How do you quantify the cost of membership? Net financial transfers are easy enough but the cost (and benefits) of regulation, social legislation, the opportunity cost (if any) from being within the customs union, the benefit or cost of being in the Single Market, or - for example - the nature of the trade deficits and surplusses are all far more contentious. All the same, they do all add to the sum of the net cost / income, and it's reasonable to include estimates for all within an overall figure. But how to estimate them? That's anyone's guess.
They said 'we are sending £350m a week to the EU', nothing about indirect costs. I don't think any fair-minded person could possibly disagree with the proposition that that was a straightforward lie. I don't throw around accusations of lying, but that one is as clear-cut as they come, and it also has the necessary characteristic of being intentional, since they continued with it after the ONS had pointed out it was garbage.
If the statement was specifically "we're sending £350m per week to the EU", then it's not really a lie. That is a statement of fact. However, it didn't take into account that £80m per week was returned as a rebate and a further £50m per week was "returned" via various spending programmes. Not a lie, just dishonest by not providing context. It was up to the remain campaign to provide that context, but as one of them told me, explaining the figure was worse than just accepting it in focus groups.
I'll offer quite generous odds on this ever seeing a courtroom?
Re the rebate; the money never technically leaves the government's bank account does it?
I think it does, it gets returned to us the following year, at least so say the Treasury.
How do you quantify the cost of membership? Net financial transfers are easy enough but the cost (and benefits) of regulation, social legislation, the opportunity cost (if any) from being within the customs union, the benefit or cost of being in the Single Market, or - for example - the nature of the trade deficits and surplusses are all far more contentious. All the same, they do all add to the sum of the net cost / income, and it's reasonable to include estimates for all within an overall figure. But how to estimate them? That's anyone's guess.
They said 'we are sending £350m a week to the EU' (and said we could instead spend it on the NHS), nothing about indirect costs. I don't think any fair-minded person could possibly disagree with the proposition that that was a straightforward lie. I don't throw around accusations of lying, but that one is as clear-cut as they come, and it also has the necessary characteristic of being intentional, since they continued with it after the ONS had pointed out it was garbage.
Who is 'we'?
Given the current account the country has with the EU, that could reasonably be argued to be a function of the free trade within the union, and that is 'sending money' to the EU (or, technically, into the non-UK EU economy, but that would be within the context of the statement).
I hope the case is thrown out as it deserves to be. It won, it would have a horribly stifling effect on what candidates could say.
Yes and no. If I give you £350 today and you promise to give me £80 back next year, I've still given you £350. I may receive £80 today from last year's rebate, but I'm still giving you £350 today, as in the payment registered with my bank would be £350 paid out to Richard Nabavi.
Nice try, but they also said that, under their proposal, you could spend the £350 on your healthcare plan.
There's no getting away from this. It was a straightforward and deliberate lie. I agree with Alastair, however, that this isn't a matter for a criminal prosecution, and I don't expect it will go anywhere.
Yes well. That was a huge lie. Not a line I ever supported. I even remember arguing with a few people that the £350m figure wasn't fair either. Then again, I wasn't in charge of the campaign.
''I think the various now and planned court cases are doing the "remain" cause no good whatsoever.''
Cheer up, woman of the people Gina Miller is a good spokesperson.
I'd like to see her interviewed more often. When she sat on Andrew Marr's sofa and told Nigel Farage that he should be his biggest fan I could scarcely believe my ears.
Mr. Dawning, my understanding is that Cameron's speech (on security) was rewritten after advanced sight of it caused mocking headlines of his doom-portending. I suspect World War Three didn't feature explicitly beforehand, but it does seem he was planning on a more apocalyptic speech before the papers mocked him.
Yes, that was certainly the explanation that some Leavers started putting about when the text of Cameron's speech was analysed and no WW3 reference was found. But the evidence for this claim remains equally mysterious. Surely such a clumsy and embarrassing volte-face by the Remain campaign would have been newsworthy in itself, yet it was never reported.
If the statement was specifically "we're sending £350m per week to the EU", then it's not really a lie. That is a statement of fact. However, it didn't take into account that £80m per week was returned as a rebate and a further £50m per week was "returned" via various spending programmes. Not a lie, just dishonest by not providing context. It was up to the remain campaign to provide that context, but as one of them told me, explaining the figure was worse than just accepting it in focus groups.
Not including the rebate makes it a lie. Not including the spending programmes is dodgy but permissable, I would say.
The odd thing about it, though, is that it was a completely unnecessary lie. If they'd said £200m a week, or whatever the actual figure is, it would have sounded just as impressive to the average voter. So presumably they wanted Remain to challenge it, for the reason you give. I'm not sure that stands to their credit, if so.
