He makes a very good living out of being a "victim" of the PC left.
He certainly is - now how's that? Because its true? Berkeley was just another example of liberal intolerance.
No, it's because he spouts extreme cobblers, carefully designed to offend, and then calls people "crybullies" and "snowflakes" when they are offended. Unfortunately for him and his ilk, the shoe is on the other foot now. Doubtless the cost and publicity for Berkeley will encourage fewer well-funded trips for him to talk crap. He'll have to start earning his money defending the status quo, which is neither as edgy or lucrative.
I'm surprised this isn't mentioned more often (from last summer)
Have you come across a platform called Patreon? Instead of giving £5 a month to the Guardian, you can literally send it straight to people like Laurie Penny. She seems to have a pretty decent income stream from it:
You could also chip in if you don’t care about my work either way but REALLY want to piss off some right-wing trolls. Every dollar you donate makes an alt-right hatebot cross.
So it is possible for the Dems to control both the House and Senate after the midterms, but they won't have a two thirds majority to convict in the Senate.
"Other phallic fruits and vegetables are available"
One of the delights of eating seasonally is you lose the expectation of certain foods out of season. This means that when we have a huge glut of courgettes in the summer we enjoy them while we can and then have other veg through the winter. Or of course eat all the ratatouille we made and froze.
As an aside Courgettes must be the easiest veg in the world to grow.
Mr. Eagles, America's Senate is rubbish compared to Rome's. Although I see elements of Milo and Clodius in the American political system. No Caesars, though.
I plan to do a thread in the next few weeks comparing Trump to Caesar, but am still working out which Senators will play the role of Marcus Junius Brutus The Younger et al.
Beware the Ides of March 2019
Don't you *dare* compare Trump to Caesar.
As both PB's leading Classicist and Caesar fan I'm allowed to do so.
Plus I will make clear Trump is no Caesar in terms of brilliance
Although Trump ought to beware those closest to him are likely to wield the knife.
We'll see how it pans out and what kind of relationship we end up having with the EU. Trump may turn out to be a game-changer in Europe, but maybe not in the way that the hard right was hoping for.
Yourprospers.
That would require some epic fail by the US. On the bright side, you'd only have 4 years of Trump, not 8.
I'm Breitbart.
When like Milo being a Jew lover makes you a Nazi - my will to pay attention to such twaddle evaporates.
Bannon the years.
I hear this often. Could you give me chapter and verse on how we know Bannon is a white supremacist? I'd like to have this confirmed, if possible.
x
There is nothing that you can say or show that will lead to some people conceding that Bannon is a white supremacist. They must be allowed to believe what they want to believe and we must be allowed to draw conclusions from that.
How do you find the time to run your business?
Not trying to be rude, I'm genuinely interested, because I understand you have a lot of responsibilities and employees and yet you seem to be on here holding court night and day.
I do not run the business. I am a shareholder in it. The business I helped set up is now part of a bigger business. I exchanged the shares I had in the former for shares in the latter, plus a rather nice cash consideration. The work I do means that I am busier some days than others - and that I never work 9 to 5. Right now I am not that busy; but I will be this afternoon when the US opens up. I did my Asia stint earlier. Is that OK? ;-)
Mr. Eagles, America's Senate is rubbish compared to Rome's. Although I see elements of Milo and Clodius in the American political system. No Caesars, though.
I plan to do a thread in the next few weeks comparing Trump to Caesar, but am still working out which Senators will play the role of Marcus Junius Brutus The Younger et al.
Beware the Ides of March 2019
Don't you *dare* compare Trump to Caesar.
As both PB's leading Classicist and Caesar fan I'm allowed to do so.
Plus I will make clear Trump is no Caesar in terms of brilliance
Or indeed anything. Why not compare Trump with a photo-copier?
"A number of MPs donned hijabs in Westminster Hall to celebrate World Hijab Day (WHD), which normalises Islamic veiling and promotes “modest” dress."
A belated triumph for Mrs Whitehouse. No more jeans, or short skirts. No tops exposing the V of the breast line. Could this be the beginning of a new Puritanism?
When I see MPs wearing yarmulkes... in solidarity. I'm beyond WTF at the pandering to Islam.
Mr. Eagles, America's Senate is rubbish compared to Rome's. Although I see elements of Milo and Clodius in the American political system. No Caesars, though.
I plan to do a thread in the next few weeks comparing Trump to Caesar, but am still working out which Senators will play the role of Marcus Junius Brutus The Younger et al.
Beware the Ides of March 2019
I'm waiting for the thread with your Osborne-inspired header "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for May"
You posted it at least twice, once in the morning then again later in the day.
I .
I happen.
I disagree.
You were obviously wrong and the least you could do was to hold your hand up. That's not what I asked. The question was 'doesn't it give you pause for thought before attacking others?'
I'm not being nasty or rude, I'm just surprised you don't think at least twice before jumping down other people's throats having made such a gaffe
Actually, I could have done what plenty of other people do on here, which is jump to a conclusion and then say nothing when it is pointed out that they are wrong. That I did admit I got it wrong leads me to believe that others should do the same.
What pause for thought should I have when the official spokesperson of the US president makes up a massacre to justify banning people from certain countries from entering the country?
I have absolutely no problem in pointing out that those who attack the MSM for supposedly printing "fake news" remain utterly silent about the repeated lies coming out of the Trump White House. Likewise, I notice that Trump himself is already Tweeting about today's Louvre attack, but had not a word to say about one of his supporters gunning down six Muslims in a Canadian mosque last week.
So you would prefer it if people didn't have agendas and everyone on here posted links to everything that happens in the world without showing personal bias? As you yourself showed with the Gina Miller blacking up story, we all have agendas that lead us to push some stories and not others, it's a free market. The strange thing is for people who have agendas to taunt others for having different ones.
Most people aren't thinking about Brexit when voting for a local councillor. We oughtn't be too surprised.
I'm not sure whether the Derwentside Independents and Wear Valley Independents are pro or anti Brexit, and I anticipate that the voters of County Durham won't be too bothered when they cast their votes in May.
(1) Brexit may act as a motivator to join, vote, or support the Lib Dems for 15-20% of the electorate (no higher) (2) The effect of (1) will have a proportionately greater affect in Remain heavy areas that aren't otherwise dominated by the most radical Left (i.e. where LD attractiveness on the EU can beat/override Corbynism) (3) Brexit acts as a heavy incentiviser for Lib Dem activists and members to fund and campaign for the Lib Dems (4) Brexit doesn't explain all (or even most) of the huge rises in Lib Dem support in other areas of the country, including heavily Leave areas, because it is totally unsupported by any other data. It absolutely doesn't demonstrate latent opposition to Brexit throughout the country. (5) In these instances (4) it's probably because they are a safe-ish, neutral-ish NOTA option that has detoxified and offers reasonable prospects of competent local/community governance
We have correlation, causation and confirmation bias going on here.
