The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.
The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.
David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident and very knowledgeable and many were actively campaigning. I assumed that they were the ones with the inside info and that what they were saying was a good guide to what was actually going on.
I won't make that mistake again.
This place is interesting in many respects, what amazes me is that with a few measured exceptions the predictions on here are woeful. As I know from personal experience, in order to convince others you will win an election you have to first convince yourself. This site is full of people who have brainwashed themselves into believing their own nonsense and stating opinions as facts.
It makes for good entertainment but I wouldn't take many on here seriously. The exceptions are those who actively canvas, the results can be brutal but undeniable as opposed to those who form their views from their twitter feeds.
Canvassing can be utterly misleading. In the marginal constituency I worked in earlier this year, we got the highest Conservative vote in 25 years, and plenty of first time Tory voters. It didn't stop the Labour majority from more than doubling.
Mmmmmh when I canvassed we used to compare results afterwards, the differences were peculiar. Inexperienced people were (understandably) far less reliable.
Candidates are often worse (particularly relevant in local elections where they may canvas a significant percentage of a ward). A combination of delusion and voters not wishing to offend can make the results useless. A candidate canvassed his own street. The result indicated he was going to win by a North Korean type percentage. We recanvassed and it showed he wasn't going to and he didn't.
Yeah that was my earlier point about convincing yourself you're going to win. Look at the Remainers on here, complacently smug pre Referendum, frothing and foaming afterwards. If they'd bothered to speak to strangers in the street they'd be less angry now.
She went for an interview with the director, who eccentrically was still in a dressing gown - yes, that's a bit odd. Then she sat on a chair and had a brief discussion about the film. There's no suggestion that he said or did anything unprofessional in the discussion. Now, many years later, she looks back on it as "humiliating", "an abuse of power", and the most problematic thing that has ever happened to her in her career.
Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.
But maybe I'm missing the point?
I'm with you on this particular example, Nick, although as mentioned elsewhere there are apparently much more telling examples.
It's a good job Romola never had to meet Churchill, who apparently would have meetings while he was in his bath!
I'm not sure anyone ever alleged Churchill invited anyone to join him in there and soap him up...
No, definitely not. But it must have been disconcerting at best to meet him in that manner!
Mr. Topping, it's a self-contradictory nonsense of an approach.
Take the Irish border. That depends upon the trade agreement (or lack thereof) we have, but the EU insists it'll only discuss the prerequisite for an agreement on the Irish border after the border is settled. It's crazy.
It is their prerogative to behave as they goddamn please. Whining and moaning that it is self-contradictory nonsense gets us no further forward. It's their club we are leaving and, it appears, quite irritatingly, that they also have rules about how to leave it.
Mr. Eek, indeed, but the way to establish guilt is through the courts, using facts and evidence. It isn't through allegations alone, as recent events in the UK have once again proved.
Mr. Daodao/Mr. Topping, it's an intellectually vacant position to demand an exit bill but refuse to say what it should be.
Exactly how many leading ladies do you think are going to be willing to stick their hands up and willingly appear in a court of law to admit to providing sexual favours for a role regardless of how consensual it was.
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?
I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
They're waiting to c&p something from twitter
Nah, you Leavers are like holocaust deniers, whatever we say, you just ignore the facts and evidence.
Quite a positive story for the PM this morning with this racial audit. Makes a nice change but I think, like many people in fairness, she is better at identifying a problem than finding solutions. It will be interesting to see what she thinks she can do about what she has highlighted.
There an interesting article by Rachel Sylvester on this in the Times today, which is quite generous towards Mrs May, suggesting that this is her passion, and her heart really isn't in delivering Brexit - let alone deciding what Brexit to deliver. I don't doubt the PM's goodwill, but take a rather less generous view of her ability to deliver social reform even in the absence of Brexit.
Mrs May is right on stuff like this, like when she stopped stop and search, her passion was also shown on modern slavery.
Regardless of what we think of the EU’s position, why can’t the British government set out with its reasons the amount it thinks is due for its liabilities on withdrawal? And say that it will pay this once all matters are agreed. But leave an actual amount there on the table?
Easy enough to criticise the EU stance but Britain needs to move matters on or try to. Having the more satisfying or intellectually coherent position is not going to be a help if in March 2019 we can’t import food because we have no agreement in place, is it?
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?
I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
They're waiting to c&p something from twitter
Nah, you Leavers are like holocaust deniers, whatever we say, you just ignore the facts and evidence.
Morning Mr Godwin.
It was a joke, I was taking the piss out of Mr Choose, who said the same yesterday when he was presented with some facts.
Quite a positive story for the PM this morning with this racial audit. Makes a nice change but I think, like many people in fairness, she is better at identifying a problem than finding solutions. It will be interesting to see what she thinks she can do about what she has highlighted.
Everyone is just relieved its not about how Brexit is ruining peoples virtue signalling.
O/T: is it a generational thing that I feel that this story is really exaggerated?
Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.
But maybe I'm missing the point?
No, I don’t think you are. And you make a good point. Sexual abuse involving touching or worse or exposing yourself is the worst. There is a tendency to describe even the most minor incident, however behaviourally inappropriate or wrong, in the most apocalyptic terms which can, as you say, underrate serious cases.
But an encounter such as this can make a young woman, especially one without power, feel vulnerable. It could so easily turn nasty. It is hard to deal with without potentially ruining your chances of work. And it’s this last which is the nub of it. You don’t interview someone if you’re not fully dressed, especially when you are a man, more physically powerful and more economically powerful and in a sector where the “casting couch” is a reality. You just don’t.
When I was a young lawyer, I had instances of people (older men) saying or suggesting things which were quite wrong. I was amazed and thought it reflected appallingly on them. But I was lucky in having a father who set an example for me of how men should behave and so gave me a sort of force field around me which protected me. I was always clear that it was they who were in the wrong and that I had no reason to feel ashamed or humiliated. So I ignored them (or got my own back in subtle but satisfying ways) and was fortunate to have the support of my pupil master. But as the most junior person on the team, with no sway, needing work, you have to make a fine calculation as to how to respond by making it clear that you’ll bite back without completely screwing over your chances of getting on.
There are ways of doing so. But young females should not be put in this situation just because men, who do - and should - know better cannot behave in a civilised manner and are indulged (all this bollocks about “ working through their demons” is nonsense) when caught out in shabby behaviour that any decent man would be ashamed of.
Thank-you Cyclefree - this is a great post and has made me see this in an alternative light. Always good when something makes you re-think your position.
I also think it's odd that Weinstein hasn't been suspended, but sacked. At the moment, these are allegations. That's not the same as conviction. If he's guilty, then by all means punish him, but guilt should be established prior to punishment.
The stories have been going round for years see various popbitch mailings....
In which case, fair enough, a popbitch email is a definitive establishment of guilt IIRC...
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?
I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
They're waiting to c&p something from twitter
Nah, you Leavers are like holocaust deniers, whatever we say, you just ignore the facts and evidence.
Morning Mr Godwin.
It was a joke, I was taking the piss out of Mr Choose, who said the same yesterday when he was presented with some facts.
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?
I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
I think the key thing is that the EU holds most of the cards and it's not in their interest to make Brexit look easy or appealing to any others that might consider exiting. I don't condone that approach but it is entirely predictable.
Strangley, the erstwhile regular Leavers' mantras along the lines of 'they need us more than we need them' and 'the German car industry will make sure we get a trade deal' seem to have dried up on this forum.
What Brexit has confirmed is how inept the vast majority of politicians are, business people negotiate complex issues with real money everyday, our representatives (and those in the EU) are completely out of their depth. The popular saying is two drunks fighting in a puddle.
