Sooo Independent lol "a huge proportion of the public had no qualms about telling women what to wear"
"The British public want to ban Muslim women from wearing the Islamic veil or burqa by an overwhelming margin of more than two-to-one, a poll has found.
Research by YouGov found a huge proportion of the public had no qualms about telling women what to wear, with 57 per cent in favour of a ban and just 25 per cent against.
18-24 year olds were the only age group to oppose a ban; all others were in favour, with the oldest 65+ group backing the prohibition by a startling 78 per cent to 12. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favour of a ban."
You do get the sense they're pushing their luck now, especially being the BMA recommended the terms of the last deal.
They must be on the verge of massively losing public support, it's gone on far too long. Time to enforce, the government has made plenty of concessions and by the looks of it it has become more political than anything else.
If teachers went on strike for a full week the public would crucify us. But it is most unlikely anyone would die as a result.
I really wonder if the junior doctors have thought this through. Even their own union wants to stop this, but they seem to be going on more or less for the hell of it.
I don't think it will end well for them. Apart from anything else, a massive rise in recalcitrant patients seems likely.
Two old school friends of mine are JDs and are all for the action. They're also Corbynistas.
Not sure I'd be comfortable being treated by soembody who thought Jeremy Corbyn had the cure for society's ills. Or who was stupid enough to think he was intelligent or honest.
I take comfort from the fact that most of the hospital doctors I have come into contact with over the past few years are foreign and probably don't give a toss about UK politics.
The last time I was in A&E the senior chap was a German and his sidekick, obviously under training, was Kiwi. The time before that I had an Aussie and someone from, IIRC, Portugal. At the eye hospital I have never seen a quack who was native to the UK - the sub-continent, South America, Hong-Kong, yes, the UK no. Good people all (though I struggled to understand a word the South American lady was saying, and I not sure she understood me) and I have no complaints about the treatment from any of them (unlike that received from the Brits in the renal unit).
Telegraph Archives Even though boot and shoe prices are going up in London, residents don't appear to be turning to clogs instead https://t.co/EcQyQGNbWq
''I take comfort from the fact that most of the hospital doctors I have come into contact with over the past few years are foreign and probably don't give a toss about UK politics.''
It mystifies me why we don;t target Russia for doctors, engineers and stuff. I'm sure they've got some great people and it would annoy the cr8p out of Putin to see his top bods out the door.
If teachers went on strike for a full week the public would crucify us. But it is most unlikely anyone would die as a result.
I really wonder if the junior doctors have thought this through. Even their own union wants to stop this, but they seem to be going on more or less for the hell of it.
I don't think it will end well for them. Apart from anything else, a massive rise in recalcitrant patients seems likely.
Two old school friends of mine are JDs and are all for the action. They're also Corbynistas.
Not sure I'd be comfortable being treated by soembody who thought Jeremy Corbyn had the cure for society's ills. Or who was stupid enough to think he was intelligent or honest.
I take comfort from the fact that most of the hospital doctors I have come into contact with over the past few years are foreign and probably don't give a toss about UK politics.
The last time I was in A&E the senior chap was a German and his sidekick, obviously under training, was Kiwi. The time before that I had an Aussie and someone from, IIRC, Portugal. At the eye hospital I have never seen a quack who was native to the UK - the sub-continent, South America, Hong-Kong, yes, the UK no. Good people all (though I struggled to understand a word the South American lady was saying, and I not sure she understood me) and I have no complaints about the treatment from any of them (unlike that received from the Brits in the renal unit).
A good point Mr Llama. My GP is a Spaniard and I certainly have no complaints about the quality of his care.
Mr. Hall, assuming UKIP gets a leader one day, they should adopt it as a policy. Lib Dems, Greens and Labour will oppose, Conservatives probably too.
Populist with zero cost, an easy hit for the purples.
What would be the % of muslims that are in favour of banning the burqa? If 5% of Brits are Muslim and they split 50/50 its more like 3 in 4 British non muslims want it banned
If teachers went on strike for a full week the public would crucify us. But it is most unlikely anyone would die as a result.
I really wonder if the junior doctors have thought this through. Even their own union wants to stop this, but they seem to be going on more or less for the hell of it.
I don't think it will end well for them. Apart from anything else, a massive rise in recalcitrant patients seems likely.
Two old school friends of mine are JDs and are all for the action. They're also Corbynistas.
Not sure I'd be comfortable being treated by soembody who thought Jeremy Corbyn had the cure for society's ills. Or who was stupid enough to think he was intelligent or honest.
I take comfort from the fact that most of the hospital doctors I have come into contact with over the past few years are foreign and probably don't give a toss about UK politics.
The last time I was in A&E the senior chap was a German and his sidekick, obviously under training, was Kiwi. The time before that I had an Aussie and someone from, IIRC, Portugal. At the eye hospital I have never seen a quack who was native to the UK - the sub-continent, South America, Hong-Kong, yes, the UK no. Good people all (though I struggled to understand a word the South American lady was saying, and I not sure she understood me) and I have no complaints about the treatment from any of them (unlike that received from the Brits in the renal unit).
A good point Mr Llama. My GP is a Spaniard and I certainly have no complaints about the quality of his care.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is an "alternative manifesto" next time. It doesn't need to be coordinated (although it could be), but I'm sure you will see lots of MPs fleshing out the normal candidate's statement of views into something more detailed. Not really intended to be noticed, but to ensure that they can claim to have been elected on something other than Corbyn's mess of pottage if that subsequently proves useful.
''That said, Opinion Polls are rubbish aren't they?''
Interestingly one of UKIP's prospective leadership candidates proposed exactly this policy, which perhaps explains why they are still at 13% post Brexit.
''I take comfort from the fact that most of the hospital doctors I have come into contact with over the past few years are foreign and probably don't give a toss about UK politics.''
It mystifies me why we don;t target Russia for doctors, engineers and stuff. I'm sure they've got some great people and it would annoy the cr8p out of Putin to see his top bods out the door.
Russia certainly has a fine tradition of producing brilliant engineers, scientists and mathematicians (probably something to do with their selective education system under communism). Might be a bit of a problem employing them in anything touching on national security, of course. There again we seem to be content to allow a Chinese company with links to the People's Liberation Army to design and install essential gizmos for our telephone infrastructure*, why worry about the odd Sov working in research or indeed BAe or Rolls Royce.
*Something Australia conspicuously refused to allow. God knows what backdoors and trapdoors Huawei have installed in our internet and telephone networks.
Sooo Independent lol "a huge proportion of the public had no qualms about telling women what to wear"
"The British public want to ban Muslim women from wearing the Islamic veil or burqa by an overwhelming margin of more than two-to-one, a poll has found.
