It really is a stretch to say some of those statements are false. e.g.:
TRUMP: "Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force."
THE FACTS: That's true, but for the vast majority of them, it's because they choose to be.
Where's the false statement?
TRUMP: His budget plan will offer "one of the largest increases in national defence spending in American history".
THE FACTS: Three times in recent years, Congress raised defence budgets by larger percentages than the 54 billion dollars, or 10%, increase Mr Trump proposes. The base defense budget grew by 41 billion dollars, or 14.3%, in 2002; by 37 billion dollars, or 11.3%, in 2003, and by 47 billion dollars, or 10.9%, in 2008, according to Defence Department figures.
Since when didn't top three qualify as "one of the largest".
I think they need a category of misleading or requiring clarification. Your two examples fit that more than simply being false. Headlines, headlines. He tells enough fibs generally.
It was only a matter of time. They'll have us wearing yellow stars before you can say 'Hartlepool'. Interesting choice of shot by the Guardian. They're very good at that
Have you read the article ?
That is not what the job description says at all, I believe the story has a misleading header.
Yes. Have you? It's even got a picture of leering Liam Fox!
"Contractors bidding for work with the government are being asked to affirm that they back Brexit.
Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has inserted a clause into advertisements inviting tech companies to bid for work, saying that in order to have the right “cultural fit” for the task, they must “be committed to the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union”.
Pro-Brexit ministers have sometimes been frustrated by civil servants’ lack of enthusiasm for the complex task of unpicking Britain’s close relationship with the EU and appear to be determined to hire firms that share their optimism."
Try the test of opposites.
Do we want contractors who are not committed to the best possible outcome, or who are committed to the worst possible outcome?
Do we want enthusiasm for Brexit to be measured on scorecards for job interviews?
The question is then what do we make of the 28% or REMAIN voters who support the Conservatives - as others have argued, with a tinge of desperation, we will have left the EU and all this will be done with and forgotten and "Global Britain", rather like the Crimson Permanent Assurance, will be sailing toward the sunlit horizons.
How many of that 28% voted REMAIN because a) They were loyal conservatives following their leader b) They believed in Dave personally and were following him c) They believed Project Fear
a) Will mostly be following Theresa now and leaning toward Leave b) Will dwindle but there will be the TSE tendency left, others will move to the LDs c) Will have mostly decided it was bullshit and adjusted their views accordingly.
You haven't noticed all the opinion polls that show that basically no one has changed their minds about Brexit?
Personally I'm surprised just how few Remainer Conservatives have demonstrated Stockholm Syndrome. It shows just what a poor job Leave supporters have done in reaching out to even the most potentially persuadable Remainers.
Why do you expect people to change their minds? Look at Scotland, post independence vote in 2014. Has anyone changed their minds there?
I have to say, David, this smacks of desperation and wishful thinking. Of course it will suit the Conservatives if we all "move on" but A50 will be an integral part of our lives over the next couple of years and isn't going to go away.
As a non-Conservative, I quite like the idea of holding this Government to account on its record beyond leaving the EU as I suspect by 2020 there will be plenty of areas in which it will be found wanting but that's just me.
As for Conservative "unity", we'll see. With the exceptions of Ken Clarke and John Major, neither of whom have much to lose, we've heard little in the way of dissenting voices but that may change with time and especially if, for example, the City doesn't fare so well in the A50 negotiations.
Of course, the Conservatives can only prosper while Corbyn leads the Opposition - that won't last forever and as sure as night follows day, Labour will re-group and become the credible alternative - I'm inclined to think it won't happen this side of 2020 but to assume it won't ever happen is naïve. Add into that day to day Government bungling and the growing sense we're all fed up with that Theresa May telling us what's what and there's plenty in the medium and longer term for Conservatives to consider. For now, though, all's right with the world.
I think the key phrase in your response is "the next couple of years". I agree. But we are talking about how that affects an election in 2020. I don't think it will much although the tories have a strategic opportunity with the collapse of UKIP.
I too wish we had a serious and credible opposition asking the hard questions and testing the arguments. I have repeatedly said that Labour's disgraceful self indulgence in choosing Corbyn twice not only let their supporters (as opposed to members) down but the country down. Its unfortunate.
It really is a stretch to say some of those statements are false. e.g.:
TRUMP: "Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force."
THE FACTS: That's true, but for the vast majority of them, it's because they choose to be.
Where's the false statement?
TRUMP: His budget plan will offer "one of the largest increases in national defence spending in American history".
THE FACTS: Three times in recent years, Congress raised defence budgets by larger percentages than the 54 billion dollars, or 10%, increase Mr Trump proposes. The base defense budget grew by 41 billion dollars, or 14.3%, in 2002; by 37 billion dollars, or 11.3%, in 2003, and by 47 billion dollars, or 10.9%, in 2008, according to Defence Department figures.
Since when didn't top three qualify as "one of the largest".
I think they need a category of misleading or requiring clarification. Your two examples fit that more than simply being false. Headlines, headlines. He tells enough fibs generally.
How is the second one even misleading? He seems to cause the supposed fact checkers go into overdrive with their rebuttals.
It was only a matter of time. They'll have us wearing yellow stars before you can say 'Hartlepool'. Interesting choice of shot by the Guardian. They're very good at that
Have you read the article ?
That is not what the job description says at all, I believe the story has a misleading header.
Yes. Have you? It's even got a picture of leering Liam Fox!
"Contractors bidding for work with the government are being asked to affirm that they back Brexit.
Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has inserted a clause into advertisements inviting tech companies to bid for work, saying that in order to have the right “cultural fit” for the task, they must “be committed to the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union”.
Pro-Brexit ministers have sometimes been frustrated by civil servants’ lack of enthusiasm for the complex task of unpicking Britain’s close relationship with the EU and appear to be determined to hire firms that share their optimism."
Try the test of opposites.
Do we want contractors who are not committed to the best possible outcome, or who are committed to the worst possible outcome?
Do we want enthusiasm for Brexit to be measured on scorecards for job interviews?
It's a ridiculous idea. Who would say they are not committed to the best possible outcome when applying for the job? It'd be like answering honestly about how keen you are when applying for a job you may not love but need. Unless the question is a smokescreen to reward those who backed Brexit beforehand, I struggle to see what the point of it is, since leave or remain a contractor will do the best job they can.
Good idea. But how would people look for work? Presumably they could be granted temporary visas to seek work? Bit of a palava but there it is. London visas would be a great idea - you can move to London and work freely - and might even happen. We are more open down here than in the boonies.
I suspect the vast majority are "loyal Conservatives" though it remains to be seen how their loyalty will be tested if the A50 negotiations result in something with which they do not agree and which is personally disadvantageous.
I think you, along with most of us on here, credit the public with way too much awareness of what is happening in the political world. Most voters dont even work out who their MP is until the start of the short campaign before an election. I suspect the same will be true about BrExit, the voters listened to the referendum campaign, in all likelihood took both sides with a grain of salt, and expressed their preference, most will have noted the result with a sigh, or a small smile of satisfaction, and left the politicians to get on with it.
The voters will expect both sides to lie through their teeth and grandstand the whole way through the negotiations and will, to the extent they pay any attention at all, treat those will a grain of salt as well. When something final does or doesn't happen and they start to feel the effect, maybe they will start to react, but even then there is plenty of time for both sides to try and place the blame, a game for which the EU has made a possibly critical mistake by putting someone as obstinate and comedy villainesque as Barnier in the driving seat, a politician almost designed to be the baddy that carries the can.
It really is a stretch to say some of those statements are false. e.g.:
TRUMP: "Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force."
THE FACTS: That's true, but for the vast majority of them, it's because they choose to be.
Where's the false statement?
TRUMP: His budget plan will offer "one of the largest increases in national defence spending in American history".
THE FACTS: Three times in recent years, Congress raised defence budgets by larger percentages than the 54 billion dollars, or 10%, increase Mr Trump proposes. The base defense budget grew by 41 billion dollars, or 14.3%, in 2002; by 37 billion dollars, or 11.3%, in 2003, and by 47 billion dollars, or 10.9%, in 2008, according to Defence Department figures.
Since when didn't top three qualify as "one of the largest".
I think they need a category of misleading or requiring clarification. Your two examples fit that more than simply being false. Headlines, headlines. He tells enough fibs generally.
How is the second one even misleading? He seems to cause the supposed fact checkers go into overdrive with their rebuttals.
That one is a requires clarification, or at least they've chosen to clarify it further. In their slight defence though, they didn't say every one was a lie.
It was only a matter of time. They'll have us wearing yellow stars before you can say 'Hartlepool'. Interesting choice of shot by the Guardian. They're very good at that
Have you read the article ?
That is not what the job description says at all, I believe the story has a misleading header.
Yes. Have you? It's even got a picture of leering Liam Fox!
"Contractors bidding for work with the government are being asked to affirm that they back Brexit.
Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has inserted a clause into advertisements inviting tech companies to bid for work, saying that in order to have the right “cultural fit” for the task, they must “be committed to the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union”.
Pro-Brexit ministers have sometimes been frustrated by civil servants’ lack of enthusiasm for the complex task of unpicking Britain’s close relationship with the EU and appear to be determined to hire firms that share their optimism."