Despite the rows on here the general public is underwhelmed by the whole thing, like everything else it will be sorted in the end, if its not the tories are toast, they have to own this.
For once I entriely agree with you freetochoose! I still think (hope?) that a glorious last minute fudge, with everyone claiming victory.
She went for an interview with the director, who eccentrically was still in a dressing gown - yes, that's a bit odd. Then she sat on a chair and had a brief discussion about the film. There's no suggestion that he said or did anything unprofessional in the discussion. Now, many years later, she looks back on it as "humiliating", "an abuse of power", and the most problematic thing that has ever happened to her in her career.
Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.
But maybe I'm missing the point?
I suppose the point of this particular story is that he was discourteous and disrespectful towards a young actress in a way that he wouldn't have been towards an older man. Which is a fair point to make but it's of a different order altogether to some of the other stuff that's come out. I can't help feeling Romola Garai has seen a bandwagon rolling past her and decided to jump aboard. (which is a shame as I admire her work. Saw her in Queen Anne a few months ago, she was superb).
Regardless of what we think of the EU’s position, why can’t the British government set out with its reasons the amount it thinks is due for its liabilities on withdrawal? And say that it will pay this once all matters are agreed. But leave an actual amount there on the table?
Easy enough to criticise the EU stance but Britain needs to move matters on or try to. Having the more satisfying or intellectually coherent position is not going to be a help if in March 2019 we can’t import food because we have no agreement in place, is it?
For a very sensible person I'm surprised you've resorted to such nonsense
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?
I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
The EU doesn't really have to explain its position. That is the irritating, but entirely predictable thing.
If they're not willing to explain their concerns behind the British proposal, then it makes it very hard to collaborate to find a deal. Perhaps they don't want one, but let's see. May has extended the olive branch with compromise proposals twice now. Let's see whether they come in at all from their hard-line position.
Absolutely, I agree with that completely, but they are the opposing side in the negotiations as we have said to them: we want out. I think as several people have noted, @NickPalmer springs to mind yesterday: while they haven't quite already forgotten about us, they aren't holding emergency meetings to guage progress so far.
They have set out their stall, perhaps cryptically, and it's up to us to respond or do something. We are the ones long theta.
To use a sporting analogy, you might say the ball is in our court.
It's simply really. To deter future secessions, make Brexit a nightmare. That is within their power, and the only rational course from a strategic perspective. There's no chance of the UK aligning itself with Russia, so the only risks are difficulties in Northern France and part of Ireland. That is a small price to pay.
We should have planned for no deal from the beginning.
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response....
It's absolutely essential in a negotiating situation to put yourself in a position where you have a realistic choice, to avoid one party being able to impose its terms on another. After May's statement yesterday, for the first time I'm feeling reassured that the Government recognises that, and is putting some serious emphasis now on drawing up plans for what it intends should the EU choose not to play ball. It probably was all along but by going public with those plans it sends an overdue signal.
Maybe now the UK Government should now just play the EU at its own game and just put maximum emphasis on putting in place a comprehensive plan for the UK's trading relations under WTO terms and so on, with little regard to EU trade talks or the lack of them in the meantime. It's important for business to be clear as soon as possible as to where things are heading, and that really means resolving that direction of travel some time in 2018.
The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.
The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.
David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident ...
I'm not sure that's entirely true. The lamentable campaign came in for a deal of criticism from quite a few. There were certainly a large number of loud and confident predictions of victory, but I don't think doubt was ever entirely absent. (FWIW, I'd already got a small punt on a hung parliament a few days before David's last minute cry of desperation persuaded me to increase it.)
That's correct, though I believe some partisans repeatedly asserted that St 'keep me away from the great unwashed' Theresa was running a smart campaign.
The strong and stable message had the possibility of being effective. It was driving me nuts, but by saying things over and over again you get through to those with less interest and it is the sort of tactic the Tories have used before effectively to scare people from taking a risk with someone else. Eg the previous Alex Salmond in the pocket of Ed Milliband (or was it the other way around, I can't remember).
I do dislike it though as it treats the electorate as children, there is no content to it and it is a scare tactic, but it works.
As the campaign collapsed it also became a tactic to ridicule.
For me reporting on polls need to report both their unweighted (as well as weighted) headline figure.
Why? Anyone with the remotest interest in politics and certainly all the parties know to dig down into the details. Pb is littered with posts debating the implication of various subsamples.
It's step 1 of my 12 step plan to get polling companies to release paramtizable models with their polls so we can crash test their assumptions.
Then I hope step 13 of your 12-point plan is to stop them using final digit randomisation for phone polling. It doesn't work because phone numbers are not issued at random, and nor are houses, and because posh people are more likely to go ex-directory.
Does anyone know how the phone pollsters handle mobile phones?
Regardless of what we think of the EU’s position, why can’t the British government set out with its reasons the amount it thinks is due for its liabilities on withdrawal? And say that it will pay this once all matters are agreed. But leave an actual amount there on the table?
Easy enough to criticise the EU stance but Britain needs to move matters on or try to. Having the more satisfying or intellectually coherent position is not going to be a help if in March 2019 we can’t import food because we have no agreement in place, is it?
For a very sensible person I'm surprised you've resorted to such nonsense
You think it is nonsense to say that we should put forward our assessment of what our liabilities are?
For me reporting on polls need to report both their unweighted (as well as weighted) headline figure.
Why? Anyone with the remotest interest in politics and certainly all the parties know to dig down into the details. Pb is littered with posts debating the implication of various subsamples.
It's step 1 of my 12 step plan to get polling companies to release paramtizable models with their polls so we can crash test their assumptions.
Then I hope step 13 of your 12-point plan is to stop them using final digit randomisation for phone polling. It doesn't work because phone numbers are not issued at random, and nor are houses, and because posh people are more likely to go ex-directory.
Does anyone know how the phone pollsters handle mobile phones?
I think a substantial number (majority?) Of labour voters voted for them despite Corbyn not because of him. This seems not to be the narrative now which is Corbyn is some kind of genius.
I apologise to the PBer who suggested it and whose name I have forgotten, but I did like suggestion what the pollsters should do is keep the contact details of the people that took part in the exit poll, and keep polling them until the next election.
Regardless of what we think of the EU’s position, why can’t the British government set out with its reasons the amount it thinks is due for its liabilities on withdrawal? And say that it will pay this once all matters are agreed. But leave an actual amount there on the table?
Easy enough to criticise the EU stance but Britain needs to move matters on or try to. Having the more satisfying or intellectually coherent position is not going to be a help if in March 2019 we can’t import food because we have no agreement in place, is it?
For a very sensible person I'm surprised you've resorted to such nonsense
You think it is nonsense to say that we should put forward our assessment of what our liabilities are?
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
No, the bit about not being able to import food is the sort of nonsense that prompted people to vote leave. The last line ruined what was a perfectly sensible post.
Latest opinion poll in Catalonia - conducted after the events of 1st October - shows a slight drop in support for the parties that back independence compared to the last election. https://twitter.com/Electograph/status/917669327972847616
And you make a good point. Sexual abuse involving touching or worse or exposing yourself is the worst. There is a tendency to describe even the most minor incident, however behaviourally inappropriate or wrong, in the most apocalyptic terms which can, as you say, underrate serious cases.
But an encounter such as this can make a young woman, especially one without power, feel vulnerable. It could so easily turn nasty. It is hard to deal with without potentially ruining your chances of work. And it’s this last which is the nub of it. You don’t interview someone if you’re not fully dressed, especially when you are a man, more physically powerful and more economically powerful and in a sector where the “casting couch” is a reality. You just don’t.
