I'd expect the swing in Indiana to be similar to the national swing. Currently, Trump leads by a similar margin there to 2012.
Nope.
You forgot that Pence is the Indiana governor, the VP's usually add a few points to their states.
The first states to declare are at 2 am GMT:
Vermont Virginia S.Carolina Georgia Kentucky Indiana
We would know by around 3 am who has won.
If Trump does badly in Georgia and S.Carolina then it's over, it would mean that he would lose N.Carolina and Florida. On the other hand if Hillary's victory margin in Virginia looks small then Trump would win.
The influence of the North London tendency continues to make itself felt on Labour thinking. At this rate, there won't be anything else left of the party.
Only 7% want more immigration. Take note, Soubry.
Visas for construction workers looks like it will go down badly as expected.
Any system would be stricter than the one we have now. If people are coming with job offers (and Brits aren't being undercut), I can't see it as a big issue.
The immigration issue started with "Polish Plumbers".
You are never going to appear to solve the issue if you don't do something about the group that started the ball rolling, you have heard the phrase "the root of all evil" ?
" The immigration issue started with " Polish Plumbers "." Even by your barbaric standards that's a statement of paralyzing ignorance.
Poland has given proportionately more in the fight against tyranny than any other nation on earth. And they welcomed British people there with open arms, both before and after the Wall came down. If the price we have to pay is welcoming into our country a few extra plumbers, then so be it.
So you're saying that Britain has some eternal and unlimited obligation to Poland because its situated between Germany and Russia ?
Their pilots helped bail us out in 1940. Their soldiers supported us in Italy in 1943/4. They did the most to begin to end the scourge of communism in Europe. And their gratitude to the British endures to this day, despite the fact that what we did failed them in the end. So your point is?
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Britain declared war on Germany to defend Poland.
Polish pilots and soldiers weren't helping Britain out from altruism but because their country was at war with Germany.
The same Poland incidentally which joined Germany in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia the year before.
There's more justification to allow unlimited immigration from India for the all volunteer Indian military personnel who fought for the British Empire in multiple wars than there is for unlimited immigration from Poland.
My father volunteered for the Indian Army. And ended up fighting in Italy alongside the Poles. And I remain mystified as to what exactly is the political point you are trying to make, here?
Another EU directive coming into force this year essentially bans the production of the chemical that is the basis of disinfection in hospitals and laboratories These are just two I know about in my specific area of expertise
This is typical of the sort of thing that if it had to be proposed as a measure by the British Government and put through parliament wouldnt stand a chance.
However as a directive proposed by the undemocratic commission it is nodded through as secondary legislation under the EEC Act 1972 with MPs told that it would be 'an abuse of process' to oppose it.
It makes my blood boil - or at least it would have done until June 24th when I discovered a majority of my fellow British citizens felt the same way and were not prepared to put up with this state of affairs any longer. Now I juat grimace then sigh "Thank Goodness" when I read things like that.
How is the clock doing, still clucking
Also its wings are a bit odd, they are more like my spaniels ears than wings.
Plenty left over at the shop last night. They are not selling all that fast.
Hard to think why....
The other thing is that its cuckooing is recorded cuckooing in the black forest or somewhere.
Unfortunately they didnt notice when they recorded it that another cuckoo was cuckooing back at it. So every time it cuckoos there is a slightly fainter response cuckoo afterwards so at ten oclock you actually get twenty cuckoos. Ten loud and ten not so loud 'echoes'.
It is quite cute though, even if it is an albino starling with a red beak and spaniel ears that cant count.
Where do you get it & how much is it? Sounds to me as though such a wacky thing could be a worthwhile purchase.
(edited to add: cue for a run on them, sold out in minutes?)
£29.99 at Aldi, batteries included.
And got a light detector so it dosent cuckoo through the night (unlike some here....)
Amazon have some, at similar price point and also with nighttime silencers. Whether their cuckoos are more realistic or sound better or worse, I have no idea. Mostly they have a small number of very positive reviews. But then you have to be a bit warped to buy one in the first place.
Heres a link showing the Aldi ones. They are quite modernist, dare I say it 1930s looking without the ornamentation and pointy roofs.
Ive got one of the black ones with the cuckoo at the top left.
Quiz question for PBers: which Western European nation lost the highest proportion of its population during Nazi occupation?*
* About 2%
There is no denying that Poland lost the most, by far, but is not western. My guess for Western Europe would be Holland, because of the famine before liberation.
Possibly current Ukraine or Belarus lost a higher proportion, based on current boundaries.
Luxembourg was annexed into the Reich so lost a percentage fighting for the Nazis.
And instructive for those who simplisticly assert that the 15% devaluation of the £ is somehow a get out of jail card.
I don't think anyone would want to see a continued depreciation of the pound. What I find curious is that none of the experts realised that a weaker pound would help the UK economy after a vote to leave the EU. What we don't want to see is the economy get hooked on a devaluing currency achieved through printing money. That's why I want to see a change in leadership at the BoE.