Try the test of opposites.
Do we want contractors who are not committed to the best possible outcome, or who are committed to the worst possible outcome?
Here's a radical idea. Why have Liam Fox as thought policeman at all?
To my mind there are about half a dozen Con seats that are vulnerable to the LDs due to their high remain votes - Bath, Cheltenham, OXWAB, Winchester, Twickenham and Kingston. There are also others that the LDs ought to be able to make competitive like S Cambs and St Albans. A lot of the Con remain votes are in very safe seats like Wokingham.
However, I still think there is a greater opportunity for the Cons if they can take UKIP votes in the Midlands in places like Dudley, Coventry, Stoke, Walsall, Wolverhampton. Also Noirth Wales
It really is a stretch to say some of those statements are false. e.g.:
TRUMP: "Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force."
THE FACTS: That's true, but for the vast majority of them, it's because they choose to be.
Where's the false statement?
TRUMP: His budget plan will offer "one of the largest increases in national defence spending in American history".
THE FACTS: Three times in recent years, Congress raised defence budgets by larger percentages than the 54 billion dollars, or 10%, increase Mr Trump proposes. The base defense budget grew by 41 billion dollars, or 14.3%, in 2002; by 37 billion dollars, or 11.3%, in 2003, and by 47 billion dollars, or 10.9%, in 2008, according to Defence Department figures.
Since when didn't top three qualify as "one of the largest".
I think they need a category of misleading or requiring clarification. Your two examples fit that more than simply being false. Headlines, headlines. He tells enough fibs generally.
The second is absolutely true, Trump didn't mention "percentage" in his quote at all, he said the largest, which would reasonably be taken to mean in absolute terms, and 54bn proposed by Trump is indeed larger than 41bn in 2002 or 37bn in 2003 or 47bn in 2008.
It was only a matter of time. They'll have us wearing yellow stars before you can say 'Hartlepool'. Interesting choice of shot by the Guardian. They're very good at that
Have you read the article ?
That is not what the job description says at all, I believe the story has a misleading header.
Yes. Have you? It's even got a picture of leering Liam Fox!
"Contractors bidding for work with the government are being asked to affirm that they back Brexit.
Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has inserted a clause into advertisements inviting tech companies to bid for work, saying that in order to have the right “cultural fit” for the task, they must “be committed to the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union”.
Pro-Brexit ministers have sometimes been frustrated by civil servants’ lack of enthusiasm for the complex task of unpicking Britain’s close relationship with the EU and appear to be determined to hire firms that share their optimism."
Try the test of opposites.
Do we want contractors who are not committed to the best possible outcome, or who are committed to the worst possible outcome?
Do we want enthusiasm for Brexit to be measured on scorecards for job interviews?
It's a ridiculous idea. Who would say they are not committed to the best possible outcome when applying for the job? It'd be like answering honestly about how keen you are when applying for a job you may not love but need. Unless the question is a smokescreen to reward those who backed Brexit beforehand, I struggle to see what the point of it is, since leave or remain a contractor will do the best job they can.
Quite. Leave or Remain, we all want the best outcome for our country.
The question is then what do we make of the 28% or REMAIN voters who support the Conservatives - as others have argued, with a tinge of desperation, we will have left the EU and all this will be done with and forgotten and "Global Britain", rather like the Crimson Permanent Assurance, will be sailing toward the sunlit horizons.
How many of that 28% voted REMAIN because a) They were loyal conservatives following their leader b) They believed in Dave personally and were following him c) They believed Project Fear
a) Will mostly be following Theresa now and leaning toward Leave b) Will dwindle but there will be the TSE tendency left, others will move to the LDs c) Will have mostly decided it was bullshit and adjusted their views accordingly.
You haven't noticed all the opinion polls that show that basically no one has changed their minds about Brexit?
Personally I'm surprised just how few Remainer Conservatives have demonstrated Stockholm Syndrome. It shows just what a poor job Leave supporters have done in reaching out to even the most potentially persuadable Remainers.
Why do you expect people to change their minds? Look at Scotland, post independence vote in 2014. Has anyone changed their minds there?
Do you think Brexit can be a success if Remainers don't get behind it? Leavers keep saying that it's time to move on but not many Remainers show any sign of doing so. No doubt Leavers see this as Remainers' fault (as always). But do they see this as a regrettable state of affairs or something that is critical to turn around?
It was only a matter of time. They'll have us wearing yellow stars before you can say 'Hartlepool'. Interesting choice of shot by the Guardian. They're very good at that
Have you read the article ?
That is not what the job description says at all, I believe the story has a misleading header.
Yes. Have you? It's even got a picture of leering Liam Fox!
"Contractors bidding for work with the government are being asked to affirm that they back Brexit.
Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has inserted a clause into advertisements inviting tech companies to bid for work, saying that in order to have the right “cultural fit” for the task, they must “be committed to the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union”.
Pro-Brexit ministers have sometimes been frustrated by civil servants’ lack of enthusiasm for the complex task of unpicking Britain’s close relationship with the EU and appear to be determined to hire firms that share their optimism."
Try the test of opposites.
Do we want contractors who are not committed to the best possible outcome, or who are committed to the worst possible outcome?
Here's a radical idea. Why have Liam Fox as thought policeman at all?
It's a ridiculous idea. Who would say they are not committed to the best possible outcome when applying for the job? It'd be like answering honestly about how keen you are when applying for a job you may not love but need. Unless the question is a smokescreen to reward those who backed Brexit beforehand, I struggle to see what the point of it is, since leave or remain a contractor will do the best job they can.
Quite. Leave or Remain, we all want the best outcome for our country.
Sadly not true, there are quite enough remainers still throwing rattles from prams that would happily see the country crash and burn just to prove their own moral or political scruples to be right. We might even have a few on this forum.
think everyone is overanalysing that sentence about illegal immigrants and crime in the US.
Why nitpick that sentence and not look at the bigger picture about what Trump is trying to do with the original claim?
Perhaps, although whether it was clumsily written or misleading is important in how they chose to frame the issue and thus what they claim trump is trying to do. even if the intent was misleading does that undermine the rest? Not entirely, but their intent is still a factor. You see this when people seize on whether one says refugee or migrant, or god forbid uses the word swarming, picking apart any actual policy based on the perceived truth of what was meant based on word choice.
I think that tendency goes too far myself, people will dismiss or condemn of the basis of single words inelegantly chosen sometimes, but I can acknowledge it can be relevant.
It really is a stretch to say some of those statements are false. e.g.:
TRUMP: "Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force."
THE FACTS: That's true, but for the vast majority of them, it's because they choose to be.
Where's the false statement?
TRUMP: His budget plan will offer "one of the largest increases in national defence spending in American history".
THE FACTS: Three times in recent years, Congress raised defence budgets by larger percentages than the 54 billion dollars, or 10%, increase Mr Trump proposes. The base defense budget grew by 41 billion dollars, or 14.3%, in 2002; by 37 billion dollars, or 11.3%, in 2003, and by 47 billion dollars, or 10.9%, in 2008, according to Defence Department figures.
Since when didn't top three qualify as "one of the largest".
I think they need a category of misleading or requiring clarification. Your two examples fit that more than simply being false. Headlines, headlines. He tells enough fibs generally.
How is the second one even misleading? He seems to cause the supposed fact checkers go into overdrive with their rebuttals.
That one is a requires clarification, or at least they've chosen to clarify it further. In their slight defence though, they didn't say every one was a lie.
The way they have them all set out as Trump/The Facts implies they are separate and distinct. The only egregious ones on that list were the Obamacare one (hard to prove) and the F-35 one (who knows what effect Trump's tweet had before he was President, but the fact is the price did go down the day after he made it, so it must have had some).
Interesting that on the terrorism point, they don't actually fact check his figure (people convicted of terrorism offences). They quote a government report about 82 people being inspired to carry out or attempt a terrorist attack, when in fact there have been over 550 terrorism convictions since 9/11 (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/myth-v-fact-trying-terror-suspects-federal-courts).
Yes, as soon as I saw this proposal yesterday, I thought the Mail would be apoplectic.
Sarah Vine distorts the reality nicely - the truth is the vast majority of people do not use or need the care system in terms of needing residential accommodation. Yes, many have lower levels of "care" - my father has home based care visits as an example which is funded by the local authority but for which we went through a process of assessment.
As for the "property" angle, let me be blunt. Many people who bought property in the 70s and 80s have seen the value of that property increase far beyond inflation. As an appreciating capital asset, it is an obvious thing to pass on to children or other beneficiaries. Property continues to appreciate and is for most people their main asset to fund later life.
Unless the Government closes the loophole allowing property to be "trusted" to siblings, it's then a cultural question of whether individuals should take more responsibility for funding their later life (including provision for care as well as a pension) ? The Thatcherites might argue they should.