Research by YouGov found hibition by a startling 78 per cent to 12. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favour of a ban."
Sooo Independent lol "a huge proportion of the public had no qualms about telling women what to wear"
"The British public want to ban Muslim women from wearing the Islamic veil or burqa by an overwhelming margin of more than two-to-one, a poll has found.
Research by YouGov found hibition by a startling 78 per cent to 12. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favour of a ban."
Sooo Independent lol "a huge proportion of the public had no qualms about telling women what to wear"
"The British public want to ban Muslim women from wearing the Islamic veil or burqa by an overwhelming margin of more than two-to-one, a poll has found.
Research by YouGov found hibition by a startling 78 per cent to 12. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favour of a ban."
''Do the sneering REMAINIANS not realise how they come across to everyone else?''
More to the point, why are they interviewing him? who does he represent? and why is this news?
On sneering remainians, wouldn't it be poetic justice if Owen Smith got 51.9% of the Labour vote and Corbyn refused to accept defeat....?
Serious question. If Smith were to win, and by less than say, 5%, would Corbyn challenge the result in the courts? A third court case over this one election?
Surely even May couldn't be that lucky, but given his total divorce from reality...
If teachers went on strike for a full week the public would crucify us. But it is most unlikely anyone would die as a result.
I really wonder if the junior doctors have thought this through. Even their own union wants to stop this, but they seem to be going on more or less for the hell of it.
I don't think it will end well for them. Apart from anything else, a massive rise in recalcitrant patients seems likely.
Two old school friends of mine are JDs and are all for the action. They're also Corbynistas.
Not sure I'd be comfortable being treated by soembody who thought Jeremy Corbyn had the cure for society's ills. Or who was stupid enough to think he was intelligent or honest.
I take comfort from the fact that most of the hospital doctors I have come into contact with over the past few years are foreign and probably don't give a toss about UK politics.
The last time I was in A&E the senior chap was a German and his sidekick, obviously under training, was Kiwi. The time before that I had an Aussie and someone from, IIRC, Portugal. At the eye hospital I have never seen a quack who was native to the UK - the sub-continent, South America, Hong-Kong, yes, the UK no. Good people all (though I struggled to understand a word the South American lady was saying, and I not sure she understood me) and I have no complaints about the treatment from any of them (unlike that received from the Brits in the renal unit).
A good point Mr Llama. My GP is a Spaniard and I certainly have no complaints about the quality of his care.
Not really, Mr. M. Talk to the good Dr FoxinSox, medicus and gent of this parish, certain specialities are popular with UK native doctors and certain ones are not. Therefore, quacks brought in from overseas are more likely to be found in certain branches of medicine. His own department, and he has not declared what it is, seems from his posts over the past few years to be particularly dependent on overseas recruits.
So, yes, as one would expect most of the quacks are from the UK, and by a long way, but the patients experience depending on their illness, and location, might be very different.
''Do the sneering REMAINIANS not realise how they come across to everyone else?''
More to the point, why are they interviewing him? who does he represent? and why is this news?
I know. It's fucking ridiculous. Why not ask Noel Edmunds about the burkini ban, or get Bradley Wiggins' opinion on assisted suicide.
Though I see Sharon Osborne said she voted Leave in the Sunday Times magazine because of immigration, so why not interview her too?
Sharon Osborne who voted Leave?, Not in a month of Sundays. - Obviously the BBC doesn’t have an opinion on the referendum, it’s just that the stooges they invariably invite on to waffle about any given subject just happens to tally with the BBC caricature.
''Do the sneering REMAINIANS not realise how they come across to everyone else?''
More to the point, why are they interviewing him? who does he represent? and why is this news?
Large chunks of the BBC are turning into the Southbank Show pretending to be political analysis.
There was an immensely amusing Smith & Jones sketch where they get all angry arty-farty whilst wearing black polo necks. Sums it right up.
Cut their goolies off. That was a great sketch.
There's a brilliant one where they do union boss bloc voting - over who wants tea or coffee.
I'm quite tempted to buy the boxset if it's available.
Drop The Dead Donkey remains my personal favourite - it's so spot on and fast off the mark/clever with current events. Not much sneering or bias which seems the tedious default nowadays.
Fox News "I will never, ever disrespect Gold Star families who've made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation." - #Hillary https://t.co/NiFsHDc6Zm
Clinton is a real piece of work. What about the families of those killed in the Benghazi attack...
According to her book she wrote personally and met with those families. I think she has serious questions on the e mails and even more so on pay to play for the Clinton Foundation but Benghazi is in my opinion a non story.
Sooo Independent lol "a huge proportion of the public had no qualms about telling women what to wear"
"The British public want to ban Muslim women from wearing the Islamic veil or burqa by an overwhelming margin of more than two-to-one, a poll has found.
Research by YouGov found hibition by a startling 78 per cent to 12. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favour of a ban."
There is a difference between the full face Burka and the Burkini
Who said there wasn't?
There were no questions about the Burkini
Why would you say that when the article states...
"A separate question asked by YouGov found that 46 per cent of people wanted to ban the burkini, while just 30 per cent opposed such a measure. The French ban has been declared illegal by the country’s courts."
If teachers went on strike for a full week the public would crucify us. But it is most unlikely anyone would die as a result.
I really wonder if the junior doctors have thought this through. Even their own union wants to stop this, but they seem to be going on more or less for the hell of it.
I don't think it will end well for them. Apart from anything else, a massive rise in recalcitrant patients seems likely.
Two old school friends of mine are JDs and are all for the action. They're also Corbynistas.
Not sure I'd be comfortable being treated by soembody who thought Jeremy Corbyn had the cure for society's ills. Or who was stupid enough to think he was intelligent or honest.
I take comfort from the fact that most of the hospital doctors I have come into contact with over the past few years are foreign and probably don't give a toss about UK politics.
A good point Mr Llama. My GP is a Spaniard and I certainly have no complaints about the quality of his care.
Not really, Mr. M. Talk to the good Dr FoxinSox, medicus and gent of this parish, certain specialities are popular with UK native doctors and certain ones are not. Therefore, quacks brought in from overseas are more likely to be found in certain branches of medicine. His own department, and he has not declared what it is, seems from his posts over the past few years to be particularly dependent on overseas recruits.
So, yes, as one would expect most of the quacks are from the UK, and by a long way, but the patients experience depending on their illness, and location, might be very different.
I wasn't making any particular point. NHS Wales is incredibly reliant on foreign staff, because the real action is in England. I have been here for 18 years and the only native doctor I've encountered was Jenny's oncologist, who was Scottish. My shrink is Iraqui and my endo is Ghanian.
