?) and Rafael Behr. There will be many books written about the failure of the Remain campaign to make their case in this referendum.
My tip for today is that Fox won't be the first to be eliminated from the contest....
(but I can't see him surviving the second round).
DYOR!
I don't think Liam Fox should be as short priced as he is to be eliminated first. He's not getting much media attention but it isn't the media he needs to persuade. He's experienced and knows his electorate. Aside from Theresa May, every other candidate seems to be struggling to get public nominations and no one knows what is going through the minds of this very unusual electorate.
I laid Liam Fox this morning at 1.2 on Betfair to go first and I'm content with that bet. He shouldn't be all that far short of evens in my view.
She's clearly nervous. Is the good Mr @Mortimer hinting that Leadsom might even finish below the egregious Dr Fox (who is not to be confused with our valued fellow poster Dr FoxinSoxuk)?
Now that would be a humiliation for Leave and another very personal blow...
I think we should be much more wary of what Tory MPs say in public and what they do in the privacy of the voting booth. Fox had more actual support in 2005 than declared backers. Interestingly many who backed him then (publically) were part of the newest intake - including Crabb according to conhome lists!
It is also based on the declared support of my MP for Fox - a well connected long standing back bencher who doesn't make many political misjudgements...
And yes, I realise the first statement belies the first. Hey - it's PB - not internalconsistenccybetting.
On topic, fascinating figures and it'd be the mother of all mess-ups were May not to get it now. Sure, there's some name recognition effect ongoing - how many people really know who Crabb is, or Leadsom beyond a couple of EURef performances? But still, it's not so much their lack of visibility; it's the positive figures for May.
It's clear, however, that her team ought to be concentrating on manoeuvring Gove into the final two, if they can.
Absolutely not Herders
May needs to be seen to be above such grubby deviousness and Sub-Govian acts. Let the dice fall where they MAY. She'll win against any other candidate with the members with a comfortable if not a crushing margin.
Let the others grub about. May will be seen to be above the fray, looking Prime Ministerial.
Not sure I'd agree. He's still pushing the 'austerity lost it' line that was proposed by that silly woman Angela Eagle on the night. In reality, it was economic decay - the loss of semi-skilled well paid jobs - coupled to fierce competition from migrants all over Europe for the unskilled jobs, keeping wages very low, that lost it. This has of course also made redistributing economic wealth downwards very much harder - so profits have gone up and wages have stagnated, therefore even before the crash inequality was growing rapidly (under Blair, wealth was more unequally distributed than at any time since the 1930s). And that has been going on for at least 17 years. One month's campaigning led by a bunch of idiots appointed for their political connections despite a manifest lack of talent and zero knowledge of life outside a narrowly defined area was hardly going to change that.
The problem is that the rich, i.e. most politicians don't get that as cheap labour benefits them hugely, so they make the false assumption that what benefits them benefits their voters. They seem genuinely bewildered by the idea that it doesn't and unable to comprehend just how far it is their fault for putting profit margins ahead of their voters' financial interests.
It is however appropriate that Will Straw was in charge of BSE - he's been spouting mad bull ever since that drugs bust in '98(?).
The paragraph which says it all is:
Cameron gambled everything on the European referendum because he thought the centre was secure. He and George Osborne believed, as one of their cabinet allies told me: “It will be about jobs and the economy and it won’t even be close.”
Arrogance. That went well.
"It's not (always) the economy, stupid" is something that politicians should learn off by heart.
It should always have been clear it would be close. The trend, in opinion polls, was obvious from the Autumn onwards.
I've been saying for years to anyone who'll listen that if/when Cameron called a Referendum he would lose because of migration. I'm not sure it's his arrogance that didn't see this, more just being completely out of touch with a large part of the electorate.
'The era of just two big parties representing the vast bulk of the country is over and we now see the pent up consequences of pretending that is still the case. We urge Labour Party to lead the country towards a new politics of the 21 st century by embracing proportional representation (PR).