That's not true at all. Melissa Kidd at Redburn, who's my favourite UK economist, wrote before the vote that sterling depreciation would provide a meaningful safety valve. She was also very clear that she did not expect a recession as a result of the Brexit vote. (Although she does expect a slowdown next year.)
Okay, let me rephrase, none of the experts who were given the time of day by the MSM.
That's because "It's probably going to be OK" is not very newsworthy.
I think that's what I found most depressing about the referendum. You only have to read the comments on this site to realise that there is a case for staying in the EU. I might not agree with (all of) it, but a better case could have been made. However, I think that involves some home truths about the journey we'd been on over the last 30 years or so. I actually think Sajid Javid's position of "I'd have left 30 years ago, but now we're too far down the road" wasn't as stupid as some on here made it out to be.
I'll admit to being guilty of wanting to suggest that Remainers were saying that "immigration is a price worth paying." Well, maybe they should have embraced that argument instead of going down the road of project fear. Ultimately the Remain side couldn't bring themselves to make the positive case and instead went down the road of saying "don't do it, you'll regret it, it'll be terrible" and "if you do, you're a racist/xenophobe." They weren't prepared to fight an honest battle where they were prepared to accept that they might lose.
The worst thing about this is that the establishment appears (at the moment, at least) to have cried wolf. Come the next election the Tories might be applying the same arguments to Corbyn's Labour Party that Remain applied to Brexit. For once, the historically risk averse British electorate took a risk. And who knows, perhaps they've got a taste for it.
Any system would be stricter than the one we have now. If people are coming with job offers (and Brits aren't being undercut), I can't see it as a big issue.
The immigration issue started with "Polish Plumbers".
You are never going to appear to solve the issue if you don't do something about the group that started the ball rolling, you have heard the phrase "the root of all evil" ?
" The immigration issue started with " Polish Plumbers "." Even by your barbaric standards that's a statement of paralyzing ignorance.
Poland has given proportionately more in the fight against tyranny than any other nation on earth. And they welcomed British people there with open arms, both before and after the Wall came down. If the price we have to pay is welcoming into our country a few extra plumbers, then so be it.
So you're saying that Britain has some eternal and unlimited obligation to Poland because its situated between Germany and Russia ?
Their pilots helped bail us out in 1940. Their soldiers supported us in Italy in 1943/4. They did the most to begin to end the scourge of communism in Europe. And their gratitude to the British endures to this day, despite the fact that what we did failed them in the end. So your point is?
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Britain declared war on Germany to defend Poland.
Polish pilots and soldiers weren't helping Britain out from altruism but because their country was at war with Germany.
The same Poland incidentally which joined Germany in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia the year before.
There's more justification to allow unlimited immigration from India for the all volunteer Indian military personnel who fought for the British Empire in multiple wars than there is for unlimited immigration from Poland.
My father volunteered for the Indian Army. And ended up fighting in Italy alongside the Poles. And I remain mystified as to what exactly is the political point you are trying to make, here?
You're saying that Poles should have unlimited freedom to move to Britain because they fought on the same side as Britain during WW2.
Do you also think that Indians should have unlimited freedom to move to Britain because they fought on the same side as Britain during WW2 ?
Another EU directive coming into force this year essentially bans the production of the chemical that is the basis of disinfection in hospitals and laboratories These are just two I know about in my specific area of expertise
.
How is the clock doing, still clucking
Also its wings are a bit odd, they are more like my spaniels ears than wings.
Plenty left over at the shop last night. They are not selling all that fast.
Hard to think why....
The other thing is that its cuckooing is recorded cuckooing in the black forest or somewhere.
Unfortunately they didnt notice when they recorded it that another cuckoo was cuckooing back at it. So every time it cuckoos there is a slightly fainter response cuckoo afterwards so at ten oclock you actually get twenty cuckoos. Ten loud and ten not so loud 'echoes'.
It is quite cute though, even if it is an albino starling with a red beak and spaniel ears that cant count.
Where do you get it & how much is it? Sounds to me as though such a wacky thing could be a worthwhile purchase.
(edited to add: cue for a run on them, sold out in minutes?)
£29.99 at Aldi, batteries included.
And got a light detector so it dosent cuckoo through the night (unlike some here....)
Amazon have some, at similar price point and also with nighttime silencers. Whether their cuckoos are more realistic or sound better or worse, I have no idea. Mostly they have a small number of very positive reviews. But then you have to be a bit warped to buy one in the first place.
Heres a link showing the Aldi ones. They are quite modernist, dare I say it 1930s looking without the ornamentation and pointy roofs.
Ive got one of the black ones with the cuckoo at the top left.
Wow that is way too modernist for me! I always fancied one of the carved wooden tyrolean ones, and would have bought one there years back had my partner not threatened to leave me on the spot. But she is gone now so I can browse without fear. Some of the ones on Amazon even have dancers that spin around every hour. But I think I would go for a straightforward carved wooden one where the bird came out and did his business every hour, without any other superfluous twirling going on.
