On rolling the dice and getting double sixes vs snake eyes, well Brexit is neither. It is pre-emptive action to protect the nation from a future populist uprising that we've been seeing in the US. They are very lucky that Nige is ineligible to run for president over there, he would have absolutely walked it, and the problems in America don't go away when Trump loses.
All across the EU we're seeing populists in the ascendancy or rising. Fidesz won in Poland, Orban is dominant in Hungary, Bepe Grillo is probably going to be the next Italian PM, Le Pen is in with a shout in France, the FPO will probably win the rerun in Austria, AfD will comfortably be the largest non-governing party in the Bundestag. There are also more UKIP style parties in Northern Europe, PVV in the Netherlands, the True Finns are in the governing coalition, the Sweden Democrats are polling relatively well and will gain seats, possibly end up as the largest party.
So looking across the channel at the rebellion against the establishment, Brexit is a symptom of the larger disease of wealth and income inequality. It is at times like these that we must look after our own and get our own house in order or everything we've built will be swept away. I'd rather Brexit than deal with a very messy populist uprising in 10-15 years.
What of a populist uprising in five years time when the voters rise up against the Leavers who promised them economic sunny uplands if they voted Leave turns out to be an economic disaster?
An economic disaster for you and I perhaps, it is our industry which is most at risk of being traded for migrant curbs. I'm not sure that someone earning the minimum wage working in Argos really gives a shit though. In fact that person will be earning £9/h in 2020, so should have seen a fairly large real terms pay increase. The short term issues we might have today are worth the long term stability that comes with making our democracy legitimate. Moving power one step closer to the people can only be a good thing, when it becomes too remote people become rebellious. With more decisions being made in Westminster we can hold our politicians to account in a way we've never been able to do with Brussels.
Very few Remainers on this site address anything other than short-term economic outcomes.
On rolling the dice and getting double sixes vs snake eyes, well Brexit is neither. It is pre-emptive action to protect the nation from a future populist uprising that we've been seeing in the US. They are very lucky that Nige is ineligible to run for president over there, he would have absolutely walked it, and the problems in America don't go away when Trump loses.
All across the EU we're seeing populists in the ascendancy or rising. Fidesz won in Poland, Orban is dominant in Hungary, Bepe Grillo is probably going to be the next Italian PM, Le Pen is in with a shout in France, the FPO will probably win the rerun in Austria, AfD will comfortably be the largest non-governing party in the Bundestag. There are also more UKIP style parties in Northern Europe, PVV in the Netherlands, the True Finns are in the governing coalition, the Sweden Democrats are polling relatively well and will gain seats, possibly end up as the largest party.
So looking across the channel at the rebellion against the establishment, Brexit is a symptom of the larger disease of wealth and income inequality. It is at times like these that we must look after our own and get our own house in order or everything we've built will be swept away. I'd rather Brexit than deal with a very messy populist uprising in 10-15 years.
What of a populist uprising in five years time when the voters rise up against the Leavers who promised them economic sunny uplands if they voted Leave turns out to be an economic disaster?
The likelihood is it will be neither an economic disaster, nor an economic boom.
I would agree. Things are very rarely as good as they seem or as bad as they seem. Markets and economies always overreact to events.
Moving power one step closer to the people can only be a good thing, when it becomes too remote people become rebellious. With more decisions being made in Westminster we can hold our politicians to account in a way we've never been able to do with Brussels.
You clearly missed the Brexit statement today, where it was made clear that Westminster has naff all say in what happens next.
It's one man, one vote. Tezza is the man, she has the one vote.
An economic disaster for you and I perhaps, it is our industry which is most at risk of being traded for migrant curbs. I'm not sure that someone earning the minimum wage working in Argos really gives a shit though.
Quite possibly not. That might be however, because they haven't the faintest clue about the fact that London accounts for something like one third of all tax revenues. Ministers are not in a position to ignore such realities. At least, one hopes not.
On rolling the dice and getting double sixes vs snake eyes, well Brexit is neither. It is pre-emptive action to protect the nation from a future populist uprising that we've been seeing in the US. They are very lucky that Nige is ineligible to run for president over there, he would have absolutely walked it, and the problems in America don't go away when Trump loses.
All across the EU we're seeing populists in the ascendancy or rising. Fidesz won in Poland, Orban is dominant in Hungary, Bepe Grillo is probably going to be the next Italian PM, Le Pen is in with a shout in France, the FPO will probably win the rerun in Austria, AfD will comfortably be the largest non-governing party in the Bundestag. There are also more UKIP style parties in Northern Europe, PVV in the Netherlands, the True Finns are in the governing coalition, the Sweden Democrats are polling relatively well and will gain seats, possibly end up as the largest party.
So looking across the channel at the rebellion against the establishment, Brexit is a symptom of the larger disease of wealth and income inequality. It is at times like these that we must look after our own and get our own house in order or everything we've built will be swept away. I'd rather Brexit than deal with a very messy populist uprising in 10-15 years.
Except that Brexit does next to nothing to address the real concerns that you rightly highlight, and if the economy goes pear shaped the wealth/inequality is likely to become worse rather than better. All the other things that May spelled out as aspirations in her conference speech (as yet unsupported by any actual proposals as to how to achieve them) could have been done with or without Brexit.
It might, it might not. We've been through this before. Telling people who have very little to lose that it will get worse is not going to win any arguments. The worst case scenario for many people is no change, maybe a few things get more expensive but at the same time housing costs might go down as well.
The question is really, would staying in the EU have made anything better, the answer was a pretty resounding no. Again, easier for people at the top of the income scale, we benefit from globalisation and from the EU single market, at least in monetary terms. At the bottom end it meant an unlimited pool of unskilled labour to drive down wages. It meant higher housing costs in perpetuity due to continued migration, it meant a continuation of New Labour's culture war on the WWC. None of these was desirable, and when the alternative is merely going to the same in a worst case scenario, well we know what happened.
Speaking of idiots there was a chap on the BBC News at Ten this evening bleating that "no-one had said that the prices of ordinary items would go up". Just what bloody planet was he on in June?
I have not seen the debate last night between Trump and Clinton but two thoughts struck me looking at the commentary ad it was in areas that have received less attention but which prove to be the most important influencers on the campaign:
(1) Clinton's comments about swinging the Supreme Court to a more liberal bent. My bet is that persuades many conservatives that, no matter how unpalatable Trump is personally, they need to vote for him, if only to stop SCOTUS swinging to the left for an entire generation. In that way, HRC may have - inadvertedly - done Trump a huge favour.