But there is an immediate and obvious consequence of supporting PR, the politics of alliances. The divisions we now see in both main parties and the growing multitude of smaller parties means government will increasingly be through alliances of political parties. We welcome the formation of a progressive alliance of parties that want a more equal, democratic and sustainable society.
Not least because the shift to the right we have witnessed over the last few weeks and the possible rise of an even more populist UKIP-style politics across the country demands a united and effective electoral response from all progressives.'
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
I take it you've never visited the US!
Baiting those wanting to spend their money in the US seems to be a bizzare form of sadism for Immigration and TSA officials.
Lots of friends from this part of the world have horrible stories about trying to visit there, ranging from missed connections to being held in isolation for several hours and been asked to provide "proof" they weren't terrorists. They genuinely seem to think that anyone carrying a Koran is from ISIL.
Not sure I'd agree. He's still pushing the 'austerity lost it' line that was proposed by that silly woman Angela Eagle on the night. In reality, it was economic decay - the loss of semi-skilled well paid jobs - coupled to fierce competition from migrants all over Europe for the unskilled jobs, keeping wages very low, that lost it. This has of course also made redistributing economic wealth downwards very much harder - so profits have gone up and wages have stagnated, therefore even before the crash inequality was growing rapidly (under Blair, wealth was more unequally distributed than at any time since the 1930s). And that has been going on for at least 17 years. One month's campaigning led by a bunch of idiots appointed for their political connections despite a manifest lack of talent and zero knowledge of life outside a narrowly defined area was hardly going to change that.
The problem is that the rich, i.e. most politicians don't get that as cheap labour benefits them hugely, so they make the false assumption that what benefits them benefits their voters. They seem genuinely bewildered by the idea that it doesn't and unable to comprehend just how far it is their fault for putting profit margins ahead of their voters' financial interests.
It is however appropriate that Will Straw was in charge of BSE - he's been spouting mad bull ever since that drugs bust in '98(?).
The paragraph which says it all is:
Cameron gambled everything on the European referendum because he thought the centre was secure. He and George Osborne believed, as one of their cabinet allies told me: “It will be about jobs and the economy and it won’t even be close.”
Arrogance. That went well.
"It's not (always) the economy, stupid" is something that politicians should learn off by heart.
It should always have been clear it would be close. The trend, in opinion polls, was obvious from the Autumn onwards.
I've been saying for years to anyone who'll listen that if/when Cameron called a Referendum he would lose because of migration. I'm not sure it's his arrogance that didn't see this, more just being completely out of touch with a large part of the electorate.
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
She's clearly nervous. Is the good Mr @Mortimer hinting that Leadsom might even finish below the egregious Dr Fox (who is not to be confused with our valued fellow poster Dr FoxinSoxuk)?
Now that would be a humiliation for Leave and another very personal blow...
I think we should be much more wary of what Tory MPs say in public and what they do in the privacy of the voting booth. Fox had more actual support in 2005 than declared backers. Interestingly many who backed him then (publically) were part of the newest intake - including Crabb according to conhome lists!
It is also based on the declared support of my MP for Fox - a well connected long standing back bencher who doesn't make many political misjudgements...
And yes, I realise the first statement belies the first. Hey - it's PB - not internalconsistenccybetting.
It may also be worth remembering that one of his backers in 2005, Mark Harper, is now the Chief Whip. I gather they are good friends in private as well. That might suggest he has insider help.
What is it with MPs not understanding what their own leadership processes are for? Labour even approved theirs the year before they worked around them.
The whole point is MPs screen the candidates before the members, and it may or may not be lead some is actually worse than sone others. Regardless, the two favourites with the members are favourites now, but the contest has only been going since Friday, little has been said, and none of them besides may have had that much exposure even with leads one getting referendum exposure - different favourites might emerge among members in the coming days.
I doubt it, leadsome is the only credible leaver in the race, but choosing the final two based on what might be temporary or poorly justified member support as shown in opinion poles, woukd be very silly.