When I was a young lawyer, I had instances of people (older men) saying or suggesting things which were quite wrong. I was amazed and thought it reflected appallingly on them. But I was lucky in having a father who set an example for me of how men should behave and so gave me a sort of force field around me which protected me. I was always clear that it was they who were in the wrong and that I had no reason to feel ashamed or humiliated. So I ignored them (or got my own back in subtle but satisfying ways) and was fortunate to have the support of my pupil master. But as the most junior person on the team, with no sway, needing work, you have to make a fine calculation as to how to respond by making it clear that you’ll bite back without completely screwing over your chances of getting on.
There are ways of doing so. But young females should not be put in this situation just because men, who do - and should - know better cannot behave in a civilised manner and are indulged (all this bollocks about “ working through their demons” is nonsense) when caught out in shabby behaviour that any decent man would be ashamed of.
Thanks - that's a very helpful and illuminating post.
BTW, as a veteran EU observer, I predicted at the start of the talks that there would be periodic crises, breakdowns, midnight emergency sessions, clock-stopping and more, but that there would be a deal in the end. I still think so.
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response....
It's absolutely essential in a negotiating situation to put yourself in a position where you have a realistic choice, to avoid one party being able to impose its terms on another. After May's statement yesterday, for the first time I'm feeling reassured that the Government recognises that, and is putting some serious emphasis now on drawing up plans for what it intends should the EU choose not to play ball. It probably was all along but by going public with those plans it sends an overdue signal.
Maybe now the UK Government should now just play the EU at its own game and just put maximum emphasis on putting in place a comprehensive plan for the UK's trading relations under WTO terms and so on, with little regard to EU trade talks or the lack of them in the meantime. It's important for business to be clear as soon as possible as to where things are heading, and that really means resolving that direction of travel some time in 2018.
The Uk is edging the EU into the position of the intransient, bad guy.
For me reporting on polls need to report both their unweighted (as well as weighted) headline figure.
Why? Anyone with the remotest interest in politics and certainly all the parties know to dig down into the details. Pb is littered with posts debating the implication of various subsamples.
It's step 1 of my 12 step plan to get polling companies to release paramtizable models with their polls so we can crash test their assumptions.
Then I hope step 13 of your 12-point plan is to stop them using final digit randomisation for phone polling. It doesn't work because phone numbers are not issued at random, and nor are houses, and because posh people are more likely to go ex-directory.
Does anyone know how the phone pollsters handle mobile phones?
They ring mobiles too
But how do they choose which mobiles to ring? The point is, could they be walking into the same sort of biased selection they get from final digit randomisation of landline numbers? Are they oversampling T-mobile iphone users, for instance, and are ScotsNats known to favour these phones?
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?
I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
I think the key thing is that the EU holds most of the cards and it's not in their interest to make Brexit look easy or appealing to any others that might consider exiting. I don't condone that approach but it is entirely predictable.
Strangley, the erstwhile regular Leavers' mantras along the lines of 'they need us more than we need them' and 'the German car industry will make sure we get a trade deal' seem to have dried up on this forum.
What Brexit has confirmed is how inept the vast majority of politicians are, business people negotiate complex issues with real money everyday, our representatives (and those in the EU) are completely out of their depth. The popular saying is two drunks fighting in a puddle.
Despite the rows on here the general public is underwhelmed by the whole thing, like everything else it will be sorted in the end, if its not the tories are toast, they have to own this.
For once I entriely agree with you freetochoose! I still think (hope?) that a glorious last minute fudge, with everyone claiming victory.
Thanks but I don't think anybody wants to claim victory. From my view I simply want an orderly departure. It must be remembered that to some people no deal of any kind is acceptable, they want to remain.
Our people are useless, the EU are behaving appallingly, it will end badly for the tories if they don't sort it.
I also think it's odd that Weinstein hasn't been suspended, but sacked. At the moment, these are allegations. That's not the same as conviction. If he's guilty, then by all means punish him, but guilt should be established prior to punishment.
It might be that it's the final straw. Weinstein was the kind of man who made Alistair Campbell look like St. Francis by comparison, even before this.
She went for an interview with the director, who eccentrically was still in a dressing gown - yes, that's a bit odd. Then she sat on a chair and had a brief discussion about the film. There's no suggestion that he said or did anything unprofessional in the discussion. Now, many years later, she looks back on it as "humiliating", "an abuse of power", and the most problematic thing that has ever happened to her in her career.
Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.
But maybe I'm missing the point?
Nope - for once you are spot on. Seems like she's looking for publicity.
I think the real question for the polling industry is whether they were wrong from the start or whether they were caught out by a late swing as people had increasing reservations about giving May untrammelled power. If it was the former their incompetence seriously distorted our election creating a false narrative that influenced how people voted.
As Mike points out the local election results indicated that the Tories were in a very strong position and the narrative at that time was all about how unbelievably useless Corbyn was and indeed is. But were the Tories ever 20% ahead? I really doubt it. For the second election in a row significant numbers of people voted on a false premise. It is a concern.
It's always an interesting debate. Did the polls drive votes or did the voting intentions determine the poll results.
In 2015 everyone assumed a hung parliament based on all the polls - and voters engineered a majority government
In 2017 almost every one assumed a Tory landslide based on almost all the polls - so it was 'safe' to throw votes Labour's way to cut their majority a little. Did they want Corbyn or just a slightly less powerful May. Had all the polls predicted a much closer result or a hung parliament would voters have donr a 2015.
If Cameron's own polling before the EU referendum not shown remain 10 per cent ahead but level or behind would he have done things differently?
Very much agree with you - faulty polls and dodgy narratives are now the main driver of voting behaviour. Some hope for the Tories now that the narrative seems to be a bailed on Labour win next time
Maybe one solution is to ban the publication of polling data for the last two weeks of the campaign?
1. Will never work - too many ways around it. 2. What is it with 'Liberals' and banning things? Never heard of free expression?
Publication is banned on election days. It seems to work.
Given the "accuracy" of most of the polls you might as well predict the result with a newspaper covered dartboard and some darts, yet in spite of this they appear to form the reporting narratives.
If they are more of a hindrance than a help then would they be missed?
O/T: is it a generational thing that I feel that this story is really exaggerated?
Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.
But maybe I'm missing the point?
No, I don’t think you are. And you make a good point. Sexual abuse involving touching or worse or exposing yourself is the worst. There is a tendency to describe even the most minor incident, however behaviourally inappropriate or wrong, in the most apocalyptic terms which can, as you say, underrate serious cases.
But an encounter such as this can make a young woman, especially one without power, feel vulnerable. It could so easily turn nasty. It is hard to deal with without potentially ruining your chances of work. And it’s this last which is the nub of it. You don’t interview someone if you’re not fully dressed, especially when you are a man, more physically powerful and more economically powerful and in a sector where the “casting couch” is a reality. You just don’t.
When I was a young lawyer, I had instances of people (older men) saying or suggesting things which were quite wrong. I was amazed and thought it reflected appallingly on them. But I was lucky in having a father who set an example for me of how men should behave and so gave me a sort of force field around me which protected me. I was always clear that it was they who were in the wrong and that I had no reason to feel ashamed or humiliated. So I ignored them (or got my own back in subtle but satisfying ways) and was fortunate to have the support of my pupil master. But as the most junior person on the team, with no sway, needing work, you have to make a fine calculation as to how to respond by making it clear that you’ll bite back without completely screwing over your chances of getting on.