Ignoring the Sarah Vine bleating, the counter position is the State can and should be focussing more effort on a growing elderly population and that means ensuring adequate provision both in terms of home based care and residential accommodation (including specialist dementia homes) as well as setting the quality of style we, as a society, want our older people to enjoy. If we want our parents or grandparents to enjoy a decent quality of life AND we want that quality for ourselves, we shouldn't baulk at paying for it in terms of both increased tax an NI on the one hand and planning policies geared to provide adequate appropriate accommodation (make Surrey like Florida without the sunshine)
It really is a stretch to say some of those statements are false. e.g.:
TRUMP: "Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force."
THE FACTS: That's true, but for the vast majority of them, it's because they choose to be.
Where's the false statement?
TRUMP: His budget plan will offer "one of the largest increases in national defence spending in American history".
THE FACTS: Three times in recent years, Congress raised defence budgets by larger percentages than the 54 billion dollars, or 10%, increase Mr Trump proposes. The base defense budget grew by 41 billion dollars, or 14.3%, in 2002; by 37 billion dollars, or 11.3%, in 2003, and by 47 billion dollars, or 10.9%, in 2008, according to Defence Department figures.
Since when didn't top three qualify as "one of the largest".
I think they need a category of misleading or requiring clarification. Your two examples fit that more than simply being false. Headlines, headlines. He tells enough fibs generally.
How is the second one even misleading? He seems to cause the supposed fact checkers go into overdrive with their rebuttals.
Indeed. It's the factcheckers who decided percentage increase is the right way to go. Trump can argue that $54bn is larger than the $41bn, $37bn and $47bn numbers they cite
The question is then what do we make of the 28% or REMAIN voters who support the Conservatives - as others have argued, with a tinge of desperation, we will have left the EU and all this will be done with and forgotten and "Global Britain", rather like the Crimson Permanent Assurance, will be sailing toward the sunlit horizons.
How many of that 28% voted REMAIN because a) They were loyal conservatives following their leader b) They believed in Dave personally and were following him c) They believed Project Fear
a) Will mostly be following Theresa now and leaning toward Leave b) Will dwindle but there will be the TSE tendency left, others will move to the LDs c) Will have mostly decided it was bullshit and adjusted their views accordingly.
You haven't noticed all the opinion polls that show that basically no one has changed their minds about Brexit?
Personally I'm surprised just how few Remainer Conservatives have demonstrated Stockholm Syndrome. It shows just what a poor job Leave supporters have done in reaching out to even the most potentially persuadable Remainers.
Why do you expect people to change their minds? Look at Scotland, post independence vote in 2014. Has anyone changed their minds there?
Do you think Brexit can be a success if Remainers don't get behind it? Leavers keep saying that it's time to move on but not many Remainers show any sign of doing so. No doubt Leavers see this as Remainers' fault (as always). But do they see this as a regrettable state of affairs or something that is critical to turn around?
Probably 90% of the country are not exercised by the matter at all. BrExit can happen just fine without the cooperation of half the remaining 10%. It would be interesting to see how many voters actually don't give that much of a cr*p and are not interested in completing polls on the subject. Let us not forget that the pre-referendum polling was markedly wrong because there was a couple of million voters that never bother replying to polls, but were prepared to vote Leave.
The question is then what do we make of the 28% or REMAIN voters who support the Conservatives - as others have argued, with a tinge of desperation, we will have left the EU and all this will be done with and forgotten and "Global Britain", rather like the Crimson Permanent Assurance, will be sailing toward the sunlit horizons.
How many of that 28% voted REMAIN because a) They were loyal conservatives following their leader b) They believed in Dave personally and were following him c) They believed Project Fear
a) Will mostly be following Theresa now and leaning toward Leave b) Will dwindle but there will be the TSE tendency left, others will move to the LDs c) Will have mostly decided it was bullshit and adjusted their views accordingly.
You haven't noticed all the opinion polls that show that basically no one has changed their minds about Brexit?
Personally I'm surprised just how few Remainer Conservatives have demonstrated Stockholm Syndrome. It shows just what a poor job Leave supporters have done in reaching out to even the most potentially persuadable Remainers.
Why do you expect people to change their minds? Look at Scotland, post independence vote in 2014. Has anyone changed their minds there?
Do you think Brexit can be a success if Remainers don't get behind it? Leavers keep saying that it's time to move on but not many Remainers show any sign of doing so. No doubt Leavers see this as Remainers' fault (as always). But do they see this as a regrettable state of affairs or something that is critical to turn around?
In the end the politically motivated remainers and leavers will continue their no win dialogue while people get on with their lives. However, if the EU or vocal remainers are perceived to be the cause of inhibiting a fair deal it will not be the Government who will experience the anger of the electorate
@stodge glad to see someone still remembers the wide accountancy!
Actually, not only was that the best part of the film in my view but a wonderfully prescient allegory about the triumph of age and experience over youth.
It was only a matter of time. They'll have us wearing yellow stars before you can say 'Hartlepool'. Interesting choice of shot by the Guardian. They're very good at that
Have you read the article ?
That is not what the job description says at all, I believe the story has a misleading header.
Yes. Have you? It's even got a picture of leering Liam Fox!
"Contractors bidding for work with the government are being asked to affirm that they back Brexit.
Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has inserted a clause into advertisements inviting tech companies to bid for work, saying that in order to have the right “cultural fit” for the task, they must “be committed to the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union”.
Pro-Brexit ministers have sometimes been frustrated by civil servants’ lack of enthusiasm for the complex task of unpicking Britain’s close relationship with the EU and appear to be determined to hire firms that share their optimism."
Try the test of opposites.
Do we want contractors who are not committed to the best possible outcome, or who are committed to the worst possible outcome?
Here's a radical idea. Why have Liam Fox as thought policeman at all?
Judging by the timeline of @PCollinsTimes, Labour types are tearing each other apart about whether Blairites are tory scum guilty of betrayal and careerism.
So the usual order of morning business in our main opposition party.
Interesting. I think I might have underestimated the stupidity of the the good folk of Hartlepool. But as those people are 'Leavers' its not really surprising that at this stage they don't want to appear flaky though I doubt that would be the case if things started to really go bad.
I fear you won't find much comfort among Remainers either:
If Britain does secure the sort of Brexit deal that Theresa May has suggested do you think it would be good or bad for Britain? Good: 32 Bad: 38
Do you think this outcome would or would not respect the result of the referendum? Respect: 56 Not Respect: 19
Theresa May also said that "no deal is better than a bad deal". Which of the following best reflects your view? No deal: 28 Bad deal: 30
Theresa May suggested that Britain would walk away from negotiations if other European Union countries are not prepared to offer a good deal. This would mean Britain leaving the EU without a new trade deal and tariffs being applies to imports and exports between Britain and the EU. Do you think Britain should or should not be prepared to walk away from a bad deal? Walk away: 34 Not walk away: 45
And Remainers are even less likely to think the EU will give us the deal May set out:
And do you think the other member states of the European Union will or will not agree to the sort of Brexit deal that Theresa May is proposing? Net agree: -54
So while Leavers are strongly behind May's plan - but don't think the EU will agree, a good third of Remainers could live with it (and over half think it would respect the referendum result) but over half don't think the EU will agree to it.
@stodge glad to see someone still remembers the wide accountancy!
Actually, not only was that the best part of the film in my view but a wonderfully prescient allegory about the triumph of age and experience over youth.
The question is then what do we make of the 28% or REMAIN voters who support the Conservatives - as others have argued, with a tinge of desperation, we will have left the EU and all this will be done with and forgotten and "Global Britain", rather like the Crimson Permanent Assurance, will be sailing toward the sunlit horizons.
How many of that 28% voted REMAIN because a) They were loyal conservatives following their leader b) They believed in Dave personally and were following him c) They believed Project Fear
a) Will mostly be following Theresa now and leaning toward Leave b) Will dwindle but there will be the TSE tendency left, others will move to the LDs c) Will have mostly decided it was bullshit and adjusted their views accordingly.
You haven't noticed all the opinion polls that show that basically no one has changed their minds about Brexit?
Personally I'm surprised just how few Remainer Conservatives have demonstrated Stockholm Syndrome. It shows just what a poor job Leave supporters have done in reaching out to even the most potentially persuadable Remainers.
Why do you expect people to change their minds? Look at Scotland, post independence vote in 2014. Has anyone changed their minds there?
Do you think Brexit can be a success if Remainers don't get behind it?
Brexit is now just a policy to be enacted by an elected government.
There are always oppositions that oppose what the government do, yet governments can still succeed in the face of opposition. In fact, this policy has greater democratic support than any standard government.
So yes, Brexit can succeed in spite of Remainers. Particularly hostile Remainers are a fairly small minority. Most people simply look for sensible Brexit.
Your question however, provides the justification for the Dept of International Trade question about tendering. Why hire people that are actively hostile to the ethos and goals of your organisation?
Do we want enthusiasm for Brexit to be measured on scorecards for job interviews?
When it is directly relevant to how well, or badly, people do a job, absolutely. Just as you wouldn't have wanted declared Communists in MI5 during the Cold War.
"I think everyone is overanalysing that sentence about illegal immigrants and crime in the US.
Why nitpick that sentence and not look at the bigger picture about what Trump is trying to do with the original claim?"
Hmm ... so if what someone claims is a lie is actually true - that wouldn't matter either because you know he is a liar.