A few people have mentioned on here that the GOP is looking to bolster the Senate in order to block any nominations by a President HRC - that would be a non-starter: whilst the Senate could theoretically block appointments, to block at least one and possibly up to three appointments for anywhere up to four years would be politically impossible and probably lead to the GOP losing the Senate.
(2) By admitting that the Wikileaks on the comments to bankers are essentially true, HRC risks alienating several groups - Midwest voters concerned about the impact of free trade on jobs; Bernie supporters who believe HRC is in the pockets of Goldman Sachs; and so forth.
PS Re what I commented on the polling earlier, one other thing is this: in the GE of 2015, a thread on here stated that the polls were right, we were just looking at the wrong question i.e. we should have been looking at voters views on a suitable PM and not their party voting. Now look at the US - the percentage of people who say the country is on the wrong track is c. a net 40% ahead. For a continuity candidate such as HRC, that is poison.
Still, as I was saying for about five years before June 23rd, it would have been more sensible for those advocating Brexit to have had the debate about what it might look like before the decision was taken.
On rolling the dice and getting double sixes vs snake eyes, well Brexit is neither. It is pre-emptive action to protect the nation from a future populist uprising that we've been seeing in the US. They are very lucky that Nige is ineligible to run for president over there, he would have absolutely walked it, and the problems in America don't go away when Trump loses.
All across the EU we're seeing populists in the ascendancy or rising. Fidesz won in Poland, Orban is dominant in Hungary, Bepe Grillo is probably going to be the next Italian PM, Le Pen is in with a shout in France, the FPO will probably win the rerun in Austria, AfD will comfortably be the largest non-governing party in the Bundestag. There are also more UKIP style parties in Northern Europe, PVV in the Netherlands, the True Finns are in the governing coalition, the Sweden Democrats are polling relatively well and will gain seats, possibly end up as the largest party.
So looking across the channel at the rebellion against the establishment, Brexit is a symptom of the larger disease of wealth and income inequality. It is at times like these that we must look after our own and get our own house in order or everything we've built will be swept away. I'd rather Brexit than deal with a very messy populist uprising in 10-15 years.
What of a populist uprising in five years time when the voters rise up against the Leavers who promised them economic sunny uplands if they voted Leave turns out to be an economic disaster?
An economic disaster for you and I perhaps, it is our industry which is most at risk of being traded for migrant curbs. I'm not sure that someone earning the minimum wage working in Argos really gives a shit though. In fact that person will be earning £9/h in 2020, so should have seen a fairly large real terms pay increase. The short term issues we might have today are worth the long term stability that comes with making our democracy legitimate. Moving power one step closer to the people can only be a good thing, when it becomes too remote people become rebellious. With more decisions being made in Westminster we can hold our politicians to account in a way we've never been able to do with Brussels.
And what decisions are those then Max?
Staying in the single market? Free movement of people? Amendments to tens of thousands of items of legislation?
May won't let MPs debate the first two and the third will be done by statutory instrument on which there will be no debate.
An economic disaster for you and I perhaps, it is our industry which is most at risk of being traded for migrant curbs. I'm not sure that someone earning the minimum wage working in Argos really gives a shit though.
Quite possibly not. That might be however, because they haven't the faintest clue about the fact that London accounts for something like one third of all tax revenues. Ministers are not in a position to ignore such realities. At least, one hopes not.
I'm not sure it's as high as a third! Around 10% iirc. Still a huge sum to risk IMO, though obviously not all of it is at risk, some estimates say a quarter, others say less than a tenth. I'm with Robert, we need a staged and controlled exit from the EU moving out one circle at a time and detaching ourselves from it. It means we won't get immediate satisfaction on immigration but with a few tweaks of our benefits system and following the new German model of "fuck off" we could probably reduce net EU migration a fair amount even within the EEA.
All across the EU we're seeing populists in the ascendancy or rising. Fidesz won in Poland, Orban is dominant in Hungary, Bepe Grillo is probably going to be the next Italian PM, Le Pen is in with a shout in France, the FPO will probably win the rerun in Austria, AfD will comfortably be the largest non-governing party in the Bundestag. There are also more UKIP style parties in Northern Europe, PVV in the Netherlands, the True Finns are in the governing coalition, the Sweden Democrats are polling relatively well and will gain seats, possibly end up as the largest party.
So looking across the channel at the rebellion against the establishment, Brexit is a symptom of the larger disease of wealth and income inequality. It is at times like these that we must look after our own and get our own house in order or everything we've built will be swept away. I'd rather Brexit than deal with a very messy populist uprising in 10-15 years.
Except that Brexit does next to nothing to address the real concerns that you rightly highlight, and if the economy goes pear shaped the wealth/inequality is likely to become worse rather than better. All the other things that May spelled out as aspirations in her conference speech (as yet unsupported by any actual proposals as to how to achieve them) could have been done with or without Brexit.
It might, it might not. We've been through this before. Telling people who have very little to lose that it will get worse is not going to win any arguments. The worst case scenario for many people is no change, maybe a few things get more expensive but at the same time housing costs might go down as well.
The question is really, would staying in the EU have made anything better, the answer was a pretty resounding no. Again, easier for people at the top of the income scale, we benefit from globalisation and from the EU single market, at least in monetary terms. At the bottom end it meant an unlimited pool of unskilled labour to drive down wages. It meant higher housing costs in perpetuity due to continued migration, it meant a continuation of New Labour's culture war on the WWC. None of these was desirable, and when the alternative is merely going to the same in a worst case scenario, well we know what happened.
But you have shifted the argument. Your point, as I understood it, was better Brexit now than revolution later. But if Brexit does next to nothing to stave off any potential revolution (for which read electing some extremist) then your argument collapses. Indeed Brexit going pear shaped is basically Corbyn's only chance; a chance he wouldn't have had with a remain vote.
My last major trade was balancing my book against Donald @ ~3.1 a few minutes into the first debate right as he was stumbling over his tax returns.
Currently;
+27 Clinton +75 Kaine +-0 Donald & everyone else who can be laid +150 Anyone else.
I could green out for +22.5, but I think Clinton is still value @ 1.24 so I'm not going to.
I have something very similar. Have traded around 4% of the whole market to date (about 2.5m) , I guess that will go down as I am not likely to do much more.