None of that is to dispute that there is a real Lib Dem revival going on: there is.
I will change my mind if and when the facts change. Not before.
There won't, of course be a single party LibDem government because in their first term as largest party they'll implement PR.
I remember both Blair and Trudeau doing that as well.
Wasn’t Labour policy, IIRC. And I thought more of you than to think you could mistake Blair for a LibDem! In any event, apparently the block was provided by the threatened explosion of John Prescott! Trudeau Fils hasn’t finished his first term yet. I don’t recall Trudeau Pere doing so.
Mr. Eagles, America's Senate is rubbish compared to Rome's. Although I see elements of Milo and Clodius in the American political system. No Caesars, though.
I plan to do a thread in the next few weeks comparing Trump to Caesar, but am still working out which Senators will play the role of Marcus Junius Brutus The Younger et al.
Beware the Ides of March 2019
I'm waiting for the thread with your Osborne-inspired header "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for May"
Under Bannon’s Leadership, Breitbart Openly Embraced The White Supremacist Alt-Right. Andrew Breitbart despised racism. Truly despised it. He used to brag regularly about helping to integrate his fraternity at Tulane University. He insisted that racial stories be treated with special care to avoid even the whiff of racism. With Bannon embracing Trump, all that changed. Now Breitbart has become the alt-right go-to website, with Yiannopoulos pushing white ethno-nationalism as a legitimate response to political correctness, and the comment section turning into a cesspool for white supremacist mememakers.
Is that it? Breitbart....Yiannopoulos....comments section.... How does that allow me to go out into the world claiming "Bannon is a white supremacist" without risking getting my ass sued off? I was rather expecting some hard evidence, rather than guilt by association with what nutjobs write on a blog.
Sure, the guy sounds like a truly hideous self-aggrandising piece of shit. But you need more to make the specific charge stick, I'd suggest.
Breitbart becomes a blog :-D
Plenty of people have called Bannon a white supremacist in print and in speech. He has never sued any of them. You should have no fear. He can't start suing now.
Oh my word - surprised she didn't scream out a lung with this rant
Ian Miles Cheong Please become a meme. This "professor" went off on NYPD for arresting Antifa members who assaulted Gavin McInnes. https://t.co/xvklL1ITXK
"you should beat their asses" "I'm teaching these kids about humanity"
Intellectual elitism at its finest
"Don't touch me, I am better than you because I have more intellect"
We'll see how it pans out and what kind of relationship we end up having with the EU. Trump may turn out to be a game-changer in Europe, but maybe not in the way that the hard right was hoping for.
Yourprospers.
That would require some epic fail by the US. On the bright side, you'd only have 4 years of Trump, not 8.
I'm Breitbart.
When like Milo being a Jew lover makes you a Nazi - my will to pay attention to such twaddle evaporates.
Bannon the years.
I hear this often. Could you give me chapter and verse on how we know Bannon is a white supremacist? I'd like to have this confirmed, if possible.
x
There is nothing that you can say or show that will lead to some people conceding that Bannon is a white supremacist. They must be allowed to believe what they want to believe and we must be allowed to draw conclusions from that.
How do you find the time to run your business?
Not trying to be rude, I'm genuinely interested, because I understand you have a lot of responsibilities and employees and yet you seem to be on here holding court night and day.
I do not run the business. I am a shareholder in it. The business I helped set up is now part of a bigger business. I exchanged the shares I had in the former for shares in the latter, plus a rather nice cash consideration. The work I do means that I am busier some days than others - and that I never work 9 to 5. Right now I am not that busy; but I will be this afternoon when the US opens up. I did my Asia stint earlier. Is that OK? ;-)
Ah, I see. Thanks.
Your business is (really) none of my business, but I was curious if you did manage to do it another way. Some people are supremely good at time management.
You posted it at least twice, once in the morning then again later in the day.
I .
I happen.
I disagree.
You were obviously wrong and the least you could do was to hold your hand up. That's not what I asked. The question was 'doesn't it give you pause for thought before attacking others?'
I'm not being nasty or rude, I'm just surprised you don't think at least twice before jumping down other people's throats having made such a gaffe
Actually, same.
What entering the country?
I have week.
So you would prefer it if people didn't have agendas and everyone on here posted links to everything that happens in the world without showing personal bias? As you yourself showed with the Gina Miller blacking up story, we all have agendas that lead us to push some stories and not others, it's a free market. The strange thing is for people who have agendas to taunt others for having different ones.
I have absolutely no problem with people having agendas. What a strange thing to say.
Under Bannon’s Leadership, Breitbart Openly Embraced The White Supremacist Alt-Right. Andrew Breitbart despised racism. Truly despised it. He used to brag regularly about helping to integrate his fraternity at Tulane University. He insisted that racial stories be treated with special care to avoid even the whiff of racism. With Bannon embracing Trump, all that changed. Now Breitbart has become the alt-right go-to website, with Yiannopoulos pushing white ethno-nationalism as a legitimate response to political correctness, and the comment section turning into a cesspool for white supremacist mememakers.
Is that it? Breitbart....Yiannopoulos....comments section.... How does that allow me to go out into the world claiming "Bannon is a white supremacist" without risking getting my ass sued off? I was rather expecting some hard evidence, rather than guilt by association with what nutjobs write on a blog.
Sure, the guy sounds like a truly hideous self-aggrandising piece of shit. But you need more to make the specific charge stick, I'd suggest.
Breitbart becomes a blog :-D
Plenty of people have called Bannon a white supremacist in print and in speech. He has never sued any of them. You should have no fear. He can't start suing now.
All fine and dandy, as long as he doesn't start with OGH....
We'll see how it pans out and what kind of relationship we end up having with the EU. Trump may turn out to be a game-changer in Europe, but maybe not in the way that the hard right was hoping for.
Yourprospers.
That would require some epic fail by the US. On the bright side, you'd only have 4 years of Trump, not 8.
I'm Breitbart.
When like Milo being a Jew lover makes you a Nazi - my will to pay attention to such twaddle evaporates.
Bannon the years.