Edit: two very good articles from William Hague (why did he leave the Commons so young?) and Rafael Behr. There will be many books written about the failure of the Remain campaign to make their case in this referendum.
My tip for today is that Fox won't be the first to be eliminated from the contest....
(but I can't see him surviving the second round).
DYOR!
Ooh, interesting. Who do you think is first to go then, Crabb?
I'm done betting on this now, made money laying Johnson and Osborne and have good bets on May and Gove.
It's getting incredibly difficult to disassociate ones own preference from impartial analysis of what might actually happen, and I guess I can't be the only one here with that problem!
Agreed - my book is very badly out on this based on years of peeing in the wind betting on my preferred candidates. I would not want Fox as leader - but can't see Crabb getting more votes than him in this first round. I'm not altogether hopeful that Gove will do well today, either.
Has Dave said who he is supporting or given tacit to support to any of the candidates>?
Last week there was some talk that gov't whips were suggesting MPs support Ms May.
His ex-speech writer is backing Gove, Clare Foges is seen as his unofficial Times mouthpiece. An olive branch in return for axing Boris? So much Kremlinology.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Gove do better than expected with the MPs, especially in the first round. He set himself up as the man to stop Boris, and he performed that role very well indeed.
Not sure I'd agree. He's still pushing the 'austerity lost it' line that was proposed by that silly woman Angela Eagle on the night. In reality, it was economic decay - the loss of semi-skilled well paid jobs - coupled to fierce competition from migrants all over Europe for the unskilled jobs, keeping wages very low, that lost it. This has of course also made redistributing economic wealth downwards very much harder - so profits have gone up and wages have stagnated, therefore even before the crash inequality was growing rapidly (under Blair, wealth was more unequally distributed than at any time since the 1930s). And that has been going on for at least 17 years. One month's campaigning led by a bunch of idiots appointed for their political connections despite a manifest lack of talent and zero knowledge of life outside a narrowly defined area was hardly going to change that.
The problem is that the rich, i.e. most politicians don't get that as cheap labour benefits them hugely, so they make the false assumption that what benefits them benefits their voters. They seem genuinely bewildered by the idea that it doesn't and unable to comprehend just how far it is their fault for putting profit margins ahead of their voters' financial interests.
It is however appropriate that Will Straw was in charge of BSE - he's been spouting mad bull ever since that drugs bust in '98(?).
The paragraph which says it all is:
Cameron gambled everything on the European referendum because he thought the centre was secure. He and George Osborne believed, as one of their cabinet allies told me: “It will be about jobs and the economy and it won’t even be close.”
Arrogance. That went well.
"It's not (always) the economy, stupid" is something that politicians should learn off by heart.
It should always have been clear it would be close. The trend, in opinion polls, was obvious from the Autumn onwards.
I've been saying for years to anyone who'll listen that if/when Cameron called a Referendum he would lose because of migration. I'm not sure it's his arrogance that didn't see this, more just being completely out of touch with a large part of the electorate.
That's not true. It was about the economy stupid... Just not the economy as a whole but rather the economy of the individual as experienced by those on zero hour, minimum wage contracts who are continually watching over their shoulder as (as they perceive it) more Eastern Europeans arrive to compete for those jobs....
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
And 90s I assure you. I was never taught it, but while some restrictions are clearly helpful, and which even the untaught obey as useful, others are merely rules someone came up with one day which add nothing but for sneering corrections about the 'proper' way to do things.
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
I take it you've never visited the US!
Baiting those wanting to spend their money in the US seems to be a bizzare form of sadism for Immigration and TSA officials.
Lots of friends from this part of the world have horrible stories about trying to visit there, ranging from missed connections to being held in isolation for several hours and been asked to provide "proof" they weren't terrorists. They genuinely seem to think that anyone carrying a Koran is from ISIL.
Missed connections aren't so bad once you realise you'll be put on the next flight at no cost (although that may screw up any plans you had). Have not been put in isolation yet, but the number of times I cross that border per year, it can only be a matter of time!
