Not really the time for narrow party political advantage – the country is desperate for stability and to get us into the EEA quick sharp so the economy can stablise. Thanks to you and your brethren from the loon eurosceptic left wing of the Labour Party, who helped pull us out of Europe and put they futures of a generation under threat, most moderates will be popping the Champagne corks should May win. At least she is vaguely sensible.
Oh dear, its the "we know your lives better than you peons do" argument again. I'm not going to recant the referendum again but people voted to leave because they saw the status quo as not working for them. Thats not comfortable for people who are the status quo hence calling voters Racist and Stupid.
The party who accepts that people know their lives better than establishment politicians do AND actually start to pay attention to them is going to clean up in the election.
I thought the best quote from the whole Brexit result was along the lines of "Remain had every Establishment expert they could shake a stick at, but no expert on life in Rochdale".
Mr. Eagles, please re-attach your trousers. You're coming across as a bigger fanboy than Kylo Ren.
It's not heat. It's daftness from those making those comments. We had this conversation when I criticised Cameron for his approach in the referendum. You said he was ruthless, playing to win etc. Calling your adversaries (especially those you wish to become allies immediately after the vote) 'terminally stupid' is just not smart.
I view Leadsom/ContinuityIDS as a virus that needs to be repelled. The future of the country is at stake. By any necessary means to defeat her is acceptable.
Pfft. A few months ago people who didn't like Dave were "terminally stupid", then it moved on to people who wanted to Leave were "terminally stupid", and now anyone who doesn't think Mrs May is the second coming is "terminally stupid" with such intellectual self-confidence (not to mention suppleness) you should stand for office
I'm enjoying this 'Grayling could be Home Sec' conversion by those who relentlessly rubbished him for years as dangerous/stupid/useless - right up to the day he backed May.
You mean like you who used to be a fan of Blair/Cameron/Gove/Farage.... who next? Banks?
This is 'reported incidents' rather than charges, prosecutions, or convictions. They also seem to be in Remain voting areas rather than Leave voting areas.
Breitbart looked into some of the reports:
"Earlier this week Breitbart London revealed how social justice warriors and pro-EU activists are gathering on Facebook pages to encourage one another to report “hate crimes” they witness. Journalists are stalking said Facebook pages in order to find stories.
And the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Hate Crime has also skewered the mainstream media and ‘Remain’ politicians’ narrative that there has been a confirmed spike in hate crimes across the United Kingdom since the country voted to leave the European Union (EU).
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed."
However, we are seeing an increase in reports of hate crime incidents to True Vision, the police online hate crime reporting site. This is similar to the trends following other major national or international events. In previous instances, crime levels returned to normal relatively quickly but we are monitoring the situation closely.
That's over a fortnight older he's update his views has he not ?
And are we listening to experts now ?
@TSE - just checking to see what happens now with my proposed article. Should I wait to hear from Mike?
it was only when Remain started banging on about it the eyes started to light up in Cumming's office and it got plastered all over buses and posters)
More post truth politics.
It was on the bus day 1. Boris "carved it into steel" day 1
It was the main thrust of the campaign, from start to finish. And it was, and remains, a lie.
£350 million is the gross amount.
No, it isn't. No matter how often you repeat it, it is simply not true. The UK's rebate is deducted before any money goes to Brussels. We do not send £350m per week to Brussels. And since we do not sent £350m per week to Brussels, there is no £350m per week to spend on the NHS.
Possibly The Times should stop pissing around and release the full audio then, rather than allow another conspiracy to develop, it hard to understand their motive for keeping it under wraps.
I don't understand why you're asking for more information to be released, when you evidently haven't read the transcript that's already been released (judging by the fact that you were taken in by Guido Fawkes's transparent deception).
Mr. Eagles, presumably the ACC's comments can be corroborated, or not?
Edited extra bit: Mr. Dave (et al), Morris Dancer is not an alcoholic. I've probably had one drink (of alcohol) in the last five years. Not a proper teetotaller, mind, I just don't drink much.
I was asking for research purposes for a character I'm writing.
You've always struck me as a heavy drinker.
I've always imagined you write your PB posts on classical history after several pints of booze
It does seem inconceivable that the conservative party members will not put the Country first and elect Theresa May
Mr G I must say your views of politics do seem a little lacking in shades of grey, you were nailed on for Remain, then in the light of the result you are nailed on for leave, you were a utterly committed follower are Dave until he resigned and now are to believe that Saint Theresa will be the second coming. I hope May wins as well, but only in the context of her being the least bad candidate of a pretty unpreposessing selection.
I am decisive but hopefully have an open mind. Yes I absolutely want Brexit, yes I supported David Cameron, and yes I want Theresa May as she is the only politician that could come near to providing much needed stability. But no, I have not Sainted her, she has her faults as we all do and we need to give her time, and I do not see her as a second coming, just someone who's time has come
This is 'reported incidents' rather than charges, prosecutions, or convictions. They also seem to be in Remain voting areas rather than Leave voting areas.
Breitbart looked into some of the reports:
"Earlier this week Breitbart London revealed how social justice warriors and pro-EU activists are gathering on Facebook pages to encourage one another to report “hate crimes” they witness. Journalists are stalking said Facebook pages in order to find stories.
And the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Hate Crime has also skewered the mainstream media and ‘Remain’ politicians’ narrative that there has been a confirmed spike in hate crimes across the United Kingdom since the country voted to leave the European Union (EU).
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed."
However, we are seeing an increase in reports of hate crime incidents to True Vision, the police online hate crime reporting site. This is similar to the trends following other major national or international events. In previous instances, crime levels returned to normal relatively quickly but we are monitoring the situation closely.
That's over a fortnight older he's update his views has he not ?
And are we listening to experts now ?
@TSE - just checking to see what happens now with my proposed article. Should I wait to hear from Mike?
I've uploaded it and I think Mike's going to use it.
Normally Mike'll drop you a message after he publishes it.
Sensible leavers (there are some!) are concerned that Brexit should be done properly and should support May, as she is more likely to deliver. Remainers will want to keep Brexit damage to a minimum and will support May for the same reason
Following increases in the reporting of hate crime to the True Vision website, the National Police Chiefs' Council requested weekly returns on the hate crime numbers.