Quiz question for PBers: which Western European nation lost the highest proportion of its population during Nazi occupation?*
* About 2%
There is no denying that Poland lost the most, by far, but is not western. My guess for Western Europe would be Holland, because of the famine before liberation.
Possibly current Ukraine or Belarus lost a higher proportion, based on current boundaries.
Luxembourg was annexed into the Reich so lost a percentage fighting for the Nazis.
I'd expect the swing in Indiana to be similar to the national swing. Currently, Trump leads by a similar margin there to 2012.
Nope.
You forgot that Pence is the Indiana governor, the VP's usually add a few points to their states.
The first states to declare are at 2 am GMT:
Vermont Virginia S.Carolina Georgia Kentucky Indiana
We would know by around 3 am who has won.
If Trump does badly in Georgia and S.Carolina then it's over, it would mean that he would lose N.Carolina and Florida. On the other hand if Hillary's victory margin in Virginia looks small then Trump would win.
Indiana's main interest is its Senate race, which could determine control of the upper house.
Polish pilots and soldiers weren't helping Britain out from altruism but because their country was at war with Germany.
The same Poland incidentally which joined Germany in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia the year before.
There's more justification to allow unlimited immigration from India for the all volunteer Indian military personnel who fought for the British Empire in multiple wars than there is for unlimited immigration from Poland.
Oh goody another WW2 thread .
Time for me to open my deluxe vintage "History of WW2, by Reymond Cartier".
According to him Poland was anti-french and pro-Nazi right until January 1939, in fact Poland demaned Madagascar from France one time because according to them "rising nations deserve to have their own colony".
France didn't want to declare war on Germany over Poland, in fact there was no alliance with Poland until the German-Soviet packed was signed, from their point of view they where dragged into war by the British Parliament since Poland was doomed already.
The French never even declared war on Germany officially and once Warsaw fell they withdrew their few troops from the other side of the border, since Poland fell they thought there was no reason to fight Germany.
According to the french view of the 1960's it was Britain that started WW2 not Germany. The french don't like us very much.
Thats the best that I could find (though perhaps the PB thread of the night would give a clearer timeline). What I do find difficult is that in the US the networks call states with only a minority of votes counted. I am not sure how reliable this is compared to UK formal declarations.
In 2012 Indiana split 54% Republican, 44% Democrat, so unless Trump has in that region of lead I would suggest Hillary is POTUS, assuming that it is still the first state reporting. I would suggest Trump needs something like 57% to be winning nationally.
Thanks to you both. I actually meant for the EU referendum, sorry!
I'd expect the swing in Indiana to be similar to the national swing. Currently, Trump leads by a similar margin there to 2012.
I must be talking to myself
If its the times EU referendum declaration results you want you can effectively see them on the BBC program:
True, but when they start coming in thick and fast it is difficult.
That's what the pause button is for
There's an interesting discussion at 23:51 in which John Curtice explains why postal voting should NOT have affected the accuracy of the opinion polls.
I called this for leave after Sunderland. I was not alone. The only ones who didn't were the ones who just did not want to believe it.
Leave was certainly favourite after Sunderland, but it was Newcastle that tipped it in my mind. Staggering that Remain was favourite for another two hours or so.
It will include absolutely everything. They are going for the "write all the EU stuff into British law then worry about amending it all later" approach. Pragmatically sensible. But it will leave some of the ultra-Brexiteers wondering why we bothered, at least in the short term.
I called this for leave after Sunderland. I was not alone. The only ones who didn't were the ones who just did not want to believe it.
Leave was certainly favourite after Sunderland, but it was Newcastle that tipped it in my mind. Staggering that Remain was favourite for another two hours or so.
Yes. It was free money for those in a position to take advantage of it. Will we ever see markets so in denial again?
This has all the potencial to be as controversial as passing Maastricht.
Presumably MP's won't even have the chance to read what they are voting for.
It's so complex they will either never have enough time to read all the EU laws and regulations or simply the government will hide them from MP's behind a single sheet of paper.
This has all the potencial to be as controversial as passing Maastricht.
Presumably MP's won't even have the chance to read what they are voting for.
It's so complex they will either never have enough time to read all the EU laws and regulations or simply the government will hide them from MP's behind a single sheet of paper.
Complex? It is actually very simple. All the EU laws we are currently bound by will instantly become British laws.
It will include absolutely everything. They are going for the "write all the EU stuff into British law then worry about amending it all later" approach. Pragmatically sensible. But it will leave some of the ultra-Brexiteers wondering why we bothered, at least in the short term.
That's the sensible way of doing it, a short bill that enshrines the status quo on the day that we leave. Then any changes can be passed as new bills through Parliament in the usual way, rather than trying to repeal old stuff as we leave the EU, which is all intertwined and potentially very messy to do.
I called this for leave after Sunderland. I was not alone. The only ones who didn't were the ones who just did not want to believe it.
