Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Aside from the EU how REMAIN and LEAVE voters differ on other
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Aside from the EU how REMAIN and LEAVE voters differ on other issues
The full list from YouGov Joe Twyman can be found here.
0
Comments
I believe David Davis has had a very good week. It is interesting that from the European side there is a lot of anger at our audacity of saying there is no legal Brexit bill due rather than saying that Davis is wrong and this is why.
A fervent pro-European I argue with on another site that would make Verhofstadt blush in his Europhileness has switched from arguing that we owe a large sum and they'll see us in court if need be to arguing it doesn't matter what the legalities are we simply need to agree because they said so.
As a wealthy nation our chequebook and historic munificence is one of our strongest points in the forthcoming negotiations. No doubt at the end of the negotiations we will sign up to a payment of some sort but that was always likely. Now it looks more like whatever payment will be a quid pro quo for a good deal, which means getting a good deal, rather than signing up to a big payment that was due and then looking for a deal afterwards.
Flag Quote · Off Topic
Any argument that holds good for Scottish independence holds good for Leave. And any argument against Leave based on geographic variability of the vote would hold equally well for those parts of Scotland that did not join an independence vote.
I am with Richard on this one. As and when Scotland votes independence, the rUK should let them go with good grace and best wishes and, unlike our European friends, should seek to ensure a win-win outcome.
Don't lose heart and keep looking - finding the right job often happens by accident.
It sounds like an excuse because they preferred the other candidate. But it's something you can fix in another area (setting up something g in your spare time perhaps?)
Scottish independence: good
Irish independence: good
British independence: bad
The poor old Welsh never seem to get a look in.
You know, the thing you always claim to be opposed to.
I would highly recommend The Employee Engagement Mindset (The Six Drivers for Tapping into the Hidden Potential of Everyone in Your Company), by Tim Clark et al. The essence of the book is that, in an environment of constant change, maintaining one's skills, work knowledge and motivation is a personal responsibility. The organization cannot be relied upon to do that for you, and if you rely on it to, you not only give up control of your life but run the risk of becoming irrelevant in the workplace. It then gives practical advice on how to develop one's own motivation and drive through a sense of personal purpose.
Whatever, good luck in pushing through this setback. Never lose - either win, or learn (or both).
One piece of advice I was given by a family member when I started work was "don't leave a job until you've been doing it for at least two years." His view is that if someone starts a job and then leaves quite quickly, it probably means they couldn't stick it out.
Now obviously it depends what someone is doing, but if I was an employer I would be looking to see what a candidate had done in their time in their current job. How have they developed? What improvements have they made to their job? Have they had to go outside their comfort zone? Those sorts of things.
If an employer thinks that staying somewhere for 2.5 years shows "a lack of drive", they probably aren't worth working for.
Before anyone takes offence, I'm talking generalities. I'm not saying all Leave voters are less well-educated or more gullible. Just most of them.
Good luck, and thank you for yet further evidence supporting my thesis that anyone on here who actually *did* anything about EUref (beyond wibbling on social meejah and casting their own vote), did it for Leave.
IMHO job-hunting has a significant element of sheer luck. I've had applications where I was sure I was perfect and didn't even make the shortlist, and others where I was offered a job after thinking I had no real chance (including when going for PPC for Broxtowe).It depends so much on who happens to be on the panel and who else is applying. I was recently headhunted by Amnesty to act as an unpaid adviser, asked to go through the motions of a panel interview, and then rejected because a stronger candidate has turned up (which is fine, they should take whoever's best for it).
Like others here I'm convinced you'll have better fortune in another one before long.
As an educated Remain voter I would say 1 and 3 are definite DKs. Di was not assassinated. Gullibility to me is what is exhibited by people who believe and act on "Nigerian prince" emails.
You can consistently support one but not the other however.
There is posturing on both sides. The question is whether things are moving forward. I agree with Prof Portes in Kieran's podcast yesterday. Things aren't going badly but they are not moving much at all, and that could be bad. I agree with you that the UK could have a degree of influence over the EU, compared with Switzerland and Norway who have no influence at all. This would be because of our ability to throw serious amounts of money at the EU and deploy our diplomatic clout to support EU initiatives. We haven't yet reconciled ourselves to doing so. There is nothing stopping David Davis making a proposal on money that is tied to other Article 50 outcomes. His fear of the Brexit press and hardline party members is preventing him talking money, rather than any inflexibility from Barnier about discussing trade
Also, the employer stating that you lacked drive. It would depend entirely on what you were doing for those 2.5 years. If you were in a role which enabled you to be constantly developing that would be fine. If it was say, a supermarket checkout with limited scope for development, I would perhaps agree with them.
I never went down the grad scheme route and things worked out just fine for me. You should concentrate on leveraging your experience and talking up your transferable skills. I am constantly looking to develop myself, whether it be soft skills or obtaining qualifications relevant to the industry I work in.
PS The questions are also click bait rather than serious. For example, whether or not I believe the Russians were active in seeking to influence the outcome of the US (or other) election is a far different question than did they affect the outcome (implied by 'helped to elect') or did so with Trump's complicity (also implied by that wording). My answers to those three different questions would be Yes, No, Probably.
"We're not going to sort out the rights and wrongs of the intervention in Kosovo here, but surely we should be past the propagandistic nonsense of 'if you opposed x war, you're on the the side of the government of x'. It's obviously a far more complicated topic (see: https://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200-01.htm)
I'm interested in your specific claim: 'Corbyn himself has denied that genocide - of the Muslims of Kosovo - ever happened.' You now say 'I have not said that Corbyn has denied the Srebenica massacre', but that's what that sounds like to me. If not what else are you referring to?"