I hear this often. Could you give me chapter and verse on how we know Bannon is a white supremacist? I'd like to have this confirmed, if possible.
x
There is nothing that you can say or show that will lead to some people conceding that Bannon is a white supremacist. They must be allowed to believe what they want to believe and we must be allowed to draw conclusions from that.
How do you find the time to run your business?
Not trying to be rude, I'm genuinely interested, because I understand you have a lot of responsibilities and employees and yet you seem to be on here holding court night and day.
I do not run the business. I am a shareholder in it. The business I helped set up is now part of a bigger business. I exchanged the shares I had in the former for shares in the latter, plus a rather nice cash consideration. The work I do means that I am busier some days than others - and that I never work 9 to 5. Right now I am not that busy; but I will be this afternoon when the US opens up. I did my Asia stint earlier. Is that OK? ;-)
Ah, I see. Thanks.
Your business is (really) none of my business, but I was curious if you did manage to do it another way. Some people are supremely good at time management.
Not me!
Or me - which is why I am very glad I don't have to do it.
Which reminds me, that a Bath Councillor is on trial with others for something similar. There might be a by-election after the end of the trial, though that does depend on the verdict.
The Caesar/Brutus thread that I wrote 12 months ago turned out be prescient.
Michael Gove could be set to play the role of Brutus to David Cameron's Caesar
They say history repeats itself, in 1990, one of Lady Thatcher’s most loyal and long standing supporters, turned on her citing a tragic conflict of loyalty, whilst Gove will not want to trigger Cameron’s departure, his actions may well do. Come the 24th of June, David Cameron might well be uttering Et tu Michael? Like Caesar, a year after a memorable and stunning victory, it could all end very badly for Cameron.
You posted it at least twice, once in the morning then again later in the day.
I .
I happen.
I disagree.
You were obviously wrong and the least you could do was to hold your hand up. That's not what I asked. The question was 'doesn't it give you pause for thought before attacking others?'
I'm not being nasty or rude, I'm just surprised you don't think at least twice before jumping down other people's throats having made such a gaffe
Actually, same.
What entering the country?
I have week.
So you would prefer it if people didn't have agendas and everyone on here posted links to everything that happens in the world without showing personal bias? As you yourself showed with the Gina Miller blacking up story, we all have agendas that lead us to push some stories and not others, it's a free market. The strange thing is for people who have agendas to taunt others for having different ones.
I have absolutely no problem with people having agendas. What a strange thing to say.
Well I don't want to get involved in another long boring discussion about not much. I just wondered if your gaffe about Gina Miller being blacked up / bone through her nose gave you pause for thought before accusing others of being one eyed, you don't want to answer, we shall leave it at that.
Under Bannon’s Leadership, Breitbart Openly Embraced The White Supremacist Alt-Right. Andrew Breitbart despised racism. Truly despised it. He used to brag regularly about helping to integrate his fraternity at Tulane University. He insisted that racial stories be treated with special care to avoid even the whiff of racism. With Bannon embracing Trump, all that changed. Now Breitbart has become the alt-right go-to website, with Yiannopoulos pushing white ethno-nationalism as a legitimate response to political correctness, and the comment section turning into a cesspool for white supremacist mememakers.
Is that it? Breitbart....Yiannopoulos....comments section.... How does that allow me to go out into the world claiming "Bannon is a white supremacist" without risking getting my ass sued off? I was rather expecting some hard evidence, rather than guilt by association with what nutjobs write on a blog.
Sure, the guy sounds like a truly hideous self-aggrandising piece of shit. But you need more to make the specific charge stick, I'd suggest.
Breitbart becomes a blog :-D
Plenty of people have called Bannon a white supremacist in print and in speech. He has never sued any of them. You should have no fear. He can't start suing now.
You're a fucking idiot. Bannon is no more a white supremacist than Alun Rusbridger was a jihadist for publishing some quasi-Islamist dreck in the Guardian.
Feeble, juvenile exaggeration like this just enables the Trumpist right to ignore more serious and grounded critiques, because they can claimi the Left is just hysterical.
The Guardian prints a range of opinions. But it is certainly on the left and it is fair to conclude that Alun Rusbridger was (is) too. Like the Canary on the left, Breitbart doesn't. It has a very specific, white supremacist agenda, with lashing of anti-Islamism and a dash of anti-Semitism. thrown in. That is the consequence of a deliberate editorial decision taken by its editor in chief.
(4) Brexit doesn't explain all (or even most) of the huge rises in Lib Dem support in other areas of the country, including heavily Leave areas, because it is totally unsupported by any other data. It absolutely doesn't demonstrate latent opposition to Brexit throughout the country.
This seems like woolly thinking to me. What you would call a heavily Leave area still has 30-40% of people who are not Leavers, and given that they are notionally in places where Brexitism is strong, the fact that they take a different view is quite likely to mean that they hold their views out of conviction.
You posted it at least twice, once in the morning then again later in the day.
I .
I happen.
I disagree.
You were obviously wrong and the least you could do was to hold your hand up. That's not what I asked. The question was 'doesn't it give you pause for thought before attacking others?'
I'm not being nasty or rude, I'm just surprised you don't think at least twice before jumping down other people's throats having made such a gaffe
Actually, same.
What entering the country?
I have week.
So you would prefer it if people didn't have agendas and everyone on here posted links to everything that happens in the world without showing personal bias? As you yourself showed with the Gina Miller blacking up story, we all have agendas that lead us to push some stories and not others, it's a free market. The strange thing is for people who have agendas to taunt others for having different ones.
I have absolutely no problem with people having agendas. What a strange thing to say.
Well I don't want to get involved in another long boring discussion about not much. I just wondered if your gaffe about Gina Miller being blacked up / bone through her nose gave you pause for thought before accusing others of being one eyed, you don't want to answer, we shall leave it at that.
I have answered. You don't lie the answer. Fair enough.
In many parts of the country, Leave voters are less motivated than Remain voters seems the obvious conclusion here. Perhaps incumbent MPs who voted against Article 50 do not have as much to fear as we have all thought.
I think the obvious conclusion is that non-Marxist, non-loony, non-extremist moderate lefties are giving up on Corbyn's Labour in droves. The LibDems offer a reasonably comfortable new political home.
That doesn't explain UKIP's lower numbers in a place where they should be thriving if they really are hoovering up white working class Labour support.
The white working class? I think you'll find that a lot of them aren't all that white and don't get paid much for what work they can get. Some of them are socially conservative but plenty aren't. I don't think UKIP have actually got anything for them.