Has Dave said who he is supporting or given tacit to support to any of the candidates>?
Last week there was some talk that gov't whips were suggesting MPs support Ms May.
His ex-speech writer is backing Gove, Clare Foges is seen as his unofficial Times mouthpiece. An olive branch in return for axing Boris? So much Kremlinology.
At one point I had convinced myself that Mr Osborne was backing May, Gove and Crabb.
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
And 90s I assure you. I was never taught it, but while some restrictions are clearly helpful, and which even the untaught obey as useful, others are merely rules someone came up with one day which add nothing but for sneering corrections about the 'proper' way to do things.
And noughties. I was never taught English grammar, despite going to a grammar school.
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
The purported distinction between less / fewer is entirely made up by one person in the 1770 and completely unsupported by analysis of texts either before or after they codified their personal preference.
It is a perfect example of people not understanding that grammar is the study of the use of language rather than the incorrect notion of language being an application of grammar.
On topic, fascinating figures and it'd be the mother of all mess-ups were May not to get it now. Sure, there's some name recognition effect ongoing - how many people really know who Crabb is, or Leadsom beyond a couple of EURef performances? But still, it's not so much their lack of visibility; it's the positive figures for May.
It's clear, however, that her team ought to be concentrating on manoeuvring Gove into the final two, if they can.
Ahhhhh! The Jiggery pokery of the elite, David? Where's your sense of democracy gone?
Basically calling for a new referendum before we finalise our exit. I'll give you one guess as to what the EU's response will be post an Article 50 declaration.
I'm not disagreeing with the underlying premise (May would be better than Leadsom) but if you ask people to rate someone they know versus someone they don't, the former will usually do well.
Also, it's only Conservative members who matter for the purposes of the leadership, though they may take account of such polling.
On topic, fascinating figures and it'd be the mother of all mess-ups were May not to get it now. Sure, there's some name recognition effect ongoing - how many people really know who Crabb is, or Leadsom beyond a couple of EURef performances? But still, it's not so much their lack of visibility; it's the positive figures for May.
It's clear, however, that her team ought to be concentrating on manoeuvring Gove into the final two, if they can.
Absolutely not Herders
May needs to be seen to be above such grubby deviousness and Sub-Govian acts. Let the dice fall where they MAY. She'll win against any other candidate with the members with a comfortable if not a crushing margin.
Let the others grub about. May will be seen to be above the fray, looking Prime Ministerial.
And what if leadsome is going down like a lead balloon with MPs and they think she shouldn't get to the last two? May will be accused of grubby tricks as that will be the presumed reason the lead messiah didn't make it. So since accusations of grubbiness will occur whether or not may tries to keep leadsome off the final two, there's not that much harm to it.
The while prescriptive grammar thing probably comes from people thinking Latin, a dead language with calcified unchanging set of grammar, should be the exemplar for living languages.
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
Same here - I learned about "verbs" studying French....
I wonder if they could come second in 2020. Be the SNP of England and Wales.
This is their moment. If they select the right leader, with working class appeal, and working-class-friendly policies, they could supplant Labour.
I think
Completely disagree. Labour are constitutionally incapable of following their huka Umunna?
Labour now might as well give up on white working class anti immigration Leave voters, they are lost for them as such voters are lost for the Democrats in the US and have been since Bill Clinton's minorities and centrist voters who
If Labour were to give up on "white working class Leave voters" then they are kissing goodbye to TWO THIRDS Midlands bellwether seats like Nuneaton and Cannock Chase were among the biggest Leave landslides in the country.
The Democrats' strategy is not viable in a country which has far fewer ethnic minorities than the US, and with an electoral system which punishes parties that disproportionately piles up votes in big cities.
No they are not, 63% of Labour voters voted Remain and the white working class Leave voters would just go to UKIP not the Tories if they put immigration above all. Seats like Nuneaton and Cannock Chase are not going to be won back by Labour now, probably ever, seats like Enfield Southgate and Worcester where Remain won or Leave won narrowly are much better target seats for Labour if they are to win back power.