There are ways of doing so. But young females should not be put in this situation just because men, who do - and should - know better cannot behave in a civilised manner and are indulged (all this bollocks about “ working through their demons” is nonsense) when caught out in shabby behaviour that any decent man would be ashamed of.
Thank-you Cyclefree - this is a great post and has made me see this in an alternative light. Always good when something makes you re-think your position.
My pleasure.
There was a post of yours late yesterday evening which made me think some more about my own position. Always good, as you say. PB at its best!
For me reporting on polls need to report both their unweighted (as well as weighted) headline figure.
Why? Anyone with the remotest interest in politics and certainly all the parties know to dig down into the details. Pb is littered with posts debating the implication of various subsamples.
It's step 1 of my 12 step plan to get polling companies to release paramtizable models with their polls so we can crash test their assumptions.
Then I hope step 13 of your 12-point plan is to stop them using final digit randomisation for phone polling. It doesn't work because phone numbers are not issued at random, and nor are houses, and because posh people are more likely to go ex-directory.
Does anyone know how the phone pollsters handle mobile phones?
They ring mobiles too
But how do they choose which mobiles to ring? The point is, could they be walking into the same sort of biased selection they get from final digit randomisation of landline numbers? Are they oversampling T-mobile iphone users, for instance, and are ScotsNats known to favour these phones?
Well T mobile are EE these days.
IIRC they ring based on demographic information, and they don't go for network demographics because people port numbers, so what was an vodafone number might now be a o2 number.
Mr. Topping, it's a self-contradictory nonsense of an approach.
Take the Irish border. That depends upon the trade agreement (or lack thereof) we have, but the EU insists it'll only discuss the prerequisite for an agreement on the Irish border after the border is settled. It's crazy.
Mr. Dancer
Trade is not the only thing at Borders. In any case, unless the UK is in a common Market, or Northern Ireland has a separate arrangement, there will be a hard border there, and presumably in Gibraltar, at least on the EU side. That will leave a fair number of UK citizens very upset, and whilst they will initially blame the EU, the ongoing disruption will cause problems for the UK Government.
Regardless of what we think of the EU’s position, why can’t the British government set out with its reasons the amount it thinks is due for its liabilities on withdrawal? And say that it will pay this once all matters are agreed. But leave an actual amount there on the table?
The UK government's position seems to be that the UK has next to no legally enforceable liabilities with the EU on withdrawal, but that it might be willing to make some voluntary payments as part of a settlement including trade. The problem is that the EU isn't prepared to even start to discuss what it might offer in return so an impasse has been reached. The EU is vastly overstating its hand and it's not for the UK government to go further at this point.
For me reporting on polls need to report both their unweighted (as well as weighted) headline figure.
Why? Anyone with the remotest interest in politics and certainly all the parties know to dig down into the details. Pb is littered with posts debating the implication of various subsamples.
It's step 1 of my 12 step plan to get polling companies to release paramtizable models with their polls so we can crash test their assumptions.
Then I hope step 13 of your 12-point plan is to stop them using final digit randomisation for phone polling. It doesn't work because phone numbers are not issued at random, and nor are houses, and because posh people are more likely to go ex-directory.
Does anyone know how the phone pollsters handle mobile phones?
They ring mobiles too
None of which really helps the basic problem that there are very large sections of the population who will not answer a phone if they do not recognise the number or if it is hidden.
I cannot help but think this must have a considerable effect on the spread of people being contacted by phone but at the same time I have no clear idea of how it might be affecting the results.
Quite a positive story for the PM this morning with this racial audit. Makes a nice change but I think, like many people in fairness, she is better at identifying a problem than finding solutions. It will be interesting to see what she thinks she can do about what she has highlighted.
Differential outcomes aren't caused by government policies, so it's hard to see what changes government's can make.
Regardless of what we think of the EU’s position, why can’t the British government set out with its reasons the amount it thinks is due for its liabilities on withdrawal? And say that it will pay this once all matters are agreed. But leave an actual amount there on the table?
Easy enough to criticise the EU stance but Britain needs to move matters on or try to. Having the more satisfying or intellectually coherent position is not going to be a help if in March 2019 we can’t import food because we have no agreement in place, is it?
For a very sensible person I'm surprised you've resorted to such nonsense
You think it is nonsense to say that we should put forward our assessment of what our liabilities are?
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
No, the bit about not being able to import food is the sort of nonsense that prompted people to vote leave. The last line ruined what was a perfectly sensible post.
Fair enough. It was a bit of hyperbole to emphasise the point that intellectual principle should come second to practicalities. Perhaps I should have used an emoji!
I have no idea what happens if we have no deal. But we do import food. And if there are customs delays isn’t there the possibility of disruption, at the very least?
Quite a positive story for the PM this morning with this racial audit. Makes a nice change but I think, like many people in fairness, she is better at identifying a problem than finding solutions. It will be interesting to see what she thinks she can do about what she has highlighted.
There an interesting article by Rachel Sylvester on this in the Times today, which is quite generous towards Mrs May, suggesting that this is her passion, and her heart really isn't in delivering Brexit - let alone deciding what Brexit to deliver. I don't doubt the PM's goodwill, but take a rather less generous view of her ability to deliver social reform even in the absence of Brexit.
Mrs May is right on stuff like this, like when she stopped stop and search, her passion was also shown on modern slavery.
This is why I don't have the animosity to May that I have for more traditional right wing Tories. Many on the left have convinced themselves this is an extreme right wing Conservative party, but it really isn't. I worry that a collapse of a Corbyn government could lead to a much more noxious Tory government afterwards
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?
I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
I think the key thing is that the EU holds most of the cards and it's not in their interest to make Brexit look easy or appealing to any others that might consider exiting. I don't condone that approach but it is entirely predictable.
Strangley, the erstwhile regular Leavers' mantras along the lines of 'they need us more than we need them' and 'the German car industry will make sure we get a trade deal' seem to have dried up on this forum.
What Brexit has confirmed is how inept the vast majority of politicians are, business people negotiate complex issues with real money everyday, our representatives (and those in the EU) are completely out of their depth. The popular saying is two drunks fighting in a puddle.
Despite the rows on here the general public is underwhelmed by the whole thing, like everything else it will be sorted in the end, if its not the tories are toast, they have to own this.
For once I entriely agree with you freetochoose! I still think (hope?) that a glorious last minute fudge, with everyone claiming victory.
Thanks but I don't think anybody wants to claim victory. From my view I simply want an orderly departure. It must be remembered that to some people no deal of any kind is acceptable, they want to remain.
Our people are useless, the EU are behaving appallingly, it will end badly for the tories if they don't sort it.
I meant the UK and the EU both claiming victory (of sorts) not people on here (we are irrelevant).
I would still love to remain but I know it's not going to happen and I honestly think there are very few of us 'Remoaners' who wouldn't settle for a deal that had us leaving but keeping close, à la Norway.
Regardless of what we think of the EU’s position, why can’t the British government set out with its reasons the amount it thinks is due for its liabilities on withdrawal? And say that it will pay this once all matters are agreed. But leave an actual amount there on the table?
Easy enough to criticise the EU stance but Britain needs to move matters on or try to. Having the more satisfying or intellectually coherent position is not going to be a help if in March 2019 we can’t import food because we have no agreement in place, is it?
For a very sensible person I'm surprised you've resorted to such nonsense
You think it is nonsense to say that we should put forward our assessment of what our liabilities are?
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
No, the bit about not being able to import food is the sort of nonsense that prompted people to vote leave. The last line ruined what was a perfectly sensible post.