Who cares what Remainers think? Problem is we have no idea what the government thinks either. That is a serious issue.
They told us today. They're going for a bespoke deal. No off-the-shelf EEA.
This may be a mistake, or it may not. But they are getting on with it. HMG is not going to lay out explicit demands and red lines yet - if ever - as they are about to go into very tough negotiations, where flexibility and compromise will be key.
Sensible Remainers should over their grief, accept we are leaving, and do their best to engineer the Brexit they find most tolerable. To your credit, you've done that already. Weeping luvvies like McEwan just come across as whining idiots.
I am genuinely interested to see what happens. I just cannot see how the Tories square the circle. Saying we want it all is not going to be a sustainable position. Some very, very hard choices will have to be made.
I suspect the McEwan interview is a bit more wide-ranging than his views on Brexit. My guess is that this may be just one topic in a wider profile. That's pretty standard for such pieces in print and on the telly, isn't it?
Who cares what Remainers think? Problem is we have no idea what the government thinks either. That is a serious issue.
It really isn't, Mr. Observer, not yet. The government has been in place for only a few weeks and in the holiday season and with an issue most of the big nobs in the civil service thought would never happen. It is also an issue of immense importance, so needs time to consider and work out what negotiating strategy the UK will adopt.
Leaping in without adequate forethought would really be a serious issue. I would expect a debate in Parliament, not a vote but a debate so that MPs can have their say, sometime in November, and Article 50 invoked early in the 2017.
''Do the sneering REMAINIANS not realise how they come across to everyone else?''
More to the point, why are they interviewing him? who does he represent? and why is this news?
Large chunks of the BBC are turning into the Southbank Show pretending to be political analysis.
There was an immensely amusing Smith & Jones sketch where they get all angry arty-farty whilst wearing black polo necks. Sums it right up.
Cut their goolies off. That was a great sketch.
There's a brilliant one where they do union boss bloc voting - over who wants tea or coffee.
I'm quite tempted to buy the boxset if it's available.
Drop The Dead Donkey remains my personal favourite - it's so spot on and fast off the mark/clever with current events. Not much sneering or bias which seems the tedious default nowadays.
I loved the bit with the teddy which the reporter took with him from disaster to disaster.
''Do the sneering REMAINIANS not realise how they come across to everyone else?''
More to the point, why are they interviewing him? who does he represent? and why is this news?
Large chunks of the BBC are turning into the Southbank Show pretending to be political analysis.
There was an immensely amusing Smith & Jones sketch where they get all angry arty-farty whilst wearing black polo necks. Sums it right up.
Cut their goolies off. That was a great sketch.
There's a brilliant one where they do union boss bloc voting - over who wants tea or coffee.
I'm quite tempted to buy the boxset if it's available.
Drop The Dead Donkey remains my personal favourite - it's so spot on and fast off the mark/clever with current events. Not much sneering or bias which seems the tedious default nowadays.
I loved the bit with the teddy which the reporter took with him from disaster to disaster.
Damien Day - isn't he just fab!? And nothing's changed.
Who cares what Remainers think? Problem is we have no idea what the government thinks either. That is a serious issue.
Indeed. Although it seems like Newsnight is quite skilled in getting people to promote it.
Yep - take subject that will get most hits on internet/Twitter and use that to promote a longer piece with an author who most people have not heard of. Very good way to attract more viewers.
''Do the sneering REMAINIANS not realise how they come across to everyone else?''
More to the point, why are they interviewing him? who does he represent? and why is this news?
Large chunks of the BBC are turning into the Southbank Show pretending to be political analysis.
There was an immensely amusing Smith & Jones sketch where they get all angry arty-farty whilst wearing black polo necks. Sums it right up.
Cut their goolies off. That was a great sketch.
There's a brilliant one where they do union boss bloc voting - over who wants tea or coffee.
I'm quite tempted to buy the boxset if it's available.
Drop The Dead Donkey remains my personal favourite - it's so spot on and fast off the mark/clever with current events. Not much sneering or bias which seems the tedious default nowadays.
I loved the bit with the teddy which the reporter took with him from disaster to disaster.
Damien Day - isn't he just fab!? And nothing's changed.
''Do the sneering REMAINIANS not realise how they come across to everyone else?''
More to the point, why are they interviewing him? who does he represent? and why is this news?
Large chunks of the BBC are turning into the Southbank Show pretending to be political analysis.
There was an immensely amusing Smith & Jones sketch where they get all angry arty-farty whilst wearing black polo necks. Sums it right up.
Cut their goolies off. That was a great sketch.
There's a brilliant one where they do union boss bloc voting - over who wants tea or coffee.
I'm quite tempted to buy the boxset if it's available.
Drop The Dead Donkey remains my personal favourite - it's so spot on and fast off the mark/clever with current events. Not much sneering or bias which seems the tedious default nowadays.
I loved the bit with the teddy which the reporter took with him from disaster to disaster.
Does anybody remember the "Junior Hospital Managers" sketch, or rather who did it? I can't find on YouTube!
It included a scene where they made the hospital tower block's lights spell out "ARSE"
''Do the sneering REMAINIANS not realise how they come across to everyone else?''
More to the point, why are they interviewing him? who does he represent? and why is this news?
I know. It's fucking ridiculous. Why not ask Noel Edmunds about the burkini ban, or get Bradley Wiggins' opinion on assisted suicide.
Though I see Sharon Osborne said she voted Leave in the Sunday Times magazine because of immigration, so why not interview her too?
Sharon Osborne who voted Leave?, Not in a month of Sundays. - Obviously the BBC doesn’t have an opinion on the referendum, it’s just that the stooges they invariably invite on to waffle about any given subject just happens to tally with the BBC caricature.
Sharon Osborne may not be as intellectual as McEwan but she is richer than him, sharper than him and probably more in tune with the average voter, rather than let McEwan waffle on unchallenged a discussion between the two of them would be far more interesting!
Who cares what Remainers think? Problem is we have no idea what the government thinks either. That is a serious issue.
Indeed. Although it seems like Newsnight is quite skilled in getting people to promote it.
That really isn't promotion - and you know that as well as I do.
Feels like they're taking a leaf out the daily mail play book, which always benefits from the outrage of lefties I'll watch the interview now
It's pretty standard stuff - gran attention, draw, reader/viewer in. Profiles of young actresses are invariably headlined around their attitudes to screen nudity even though they are only a tiny part of the full interview.
Sooo Independent lol "a huge proportion of the public had no qualms about telling women what to wear"
"The British public want to ban Muslim women from wearing the Islamic veil or burqa by an overwhelming margin of more than two-to-one, a poll has found.