Leave was certainly favourite after Sunderland, but it was Newcastle that tipped it in my mind. Staggering that Remain was favourite for another two hours or so.
Yes. It was free money for those in a position to take advantage of it. Will we ever see markets so in denial again?
Of course not. What it means is that all our laws remain the same until our newly sovereign Parliament decides otherwise. And they will decide otherwise in respect of freedom of movement immediately.
There is no other sensible way to deal with the huge morass of our laws that our elected representatives had nothing to do with.
It will include absolutely everything. They are going for the "write all the EU stuff into British law then worry about amending it all later" approach. Pragmatically sensible. But it will leave some of the ultra-Brexiteers wondering why we bothered, at least in the short term.
Because Parliament can now vote on what it wishes. Eminently sensible IMO
This has all the potencial to be as controversial as passing Maastricht.
Presumably MP's won't even have the chance to read what they are voting for.
It's so complex they will either never have enough time to read all the EU laws and regulations or simply the government will hide them from MP's behind a single sheet of paper.
Complex? It is actually very simple. All the EU laws we are currently bound by will instantly become British laws.
Yeah, the enacting clause will probably be longer than the rest of the bill.
I called this for leave after Sunderland. I was not alone. The only ones who didn't were the ones who just did not want to believe it.
It would be interesting to know how accurately the first 1%, the first 5% and the first 10% of results were at predicting elections historically.
The key will in this case was not the result but the result against expectation in the model that allowed remain to win. What was clear, just from Sunderland, was that model was pointing in the other direction.
Which means Parliament being sovereign. Which it will be to repeal any measure it chooses to in its own time. No need for a frantic two year review of all EU legislation.
I called this for leave after Sunderland. I was not alone. The only ones who didn't were the ones who just did not want to believe it.
It would be interesting to know how accurately the first 1%, the first 5% and the first 10% of results were at predicting elections historically.
I've done running totals spreadsheets for every election from 1979 to 2010. Working on the 2015 one at the moment. I posted some of them on here about 3 years ago IIRC. The number of results needed to get a good approximation of the final result has been increasing over time at most elections.
I called this for leave after Sunderland. I was not alone. The only ones who didn't were the ones who just did not want to believe it.
It would be interesting to know how accurately the first 1%, the first 5% and the first 10% of results were at predicting elections historically.
I remember reading something about it, usually in British GE's the average swings of the first 5 results give a pretty good picture of the final result.
In terms of total vote shares it takes the first 10% to see the picture, but constituencies in Britain declare once they have completed their count.
Of course not. What it means is that all our laws remain the same until our newly sovereign Parliament decides otherwise. And they will decide otherwise in respect of freedom of movement immediately.
There is no other sensible way to deal with the huge morass of our laws that our elected representatives had nothing to do with.
Suspicion haunts the guilty Remainian mind. Awful people.
It will include absolutely everything. They are going for the "write all the EU stuff into British law then worry about amending it all later" approach. Pragmatically sensible. But it will leave some of the ultra-Brexiteers wondering why we bothered, at least in the short term.
Because Parliament can now vote on what it wishes. Eminently sensible IMO
It doesn't look good, they will have to do a lot of explaining.
The presentation part of politics doesn't seem to be in May's grasp at the moment.
"Alastair Campbell: New Labour helped sow seeds of Brexit vote Former director of communications says party became complacent on immigration due to Tony Blair’s electoral success"
I called this for leave after Sunderland. I was not alone. The only ones who didn't were the ones who just did not want to believe it.
Leave was certainly favourite after Sunderland, but it was Newcastle that tipped it in my mind. Staggering that Remain was favourite for another two hours or so.
Watching this replay of referendum vote night, it is surprising at how bad the BBC's analysis was at digesting the impact of Newcastle and Sunderland's results. They just carried on interviewing the politicians and they were mainly those speaking for Remain.
It will include absolutely everything. They are going for the "write all the EU stuff into British law then worry about amending it all later" approach. Pragmatically sensible. But it will leave some of the ultra-Brexiteers wondering why we bothered, at least in the short term.
Because Parliament can now vote on what it wishes. Eminently sensible IMO
It doesn't look good, they will have to do a lot of explaining.
The presentation part of politics doesn't seem to be in May's grasp at the moment.
London never voted to support the rest of England nor England to support Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Yet that is the current reality and the outcome makes sense for everyone. The Germans won't vote to support Southern Europe yet it is in their long run interests to do so, generating future customers for their products.
The more you look at the story state of contemporary politics, the more you have to admire our predecessors who conceived and delivered something like the Marshall Plan to help Europe recover from wartime destruction. In today's politics such an idea wouldn't get past first base.
erm ... How much has the US spent on reconstruction in Afghanistan? The outcome might not be as effective as the Marshall Plan, but it has not been ungenerous on a per capita basis.
As of FY 2015, $110 billion for a population of ~30 million, $36,600 per capita.