Fair enough. It was a bit of hyperbole to emphasise the point that intellectual principle should come second to practicalities. Perhaps I should have used an emoji!
I have no idea what happens if we have no deal. But we do import food. And if there are customs delays isn’t there the possibility of disruption, at the very least?
Quite possibly but this to me is the lesson that hasn't been learned. We were threatened with recession, unemployment, war even and people grew tired of it. You use the word hyperbole which is what surprised me in the first place, serious discussion is impossible.
Look, I'm not saying this is straightforward but vested interests are muddying the waters and nobody is taking responsibility. That's good, say the tory remainers, but the majority of tories are leavers and they won't forgive May et al if they flunk it.
Curtis's analysis of recent SNP polling - the WM polling for SCON isn't great even with Ruth's popularity:
" Meanwhile, the decline in SNP support registered in June seems to have been stemmed. YouGov put the party on 40% in Westminster vote intentions, up three points on the election. Survation, too, put the party on 39%, up a couple of points. Such a performance would be enough for the SNP to recapture up to eight of the seats it lost in June – thanks not least to an apparent six-point drop in Conservative support since the UK election. In short, the party’s domination of Scottish representation at Westminster does not seem to be under immediate threat "
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response....
It's absolutely essential in a negotiating situation to put yourself in a position where you have a realistic choice, to avoid one party being able to impose its terms on another. After May's statement yesterday, for the first time I'm feeling reassured that the Government recognises that, and is putting some serious emphasis now on drawing up plans for what it intends should the EU choose not to play ball. It probably was all along but by going public with those plans it sends an overdue signal.
Maybe now the UK Government should now just play the EU at its own game and just put maximum emphasis on putting in place a comprehensive plan for the UK's trading relations under WTO terms and so on, with little regard to EU trade talks or the lack of them in the meantime. It's important for business to be clear as soon as possible as to where things are heading, and that really means resolving that direction of travel some time in 2018.
The Uk is edging the EU into the position of the intransient, bad guy.
Which is promising.
It's only promising if that is the narrative in the EU27 countries. Is there any evidence that is the case? The way the UK gets some leverage is if public opinion outside the UK shifts. That's why the rhetoric of the last 15 months has been so unbelievably stupid. We should have been out in Europe charming populations from the day following the referendum. We should have been saying there is no way we will be walking away from negotiations. We want a deal and we are prepared to talk until there is one. That way any blame for failure would have been much easier to pin on the EU27 where it actually matters.
Mr. Topping, it's a self-contradictory nonsense of an approach.
Take the Irish border. That depends upon the trade agreement (or lack thereof) we have, but the EU insists it'll only discuss the prerequisite for an agreement on the Irish border after the border is settled. It's crazy.
Mr. Dancer
Trade is not the only thing at Borders. In any case, unless the UK is in a common Market, or Northern Ireland has a separate arrangement, there will be a hard border there, and presumably in Gibraltar, at least on the EU side. That will leave a fair number of UK citizens very upset, and whilst they will initially blame the EU, the ongoing disruption will cause problems for the UK Government.
Or Dublin can return to the, ah, "care" of the UK Government?
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?
I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
They're waiting to c&p something from twitter
Nah, you Leavers are like holocaust deniers, whatever we say, you just ignore the facts and evidence.
No it is far simpler than that. You have no facts or figures to give us as far as the EU position goes. The funniest one I have seen today is that the UK should tell the EU how much the UK owes it (Yes I am looking at you Mr Dubliner at 9:02).
I suspect the problem is that the EU are unable to balance the two competing issues of making the numbers large enough to be punitive but still based on some sort of legal position. The last thing they really want is to have their numbers picked apart and exposed as being unfounded as that would weaken their position dramatically.
Thanks but I don't think anybody wants to claim victory. From my view I simply want an orderly departure.
If that's seriously what you want then you need to sign up to the EU's departure terms lock stock and barrel. If you're not prepared to do that, then you really want something else.
She went for an interview with the director, who eccentrically was still in a dressing gown - yes, that's a bit odd. Then she sat on a chair and had a brief discussion about the film. There's no suggestion that he said or did anything unprofessional in the discussion. Now, many years later, she looks back on it as "humiliating", "an abuse of power", and the most problematic thing that has ever happened to her in her career.
Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.
But maybe I'm missing the point?
As a grown woman, I would be cautious about meeting a fully clothed stranger in his hotel room. If I did agree to meet him in his room and he opened the door in a bathrobe then I would tell him that I would wait downstairs in the Lobby until he was dressed, but what does an 18 year old do if her career depends on not offending that man?
What men never quite seem to grasp is that for women, sexual or physical assault is a regular occurrence. Not every day or week but often enough that you cannot discount the risk.
Maybe one solution is to ban the publication of polling data for the last two weeks of the campaign?
1. Will never work - too many ways around it. 2. What is it with 'Liberals' and banning things? Never heard of free expression?
Publication is banned on election days. It seems to work.
Given the "accuracy" of most of the polls you might as well predict the result with a newspaper covered dartboard and some darts, yet in spite of this they appear to form the reporting narratives.
If they are more of a hindrance than a help then would they be missed?
Regardless of what we think of the EU’s position, why can’t the British government set out with its reasons the amount it thinks is due for its liabilities on withdrawal? And say that it will pay this once all matters are agreed. But leave an actual amount there on the table?
Easy enough to criticise the EU stance but Britain needs to move matters on or try to. Having the more satisfying or intellectually coherent position is not going to be a help if in March 2019 we can’t import food because we have no agreement in place, is it?
For a very sensible person I'm surprised you've resorted to such nonsense
You think it is nonsense to say that we should put forward our assessment of what our liabilities are?
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
No, the bit about not being able to import food is the sort of nonsense that prompted people to vote leave. The last line ruined what was a perfectly sensible post.
Fair enough. It was a bit of hyperbole to emphasise the point that intellectual principle should come second to practicalities. Perhaps I should have used an emoji!
I have no idea what happens if we have no deal. But we do import food. And if there are customs delays isn’t there the possibility of disruption, at the very least?
The UK imports quite a lot of its food, and if floods in Spain can disrupt supply, the delays at Dover will certainly do so.
However, the position we are now in is that both sides would quite like a deal, but not on the terms being dictated by the other. The key is, I think, Barnier's aside that the UK must choose between CETA and Norway, and the EU will fine tune the choice.
The difference is being in or out of the Single Market. The UK wold like a cross, which will give all the freedoms of Ceta, but with continuing access to the single market on current terms. That the EU have rejected the second option and will not accept it in any circumstances is interpreted as punishment?
Mr. Topping, it's a self-contradictory nonsense of an approach.
Take the Irish border. That depends upon the trade agreement (or lack thereof) we have, but the EU insists it'll only discuss the prerequisite for an agreement on the Irish border after the border is settled. It's crazy.
The government does not know what trade deal it wants. Until it does it is not in a position to make any concrete proposals concerning the Irish border. And it is not in any position to discuss a future trading relationship with the EU.
Mrs C, does work both ways. The Commons groping report from a few years ago found that most MP assistants who were the subject of unwanted advances by politicians were male.
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response....
It's absolutely essential in a negotiating situation to put yourself in a position where you have a realistic choice, to avoid one party being able to impose its terms on another. After May's statement yesterday, for the first time I'm feeling reassured that the Government recognises that, and is putting some serious emphasis now on drawing up plans for what it intends should the EU choose not to play ball. It probably was all along but by going public with those plans it sends an overdue signal.