The case still deserves to be summarily chucked out, though.
The £350m claim was discussed ad nauseam in the media, and even the most one eyed leaver spokespeople seemed quite happy to discuss how it was a gross figure etc, etc. If election law is to be used in this way, to prosecute claims of deceits which would take in only the terminally stupid, then you could probably lock up half of the political class.
To my shame, I actually swallowed it myself when a poster on here - a well-know Trump supporter - kept spamming it continuously.
Except that David Cameron really did come very, very close to warning of World War 3 in his speech of 9 May.
After talking about various wars but mainly WW2, the Prime Minister warned:
Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? ... That was true in 1914, in 1940 and in 1989. Or, you could add 1588, 1704 and 1815. And it is just as true in 2016.
It is hardly unfair to characterise that as a warning of World War Three. He is certainly warning of war in Europe at the very least, and of invasion by Russia: In the last few years, we have seen tanks rolling into Georgia and Ukraine.
I think he is saying that the EU brings a confidence of peace, which isn't at all the same thing as saying as a European War would break out if we left. In fact, Europe has been uncharacteristically peaceful during the EC/EU's existence. You can argue the negative - the the EU created the environment for peace or an absence of war - as you can also for NATO, but you can't PROVE it in either case.
Incidentally a good speech from David Cameron and he was spot on in his predictions of the muddle that would follow a Leave vote.
How do you quantify the cost of membership? Net financial transfers are easy enough but the cost (and benefits) of regulation, social legislation, the opportunity cost (if any) from being within the customs union, the benefit or cost of being in the Single Market, or - for example - the nature of the trade deficits and surplusses are all far more contentious. All the same, they do all add to the sum of the net cost / income, and it's reasonable to include estimates for all within an overall figure. But how to estimate them? That's anyone's guess.
They said 'we are sending £350m a week to the EU' (and said we could instead spend it on the NHS), nothing about indirect costs. I don't think any fair-minded person could possibly disagree with the proposition that that was a straightforward lie. I don't throw around accusations of lying, but that one is as clear-cut as they come, and it also has the necessary characteristic of being intentional, since they continued with it after the ONS had pointed out it was garbage.
A rebate isn't a cut in the bill. It's a decision by the creditor not to demand full payment. We are liable for the full £350m pw even if we don't pay it all
Nonsense.The rebate is not optional. So we are not liable for the full £350m.
Nonsense (said with a Nabavi style snort of derision).
A discount is a reduction in the price.
A rebate involved a return of some money paid. It may be semantic but it's the difference between a lie and sophistry.
To my shame, I actually swallowed it myself when a poster on here - a well-know Trump supporter - kept spamming it continuously.
Except that David Cameron really did come very, very close to warning of World War 3 in his speech of 9 May.
After talking about various wars but mainly WW2, the Prime Minister warned:
Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? ... That was true in 1914, in 1940 and in 1989. Or, you could add 1588, 1704 and 1815. And it is just as true in 2016.
It is hardly unfair to characterise that as a warning of World War Three. He is certainly warning of war in Europe at the very least, and of invasion by Russia: In the last few years, we have seen tanks rolling into Georgia and Ukraine.
I think he is saying that the EU brings a confidence of peace, which isn't at all the same thing as saying as a European War would break out if we left. In fact, Europe has been uncharacteristically peaceful during the EC/EU's existence. You can argue the negative - the the EU created the environment for peace or an absence of war - as you can also for NATO incidentally, but you can't PROVE it in either case.
Cameron promised to stay on if there was a leave vote - that was a lie!
To my shame, I actually swallowed it myself when a poster on here - a well-know Trump supporter - kept spamming it continuously.
Except that David Cameron really did come very, very close to warning of World War 3 in his speech of 9 May.
After talking about various wars but mainly WW2, the Prime Minister warned:
Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? ... That was true in 1914, in 1940 and in 1989. Or, you could add 1588, 1704 and 1815. And it is just as true in 2016.
It is hardly unfair to characterise that as a warning of World War Three. He is certainly warning of war in Europe at the very least, and of invasion by Russia: In the last few years, we have seen tanks rolling into Georgia and Ukraine.
I think he is saying that the EU brings a confidence of peace, which isn't at all the same thing as saying as a European War would break out if we left. In fact, Europe has been uncharacteristically peaceful during the EC/EU's existence. You can argue the negative - the the EU created the environment for peace or an absence of war - as you can also for NATO incidentally, but you can't PROVE it in either case.
And it clear that Putin is very aware of the crises the western democracies are facing and is doing his best to make the most of the opportunity.
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote to date: B: 834.6k (13.1%) H: 976.3k (15.3%) W: 4.2m (65.8%) All Other: 373k (5.8%)
How does that compare to state demographics?