I called this for leave after Sunderland. I was not alone. The only ones who didn't were the ones who just did not want to believe it.
Leave was certainly favourite after Sunderland, but it was Newcastle that tipped it in my mind. Staggering that Remain was favourite for another two hours or so.
Yes. It was free money for those in a position to take advantage of it. Will we ever see markets so in denial again?
I think Rubio finished 3rd so moves to odds on favourite must challenge it for irrationalness and lasted for days!
I called this for leave after Sunderland. I was not alone. The only ones who didn't were the ones who just did not want to believe it.
Leave was certainly favourite after Sunderland, but it was Newcastle that tipped it in my mind. Staggering that Remain was favourite for another two hours or so.
Watching this replay of referendum vote night, it is surprising at how bad the BBC's analysis was at digesting the impact of Newcastle and Sunderland's results. They just carried on interviewing the politicians and they were mainly those speaking for Remain.
The BBC and CNN are always late for different reasons.
One for being too politically cautious, the other for being too commercial.
We're voting Leave to take control and enshrine EU law into UK law
And then have the freedom to repeal the bits we don't want...
And that's where parliament gets to have its say. I wonder if this is a nod to the Article 50 court case?
I wonder what would happen if Pariament doesn't approve this bill.
Quite a risk, i'd have thought.
Presumably she has the brexiteers on board though.
Or is she playing poker?
I recall an interview a month or so ago with a hard Brexiteer saying Article 50 should be triggered immediately, and that there should be a bill transposing all EU law into British law. I don't think they'd oppose this.
I called this for leave after Sunderland. I was not alone. The only ones who didn't were the ones who just did not want to believe it.
Leave was certainly favourite after Sunderland, but it was Newcastle that tipped it in my mind. Staggering that Remain was favourite for another two hours or so.
Yes. It was free money for those in a position to take advantage of it. Will we ever see markets so in denial again?
I was too busy viewing the latest results to place any bets unfortunately...
It will include absolutely everything. They are going for the "write all the EU stuff into British law then worry about amending it all later" approach. Pragmatically sensible. But it will leave some of the ultra-Brexiteers wondering why we bothered, at least in the short term.
Because Parliament can now vote on what it wishes. Eminently sensible IMO
It doesn't look good, they will have to do a lot of explaining.
The presentation part of politics doesn't seem to be in May's grasp at the moment.
It's very easy to explain.
Theresa May's comes up with the perfect answer and it is so surprising that so many on here do not seem to get it. Accept all EU law and let Parliament personalize it to the UK through the democratic process.
Expect she will have a lot of 'pleasing policies' this week and will solidify her position as the capable and trust worthy PM this Country needs
It's at times like this when I wished I had heeded Mother Stodge's advice and become a constitutional lawyer. "No one ever got poor being a constitutional lawyer, they always want your advice or an opinion" but I never listened.
I thought we had something called the European Communities Act of 1972 which allowed EU law to become UK law. Wouldn't we decide what bits of EU legislation we chose to keep as part of the A50 negotiation and then bundle up the new "order" as a new Act of Parliament once A50 had been concluded.
I wonder whether Ed is - once again - between two stools. Not good enough to be voted through on merit but not bad enough to be retained as a national treasure?
It's at times like this when I wished I had heeded Mother Stodge's advice and become a constitutional lawyer. "No one ever got poor being a constitutional lawyer, they always want your advice or an opinion" but I never listened.
I thought we had something called the European Communities Act of 1972 which allowed EU law to become UK law. Wouldn't we decide what bits of EU legislation we chose to keep as part of the A50 negotiation and then bundle up the new "order" as a new Act of Parliament once A50 had been concluded.
Why do we have to negotiate what laws we do or do not keep?
If anyone invents time travel, they need to go back to April 2015 and tell people that in 18 months time we would have voted to leave the EU, Theresa May would be PM of a Tory minority government and Ed Balls.would be mostly known for his dancing
On the subject of referendum night, I would like to thank SpreadEx in particular. They took very large bets from me without blinking.
I'd echo the thanks to Andy JS, but also MikeK(?) via Robert, on England and Wales voting Leave on SPIN; and most especially to Robert himself for the bet of the year: 2015 en primeur at pre Brexit exchange rates.
We're voting Leave to take control and enshrine EU law into UK law
This is, of course, the very best way to make a success of Leave. To do it slowly and safely and surgically. Gradually unwrapping the dead hand of Europe from our British throat. Finger by finger
The fact this might well work is what annoys Remainians most of all. They want Brexit to fail.
It has the other advantage of making Corbyn's line that the conservatives want to reduce workers rights irrelevant - excellent start by TM as fas as I am concerned
On the subject of referendum night, I would like to thank SpreadEx in particular. They took very large bets from me without blinking.
I'd echo the thanks to Andy JS, but also MikeK(?) via Robert, on England and Wales voting Leave on SPIN; and most especially to Robert himself for the bet of the year: 2015 en primeur at pre Brexit exchange rates.