So if I said today is Wednesday, that's a lie too if I had, according to you, a record of lying. That is, if I were a politician. To be honest, that's not a bad idea, and the way most people operate.
It was only a matter of time. They'll have us wearing yellow stars before you can say 'Hartlepool'. Interesting choice of shot by the Guardian. They're very good at that
Have you read the article ?
That is not what the job description says at all, I believe the story has a misleading header.
Yes. Have you? It's even got a picture of leering Liam Fox!
"Contractors bidding for work with the government are being asked to affirm that they back Brexit.
Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has inserted a clause into advertisements inviting tech companies to bid for work, saying that in order to have the right “cultural fit” for the task, they must “be committed to the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union”.
Pro-Brexit ministers have sometimes been frustrated by civil servants’ lack of enthusiasm for the complex task of unpicking Britain’s close relationship with the EU and appear to be determined to hire firms that share their optimism."
Try the test of opposites.
Do we want contractors who are not committed to the best possible outcome, or who are committed to the worst possible outcome?
Here's a radical idea. Why have Liam Fox as thought policeman at all?
Nitpicking over Trump's speech is missing the point in an epic way - viewers aren't interested unless they're scrabbling about for meagre confirmation bias evidence.
"On specific issues, Trump scored the highest marks for his proposed policies on the economy, with 72% saying those went in the right direction. Almost as many, 70%, said the same about his terrorism proposals. Slightly fewer, but still a majority, felt his policies on taxes (64%), immigration (62%) or health care (61%) were heading in the right direction.
Ideologically, about two-thirds saw Trump's speech as about right, while roughly on-quarter (26%) pegged it as too conservative. Just 8% said it wasn't conservative enough... Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Yes, as soon as I saw this proposal yesterday, I thought the Mail would be apoplectic.
Sarah Vine distorts the reality nicely - the truth is the vast majority of people do not use or need the care system in terms of needing residential accommodation. Yes, many have lower levels of "care" - my father has home based care visits as an example which is funded by the local authority but for which we went through a process of assessment.
As for the "property" angle, let me be blunt. Many people who bought property in the 70s and 80s have seen the value of that property increase far beyond inflation. As an appreciating capital asset, it is an obvious thing to pass on to children or other beneficiaries. Property continues to appreciate and is for most people their main asset to fund later life.
Unless the Government closes the loophole allowing property to be "trusted" to siblings, it's then a cultural question of whether individuals should take more responsibility for funding their later life (including provision for care as well as a pension) ? The Thatcherites might argue they should.
Ignoring the Sarah Vine bleating, the counter position is the State can and should be focussing more effort on a growing elderly population and that means ensuring adequate provision both in terms of home based care and residential accommodation (including specialist dementia homes) as well as setting the quality of style we, as a society, want our older people to enjoy. If we want our parents or grandparents to enjoy a decent quality of life AND we want that quality for ourselves, we shouldn't baulk at paying for it in terms of both increased tax an NI on the one hand and planning policies geared to provide adequate appropriate accommodation (make Surrey like Florida without the sunshine)
Well put. Only a small % need the full-on social care. But nobody knows if it will be them or not. Pooling the risk is the best way forward.
So, its some kind of death tax - 10% on all estates?
Or, compulsory social care insurance/NI increase.
How do other countries do this?
For f**** sake why doesn't the government grow a pair and get on with devising a way forward.
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
The question is then what do we make of the 28% or REMAIN voters who support the Conservatives - as others have argued, with a tinge of desperation, we will have left the EU and all this will be done with and forgotten and "Global Britain", rather like the Crimson Permanent Assurance, will be sailing toward the sunlit horizons.
How many of that 28% voted REMAIN because a) They were loyal conservatives following their leader b) They believed in Dave personally and were following him c) They believed Project Fear
a) Will mostly be following Theresa now and leaning toward Leave b) Will dwindle but there will be the TSE tendency left, others will move to the LDs c) Will have mostly decided it was bullshit and adjusted their views accordingly.
You haven't noticed all the opinion polls that show that basically no one has changed their minds about Brexit?
Personally I'm surprised just how few Remainer Conservatives have demonstrated Stockholm Syndrome. It shows just what a poor job Leave supporters have done in reaching out to even the most potentially persuadable Remainers.
Why do you expect people to change their minds? Look at Scotland, post independence vote in 2014. Has anyone changed their minds there?
Do you think Brexit can be a success if Remainers don't get behind it?
Brexit is now just a policy to be enacted by an elected government.
There are always oppositions that oppose what the government do, yet governments can still succeed in the face of opposition. In fact, this policy has greater democratic support than any standard government.
So yes, Brexit can succeed in spite of Remainers. Particularly hostile Remainers are a fairly small minority. Most people simply look for sensible Brexit.
Your question however, provides the justification for the Dept of International Trade question about tendering. Why hire people that are actively hostile to the ethos and goals of your organisation?
Come on... It's clearly a weird thing to put on a form for an IT company isn't it?
I think the key phrase in your response is "the next couple of years". I agree. But we are talking about how that affects an election in 2020. I don't think it will much although the tories have a strategic opportunity with the collapse of UKIP.
I too wish we had a serious and credible opposition asking the hard questions and testing the arguments. I have repeatedly said that Labour's disgraceful self indulgence in choosing Corbyn twice not only let their supporters (as opposed to members) down but the country down. Its unfortunate.
If I were doing the PR for this, David, I would have "Exit Day" or "Freedom Day" or whatever on say August 1st 2019 - probably nice weather, start of summer holidays etc and on the very day we leave the EU present a raft of negotiated free trade deals with the USA, Canada, NZ and Australia as the launch of "Global Britain".
People will be so wrapped up in the euphoria they'll still be on a "high" by May 7th 2020 and May will be swept back in a landslide.
The Devil will be in the detail - it always is - but the detailed analysis and the problems will be drowned out by the euphoria and the tub-thumping and all the rest.
As for your second paragraph, can't disagree with a single word. The problem for the Conservatives will be if they believe they are immortal and become self-indulgent as in the late 1980s and early 1990s. That won't do the Party any good , not that I care about that, but it won't do the country any good and that I do care about. Absence of Opposition is no excuse for poor Government though it does excuse it in the short term.
Based on the Scottish precedent, I think Brexit is likely to have a long lasting effect that benefits the Conservatives.
First Scotland. If you support independence there is a 85%-90% probability of you voting SNP (with a small leakage to the Greens). If you don't, you will vote for one of Conservative, Labour or Lib Dems on a similar probability. With one major pro-independence party and several pro-Union parties, the SNP is more or less guaranteed to have more votes than the second party anywhere in Scotland and win every FPTP election they stand for (Holyrood is semi-FPTP)
The percentages are less stark in England and Wales re Brexit, but a similar effect is certainly there. IIRC 70% of Conservative voters think Brexit is a good idea; 95% of UKIP voters; while only 20% of Labour voters and 15% of Lib Dems. Both Brexit factions have party splits but the Conservatives do better relatively against UKIP than Labour does against the Lib Dems. They also have that useful 30% continuity Remainers who are sticking with them regardless of the Leave vote. Most important, Theresa May is entrenching the Conservatives' Brexit advantage by pursuing a rhetorically hard Brexit and in doing so undermining UKIP to make the Conservatives the undisputed Party of Brexit
The question is then what do we make of the 28% or REMAIN voters who support the Conservatives - as others have argued, with a tinge of desperation, we will have left the EU and all this will be done with and forgotten and "Global Britain", rather like the Crimson Permanent Assurance, will be sailing toward the sunlit horizons.
How many of that 28% voted REMAIN because a) They were loyal conservatives following their leader b) They believed in Dave personally and were following him c) They believed Project Fear
a) Will mostly be following Theresa now and leaning toward Leave b) Will dwindle but there will be the TSE tendency left, others will move to the LDs c) Will have mostly decided it was bullshit and adjusted their views accordingly.
You haven't noticed all the opinion polls that show that basically no one has changed their minds about Brexit?
Personally I'm surprised just how few Remainer Conservatives have demonstrated Stockholm Syndrome. It shows just what a poor job Leave supporters have done in reaching out to even the most potentially persuadable Remainers.
Why do you expect people to change their minds? Look at Scotland, post independence vote in 2014. Has anyone changed their minds there?
Do you think Brexit can be a success if Remainers don't get behind it?
Brexit is now just a policy to be enacted by an elected government.
There are always oppositions that oppose what the government do, yet governments can still succeed in the face of opposition. In fact, this policy has greater democratic support than any standard government.
So yes, Brexit can succeed in spite of Remainers. Particularly hostile Remainers are a fairly small minority. Most people simply look for sensible Brexit.
Your question however, provides the justification for the Dept of International Trade question about tendering. Why hire people that are actively hostile to the ethos and goals of your organisation?
Come on... It's clearly a weird thing to put on a form for an IT company isn't it?
I agree. It's stupid and paranoid. We should assume professionalism.
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
It's not communism to use one's own wealth to provide for one's old age.
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
Annuities are a crap idea. The average person gets utterly screwed by insurance companies. And so much depends on luck - anyone forced to have taken an annuity in the last 8 years, for instance, would have their life's savings swapped for a pittance.