Around 10% of the population is ethnic minority now, more in Labour seats or target seats and growing. It is white middle class suburban graduates who Labour should be aiming for now, they are the types of voters who voted for Blair then went for Cameron but could be won back under the right leader and are growing as a percentage of the population, the white working class are shrinking as a percentage of the population. Labour will only win them over by out Kippering the Kippers which will only lose them the suburban middle classes, the liberal left and ethnic minorities, they are on a hiding to nothing with them
I find it hard to envisage a path to victory for Labour that doesn't run through seats like Cannock Chase, Great Yarmouth, Nuneaton, or the Thames Estuary. They'd have to make enormous inroads into historic Conservative territory to compensate.
Labour can win if they win suburban seats like Reading, Enfield Southgate and Worcester and Battersea even if they lose seats like Nuneaton and Great Yarmouth, it would not be a Blair style landslide but it would be a win
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
Same here - I learned about "verbs" studying French....
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
And 90s I assure you. I was never taught it, but while some restrictions are clearly helpful, and which even the untaught obey as useful, others are merely rules someone came up with one day which add nothing but for sneering corrections about the 'proper' way to do things.
That must be right. I'm struck by how many intelligent peers find it hard to express themselves coherently on paper. We were taught loads of spelling, but good grammar is surely more important.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Gove do better than expected with the MPs, especially in the first round. He set himself up as the man to stop Boris, and he performed that role very well indeed.
And in doing so Gove trashed his reputation, seen starkly with the YouGov polling. There may be some Conservative MP's that wish to cosy up to the rotting corpse of Gove's political life but in very short measure they will not wish to be buried with him.
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
And 90s I assure you. I was never taught it, but while some restrictions are clearly helpful, and which even the untaught obey as useful, others are merely rules someone came up with one day which add nothing but for sneering corrections about the 'proper' way to do things.
As someone who proofed final drafts - it's all about personal idiosyncrasies. AFAIC, 'impacted' isn't a verb and only applies to wisdom teeth, 'wholly unique' is awful tautology et al.
I'd a boss with his own bete noire that drove me equally around the twist. Smile and nod was the only option.
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
And 90s I assure you. I was never taught it, but while some restrictions are clearly helpful, and which even the untaught obey as useful, others are merely rules someone came up with one day which add nothing but for sneering corrections about the 'proper' way to do things.
That must be right. I'm struck by how many intelligent peers find it hard to express themselves coherently on paper. We were taught loads of spelling, but good grammar is surely more important.
We were taught grammar and essay structure. Topic sentences and so forth. I used to write quite well, if I do say so myself. Ten years with the Civil Service blunted that to some degree.
Now I just huff and puff when I see a Cyclefree or David Herdson post. So many good writers on this site.
If Gove comes last, does that almost guarantee Leadsom in the final two?
Fox won't win, so he can lose out in any round. Crabb's problem, as well as not growing a beard convincingly, is that he's a Remain chap, and putting two Remainers (with views around potential backsliding already rife) may not make the membership happy. Plus, he's the youngest of the lot and will be around next time.
Which leaves Gove or Leadsom. Who would May prefer? Who would MPs prefer?
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
Same here - I learned about "verbs" studying French....
The structure of language is more easily understood when learning a second one, rather than the native tongue. Kids pick up sentences and structures almost automatically rather than through formal learning, which is why languages are increasingly now taught in primary schools.
I know of one British kid here who speaks almost fluent Hindi at the age of 8, picked up entirely from the playground.
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
52% voted Leave.
A minority of Leave voters did so due to immigration concerns. And they shouldn't get to wreck the economy for everyone else
Many reluctant Remainers still feel unhappy about levels of immigration.
Perhaps, but still not a majority. Since we are now apparently governed on the basis of ideas that have 52% support, shouldn't we acting in concert with the majority opinion on this?
Immigration has been at, or near, the top of voters issues for years. I think it is the majority view.
There is a persistent attempt from some to try and brush this under the table.