The likelihood is it will be neither an economic disaster, nor an economic boom.
Roughly agree. Brexit will be a drag rather than a disaster as long as we are sensible - and Mrs May hasn't been entirely sensible so far. But it will be very messy, distracting and bad -tempered. It certainly won't be "freedom" in any sense that is meaningful to me.
Still, as I was saying for about five years before June 23rd, it would have been more sensible for those advocating Brexit to have had the debate about what it might look like before the decision was taken.
Ideally we would have had a choice of:
Absorption into a Euro federal state The Staus Quo Ante Cameron's deal EEA/EFTA Soft Brexit Hard Brexit Hard as Nails banged into your forehead Brexit
Speaking of idiots there was a chap on the BBC News at Ten this evening bleating that "no-one had said that the prices of ordinary items would go up". Just what bloody planet was he on in June?
Well prices have not gone up, inflation was 0.6% in August.
Speaking of idiots there was a chap on the BBC News at Ten this evening bleating that "no-one had said that the prices of ordinary items would go up". Just what bloody planet was he on in June?
Well prices have not gone up, inflation was 0.6% in August.
Tell that to anyone booking a winter break in the Canaries.
Incidentally, I thought the sense-of-humour-failure amongst a string of Leavers on the last thread was very telling indeed.
I don't find it rib-tickingly funny to be described as "nihilistic cunts" but everyone's sense of humour is different.
I found it greatly amusing, who knew Leavers were such delicate flowers.
I'm sure all those PBers offended by Tyson's comments were similarly outraged on the many occasions when SeanT calls remainers 'Traitorous c*nts'
I'm sure you did find it amusing. But, I think you're also realising that you have little in common now with people on the right of the political spectrum, and much more in common with Tyson et al.
Speaking of idiots there was a chap on the BBC News at Ten this evening bleating that "no-one had said that the prices of ordinary items would go up". Just what bloody planet was he on in June?
Well prices have not gone up, inflation was 0.6% in August.
Because businesses have stocks, pay (or commit to a price) for orders in advance, and larger ones hedge against future currency risks for six months or a year forward.
I have not seen the debate last night between Trump and Clinton but two thoughts struck me looking at the commentary ad it was in areas that have received less attention but which prove to be the most important influencers on the campaign:
(1) Clinton's comments about swinging the Supreme Court to a more liberal bent. My bet is that persuades many conservatives that, no matter how unpalatable Trump is personally, they need to vote for him, if only to stop SCOTUS swinging to the left for an entire generation. In that way, HRC may have - inadvertedly - done Trump a huge favour.
A few people have mentioned on here that the GOP is looking to bolster the Senate in order to block any nominations by a President HRC - that would be a non-starter: whilst the Senate could theoretically block appointments, to block at least one and possibly up to three appointments for anywhere up to four years would be politically impossible and probably lead to the GOP losing the Senate.
(2) By admitting that the Wikileaks on the comments to bankers are essentially true, HRC risks alienating several groups - Midwest voters concerned about the impact of free trade on jobs; Bernie supporters who believe HRC is in the pockets of Goldman Sachs; and so forth.
PS Re what I commented on the polling earlier, one other thing is this: in the GE of 2015, a thread on here stated that the polls were right, we were just looking at the wrong question i.e. we should have been looking at voters views on a suitable PM and not their party voting. Now look at the US - the percentage of people who say the country is on the wrong track is c. a net 40% ahead. For a continuity candidate such as HRC, that is poison.
On 1.
Voters don't care about the supreme court, Senators do.
They can leave the entire Supreme Court empty and no one would care except Chuck Todd.
Still, as I was saying for about five years before June 23rd, it would have been more sensible for those advocating Brexit to have had the debate about what it might look like before the decision was taken.
I looked at the list posted earlier of the Leave campaign board. I counted approximately three current Cabinet ministers.
As was repeatedly pointed out to you before June 23rd, the onus to produce a plan for a Leave vote was on the government as it was the government to implement it. Not only did they not, the previous PM actively prevented any work being done on it. It was the most shocking dereliction of duty and for that alone I'm glad he's gone.
Incidentally, I thought the sense-of-humour-failure amongst a string of Leavers on the last thread was very telling indeed.
I don't find it rib-tickingly funny to be described as "nihilistic cunts" but everyone's sense of humour is different.
I found it greatly amusing, who knew Leavers were such delicate flowers.
I'm sure all those PBers offended by Tyson's comments were similarly outraged on the many occasions when SeanT calls remainers 'Traitorous c*nts'
I'm sure you did find it amusing. But, I think you're also realising that you have little in common now with people on the right of the political spectrum, and much more in common with Tyson et al.
I really don't.
I spent Monday and Tuesday at the Tory conference, and I'm still surrounded by enough like minded people.
Very few Remainers on this site address anything other than short-term economic outcomes.
It's a fair point. The reason for that (at least in my case) is a conviction that planning beyond a 5-year horizon is difficult and true prosperity comes from ensuring that next week/year is a bit better than this week/year. "Reculer pour mieux sauter" (see here) is very romantic, but ultimately...nah.
Incidentally, I thought the sense-of-humour-failure amongst a string of Leavers on the last thread was very telling indeed.
I don't find it rib-tickingly funny to be described as "nihilistic cunts" but everyone's sense of humour is different.
I found it greatly amusing, who knew Leavers were such delicate flowers.
I'm sure all those PBers offended by Tyson's comments were similarly outraged on the many occasions when SeanT calls remainers 'Traitorous c*nts'
I'm sure you did find it amusing. But, I think you're also realising that you have little in common now with people on the right of the political spectrum, and much more in common with Tyson et al.
But you have shifted the argument. Your point, as I understood it, was better Brexit now than revolution later. But if Brexit does next to nothing to stave off any potential revolution (for which read electing some extremist) then your argument collapses. Indeed Brexit going pear shaped is basically Corbyn's only chance; a chance he wouldn't have had with a remain vote.
(I think Fidesz is Hungary not Poland btw)
Yes and it still is, as I said a remain vote stores up a democratic deficit which would eventually result in a populist takeover as is happening all across the continent. A leave vote might not solve the core problem, and I'm not sure that it does, personally, but remaining definitely wouldn't have and would have exacerbated the existing problems I outlined. To do that we need a revolution in education and a near term resettlement of wages, benefits and taxes, something the government probably won't do (and would not be possible within the EU without essentially running a closed shop like Switzerland in low and semi skilled work).