Judging by the timeline of @PCollinsTimes, Labour types are tearing each other apart about whether Blairites are tory scum guilty of betrayal and careerism.
So the usual order of morning business in our main opposition party.
So if Tony was a Tory the last time Labour was in power was Sunny Jim's three years of minority government before the Winter of Discontent and losing a vote of confidence and heralding the most powerful and far reaching Tory government since the War ? There hasnt been an effective Labour government since around the time Houston had a problem!
The question is then what do we make of the 28% or REMAIN voters who support the Conservatives - as others have argued, with a tinge of desperation, we will have left the EU and all this will be done with and forgotten and "Global Britain", rather like the Crimson Permanent Assurance, will be sailing toward the sunlit horizons.
How many of that 28% voted REMAIN because a) They were loyal conservatives following their leader b) They believed in Dave personally and were following him c) They believed Project Fear
a) Will mostly be following Theresa now and leaning toward Leave b) Will dwindle but there will be the TSE tendency left, others will move to the LDs c) Will have mostly decided it was bullshit and adjusted their views accordingly.
You haven't noticed all the opinion polls that show that basically no one has changed their minds about Brexit?
Personally I'm surprised just how few Remainer Conservatives have demonstrated Stockholm Syndrome. It shows just what a poor job Leave supporters have done in reaching out to even the most potentially persuadable Remainers.
Why do you expect people to change their minds? Look at Scotland, post independence vote in 2014. Has anyone changed their minds there?
Do you think Brexit can be a success if Remainers don't get behind it? Leavers keep saying that it's time to move on but not many Remainers show any sign of doing so. No doubt Leavers see this as Remainers' fault (as always). But do they see this as a regrettable state of affairs or something that is critical to turn around?
By that theory membership of the EU was not and could not have been a success as some people never supported it.
And, with respect, you seem to be inhabiting a PB and Islington bubble. Throughout the country Remainers have moved on - they may not have changed their minds but then people who have voted in an election rarely change their minds after their party has lost.
Finally Birmingham Edgbaston was 52.7% Remain, not 'nearly 60%' :
The reactionaries won’t admit they’ve won, and the liberals haven’t grasped the scale of their defeat. That is good for May, who navigates through the middle. She read the cultural mood when it was against her party in opposition. Now she co-opts a different mood as her personal project in power. That doesn’t mean she will make a success of Brexit, as she promises. The real process hasn’t even begun. The economy will soon enough be the big theme in politics again. Then the warnings issued by two former prime ministers might resonate. But for now, it is culture wars that dominate, and the current prime minister who commands the field.
Based on the Scottish precedent, I think Brexit is likely to have a long lasting effect that benefits the Conservatives.
First Scotland. If you support independence there is a 85%-90% probability of you voting SNP (with a small leakage to the Greens). If you don't, you will vote for one of Conservative, Labour or Lib Dems on a similar probability. With one major pro-independence party and several pro-Union parties, the SNP is more or less guaranteed to have more votes than the second party anywhere in Scotland and win every FPTP election they stand for (Holyrood is semi-FPTP)
The percentages are less stark in England and Wales re Brexit, but a similar effect is certainly there. IIRC 70% of Conservative voters think Brexit is a good idea; 95% of UKIP voters; while only 20% of Labour voters and 15% of Lib Dems. Both Brexit factions have party splits but the Conservatives do better relatively against UKIP than Labour does against the Lib Dems. They also have that useful 30% continuity Remainers who are sticking with them regardless of the Leave vote. Most important, Theresa May is entrenching the Conservatives' Brexit advantage by pursuing a rhetorically hard Brexit and in doing so undermining UKIP to make the Conservatives the undisputed Party of Brexit
Not many Conservative Remainers have a strong emotional commitment to the EU, unlike their Labour and Lib Dem counterparts.
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
It's not communism to use one's own wealth to provide for one's old age.
It's interesting how this issue disrupts the normal political dividing lines...
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
It's not communism to use one's own wealth to provide for one's old age.
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
It's not communism to use one's own wealth to provide for one's old age.
It is when you already pay inheritance tax. National Insurance should pay for social care and if it needs to be increased so be it. I will oppose this proposal vehemently if it is pushed forward as will thousands of other Tory members.
It was only a matter of time. They'll have us wearing yellow stars before you can say 'Hartlepool'. Interesting choice of shot by the Guardian. They're very good at that
Have you read the article ?
That is not what the job description says at all, I believe the story has a misleading header.
Yes. Have you? It's even got a picture of leering Liam Fox!
"Contractors bidding for work with the government are being asked to affirm that they back Brexit.
Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has inserted a clause into advertisements inviting tech companies to bid for work, saying that in order to have the right “cultural fit” for the task, they must “be committed to the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union”.
Pro-Brexit ministers have sometimes been frustrated by civil servants’ lack of enthusiasm for the complex task of unpicking Britain’s close relationship with the EU and appear to be determined to hire firms that share their optimism."
Try the test of opposites.
Do we want contractors who are not committed to the best possible outcome, or who are committed to the worst possible outcome?
Here's a radical idea. Why have Liam Fox as thought policeman at all?
His ball, his rules.
It's British taxpayers money he's spending...
Yes, and they elected the government that gave him the job...
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
Annuities are a crap idea. The average person gets utterly screwed by insurance companies. And so much depends on luck - anyone forced to have taken an annuity in the last 8 years, for instance, would have their life's savings swapped for a pittance.
Well anyone who invests long term - ie annuities - for an annual return of under 2% - when inflation is already 2% - is nuts.
@MxSba: FRANCE: #Fillon cancels visit and will hold a presser around noon today at its Paris HQ, reports @franceinter. Don't jump to conclusions.
Too late, the Betfair market already jumped to conclusions, but is now starting to backtrack a bit.
COULD be that he is announcing that he is finally pulling out, as he has stagnated in the polls over the past couple of weeks as a result of the scandal.
OR, a wild guess - it is the launch of his"victim campaign" where he will announce he and his wife have received death threats or similar.
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
Annuities are a crap idea. The average person gets utterly screwed by insurance companies. And so much depends on luck - anyone forced to have taken an annuity in the last 8 years, for instance, would have their life's savings swapped for a pittance.
You can get an annuity for about £70 000 but yes raising National Insurance on 50 to 65s is by far the best way of paying for social care especially as everyone would have to pay it and everyone will potentially need social care whereas almost 40% now rent and do not own a property anyway so this new socialist death tax would raise next to nothing from them at all
The question is then what do we make of the 28% or REMAIN voters who support the Conservatives - as others have argued, with a tinge of desperation, we will have left the EU and all this will be done with and forgotten and "Global Britain", rather like the Crimson Permanent Assurance, will be sailing toward the sunlit horizons.
How many of that 28% voted REMAIN because a) They were loyal conservatives following their leader b) They believed in Dave personally and were following him c) They believed Project Fear
a) Will mostly be following Theresa now and leaning toward Leave b) Will dwindle but there will be the TSE tendency left, others will move to the LDs c) Will have mostly decided it was bullshit and adjusted their views accordingly.
You haven't noticed all the opinion polls that show that basically no one has changed their minds about Brexit?
Personally I'm surprised just how few Remainer Conservatives have demonstrated Stockholm Syndrome. It shows just what a poor job Leave supporters have done in reaching out to even the most potentially persuadable Remainers.
Why do you expect people to change their minds? Look at Scotland, post independence vote in 2014. Has anyone changed their minds there?
Do you think Brexit can be a success if Remainers don't get behind it?
Brexit is now just a policy to be enacted by an elected government.
There are always oppositions that oppose what the government do, yet governments can still succeed in the face of opposition. In fact, this policy has greater democratic support than any standard government.
So yes, Brexit can succeed in spite of Remainers. Particularly hostile Remainers are a fairly small minority. Most people simply look for sensible Brexit.
Your question however, provides the justification for the Dept of International Trade question about tendering. Why hire people that are actively hostile to the ethos and goals of your organisation?
Come on... It's clearly a weird thing to put on a form for an IT company isn't it?
Left wing governments put questions on the form about diversity which is a proxy for asking does the company support government policy in this regard.
The question is then what do we make of the 28% or REMAIN voters who support the Conservatives - as others have argued, with a tinge of desperation, we will have left the EU and all this will be done with and forgotten and "Global Britain", rather like the Crimson Permanent Assurance, will be sailing toward the sunlit horizons.
How many of that 28% voted REMAIN because a) They were loyal conservatives following their leader b) They believed in Dave personally and were following him c) They believed Project Fear
a) Will mostly be following Theresa now and leaning toward Leave b) Will dwindle but there will be the TSE tendency left, others will move to the LDs c) Will have mostly decided it was bullshit and adjusted their views accordingly.
You haven't noticed all the opinion polls that show that basically no one has changed their minds about Brexit?
Personally I'm surprised just how few Remainer Conservatives have demonstrated Stockholm Syndrome. It shows just what a poor job Leave supporters have done in reaching out to even the most potentially persuadable Remainers.
Why do you expect people to change their minds? Look at Scotland, post independence vote in 2014. Has anyone changed their minds there?