Nigel4England was the man. He got me on Brexit in England.
If anyone invents time travel, they need to go back to April 2015 and tell people that in 18 months time we would have voted to leave the EU, Theresa May would be PM of a Tory minority government and Ed Balls.would be mostly known for his dancing
Surely the proof that time travel is impossible is that we have never seen any time travellers appear from the future, even at the pivotal historical moments that any time traveller would choose to visit?
The resurrection of Damien Greens career has been all but ignored. The fact that this humane, money saving and minor change is utterly radical is telling about the IDS regime. < The Telegraph: Reassessment tests for sickness benefit claimants with severe illnesses to be scrapped. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw8tySpS4
I called this for leave after Sunderland. I was not alone. The only ones who didn't were the ones who just did not want to believe it.
Leave was certainly favourite after Sunderland, but it was Newcastle that tipped it in my mind. Staggering that Remain was favourite for another two hours or so.
Watching this replay of referendum vote night, it is surprising at how bad the BBC's analysis was at digesting the impact of Newcastle and Sunderland's results. They just carried on interviewing the politicians and they were mainly those speaking for Remain.
We're voting Leave to take control and enshrine EU law into UK law
This is, of course, the very best way to make a success of Leave. To do it slowly and safely and surgically. Gradually unwrapping the dead hand of Europe from our British throat. Finger by finger
The fact this might well work is what annoys Remainians most of all. They want Brexit to fail.
Remainiacs before the referendum: "If we vote Leave we'll lose all our environmental/employment/whatever protections!"
Remainiacs now: "What do you mean we're keeping them?!"
"Alastair Campbell: New Labour helped sow seeds of Brexit vote Former director of communications says party became complacent on immigration due to Tony Blair’s electoral success"
Blair to Campbell in 2005; “‘We have not changed the country as much as we could and should. Look at the media 80% come at politics from a rightwing agenda, and we haven’t changed that." Does anyone agree with Blair's assessment of the media's political bent ?
If anyone invents time travel, they need to go back to April 2015 and tell people that in 18 months time we would have voted to leave the EU, Theresa May would be PM of a Tory minority government and Ed Balls.would be mostly known for his dancing
And that the only Labour constituency in Scotland would be the one which used to be the Tories' safest seat in that country at one time.
The resurrection of Damien Greens career has been all but ignored. The fact that this humane, money saving and minor change is utterly radical is telling about the IDS regime. < The Telegraph: Reassessment tests for sickness benefit claimants with severe illnesses to be scrapped. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw8tySpS4
Sensible change and one of many to come to benefit those in need.
If anyone invents time travel, they need to go back to April 2015 and tell people that in 18 months time we would have voted to leave the EU, Theresa May would be PM of a Tory minority government and Ed Balls.would be mostly known for his dancing
Surely the proof that time travel is impossible is that we have never seen any time travellers appear from the future, even at the pivotal historical moments that any time traveller would choose to visit?
Surely all that proves is that decent invisibility cloaks are invented before time travel.
On the subject of referendum night, I would like to thank SpreadEx in particular. They took very large bets from me without blinking.
I'd echo the thanks to Andy JS, but also MikeK(?) via Robert, on England and Wales voting Leave on SPIN; and most especially to Robert himself for the bet of the year: 2015 en primeur at pre Brexit exchange rates.
Nigel4England was the man. He got me on Brexit in England.
I called this for leave after Sunderland. I was not alone. The only ones who didn't were the ones who just did not want to believe it.
It would be interesting to know how accurately the first 1%, the first 5% and the first 10% of results were at predicting elections historically.
The key will in this case was not the result but the result against expectation in the model that allowed remain to win. What was clear, just from Sunderland, was that model was pointing in the other direction.
That Sunderland result being read out brought tears to my eyes. It was up there with England winning Rugby World Cup in 2003, The Arse winning in the last minute against Liverpool to win the Championship in 1988 and England football fans when we actually win away (rare).
I was watching from a hotel in Egypt with intermittent internet - I got a few minutes every hour. I have watched the BBC coverage on YouTube twice now. - again last night I love it love it love it as the elite squirmed. Chukka, BBC reporters, any Lib Dem...I will certainly watch it again.
"Alastair Campbell: New Labour helped sow seeds of Brexit vote Former director of communications says party became complacent on immigration due to Tony Blair’s electoral success"
Blair to Campbell in 2005; “‘We have not changed the country as much as we could and should. Look at the media 80% come at politics from a rightwing agenda, and we haven’t changed that." Does anyone agree with Blair's assessment of the media's political bent ?
If anyone invents time travel, they need to go back to April 2015 and tell people that in 18 months time we would have voted to leave the EU, Theresa May would be PM of a Tory minority government and Ed Balls.would be mostly known for his dancing
Surely the proof that time travel is impossible is that we have never seen any time travellers appear from the future, even at the pivotal historical moments that any time traveller would choose to visit?
Doesn't that only prove that time travel in a backwards direction is impossible?