Maybe now the UK Government should now just play the EU at its own game and just put maximum emphasis on putting in place a comprehensive plan for the UK's trading relations under WTO terms and so on, with little regard to EU trade talks or the lack of them in the meantime. It's important for business to be clear as soon as possible as to where things are heading, and that really means resolving that direction of travel some time in 2018.
The Uk is edging the EU into the position of the intransient, bad guy.
Which is promising.
It's only promising if that is the narrative in the EU27 countries. Is there any evidence that is the case? The way the UK gets some leverage is if public opinion outside the UK shifts. That's why the rhetoric of the last 15 months has been so unbelievably stupid. We should have been out in Europe charming populations from the day following the referendum. We should have been saying there is no way we will be walking away from negotiations. We want a deal and we are prepared to talk until there is one. That way any blame for failure would have been much easier to pin on the EU27 where it actually matters.
There's very little evidence that people in other EU countries are the slightest bit interested in the Brexit process. The chance of a shift in public opinion in the EU being strong enough to undermine their negotiating position is vanishingly small. We need to look to the EU's negotiation with Greece as a model here - they set out their position, the Greeks initially rejected it but soon found that public opinion outside Greece was not interested and there was no way they could force the EU to change its position. It was take it or leave it. That is the position in which the UK now finds itself.
Mr. Topping, it's a self-contradictory nonsense of an approach.
Take the Irish border. That depends upon the trade agreement (or lack thereof) we have, but the EU insists it'll only discuss the prerequisite for an agreement on the Irish border after the border is settled. It's crazy.
The government does not know what trade deal it wants. Until it does it is not in a position to make any concrete proposals concerning the Irish border. And it is not in any position to discuss a future trading relationship with the EU.
What does it not know about the trade deal it wants?
Thanks but I don't think anybody wants to claim victory. From my view I simply want an orderly departure.
If that's seriously what you want then you need to sign up to the EU's departure terms lock stock and barrel. If you're not prepared to do that, then you really want something else.
Do me a favour and f**k off.
I can't sign up to anything, I'm just a bloke in the street.
The economic impact of No Deal will be felt well before we actually get to exit day, which in turn makes No Deal politically impossible for the UK government to go through with.
Mr. Observer, even if the UK knew precisely, to every dotted i and cross t, what trade deal it wanted, that would be irrelevant because the EU won't discuss it until after the border is settled [even though trade is a necessary part of settling the border].
The EU's attitude to negotiations is to have demands between unreasonable and impossible and complain when they aren't met.
The talk of a divorce bill being settling accounts is fair enough. Except the EU doesn't appear to know what the accounts are and is demanding the UK determine its own fictional debt. I have no problem settling accounts. The EU has a problem producing them.
It's this kind of bullshit that has not endeared the organisation to the UK.
Regardless of what we think of the EU’s position, why can’t the British government set out with its reasons the amount it thinks is due for its liabilities on withdrawal? And say that it will pay this once all matters are agreed. But leave an actual amount there on the table?
Easy enough to criticise the EU stance but Britain needs to move matters on or try to. Having the more satisfying or intellectually coherent position is not going to be a help if in March 2019 we can’t import food because we have no agreement in place, is it?
For a very sensible person I'm surprised you've resorted to such nonsense
You think it is nonsense to say that we should put forward our assessment of what our liabilities are?
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
No, the bit about not being able to import food is the sort of nonsense that prompted people to vote leave. The last line ruined what was a perfectly sensible post.
Fair enough. It was a bit of hyperbole to emphasise the point that intellectual principle should come second to practicalities. Perhaps I should have used an emoji!
I have no idea what happens if we have no deal. But we do import food. And if there are customs delays isn’t there the possibility of disruption, at the very least?
The UK imports quite a lot of its food, and if floods in Spain can disrupt supply, the delays at Dover will certainly do so.
However, the position we are now in is that both sides would quite like a deal, but not on the terms being dictated by the other. The key is, I think, Barnier's aside that the UK must choose between CETA and Norway, and the EU will fine tune the choice.
The difference is being in or out of the Single Market. The UK wold like a cross, which will give all the freedoms of Ceta, but with continuing access to the single market on current terms. That the EU have rejected the second option and will not accept it in any circumstances is interpreted as punishment?
No Deal seems the likely outcome.
Delays at Dover favour nobody, if people are selling us food they need to deliver it to get paid.
This is the crux of what people refuse to understand, other countries need and want to sell us things
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?
I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
They're waiting to c&p something from twitter
Nah, you Leavers are like holocaust deniers, whatever we say, you just ignore the facts and evidence.
No it is far simpler than that. You have no facts or figures to give us as far as the EU position goes. The funniest one I have seen today is that the UK should tell the EU how much the UK owes it (Yes I am looking at you Mr Dubliner at 9:02).
I suspect the problem is that the EU are unable to balance the two competing issues of making the numbers large enough to be punitive but still based on some sort of legal position. The last thing they really want is to have their numbers picked apart and exposed as being unfounded as that would weaken their position dramatically.
The EU position is simple. We have money, they want it.
Quite a positive story for the PM this morning with this racial audit. Makes a nice change but I think, like many people in fairness, she is better at identifying a problem than finding solutions. It will be interesting to see what she thinks she can do about what she has highlighted.
Differential outcomes aren't caused by government policies, so it's hard to see what changes government's can make.
That's not true. Government has enormous power to lead campaigns to change cultural mindsets. Look at changing views on sexual assault or drink driving.
Mrs C, does work both ways. The Commons groping report from a few years ago found that most MP assistants who were the subject of unwanted advances by politicians were male.
Fair enough Mr Dancer. I have been groped too many times to bother counting and now regard it as something of a minor hazard in crowded places.
How many of those male MPs had someone attempt to pull their underwear down or have someone stick their hand down your blouse and grab your breast? How many have had their boobs squeezed? (think up male equivalents - but I hope you get the point).
Over the years I have had all of the above. Two of my assailants had to be picked off the floor afterwards but why should I have had to experience those assaults in the first place just because some bloke was curious or another thought it was a bit of a laugh?
Thanks but I don't think anybody wants to claim victory. From my view I simply want an orderly departure.
If that's seriously what you want then you need to sign up to the EU's departure terms lock stock and barrel. If you're not prepared to do that, then you really want something else.
Do me a favour and f**k off.
I can't sign up to anything, I'm just a bloke in the street.
A man in the street who would scream betrayal at the government if they tried to give you what you say you want. The Tories are in an unenviable position.
We should remember that the polls called Canterbury, but the hive mind laughed at it.
What was telling was that the Tory High Command laughed at it.
which means either they were polling locally incorrectly or making decisions based on bad information and assumptions.
What you have to remember is that the Tory private polling in 2015 was spot on, the final poll predicted 329 seats versus 330 they actually received.
They assumed it was spot on this time.
I'm fairly sure I read somewhere that, internally, they got their % pretty much bang on (less than 1 % lower than actual) but completely misread Lab (assumed LDs would take more, and more UKIP would stay at home). Maybe wishful thinking, maybe a lack of proper red teaming, what if what if what if.
Thanks but I don't think anybody wants to claim victory. From my view I simply want an orderly departure.
If that's seriously what you want then you need to sign up to the EU's departure terms lock stock and barrel. If you're not prepared to do that, then you really want something else.
Do me a favour and f**k off.
I can't sign up to anything, I'm just a bloke in the street.
A man in the street who would scream betrayal at the government if they tried to give you what you say you want. The Tories are in an unenviable position.
Mrs C, does work both ways. The Commons groping report from a few years ago found that most MP assistants who were the subject of unwanted advances by politicians were male.