As was repeatedly pointed out to you before June 23rd, the onus to produce a plan for a Leave vote was on the government as it was the government to implement it. Not only did they not, the previous PM actively prevented any work being done on it. It was the most shocking dereliction of duty and for that alone I'm glad he's gone.
It was 'pointed out', as you put it, most unconvincingly, by Leavers embarrassed at their own side's dereliction of duty. Quite how on earth David Cameron was supposed to make the difficult political choices inherent in the incoherence of the Leave economic case was never explained. What's more, he would have been bitterly attacked if he had tried to. What kind of Brexit was he supposed to have been planning for?
Still, as I was saying for about five years before June 23rd, it would have been more sensible for those advocating Brexit to have had the debate about what it might look like before the decision was taken.
Ideally we would have had a choice of:
Absorption into a Euro federal state The Staus Quo Ante Cameron's deal EEA/EFTA Soft Brexit Hard Brexit Hard as Nails banged into your forehead Brexit
All on the ballot paper, and decided by AV.
Options 2 and 3 were never options, of course.
It should have been a two question ballot paper: Remain/Leave followed by "if Leave, EEA/Completely Out".
Incidentally, I thought the sense-of-humour-failure amongst a string of Leavers on the last thread was very telling indeed.
I don't find it rib-tickingly funny to be described as "nihilistic cunts" but everyone's sense of humour is different.
I found it greatly amusing, who knew Leavers were such delicate flowers.
I'm sure all those PBers offended by Tyson's comments were similarly outraged on the many occasions when SeanT calls remainers 'Traitorous c*nts'
I'm sure you did find it amusing. But, I think you're also realising that you have little in common now with people on the right of the political spectrum, and much more in common with Tyson et al.
I really don't.
Come over to the Dark Side, we have cookies...
The trouble with TSE is that he is too sensible to see that his own side don't want him any more...
I have not seen the debate last night between Trump and Clinton but two thoughts struck me looking at the commentary ad it was in areas that have received less attention but which prove to be the most important influencers on the campaign:
(1) Clinton's comments about swinging the Supreme Court to a more liberal bent. My bet is that persuades many conservatives that, no matter how unpalatable Trump is personally, they need to vote for him, if only to stop SCOTUS swinging to the left for an entire generation. In that way, HRC may have - inadvertedly - done Trump a huge favour.
A few people have mentioned on here that the GOP is looking to bolster the Senate in order to block any nominations by a President HRC - that would be a non-starter: whilst the Senate could theoretically block appointments, to block at least one and possibly up to three appointments for anywhere up to four years would be politically impossible and probably lead to the GOP losing the Senate.
(2) By admitting that the Wikileaks on the comments to bankers are essentially true, HRC risks alienating several groups - Midwest voters concerned about the impact of free trade on jobs; Bernie supporters who believe HRC is in the pockets of Goldman Sachs; and so forth.
PS Re what I commented on the polling earlier, one other thing is this: in the GE of 2015, a thread on here stated that the polls were right, we were just looking at the wrong question i.e. we should have been looking at voters views on a suitable PM and not their party voting. Now look at the US - the percentage of people who say the country is on the wrong track is c. a net 40% ahead. For a continuity candidate such as HRC, that is poison.
Equally, HRC might have persuaded Bernie supporters to come out and vote over the Scotus issue. It's a wash till we see some polling (or voting). Your PS about the wrong question is interesting but didn't really fit here and over there in a binary system looks even less convincing.
Speaking of idiots there was a chap on the BBC News at Ten this evening bleating that "no-one had said that the prices of ordinary items would go up". Just what bloody planet was he on in June?
Well prices have not gone up, inflation was 0.6% in August.
Tell that to anyone booking a winter break in the Canaries.
Still, as I was saying for about five years before June 23rd, it would have been more sensible for those advocating Brexit to have had the debate about what it might look like before the decision was taken.
I looked at the list posted earlier of the Leave campaign board. I counted approximately three current Cabinet ministers.
As was repeatedly pointed out to you before June 23rd, the onus to produce a plan for a Leave vote was on the government as it was the government to implement it. Not only did they not, the previous PM actively prevented any work being done on it. It was the most shocking dereliction of duty and for that alone I'm glad he's gone.
I know we have gone over this a hundred times before. Who says the onus is on those that warn that a particular decision will be a disaster to make the plans for the implementation of said disaster because those cheerleading it don't want make their own plans that would would reveal just how much of a disaster it would be?
My last major trade was balancing my book against Donald @ ~3.1 a few minutes into the first debate right as he was stumbling over his tax returns.
Currently;
+27 Clinton +75 Kaine +-0 Donald & everyone else who can be laid +150 Anyone else.
I could green out for +22.5, but I think Clinton is still value @ 1.24 so I'm not going to.
I have something very similar. Have traded around 4% of the whole market to date (about 2.5m) , I guess that will go down as I am not likely to do much more.
lol. Yeah the market is probably going up to 250m+
If you don't mind me asking, how are you balanced?
Follow up Q - did you end up doing ok on the GOP NOM market? IIRC you were heavily invested.
It was 'pointed out', as you put it, most unconvincingly, by Leavers embarrassed at their own side's dereliction of duty. Quite how on earth David Cameron was supposed to make the difficult political choices inherent in the incoherence of the Leave economic case was never explained. What's more, he would have been bitterly attacked if he had tried to. What kind of Brexit was he supposed to have been planning for?
Are the Brexiteers really still whining that they wanted the Remain camp to clean up their shit?
Speaking of idiots there was a chap on the BBC News at Ten this evening bleating that "no-one had said that the prices of ordinary items would go up". Just what bloody planet was he on in June?
Well prices have not gone up, inflation was 0.6% in August.
In that case prices have gone up by 0.6%. Petrol will be pushing £1.20 per litre by the end of the month so that's £100+ pa just in petrol.
He has a very valid point: if the losers hadn't kept fighting the battle they had already lost and had advocated an EEA-type solution, there would have been a majority for it.
And that's why we should have had a two question ballot paper.
Incidentally, I thought the sense-of-humour-failure amongst a string of Leavers on the last thread was very telling indeed.
I don't find it rib-tickingly funny to be described as "nihilistic cunts" but everyone's sense of humour is different.
I found it greatly amusing, who knew Leavers were such delicate flowers.