So it was correct of Breitbart to say it was a figure derived from the use of an online form, whether that form has been used correctly and appropriately is open to debate.
It was flat lie, whether it was deliverable or not. If I claim to be the King of Spain, despite not being Spanish, or in line for the throne, it's still a lie.
The point of drawing attention to broken Vote Leave pledges now is to be able to captialise politically if things should go less than swimmingly over the next few years. Of course, if they do, in fact, go swimmingly, then none of these messages will be effective.
I am looking forward to the Bank of England raising interest rates this week, in accordance with the Chancellor's warnings during the Referendum campaign.
Oh....
"George Osborne has issued a stark warning that mortgage rates will rise if Britain leaves the European Union.
The chancellor said he thought it was likely interest rates, and therefore the cost of home loans, would rise if Britons vote to leave the EU in the referendum on 23 June."
NZ gave up subsidising their farmers a few years back. Just said 'sink or swim' and phased out all state support over the course of 3 years. NZ agriculture is in rude good health now. Hmmm....
it was only when Remain started banging on about it the eyes started to light up in Cumming's office and it got plastered all over buses and posters)
More post truth politics.
It was on the bus day 1. Boris "carved it into steel" day 1
It was the main thrust of the campaign, from start to finish. And it was, and remains, a lie.
£350 million is the gross amount.
No, it isn't. No matter how often you repeat it, it is simply not true. The UK's rebate is deducted before any money goes to Brussels. We do not send £350m per week to Brussels. And since we do not sent £350m per week to Brussels, there is no £350m per week to spend on the NHS.
If the rebate can be taken away without our consent, is it our money ?
Possibly The Times should stop pissing around and release the full audio then, rather than allow another conspiracy to develop, it hard to understand their motive for keeping it under wraps.
I don't understand why you're asking for more information to be released, when you evidently haven't read the transcript that's already been released (judging by the fact that you were taken in by Guido Fawkes's transparent deception).
I dont know why you feel we shouldn't hear the audio unless you fear it might undermine your position.
It does seem inconceivable that the conservative party members will not put the Country first and elect Theresa May
Mr G I must say your views of politics do seem a little lacking in shades of grey, you were nailed on for Remain, then in the light of the result you are nailed on for leave, you were a utterly committed follower are Dave until he resigned and now are to believe that Saint Theresa will be the second coming. I hope May wins as well, but only in the context of her being the least bad candidate of a pretty unpreposessing selection.
I am decisive but hopefully have an open mind. Yes I absolutely want Brexit, yes I supported David Cameron, and yes I want Theresa May as she is the only politician that could come near to providing much needed stability. But no, I have not Sainted her, she has her faults as we all do and we need to give her time, and I do not see her as a second coming, just someone who's time has come
This is 'reported incidents' rather than charges, prosecutions, or convictions. They also seem to be in Remain voting areas rather than Leave voting areas.
Breitbart looked into some of the reports:
"Earlier this week Breitbart London revealed how social justice warriors and pro-EU activists are gathering on Facebook pages to encourage one another to report “hate crimes” they witness. Journalists are stalking said Facebook pages in order to find stories.
And the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Hate Crime has also skewered the mainstream media and ‘Remain’ politicians’ narrative that there has been a confirmed spike in hate crimes across the United Kingdom since the country voted to leave the European Union (EU).
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed."
However, we are seeing an increase in reports of hate crime incidents to True Vision, the police online hate crime reporting site. This is similar to the trends following other major national or international events. In previous instances, crime levels returned to normal relatively quickly but we are monitoring the situation closely.
That's over a fortnight older he's update his views has he not ?
And are we listening to experts now ?
@TSE - just checking to see what happens now with my proposed article. Should I wait to hear from Mike?
I've uploaded it and I think Mike's going to use it.
Normally Mike'll drop you a message after he publishes it.
Possibly The Times should stop pissing around and release the full audio then, rather than allow another conspiracy to develop, it hard to understand their motive for keeping it under wraps.
I don't understand why you're asking for more information to be released, when you evidently haven't read the transcript that's already been released (judging by the fact that you were taken in by Guido Fawkes's transparent deception).
I dont know why you feel we shouldn't hear the audio unless you fear it might undermine your position.
and yet for some strange reason The Times are refusing to release the full audio, just selected bit, I don't support Leadsom, but something smells about this story, especially with the sudden change of story from the journalist concerned yesterday which showed at the very least there had been leading questions and it was not an off the cuff reply.
That post by Guido Fawkes is sheer nonsense from start to finish, as anyone who has read the fuller transcript on ConHome will see in an instant. There was no "contradiction" and no "correction" from Rachel Sylvester, just four seconds edited out of an interview with her to try to mislead people into thinking that she, rather than Leadsom, was the first to raise the issue of her family and children.
As I said, in the circumstances, the more lies Leadsom's apologists come out with, the worse it makes things look.
Possibly The Times should stop pissing around and release the full audio then, rather than allow another conspiracy to develop, it hard to understand their motive for keeping it under wraps.
I think they're planning to mine that interview for articles throughout the leadership campaign. If they release a transcript they have nothing.
Important lesson for Leadson, do not trust journos, have your own recording.
No it is not. They are campaigners not the government. A campaign position of cancelling all EU grants after leaving and diverting our gross contributions to the NHS is entirely legitimate. Whether the government would actually do it is up to the government.
And how do we get the rebate into it as well?
£350 million - £100 million rebate -£140 million spent here ___________ ???????? available for the NHS?????
And yes, we could cut off the farmers and poorer regions (which may not help with the accumulated anger), but I'm still intrigued about how you're proposing to deal with the shortfall from the rebate. I don't think the EU will continue to send it to us after we leave.
I think if I was a politician these days, I would tape all the interviews I gave myself. Then if I felt like my words had been genuinely been taken out of context, I could just release the audio myself.
I have been away so not followed the current outcry, but the Dispatches have done a couple of hit jobs and released highly edited secret recordings and it seemed to me in some of the cases they highlighted that Dispatches were looking to engineer the story rather than the story being there.