77% want to reduce immigration. Even if we assume all the leave voters want to reduce immigration, which polling suggests isn't the case, that still means half of Remainers want to was well.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Gove do better than expected with the MPs, especially in the first round. He set himself up as the man to stop Boris, and he performed that role very well indeed.
And in doing so Gove trashed his reputation, seen starkly with the YouGov polling. There may be some Conservative MP's that wish to cosy up to the rotting corpse of Gove's political life but in very short measure they will not wish to be buried with him.
Technically true. That's why leadsome will win votes for saying declare immediately and the others pressured into naming dates not much beyond that, within a few months I'd guess. Leave is. Leave but it's not official yet, and many will grow increasingly worried and agitate to pull the trigger.
It may be so remain might have won against a specific leave rather than genetic leave, but the question was what it was. Any reasking would need to be before article 50, as after that and it'd be on the deal for exit , not on exit, and short of something so significant I cannot think what coukd to it, there's no will to ask again pre article 50, and the gov would collapse ecpven then. Plus we seem to be moving away from the GE idea, the only other very slim possibility.
'The era of just two big parties representing the vast bulk of the country is over and we now see the pent up consequences of pretending that is still the case. We urge Labour Party to lead the country towards a new politics of the 21 st century by embracing proportional representation (PR).
But there is an immediate and obvious consequence of supporting PR, the politics of alliances. The divisions we now see in both main parties and the growing multitude of smaller parties means government will increasingly be through alliances of political parties. We welcome the formation of a progressive alliance of parties that want a more equal, democratic and sustainable society.
Not least because the shift to the right we have witnessed over the last few weeks and the possible rise of an even more populist UKIP-style politics across the country demands a united and effective electoral response from all progressives.'
If Gove comes last, does that almost guarantee Leadsom in the final two?
Fox won't win, so he can lose out in any round. Crabb's problem, as well as not growing a beard convincingly, is that he's a Remain chap, and putting two Remainers (with views around potential backsliding already rife) may not make the membership happy. Plus, he's the youngest of the lot and will be around next time.
Which leaves Gove or Leadsom. Who would May prefer? Who would MPs prefer?
If the polling is to be believed it shouldn't matter. For certainty Gove in the members ballot would be ideal for May as in a variant on history she will crucify Judas
Has Dave said who he is supporting or given tacit to support to any of the candidates>?
Last week there was some talk that gov't whips were suggesting MPs support Ms May.
His ex-speech writer is backing Gove, Clare Foges is seen as his unofficial Times mouthpiece. An olive branch in return for axing Boris? So much Kremlinology.
At one point I had convinced myself that Mr Osborne was backing May, Gove and Crabb.
Just thinking about it, Kremlinology is such a wonderful shorthand - yet how many too young to recall Cold War politics really get it? It must seem a totally foreign land.
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
And 90s I assure you. I was never taught it, but while some restrictions are clearly helpful, and which even the untaught obey as useful, others are merely rules someone came up with one day which add nothing but for sneering corrections about the 'proper' way to do things.
As someone who proofed final drafts - it's all about personal idiosyncrasies. AFAIC, 'impacted' isn't a verb and only applies to wisdom teeth, 'wholly unique' is awful tautology et al.
I'd a boss with his own bete noire that drove me equally around the twist. Smile and nod was the only option.
My personal crusade has always been against the passive voice. Sadly, working in government, this is to tilt at windmills.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Gove do better than expected with the MPs, especially in the first round. He set himself up as the man to stop Boris, and he performed that role very well indeed.
And in doing so Gove trashed his reputation, seen starkly with the YouGov polling. There may be some Conservative MP's that wish to cosy up to the rotting corpse of Gove's political life but in very short measure they will not wish to be buried with him.
Family flowers only ....
Yes, but the polling was among members and not the MPs. In fact, given this polling of the members, it would be preferable for the May supporters to see her face Gove with the membership rather than Leadsom, hence tactical voting for the first couple of rounds in favour of the Justice Secretary.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Gove do better than expected with the MPs, especially in the first round. He set himself up as the man to stop Boris, and he performed that role very well indeed.