Srebenica is in Bosnia. The slaughter of the men hiding there by Mladic was quite separate to the attacks on Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. Two different events.
I did read the motion. It refers to the Pilger article and its reference to "a 'genocide' that never really existed in Kosovo;" and expresses congratulations for this article in the paragraph preceding the one you quoted.
Whether what was done to the Albanians was genocide as a matter of law or crimes against humanity or bog standard barbarism, it is indisputable that the Serbians drove Kosovan Albanians from their home, attacked and killed them and would have continued doing so were it not for the West's intervention. Corbyn has been specifically asked which interventions post-WW2 he supported and this one was not on the list.
And this year he chooses to go to dinner with someone who denies what the Serbs did in another infamous massacre. Maybe he didn't know who that person was. I find this a curious explanation. For someone who takes such an interest in unpopular groups and causes - out of principle - we are told, he is conveniently incurious when it comes to people whose views would revolt any decent human being. It's a very convenient blind eye he has.
@fatshez: have identified as more British or Scottish than European. Again, having been asked to pick by Brit nats, I've picked European.
Personally I think all three contentions are wrong. Of course there are degrees of wrong and whilst the first two are amusing the vaccine one is beyond the pale.
But I do take your point. I was just thinking about the bus. I was also trying to take a rise out of leavers but clearly I haven't succeeded. I just got an intelligent reply from an educated Remainer.
Negotiations are a time series dance. The press are willingly ignoring that fact to sell copy. Most of those criticizing the pace of negotiations are doing so because that fits their pre-existing narrative. The fact is, we won't know whether the current pace is good or bad until the entire process is done.
Only kidding
If I was DD I would not put any number forward until they have presented the number they believe is due, and detailed the constituent parts.
But if the UK missed a beat in that regard, Bonn/Berlin and Paris were even more culpable in not only not providing the optics for that to happen, but making every effort to show that France and Germany ran the show.
Mistrustful of experts and more trusting of tabloids would be my clumsy way of putting it.
Im reassured that for both groups only low numbers mistrust vaccines.
You know that 'taken on projects' is just saying that your previous job was a bit crap, and that you did what you could to make it less so.
NPs experiences are not at all typical. Upper echelon socialism doesn't align with mere mortals.
There is the basis for an agreement on the Brexit bill but it is too soon with the ritual the EU employ. I would expect progress to quicken over the rest of the year.
Off topic but has there ever been a worse England team than the one playing Malta tonight - at least they are holding Malta to 0 - 0 after 35 minutes
A delicate question is whether we in Britain actually want the negotiations to succeed. Possible outcomes include:
1. A successful deal that makes all sides feel British withdrawal is going to work out well
2. A deal with a clear British "win" that extracts us with minimal cost and makes the EU feel humiliated
3. A deal with a clear EU "win" that extracts us on very unfavourable terms and makes Britain regret leaving.
4. No deal.
In principle we should all want number 1. But it's possible for hardcore Remainers to feel that withdrawal is so awful that 3 is preferable, because it maximises the chance of repentance; conversely, it's possible for hardcore Leavers to want 2, giving a sense of tiumph to add to withdrawal. I don't think anyone really wants 4, but there are probably more secret 2s and 3s around than one might like to think, and that can't make the negotiations easier.
No job is our dream job until we make it so. Even then, we put up with a load of dross because it is part of the overall attractive package. How many Olympic medallists or top musicians actually enjoy the grind of getting and keeping their skills? There may be some masochists, but generally people put up with the crap in order to experience the sublime.
Agreed 1 is the obvious preferred option.
2 and 3 are equally stupid because they are premised on the idea that negotiations of this type are a one and done. They are not. They affect the future relationship and merely set the stage for the next round of 'negotiations' (be those entirely new issues or resuscitated old ones). A round 1 'victory' where the other party is humiliated can easily become Pyrrhic. We only need look to Versailles for that.
For that reason, my second option would be 4, provided that it was a 'no deal' that did not poison the well too much and left the door open to a new round of negotiations based on mutual interests when the general negotiating atmosphere was more propitious.
My solution is a two year transition paying the 20 billion gross as now and a final payment of around 30 billion as good will but subject to a tariff free trade deal
It sounds like a very unusual reason for rejection and it shouldn't put you off applying for other jobs.
20 years in one job and you may be start to be in an intractable situation. 2.5 years? No way. Lots of jobs for less than one year would be more likely to set alarm bells ringing with most employers. You can't win.
Itv is just unwatchable. Who thinks putting charisma bypass giggs with Ian wright and Paul ince is a good idea!
Skys coverage of pretty much every sport is just massively superior to everybody else, with absolutely top notch and still revelant talking heads eg Neville, butch Harman, Shaun warne.
By the way Kane just scored
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism
I still think it was wrong that the Blair's wouldn't say publicly whether or not Leo had had the MMR vaccine. I know politicians get criticised for that sort of thing (beef burgers etc.) but it might have reduced the hysteria at the time.
Richard Nixon had his ‘madman theory’; is Theresa May trying to frighten Europe with the ‘blithering idiot gambit’?
PS. Nixon's mad monk theory at least has a solid theoretical basis, but is less successful when two mad monks are negotiating each other (= a game of chicken where both drivers throw their steering wheels out of the car).
That said, my advice for interviews is a naive one. Trust the process and be yourself. Few of us are convincing liars, and people who are appointed from an honest interview tend to be a much better fit. It is always disappointing to not get the job, but in retrospect years later rarely was critical.
Do an accurate post mortem while it is fresh in your mind. It is unlikely to be the stated reason, not least the stated reason would have been in application form rather than interview, at most it was one thing weighing in the balance, and not something that you can change. What were the others, and what can you do about them?
Just another normal day in our nation's capital.
https://tinyurl.com/yddrrjxc