It seems to me that many people are failing to see the obvious here: Mrs Leadsom is not only absurdly inexperienced for the immediate job of PM at a particularly difficult time, she's also quite simply not very good at the key requirements of front-line politics. The more one sees of her, the less good she appears. It follows, therefore, that the hustings and interviews over the next few weeks are going to act to her disadvantage, not her advantage, with party members.
Yes, I think that is probably right, and I write that as one who openly forecast a Leadsom win. I had assumed that the selectorate would warm to a rightwing fresh face. But I am now much less sure of that.
Mr. Eagles, presumably the ACC's comments can be corroborated, or not?
Edited extra bit: Mr. Dave (et al), Morris Dancer is not an alcoholic. I've probably had one drink (of alcohol) in the last five years. Not a proper teetotaller, mind, I just don't drink much.
I was asking for research purposes for a character I'm writing.
You've always struck me as a heavy drinker.
I've always imagined you write your PB posts on classical history after several pints of booze
Yet he seems stone cold sober when correcting your history homework....
I think if I was a politician these days, I would tape all the interviews I gave myself. Then if I felt like my words had been genuinely been taken out of context, I could just release the audio myself.
No it is not. They are campaigners not the government. A campaign position of cancelling all EU grants after leaving and diverting our gross contributions to the NHS is entirely legitimate. Whether the government would actually do it is up to the government.
And how do we get the rebate into it as well?
£350 million - £100 million rebate -£140 million spent here ___________ ???????? available for the NHS?????
And yes, we could cut off the farmers and poorer regions (which may not help with the accumulated anger), but I'm still intrigued about how you're proposing to deal with the shortfall from the rebate. I don't think the EU will continue to send it to us after we leave.
The net contribution is £10.2bn according to the Treasury, the gross contribution is £18bn, of that we get about £4.5bn back in the rebate and then a further £3-4bn per year in spending, some of which needs to be matched by the state (academic funding mostly).
Possibly The Times should stop pissing around and release the full audio then, rather than allow another conspiracy to develop, it hard to understand their motive for keeping it under wraps.
I don't understand why you're asking for more information to be released, when you evidently haven't read the transcript that's already been released (judging by the fact that you were taken in by Guido Fawkes's transparent deception).
I dont know why you feel we shouldn't hear the audio unless you fear it might undermine your position.
Once an argument is lost stop digging
It's not my argument, I dont support Leadsom and never have. It just this dance of the seven veils by The Times feels shifty and would be easy for them to kill, the fact that they chose not to kill it, even though doing so wouldn't cost them anything is a legitimate subject for comment.
The cynical would say it is because they actually want people to continue to talk about this story so it continues to do damage, its the 350m all over again.
I think if I was a politician these days, I would tape all the interviews I gave myself. Then if I felt like my words had been genuinely been taken out of context, I could just release the audio myself.
I have been away so not followed the current outcry, but the Dispatches have done a couple of hit jobs and released highly edited secret recordings and it seemed to me in some of the cases they highlighted that Dispatches were looking to engineer the story rather than the story being there.
Usually the PR handler will record it as well as the interviewer.
This is 'reported incidents' rather than charges, prosecutions, or convictions. They also seem to be in Remain voting areas rather than Leave voting areas.
Breitbart looked into some of the reports:
"Earlier this week Breitbart London revealed how social justice warriors and pro-EU activists are gathering on Facebook pages to encourage one another to report “hate crimes” they witness. Journalists are stalking said Facebook pages in order to find stories.
And the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Hate Crime has also skewered the mainstream media and ‘Remain’ politicians’ narrative that there has been a confirmed spike in hate crimes across the United Kingdom since the country voted to leave the European Union (EU).
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed."
However, we are seeing an increase in reports of hate crime incidents to True Vision, the police online hate crime reporting site. This is similar to the trends following other major national or international events. In previous instances, crime levels returned to normal relatively quickly but we are monitoring the situation closely.
That's over a fortnight older he's update his views has he not ?
and yet for some strange reason The Times are refusing to release the full audio, just selected bit, I don't support Leadsom, but something smells about this story, especially with the sudden change of story from the journalist concerned yesterday which showed at the very least there had been leading questions and it was not an off the cuff reply.
That post by Guido Fawkes is sheer nonsense from start to finish, as anyone who has read the fuller transcript on ConHome will see in an instant. There was no "contradiction" and no "correction" from Rachel Sylvester, just four seconds edited out of an interview with her to try to mislead people into thinking that she, rather than Leadsom, was the first to raise the issue of her family and children.
As I said, in the circumstances, the more lies Leadsom's apologists come out with, the worse it makes things look.
Possibly The Times should stop pissing around and release the full audio then, rather than allow another conspiracy to develop, it hard to understand their motive for keeping it under wraps.
I think they're planning to mine that interview for articles throughout the leadership campaign. If they release a transcript they have nothing.
Important lesson for Leadson, do not trust journos, have your own recording.
The Times/STimes have undermined themselves. Nick Boles was named specifically as a MP who'd leave the Tories if Leadsom won.
He tweeted the moment the story broke that he'd said nothing of the kind, and had told The Sunday Times it wasn't true prior to publication. He was informed that they'd correct their article.
The ST didn't update their website to reflect this. I'm really not trusting them at all right now - and generally a fan.
I think if I was a politician these days, I would tape all the interviews I gave myself. Then if I felt like my words had been genuinely been taken out of context, I could just release the audio myself.
I have been away so not followed the current outcry, but the Dispatches have done a couple of hit jobs and released highly edited secret recordings and it seemed to me in some of the cases they highlighted that Dispatches were looking to engineer the story rather than the story being there.
No it is not. They are campaigners not the government. A campaign position of cancelling all EU grants after leaving and diverting our gross contributions to the NHS is entirely legitimate. Whether the government would actually do it is up to the government.
And how do we get the rebate into it as well?
£350 million - £100 million rebate -£140 million spent here ___________ ???????? available for the NHS?????
And yes, we could cut off the farmers and poorer regions (which may not help with the accumulated anger), but I'm still intrigued about how you're proposing to deal with the shortfall from the rebate. I don't think the EU will continue to send it to us after we leave.
Most of the 140m has to be matched by UK government spending, so it we cut it out we actually gain that money twice potentially. You have to admit there is something of a cheek in taking our money then offering to give up some of it back, but only if we promise to spend even more money we otherwise wouldn't want to.