And in doing so Gove trashed his reputation, seen starkly with the YouGov polling. There may be some Conservative MP's that wish to cosy up to the rotting corpse of Gove's political life but in very short measure they will not wish to be buried with him.
Family flowers only ....
It's game over for Gove.
I like to think that large parts of the world are run by adults, though Trump and Corbyn are pushing the theory to its limits, and that there was a trans-factional coalition of the grown-up which said "Boris? Nein danke" and for which Gove was the sacrificial spear head. Probably not true though.
I've been saying for years to anyone who'll listen that if/when Cameron called a Referendum he would lose because of migration. I'm not sure it's his arrogance that didn't see this, more just being completely out of touch with a large part of the electorate.
That's fair enough, although it's a pretty significant failing in a politicians, albeit a pretty common one that they are so out of touch with the voters. Too much bubble politics, presumably when they go back to their constituencies and talk to voters at surgeries they just hand wave away their concerns as the thinkings of the proles.
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
And 90s I assure you. I was never taught it, but while some restrictions are clearly helpful, and which even the untaught obey as useful, others are merely rules someone came up with one day which add nothing but for sneering corrections about the 'proper' way to do things.
As someone who proofed final drafts - it's all about personal idiosyncrasies. AFAIC, 'impacted' isn't a verb and only applies to wisdom teeth, 'wholly unique' is awful tautology et al.
I'd a boss with his own bete noire that drove me equally around the twist. Smile and nod was the only option.
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
And 90s I assure you. I was never taught it, but while some restrictions are clearly helpful, and which even the untaught obey as useful, others are merely rules someone came up with one day which add nothing but for sneering corrections about the 'proper' way to do things.
That must be right. I'm struck by how many intelligent peers find it hard to express themselves coherently on paper. We were taught loads of spelling, but good grammar is surely more important.
In terms of actually being able to express thoughts and concepts usefully and convincingly, most certainly. I am sure I could improve my own writing In That respect. But the basic point that there are arbitrary rules which in fact inhibit more than they aid expression is I think Inarguable.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Gove do better than expected with the MPs, especially in the first round. He set himself up as the man to stop Boris, and he performed that role very well indeed.
And in doing so Gove trashed his reputation, seen starkly with the YouGov polling. There may be some Conservative MP's that wish to cosy up to the rotting corpse of Gove's political life but in very short measure they will not wish to be buried with him.
Family flowers only ....
Not impossible Leadsom comes second today and Fox third with Gove coming last behind Crabb
Comments
Not forgetting that Labour had a legitimate grievance given it was the second time he had led a splinter group (1914 being the previous time) and damaged the party's credibility in doing so. They had accepted him back after that, even made him their first official leader in 1922, and they had a right to expect he would be grateful.
"Quite" modifies the state - in fact negates the status - so is a contradiction in terms.
You will find your beloved WWC holidaying in these places rather than from Heathrow.
A l'eau, c'est l'heure.
(but I can't see him surviving the second round).
DYOR!
https://twitter.com/NadineDorriesMP/status/750211018505195520
https://twitter.com/NadineDorriesMP/status/750022298581827584
I worry about this disconnect. The bigger it grows, the greater the risk of civil strife.
Eats, shoots and leaves...
"It's not (always) the economy, stupid" is something that politicians should learn off by heart.
It should always have been clear it would be close. The trend, in opinion polls, was obvious from the Autumn onwards.
Now that would be a humiliation for Leave and another very personal blow to Johnson.
(Incidentally re Leadsom's children - I had the mischievous thought that if fecundity were the only qualification, Bonking Boris would be nailed on!)
I'm done betting on this now, made money laying Johnson and Osborne and have good bets on May and Gove.
It's getting incredibly difficult to disassociate ones own preference from impartial analysis of what might actually happen, and I guess I can't be the only one here with that problem!