You posted it at least twice, once in the morning then again later in the day.
I .
I happen.
I disagree.
You were obviously wrong and the least you could do was to hold your hand up. That's not what I asked. The question was 'doesn't it give you pause for thought before attacking others?'
I'm not being nasty or rude, I'm just surprised you don't think at least twice before jumping down other people's throats having made such a gaffe
Actually, same.
What entering the country?
I have week.
So you would prefer it if people didn't have agendas and everyone on here posted links to everything that happens in the world without showing personal bias? As you yourself showed with the Gina Miller blacking up story, we all have agendas that lead us to push some stories and not others, it's a free market. The strange thing is for people who have agendas to taunt others for having different ones.
I have absolutely no problem with people having agendas. What a strange thing to say.
Well I don't want to get involved in another long boring discussion about not much. I just wondered if your gaffe about Gina Miller being blacked up / bone through her nose gave you pause for thought before accusing others of being one eyed, you don't want to answer, we shall leave it at that.
I have answered. You don't lie the answer. Fair enough.
Why get touchy? I asked a simple question, with no malice. I must have missed the answer in amongst the what abouttery.
What was it?
I have read through your replies and can't find it
The Caesar/Brutus thread that I wrote 12 months ago turned out be prescient.
Michael Gove could be set to play the role of Brutus to David Cameron's Caesar
They say history repeats itself, in 1990, one of Lady Thatcher’s most loyal and long standing supporters, turned on her citing a tragic conflict of loyalty, whilst Gove will not want to trigger Cameron’s departure, his actions may well do. Come the 24th of June, David Cameron might well be uttering Et tu Michael? Like Caesar, a year after a memorable and stunning victory, it could all end very badly for Cameron.
You posted it at least twice, once in the morning then again later in the day.
I .
I happen.
I disagree.
You were obviously wrong and the least you could do was to hold your hand up. That's not what I asked. The question was 'doesn't it give you pause for thought before attacking others?'
I'm not being nasty or rude, I'm just surprised you don't think at least twice before jumping down other people's throats having made such a gaffe
Actually, same.
What entering the country?
I have week.
So you would prefer it if people didn't have agendas and everyone on here posted links to everything that happens in the world without showing personal bias? As you yourself showed with the Gina Miller blacking up story, we all have agendas that lead us to push some stories and not others, it's a free market. The strange thing is for people who have agendas to taunt others for having different ones.
I have absolutely no problem with people having agendas. What a strange thing to say.
Well I don't want to get involved in another long boring discussion about not much. I just wondered if your gaffe about Gina Miller being blacked up / bone through her nose gave you pause for thought before accusing others of being one eyed, you don't want to answer, we shall leave it at that.
I have answered. You don't lie the answer. Fair enough.
Why get touchy? I asked a simple question, with no malice. I must have missed the answer in amongst the what abouttery.
What was it?
I have read through your replies and can't find it
The Caesar/Brutus thread that I wrote 12 months ago turned out be prescient.
Michael Gove could be set to play the role of Brutus to David Cameron's Caesar
They say history repeats itself, in 1990, one of Lady Thatcher’s most loyal and long standing supporters, turned on her citing a tragic conflict of loyalty, whilst Gove will not want to trigger Cameron’s departure, his actions may well do. Come the 24th of June, David Cameron might well be uttering Et tu Michael? Like Caesar, a year after a memorable and stunning victory, it could all end very badly for Cameron.
The Caesar/Brutus thread that I wrote 12 months ago turned out be prescient.
Michael Gove could be set to play the role of Brutus to David Cameron's Caesar
They say history repeats itself, in 1990, one of Lady Thatcher’s most loyal and long standing supporters, turned on her citing a tragic conflict of loyalty, whilst Gove will not want to trigger Cameron’s departure, his actions may well do. Come the 24th of June, David Cameron might well be uttering Et tu Michael? Like Caesar, a year after a memorable and stunning victory, it could all end very badly for Cameron.
Would have been more prescient if you'd said he'd "accidentally" get his knife stuck between Boris's shoulder blades as he was drawing it back to stab Cameron....
But yes, it undoubtedly ended very badly for Cameron.
You posted it at least twice, once in the morning then again later in the day.
I .
I happen.
I disagree.
You were obviously wrong and the least you could do was to hold your hand up. That's not what I asked. The question was 'doesn't it give you pause for thought before attacking others?'
I'm not being nasty or rude, I'm just surprised you don't think at least twice before jumping down other people's throats having made such a gaffe
Actually, same.
What entering the country?
I have week.
I have absolutely no problem with people having agendas. What a strange thing to say.
Well I don't want to get involved in another long boring discussion about not much. I just wondered if your gaffe about Gina Miller being blacked up / bone through her nose gave you pause for thought before accusing others of being one eyed, you don't want to answer, we shall leave it at that.
I have answered. You don't lie the answer. Fair enough.
Why get touchy? I asked a simple question, with no malice. I must have missed the answer in amongst the what abouttery.
What was it?
I have read through your replies and can't find it
Ha, ha :-D
What was it?!
Doesn't the fact you made a big error in posting that the sun had blacked up Gina Miller when they hadn't give you pause for thought when attacking others for posting 'fake news' or sarcastically pointing out embarrassing misunderstandings?
(4) Brexit doesn't explain all (or even most) of the huge rises in Lib Dem support in other areas of the country, including heavily Leave areas, because it is totally unsupported by any other data. It absolutely doesn't demonstrate latent opposition to Brexit throughout the country.
This seems like woolly thinking to me. What you would call a heavily Leave area still has 30-40% of people who are not Leavers, and given that they are notionally in places where Brexitism is strong, the fact that they take a different view is quite likely to mean that they hold their views out of conviction.
Indeed, some of them will, but many will have voted Remain because it was the status quo and weren't sufficiently animated by the EU to risk the economic disruption in Leaving it.
By the same token, they won't all be sufficiently animated by Brexit to turn out on a cold dark February to make a statement by voting for the Liberal Democrats.
I'd say that of the "48%", ~10% were global citizens (ideologically internationalist), a further 10% Europhiles and very committed to the EU (and there will be a strong venn diagram overlap between the two), a further 10% "soft" Europhiles - i.e. might have been pro-euro once, are now ambivalent, but still pro EU, and a further ~18-20% of status quo voters. Who include EU agnostics like Richard Nabavi, JohnO and TSE.
And, even if you were right and every single Remainer turned out to vote Lib Dem because of Brexit, that still wouldn't explain a 66%+ Lib Dem vote in somewhere like Rotherham.