Almost spot on. Slightly more Hispanic and white slightly less black.
But from 2012 big jump in Hispanic but drop in black share. Squeeky bum time for everyone.
52m daniel a. smith @electionsmith Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote in 2012: B: 764.0k (15.9%) H: 522.5k (10.9%) W: 3.3m (67.9%) All Other: 251.5k (7%)
To my shame, I actually swallowed it myself when a poster on here - a well-know Trump supporter - kept spamming it continuously.
Except that David Cameron really did come very, very close to warning of World War 3 in his speech of 9 May.
After talking about various wars but mainly WW2, the Prime Minister warned:
Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? ... That was true in 1914, in 1940 and in 1989. Or, you could add 1588, 1704 and 1815. And it is just as true in 2016.
It is hardly unfair to characterise that as a warning of World War Three. He is certainly warning of war in Europe at the very least, and of invasion by Russia: In the last few years, we have seen tanks rolling into Georgia and Ukraine.
I think he is saying that the EU brings a confidence of peace, which isn't at all the same thing as saying as a European War would break out if we left. In fact, Europe has been uncharacteristically peaceful during the EC/EU's existence. You can argue the negative - the the EU created the environment for peace or an absence of war - as you can also for NATO, but you can't PROVE it in either case.
Incidentally a good speech from David Cameron and he was spot on in his predictions of the muddle that would follow a Leave vote.
Slicing Germany in half and occupying it with British, French, American and Soviet troops would have prevented the second world war. Can't prove that of course, but we haven't had another one since we did that.
I agree that Leave can just about get away with the £350 million thing, though it requires some semantic gymnastics of Olympian proportions. The one about Turkey's EU membership was the real whopper.
To my shame, I actually swallowed it myself when a poster on here - a well-know Trump supporter - kept spamming it continuously.
Except that David Cameron really did come very, very close to warning of World War 3 in his speech of 9 May.
After talking about various wars but mainly WW2, the Prime Minister warned:
Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? ... That was true in 1914, in 1940 and in 1989. Or, you could add 1588, 1704 and 1815. And it is just as true in 2016.
It is hardly unfair to characterise that as a warning of World War Three. He is certainly warning of war in Europe at the very least, and of invasion by Russia: In the last few years, we have seen tanks rolling into Georgia and Ukraine.
I think he is saying that the EU brings a confidence of peace, which isn't at all the same thing as saying as a European War would break out if we left. In fact, Europe has been uncharacteristically peaceful during the EC/EU's existence. You can argue the negative - the the EU created the environment for peace or an absence of war - as you can also for NATO, but you can't PROVE it in either case.
Incidentally a good speech from David Cameron and he was spot on in his predictions of the muddle that would follow a Leave vote.
Read the whole thing -- the Prime Minister really is talking about war. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries. And that requires British leadership, and for Britain to remain a member. The truth is this: what happens in our neighbourhood matters to Britain. That was true in 1914, in 1940 and in 1989. Or, you could add 1588, 1704 and 1815. And it is just as true in 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-the-uks-strength-and-security-in-the-eu-9-may-2016
I agree that Leave can just about get away with the £350 million thing, though it requires some semantic gymnastics of Olympian proportions. The one about Turkey's EU membership was the real whopper.
The figure yes, the NHS claim probably not since in reality there was never £350m to spend.
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote to date: B: 834.6k (13.1%) H: 976.3k (15.3%) W: 4.2m (65.8%) All Other: 373k (5.8%)
How does that compare to state demographics?
Almost spot on. Slightly more Hispanic and white slightly less black.
But from 2012 big jump in Hispanic but drop in black share. Squeeky bum time for everyone.
52m daniel a. smith @electionsmith Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote in 2012: B: 764.0k (15.9%) H: 522.5k (10.9%) W: 3.3m (67.9%) All Other: 251.5k (7%)
+900000 white +453800 Hispanic +121500 other -70600 Black
I agree that Leave can just about get away with the £350 million thing, though it requires some semantic gymnastics of Olympian proportions. The one about Turkey's EU membership was the real whopper.
Was the real whopper not that if we voted to leave the markets would crash, jobs would disappear, taxes would go up at once, and western civilisation would come to an end? Or the giant whopper that staying in would not mean the UK was to become a part of a European superstate? £350m is a rounding error in the scale of that potential but avoided horror.
Trump and Pence holding Rallies in Michigan today...very reminiscent of McCain and Romney rushing into Pennsylvania at the last minute, trying to magic up a Path to 270.
Nevada is starting to look like a roadblock to Trump now. If she carries that + CO + PA + MI + VA she's safe at 274.