Of course, that does not mean that the politicians performing the unwanted advances were all female ...
Also, wasn't the report about not just abuse by MPs, but other staffers? (If I recall correctly...)
Mrs C, that sounds horrendous, and I do hope you bruised more than their pride. There's an odd tendency to airbrush out male victims of such things, (a third of the Rotherham victims were male but this is rarely mentioned).
Re polling, I'm anything but an expert but I'm very cynical.
I would take greater notice if a pollster stopped people randomly in the street rather than those that had registered with them. I know a previous contributor on here was very strong on this.
Mrs C, does work both ways. The Commons groping report from a few years ago found that most MP assistants who were the subject of unwanted advances by politicians were male.
As white middle class males in a first world country we struggle against structural inequality and power asymmetry every day.
Mr. Choose, whilst I disagree with Mr. Glenn ever so slightly over the EU, there's no need to be so uncouth.
Mr. Jessop, unsure about the profession, but I agree entirely there will have been plenty of males doing as well as receiving the unwanted advances.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Ace, nobody mentioned race or class, just gender. Rape or sexual assault doesn't become less serious if the victim is male rather than female. Still, nothing shows how edgy and cool you are like minimising sexual assault because the victims don't fit your preferred demographic for sympathy.
Mr. Observer, even if the UK knew precisely, to every dotted i and cross t, what trade deal it wanted, that would be irrelevant because the EU won't discuss it until after the border is settled [even though trade is a necessary part of settling the border].
The EU's attitude to negotiations is to have demands between unreasonable and impossible and complain when they aren't met.
The talk of a divorce bill being settling accounts is fair enough. Except the EU doesn't appear to know what the accounts are and is demanding the UK determine its own fictional debt. I have no problem settling accounts. The EU has a problem producing them.
It's this kind of bullshit that has not endeared the organisation to the UK.
The UK has said it wants to leave and that it does not want a hard border in Ireland. The UK therefore needs to propose how that will work. But until the UK knows what kind of trade deal it wants, that is not possible - as the UK's papers on the border and yesterday's on customs make clear. We have caused this to become an issue, we need to lead on finding solutions. Until the government has a fixed view of the final outcome that is not going to happen.
Mrs C, that sounds horrendous, and I do hope you bruised more than their pride. There's an odd tendency to airbrush out male victims of such things, (a third of the Rotherham victims were male but this is rarely mentioned).
Or, for that matter, the odd tendency to airbrush out asian and ethnic minority victims of such things.
Much abuse is not about sex, but power. If you grope someone, you might get a momentary titillation (*). But if you get away with it, then you may somewhat have power over that person. Small-scale abuse is often a form of hideous bullying.
(*) I hasten to add, it's not the sort of thing I'd ever do.
Mrs C, does work both ways. The Commons groping report from a few years ago found that most MP assistants who were the subject of unwanted advances by politicians were male.
As white middle class males in a first world country we struggle against structural inequality and power asymmetry every day.
Regardless of what we think of the EU’s position, why can’t the British government set out with its reasons the amount it thinks is due for its liabilities on withdrawal? And say that it will pay this once all matters are agreed. But leave an actual amount there on the table?
Easy enough to criticise the EU stance but Britain needs to move matters on or try to. Having the more satisfying or intellectually coherent position is not going to be a help if in March 2019 we can’t import food because we have no agreement in place, is it?
For a very sensible person I'm surprised you've resorted to such nonsense
You think it is nonsense to say that we should put forward our assessment of what our liabilities are?
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
No, the bit about not being able to import food is the sort of nonsense that prompted people to vote leave. The last line ruined what was a perfectly sensible post.
Fair enough. It was a bit of hyperbole to emphasise the point that intellectual principle should come second to practicalities. Perhaps I should have used an emoji!
I have no idea what happens if we have no deal. But we do import food. And if there are customs delays isn’t there the possibility of disruption, at the very least?
The UK imports quite a lot of its food, and if floods in Spain can disrupt supply, the delays at Dover will certainly do so.
However, the position we are now in is that both sides would quite like a deal, but not on the terms being dictated by the other. The key is, I think, Barnier's aside that the UK must choose between CETA and Norway, and the EU will fine tune the choice.
The difference is being in or out of the Single Market. The UK wold like a cross, which will give all the freedoms of Ceta, but with continuing access to the single market on current terms. That the EU have rejected the second option and will not accept it in any circumstances is interpreted as punishment?
No Deal seems the likely outcome.
No deal won't harm Junker and Barnier much. But the Spanish tomato grower and the French wine seller will soon feel the pain. The EU are playing with fire.
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response....
It's absolutely essential in a negotiating situation to put yourself in a position where you have a realistic choice, to avoid one party being able to impose its terms on another. After May's statement yesterday, for the first time I'm feeling reassured that the Government recognises that, and is putting some serious emphasis now on drawing up plans for what it intends should the EU choose not to play ball. It probably was all along but by going public with those plans it sends an overdue signal.
Maybe now the UK Government should now just play the EU at its own game and just put maximum emphasis on putting in place a comprehensive plan for the UK's trading relations under WTO terms and so on, with little regard to EU trade talks or the lack of them in the meantime. It's important for business to be clear as soon as possible as to where things are heading, and that really means resolving that direction of travel some time in 2018.
The Uk is edging the EU into the position of the intransient, bad guy.
Which is promising.
It's matters.
There's very little evidence that people in other EU countries are the slightest bit interested in the Brexit process. The chance of a shift in public opinion in the EU being strong enough to undermine their negotiating position is vanishingly small. We need to look to the EU's negotiation with Greece as a model here - they set out their position, the Greeks initially rejected it but soon found that public opinion outside Greece was not interested and there was no way they could force the EU to change its position. It was take it or leave it. That is the position in which the UK now finds itself.
The UK is not Greece and there are downsides for a fair few people in the EU27 if there is no deal. A constructive, friendly UK that was seen to be reaching out might have had a chance to use that to shape public opinion in other countries so as to put some pressure on governments to strike a deal. But we have carried on being what we have been for a number of years when it comes to the EU: surly and largely hostile in tone. making Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad might have made sense to Theresa May politically, but the big problem was that it made Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad.
I don't think the Local Elections on May 4th did entirely confirm the message being conveyed by the polls at the time. John Curtice estimated that they implied a Tory lead of circa 11% - ie only half the margin some polls were then showing.He did specifically say that the results did not imply a Tory landslide - rather a majority of 40 - 60 seats.
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?
I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
They're waiting to c&p something from twitter
Nah, you Leavers are like holocaust deniers, whatever we say, you just ignore the facts and evidence.
No it is far simpler than that. You have no facts or figures to give us as far as the EU position goes. The funniest one I have seen today is that the UK should tell the EU how much the UK owes it (Yes I am looking at you Mr Dubliner at 9:02).
I suspect the problem is that the EU are unable to balance the two competing issues of making the numbers large enough to be punitive but still based on some sort of legal position. The last thing they really want is to have their numbers picked apart and exposed as being unfounded as that would weaken their position dramatically.
The EU position is simple. We have money, they want it.
I never said the UK should tell the EU how much is owed, merely that the UK should indicate how it intends to calculate the amount. I've no doubt there would be disputes as to the items to be included, but at the moment the UK seems to be throwing figures in the air, without any details of how they are calculated
Regardless of what we think of the EU’s position, why can’t the British government set out with its reasons the amount it thinks is due for its liabilities on withdrawal? And say that it will pay this once all matters are agreed. But leave an actual amount there on the table?