Not really the time for narrow party political advantage – the country is desperate for stability and to get us into the EEA quick sharp so the economy can stablise. Thanks to you and your brethren from the loon eurosceptic left wing of the Labour Party, who helped pull us out of Europe and put they futures of a generation under threat, most moderates will be popping the Champagne corks should May win. At least she is vaguely sensible.
Oh dear, its the "we know your lives better than you peons do" argument again. I'm not going to recant the referendum again but people voted to leave because they saw the status quo as not working for them. Thats not comfortable for people who are the status quo hence calling voters Racist and Stupid.
The party who accepts that people know their lives better than establishment politicians do AND actually start to pay attention to them is going to clean up in the election.
Wrong. It's your lies that the change would work out better for them that won it. My WWC mother-in-law voted Leave because it was "time for a change". Change to what? £350m extra a week for the NHS. Your campaign was built on pure lies. Sandy Rentool admitted on here he pushed that leaflet through Labour voters' letterboxes knowing full well it was a lie.
and yet for some strange reason The Times are refusing to release the full audio, just selected bit, I don't support Leadsom, but something smells about this story, especially with the sudden change of story from the journalist concerned yesterday which showed at the very least there had been leading questions and it was not an off the cuff reply.
That post by Guido Fawkes is sheer nonsense from start to finish, as anyone who has read the fuller transcript on ConHome will see in an instant. There was no "contradiction" and no "correction" from Rachel Sylvester, just four seconds edited out of an interview with her to try to mislead people into thinking that she, rather than Leadsom, was the first to raise the issue of her family and children.
As I said, in the circumstances, the more lies Leadsom's apologists come out with, the worse it makes things look.
Possibly The Times should stop pissing around and release the full audio then, rather than allow another conspiracy to develop, it hard to understand their motive for keeping it under wraps.
I think they're planning to mine that interview for articles throughout the leadership campaign. If they release a transcript they have nothing.
Important lesson for Leadson, do not trust journos, have your own recording.
The Times/STimes have undermined themselves. Nick Boles was named specifically as a MP who'd leave the Tories if Leadsom won.
He tweeted the moment the story broke that he'd said nothing of the kind, and had told The Sunday Times it wasn't true prior to publication. He was informed that they'd correct their article.
The ST didn't update their website to reflect this. I'm really not trusting them at all right now - and generally a fan.
The Telegraph were particular bad for this during the expenses scandal. They hit a number of MPs were false / inaccurate claims and ignored their responses. One in particular provided them with a clear dossier of information regarding his claims for a kitchen and they still printed the misleading stuff. Basically, he had been an MP for something like 15 years, and during that time only once claimed for kitchen stuff and he had plans drawn up and then contacted the claims people to say that he would like to know what exactly what was covered as he didn't want to get in trouble and was happy to pay out of his own pocket for the work which wasn't. The Telegraph still splashed that he tried to claim for some crazy kitchen.
No it is not. They are campaigners not the government. A campaign position of cancelling all EU grants after leaving and diverting our gross contributions to the NHS is entirely legitimate. Whether the government would actually do it is up to the government.
And how do we get the rebate into it as well?
£350 million - £100 million rebate -£140 million spent here ___________ ???????? available for the NHS?????
And yes, we could cut off the farmers and poorer regions (which may not help with the accumulated anger), but I'm still intrigued about how you're proposing to deal with the shortfall from the rebate. I don't think the EU will continue to send it to us after we leave.
The net contribution is £10.2bn according to the Treasury, the gross contribution is £18bn, of that we get about £4.5bn back in the rebate and then a further £3-4bn per year in spending, some of which needs to be matched by the state (academic funding mostly).
The fact that we're still debating this (and at the level of 7 years olds to boot) is really, really sad. UK debt servicing costs are currently £45 billion p.a. rising to £68 billion p.a. in 2020. UK pensions cost £108 billion. The UK economy is worth £1.8 trillion. EU contributions are nugatory in comparison.
Let me put the boot into my own side, just to be even handed. All those people who think that Brexit puts a 'black hole' in the EU budget are just as crazed. The EU27 economy is around €11.7 trillion. Our contribution is pocket change. It gives us the square root of bugger all in terms of negotiating leverage, and is hardly likely to lead to EU countries toppling like dominoes.
This is 'reported incidents' rather than charges, prosecutions, or convictions. They also seem to be in Remain voting areas rather than Leave voting areas.
Breitbart looked into some of the reports:
"Earlier this week Breitbart London revealed how social justice warriors and pro-EU activists are gathering on Facebook pages to encourage one another to report “hate crimes” they witness. Journalists are stalking said Facebook pages in order to find stories.
And the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Hate Crime has also skewered the mainstream media and ‘Remain’ politicians’ narrative that there has been a confirmed spike in hate crimes across the United Kingdom since the country voted to leave the European Union (EU).
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed."
However, we are seeing an increase in reports of hate crime incidents to True Vision, the police online hate crime reporting site. This is similar to the trends following other major national or international events. In previous instances, crime levels returned to normal relatively quickly but we are monitoring the situation closely.
That's over a fortnight older he's update his views has he not ?
And are we listening to experts now ?
@TSE - just checking to see what happens now with my proposed article. Should I wait to hear from Mike?
I'll look forward to reading it from one of PB's golden greats. I trust it is on the insanity of the Labour far left?
Not really the time for narrow party political advantage – the country is desperate for stability and to get us into the EEA quick sharp so the economy can stablise. Thanks to you and your brethren from the loon eurosceptic left wing of the Labour Party, who helped pull us out of Europe and put they futures of a generation under threat, most moderates will be popping the Champagne corks should May win. At least she is vaguely sensible.
Oh dear, its the "we know your lives better than you peons do" argument again. I'm not going to recant the referendum again but people voted to leave because they saw the status quo as not working for them. Thats not comfortable for people who are the status quo hence calling voters Racist and Stupid.
The party who accepts that people know their lives better than establishment politicians do AND actually start to pay attention to them is going to clean up in the election.