She can lose FL, NH, NC, IA, OH, AZ and Maine 1st District and it still wont matter.
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote to date: B: 834.6k (13.1%) H: 976.3k (15.3%) W: 4.2m (65.8%) All Other: 373k (5.8%)
How does that compare to state demographics?
Almost spot on. Slightly more Hispanic and white slightly less black.
But from 2012 big jump in Hispanic but drop in black share. Squeeky bum time for everyone.
52m daniel a. smith @electionsmith Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote in 2012: B: 764.0k (15.9%) H: 522.5k (10.9%) W: 3.3m (67.9%) All Other: 251.5k (7%)
+900000 white +453800 Hispanic +121500 other -70600 Black
Are FL Hispanics going to be as anti-Trump as the rest of the US though? I've not seen any state polling tbh.
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote to date: B: 834.6k (13.1%) H: 976.3k (15.3%) W: 4.2m (65.8%) All Other: 373k (5.8%)
How does that compare to state demographics?
Almost spot on. Slightly more Hispanic and white slightly less black.
But from 2012 big jump in Hispanic but drop in black share. Squeeky bum time for everyone.
52m daniel a. smith @electionsmith Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote in 2012: B: 764.0k (15.9%) H: 522.5k (10.9%) W: 3.3m (67.9%) All Other: 251.5k (7%)
+900000 white +453800 Hispanic +121500 other -70600 Black
Are FL Hispanics going to be as anti-Trump as the rest of the US though? I've not seen any state polling tbh.
I'm asking myself what the 900,000 extra white voters are doing...
I agree that Leave can just about get away with the £350 million thing, though it requires some semantic gymnastics of Olympian proportions. The one about Turkey's EU membership was the real whopper.
Was the real whopper not that if we voted to leave the markets would crash, jobs would disappear, taxes would go up at once, and western civilisation would come to an end? Or the giant whopper that staying in would not mean the UK was to become a part of a European superstate? £350m is a rounding error in the scale of that potential but avoided horror.
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote to date: B: 834.6k (13.1%) H: 976.3k (15.3%) W: 4.2m (65.8%) All Other: 373k (5.8%)
How does that compare to state demographics?
Almost spot on. Slightly more Hispanic and white slightly less black.
But from 2012 big jump in Hispanic but drop in black share. Squeeky bum time for everyone.
52m daniel a. smith @electionsmith Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote in 2012: B: 764.0k (15.9%) H: 522.5k (10.9%) W: 3.3m (67.9%) All Other: 251.5k (7%)
+900000 white +453800 Hispanic +121500 other -70600 Black
Are FL Hispanics going to be as anti-Trump as the rest of the US though? I've not seen any state polling tbh.
I'm asking myself what the 900,000 extra white voters are doing...
Yes well, could be a massive wave of Trump voters that the polls haven't picked up.
Mr. Dawning, my understanding is that Cameron's speech (on security) was rewritten after advanced sight of it caused mocking headlines of his doom-portending. I suspect World War Three didn't feature explicitly beforehand, but it does seem he was planning on a more apocalyptic speech before the papers mocked him.
Yes, that was certainly the explanation that some Leavers started putting about when the text of Cameron's speech was analysed and no WW3 reference was found. But the evidence for this claim remains equally mysterious. Surely such a clumsy and embarrassing volte-face by the Remain campaign would have been newsworthy in itself, yet it was never reported.
Someone that was a credible source briefed a number of newspapers on behalf of No. 10 that it meant WW3. Craig Oliver or some one similar?
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote to date: B: 834.6k (13.1%) H: 976.3k (15.3%) W: 4.2m (65.8%) All Other: 373k (5.8%)
How does that compare to state demographics?
Almost spot on. Slightly more Hispanic and white slightly less black.
But from 2012 big jump in Hispanic but drop in black share. Squeeky bum time for everyone.
52m daniel a. smith @electionsmith Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote in 2012: B: 764.0k (15.9%) H: 522.5k (10.9%) W: 3.3m (67.9%) All Other: 251.5k (7%)
+900000 white +453800 Hispanic +121500 other -70600 Black
Are FL Hispanics going to be as anti-Trump as the rest of the US though? I've not seen any state polling tbh.
I'm asking myself what the 900,000 extra white voters are doing...
Depends on education and gender. Not all based on Race...
What does Prof Watt expect ? Politicians lie. That is what they do.
(Or rather more generously, they interpret evidence in the most beneficial way to their cause, from Brexit to the Iraq War to Scotland being one of the wealthiest countries in the world after independence).
If Leave lied, it was up to Remain to nail it (and vice versa). If Remain didn't nail it, if they didn't convince the public that it was dirty lie, then it is their sorry incompetence that is at fault.