Easy enough to criticise the EU stance but Britain needs to move matters on or try to. Having the more satisfying or intellectually coherent position is not going to be a help if in March 2019 we can’t import food because we have no agreement in place, is it?
For a very sensible person I'm surprised you've resorted to such nonsense
You think it is nonsense to say that we should put forward our assessment of what our liabilities are?
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
No, the bit about not being able to import food is the sort of nonsense that prompted people to vote leave. The last line ruined what was a perfectly sensible post.
Fair enough. It was a bit of hyperbole to emphasise the point that intellectual principle should come second to practicalities. Perhaps I should have used an emoji!
I have no idea what happens if we have no deal. But we do import food. And if there are customs delays isn’t there the possibility of disruption, at the very least?
Quite possibly but this to me is the lesson that hasn't been learned. We were threatened with recession, unemployment, war even and people grew tired of it. You use the word hyperbole which is what surprised me in the first place, serious discussion is impossible.
Look, I'm not saying this is straightforward but vested interests are muddying the waters and nobody is taking responsibility. That's good, say the tory remainers, but the majority of tories are leavers and they won't forgive May et al if they flunk it.
Hard to see how the Conservatives flunk it electorally if they hold their nerve.Either way they can blame the EU and maybe with enough justification to convince 42% again at the next election.
Mr. Topping, it's a self-contradictory nonsense of an approach.
Take the Irish border. That depends upon the trade agreement (or lack thereof) we have, but the EU insists it'll only discuss the prerequisite for an agreement on the Irish border after the border is settled. It's crazy.
The government does not know what trade deal it wants. Until it does it is not in a position to make any concrete proposals concerning the Irish border. And it is not in any position to discuss a future trading relationship with the EU.
What does it not know about the trade deal it wants?
The extent to which we will seek to diverge from EU standards post-Brexit, for a start. If we want maximum freedom to do that it has very different customs implications to a situation in which we essentially shadow EU standards.
Comments
They assumed it was spot on this time.
Easy enough to criticise the EU stance but Britain needs to move matters on or try to. Having the more satisfying or intellectually coherent position is not going to be a help if in March 2019 we can’t import food because we have no agreement in place, is it?
hahahahaha
We should have planned for no deal from the beginning.
Maybe now the UK Government should now just play the EU at its own game and just put maximum emphasis on putting in place a comprehensive plan for the UK's trading relations under WTO terms and so on, with little regard to EU trade talks or the lack of them in the meantime. It's important for business to be clear as soon as possible as to where things are heading, and that really means resolving that direction of travel some time in 2018.
The problem is, supposing we have a dead heat in polling, guessing which way the electorate will break.
I do dislike it though as it treats the electorate as children, there is no content to it and it is a scare tactic, but it works.
As the campaign collapsed it also became a tactic to ridicule.
But we are where we are.
Does anyone know how the phone pollsters handle mobile phones?
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
https://twitter.com/Electograph/status/917669327972847616
Which is promising.
Our people are useless, the EU are behaving appallingly, it will end badly for the tories if they don't sort it.
Given the "accuracy" of most of the polls you might as well predict the result with a newspaper covered dartboard and some darts, yet in spite of this they appear to form the reporting narratives.
If they are more of a hindrance than a help then would they be missed?
There was a post of yours late yesterday evening which made me think some more about my own position. Always good, as you say. PB at its best!
IIRC they ring based on demographic information, and they don't go for network demographics because people port numbers, so what was an vodafone number might now be a o2 number.
Trade is not the only thing at Borders. In any case, unless the UK is in a common Market, or Northern Ireland has a separate arrangement, there will be a hard border there, and presumably in Gibraltar, at least on the EU side. That will leave a fair number of UK citizens very upset, and whilst they will initially blame the EU, the ongoing disruption will cause problems for the UK Government.
I cannot help but think this must have a considerable effect on the spread of people being contacted by phone but at the same time I have no clear idea of how it might be affecting the results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0CbN8sfihY
I have no idea what happens if we have no deal. But we do import food. And if there are customs delays isn’t there the possibility of disruption, at the very least?
I would still love to remain but I know it's not going to happen and I honestly think there are very few of us 'Remoaners' who wouldn't settle for a deal that had us leaving but keeping close, à la Norway.
PS Your last sentence is spot on!
General Election
Major Upset
Corporal Punishment
Goodbyee
Captain Corbyn
Look, I'm not saying this is straightforward but vested interests are muddying the waters and nobody is taking responsibility. That's good, say the tory remainers, but the majority of tories are leavers and they won't forgive May et al if they flunk it.
" Meanwhile, the decline in SNP support registered in June seems to have been stemmed. YouGov put the party on 40% in Westminster vote intentions, up three points on the election. Survation, too, put the party on 39%, up a couple of points. Such a performance would be enough for the SNP to recapture up to eight of the seats it lost in June – thanks not least to an apparent six-point drop in Conservative support since the UK election. In short, the party’s domination of Scottish representation at Westminster does not seem to be under immediate threat "
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2017/10/how-much-difficulty-are-the-snp-in/
I suspect the problem is that the EU are unable to balance the two competing issues of making the numbers large enough to be punitive but still based on some sort of legal position. The last thing they really want is to have their numbers picked apart and exposed as being unfounded as that would weaken their position dramatically.
What men never quite seem to grasp is that for women, sexual or physical assault is a regular occurrence. Not every day or week but often enough that you cannot discount the risk.
However, the position we are now in is that both sides would quite like a deal, but not on the terms being dictated by the other. The key is, I think, Barnier's aside that the UK must choose between CETA and Norway, and the EU will fine tune the choice.
The difference is being in or out of the Single Market. The UK wold like a cross, which will give all the freedoms of Ceta, but with continuing access to the single market on current terms. That the EU have rejected the second option and will not accept it in any circumstances is interpreted as punishment?
No Deal seems the likely outcome.
I can't sign up to anything, I'm just a bloke in the street.
The most likely outcome is capitulation.
The EU's attitude to negotiations is to have demands between unreasonable and impossible and complain when they aren't met.
The talk of a divorce bill being settling accounts is fair enough. Except the EU doesn't appear to know what the accounts are and is demanding the UK determine its own fictional debt. I have no problem settling accounts. The EU has a problem producing them.
It's this kind of bullshit that has not endeared the organisation to the UK.
This is the crux of what people refuse to understand, other countries need and want to sell us things
How many of those male MPs had someone attempt to pull their underwear down or have someone stick their hand down your blouse and grab your breast? How many have had their boobs squeezed? (think up male equivalents - but I hope you get the point).
Over the years I have had all of the above. Two of my assailants had to be picked off the floor afterwards but why should I have had to experience those assaults in the first place just because some bloke was curious or another thought it was a bit of a laugh?
Also, wasn't the report about not just abuse by MPs, but other staffers? (If I recall correctly...)
I would take greater notice if a pollster stopped people randomly in the street rather than those that had registered with them. I know a previous contributor on here was very strong on this.
Mr. Jessop, unsure about the profession, but I agree entirely there will have been plenty of males doing as well as receiving the unwanted advances.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Ace, nobody mentioned race or class, just gender. Rape or sexual assault doesn't become less serious if the victim is male rather than female. Still, nothing shows how edgy and cool you are like minimising sexual assault because the victims don't fit your preferred demographic for sympathy.
Much abuse is not about sex, but power. If you grope someone, you might get a momentary titillation (*). But if you get away with it, then you may somewhat have power over that person. Small-scale abuse is often a form of hideous bullying.
(*) I hasten to add, it's not the sort of thing I'd ever do.
(Runs for cover)