So that would mean rejecting open door immigration, accepting that the UK has a nuclear deterrent and being strongly patriotic. Looks like Corbyn Labour will have it sewn up :-)
This is 'reported incidents' rather than charges, prosecutions, or convictions. They also seem to be in Remain voting areas rather than Leave voting areas.
Breitbart looked into some of the reports:
"Earlier this week Breitbart London revealed how social justice warriors and pro-EU activists are gathering on Facebook pages to encourage one another to report “hate crimes” they witness. Journalists are stalking said Facebook pages in order to find stories.
And the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Hate Crime has also skewered the mainstream media and ‘Remain’ politicians’ narrative that there has been a confirmed spike in hate crimes across the United Kingdom since the country voted to leave the European Union (EU).
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed."
However, we are seeing an increase in reports of hate crime incidents to True Vision, the police online hate crime reporting site. This is similar to the trends following other major national or international events. In previous instances, crime levels returned to normal relatively quickly but we are monitoring the situation closely.
That's over a fortnight older he's update his views has he not ?
In fairness nunu, it has put a bomb under the economy. We just don't know how big it is yet.
All our economic figures, all the deals are from pre-Brexit activity. Economies (other than daft things like open ended property funds) don't spin on a sixpence, especially one as complex as the UK.
Just one example. John Lewis complained about the slide in sterling as much of what it sells comes from abroad. However, its hedged against currency movements until 2017. Therefore any ill effects are temporarily postponed.
Leave was always in the lead: why the polls got the referendum result wrong
By analysing 121 opinion polls, Harold D. Clarke, Matthew Goodwin, and Paul Whiteley outline what happened with the EU referendum survey results. They explain why internet surveys performed substantially better than telephone ones – contrary to the post-2015 General Election ‘wisdom’ that telephone surveys should be preferred. Underlying trends showed that once methodological artefacts are controlled, Leave was almost certainly ahead of Remain over the entire last month of the campaign – and possibly throughout 2016.
If their analysis is correct, it sounds again a bit like that the campaigns and all the twists and turns and ups and down and media outcries and politicians bloopers, probably mean the square root of f##k all. It was claimed the same last year and also 2010, that there was no late swing, that the little changed throughout the last month despite all the noise.
In fairness nunu, it has put a bomb under the economy. We just don't know how big it is yet.
All our economic figures, all the deals are all from pre-Brexit activity. Economies (other than daft things like open ended property funds) don't spin on a sixpence, especially one as complex as the UK.
Just one example. John Lewis complained about the slide in sterling as much of what it sells comes from abroad. However, its hedged against currency movements until 2017. Therefore any ill effects are temporarily postponed.
They'll begin to raise prices now though so they can prepare for weaker Sterling in the future.
That deal would have been introduced as a vote of confidence in our membership had we voted to remain. It's one of those that was going to happen anyway. What's interesting is that the body is based on a fairly ordinary 737, it opens up the door for European deliveries to be assembled here once this project is finished, we would have the skills base to do it.
That's an offset deal where companies selling defence equipment agree to spend an equivalent amount in the country. Boeing will do the same for Turkey, Poland ...
In fairness nunu, it has put a bomb under the economy. We just don't know how big it is yet.
All our economic figures, all the deals are all from pre-Brexit activity. Economies (other than daft things like open ended property funds) don't spin on a sixpence, especially one as complex as the UK.
Just one example. John Lewis complained about the slide in sterling as much of what it sells comes from abroad. However, its hedged against currency movements until 2017. Therefore any ill effects are temporarily postponed.
They'll begin to raise prices now though so they can prepare for weaker Sterling in the future.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that we've managed to both devalue our currency and stoke inflation. Two things that most Western countries would give their left bollock to achieve.
Note for Remainiacs: I'm not trying to claim this as a positive.
Not really the time for narrow party political advantage – the country is desperate for stability and to get us into the EEA quick sharp so the economy can stablise. Thanks to you and your brethren from the loon eurosceptic left wing of the Labour Party, who helped pull us out of Europe and put they futures of a generation under threat, most moderates will be popping the Champagne corks should May win. At least she is vaguely sensible.
Oh dear, its the "we know your lives better than you peons do" argument again. I'm not going to recant the referendum again but people voted to leave because they saw the status quo as not working for them. Thats not comfortable for people who are the status quo hence calling voters Racist and Stupid.
The party who accepts that people know their lives better than establishment politicians do AND actually start to pay attention to them is going to clean up in the election.
Wrong. It's your lies that the change would work out better for them that won it. My WWC mother-in-law voted Leave because it was "time for a change". Change to what? £350m extra a week for the NHS. Your campaign was built on pure lies. Sandy Rentool admitted on here he pushed that leaflet through Labour voters' letterboxes knowing full well it was a lie.
Shameful. The lot of you.
I agree with Rochdale Pioneers that Brexit is likely to work out better for them.
The chances are that whoever wins will be one of this country's longest-ever serving PMs.
Rubbish - either will be lucky to last 9 years in the job.
Well to last 9 years would mean winning two more General Elections not one so I suppose that is why you said that time limit. Which would mean the Tories would have to have won 4 General Elections in a row which doesn't happen very often.
On the other hand if they do win 2 elections without an early one then they could serve theoretically nearly 14 years before the third.
So.both your and SouthamObserver's claims are correct.
Leave was always in the lead: why the polls got the referendum result wrong
By analysing 121 opinion polls, Harold D. Clarke, Matthew Goodwin, and Paul Whiteley outline what happened with the EU referendum survey results. They explain why internet surveys performed substantially better than telephone ones – contrary to the post-2015 General Election ‘wisdom’ that telephone surveys should be preferred. Underlying trends showed that once methodological artefacts are controlled, Leave was almost certainly ahead of Remain over the entire last month of the campaign – and possibly throughout 2016.
If their analysis is correct, it sounds again a bit like that the campaigns and all the twists and turns and ups and down and media outcries and politicians bloopers, probably mean the square root of f##k all. It was claimed the same last year and also 2010, that there was no late swing, that the little changed throughout the last month despite all the noise.
It's interesting that before the murder of Jo Cox, they think Leave were leading by 12%. Was it the murder that saw people shift against Leave, or simply normal swingback?
In fairness nunu, it has put a bomb under the economy. We just don't know how big it is yet.