In my opinion, Leave did tell a dirty lie. However, the lie didn't resonate with the public because the public believed the underlying point, that we get a poor financial deal from the EU.
Anyhow, if this goes to court, it will be fun.
Who's next? There isn't a politician born whose remarks in elections could survive this kind of scrutiny in a court.
I agree that Leave can just about get away with the £350 million thing, though it requires some semantic gymnastics of Olympian proportions. The one about Turkey's EU membership was the real whopper.
Was the real whopper not that if we voted to leave the markets would crash, jobs would disappear, taxes would go up at once, and western civilisation would come to an end? Or the giant whopper that staying in would not mean the UK was to become a part of a European superstate? £350m is a rounding error in the scale of that potential but avoided horror.
There were also denials about an EU army.... or EU taxes........
I'm asking myself what the 900,000 extra white voters are doing...
It's hard to interpret, it might just reflect a general trend to early voting rather than voting on the day, especially since both campaigns will have been encouraging early voting.
Nonsense (said with a Nabavi style snort of derision).
A discount is a reduction in the price.
A rebate involved a return of some money paid. It may be semantic but it's the difference between a lie and sophistry.
I repeat my snort of derision, referring you to my reply to @MaxPB at 2.36pm.
The proposal was to spend £100m on the NHS (as well as some additional funds on guaranteeing current EU programmes). Don't recall any other spending proposals.
"Let's spend it on the the NHS instead" is a vernacular way of saying "why dont we" - a question not a proposal. But more misleading which is one of the reasons why I didn't like it.
I'm asking myself what the 900,000 extra white voters are doing...
It's hard to interpret, it might just reflect a general trend to early voting rather than voting on the day, especially since both campaigns will have been encouraging early voting.
The proposal was to spend £100m on the NHS (as well as some additional funds on guaranteeing current EU programmes). Don't recall any other spending proposals.
"Let's spend it on the the NHS instead" is a vernacular way of saying "why dont we" - a question not a proposal. But more misleading which is one of the reasons why I didn't like it.
As has been pointed out here zillions of times, they did explictly say the £350m could be spent on the NHS. This is getting tedious, it's interesting only because it's astonishing that anyone is defending it after the referendum is done and dusted. What is the psychology behind that?
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them...
The proposal was to spend £100m on the NHS (as well as some additional funds on guaranteeing current EU programmes). Don't recall any other spending proposals.
"Let's spend it on the the NHS instead" is a vernacular way of saying "why dont we" - a question not a proposal. But more misleading which is one of the reasons why I didn't like it.
As has been pointed out here zillions of times, they did explictly say the £350m could be spent on the NHS. This is getting tedious, it's interesting only because it's astonishing that anyone is defending it. What is the psychology behind that?
It's more than a psychological defence mechanism if the DPP decides to have the case heard. They're rehearsing the arguments.
To my shame, I actually swallowed it myself when a poster on here - a well-know Trump supporter - kept spamming it continuously.
Except that David Cameron really did come very, very close to warning of World War 3 in his speech of 9 May.
After talking about various wars but mainly WW2, the Prime Minister warned:
Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? ... That was true in 1914, in 1940 and in 1989. Or, you could add 1588, 1704 and 1815. And it is just as true in 2016.
It is hardly unfair to characterise that as a warning of World War Three. He is certainly warning of war in Europe at the very least, and of invasion by Russia: In the last few years, we have seen tanks rolling into Georgia and Ukraine.
I think he is saying that the EU brings a confidence of peace, which isn't at all the same thing as saying as a European War would break out if we left. In fact, Europe has been uncharacteristically peaceful during the EC/EU's existence. You can argue the negative - the the EU created the environment for peace or an absence of war - as you can also for NATO incidentally, but you can't PROVE it in either case.
Cameron promised to stay on if there was a leave vote - that was a lie!
Not if he intended to do so at the time, which we can't know.
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote to date: B: 834.6k (13.1%) H: 976.3k (15.3%) W: 4.2m (65.8%) All Other: 373k (5.8%)
How does that compare to state demographics?
Almost spot on. Slightly more Hispanic and white slightly less black.
But from 2012 big jump in Hispanic but drop in black share. Squeeky bum time for everyone.
52m daniel a. smith @electionsmith Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote in 2012: B: 764.0k (15.9%) H: 522.5k (10.9%) W: 3.3m (67.9%) All Other: 251.5k (7%)
+900000 white +453800 Hispanic +121500 other -70600 Black
Are FL Hispanics going to be as anti-Trump as the rest of the US though? I've not seen any state polling tbh.