Council by elections are the EFL CUP, little teams get good results because the big boys aren't trying.
UKIP aren't big boys, butare probably putting all their eggs in the Stoke basket. They have form for this, they mistakenly didn't put in the effort in Heywood and Middleton because they were desperate to win Clacton.
@TSE, the Senate map is horrible for the Democrats in 2018. They're defending 5 seats that went for Trump by margins of 18-41%, plus Ohio, which Trump won by 9%.
Who would want to be president? Francois Fillon and his Welsh wife Penelope could have continued to live in cossetted obscurity. But he chose to expose his finances to the inevitable harsh scrutiny of a presidential campaign.
@TSE, the Senate map is horrible for the Democrats in 2018. They're defending 5 seats that went for Trump by margins of 18-41%, plus Ohio, which Trump won by 9%.
That's what I thought.
I'm trying to look at what the House and Senate will look like for the latter half of his term
"A number of MPs donned hijabs in Westminster Hall to celebrate World Hijab Day (WHD), which normalises Islamic veiling and promotes “modest” dress."
A belated triumph for Mrs Whitehouse. No more jeans, or short skirts. No tops exposing the V of the breast line. Could this be the beginning of a new Puritanism?
I bet those girls in Rotherham didn't wear hijabs.
And, even if you were right and every single Remainer turned out to vote Lib Dem because of Brexit, that still wouldn't explain a 66%+ Lib Dem vote in somewhere like Rotherham.
The vastly different turnout explains that. We're unlikely to see turnout like in the EU referendum again at the next GE.
Are we still pretending that council by-elections have a wider significance?
Awww, how sweet.
But parish council by-elections have even wider significance for desperate leaders.
Local by-election wins raise morale, and help a party build up its profile in an area, as does winning the local council. It's almost always a necessary precondition for Parliamentary success that one must do well locally, but it's certainly not sufficient. Watford, for example, is a Lib Dem stronghold at local level, and a Conservative stronghold at Parliamentary level.
And, even if you were right and every single Remainer turned out to vote Lib Dem because of Brexit, that still wouldn't explain a 66%+ Lib Dem vote in somewhere like Rotherham.
The vastly different turnout explains that. We're unlikely to see turnout like in the EU referendum again at the next GE.
62-72% turnout range still wouldn't explain it I'm afraid.
Which reminds me, that a Bath Councillor is on trial with others for something similar. There might be a by-election after the end of the trial, though that does depend on the verdict.
"A number of MPs donned hijabs in Westminster Hall to celebrate World Hijab Day (WHD), which normalises Islamic veiling and promotes “modest” dress."
A belated triumph for Mrs Whitehouse. No more jeans, or short skirts. No tops exposing the V of the breast line. Could this be the beginning of a new Puritanism?
I bet those girls in Rotherham didn't wear hijabs.
Asking for it.
You're not allowed to mention the 1400 Rotherham children anymore, because yesterday some non muslims in Sheffield were guilty of the same thing
Who would want to be president? Francois Fillon and his Welsh wife Penelope could have continued to live in cossetted obscurity. But he chose to expose his finances to the inevitable harsh scrutiny of a presidential campaign.
Dodgy finances and mistresses have never been an impediment before in vive la France…
@TSE, the Senate map is horrible for the Democrats in 2018. They're defending 5 seats that went for Trump by margins of 18-41%, plus Ohio, which Trump won by 9%.
That's what I thought.
I'm trying to look at what the House and Senate will look like for the latter half of his term
The Democrats are defending seats in five massively red States (two of which they won due to appalling Republican candidates in 2012, Indiana and Missouri). They're also defending seats in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin, won by Trump (albeit, the last four narrowly). They're also defending seats in New Hampshire, Maine, and Virginia, all marginal in Senate terms.
Manchin, Tester, and Heitkamp are all well-regarded in their States, and Democrats won the Governorships in West Virginia and Montana, despite huge wins for Trump. So, none of them should be considered write offs. The Republicans are defending one marginal seat in Nevada.
IMO, Trump would have to plumb appalling depths of unpopularity (worse than Bush in 2006-08) for the Democrats to hold everything, and gain Nevada. However, normal levels of mid-term unpopularity should reduce the scale of Democratic losses. My best guess at this point, would be a net loss of 3 Senate seats for the Democrats. Given that would mean that some Democratic Senators would have held on in solidly Red States, it wouldn't actually be a bad result, and the Senate maps become much better for them in 2020 and 2022.
The House in 2018 should be much better for the Democrats. They need to gain 24 seats to take control, which is about average for the opposition in mid-term.
The lefty reaction to Trump has been so wretchedly unhinged, so adolescently wanky, so revealingly entitled and asinine, if the US election was rerun tomorrow, and I had a vote, I think I'd vote for Trump.
The lefty reaction to Trump has been so wretchedly unhinged, so adolescently wanky, so revealingly entitled and asinine, if the US election was rerun tomorrow, and I had a vote, I think I'd vote for Trump.
But, on the other hand, Trump has shown every sign of governing in the same narcissistic and over-emotional manner that he campaigned in. No pivot. A pity there wasn't a Brexit equivalent on their ballot paper - instead the US got treated to a corporately-financed Miliband vs Farage on steroids.
In many parts of the country, Leave voters are less motivated than Remain voters seems the obvious conclusion here. Perhaps incumbent MPs who voted against Article 50 do not have as much to fear as we have all thought.
I think the obvious conclusion is that non-Marxist, non-loony, non-extremist moderate lefties are giving up on Corbyn's Labour in droves. The LibDems offer a reasonably comfortable new political home.
That doesn't explain UKIP's lower numbers in a place where they should be thriving if they really are hoovering up white working class Labour support.
The white working class? I think you'll find that a lot of them aren't all that white and don't get paid much for what work they can get. Some of them are socially conservative but plenty aren't. I don't think UKIP have actually got anything for them.
I'd say that of the "48%", ~10% were global citizens (ideologically internationalist), a further 10% Europhiles and very committed to the EU (and there will be a strong venn diagram overlap between the two), a further 10% "soft" Europhiles - i.e. might have been pro-euro once, are now ambivalent, but still pro EU, and a further ~18-20% of status quo voters. Who include EU agnostics like Richard Nabavi, JohnO and TSE.
100% of the Remain voters I have talked about Brexit with were typically British Eurosceptic everyman types but who weren't up for the potential disruption or said they believed Project Fear at the time. (sample size 6 out of 6 of whom 4 relatives - is that statistically significant?). 4 of 6 now want out.