All our economic figures, all the deals are from pre-Brexit activity. Economies (other than daft things like open ended property funds) don't spin on a sixpence, especially one as complex as the UK.
Just one example. John Lewis complained about the slide in sterling as much of what it sells comes from abroad. However, its hedged against currency movements until 2017. Therefore any ill effects are temporarily postponed.
Gives John Lewis time to find UK suppliers to substitute for imports from abroad.
The chances are that whoever wins will be one of this country's longest-ever serving PMs.
Rubbish - either will be lucky to last 9 years in the job.
Well to last 9 years would mean winning two more General Elections not one so I suppose that is why you said that time limit. Which would mean the Tories would have to have won 4 General Elections in a row which doesn't happen very often.
On the other hand if they do win 2 elections without an early one then they could serve theoretically nearly 14 years before the third.
So.both your and SouthamObserver's claims are correct.
No - 9 years possible by winning in 2020 - so 2016-2025.
What is this socialist claptrap May is spouting ?
2 best candidates are out of the race (Boris, Gove)
I think if I was a politician these days, I would tape all the interviews I gave myself. Then if I felt like my words had been genuinely been taken out of context, I could just release the audio myself.
I have been away so not followed the current outcry, but the Dispatches have done a couple of hit jobs and released highly edited secret recordings and it seemed to me in some of the cases they highlighted that Dispatches were looking to engineer the story rather than the story being there.
I was once interviewed for TWO HOURS by that TV programme that had Big Ben turn into a crocodile as its opening lead - forgotten its name. They wanted to investigate whether Labour's tax policies were alienating middle-class voters. So as a Notts MP they took me into Sherwood Forest as an obvious backdrop and asked me in twenty or thirty different ways whether my middle-England constituents weren't very worried by paying 1% or whatever it was more in tax.
I steadfastly refused to say what they wanted, and eventually they used one half-sentence ("Some voters may be somewhat concerned, but they do welcome the greater focus on the NHS" - cut to the first six words only). They then did the same to a local family, who were a little less wary but still felt they'd been ambushed.
Essentially the journalist decides what the story is about, and looks for reasons to make it plausible.
In fairness nunu, it has put a bomb under the economy. We just don't know how big it is yet.
All our economic figures, all the deals are all from pre-Brexit activity. Economies (other than daft things like open ended property funds) don't spin on a sixpence, especially one as complex as the UK.
Just one example. John Lewis complained about the slide in sterling as much of what it sells comes from abroad. However, its hedged against currency movements until 2017. Therefore any ill effects are temporarily postponed.
They'll begin to raise prices now though so they can prepare for weaker Sterling in the future.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that we've managed to both devalue our currency and stoke inflation. Two things that most Western countries would give their left bollock to achieve.
Note for Remainiacs: I'm not trying to claim this as a positive.
The fall in Sterling has had an unexpected effect on my small services company. With our small input costs it makes revenues from the UK that much less interesting than those of North America, which is where our investment going now.
Leave was always in the lead: why the polls got the referendum result wrong
By analysing 121 opinion polls, Harold D. Clarke, Matthew Goodwin, and Paul Whiteley outline what happened with the EU referendum survey results. They explain why internet surveys performed substantially better than telephone ones – contrary to the post-2015 General Election ‘wisdom’ that telephone surveys should be preferred. Underlying trends showed that once methodological artefacts are controlled, Leave was almost certainly ahead of Remain over the entire last month of the campaign – and possibly throughout 2016.
If their analysis is correct, it sounds again a bit like that the campaigns and all the twists and turns and ups and down and media outcries and politicians bloopers, probably mean the square root of f##k all. It was claimed the same last year and also 2010, that there was no late swing, that the little changed throughout the last month despite all the noise.
It's interesting that before the murder of Jo Cox, they think Leave were leading by 12%. Was it the murder that saw people shift against Leave, or simply normal swingback?
Only the psephologists obsess over the campaigns themselves.
It's anecdotal, but none of my family shifted position either way. In my slightly broader circle, one person shifted from Remain to Leave after Johnson's final speech.
I think if I was a politician these days, I would tape all the interviews I gave myself. Then if I felt like my words had been genuinely been taken out of context, I could just release the audio myself.
I have been away so not followed the current outcry, but the Dispatches have done a couple of hit jobs and released highly edited secret recordings and it seemed to me in some of the cases they highlighted that Dispatches were looking to engineer the story rather than the story being there.
I was once interviewed for TWO HOURS by that TV programme that had Big Ben turn into a crocodile as its opening lead - forgotten its name. They wanted to investigate whether Labour's tax policies were alienating middle-class voters. So as a Notts MP they took me into Sherwood Forest as an obvious backdrop and asked me in twenty or thirty different ways whether my middle-England constituents weren't very worried by paying 1% or whatever it was more in tax.
I steadfastly refused to say what they wanted, and eventually they used one half-sentence ("Some voters may be somewhat concerned, but they do welcome the greater focus on the NHS" - cut to the first six words only). They then did the same to a local family, who were a little less wary but still felt they'd been ambushed.
Essentially the journalist decides what the story is about, and looks for reasons to make it plausible.
In fairness nunu, it has put a bomb under the economy. We just don't know how big it is yet.
All our economic figures, all the deals are all from pre-Brexit activity. Economies (other than daft things like open ended property funds) don't spin on a sixpence, especially one as complex as the UK.
Just one example. John Lewis complained about the slide in sterling as much of what it sells comes from abroad. However, its hedged against currency movements until 2017. Therefore any ill effects are temporarily postponed.
They'll begin to raise prices now though so they can prepare for weaker Sterling in the future.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that we've managed to both devalue our currency and stoke inflation. Two things that most Western countries would give their left bollock to achieve.
Note for Remainiacs: I'm not trying to claim this as a positive.
The fall in Sterling has had an unexpected effect on my small services company. With our small input costs it makes revenues from the UK that much less interesting than those of North America, which is where our investment going now.
Andrew Neil @afneil 5m5 minutes ago Interestingly "statist" speech from Theresa May. Much more emphasis on government than market. Sounds a bit like Ted Heath.
Andrew Neil @afneil 32s33 seconds ago Sounds like Theresa May has just parked her tanks on Ed Miliband's lawn!