No because Cubans who are something like a third of Hispanics aren't fond of the democrats. I think Nate Cohn tweeted it was something like 63-27. Still not great for Trump but better than elsewhere.
Hispanic is a very diverse group, what matters is the specifics. Obviously in states with more Mexicans or Puerto Ricans trump isn't likely to get their vote...
Nonsense (said with a Nabavi style snort of derision).
A discount is a reduction in the price.
A rebate involved a return of some money paid. It may be semantic but it's the difference between a lie and sophistry.
I repeat my snort of derision, referring you to my reply to @MaxPB at 2.36pm.
The proposal was to spend £100m on the NHS (as well as some additional funds on guaranteeing current EU programmes). Don't recall any other spending proposals.
"Let's spend it on the the NHS instead" is a vernacular way of saying "why dont we" - a question not a proposal. But more misleading which is one of the reasons why I didn't like it.
Actually, the wording on the bus was "let's fund our NHS instead". That might imply using all the £350m a week but it doesn't necessarily do so.
Nonsense (said with a Nabavi style snort of derision).
A discount is a reduction in the price.
A rebate involved a return of some money paid. It may be semantic but it's the difference between a lie and sophistry.
I repeat my snort of derision, referring you to my reply to @MaxPB at 2.36pm.
The proposal was to spend £100m on the NHS (as well as some additional funds on guaranteeing current EU programmes). Don't recall any other spending proposals.
"Let's spend it on the the NHS instead" is a vernacular way of saying "why dont we" - a question not a proposal. But more misleading which is one of the reasons why I didn't like it.
Actually, the wording on the bus was "let's fund our NHS instead". That might imply using all the £350m a week but it doesn't necessarily do so.
Other official banners clearly stated that the whole £350m a week should be spent on the NHS so any possible ambiguity was already clarified by Vote Leave.
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote to date: B: 834.6k (13.1%) H: 976.3k (15.3%) W: 4.2m (65.8%) All Other: 373k (5.8%)
How does that compare to state demographics?
Almost spot on. Slightly more Hispanic and white slightly less black.
But from 2012 big jump in Hispanic but drop in black share. Squeeky bum time for everyone.
52m daniel a. smith @electionsmith Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote in 2012: B: 764.0k (15.9%) H: 522.5k (10.9%) W: 3.3m (67.9%) All Other: 251.5k (7%)
+900000 white +453800 Hispanic +121500 other -70600 Black
Are FL Hispanics going to be as anti-Trump as the rest of the US though? I've not seen any state polling tbh.
No because Cubans who are something like a third of Hispanics aren't fond of the democrats. I think Nate Cohn tweeted it was something like 63-27. Still not great for Trump but better than elsewhere.
Hispanic is a very diverse group, what matters is the specifics. Obviously in states with more Mexicans or Puerto Ricans trump isn't likely to get their vote...
The Dems have been running a lot of adverts about Trump breaking the Cuba sanctions for months now. That may have had an effect.
Nonsense (said with a Nabavi style snort of derision).
A discount is a reduction in the price.
A rebate involved a return of some money paid. It may be semantic but it's the difference between a lie and sophistry.
I repeat my snort of derision, referring you to my reply to @MaxPB at 2.36pm.
The proposal was to spend £100m on the NHS (as well as some additional funds on guaranteeing current EU programmes). Don't recall any other spending proposals.
"Let's spend it on the the NHS instead" is a vernacular way of saying "why dont we" - a question not a proposal. But more misleading which is one of the reasons why I didn't like it.
Actually, the wording on the bus was "let's fund our NHS instead". That might imply using all the £350m a week but it doesn't necessarily do so.
Other official banners clearly stated that the whole £350m a week should be spent on the NHS so any possible ambiguity was already clarified by Vote Leave.
West Virginia was formerly a very reliable Democrat state until Gore lost there in 2000. Before that time it only went Republican in landslide years such as 1984 and 1972. Nowadays it is seen as a very strong Republican state. What accounts for the sudden change there? Likewise Illinois was for many years a crucial Swing state - yet since 1992 it has been pretty well writen off by the Republicans.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them...
Good on him. The permanent removal of the vote from people convicted of a crime yet served their sentence in many American states is a disgrace of international proportions.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them...
Good on him. The permanent removal of the vote from people convicted of a crime yet served their sentence in many American states is a disgrace of international proportions.
It might mean that the Virginia Dems are panicking though, they wouldn't put these last minute measures into place if it wasn't necessary.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them...
Good on him. The permanent removal of the vote from people convicted of a crime yet served their sentence in many American states is a disgrace of international proportions.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them...
Good on him. The permanent removal of the vote from people convicted of a crime yet served their sentence in many American states is a disgrace of international proportions.