Research by YouGov found hibition by a startling 78 per cent to 12. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favour of a ban."
There is a difference between the full face Burka and the Burkini
Who said there wasn't?
There were no questions about the Burkini
Why would you say that when the article states...
"A separate question asked by YouGov found that 46 per cent of people wanted to ban the burkini, while just 30 per cent opposed such a measure. The French ban has been declared illegal by the country’s courts."
Well no coverage of that in the headline of the article and while most still want the Burkini banned it is by a much smaller margin and actually smaller than the margin to ban it in France (there may also be some who do not realise the difference between the Burka and Burkini)
I am genuinely interested to see what happens. I just cannot see how the Tories square the circle. Saying we want it all is not going to be a sustainable position. Some very, very hard choices will have to be made.
Although the stuff today was almost entirely pure waffle, I think we are beginning to see the outlines of where the square is going to have rounded edges. The strategy seems to be a red line on freedom of movement, and, given that constraint, negotiate as much access to the Single Market as can be achieved. I think they are resigned to the reality that that means an end to financial passporting and that therefore there will be at least short-term damage to the City. I further think they will try all-out to get tariff- and hassle-free trade in manufactured goods (especially for the car industry, which has most to lose), and that should be attainable as it is very much in both sides' interest and the acquis communitaire which we're already signed up to makes it much easier than negotiating a free-trade agreement from scratch. The main areas of uncertainty on the economic side still relate to services.
Of course this is all subject to the politics of the other 27 EU countries, so no guarantees.
Sooo Independent lol "a huge proportion of the public had no qualms about telling women what to wear"
"The British public want to ban Muslim women from wearing the Islamic veil or burqa by an overwhelming margin of more than two-to-one, a poll has found.
Research by YouGov found hibition by a startling 78 per cent to 12. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favour of a ban."
There is a difference between the full face Burka and the Burkini
Who said there wasn't?
There were no questions about the Burkini
Why would you say that when the article states...
"A separate question asked by YouGov found that 46 per cent of people wanted to ban the burkini, while just 30 per cent opposed such a measure. The French ban has been declared illegal by the country’s courts."
Well no coverage of that in the headline of the article and while most still want the Burkini banned it is by a much smaller margin and actually smaller than the margin to ban it in France (there may also be some who do not realise the difference between the Burka and Burkini)
Very strange to state emphatically
"There were no questions about the Burkini"
then wriggle when it is pointed out that there were, rather than say "Sorry, my mistake"
Sooo Independent lol "a huge proportion of the public had no qualms about telling women what to wear"
"The British public want to ban Muslim women from wearing the Islamic veil or burqa by an overwhelming margin of more than two-to-one, a poll has found.
Research by YouGov found hibition by a startling 78 per cent to 12. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favour of a ban."
There is a difference between the full face Burka and the Burkini
Who said there wasn't?
There were no questions about the Burkini
Why would you say that when the article states...
"A separate question asked by YouGov found that 46 per cent of people wanted to ban the burkini, while just 30 per cent opposed such a measure. The French ban has been declared illegal by the country’s courts."
Well no coverage of that in the headline of the article and while most still want the Burkini banned it is by a much smaller margin and actually smaller than the margin to ban it in France (there may also be some who do not realise the difference between the Burka and Burkini)
Very strange to state emphatically
"There were no questions about the Burkini"
then wriggle when it is pointed out that there were, rather than say "Sorry, my mistake"
Well I was writing it on the tube and you posted zero mention of any question on the Burkini, which is actually the more relevant question at the moment, so yes I may have been mistaken but you also failed to post one of the key points from the poll
Sahil Kapur -5 is decent for Trump in WI (Romney lost by 7). Trump outperforming MR w/white men, underperforming w/white women. https://t.co/pdL0y0vnJJ
Second poll from local Marquette:
Wisconsin
Hillary 45 Trump 42
Hillary 41 Trump 38 Johnson 10 Stein 4
twitter.com/MULawPoll/status/771035593916747776
If Trump is 3-5 points behind in Wisconsin, a state which hates his guts, then he is definitely withing striking distance of Hillary nationally.
On my average daily tracking poll Hillary's lead is down to just 3 points.
Do the sneering REMAINIANS not realise how they come across to everyone else?
He doesn't seem entirely with it.
"I think we made a mistake ... at not getting across what was at stake ... at getting that clear"
Which planet was he living on? Obviously not the same one as Project Fear.
The mistake was not failing to make the stakes clear. The problem was being unable to convince the UK public that the EU arrangement actually on balance served the British interest. And, in fairness to the Remain campaign, for the likes of me, that was always out of their hands. The deck had already been stacked against being able to do so by the EC and the failure of the EU to take our concerns seriously.
Sahil Kapur -5 is decent for Trump in WI (Romney lost by 7). Trump outperforming MR w/white men, underperforming w/white women. https://t.co/pdL0y0vnJJ
Second poll from local Marquette:
Wisconsin
Hillary 45 Trump 42
Hillary 41 Trump 38 Johnson 10 Stein 4
twitter.com/MULawPoll/status/771035593916747776
If Trump is 3-5 points behind in Wisconsin, a state which hates his guts, then he is definitely withing striking distance of Hillary nationally.
I'm picking up a distinct 'we can do this vibe' from my US tweeters. It's got quite a Brexit feel about it. A sort of disbelieving optimism against all odds.
Sooo Independent lol "a huge proportion of the public had no qualms about telling women what to wear"
"The British public want to ban Muslim women from wearing the Islamic veil or burqa by an overwhelming margin of more than two-to-one, a poll has found.
Research by YouGov found hibition by a startling 78 per cent to 12. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favour of a ban."
There is a difference between the full face Burka and the Burkini
Who said there wasn't?
There were no questions about the Burkini
Why would you say that when the article states...
"A separate question asked by YouGov found that 46 per cent of people wanted to ban the burkini, while just 30 per cent opposed such a measure. The French ban has been declared illegal by the country’s courts."
Well no coverage of that in the headline of the article and while most still want the Burkini banned it is by a much smaller margin and actually smaller than the margin to ban it in France (there may also be some who do not realise the difference between the Burka and Burkini)
Very strange to state emphatically
"There were no questions about the Burkini"
then wriggle when it is pointed out that there were, rather than say "Sorry, my mistake"
Well I was writing it on the tube and you posted zero mention of any question on the Burkini, which is actually the more relevant question at the moment, so yes I may have been mistaken but you also failed to post one of the key points from the poll
Are you a politician?