I'm a great admirer of Hopi Sen, the thinking man's lefty, but quite honestly that's pretty feeble. If anything, it puts Boris in quite a good light, as those quotes suggest he wasn't over-claiming in the way that some Leavers were.
In fact, right now, two G&Ts into a beautiful, sultry Bangkok evening. I'd probably vote for Hitler, just to annoy the Left. Fuck it. If anyone to the right of Harriet Harman is gonna be called a Nazi, or a "white supremacist" by preening, beta wankers like you, we might as well embrace it, and have fun.
100% of the Remain voters I have talked about Brexit with were typically British Eurosceptic everyman types but who weren't up for the potential disruption or said they believed Project Fear at the time. (sample size 6 out of 6 of whom 4 relatives - is that statistically significant?). 4 of 6 now want out.
I think Dominic Cummings' writings on this bear out the fact that there are 40% of people in the middle who don't much care and need a lot of shepherding to be pushed into either camp. It's not surprising that these people would switch to the majority view when the generally mood is that 'we're doing great', but they could equally easily switch back again.
If we ever see the true believers on either side starting to recant, that will be a signal that something fundamental has shifted.
The lefty reaction to Trump has been so wretchedly unhinged, so adolescently wanky, so revealingly entitled and asinine, if the US election was rerun tomorrow, and I had a vote, I think I'd vote for Trump.
Of course you would.
In fact, right now, two G&Ts into a beautiful, sultry Bangkok evening. I'd probably vote for Hitler, just to annoy the Left. Fuck it. If anyone to the right of Harriet Harman is gonna be called a Nazi, or a "white supremacist" by preening, beta wankers like you, we might as well embrace it, and have fun.
Absolutely - you have never hidden the fact that your political philosophy is based around winding-up lefties, so a Trump vote would be entirely logical. I like to think of myself as alpha-beta, rather than plain beta, but being beta is better than being gamma, I suppose.
The lefty reaction to Trump has been so wretchedly unhinged, so adolescently wanky, so revealingly entitled and asinine, if the US election was rerun tomorrow, and I had a vote, I think I'd vote for Trump.
Of course you would.
In fact, right now, two G&Ts into a beautiful, sultry Bangkok evening. I'd probably vote for Hitler, just to annoy the Left. Fuck it. If anyone to the right of Harriet Harman is gonna be called a Nazi, or a "white supremacist" by preening, beta wankers like you, we might as well embrace it, and have fun.
What’s the local gut rot like in Bangkok – or is the Gin imported?
There won't, of course be a single party LibDem government because in their first term as largest party they'll implement PR.
I remember both Blair and Trudeau doing that as well.
Wasn’t Labour policy, IIRC. And I thought more of you than to think you could mistake Blair for a LibDem! In any event, apparently the block was provided by the threatened explosion of John Prescott! Trudeau Fils hasn’t finished his first term yet. I don’t recall Trudeau Pere doing so.
Guardian reporting that there might be a 5 year Brexit transition deal, but the U.K. would have to accept ECJ rulings over the Single Market during that time.
That will relieve the City - I doubt a single banker will move to Paris. But would the hardline sceptics accept?
What choice would they have?
In practice, it's hard to see how a separate adjudication method could be set up in time anyway, and the government could finesse it as accepting ECJ rulings over the Single Market but not accepting ECJ rulings having direct effect in UK law.
I'm a great admirer of Hopi Sen, the thinking man's lefty, but quite honestly that's pretty feeble. If anything, it puts Boris in quite a good light, as those quotes suggest he wasn't over-claiming in the way that some Leavers were.
I'd add that there is absolutely no need to mention the NHS, which is, for practical purposes, a wholly domestic matter.
I stated yesterday that the White Paper was pretty thin gruel, and I'm deeply, deeply unimpressed with it. But Hopi's criticism is pretty thin too.
100% of the Remain voters I have talked about Brexit with were typically British Eurosceptic everyman types but who weren't up for the potential disruption or said they believed Project Fear at the time. (sample size 6 out of 6 of whom 4 relatives - is that statistically significant?). 4 of 6 now want out.
I think Dominic Cummings' writings on this bear out the fact that there are 40% of people in the middle who don't much care and need a lot of shepherding to be pushed into either camp. It's not surprising that these people would switch to the majority view when the generally mood is that 'we're doing great', but they could equally easily switch back again.
If we ever see the true believers on either side starting to recant, that will be a signal that something fundamental has shifted.
Possibly. But it also tells me that if Dave had really meant it - EU serious reform or we'll walk. And then energetically campaigned for a walk when it became utterly clear the EU is simply not capable of reform - then, with the power of the state behind him, he'd have won a vote to walk 70/30.
Guardian reporting that there might be a 5 year Brexit transition deal, but the U.K. would have to accept ECJ rulings over the Single Market during that time.
That will relieve the City - I doubt a single banker will move to Paris. But would the hardline sceptics accept?
No. But as long as May is able to to say to the general public she has regained control of immigration with immediate effect she will get away with it.
Guardian reporting that there might be a 5 year Brexit transition deal, but the U.K. would have to accept ECJ rulings over the Single Market during that time.
That will relieve the City - I doubt a single banker will move to Paris. But would the hardline sceptics accept?
The hardliners that wouldn't accept would be the absolute extremists - not statistically significant to do anything except fill their blogs of choice with fulminations of betrayal. Even the Redwoods of this world would wear it (they'd grumble, but that's about it).
100% of the Remain voters I have talked about Brexit with were typically British Eurosceptic everyman types but who weren't up for the potential disruption or said they believed Project Fear at the time. (sample size 6 out of 6 of whom 4 relatives - is that statistically significant?). 4 of 6 now want out.
I think Dominic Cummings' writings on this bear out the fact that there are 40% of people in the middle who don't much care and need a lot of shepherding to be pushed into either camp. It's not surprising that these people would switch to the majority view when the generally mood is that 'we're doing great', but they could equally easily switch back again.
If we ever see the true believers on either side starting to recant, that will be a signal that something fundamental has shifted.
Possibly. But it also tells me that if Dave had really meant it - EU serious reform or we'll walk. And then energetically campaigned for a walk when it became utterly clear the EU is simply not capable of reform - then, with the power of the state behind him, he'd have won a vote to walk 70/30.
Council by elections are the EFL CUP, little teams get good results because the big boys aren't trying.
UKIP aren't big boys, butare probably putting all their eggs in the Stoke basket. They have form for this, they mistakenly didn't put in the effort in Heywood and Middleton because they were desperate to win Clacton.