It might mean that the Virginia Dems are panicking though, they wouldn't put these last minute measures into place if it wasn't necessary.
Don't forget there are down card elections taking place which could be real squeakers......
West Virginia was formerly a very reliable Democrat state until Gore lost there in 2000. Before that time it only went Republican in landslide years such as 1984 and 1972. Nowadays it is seen as a very strong Republican state. What accounts for the sudden change there? Likewise Illinois was for many years a crucial Swing state - yet since 1992 it has been pretty well writen off by the Republicans.
More polarized electorate? W.Virgina's economy was very coal based so I'm guessing talk of dealing with climate change put them off, Gore is a big climate change campaigner. Also dems have a demographic problem of their own which is they are losing wwc votes very fast. Same as Illinois race plays a massive part in us elections.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them...
Good on him. The permanent removal of the vote from people convicted of a crime yet served their sentence in many American states is a disgrace of international proportions.
Not quite the same level, but we, in Sleepy Hollow, New York (yes it really exists) got a robocall from a city council candidate in Racine, Wisconsin the other day.
If Trump is leading with college educated whites then Clinton should be very worried. All the assumptions were based on her leading with them.
If he's leading College Educated Whites then he has won NC
If he's leading college educated whites he's won the election by a country mile.
Going out on a limb here but I don't think he's going to win college educated whites....
Nate Cohn is a very very respected psephologist though, I'd also think he is a massive Democrat and doesn't particularly like his own conclusions here.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them...
Good on him. The permanent removal of the vote from people convicted of a crime yet served their sentence in many American states is a disgrace of international proportions.
It is a quite corrupt manoeuvre, however.
why? giving more people a vote is always a good thing
West Virginia was formerly a very reliable Democrat state until Gore lost there in 2000. Before that time it only went Republican in landslide years such as 1984 and 1972. Nowadays it is seen as a very strong Republican state. What accounts for the sudden change there? Likewise Illinois was for many years a crucial Swing state - yet since 1992 it has been pretty well writen off by the Republicans.
More polarized electorate? W.Virgina's economy was very coal based so I'm guessing talk of dealing with climate change put them off, Gore is a big climate change campaigner. Also dems have a demographic problem of their own which is they are losing wwc votes very fast.
The climate change factor surely would have been personal to Gore rather than Democrats in general It seems odd that Obama lost heavily in West Virginia yet Dukakis carried it in 1988 as did Carter in 1980!
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them...
Good on him. The permanent removal of the vote from people convicted of a crime yet served their sentence in many American states is a disgrace of international proportions.
It is a quite corrupt manoeuvre, however.
Cancels outs Jeb's behaviour in Florida in 2000
Not really, Virginia isn't important unless its a Trump landslide (This time)
West Virginia was formerly a very reliable Democrat state until Gore lost there in 2000. Before that time it only went Republican in landslide years such as 1984 and 1972. Nowadays it is seen as a very strong Republican state. What accounts for the sudden change there? Likewise Illinois was for many years a crucial Swing state - yet since 1992 it has been pretty well writen off by the Republicans.
More polarized electorate? W.Virgina's economy was very coal based so I'm guessing talk of dealing with climate change put them off, Gore is a big climate change campaigner. Also dems have a demographic problem of their own which is they are losing wwc votes very fast.
The climate change factor surely would have been personal to Gore rather than Democrats in general It seems odd that Obama lost heavily in West Virginia yet Dukakis carried it in 1988 as did Carter in 1980!
The proposal was to spend £100m on the NHS (as well as some additional funds on guaranteeing current EU programmes). Don't recall any other spending proposals.
"Let's spend it on the the NHS instead" is a vernacular way of saying "why dont we" - a question not a proposal. But more misleading which is one of the reasons why I didn't like it.
As has been pointed out here zillions of times, they did explictly say the £350m could be spent on the NHS. This is getting tedious, it's interesting only because it's astonishing that anyone is defending it after the referendum is done and dusted. What is the psychology behind that?
The policy, in black and white, was £100m. It's astonishing that you spend so much effort claiming it wasn't.
Jack - have you see the Emerson poll with a 7 point lead for Trump in Ohio? I broadly agree with your ARSE except I think Trump will win Ohio and Maine 2.
Comments
Given the current account the country has with the EU, that could reasonably be argued to be a function of the free trade within the union, and that is 'sending money' to the EU (or, technically, into the non-UK EU economy, but that would be within the context of the statement).
I hope the case is thrown out as it deserves to be. It won, it would have a horribly stifling effect on what candidates could say.
Clinton 45 .. Trump 43 ..