"yes I may have been mistaken" - translation "I was mistaken"
"you posted zero mention of any question on the Burkini," - I posted a link, which you didn't read, then argued about pleading ignorance as a defence
Sooo Independent lol "a huge proportion of the public had no qualms about telling women what to wear"
"The British public want to ban Muslim women from wearing the Islamic veil or burqa by an overwhelming margin of more than two-to-one, a poll has found.
Research by YouGov found hibition by a startling 78 per cent to 12. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favour of a ban."
There is a difference between the full face Burka and the Burkini
Who said there wasn't?
There were no questions about the Burkini
Why would you say that when the article states...
"A separate question asked by YouGov found that 46 per cent of people wanted to ban the burkini, while just 30 per cent opposed such a measure. The French ban has been declared illegal by the country’s courts."
Well no coverage of that in the headline of the article and while most still want the Burkini banned it is by a much smaller margin and actually smaller than the margin to ban it in France (there may also be some who do not realise the difference between the Burka and Burkini)
Very strange to state emphatically
"There were no questions about the Burkini"
then wriggle when it is pointed out that there were, rather than say "Sorry, my mistake"
Well I was writing it on the tube and you posted zero mention of any question on the Burkini, which is actually the more relevant question at the moment, so yes I may have been mistaken but you also failed to post one of the key points from the poll
Are you a politician?
"yes I may have been mistaken" - translation "I was mistaken"
"you posted zero mention of any question on the Burkini," - I posted a link, which you didn't read, then argued about pleading ignorance as a defence
You quoted selectively from the article and missed out one of the key points, if you are quoting in future I suggest you do so in full rather than expecting people automatically to find out the information from a link when they do not even know it is there!
Sooo Independent lol "a huge proportion of the public had no qualms about telling women what to wear"
"The British public want to ban Muslim women from wearing the Islamic veil or burqa by an overwhelming margin of more than two-to-one, a poll has found.
Research by YouGov found hibition by a startling 78 per cent to 12. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favour of a ban."
There is a difference between the full face Burka and the Burkini
Who said there wasn't?
There were no questions about the Burkini
Why would you say that when the article states...
"A separate question asked by YouGov found that 46 per cent of people wanted to ban the burkini, while just 30 per cent opposed such a measure. The French ban has been declared illegal by the country’s courts."
Well no coverage of that in the headline of the article and while most still want the Burkini banned it is by a much smaller margin and actually smaller than the margin to ban it in France (there may also be some who do not realise the difference between the Burka and Burkini)
Very strange to state emphatically
"There were no questions about the Burkini"
then wriggle when it is pointed out that there were, rather than say "Sorry, my mistake"
Well I was writing it on the tube and you posted zero mention of any question on the Burkini, which is actually the more relevant question at the moment, so yes I may have been mistaken but you also failed to post one of the key points from the poll
Are you a politician?
"yes I may have been mistaken" - translation "I was mistaken"
"you posted zero mention of any question on the Burkini," - I posted a link, which you didn't read, then argued about pleading ignorance as a defence
You quoted selectively from the article and missed out one of the key points, if you are quoting in future I suggest you do so in full rather than expecting people automatically to find out the information from a link when they do not even know it is there!
He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
"Saying we want it all is not going to be a sustainable position. Some very, very hard choices will have to be made.
Well, the best negotiators I have ever met go in asking for all they want and bargain down from there. They do not walk in saying this is the minimum we will accept and we are desperate for a deal. See Cameron's fiasco for a recent example.
As I have said before on here, if a party at the negotiating table is not prepared to get up and walk away without a deal then they are begging not negotiating. I don't think TM is a lady that will be prepared to beg. I do think, however, that the EU mindset is such that they cannot conceive or someone being willing to walk away. They will therefore, very probably, read the situation wrongly (as they did with Cameron). WTO rules is therefore the outcome I expect, and I doubt it will be a disaster for the UK.
As to "hard, hard choices" - that is the language, some might say spin, of Gordon Brown. In leadership there really are no such thing. One simply has to do what has to be done to achieve the desired or mandated outcome. One can feel sorry for, and perhaps do one's best to mitigate the consequences, for those hurt in the process but the decision itself is not hard.
Sooo Independent lol "a huge proportion of the public had no qualms about telling women what to wear"
"The British public want to ban Muslim women from wearing the Islamic veil or burqa by an overwhelming margin of more than two-to-one, a poll has found.
Research by YouGov found hibition by a startling 78 per cent to 12. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favour of a ban."
There is a difference between the full face Burka and the Burkini
Who said there wasn't?
There were no questions about the Burkini
Why would you say that when the article states...
"A separate question asked by YouGov found that 46 per cent of people wanted to ban the burkini, while just 30 per cent opposed such a measure. The French ban has been declared illegal by the country’s courts."
Well no coverage of that in the headline of the article and while most still want the Burkini banned it is by a much smaller margin and actually smaller than the margin to ban it in France (there may also be some who do not realise the difference between the Burka and Burkini)
Very strange to state emphatically
"There were no questions about the Burkini"
then wriggle when it is pointed out that there were, rather than say "Sorry, my mistake"
Well I was writing it on the tube and you posted zero mention of any question on the Burkini, which is actually the more relevant question at the moment, so yes I may have been mistaken but you also failed to post one of the key points from the poll
Are you a politician?
"yes I may have been mistaken" - translation "I was mistaken"
"you posted zero mention of any question on the Burkini," - I posted a link, which you didn't read, then argued about pleading ignorance as a defence
You quoted selectively from the article and is there!
He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
He obviously did not quote one of the key highlights, posting links are supposed to provide context after the key points have been made
Do the sneering REMAINIANS not realise how they come across to everyone else?
He doesn't seem entirely with it.
Who is this person?
An English novelist and screenwriter. - He does appear to be not quite with it and to be fair merely indulging in fantasy, rather than for the democratic process to be rejected. He's V old.
Do the sneering REMAINIANS not realise how they come across to everyone else?
He doesn't seem entirely with it.
"I think we made a mistake ... at not getting across what was at stake ... at getting that clear"
Which planet was he living on? Obviously not the same one as Project Fear.
The mistake was not failing to make the stakes clear. The problem was being unable to convince the UK public that the EU arrangement actually on balance served the British interest. And, in fairness to the Remain campaign, for the likes of me, that was always out of their hands. The deck had already been stacked against being able to do so by the EC and the failure of the EU to take our concerns seriously.
'Our concerns'? You belong to the Pax Americana school of Brexit whose position depends on the US not following suit and electing a President who will put the US interest first. It's a myopically decadent world view that is being proven to be incorrect day by day.
How has Nigel Farage's speech been a roaring success in America exactly? It is hardly as if Trump is roaring ahead in the polls all of sudden. Clinton is still leading in most national polls (with the exception of LA Times).