Yes the EFL Cup! When we lose....Mickey Mouse trophy. Win....one of the major trophies.
Guardian reporting that there might be a 5 year Brexit transition deal, but the U.K. would have to accept ECJ rulings over the Single Market during that time.
That will relieve the City - I doubt a single banker will move to Paris. But would the hardline sceptics accept?
Yes. We're patient. It's taken 40 years. I'm as hard a Eurosceptic as they come and have been aching to leave the swamp since I have had a political opinion. 5 years towelling off before getting dressed and moving on? Meh! Fine. When it's done it's done.
It appears that the Lib Dems are the true opposition to the Tories in terms of policy but do not have the councillors or MPs to be an effective opposition. The electorate are ensuring balance returns. Massive wins by the Lib Dems are no longer a surprise but expected.
The fight over the UK economy continues. In manufacturing we have two offsetting trends. The lower pound helps existing contracts but uncertain regulatory and trading relationships have slowed long term investment.
One of my production staff left today as his salary was doubled to go and work at Hinkley Point C. £60k a year to drive a cement truck. At the same time we have cut our electricity bill by £20k a year by switching supplier. Over a third of our electricity bill is tax to let the Government waste money on plans such as Hinkley Point C.
One of my tenants supplies largescale lighting systems. The payback on switching to modern LED lights is about 2 years. The saving on electricity is about 80%. The UK is one of the only countries in the world where demand for electricity is falling. Can anyone explain to me how we are going to get out of the mess of Hinkley Point C.
No but £60K for driving a cement truck sounds a fantastic opportunity for your former employee. Well done him.
Council by elections are the EFL CUP, little teams get good results because the big boys aren't trying.
UKIP aren't big boys, butare probably putting all their eggs in the Stoke basket. They have form for this, they mistakenly didn't put in the effort in Heywood and Middleton because they were desperate to win Clacton.
Yes the EFL Cup! When we lose....Mickey Mouse trophy. Win....one of the major trophies.
It's called the diddy cup conundrum in Scotland; whenever an Old Firm team gets knocked out of a competition it becomes a diddy (insignificant, foolish) cup.
The New Rangers has competed for a lot of diddy cups recently.
Remember - these are outlets that refused to report the Bowling Green massacre committed by radicalised Iraqi immigrants. They will stop at nothing.
Doesn't misunderstandings?
I did not repeatedly claim it. I claimed it once and then admitted I had got it wrong. I wanted it to be true. It wasn't. I made myself look stupid and held my hand up on here and on Twitter. Compare and contrast with others.
You posted it at least twice, once in the morning then again later in the day.
I remember you were briefly contrite when rumbled, but it doesn't seem to have had a lasting effect. I am surprised it hasn't made you think twice before turning on others.
I am not the official spokesperson of the president of the United States seeking to justify a blanket ban by citing a massacre that did not happen.
I got the Gina Miller thing wrong, though I would dispute that commenting on it twice (I remember once, but you are no doubt correct) equates to repeatedly, but that is by the by: I wanted it to be true, it wasn't. I held my hand up. I think I did the right thing. If you don't fair enough, we disagree.
Technically that is exactly what it means. If a person is accused of hitting someone on the head repeatedly the Crown has to prove twice.
@TSE, the Senate map is horrible for the Democrats in 2018. They're defending 5 seats that went for Trump by margins of 18-41%, plus Ohio, which Trump won by 9%.
That's what I thought.
I'm trying to look at what the House and Senate will look like for the latter half of his term
The Democrats are defending seats in five massively red States (two of which they won due to appalling Republican candidates in 2012, Indiana and Missouri). They're also defending seats in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin, won by Trump (albeit, the last four narrowly). They're also defending seats in New Hampshire, Maine, and Virginia, all marginal in Senate terms.
Manchin, Tester, and Heitkamp are all well-regarded in their States, and Democrats won the Governorships in West Virginia and Montana, despite huge wins for Trump. So, none of them should be considered write offs. The Republicans are defending one marginal seat in Nevada.
IMO, Trump would have to plumb appalling depths of unpopularity (worse than Bush in 2006-08) for the Democrats to hold everything, and gain Nevada. However, normal levels of mid-term unpopularity should reduce the scale of Democratic losses. My best guess at this point, would be a net loss of 3 Senate seats for the Democrats. Given that would mean that some Democratic Senators would have held on in solidly Red States, it wouldn't actually be a bad result, and the Senate maps become much better for them in 2020 and 2022.
The House in 2018 should be much better for the Democrats. They need to gain 24 seats to take control, which is about average for the opposition in mid-term.
Guardian reporting that there might be a 5 year Brexit transition deal, but the U.K. would have to accept ECJ rulings over the Single Market during that time.
That will relieve the City - I doubt a single banker will move to Paris. But would the hardline sceptics accept?
To offer the alternative view, based on her performance on the sofa I have placed £2 on Harperson to be next leader at 210/1. She was articulate and feisty and still up for the fight. And frankly was Shakespeare compared to Abbott or Corbyn or Lewis.
Its a long long shot, but who knows in this mad mad world.
Harperson is on Graham Norton tonight. On manoeuvres or just trying to shift her book?
To offer the alternative view, based on her performance on the sofa I have placed £2 on Harperson to be next leader at 210/1. She was articulate and feisty and still up for the fight. And frankly was Shakespeare compared to Abbott or Corbyn or Lewis.
Its a long long shot, but who knows in this mad mad world.
Harperson is on Graham Norton tonight. On manoeuvres or just trying to shift her book?
Guardian reporting that there might be a 5 year Brexit transition deal, but the U.K. would have to accept ECJ rulings over the Single Market during that time.
That will relieve the City - I doubt a single banker will move to Paris. But would the hardline sceptics accept?
Guardian reporting that there might be a 5 year Brexit transition deal, but the U.K. would have to accept ECJ rulings over the Single Market during that time.
That will relieve the City - I doubt a single banker will move to Paris. But would the hardline sceptics accept?
Guardian reporting that there might be a 5 year Brexit transition deal, but the U.K. would have to accept ECJ rulings over the Single Market during that time.
That will relieve the City - I doubt a single banker will move to Paris. But would the hardline sceptics accept?
What choice would they have?
In practice, it's hard to see how a separate adjudication method could be set up in time anyway, and the government could finesse it as accepting ECJ rulings over the Single Market but not accepting ECJ rulings having direct effect in UK law.