Though the Yes vote has a rock solid base of 45%, polling analysis concludes there is voter churn, so yes, people have changed their minds.
The question is then what do we make of the 28% or REMAIN voters who support the Conservatives - as others have argued, with a tinge of desperation, we will have left the EU and all this will be done with and forgotten and "Global Britain", rather like the Crimson Permanent Assurance, will be sailing toward the sunlit horizons.
How many of that 28% voted REMAIN because a) They were loyal conservatives following their leader b) They believed in Dave personally and were following him c) They believed Project Fear
a) Will mostly be following Theresa now and leaning toward Leave b) Will dwindle but there will be the TSE tendency left, others will move to the LDs c) Will have mostly decided it was bullshit and adjusted their views accordingly.
You haven't noticed all the opinion polls that show that basically no one has changed their minds about Brexit?
Personally I'm surprised just how few Remainer Conservatives have demonstrated Stockholm Syndrome. It shows just what a poor job Leave supporters have done in reaching out to even the most potentially persuadable Remainers.
Why do you expect people to change their minds? Look at Scotland, post independence vote in 2014. Has anyone changed their minds there?
Do you think Brexit can be a success if Remainers don't get behind it? Leavers keep saying that it's time to move on but not many Remainers show any sign of doing so. No doubt Leavers see this as Remainers' fault (as always). But do they see this as a regrettable state of affairs or something that is critical to turn around?
By that theory membership of the EU was not and could not have been a success as some people never supported it.
And, with respect, you seem to be inhabiting a PB and Islington bubble. Throughout the country Remainers have moved on - they may not have changed their minds but then people who have voted in an election rarely change their minds after their party has lost.
Finally Birmingham Edgbaston was 52.7% Remain, not 'nearly 60%' :
On the last point, I took the figures from Chris Hanretty, who had a higher estimate (see above). Happy to be corrected.
On your second point, policies are usually more popular after they are passed than beforehand. Brexit is a conspicuous exception.
And on your first point, it would be hard to argue that membership of the EU was a conspicuous success, in large part for precisely the reason that a large part of the country did not get behind the idea. Which augurs badly for Brexit too.
It's a ridiculous idea. Who would say they are not committed to the best possible outcome when applying for the job? It'd be like answering honestly about how keen you are when applying for a job you may not love but need. Unless the question is a smokescreen to reward those who backed Brexit beforehand, I struggle to see what the point of it is, since leave or remain a contractor will do the best job they can.
It is a ridiculous criterion. How do you measure it? By the number of times they have said "Hail Brexit!" in the submission? If you hire a plumber to fix your dripping tap, do you need to know how committed they are to your domestic bliss, or is it enough to know whether they can fix the tap?
Which brings me to the real alarm bells that are ringing with me on this RFP:
* Be focussed enough to stick to the task in hand and not be side-tracked in a vast and quick-moving field * Be committed and hard-working, to deliver under time pressures * Be enthused by the prospect of working in the frontline in sch an exciting and dynamic area.
Strong signals that they don't know what they want and are passing their problems and inability to make decisions onto their contractors to sort out. As someone who has experience of outsourcing from both sides can tell you, that is the fastest route to contract failure
The question is then what do we make of the 28% or REMAIN voters who support the Conservatives - as others have argued, with a tinge of desperation, we will have left the EU and all this will be done with and forgotten and "Global Britain", rather like the Crimson Permanent Assurance, will be sailing toward the sunlit horizons.
How many of that 28% voted REMAIN because a) They were loyal conservatives following their leader b) They believed in Dave personally and were following him c) They believed Project Fear
a) Will mostly be following Theresa now and leaning toward Leave b) Will dwindle but there will be the TSE tendency left, others will move to the LDs c) Will have mostly decided it was bullshit and adjusted their views accordingly.
You haven't noticed all the opinion polls that show that basically no one has changed their minds about Brexit?
Personally I'm surprised just how few Remainer Conservatives have demonstrated Stockholm Syndrome. It shows just what a poor job Leave supporters have done in reaching out to even the most potentially persuadable Remainers.
Why do you expect people to change their minds? Look at Scotland, post independence vote in 2014. Has anyone changed their minds there?
Do you think Brexit can be a success if Remainers don't get behind it?
Brexit is now just a policy to be enacted by an elected government.
There are always oppositions that oppose what the government do, yet governments can still succeed in the face of opposition. In fact, this policy has greater democratic support than any standard government.
So yes, Brexit can succeed in spite of Remainers. Particularly hostile Remainers are a fairly small minority. Most people simply look for sensible Brexit.
Your question however, provides the justification for the Dept of International Trade question about tendering. Why hire people that are actively hostile to the ethos and goals of your organisation?
Come on... It's clearly a weird thing to put on a form for an IT company isn't it?
It's just normal levels of weirdness for Leavers. If you regard disagreeing with Brexit as equivalent to supporting Communism, it's entirely natural.
"People were more likely to identify themselves as Remain or Leave supporters than followers of a particular party" says the thread header.
It seems that all those opinion polls over the years on the most important issues facing Britain which had the EU way down the list was missing something fundamental.
"People were more likely to identify themselves as Remain or Leave supporters than followers of a particular party" says the thread header.
It seems that all those opinion polls over the years on the most important issues facing Britain which had the EU way down the list was missing something fundamental.
Or that the referendum campaign was conducted in such a way as to create new fundamental divides.
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
Annuities are a crap idea. The average person gets utterly screwed by insurance companies. And so much depends on luck - anyone forced to have taken an annuity in the last 8 years, for instance, would have their life's savings swapped for a pittance.
You can get an annuity for about £70 000 but yes raising National Insurance on 50 to 65s is by far the best way of paying for social care especially as everyone would have to pay it and everyone will potentially need social care whereas almost 40% now rent and do not own a property anyway so this new socialist death tax would raise next to nothing from them at all
Raise national insurance on everyone. By starting it in the 50s and 60s you are throwing away 30 years on compounding on the investments. Also the average age of the country is 40, by starting in the 50s you are dramatically reducing the pool to collect from and so increasing the amount you need to collect. 0.5% on NI all the way up would be my starting proposal, most people wouldn't even notice it.
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
It's not communism to use one's own wealth to provide for one's old age.
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
It's not communism to use one's own wealth to provide for one's old age.
It is when you already pay inheritance tax. National Insurance should pay for social care and if it needs to be increased so be it. I will oppose this proposal vehemently if it is pushed forward as will thousands of other Tory members.
By 2019, IHT won't kick in on family homes worth under £1m.
I expect my heirs will inherit a reasonable sum, but I've no intention of spending a miserable old age, just so they can inherit more.
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
Annuities are a crap idea. The average person gets utterly screwed by insurance companies. And so much depends on luck - anyone forced to have taken an annuity in the last 8 years, for instance, would have their life's savings swapped for a pittance.
You can get an annuity for about £70 000 but yes raising National Insurance on 50 to 65s is by far the best way of paying for social care especially as everyone would have to pay it and everyone will potentially need social care whereas almost 40% now rent and do not own a property anyway so this new socialist death tax would raise next to nothing from them at all
What? You can get an annuity for any sum, unless it is too small to bother with, the question is how much you get back annually.
His polling isn't beyond repair. There are two to go through to the second round, and he's one of three contenders.
One would have thought if he was going to pull out it would have been earlier. However, if there is a realisation that the 20-21% he has been at in the polls for the past 2-3 weeks is his ceiling and that because of the scandal then he is unlikely to improve upon that, then he may have come under pressure from his Party to stand aside for a candidate who DOES have the potential to poll higher.
"People were more likely to identify themselves as Remain or Leave supporters than followers of a particular party" says the thread header.
It seems that all those opinion polls over the years on the most important issues facing Britain which had the EU way down the list was missing something fundamental.
Perhaps Leave/Remain is just a proxy for a bigger cultural divide.
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
Annuities are a crap idea. The average person gets utterly screwed by insurance companies. And so much depends on luck - anyone forced to have taken an annuity in the last 8 years, for instance, would have their life's savings swapped for a pittance.
You can get an annuity for about £70 000 but yes raising National Insurance on 50 to 65s is by far the best way of paying for social care especially as everyone would have to pay it and everyone will potentially need social care whereas almost 40% now rent and do not own a property anyway so this new socialist death tax would raise next to nothing from them at all
Raise national insurance on everyone. By starting it in the 50s and 60s you are throwing away 30 years on compounding on the investments. Also the average age of the country is 40, by starting in the 50s you are dramatically reducing the pool to collect from and so increasing the amount you need to collect. 0.5% on NI all the way up would be my starting proposal, most people wouldn't even notice it.
The trouble is there is no compound on NI contributions. As I understand it what comes in, goes out on pensions etc. There is no pot of money that is slowly growing as was originally intended.
Yes. Have you? It's even got a picture of leering Liam Fox!
The picture is irrelevant to the article, and only displays the Guardian picture editor's choice. I'm sure plenty of pictures of various public figures sneering can be found if you look hard enough, or other expressions deigned to invoke a (gnerally negative) response in the reader. Fwiw I have alot of reservations about Fox, and don't rate him. But this is not strictly relevant to the article.
Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has inserted a clause into advertisements inviting tech companies to bid for work, saying that in order to have the right “cultural fit” for the task
Sounds ominous. Yellow stars, civil service lives matter ?
, they must “be committed to the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union”.
Aha - now we come to the actual wording and substance of the job descriptor that one has to pass. Changing the fact of departure seems to me to be outside the scope of the job. Though there is nothing here that precludes the applicant pursuing a court case say in their own time.
However consider Sean Fear's counter example - should we wish for the applicant 'not' to be committed to the best possible outcome for the UK ? This is a very different question to the implied 'Do you back brexit' as given by the header.
Pro-Brexit ministers have sometimes been frustrated by civil servants’ lack of enthusiasm for the complex task of unpicking Britain’s close relationship with the EU and appear to be determined to hire firms that share their optimism."
A subjective opinion, supporting facts would be germane to the argument here - the ones given above are not; a different question is being considered to the one the Guardian believes is being done so.
"People were more likely to identify themselves as Remain or Leave supporters than followers of a particular party" says the thread header.
It seems that all those opinion polls over the years on the most important issues facing Britain which had the EU way down the list was missing something fundamental.
You make an interesting point. Funnily enough I think both are right. The EU wasn't a hugely salient issue, but since the referendum it has become the main political divide in the UK
These things happen. Think about the great schisms in the Church (Catholic/Orthodox, Catholic/Protestant) or the 17C civil wars in England and Scotland. The ostensible reasons for the splits were relatively trivial.
Why do you expect people to change their minds? Look at Scotland, post independence vote in 2014. Has anyone changed their minds there?
Do you think Brexit can be a success if Remainers don't get behind it? Leavers keep saying that it's time to move on but not many Remainers show any sign of doing so. No doubt Leavers see this as Remainers' fault (as always). But do they see this as a regrettable state of affairs or something that is critical to turn around?
By that theory membership of the EU was not and could not have been a success as some people never supported it.
And, with respect, you seem to be inhabiting a PB and Islington bubble. Throughout the country Remainers have moved on - they may not have changed their minds but then people who have voted in an election rarely change their minds after their party has lost.
Finally Birmingham Edgbaston was 52.7% Remain, not 'nearly 60%' :
On the last point, I took the figures from Chris Hanretty, who had a higher estimate (see above). Happy to be corrected.
On your second point, policies are usually more popular after they are passed than beforehand. Brexit is a conspicuous exception.
And on your first point, it would be hard to argue that membership of the EU was a conspicuous success, in large part for precisely the reason that a large part of the country did not get behind the idea. Which augurs badly for Brexit too.
Some of Hanretty's numbers are a bit odd and as Birmingham released its ward figures there's no excuse for him being wrong.
As to policies becoming more popular after they've passed well I'd say some are and some aren't. There's been no shortage of unpopular policies and government U-Turns in the past and its the general pattern that governments do badly in the opinion polls for most of their term in office.
As to the EU, that would mean we're stuck between two alternatives both of which have a significant opposition. As over four decades of EU membership clearly didn't have most people willing to support its continuation (let alone be enamoured with it) perhaps trying life outside the EU should be given a chance. Maybe it will be better and maybe it wont but there's only one way of finding out.
His polling isn't beyond repair. There are two to go through to the second round, and he's one of three contenders.
Dunno, but I just stuck £2 on Juppe as a bit of a thrill-seeker. Still green on this market. I would be tempted to top up on Fillon now he as at 6s, but really got enough invested on this one.
It was only a matter of time. They'll have us wearing yellow stars before you can say 'Hartlepool'. Interesting choice of shot by the Guardian. They're very good at that
Have you read the article ?
That is not what the job description says at all, I believe the story has a misleading header.
Yes. Have you? It's even got a picture of leering Liam Fox!
"Contractors bidding for work with the government are being asked to affirm that they back Brexit.
Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has inserted a clause into advertisements inviting tech companies to bid for work, saying that in order to have the right “cultural fit” for the task, they must “be committed to the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union”.
Pro-Brexit ministers have sometimes been frustrated by civil servants’ lack of enthusiasm for the complex task of unpicking Britain’s close relationship with the EU and appear to be determined to hire firms that share their optimism."
Try the test of opposites.
Do we want contractors who are not committed to the best possible outcome, or who are committed to the worst possible outcome?
Here's a radical idea. Why have Liam Fox as thought policeman at all?
The brief also specifies Agile development be used. No doubt the 'user stories' contain things like:
"As a trade minister, I want to have access to eye-catching statistics about the benefits of Brexit, so that I can stick it to the Remoaner media."
"As a trade minister, I want to view the schedule for signing trade deals, so that I can plan Adam's travel schedule."
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
It's not communism to use one's own wealth to provide for one's old age.
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
It's not communism to use one's own wealth to provide for one's old age.
It is when you already pay inheritance tax. National Insurance should pay for social care and if it needs to be increased so be it. I will oppose this proposal vehemently if it is pushed forward as will thousands of other Tory members.
By 2019, IHT won't kick in on family homes worth under £1m.
I expect my heirs will inherit a reasonable sum, but I've no intention of spending a miserable old age, just so they can inherit more.
Even that is no longer guaranteed. IHT consistently polls as one of the most unpopular taxes and this proposal effectively would impose double inheritance tax and also breaks a Tory manifesto commitment. Tory members like me will oppose it every step of the way if Hammond even considers it and UKIP will think Christmas has come early given their opposition to the death tax
Quite right too and millions of Tory voters and Tory members like me will agree with her. Increasing national insurance on the middle-aged and encouraging annuities is a far better way of funding social care. Hammond's 'consultation' on this will likely drop it
Annuities are a crap idea. The average person gets utterly screwed by insurance companies. And so much depends on luck - anyone forced to have taken an annuity in the last 8 years, for instance, would have their life's savings swapped for a pittance.
You can get an annuity for about £70 000 but yes raising National Insurance on 50 to 65s is by far the best way of paying for social care especially as everyone would have to pay it and everyone will potentially need social care whereas almost 40% now rent and do not own a property anyway so this new socialist death tax would raise next to nothing from them at all
Raise national insurance on everyone. By starting it in the 50s and 60s you are throwing away 30 years on compounding on the investments. Also the average age of the country is 40, by starting in the 50s you are dramatically reducing the pool to collect from and so increasing the amount you need to collect. 0.5% on NI all the way up would be my starting proposal, most people wouldn't even notice it.
I could live with that but at least the 50 to 65s have largely paid off the mortgage and their children have left home
@MxSba: FRANCE: #Fillon cancels visit and will hold a presser around noon today at its Paris HQ, reports @franceinter. Don't jump to conclusions.
Going by what I have learnt from Spin (les hommes de l'ombre), a TV series that I enjoyed and which I think you can still download from Walter Presents on Channel 4, Macron has just done a compromising sting on Fillon, or maybe it's the other way round.
As an aside, interesting how fast Ladbrokes was to react (ok, it was 101 to 51, but still very swift). There's more lag with F1, which I suppose is the upside against the longer time it takes for qualifying/race markets to get going.
Is there some one other than Juppe who could take over? I am getting worried now as green on the whole thing except for some unknown taking Fillon's post.
Comments
Polls? How very 2016. Now Google Street View AI scanner can predict how people will vote
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/01/google_street_view_predicts_voting/
Why nitpick that sentence and not look at the bigger picture about what Trump is trying to do with the original claim?
I too wish we had a serious and credible opposition asking the hard questions and testing the arguments. I have repeatedly said that Labour's disgraceful self indulgence in choosing Corbyn twice not only let their supporters (as opposed to members) down but the country down. Its unfortunate.
Good idea. But how would people look for work? Presumably they could be granted temporary visas to seek work? Bit of a palava but there it is. London visas would be a great idea - you can move to London and work freely - and might even happen. We are more open down here than in the boonies.
The voters will expect both sides to lie through their teeth and grandstand the whole way through the negotiations and will, to the extent they pay any attention at all, treat those will a grain of salt as well. When something final does or doesn't happen and they start to feel the effect, maybe they will start to react, but even then there is plenty of time for both sides to try and place the blame, a game for which the EU has made a possibly critical mistake by putting someone as obstinate and comedy villainesque as Barnier in the driving seat, a politician almost designed to be the baddy that carries the can.
However, I still think there is a greater opportunity for the Cons if they can take UKIP votes in the Midlands in places like Dudley, Coventry, Stoke, Walsall, Wolverhampton. Also Noirth Wales
Given how influential she was in the Tory leadership contest and the slenderness of the Tory majority, be very afraid Mrs May.
I think that tendency goes too far myself, people will dismiss or condemn of the basis of single words inelegantly chosen sometimes, but I can acknowledge it can be relevant.
Interesting that on the terrorism point, they don't actually fact check his figure (people convicted of terrorism offences). They quote a government report about 82 people being inspired to carry out or attempt a terrorist attack, when in fact there have been over 550 terrorism convictions since 9/11 (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/myth-v-fact-trying-terror-suspects-federal-courts).