Also, LOL at Trump going to Mexico. Presumably he'll explain to Mexicans why they should pay for the wall he'll build.
There is a difference between the full face Burka and the Burkini
Who said there wasn't?
There were no questions about the Burkini
Why would you say that when the article states...
"."
Well no coverage of that in the headline of the article and while most still want the Burkini banned it is by a much smaller margin and actually smaller than the margin to ban it in France (there may also be some who do not realise the difference between the Burka and Burkini)
Very strange to state emphatically
"There were no questions about the Burkini"
then wriggle when it is pointed out that there were, rather than say "Sorry, my mistake"
Well I was writing it on the tube and you posted zero mention of any question on the Burkini, which is actually the more relevant question at the moment, so yes I may have been mistaken but you also failed to post one of the key points from the poll
Are you a politician?
"yes I may have been mistaken" - translation "I was mistaken"
"you posted zero mention of any question on the Burkini," - I posted a link, which you didn't read, then argued about pleading ignorance as a defence
You quoted selectively from the article and is there!
He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
He obviously did not quote one of the key highlights, posting links are supposed to provide context after the key points have been made
Are you crazy? Being unable to apologise or admit being wrong over something as trivial as this is probably a psychological condition.
I posted the first three paragraphs of the article , and a link to the whole piece. I think it is frowned upon to post whole articles on here?
It isn't my fault you chose to argue incorrectly about a latter point in the article because you hadn't read it!
''I am genuinely interested to see what happens. I just cannot see how the Tories square the circle. Saying we want it all is not going to be a sustainable position. Some very, very hard choices will have to be made. ''
The freedom of movement/single market issue is clearly extremely contentious in the upper echelons of the party behind the scenes.
He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
He obviously did not quote one of the key highlights, posting links are supposed to provide context after the key points have been made
So what if he didn't quote a figure, where does that give you the right to claim they didn't ask the question?
It is standard operating procedure that pollsters always ask many more questions than just the headline ones. Before anyone ever says that a question wasn't asked the basic due diligence would be to check that first. You didn't do that, so you made a dishonest claim. On a betting site dominated by polls at times, such misrepresentation is shocking and you should apologise. Conduct a basic checking of facts before you make an outright claim that a question wasn't asked at all.
So, over in Spain, the Cortes has again voted against Rajoy as PM. Hard to see where things go from here. He needs to find six more votes from somewhere. Presumably, he'll be throwing a lot more at the smaller regional parties - though not the Basques or the Catalans, who would never vote for him.
He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
He obviously did not quote one of the key highlights, posting links are supposed to provide context after the key points have been made
So what if he didn't quote a figure, where does that give you the right to claim they didn't ask the question?
It is standard operating procedure that pollsters always ask many more questions than just the headline ones. Before anyone ever says that a question wasn't asked the basic due diligence would be to check that first. You didn't do that, so you made a dishonest claim. On a betting site dominated by polls at times, such misrepresentation is shocking and you should apologise. Conduct a basic checking of facts before you make an outright claim that a question wasn't asked at all.
He posted line after line about the Burka, not one word about the Burkini, how am I supposed to know the poll included a question from the Burkini from that? Pollsters may well ask more questions, if they do add the key points, links are supposed to provide context and methodology. The misrepresentation if anything was to omit to mention perhaps one of the key poll findings when posting, if posting polls ALL key findings should be included.
He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
He obviously did not quote one of the key highlights, posting links are supposed to provide context after the key points have been made
So what if he didn't quote a figure, where does that give you the right to claim they didn't ask the question?
It is standard operating procedure that pollsters always ask many more questions than just the headline ones. Before anyone ever says that a question wasn't asked the basic due diligence would be to check that first. You didn't do that, so you made a dishonest claim. On a betting site dominated by polls at times, such misrepresentation is shocking and you should apologise. Conduct a basic checking of facts before you make an outright claim that a question wasn't asked at all.
He posted line after line about the Burka, not one word about the Burkini, how am I supposed to know the poll included a question from the Burkini from that? Pollsters may well ask more questions, if they do add the key points, links are supposed to provide context and methodology. The misrepresentation if anything was to omit to mention perhaps one of the key poll findings when posting, if posting polls ALL key findings should be included.
Chris Terry Spain once again fails to form a government. 170-180 in vote of confidence. https://t.co/9zk1YYyVo6
When you think about it, does it really matter if Spain has a government any more? Inside the EU's financial straightjacket, what decisions is it really taking?
There is a difference between the full face Burka and the Burkini
Who said there wasn't?
There were no questions about the Burkini
Why would you say that when the article states...
"."
Well no coverage of that in the headline of the article and while most still want the Burkini banned it is by a much smaller margin and actually smaller than the margin to ban it in France (there may also be some who do not realise the difference between the Burka and Burkini)
Very strange to state emphatically
"There were no questions about the Burkini"
then wriggle when it is pointed out that there were, rather than say "Sorry, my mistake"
Well I was writing it on the tube and you posted zero mention of any question on the Burkini, which is actually the more relevant question at the moment, so yes I may have been mistaken but you also failed to post one of the key points from the poll
Are you a politician?
"yes I may have been mistaken" - translation "I was mistaken"
"you posted zero mention of any question on the Burkini," - I posted a link, which you didn't read, then argued about pleading ignorance as a defence
You quoted selectively from the article and is there!
He quoted highlights then posted a link
Are you crazy? Being unable to apologise or admit being wrong over something as trivial as this is probably a psychological condition.
I posted the first three paragraphs of the article , and a link to the whole piece. I think it is frowned upon to post whole articles on here?
It isn't my fault you chose to argue incorrectly about a latter point in the article because you hadn't read it!
I did not actually I said I was mistaken in the very first paragraph I responded to you in, for which I apologise. However I have not seen one word of mention from you of apology for completely failing to mention one of the key poll findings in your post! You do not need to quote verbatim the entire article, you only needed 1 sentence to include the Burkini findings too
Do the sneering REMAINIANS not realise how they come across to everyone else?
He doesn't seem entirely with it.
Who is this person?
An English novelist and screenwriter. - He does appear to be not quite with it and to be fair merely indulging in fantasy, rather than for the democratic process to be rejected. He's V old.
I am genuinely interested to see what happens. I just cannot see how the Tories square the circle. Saying we want it all is not going to be a sustainable position. Some very, very hard choices will have to be made.