Agreed. I suspect HMG will accept something like this, but they'll try and fudge it with semantics, to save face.
Still leaves the thorny question of FoM. But nonetheless the first inklings of a deal emerge. It will not be The Apocalypse
I think it would fly - apart from the headbangers - who won't be happy until the UK is towed out into the middle of the Atlantic.
The next net migration figures are due 23rd February. I think we'll be able to see if migration has been materially affected by the rampant xenophobia and epidemic of hate crimes since the referendum. If the numbers are dropping, then I think May will keep the electorate onside.
Comments
https://www.patreon.com/lauriepenny
You could also chip in if you don’t care about my work either way but REALLY want to piss off some right-wing trolls. Every dollar you donate makes an alt-right hatebot cross.
As an aside Courgettes must be the easiest veg in the world to grow.
(2) The effect of (1) will have a proportionately greater affect in Remain heavy areas that aren't otherwise dominated by the most radical Left (i.e. where LD attractiveness on the EU can beat/override Corbynism)
(3) Brexit acts as a heavy incentiviser for Lib Dem activists and members to fund and campaign for the Lib Dems
(4) Brexit doesn't explain all (or even most) of the huge rises in Lib Dem support in other areas of the country, including heavily Leave areas, because it is totally unsupported by any other data. It absolutely doesn't demonstrate latent opposition to Brexit throughout the country.
(5) In these instances (4) it's probably because they are a safe-ish, neutral-ish NOTA option that has detoxified and offers reasonable prospects of competent local/community governance
We have correlation, causation and confirmation bias going on here.
None of that is to dispute that there is a real Lib Dem revival going on: there is.
I will change my mind if and when the facts change. Not before.
Trudeau Fils hasn’t finished his first term yet. I don’t recall Trudeau Pere doing so.
Plenty of people have called Bannon a white supremacist in print and in speech. He has never sued any of them. You should have no fear. He can't start suing now.
Miss Plato, that sort of thing is part of the reason I think we'll never have a burkha ban.
Anyway, I'm off for a bit.
Ian Miles Cheong
Please become a meme. This "professor" went off on NYPD for arresting Antifa members who assaulted Gavin McInnes. https://t.co/xvklL1ITXK
"you should beat their asses"
"I'm teaching these kids about humanity"
Intellectual elitism at its finest
"Don't touch me, I am better than you because I have more intellect"
Your business is (really) none of my business, but I was curious if you did manage to do it another way. Some people are supremely good at time management.
Not me!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2945970/Crooks-growing-cannabis-caught-neighbours-notice-snow-melted-roof.html
Michael Gove could be set to play the role of Brutus to David Cameron's Caesar
They say history repeats itself, in 1990, one of Lady Thatcher’s most loyal and long standing supporters, turned on her citing a tragic conflict of loyalty, whilst Gove will not want to trigger Cameron’s departure, his actions may well do. Come the 24th of June, David Cameron might well be uttering Et tu Michael? Like Caesar, a year after a memorable and stunning victory, it could all end very badly for Cameron.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/02/28/michael-gove-could-be-set-to-play-the-role-of-brutus-to-david-camerons-caesar/
Leavers' use ofblockquote has gone up the Swannee.But yes, it undoubtedly ended very badly for Cameron.
Awww, how sweet.
By the same token, they won't all be sufficiently animated by Brexit to turn out on a cold dark February to make a statement by voting for the Liberal Democrats.
I'd say that of the "48%", ~10% were global citizens (ideologically internationalist), a further 10% Europhiles and very committed to the EU (and there will be a strong venn diagram overlap between the two), a further 10% "soft" Europhiles - i.e. might have been pro-euro once, are now ambivalent, but still pro EU, and a further ~18-20% of status quo voters. Who include EU agnostics like Richard Nabavi, JohnO and TSE.
And, even if you were right and every single Remainer turned out to vote Lib Dem because of Brexit, that still wouldn't explain a 66%+ Lib Dem vote in somewhere like Rotherham.
One of them will be back. The other, not so much.
UKIP aren't big boys, butare probably putting all their eggs in the Stoke basket. They have form for this, they mistakenly didn't put in the effort in Heywood and Middleton because they were desperate to win Clacton.
PN up for Erection!!
I'm trying to look at what the House and Senate will look like for the latter half of his term
Asking for it.
Manchin, Tester, and Heitkamp are all well-regarded in their States, and Democrats won the Governorships in West Virginia and Montana, despite huge wins for Trump. So, none of them should be considered write offs. The Republicans are defending one marginal seat in Nevada.
IMO, Trump would have to plumb appalling depths of unpopularity (worse than Bush in 2006-08) for the Democrats to hold everything, and gain Nevada. However, normal levels of mid-term unpopularity should reduce the scale of Democratic losses. My best guess at this point, would be a net loss of 3 Senate seats for the Democrats. Given that would mean that some Democratic Senators would have held on in solidly Red States, it wouldn't actually be a bad result, and the Senate maps become much better for them in 2020 and 2022.
The House in 2018 should be much better for the Democrats. They need to gain 24 seats to take control, which is about average for the opposition in mid-term.
https://www.periscope.tv/w/a2M68zFvTmpseEdOSnBqd1J8MWxQS3FSTWJMUGxHYsT70VZxva9uqF5aUQzCCM5bDdFaHGkOUpAqoQX6avnA
100% of the Remain voters I have talked about Brexit with were typically British Eurosceptic everyman types but who weren't up for the potential disruption or said they believed Project Fear at the time. (sample size 6 out of 6 of whom 4 relatives - is that statistically significant?). 4 of 6 now want out.
If we ever see the true believers on either side starting to recant, that will be a signal that something fundamental has shifted.
In practice, it's hard to see how a separate adjudication method could be set up in time anyway, and the government could finesse it as accepting ECJ rulings over the Single Market but not accepting ECJ rulings having direct effect in UK law.
I stated yesterday that the White Paper was pretty thin gruel, and I'm deeply, deeply unimpressed with it. But Hopi's criticism is pretty thin too.
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/827521736077828096
The stench of coke sweat off him must be mighty.
The New Rangers has competed for a lot of diddy cups recently.
I'm looking on betting from 2019 onwards
1) The House voting to impeach
2) The Senate convicting by a two-thirds majority
I can see 1) happening but not 2)
Then that wouldn't be much of a transition.
The next net migration figures are due 23rd February. I think we'll be able to see if migration has been materially affected by the rampant xenophobia and epidemic of hate crimes since the referendum. If the numbers are dropping, then I think May will keep the electorate onside.