I'm sure all those PBers offended by Tyson's comments were similarly outraged on the many occasions when SeanT calls remainers 'Traitorous c*nts'
I'm sure you did find it amusing. But, I think you're also realising that you have little in common now with people on the right of the political spectrum, and much more in common with Tyson et al.
I really don't.
Come over to the Dark Side, we have cookies...
Unlike Sean, I will stay and fight my corner in the Tory party and not scuttle off elsewhere.
Plus leaving the Tory party will not help my chances of becoming George Osborne's Chief of Staff when he becomes PM
It was 'pointed out', as you put it, most unconvincingly, by Leavers embarrassed at their own side's dereliction of duty. Quite how on earth David Cameron was supposed to make the difficult political choices inherent in the incoherence of the Leave economic case was never explained. What's more, he would have been bitterly attacked if he had tried to. What kind of Brexit was he supposed to have been planning for?
Are the Brexiteers really still whining that they wanted the Remain camp to clean up their shit?
Will they ever grow out of it?
They are too busy moaning to be cleaning anything up!
Incidentally, I thought the sense-of-humour-failure amongst a string of Leavers on the last thread was very telling indeed.
I don't find it rib-tickingly funny to be described as "nihilistic cunts" but everyone's sense of humour is different.
I found it greatly amusing, who knew Leavers were such delicate flowers.
I'm sure all those PBers offended by Tyson's comments were similarly outraged on the many occasions when SeanT calls remainers 'Traitorous c*nts'
I'm sure you did find it amusing. But, I think you're also realising that you have little in common now with people on the right of the political spectrum, and much more in common with Tyson et al.
I really don't.
Come over to the Dark Side, we have cookies...
The trouble with TSE is that he is too sensible to see that his own side don't want him any more...
I admit I've been surprised by Theresa May's enthusiasm for Brexit, and so, I suspect, has TSE.
It was 'pointed out', as you put it, most unconvincingly, by Leavers embarrassed at their own side's dereliction of duty. Quite how on earth David Cameron was supposed to make the difficult political choices inherent in the incoherence of the Leave economic case was never explained. What's more, he would have been bitterly attacked if he had tried to. What kind of Brexit was he supposed to have been planning for?
Are the Brexiteers really still whining that they wanted the Remain camp to clean up their shit?
Will they ever grow out of it?
It's as it Jeremy Corbyn walked into Downing Street and spent the next 6 months attacking the Tories for not making any contingency plans for his victory.
"Why did you hold a General Election if there were no preparations to implement my policies?!"
It was 'pointed out', as you put it, most unconvincingly, by Leavers embarrassed at their own side's dereliction of duty. Quite how on earth David Cameron was supposed to make the difficult political choices inherent in the incoherence of the Leave economic case was never explained. What's more, he would have been bitterly attacked if he had tried to. What kind of Brexit was he supposed to have been planning for?
Are the Brexiteers really still whining that they wanted the Remain camp to clean up their shit?
Will they ever grow out of it?
It's as it Jeremy Corbyn walked into Downing Street and spent the next 6 months attacking the Tories for not making any contingency plans for his victory.
"Why did you hold a General Election if there were no preparations to implement my policies?!"
Except the Civil Service do meet with opposition leaders/shadow cabinet ministers before the election for discussions.
As was repeatedly pointed out to you before June 23rd, the onus to produce a plan for a Leave vote was on the government as it was the government to implement it. Not only did they not, the previous PM actively prevented any work being done on it. It was the most shocking dereliction of duty and for that alone I'm glad he's gone.
It was 'pointed out', as you put it, most unconvincingly, by Leavers embarrassed at their own side's dereliction of duty. Quite how on earth David Cameron was supposed to make the difficult political choices inherent in the incoherence of the Leave economic case was never explained. What's more, he would have been bitterly attacked if he had tried to. What kind of Brexit was he supposed to have been planning for?
One he would have been happy with. Governments shouldn't put to referendums options which they aren't prepared to carry out.
But you have shifted the argument. Your point, as I understood it, was better Brexit now than revolution later. But if Brexit does next to nothing to stave off any potential revolution (for which read electing some extremist) then your argument collapses. Indeed Brexit going pear shaped is basically Corbyn's only chance; a chance he wouldn't have had with a remain vote.
(I think Fidesz is Hungary not Poland btw)
Yes and it still is, as I said a remain vote stores up a democratic deficit which would eventually result in a populist takeover as is happening all across the continent. A leave vote might not solve the core problem, and I'm not sure that it does, personally, but remaining definitely wouldn't have and would have exacerbated the existing problems I outlined. To do that we need a revolution in education and a near term resettlement of wages, benefits and taxes, something the government probably won't do (and would not be possible within the EU without essentially running a closed shop like Switzerland in low and semi skilled work).
My mistake, Poland is Jobik!
I think you are mixing up the adverse effects of the post-2008 economy, QE and ZIRP, which are creating inequality and inter-generational discontent across the developed economies (arguably more so outside the EU where economies are more unequal to start with) and the question of our EU membership and decisions at Westminster or Brussels. The latter has very little to do with the former.
And also overlooking that it is immigration from outside the EU that is fuelling much of the right-wing reaction across Europe. Intra-EU migration is a particularly British concern.
Speaking of idiots there was a chap on the BBC News at Ten this evening bleating that "no-one had said that the prices of ordinary items would go up". Just what bloody planet was he on in June?
Well prices have not gone up, inflation was 0.6% in August.
Tell that to anyone booking a winter break in the Canaries.
@AlbertoNardelli: Unsurprisingly, Hannan is wrong. EU has an FTA with Chile, there are currently no tarrifs on Chilean wine winesofchile.org/en/news/07-201… twitter.com/danieljhannan/…
@DanielJHannan: Turns out the EU applies a 32% tariff to all New World wine except Chile's. Mea culpa.
(1) There have been several examples within the past 12 months of where the political polling has been out by a considerable margin - Brexit / Spain / Austria
(2) Political polls seem to be particularly prone to be out when one view is particularly controversial / considered toxic - Brexit post-the Jo Cox murder / Austria again with Hofer / AfD in the state polls in Germany to a lesser degree (ps before anyone starts claiming with Brexit that the polls were "right all along", that is a revisionist argument by the polling companies to save themselves: they generally were not).