Although the stuff today was almost entirely pure waffle, I think we are beginning to see the outlines of where the square is going to have rounded edges. The strategy seems to be a red line on freedom of movement, and, given that constraint, negotiate as much access to the Single Market as can be achieved. I think they are resigned to the reality that that means an end to financial passporting and that therefore there will be at least short-term damage to the City. I further think they will try all-out to get tariff- and hassle-free trade in manufactured goods (especially for the car industry, which has most to lose), and that should be attainable as it is very much in both sides' interest and the acquis communitaire which we're already signed up to makes it much easier than negotiating a free-trade agreement from scratch. The main areas of uncertainty on the economic side still relate to services.
Of course this is all subject to the politics of the other 27 EU countries, so no guarantees.
Yeah. Sounds about right from the tea leaves. Cars both in and out is clearly in German (and French I guess) interests too so something should be hammered out, and more generally Continental goods vs our services seems in everyone's interest. I suppose the constraint the other way in terms of the City would be the Continentals might want some sort of regulation of it or they might end up with a totally free wheeling huge offshore financial centre to keep them awake at night, but whether that's enough to allow passporting is a pretty moot point, I guess ( guessing because I'm not a City type by any stretch!). Question is is that enough red meat for say the French to sell to their voters along the lines of " ok we compromised on freedom of movement but we've tamed the beastly Anglo Saxon City"
"Freedom of movement" is something of a spectrum ( freedom to just work in high paid jobs, median pay, 80% of median earnings, or claim full benefits, or part benefits after contributing for a number of years etc etc?). Lots of potential room to compromise ( which I was well open to prior to the renegotiation but Merkel et al wouldn't budge an inch), providing they don't take the absolutist Juncker line again - in which case to hell with them. It's a red line.
He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
He obviously did not quote one of the key highlights, posting links are supposed to provide context after the key points have been made
So what if he didn't quote a figure, where does that give you the right to claim they didn't ask the question?
It is standard operating procedure that pollsters always ask many more questions than just the headline ones. Before anyone ever says that a question wasn't asked the basic due diligence would be to check that first. You didn't do that, so you made a dishonest claim. On a betting site dominated by polls at times, such misrepresentation is shocking and you should apologise. Conduct a basic checking of facts before you make an outright claim that a question wasn't asked at all.
He posted line after line about the Burka, not one word about the Burkini, how am I supposed to know the poll included a question from the Burkini from that? Pollsters may well ask more questions, if they do add the key points, links are supposed to provide context and methodology. The misrepresentation if anything was to omit to mention perhaps one of the key poll findings when posting, if posting polls ALL key findings should be included.
You are crazy, I will leave it at that.
Think of me what you wish but in future when posting polls please do not omit some of the key findings
He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
He obviously did not quote one of the key highlights, posting links are supposed to provide context after the key points have been made
So what if he didn't quote a figure, where does that give you the right to claim they didn't ask the question?
It is standard operating procedure that pollsters always ask many more questions than just the headline ones. Before anyone ever says that a question wasn't asked the basic due diligence would be to check that first. You didn't do that, so you made a dishonest claim. On a betting site dominated by polls at times, such misrepresentation is shocking and you should apologise. Conduct a basic checking of facts before you make an outright claim that a question wasn't asked at all.
He posted line after line about the Burka, not one word about the Burkini, how am I supposed to know the poll included a question from the Burkini from that? Pollsters may well ask more questions, if they do add the key points, links are supposed to provide context and methodology. The misrepresentation if anything was to omit to mention perhaps one of the key poll findings when posting, if posting polls ALL key findings should be included.
You are supposed to know it by reading the linked to article or the actual poll details before falsely claiming a negative. It is utterly dishonest and disreputable to falsely claim a negative if you never bothered to check your facts first.
He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
He obviously did not quote one of the key highlights, posting links are supposed to provide context after the key points have been made
So what if he didn't quote a figure, where does that give you the right to claim they didn't ask the question?
It is standard operating procedure that pollsters always ask many more questions than just the headline ones. Before anyone ever says that a question wasn't asked the basic due diligence would be to check that first. You didn't do that, so you made a dishonest claim. On a betting site dominated by polls at times, such misrepresentation is shocking and you should apologise. Conduct a basic checking of facts before you make an outright claim that a question wasn't asked at all.
He posted line after line about the Burka, not one word about the Burkini, how am I supposed to know the poll included a question from the Burkini from that? Pollsters may well ask more questions, if they do add the key points, links are supposed to provide context and methodology. The misrepresentation if anything was to omit to mention perhaps one of the key poll findings when posting, if posting polls ALL key findings should be included.
You are crazy, I will leave it at that.
Think of me what you wish but in future when posting polls please do not omit some of the key findings
Actually no, what you are suggesting is heavily frowned upon and an illegal breach of copyright. Posting highlights only and a link to full details is all that is permitted under Fair Use.
Nick Palmer's summary looks pretty optimistic for Labour to me. The chances of some Labour MPs deciding that a Corbynite Labour party is not one that it could support in preference to some of the alternatives looks high to me. I don't see how you can regain confidence in a leader that you had no confidence in simply because members have confidence in that leader.
A new party's prospects will look pretty fair in a few months' time when the gilt has come off the current government (as it will once it comes off the fence on its Brexit strategy). If it can define itself with a new vision rather than not being a not-Corbyn Labour party, it might well find that the vacant centre ground is ripe for the taking.
I do take the point about the lack of quality among possible defectors though.
Comments
"The British public want to ban Muslim women from wearing the Islamic veil or burqa by an overwhelming margin of more than two-to-one, a poll has found.
Research by YouGov found a huge proportion of the public had no qualms about telling women what to wear, with 57 per cent in favour of a ban and just 25 per cent against.
18-24 year olds were the only age group to oppose a ban; all others were in favour, with the oldest 65+ group backing the prohibition by a startling 78 per cent to 12. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favour of a ban."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/islam-muslim-veil-burka-ban-burkini-poll-uk-britain-france-a7218386.html
The last time I was in A&E the senior chap was a German and his sidekick, obviously under training, was Kiwi. The time before that I had an Aussie and someone from, IIRC, Portugal. At the eye hospital I have never seen a quack who was native to the UK - the sub-continent, South America, Hong-Kong, yes, the UK no. Good people all (though I struggled to understand a word the South American lady was saying, and I not sure she understood me) and I have no complaints about the treatment from any of them (unlike that received from the Brits in the renal unit).
Populist with zero cost, an easy hit for the purples.
Telegraph Archives
Even though boot and shoe prices are going up in London, residents don't appear to be turning to clogs instead https://t.co/EcQyQGNbWq
It mystifies me why we don;t target Russia for doctors, engineers and stuff. I'm sure they've got some great people and it would annoy the cr8p out of Putin to see his top bods out the door.
If you think Clinton v Trump is an "ugly baby" contest just wait til the French presidential elections if it's Hollande v Sarkozy ...