If anyone invents time travel, they need to go back to April 2015 and tell people that in 18 months time we would have voted to leave the EU, Theresa May would be PM of a Tory minority government and Ed Balls.would be mostly known for his dancing
Surely the proof that time travel is impossible is that we have never seen any time travellers appear from the future, even at the pivotal historical moments that any time traveller would choose to visit?
You never know, maybe Super-Hitler was assassinated by a time traveler
The resurrection of Damien Greens career has been all but ignored. The fact that this humane, money saving and minor change is utterly radical is telling about the IDS regime. < The Telegraph: Reassessment tests for sickness benefit claimants with severe illnesses to be scrapped. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw8tySpS4
Sensible change and one of many to come to benefit those in need.
Indeed. And was amusing to hear the Labour spokesperson respond on the lunchtime news today. Government announces it won't keep testing people with chronic conditions who are not going to get better, since it stresses them unnecessarily. So sensible that you wonder why the Cameroons didn't think of it. On comes the Labour spokesperson, "what about people whose condition varies, who are also stressed by the tests".....
If anyone invents time travel, they need to go back to April 2015 and tell people that in 18 months time we would have voted to leave the EU, Theresa May would be PM of a Tory minority government and Ed Balls.would be mostly known for his dancing
Surely the proof that time travel is impossible is that we have never seen any time travellers appear from the future, even at the pivotal historical moments that any time traveller would choose to visit?
Doesn't that only prove that time travel in a backwards direction is impossible?
Fair point. Indeed Einstein proved that if you travel about through space fast enough, you are effectively travelling forward through time as far as everywhere and everyone you know is concerned.
The paradox ( which May appears to have understood ) is that the more radical Brexit is the last likely it is to happen. He ' domestication ' approach to EU law radically supplies the process and avoids a gargantuan quagmire as Brexit became about making it easier to kill song birds in mating season, import illegally logged timber or downgrade safety features on car child seats.
So europhile like me can and will chuckle that we'll enjoy seeing the whole acquis put into UK law. It will also make it easier to fight repeal. The battles will longer, fought on domestic ground and will be much more single issue based. However we need to accept that by skillfully avoiding the quagmire May makes Brexit actually happening much more likely and simpler.
It will include absolutely everything. They are going for the "write all the EU stuff into British law then worry about amending it all later" approach. Pragmatically sensible. But it will leave some of the ultra-Brexiteers wondering why we bothered, at least in the short term.
This is surely just a procedural thing to stop all the secondary laws under the 1972 act becoming void when the 1972 act is repealed.
If anyone invents time travel, they need to go back to April 2015 and tell people that in 18 months time we would have voted to leave the EU, Theresa May would be PM of a Tory minority government and Ed Balls.would be mostly known for his dancing
Surely the proof that time travel is impossible is that we have never seen any time travellers appear from the future, even at the pivotal historical moments that any time traveller would choose to visit?
Doesn't that only prove that time travel in a backwards direction is impossible?
Fair point.
On the other hand rcs1000 might be right about the invisibility cloaks.
Also, I'm not sure anyone would want to do forward time travel unless they knew they could come back again. It probably wouldn't be very nice to be stuck in the future indefinitely.
Why do we have to negotiate what laws we do or do not keep?
I'm sorry - do you deliberately not bother to read what someone posts before launching into a response or is it something you've trained yourself to do ?
Nice and slowly - it may be that aspects of EU law and regulation will be deemed as being desirable even after we are no longer part of the EU. These will need to become part of UK law - this would, I imagine, be done by taking the entirety of the A50 negotiations and putting it before parliament as a new treaty revoking all previous treaties and confirming our new relationship with the EU.
The resurrection of Damien Greens career has been all but ignored. The fact that this humane, money saving and minor change is utterly radical is telling about the IDS regime. < The Telegraph: Reassessment tests for sickness benefit claimants with severe illnesses to be scrapped. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw8tySpS4
Sensible change and one of many to come to benefit those in need.
Agree, a good tweak that saves money and helps a lot of those who were caught in the net with the last changes. At least it shows that the people in charge are listening to the problems on the ground, in what is just about the most difficult area of public policy to get right.
Comments
You forgot that Pence is the Indiana governor, the VP's usually add a few points to their states.
The first states to declare are at 2 am GMT:
Vermont
Virginia
S.Carolina
Georgia
Kentucky
Indiana
We would know by around 3 am who has won.
If Trump does badly in Georgia and S.Carolina then it's over, it would mean that he would lose N.Carolina and Florida.
On the other hand if Hillary's victory margin in Virginia looks small then Trump would win.
Ive got one of the black ones with the cuckoo at the top left.
https://www.aldi.co.uk/p/93599/0
Luxembourg was annexed into the Reich so lost a percentage fighting for the Nazis.