Len McCluskey says challenge to Corbyn is a "squalid Westminster bubble coup" and "attempted political lynching".
Typical McCluskey, always beating around the bush and making obscure political points.
Len is selflessly seeking to protect his six figure salary and pension package knowing that the challenge he faces as Unite leader will come from the left.
The chances are that whoever wins will be one of this country's longest-ever serving PMs.
Rubbish - either will be lucky to last 9 years in the job.
Well to last 9 years would mean winning two more General Elections not one so I suppose that is why you said that time limit. Which would mean the Tories would have to have won 4 General Elections in a row which doesn't happen very often.
On the other hand if they do win 2 elections without an early one then they could serve theoretically nearly 14 years before the third.
So.both your and SouthamObserver's claims are correct.
No - 9 years possible by winning in 2020 - so 2016-2025.
What is this socialist claptrap May is spouting ?
2 best candidates are out of the race (Boris, Gove)
No its not possible. Latest at the most extreme is an election early June 2020 and early July 2025. The new leader doesn't become leader until later than that time of the year. So 8 years 10 months is possible but 9 years requires a second election win.
Andrew Neil @afneil 5m5 minutes ago Interestingly "statist" speech from Theresa May. Much more emphasis on government than market. Sounds a bit like Ted Heath.
Andrew Neil @afneil 32s33 seconds ago Sounds like Theresa May has just parked her tanks on Ed Miliband's lawn!
May might have made a substantial misstep. Shifting soft-left to sweep up ex-Labour voters makes sense, in an electoral way. It does not make sense when trying to become leader and appeal to Conservative Party members.
The chances are that whoever wins will be one of this country's longest-ever serving PMs.
Rubbish - either will be lucky to last 9 years in the job.
Well to last 9 years would mean winning two more General Elections not one so I suppose that is why you said that time limit. Which would mean the Tories would have to have won 4 General Elections in a row which doesn't happen very often.
On the other hand if they do win 2 elections without an early one then they could serve theoretically nearly 14 years before the third.
So.both your and SouthamObserver's claims are correct.
No - 9 years possible by winning in 2020 - so 2016-2025.
What is this socialist claptrap May is spouting ?
2 best candidates are out of the race (Boris, Gove)
No its not possible. Latest at the most extreme is an election early June 2020 and early July 2025. The new leader doesn't become leader until later than that time of the year. So 8 years 10 months is possible but 9 years requires a second election win.
Outside of Pedantryland, 8 years 10 months is approx 9 years.
May might have made a substantial misstep. Shifting soft-left to sweep up ex-Labour voters makes sense, in an electoral way. It does not make sense when trying to become leader and appeal to Conservative Party members.
I think the Spanish would too. The Brexit vote has changed the entire dynamic. There is now no direct correlation between Scotland's future and Catalonia's given that Catalonia will never be voted out of the EU by the rest of Spain.
I saw a report recently that the SNP is considering leaving its current grouping at the European Parliament, which is also home to the ERC. That would be a very smart move and would go down extremely well in Madrid. It's now very clearly in the SNP's interests to decouple from the Catalonian independence movement.
The Remainers do themselves no favours by continually moaning. Had we voted Remain, I would have accepted it. In fact, just before midnight on June 23rd, seeing the betting market, I shook the hands of a Remainer friend. When he saw me again, he was accepting, as I expected him to be.
I'm meeting a few old gits in the pub tonight - a mix of Remainers and Leavers and we'll have a pint and a laugh. Even the Welshman who was a committed Remainer. I sent him an e-mail after the verdict congratulating his fellow Taffs. Just like Rourkes Drift, I said, the Welsh peering through the mealie bags and calling out in a loud voice. "Europeans, farsands of 'em".
I was about to say that the sun is still shining, but that would be a little Leadsomite CV-ish.
Still if it's between the two Tory women for PM, I'd slightly prefer Andrea - you won't get bored to death.
I hope Labour can pull out of their death spiral but it's not looking good.
May might have made a substantial misstep. Shifting soft-left to sweep up ex-Labour voters makes sense, in an electoral way. It does not make sense when trying to become leader and appeal to Conservative Party members.
May might have made a substantial misstep. Shifting soft-left to sweep up ex-Labour voters makes sense, in an electoral way. It does not make sense when trying to become leader and appeal to Conservative Party members.
I dont think she cares. I think she is saying - this is what I stand for, if thats not what you want dont vote for me.
May might have made a substantial misstep. Shifting soft-left to sweep up ex-Labour voters makes sense, in an electoral way. It does not make sense when trying to become leader and appeal to Conservative Party members.
I disagree. Standard conversation with my peers is our children and grandchildren struggling to get on the property ladder and how its unfair to keep stuffing already prosperous pensioners mouths with gold.
We were lucky to have inflation (inflation is a young person's friend and an old person's enemy) to ameliorate high interest rates.
I'd wager that most conservative members have 'enough' money. So we're incorruptible, just like Trump .
May didn't convince me at all over FoM. Very wobbly answer.
The area of immigration is the one part of policy and actions that Mrs May ought to have a very clear idea of what she is going to do. It is also one of the top issues that the members will assess her on.
May might have made a substantial misstep. Shifting soft-left to sweep up ex-Labour voters makes sense, in an electoral way. It does not make sense when trying to become leader and appeal to Conservative Party members.
I dont think she cares. I think she is saying - this is what I stand for, if thats not what you want dont vote for me.
Must disagree - it sounded like it was written by Cameron's people in CCHQ.
Comments
How very true.
I've always imagined you write your PB posts on classical history after several pints of booze
Normally Mike'll drop you a message after he publishes it.
http://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/hate-crime-undermines-the-diversity-and-tolerance-we-should-instead-be-celebrating-1 So it was correct of Breitbart to say it was a figure derived from the use of an online form, whether that form has been used correctly and appropriately is open to debate.
It was flat lie, whether it was deliverable or not. If I claim to be the King of Spain, despite not being Spanish, or in line for the throne, it's still a lie.
Oh....
"George Osborne has issued a stark warning that mortgage rates will rise if Britain leaves the European Union.