Fox News
"I will never, ever disrespect Gold Star families who've made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation." - #Hillary https://t.co/NiFsHDc6Zm
That said, Opinion Polls are rubbish aren't they?
https://twitter.com/mcdonnelljp/status/771032934308515841
Interestingly one of UKIP's prospective leadership candidates proposed exactly this policy, which perhaps explains why they are still at 13% post Brexit.
-5 is decent for Trump in WI (Romney lost by 7). Trump outperforming MR w/white men, underperforming w/white women.
https://t.co/pdL0y0vnJJ
More to the point, why are they interviewing him? who does he represent? and why is this news?
*Something Australia conspicuously refused to allow. God knows what backdoors and trapdoors Huawei have installed in our internet and telephone networks.
There was an immensely amusing Smith & Jones sketch where they get all angry arty-farty whilst wearing black polo necks. Sums it right up.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-submits-email-questions-hillary-clinton-written-answers-oath-due-september-29/
Surely even May couldn't be that lucky, but given his total divorce from reality...
So, yes, as one would expect most of the quacks are from the UK, and by a long way, but the patients experience depending on their illness, and location, might be very different.
I'm quite tempted to buy the boxset if it's available.
Drop The Dead Donkey remains my personal favourite - it's so spot on and fast off the mark/clever with current events. Not much sneering or bias which seems the tedious default nowadays.
For me the 'pay to play' stuff when she was at the State Department is the worst.
"A separate question asked by YouGov found that 46 per cent of people wanted to ban the burkini, while just 30 per cent opposed such a measure. The French ban has been declared illegal by the country’s courts."
It's just embarrassing whatever one's politics.
It's just embarrassing whatever one's politics.
I suspect the McEwan interview is a bit more wide-ranging than his views on Brexit. My guess is that this may be just one topic in a wider profile. That's pretty standard for such pieces in print and on the telly, isn't it?
Leaping in without adequate forethought would really be a serious issue. I would expect a debate in Parliament, not a vote but a debate so that MPs can have their say, sometime in November, and Article 50 invoked early in the 2017.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hL_DyvEV84
It included a scene where they made the hospital tower block's lights spell out "ARSE"
Of course this is all subject to the politics of the other 27 EU countries, so no guarantees.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
LAB in 3rd place behind UKIP amongst the 65+ segment in this evening’s ICM poll.
CON 58%
LAB 15%
UKIP 16%
LD 8%
"There were no questions about the Burkini"
then wriggle when it is pointed out that there were, rather than say "Sorry, my mistake"
Corbyn says he has changed the whole political atmosphere, gets 40k emails pre-PMQs. Adds: "This genie is not getting back in any bottle".
Wisconsin
Hillary 45
Trump 42
Hillary 41
Trump 38
Johnson 10
Stein 4
twitter.com/MULawPoll/status/771035593916747776
If Trump is 3-5 points behind in Wisconsin, a state which hates his guts, then he is definitely withing striking distance of Hillary nationally.
On my average daily tracking poll Hillary's lead is down to just 3 points.
Which planet was he living on? Obviously not the same one as Project Fear.
The mistake was not failing to make the stakes clear. The problem was being unable to convince the UK public that the EU arrangement actually on balance served the British interest. And, in fairness to the Remain campaign, for the likes of me, that was always out of their hands. The deck had already been stacked against being able to do so by the EC and the failure of the EU to take our concerns seriously.
"yes I may have been mistaken" - translation "I was mistaken"
"you posted zero mention of any question on the Burkini," - I posted a link, which you didn't read, then argued about pleading ignorance as a defence
Well, the best negotiators I have ever met go in asking for all they want and bargain down from there. They do not walk in saying this is the minimum we will accept and we are desperate for a deal. See Cameron's fiasco for a recent example.
As I have said before on here, if a party at the negotiating table is not prepared to get up and walk away without a deal then they are begging not negotiating. I don't think TM is a lady that will be prepared to beg. I do think, however, that the EU mindset is such that they cannot conceive or someone being willing to walk away. They will therefore, very probably, read the situation wrongly (as they did with Cameron). WTO rules is therefore the outcome I expect, and I doubt it will be a disaster for the UK.
As to "hard, hard choices" - that is the language, some might say spin, of Gordon Brown. In leadership there really are no such thing. One simply has to do what has to be done to achieve the desired or mandated outcome. One can feel sorry for, and perhaps do one's best to mitigate the consequences, for those hurt in the process but the decision itself is not hard.
Also, LOL at Trump going to Mexico. Presumably he'll explain to Mexicans why they should pay for the wall he'll build.
I posted the first three paragraphs of the article , and a link to the whole piece. I think it is frowned upon to post whole articles on here?
It isn't my fault you chose to argue incorrectly about a latter point in the article because you hadn't read it!
Clearly we're not sending our best to Mexico. We're sending liars. We're sending narcissists. We're sending sociopaths.
The freedom of movement/single market issue is clearly extremely contentious in the upper echelons of the party behind the scenes.
It is standard operating procedure that pollsters always ask many more questions than just the headline ones. Before anyone ever says that a question wasn't asked the basic due diligence would be to check that first. You didn't do that, so you made a dishonest claim. On a betting site dominated by polls at times, such misrepresentation is shocking and you should apologise. Conduct a basic checking of facts before you make an outright claim that a question wasn't asked at all.
I thought you liked Trump?
http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_3a8db9da60ec4ceb961732ea0d849022.pdf
New York Emerson Clinton 52 Trump 34 Johnson 8 Stein 3
http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_7e2146163ed04e60b05172ef8e530182.pdf
Spain once again fails to form a government. 170-180 in vote of confidence. https://t.co/9zk1YYyVo6
"Freedom of movement" is something of a spectrum ( freedom to just work in high paid jobs, median pay, 80% of median earnings, or claim full benefits, or part benefits after contributing for a number of years etc etc?). Lots of potential room to compromise ( which I was well open to prior to the renegotiation but Merkel et al wouldn't budge an inch), providing they don't take the absolutist Juncker line again - in which case to hell with them. It's a red line.
Spotted outside Fine Gael's headquarters! #AppleTax https://t.co/xR8TuVl4AL
A plurality of Liberal Democrat voters have a weird idea of the word "liberal" it seems. https://t.co/MNKR1ixIM8
A new party's prospects will look pretty fair in a few months' time when the gilt has come off the current government (as it will once it comes off the fence on its Brexit strategy). If it can define itself with a new vision rather than not being a not-Corbyn Labour party, it might well find that the vacant centre ground is ripe for the taking.
I do take the point about the lack of quality among possible defectors though.