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_nov7
The £350m claim was discussed ad nauseam in the media, and even the most one eyed leaver spokespeople seemed quite happy to discuss how it was a gross figure etc, etc. If election law is to be used in this way, to prosecute claims of deceits which would take in only the terminally stupid, then you could probably lock up half of the political class.
Though come to think of it....
Incidentally a good speech from David Cameron and he was spot on in his predictions of the muddle that would follow a Leave vote.
A discount is a reduction in the price.
A rebate involved a return of some money paid. It may be semantic but it's the difference between a lie and sophistry.
But from 2012 big jump in Hispanic but drop in black share. Squeeky bum time for everyone.
52m
daniel a. smith @electionsmith
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote in 2012:
B: 764.0k (15.9%)
H: 522.5k (10.9%)
W: 3.3m (67.9%)
All Other: 251.5k (7%)
That was true in 1914, in 1940 and in 1989. Or, you could add 1588, 1704 and 1815. And it is just as true in 2016.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-the-uks-strength-and-security-in-the-eu-9-may-2016
+453800 Hispanic
+121500 other
-70600 Black
More luvvies for the UK?
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/celebrity/celebs-threatening-leave-u-donald-035813624.html
Nevada is starting to look like a roadblock to Trump now. If she carries that + CO + PA + MI + VA she's safe at 274.
She can lose FL, NH, NC, IA, OH, AZ and Maine 1st District and it still wont matter.
LOL....exactly
(Or rather more generously, they interpret evidence in the most beneficial way to their cause, from Brexit to the Iraq War to Scotland being one of the wealthiest countries in the world after independence).
If Leave lied, it was up to Remain to nail it (and vice versa). If Remain didn't nail it, if they didn't convince the public that it was dirty lie, then it is their sorry incompetence that is at fault.
In my opinion, Leave did tell a dirty lie. However, the lie didn't resonate with the public because the public believed the underlying point, that we get a poor financial deal from the EU.
Anyhow, if this goes to court, it will be fun.
Who's next? There isn't a politician born whose remarks in elections could survive this kind of scrutiny in a court.
"Let's spend it on the the NHS instead" is a vernacular way of saying "why dont we" - a question not a proposal. But more misleading which is one of the reasons why I didn't like it.
LOL, unless you're black or Latino of course.
GA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 45 - 2,348
CO - Clinton 43 .. Trump 39 - 2,412
AZ - Clinton 45 .. Trump 43 - 2,322
NV - Clinton 44 .. Trump 43 - 1.124
OH - Clinton 42 .. Trump 45 - 2,530
FL - Clinton 47 .. Trump 45 - 3,574
MI - Clinton 44 .. Trump 42 - 2,868
NH - Clinton 49 .. Trump 38 - 672
VA - Clinton 49 .. Trump 39 - 2,109
NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 41 - 2,865
PA - Clinton 47 .. Trump 42 - 2,685
UT - Clinton 31 .. Trump 34 .. McMullin 25 - 1,425
https://www.surveymonkey.com/elections/map?poll=sm-lv-cps
And the mis-selling of the referendum as a definitive vote, especially by remain sympathisers. No second chance. No turning back.
''this is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.
Er.....no.
Daily Caller
EXCLUSIVE: Virginia Gov. Pardons 60,000 Felons, Enough To Swing Election https://t.co/RzJ2g94a2T https://t.co/akLelsQkC9
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them...
I'm sure all those extra white voters are turning out for Hillary. I mean, look at the stir she created among die-hard dems in the primaries!
Oh...er....wait a sec.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2192093/Stuart-Wheeler-loses-EU-Lisbon-Treaty-court-case.html
Hispanic is a very diverse group, what matters is the specifics. Obviously in states with more Mexicans or Puerto Ricans trump isn't likely to get their vote...
https://twitter.com/michaelpdeacon/status/747000584226607104
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/watch-vote-leaves-dom-cummings-is-grilled-by-andrew-tyrie-this-sounds-like-aladdins-cave-to-me/
Likewise Illinois was for many years a crucial Swing state - yet since 1992 it has been pretty well writen off by the Republicans.
Clinton 48 .. Trump 44
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/07/fox-news-poll-clinton-moves-to-4-point-edge-over-trump.html
Well done OGH btw for his 12 times spread. Comey must be on his Xmas card list....
Going out on a limb here but I don't think he's going to win college educated whites....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37899960
Hopefully that'll help them get off the floor of the title race.
Clinton 49 .. Trump 46
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/11/07/UPICVoter-poll-Hillary-Clinton-holds-slim-lead-over-Donald-Trump-on-eve-of-election/5881478528364/
Clinton 48
Trump 44
Clinton lead expanded two points since Friday.
https://t.co/7PcuVeugBI
Florida is seemingly forever important.