Sarah Vine distorts the reality nicely - the truth is the vast majority of people do not use or need the care system in terms of needing residential accommodation. Yes, many have lower levels of "care" - my father has home based care visits as an example which is funded by the local authority but for which we went through a process of assessment.
As for the "property" angle, let me be blunt. Many people who bought property in the 70s and 80s have seen the value of that property increase far beyond inflation. As an appreciating capital asset, it is an obvious thing to pass on to children or other beneficiaries. Property continues to appreciate and is for most people their main asset to fund later life.
Unless the Government closes the loophole allowing property to be "trusted" to siblings, it's then a cultural question of whether individuals should take more responsibility for funding their later life (including provision for care as well as a pension) ? The Thatcherites might argue they should.
Ignoring the Sarah Vine bleating, the counter position is the State can and should be focussing more effort on a growing elderly population and that means ensuring adequate provision both in terms of home based care and residential accommodation (including specialist dementia homes) as well as setting the quality of style we, as a society, want our older people to enjoy. If we want our parents or grandparents to enjoy a decent quality of life AND we want that quality for ourselves, we shouldn't baulk at paying for it in terms of both increased tax an NI on the one hand and planning policies geared to provide adequate appropriate accommodation (make Surrey like Florida without the sunshine)
Edit: for shame! Beaten by @AlsoIndigo
So the usual order of morning business in our main opposition party.
There are always oppositions that oppose what the government do, yet governments can still succeed in the face of opposition. In fact, this policy has greater democratic support than any standard government.
So yes, Brexit can succeed in spite of Remainers. Particularly hostile Remainers are a fairly small minority. Most people simply look for sensible Brexit.
Your question however, provides the justification for the Dept of International Trade question about tendering. Why hire people that are actively hostile to the ethos and goals of your organisation?
Ukip spat continues as party’s former leader says MP is trying to turn it into mainstream party with bland message
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/01/nigel-farage-carswell-stopping-ukip-becoming-radical-anti-immigration-party?CMP=twt_gu
"I think everyone is overanalysing that sentence about illegal immigrants and crime in the US.
Why nitpick that sentence and not look at the bigger picture about what Trump is trying to do with the original claim?"
Hmm ... so if what someone claims is a lie is actually true - that wouldn't matter either because you know he is a liar.
So if I said today is Wednesday, that's a lie too if I had, according to you, a record of lying. That is, if I were a politician. To be honest, that's not a bad idea, and the way most people operate.
The CNN poll - hardly a friendly source - was overwhelmingly positive.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-joint-address-poll/
"On specific issues, Trump scored the highest marks for his proposed policies on the economy, with 72% saying those went in the right direction. Almost as many, 70%, said the same about his terrorism proposals. Slightly fewer, but still a majority, felt his policies on taxes (64%), immigration (62%) or health care (61%) were heading in the right direction.
Ideologically, about two-thirds saw Trump's speech as about right, while roughly on-quarter (26%) pegged it as too conservative. Just 8% said it wasn't conservative enough... Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
So, its some kind of death tax - 10% on all estates?
Or, compulsory social care insurance/NI increase.
How do other countries do this?
For f**** sake why doesn't the government grow a pair and get on with devising a way forward.
People will be so wrapped up in the euphoria they'll still be on a "high" by May 7th 2020 and May will be swept back in a landslide.
The Devil will be in the detail - it always is - but the detailed analysis and the problems will be drowned out by the euphoria and the tub-thumping and all the rest.
As for your second paragraph, can't disagree with a single word. The problem for the Conservatives will be if they believe they are immortal and become self-indulgent as in the late 1980s and early 1990s. That won't do the Party any good , not that I care about that, but it won't do the country any good and that I do care about. Absence of Opposition is no excuse for poor Government though it does excuse it in the short term.
First Scotland. If you support independence there is a 85%-90% probability of you voting SNP (with a small leakage to the Greens). If you don't, you will vote for one of Conservative, Labour or Lib Dems on a similar probability. With one major pro-independence party and several pro-Union parties, the SNP is more or less guaranteed to have more votes than the second party anywhere in Scotland and win every FPTP election they stand for (Holyrood is semi-FPTP)
The percentages are less stark in England and Wales re Brexit, but a similar effect is certainly there. IIRC 70% of Conservative voters think Brexit is a good idea; 95% of UKIP voters; while only 20% of Labour voters and 15% of Lib Dems. Both Brexit factions have party splits but the Conservatives do better relatively against UKIP than Labour does against the Lib Dems. They also have that useful 30% continuity Remainers who are sticking with them regardless of the Leave vote. Most important, Theresa May is entrenching the Conservatives' Brexit advantage by pursuing a rhetorically hard Brexit and in doing so undermining UKIP to make the Conservatives the undisputed Party of Brexit
And, with respect, you seem to be inhabiting a PB and Islington bubble. Throughout the country Remainers have moved on - they may not have changed their minds but then people who have voted in an election rarely change their minds after their party has lost.
Finally Birmingham Edgbaston was 52.7% Remain, not 'nearly 60%' :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#Result_by_Constituency
The reactionaries won’t admit they’ve won, and the liberals haven’t grasped the scale of their defeat. That is good for May, who navigates through the middle. She read the cultural mood when it was against her party in opposition. Now she co-opts a different mood as her personal project in power. That doesn’t mean she will make a success of Brexit, as she promises. The real process hasn’t even begun. The economy will soon enough be the big theme in politics again. Then the warnings issued by two former prime ministers might resonate. But for now, it is culture wars that dominate, and the current prime minister who commands the field.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/01/brexit-british-culture-theresa-may-tony-blair-john-major
COULD be that he is announcing that he is finally
pulling out, as he has stagnated in the polls over the past couple of weeks as a result of the scandal.
OR, a wild guess - it is the launch of his"victim campaign" where he will announce he and his wife have received death threats or similar.
CON 42 (+1)
LAB 25 (=)
LD 11 (=)
UKIP 12 (-1)
27th-28th Feb
On your second point, policies are usually more popular after they are passed than beforehand. Brexit is a conspicuous exception.
And on your first point, it would be hard to argue that membership of the EU was a conspicuous success, in large part for precisely the reason that a large part of the country did not get behind the idea. Which augurs badly for Brexit too.
His polling isn't beyond repair. There are two to go through to the second round, and he's one of three contenders.
Which brings me to the real alarm bells that are ringing with me on this RFP:
* Be focussed enough to stick to the task in hand and not be side-tracked in a vast and quick-moving field
* Be committed and hard-working, to deliver under time pressures
* Be enthused by the prospect of working in the frontline in sch an exciting and dynamic area.
Strong signals that they don't know what they want and are passing their problems and inability to make decisions onto their contractors to sort out. As someone who has experience of outsourcing from both sides can tell you, that is the fastest route to contract failure
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/836869298748534784
Tory 17 point lead.
Farron also going nowhere.
It seems that all those opinion polls over the years on the most important issues facing Britain which had the EU way down the list was missing something fundamental.
I expect my heirs will inherit a reasonable sum, but I've no intention of spending a miserable old age, just so they can inherit more.
Edited extra bit: hmm. Should it be qui bono?
My Latin is not splendid.
Fwiw I have alot of reservations about Fox, and don't rate him. But this is not strictly relevant to the article. Are they ?
I hope the Guardian will go on to provide evidence for this claim. Sounds ominous. Yellow stars, civil service lives matter ? Aha - now we come to the actual wording and substance of the job descriptor that one has to pass. Changing the fact of departure seems to me to be outside the scope of the job. Though there is nothing here that precludes the applicant pursuing a court case say in their own time.
However consider Sean Fear's counter example - should we wish for the applicant 'not' to be committed to the best possible outcome for the UK ?
This is a very different question to the implied 'Do you back brexit' as given by the header. A subjective opinion, supporting facts would be germane to the argument here - the ones given above are not; a different question is being considered to the one the Guardian believes is being done so.
These things happen. Think about the great schisms in the Church (Catholic/Orthodox, Catholic/Protestant) or the 17C civil wars in England and Scotland. The ostensible reasons for the splits were relatively trivial.
As to policies becoming more popular after they've passed well I'd say some are and some aren't. There's been no shortage of unpopular policies and government U-Turns in the past and its the general pattern that governments do badly in the opinion polls for most of their term in office.
As to the EU, that would mean we're stuck between two alternatives both of which have a significant opposition. As over four decades of EU membership clearly didn't have most people willing to support its continuation (let alone be enamoured with it) perhaps trying life outside the EU should be given a chance. Maybe it will be better and maybe it wont but there's only one way of finding out.
Now its overdue time for me to do some work.
Rogan has had some fantastic shows, the one with Alex Jones is hilarious with 3m+ views in three weeks. It's over 3hrs long!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16J-lCSSMVA
"As a trade minister, I want to have access to eye-catching statistics about the benefits of Brexit, so that I can stick it to the Remoaner media."
"As a trade minister, I want to view the schedule for signing trade deals, so that I can plan Adam's travel schedule."
Bloomberg - Mme Fillon in custody.
Is there some one other than Juppe who could take over? I am getting worried now as green on the whole thing except for some unknown taking Fillon's post.