We know that Trump is considered toxic and also that he attracts a lot of bile. So, if we are assuming that the polls are right in this election, then that would mean that:
(1) US polling is of higher infinitely quality than that in Europe and / or; (2) That US voters are willing to state their views in a way that European voters are not
I definitely do not see much evidence of (1) and, given the US is probably more PC-led than Europe, I have considerable doubts about (2).
So, while Trump looks the underdog, it would be dangerous to place too much emphasis on the polls.
Finally, a point that was raised by Williamglenn earlier - what is interesting about the polls is that, in many cases, the two combined struggle to score above a combined percentage of 90% and that, generally, when Clinton's lead extends, it is more because Trump's score falls than HRC's rises. That may - but only may - be a sign of "Shy Trumpsters".
Except this time Clinton's share is actually rising. And one argument for a Clinton "shy" vote rather than a Trump one could be this Many more husbands say they think their wives will vote for Trump then wives think their husbands will vote for Clinton. If women are lying to the husbands then a small number could be lying not the polls. I think one poll found a MAJORITY of husbands/boyfriends belive their spouses will vote with them for Trump when that just isn't happening.
Also you're wrong on the Hofer election- the polls showed he would win by 6% but in the end was close. A surge in low turnout left leaning voters often happens when a far right extremist candidate looks like they will win.
Still, as I was saying for about five years before June 23rd, it would have been more sensible for those advocating Brexit to have had the debate about what it might look like before the decision was taken.
I looked at the list posted earlier of the Leave campaign board. I counted approximately three current Cabinet ministers.
As was repeatedly pointed out to you before June 23rd, the onus to produce a plan for a Leave vote was on the government as it was the government to implement it. Not only did they not, the previous PM actively prevented any work being done on it. It was the most shocking dereliction of duty and for that alone I'm glad he's gone.
I know we have gone over this a hundred times before. Who says the onus is on those that warn that a particular decision will be a disaster to make the plans for the implementation of said disaster because those cheerleading it don't want make their own plans that would would reveal just how much of a disaster it would be?
If they genuinely thought it would be a disaster, they shouldn't have offered the option.
He has a very valid point: if the losers hadn't kept fighting the battle they had already lost and had advocated an EEA-type solution, there would have been a majority for it.
And that's why we should have had a two question ballot paper.
Dan Hannan's meltdown today has been a joy to view.
I haven't seen it. Let me guess.
a) Something has gone wrong. b) It's the fault of the Remainians/EU somehow. c) Nothing Leavers do is ever wrong. If they do do wrong, well it's still Remainian/EU's fault somehow
Still, as I was saying for about five years before June 23rd, it would have been more sensible for those advocating Brexit to have had the debate about what it might look like before the decision was taken.
I looked at the list posted earlier of the Leave campaign board. I counted approximately three current Cabinet ministers.
As was repeatedly pointed out to you before June 23rd, the onus to produce a plan for a Leave vote was on the government as it was the government to implement it. Not only did they not, the previous PM actively prevented any work being done on it. It was the most shocking dereliction of duty and for that alone I'm glad he's gone.
I know we have gone over this a hundred times before. Who says the onus is on those that warn that a particular decision will be a disaster to make the plans for the implementation of said disaster because those cheerleading it don't want make their own plans that would would reveal just how much of a disaster it would be?
I think most Leavers treated it as a vote of confidence in the EU. And really, how else should they have treated it? The counter-argument was, yes, the EU is awful, but better the devil you know.
It was 'pointed out', as you put it, most unconvincingly, by Leavers embarrassed at their own side's dereliction of duty. Quite how on earth David Cameron was supposed to make the difficult political choices inherent in the incoherence of the Leave economic case was never explained. What's more, he would have been bitterly attacked if he had tried to. What kind of Brexit was he supposed to have been planning for?
Are the Brexiteers really still whining that they wanted the Remain camp to clean up their shit?
Will they ever grow out of it?
They are too busy moaning to be cleaning anything up!
The leave camp are not, and you may not have realised this, the government.
The last government failed in its duty to plan so the current government is starting from scratch whilst trying to find of a noisy minority of bitter losers.
@AlbertoNardelli: Unsurprisingly, Hannan is wrong. EU has an FTA with Chile, there are currently no tarrifs on Chilean wine winesofchile.org/en/news/07-201… twitter.com/danieljhannan/…
@DanielJHannan: Turns out the EU applies a 32% tariff to all New World wine except Chile's. Mea culpa.
This, and Douglas Carswell not knowing how the tides work, I have to say, how the feck did we lose a referendum to these bell ends?
It is like losing a military campaign against France.
Except the Civil Service do meet with opposition leaders/shadow cabinet ministers before the election for discussions.
Yes, but normally the opposition has a set of planned policies which they put into a manifesto. In the referendum the Leave side had - deliberately, one assumes - failed to specify what alternative to the EU they were aiming for. That debate has now started, but it beggars belief that anyone can have the temerity to blame the previous government for not making detailed plans for a political scenario which the Leave side adamantly refused to lay out.
@AlbertoNardelli: Unsurprisingly, Hannan is wrong. EU has an FTA with Chile, there are currently no tarrifs on Chilean wine winesofchile.org/en/news/07-201… twitter.com/danieljhannan/…
@DanielJHannan: Turns out the EU applies a 32% tariff to all New World wine except Chile's. Mea culpa.
If he is promising cheaper Ozzie and Kiwi wine then at least we will be able to afford some to drown our sorrows at not being able to afford the European stuff.
Speaking of idiots there was a chap on the BBC News at Ten this evening bleating that "no-one had said that the prices of ordinary items would go up". Just what bloody planet was he on in June?
Well prices have not gone up, inflation was 0.6% in August.
Tell that to anyone booking a winter break in the Canaries.
Still, as I was saying for about five years before June 23rd, it would have been more sensible for those advocating Brexit to have had the debate about what it might look like before the decision was taken.
I looked at the list posted earlier of the Leave campaign board. I counted approximately three current Cabinet ministers.
As was repeatedly pointed out to you before June 23rd, the onus to produce a plan for a Leave vote was on the government as it was the government to implement it. Not only did they not, the previous PM actively prevented any work being done on it. It was the most shocking dereliction of duty and for that alone I'm glad he's gone.
I know we have gone over this a hundred times before. Who says the onus is on those that warn that a particular decision will be a disaster to make the plans for the implementation of said disaster because those cheerleading it don't want make their own plans that would would reveal just how much of a disaster it would be?