I'll admit to being guilty of wanting to suggest that Remainers were saying that "immigration is a price worth paying." Well, maybe they should have embraced that argument instead of going down the road of project fear. Ultimately the Remain side couldn't bring themselves to make the positive case and instead went down the road of saying "don't do it, you'll regret it, it'll be terrible" and "if you do, you're a racist/xenophobe." They weren't prepared to fight an honest battle where they were prepared to accept that they might lose.
The worst thing about this is that the establishment appears (at the moment, at least) to have cried wolf. Come the next election the Tories might be applying the same arguments to Corbyn's Labour Party that Remain applied to Brexit. For once, the historically risk averse British electorate took a risk. And who knows, perhaps they've got a taste for it.
Do you also think that Indians should have unlimited freedom to move to Britain because they fought on the same side as Britain during WW2 ?
i.e. Poland, as then was.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Heart-Europe-Past-Polands-Present/dp/0192801260/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1475346682&sr=1-1&keywords=Davies+heart+of+Europe
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/782277449304379392
Time for me to open my deluxe vintage "History of WW2, by Reymond Cartier".
According to him Poland was anti-french and pro-Nazi right until January 1939, in fact Poland demaned Madagascar from France one time because according to them "rising nations deserve to have their own colony".
France didn't want to declare war on Germany over Poland, in fact there was no alliance with Poland until the German-Soviet packed was signed, from their point of view they where dragged into war by the British Parliament since Poland was doomed already.
The French never even declared war on Germany officially and once Warsaw fell they withdrew their few troops from the other side of the border, since Poland fell they thought there was no reason to fight Germany.
According to the french view of the 1960's it was Britain that started WW2 not Germany.
The french don't like us very much.
There's an interesting discussion at 23:51 in which John Curtice explains why postal voting should NOT have affected the accuracy of the opinion polls.
Presumably MP's won't even have the chance to read what they are voting for.
It's so complex they will either never have enough time to read all the EU laws and regulations or simply the government will hide them from MP's behind a single sheet of paper.
However Theresa May is taking the UK into the Union du Europe.
Anyhoo, Ed Balls is about to dance the Charleston dressed as a cowboy on Strictly right now
There is no other sensible way to deal with the huge morass of our laws that our elected representatives had nothing to do with.
Just saying...
Brexit means Brexit.
Which means, erm....
In terms of total vote shares it takes the first 10% to see the picture, but constituencies in Britain declare once they have completed their count.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f6PlK5ig7p1I9aqfMzV6AMBKKX8TPvEuqoPakoX2W_M/edit
The presentation part of politics doesn't seem to be in May's grasp at the moment.
REMAIN 48%
"Alastair Campbell: New Labour helped sow seeds of Brexit vote
Former director of communications says party became complacent on immigration due to Tony Blair’s electoral success"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/01/alastair-campbell-new-labour-tony-blair-immigration-brexit
Presumably she has the brexiteers on board though.
Or is she playing poker?
As of FY 2015, $110 billion for a population of ~30 million, $36,600 per capita.
One for being too politically cautious, the other for being too commercial.
Expect she will have a lot of 'pleasing policies' this week and will solidify her position as the capable and trust worthy PM this Country needs
Ooh err missus!
It's at times like this when I wished I had heeded Mother Stodge's advice and become a constitutional lawyer. "No one ever got poor being a constitutional lawyer, they always want your advice or an opinion" but I never listened.
I thought we had something called the European Communities Act of 1972 which allowed EU law to become UK law. Wouldn't we decide what bits of EU legislation we chose to keep as part of the A50 negotiation and then bundle up the new "order" as a new Act of Parliament once A50 had been concluded.
"If we vote Leave we'll lose all our environmental/employment/whatever protections!"
Remainiacs now:
"What do you mean we're keeping them?!"
“‘We have not changed the country as much as we could and should. Look at the media 80% come at politics from a rightwing agenda, and we haven’t changed that."
Does anyone agree with Blair's assessment of the media's political bent ?
1945 result in Edinburgh South: Con 71%, Lab 29%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_South_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Election_in_the_1940s
I was watching from a hotel in Egypt with intermittent internet - I got a few minutes every hour. I have watched the BBC coverage on YouTube twice now. - again last night I love it love it love it as the elite squirmed. Chukka, BBC reporters, any Lib Dem...I will certainly watch it again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p__WmyAE3g
So europhile like me can and will chuckle that we'll enjoy seeing the whole acquis put into UK law. It will also make it easier to fight repeal. The battles will longer, fought on domestic ground and will be much more single issue based. However we need to accept that by skillfully avoiding the quagmire May makes Brexit actually happening much more likely and simpler.
Also, I'm not sure anyone would want to do forward time travel unless they knew they could come back again. It probably wouldn't be very nice to be stuck in the future indefinitely.
Nice and slowly - it may be that aspects of EU law and regulation will be deemed as being desirable even after we are no longer part of the EU. These will need to become part of UK law - this would, I imagine, be done by taking the entirety of the A50 negotiations and putting it before parliament as a new treaty revoking all previous treaties and confirming our new relationship with the EU.
Union de l'Europe.