The chancellor said he thought it was likely interest rates, and therefore the cost of home loans, would rise if Britons vote to leave the EU in the referendum on 23 June."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/15/george-osborne-says-brexit-will-drive-up-interest-rates
Prime Minister David Cameron unveiled the details on Monday at the start of the Farnborough Airshow.
It involves buying nine new Boeing P8 maritime patrol aircraft and expanding the US giant's UK research operations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36763212
Important lesson for Leadson, do not trust journos, have your own recording.
£350 million
- £100 million rebate
-£140 million spent here
___________
???????? available for the NHS?????
And yes, we could cut off the farmers and poorer regions (which may not help with the accumulated anger), but I'm still intrigued about how you're proposing to deal with the shortfall from the rebate. I don't think the EU will continue to send it to us after we leave.
I have been away so not followed the current outcry, but the Dispatches have done a couple of hit jobs and released highly edited secret recordings and it seemed to me in some of the cases they highlighted that Dispatches were looking to engineer the story rather than the story being there.
Yet he seems stone cold sober when correcting your history homework....
The cynical would say it is because they actually want people to continue to talk about this story so it continues to do damage, its the 350m all over again.
They said if I voted for Ed Miliband the economy would crash and the government would be in chaos, and they were right.
He tweeted the moment the story broke that he'd said nothing of the kind, and had told The Sunday Times it wasn't true prior to publication. He was informed that they'd correct their article.
The ST didn't update their website to reflect this. I'm really not trusting them at all right now - and generally a fan.
Shameful. The lot of you.
The chances are that whoever wins will be one of this country's longest-ever serving PMs.
Let me put the boot into my own side, just to be even handed. All those people who think that Brexit puts a 'black hole' in the EU budget are just as crazed. The EU27 economy is around €11.7 trillion. Our contribution is pocket change. It gives us the square root of bugger all in terms of negotiating leverage, and is hardly likely to lead to EU countries toppling like dominoes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-36763212
All our economic figures, all the deals are from pre-Brexit activity. Economies (other than daft things like open ended property funds) don't spin on a sixpence, especially one as complex as the UK.
Just one example. John Lewis complained about the slide in sterling as much of what it sells comes from abroad. However, its hedged against currency movements until 2017. Therefore any ill effects are temporarily postponed.
By analysing 121 opinion polls, Harold D. Clarke, Matthew Goodwin, and Paul Whiteley outline what happened with the EU referendum survey results. They explain why internet surveys performed substantially better than telephone ones – contrary to the post-2015 General Election ‘wisdom’ that telephone surveys should be preferred. Underlying trends showed that once methodological artefacts are controlled, Leave was almost certainly ahead of Remain over the entire last month of the campaign – and possibly throughout 2016.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/eu-referendum-polls/
If their analysis is correct, it sounds again a bit like that the campaigns and all the twists and turns and ups and down and media outcries and politicians bloopers, probably mean the square root of f##k all. It was claimed the same last year and also 2010, that there was no late swing, that the little changed throughout the last month despite all the noise.
Len McCluskey says challenge to Corbyn is a "squalid Westminster bubble coup" and "attempted political lynching".
All very vague so far.
Note for Remainiacs: I'm not trying to claim this as a positive.
On the other hand if they do win 2 elections without an early one then they could serve theoretically nearly 14 years before the third.
So.both your and SouthamObserver's claims are correct.
Not a free market politician = become a Labour party supporter.
Gives John Lewis time to find UK suppliers to substitute for imports from abroad.
Sorely needed to reduce the trade deficit.
What is this socialist claptrap May is spouting ?
2 best candidates are out of the race (Boris, Gove)
I steadfastly refused to say what they wanted, and eventually they used one half-sentence ("Some voters may be somewhat concerned, but they do welcome the greater focus on the NHS" - cut to the first six words only). They then did the same to a local family, who were a little less wary but still felt they'd been ambushed.
Essentially the journalist decides what the story is about, and looks for reasons to make it plausible.
It's anecdotal, but none of my family shifted position either way. In my slightly broader circle, one person shifted from Remain to Leave after Johnson's final speech.
Interpretation - My proposals are anti business.
Ah, the innocent days of 2010 when the lack of a majority was seen as the path to weak and chaotic government.
Labour will be hoping against hope that Leadsom wins.
Appears that May is moderately socially conservative and utterly rejects the 'only failures use buses' right wing neoliberal headbangery.
The complete opposite of the likes of Osborne.
Andrew Neil @afneil 5m5 minutes ago
Interestingly "statist" speech from Theresa May. Much more emphasis on government than market. Sounds a bit like Ted Heath.
Andrew Neil @afneil 32s33 seconds ago
Sounds like Theresa May has just parked her tanks on Ed Miliband's lawn!
https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/752444797361717248
May might have made a substantial misstep. Shifting soft-left to sweep up ex-Labour voters makes sense, in an electoral way. It does not make sense when trying to become leader and appeal to Conservative Party members.
I saw a report recently that the SNP is considering leaving its current grouping at the European Parliament, which is also home to the ERC. That would be a very smart move and would go down extremely well in Madrid. It's now very clearly in the SNP's interests to decouple from the Catalonian independence movement.
The Remainers do themselves no favours by continually moaning. Had we voted Remain, I would have accepted it. In fact, just before midnight on June 23rd, seeing the betting market, I shook the hands of a Remainer friend. When he saw me again, he was accepting, as I expected him to be.
I'm meeting a few old gits in the pub tonight - a mix of Remainers and Leavers and we'll have a pint and a laugh. Even the Welshman who was a committed Remainer. I sent him an e-mail after the verdict congratulating his fellow Taffs. Just like Rourkes Drift, I said, the Welsh peering through the mealie bags and calling out in a loud voice. "Europeans, farsands of 'em".
I was about to say that the sun is still shining, but that would be a little Leadsomite CV-ish.
Still if it's between the two Tory women for PM, I'd slightly prefer Andrea - you won't get bored to death.
I hope Labour can pull out of their death spiral but it's not looking good.
We were lucky to have inflation (inflation is a young person's friend and an old person's enemy) to ameliorate high interest rates.
I'd wager that most conservative members have 'enough' money. So we're incorruptible, just like Trump
It didn't tickle me much.