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Anyone involved with managing PB isn't going to get a break any time soon...
I laid Liam Fox this morning at 1.2 on Betfair to go first and I'm content with that bet. He shouldn't be all that far short of evens in my view.
It is also based on the declared support of my MP for Fox - a well connected long standing back bencher who doesn't make many political misjudgements...
And yes, I realise the first statement belies the first. Hey - it's PB - not internalconsistenccybetting.
May needs to be seen to be above such grubby deviousness and Sub-Govian acts. Let the dice fall where they MAY. She'll win against any other candidate with the members with a comfortable if not a crushing margin.
Let the others grub about. May will be seen to be above the fray, looking Prime Ministerial.
It should always have been clear it would be close. The trend, in opinion polls, was obvious from the Autumn onwards.
I've been saying for years to anyone who'll listen that if/when Cameron called a Referendum he would lose because of migration. I'm not sure it's his arrogance that didn't see this, more just being completely out of touch with a large part of the electorate.
Lots of friends from this part of the world have horrible stories about trying to visit there, ranging from missed connections to being held in isolation for several hours and been asked to provide "proof" they weren't terrorists. They genuinely seem to think that anyone carrying a Koran is from ISIL.
The whole point is MPs screen the candidates before the members, and it may or may not be lead some is actually worse than sone others. Regardless, the two favourites with the members are favourites now, but the contest has only been going since Friday, little has been said, and none of them besides may have had that much exposure even with leads one getting referendum exposure - different favourites might emerge among members in the coming days.
I doubt it, leadsome is the only credible leaver in the race, but choosing the final two based on what might be temporary or poorly justified member support as shown in opinion poles, woukd be very silly.
That's not true. It was about the economy stupid... Just not the economy as a whole but rather the economy of the individual as experienced by those on zero hour, minimum wage contracts who are continually watching over their shoulder as (as they perceive it) more Eastern Europeans arrive to compete for those jobs....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/04/scotland-fishing-federation-ministers-brexit-eu-referendum
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/brexit-how-britain-stays-in-the-eu-214005
It is a perfect example of people not understanding that grammar is the study of the use of language rather than the incorrect notion of language being an application of grammar.
How much of that is name recognition?
I'm not disagreeing with the underlying premise (May would be better than Leadsom) but if you ask people to rate someone they know versus someone they don't, the former will usually do well.
Also, it's only Conservative members who matter for the purposes of the leadership, though they may take account of such polling.
There's an even more revealing one, but unfortunately I can't embed it. If you want to see the issue with pensioners, check out figure 2 here:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/nowcastinghouseholdincomeintheuk/2015-10-28#trends-in-household-incomes
This is a joke post.
Family flowers only ....
The constant whine of the Brexiteers that Remainers didn't have a plan to fix their shit is deafening now
I'd a boss with his own bete noire that drove me equally around the twist. Smile and nod was the only option.
Now I just huff and puff when I see a Cyclefree or David Herdson post. So many good writers on this site.
Fox won't win, so he can lose out in any round. Crabb's problem, as well as not growing a beard convincingly, is that he's a Remain chap, and putting two Remainers (with views around potential backsliding already rife) may not make the membership happy. Plus, he's the youngest of the lot and will be around next time.
Which leaves Gove or Leadsom. Who would May prefer? Who would MPs prefer?
I know of one British kid here who speaks almost fluent Hindi at the age of 8, picked up entirely from the playground.
http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-31/immigration/introduction.aspx
77% want to reduce immigration. Even if we assume all the leave voters want to reduce immigration, which polling suggests isn't the case, that still means half of Remainers want to was well.
It may be so remain might have won against a specific leave rather than genetic leave, but the question was what it was. Any reasking would need to be before article 50, as after that and it'd be on the deal for exit , not on exit, and short of something so significant I cannot think what coukd to it, there's no will to ask again pre article 50, and the gov would collapse ecpven then. Plus we seem to be moving away from the GE idea, the only other very slim possibility.
Your £3 vote may be no more
Whoops.