If they genuinely thought it would be a disaster, they shouldn't have offered the option.
If you are talking about David Cameron, rather the poor voters that have to make head or tail of it, I agree with you. The referendum was profoundly stupid. You get to eliminate just one option, Membership of the EU, without considering any particular other option. Turns out that was the best option now we get to consider the others. We are barred from choosing the best option now and have to make the best of our poor alternatives. And rightly so. The result has to be respected.
@AlbertoNardelli: Unsurprisingly, Hannan is wrong. EU has an FTA with Chile, there are currently no tarrifs on Chilean wine winesofchile.org/en/news/07-201… twitter.com/danieljhannan/…
@DanielJHannan: Turns out the EU applies a 32% tariff to all New World wine except Chile's. Mea culpa.
This, and Douglas Carswell not knowing how the tides work, I have to say, how the feck did we lose a referendum to these bell ends?
It is like losing a military campaign against France.
Truly shameful
Two possibilities. Either you made worse arguments, or you were selling a duff product.
@AlbertoNardelli: Unsurprisingly, Hannan is wrong. EU has an FTA with Chile, there are currently no tarrifs on Chilean wine winesofchile.org/en/news/07-201… twitter.com/danieljhannan/…
@DanielJHannan: Turns out the EU applies a 32% tariff to all New World wine except Chile's. Mea culpa.
This, and Douglas Carswell not knowing how the tides work, I have to say, how the feck did we lose a referendum to these bell ends?
It is like losing a military campaign against France.
One he would have been happy with. Governments shouldn't put to referendums options which they aren't prepared to carry out.
David Cameron is not so arrogant as to claim infallibility. Others, including some of his senior colleagues, argued that leaving was a good idea. Fair enough. He disagreed, but he held the referendum and the Leave side won. You have to perform some quite extraordinary moral and political gymnastics to blame him, rather than those advocating Leave, for any incoherence in the planning of the course he was advising against.
@AlbertoNardelli: Unsurprisingly, Hannan is wrong. EU has an FTA with Chile, there are currently no tarrifs on Chilean wine winesofchile.org/en/news/07-201… twitter.com/danieljhannan/…
@DanielJHannan: Turns out the EU applies a 32% tariff to all New World wine except Chile's. Mea culpa.
This, and Douglas Carswell not knowing how the tides work, I have to say, how the feck did we lose a referendum to these bell ends?
It is like losing a military campaign against France.
Truly shameful
Two possibilities. Either you made worse arguments, or you were selling a duff product.
He probably did both.
But what can you expect by a campaign lead by Paddy Ashdown, Will Straw and David Cameron.
Still, as I was saying for about five years before June 23rd, it would have been more sensible for those advocating Brexit to have had the debate about what it might look like before the decision was taken.
I looked at the list posted earlier of the Leave campaign board. I counted approximately three current Cabinet ministers.
As was repeatedly pointed out to you before June 23rd, the onus to produce a plan for a Leave vote was on the government as it was the government to implement it. Not only did they not, the previous PM actively prevented any work being done on it. It was the most shocking dereliction of duty and for that alone I'm glad he's gone.
I know we have gone over this a hundred times before. Who says the onus is on those that warn that a particular decision will be a disaster to make the plans for the implementation of said disaster because those cheerleading it don't want make their own plans that would would reveal just how much of a disaster it would be?
If they genuinely thought it would be a disaster, they shouldn't have offered the option.
If you are talking about David Cameron, rather the poor voters that have to make head or tail of it, I agree with you. The referendum was profoundly stupid. You get to eliminate just one option, Membership of the EU, without considering any particular other option. Turns out that was the best option now we get to consider the others. We are barred from choosing the best option now and have to make the best of our poor alternatives. And rightly so. The result has to be respected.
No, we've rejected the worst option. Now that we have, everyone needs to accept that and move on to reaching the best (or at least, the least worst) option.
But too many bitter losers are still fighting the last battle. It's getting to be too late for them to influence the next one.
Except the Civil Service do meet with opposition leaders/shadow cabinet ministers before the election for discussions.
Yes, but normally the opposition has a set of planned policies which they put into a manifesto. In the referendum the Leave side had - deliberately, one assumes - failed to specify what alternative to the EU they were aiming for. That debate has now started, but it beggars belief that anyone can have the temerity to blame the previous government for not making detailed plans for a political scenario which the Leave side adamantly refused to lay out.
Usually, a referendum is called by a government, which sets out a detailed proposal for the people to endorse - or reject.
He has a very valid point: if the losers hadn't kept fighting the battle they had already lost and had advocated an EEA-type solution, there would have been a majority for it.
Remind me again. If we assume that the current government is a LEAVE government (and given that we are executing Order 66 - - then it's a defensible proposition) then what exactly is stopping the current government from going EEA/EFTA?
Leave won. It has agency. Why is it blaming powerless Remainians for anything?
I think most Leavers treated it as a vote of confidence in the EU. And really, how else should they have treated it? The counter-argument was, yes, the EU is awful, but better the devil you know.
I would expect a political campaign for change to have, if not a worked out plan, at least indications of a policy that could work. They kept it completely vague to win the election. Everyone could project what they wanted onto a Leave vote. It worked in getting a result
One he would have been happy with. Governments shouldn't put to referendums options which they aren't prepared to carry out.
David Cameron is not so arrogant as to claim infallibility. Others, including some of his senior colleagues, argued that leaving was a good idea. Fair enough. He disagreed, but he held the referendum and the Leave side won. You have to perform some quite extraordinary moral and political gymnastics to blame him, rather than those advocating Leave, for any incoherence in the planning of the course he was advising against.
If he was advising against change he shouldn't have called the referendum.
The reason he did was he thought he could swindle the British people into endorsing the Project, after which it would have been irreversible. Utterly despicable behaviour, of course.
One he would have been happy with. Governments shouldn't put to referendums options which they aren't prepared to carry out.
David Cameron is not so arrogant as to claim infallibility. Others, including some of his senior colleagues, argued that leaving was a good idea. Fair enough. He disagreed, but he held the referendum and the Leave side won. You have to perform some quite extraordinary moral and political gymnastics to blame him, rather than those advocating Leave, for any incoherence in the planning of the course he was advising against.
There, Cameron has to be given credit. He promised the Referendum, and he delivered it.
Comments
https://twitter.com/BenChu_/status/785408832986046464
https://twitter.com/BenChu_/status/785409148116725760
The question is really, would staying in the EU have made anything better, the answer was a pretty resounding no. Again, easier for people at the top of the income scale, we benefit from globalisation and from the EU single market, at least in monetary terms. At the bottom end it meant an unlimited pool of unskilled labour to drive down wages. It meant higher housing costs in perpetuity due to continued migration, it meant a continuation of New Labour's culture war on the WWC. None of these was desirable, and when the alternative is merely going to the same in a worst case scenario, well we know what happened.
That's the problem, sure before the debate Trump was losing 48 states, but after his debate victory what is the picture ?
http://brexitcentral.com/
I agree tyson is extremely unfunny.
I'm sure all those PBers offended by Tyson's comments were similarly outraged on the many occasions when SeanT calls remainers 'Traitorous c*nts'
(1) Clinton's comments about swinging the Supreme Court to a more liberal bent. My bet is that persuades many conservatives that, no matter how unpalatable Trump is personally, they need to vote for him, if only to stop SCOTUS swinging to the left for an entire generation. In that way, HRC may have - inadvertedly - done Trump a huge favour.
A few people have mentioned on here that the GOP is looking to bolster the Senate in order to block any nominations by a President HRC - that would be a non-starter: whilst the Senate could theoretically block appointments, to block at least one and possibly up to three appointments for anywhere up to four years would be politically impossible and probably lead to the GOP losing the Senate.
(2) By admitting that the Wikileaks on the comments to bankers are essentially true, HRC risks alienating several groups - Midwest voters concerned about the impact of free trade on jobs; Bernie supporters who believe HRC is in the pockets of Goldman Sachs; and so forth.
PS Re what I commented on the polling earlier, one other thing is this: in the GE of 2015, a thread on here stated that the polls were right, we were just looking at the wrong question i.e. we should have been looking at voters views on a suitable PM and not their party voting. Now look at the US - the percentage of people who say the country is on the wrong track is c. a net 40% ahead. For a continuity candidate such as HRC, that is poison.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/10/tory-mps-clamour-for-more-say-as-davis-rules-out-vote-on-brexit-terms
I think the parliamentary maths means it's all a waste of time.
Tory MPs: 329
Plus
UKIP: 1
DUP: 8
Labour Leave: 10
MPs for majority: 323 (excludes Speaker and Sinn Fein)
So there can be up to 25 Tory rebels and May can still do as she likes.
Staying in the single market?
Free movement of people?
Amendments to tens of thousands of items of legislation?
May won't let MPs debate the first two and the third will be done by statutory instrument on which there will be no debate.
But hey, we've "taken back control".
(I think Fidesz is Hungary not Poland btw)
Absorption into a Euro federal state
The Staus Quo Ante
Cameron's deal
EEA/EFTA
Soft Brexit
Hard Brexit
Hard as Nails banged into your forehead Brexit
All on the ballot paper, and decided by AV.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/12031950/City-of-Londons-tax-bill-hits-highest-since-financial-crisis.html
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jul/07/london-top-taxpaying-city-uk-report
These sorts of figures are a bit arbitrary, of course. Still, there's no doubt about the overall point.
Voters don't care about the supreme court, Senators do.
They can leave the entire Supreme Court empty and no one would care except Chuck Todd.
As was repeatedly pointed out to you before June 23rd, the onus to produce a plan for a Leave vote was on the government as it was the government to implement it. Not only did they not, the previous PM actively prevented any work being done on it. It was the most shocking dereliction of duty and for that alone I'm glad he's gone.
I spent Monday and Tuesday at the Tory conference, and I'm still surrounded by enough like minded people.
My mistake, Poland is Jobik!
It should have been a two question ballot paper: Remain/Leave followed by "if Leave, EEA/Completely Out".
HERE ALL WEEK, FOLKS!
If you don't mind me asking, how are you balanced?
Follow up Q - did you end up doing ok on the GOP NOM market? IIRC you were heavily invested.
Will they ever grow out of it?
And that's why we should have had a two question ballot paper.
Plus leaving the Tory party will not help my chances of becoming George Osborne's Chief of Staff when he becomes PM
"Why did you hold a General Election if there were no preparations to implement my policies?!"
No 2 option ballot paper could have revealed a majority position.
We would still be in the same boat we are now, just with a different set of pissed off people.
Is there a debate on Article 50 in the Commons tomorrow?
And also overlooking that it is immigration from outside the EU that is fuelling much of the right-wing reaction across Europe. Intra-EU migration is a particularly British concern.
@AlbertoNardelli: Unsurprisingly, Hannan is wrong. EU has an FTA with Chile, there are currently no tarrifs on Chilean wine winesofchile.org/en/news/07-201… twitter.com/danieljhannan/…
@DanielJHannan: Turns out the EU applies a 32% tariff to all New World wine except Chile's. Mea culpa.
Also you're wrong on the Hofer election- the polls showed he would win by 6% but in the end was close. A surge in low turnout left leaning voters often happens when a far right extremist candidate looks like they will win.
a) Something has gone wrong.
b) It's the fault of the Remainians/EU somehow.
c) Nothing Leavers do is ever wrong. If they do do wrong, well it's still Remainian/EU's fault somehow
Was I right?
The last government failed in its duty to plan so the current government is starting from scratch whilst trying to find of a noisy minority of bitter losers.
It is like losing a military campaign against France.
Truly shameful
https://twitter.com/louisemensch/status/785611528854581248
Here's my favourite tweet from Louise Mensch this year, from the end of June.
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/748638550351028224
"Wah. Why can't someone else clean up my shit? Wah"
What's the phrase? Oh yes...
You won. Suck it up...
But what can you expect by a campaign lead by Paddy Ashdown, Will Straw and David Cameron.
But too many bitter losers are still fighting the last battle. It's getting to be too late for them to influence the next one.
And I think it is a debate about a debate,
Asking people to vote places no obligation on the party campaigning for one side to plan what those on the other side will implement.
Not even Trump is stupid enough to claim that...
Supermarkets often sell a few products as a loss to entice you into the store/shop with them
That could not apply in this case.
I thought it was pretty clear but you don't seem to be grasping it.
Leave won. It has agency. Why is it blaming powerless Remainians for anything?
The reason he did was he thought he could swindle the British people into endorsing the Project, after which it would have been irreversible. Utterly despicable behaviour, of course.
Each of the 3 options is singularly more popular than the other 2.
Read the link.