You can ave very strong views bout immigration and immigrants themselves, but that doesnt translate to wanting to see a child bullied. Even if you firmly believe he and his family shouldnt be here, doesnt mean you approve of bullying.
He (I won't name him, but it's easy enough to find who he is on twitter) is in serious trouble.
totally, rightly or wrongly (usually wrongly) the police will chase the most frivolous of crimes if they can attach a hate aspect to it. What happened here (the claim is the broken arm was a part of the bullying) is horrendous and the police should be prosecuting anyone who carries on with this kind of behaviour. The syrian kid wont be the first victim of this person, the fat kid, the one with glasses, the one who's mum cant be arsed or is unable to wash and iron his clothes will have been bullied also.
The MODS may wish to consider taking down comments linking to the vid, as Huddersfield police have asked that the public do not share it as it could prejudice the case.
The MODS may wish to consider taking down comments linking to the vid, as Huddersfield police have asked that the public do not share it as it could prejudice the case.
totally, rightly or wrongly (usually wrongly) the police will chase the most frivolous of crimes if they can attach a hate aspect to it. What happened here (the claim is the broken arm was a part of the bullying) is horrendous and the police should be prosecuting anyone who carries on with this kind of behaviour. The syrian kid wont be the first victim of this person, the fat kid, the one with glasses, the one who's mum cant be arsed or is unable to wash and iron his clothes will have been bullied also.
The problem is that the bully is going to need police protection. His facebook page has gone absolubtely NUTS. He and his family are in serious serious trouble here.
A victim of child sexual exploitation has called for a law change amid claims a man who raped her has been invited to play a role in her son's life. Arshid Hussain, who was jailed for 35 years in 2016, was told by Rotherham Council he could seek visits from the child he fathered, The Times reported.
Rotherham council never appear to miss an opportunity to make themselves look bad.
How could that possibly be in the best interests of the child?
Whats's breathtaking is the *claim* that Rotherham social workers positively went to him and explained to him that he could seek an order. WTF is going on there?
If it is the case I think it is she had a relationship with the father into adulthood and he had a relationship with the child prior to his convictions. They may have thought in those circumstances they had a legal duty to notify him of his right to apply (which is of course very different from a right being granted).
I really don't see how they have to help him with it though and it should be very obvious that any kind of relationship with a multiple abuser of children is not in the child's interests. The sentence is at the extreme end of what we have seen. The mother of this child was very, very far from being the only child that he raped.
But that’s a much more accurate modelling that other Brexit forecasts that have been done in the past (with worse numbers) where they’ve assumed we drop out of all EU trade deals, and don’t replace them.
Ask Robert how accurate it is to assume trade deals with the US, China and India.
The graphs in the exec summary show there is not really that much positive influence from the assumed new trade deals - they make diddly-squat difference either way really.
Sounds like UK Treasury is being incredibly pessimistic about those...
GDP gains from new trade deals with non-EU countries are only 10% of the GDP gains the EU estimates from the same deals
Would be interesting to see what the Treasury would predict for the "51st state solution" (leave one union, join another). On the basis that we'd be integrating into a huge market and expect some convergence to their considerably higher GDP/capita, I imagine it would leave us an awful lot better off. Plus if Britain were a major constituent of the US Electoral College, there's essentially no way that Trump - or anyone like him - could become Leader of the Free World again. Surely we could all put up with some chlorine in our chicken for that
Demagoguery has largely been kept in its place in this country by the electoral system and purely parliamentary process which works against it.
Look what hells got unleashed in Scotland with their referendum and the the UK as a whole with theirs. Not talking about the result, but the process. It started to get very very ugly in Scotland. Thankfully we have strong institutions and traditions which largely brought the country back together following the vote. Lesser, newer nations could have descended into conflict with the tensions that got unleashed.
Our apparent middle of the roadness is more down to our systems of government rather than our lack of desire for more extreme options.
I saw some screenshots of his Facebook account, he’s very pro Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson’s comments on letterboxes.
and?
You can ave very strong views bout immigration and immigrants themselves, but that doesnt translate to wanting to see a child bullied. Even if you firmly believe he and his family shouldnt be here, doesnt mean you approve of bullying.
It means all leave voters are disgusting racists apparently.
And they still wonder why they lost the referendum.
Probably not all, but possibly most. "They" don't wonder why "they" lost the referendum. Most of "they/us" know full well that a number of reasons culminated in a national catastrophe that has made us the laughing stock of the world. One of those reasons definitely was division/hatred and racism and it was utilised to deadly effect by the de facto supporters of, and apologists for, Vladimir Putin
I saw some screenshots of his Facebook account, he’s very pro Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson’s comments on letterboxes.
and?
You can ave very strong views bout immigration and immigrants themselves, but that doesnt translate to wanting to see a child bullied. Even if you firmly believe he and his family shouldnt be here, doesnt mean you approve of bullying.
Being radicalised by Tommy Robinson is a real issue.
Cf Darren Osborne.
Robinson is a phenomena. As with all these kinds of things he could melt away, people like him do more often than not. But stick him together with Paul Joseph Watson, and the UKIP party machine you have the potential for something very big and very ugly to come out, but by the time you see it, it will be almost too late.
Ask a class of 15 yr old predominantly white kids who Tommy Robinson is... They'll know.
Bear with me. This lad in Huddersfield is a victim - as obviously is the refugee he assaulted. We've seen one clip and you wonder how much other verbal and physical abuse has been forthcoming as the refugee gets up and walks off like he's been there before.
So why am I calling his attacker a victim? Because he's a teenage boy, and this society has conditioned him to act in such an appalling way. So yes, Leave.EU are to blame. As are the media. As are the Tories and particularly Theresa May who pandered to dog whistle racism in her own ranks with the "foreigners go home" vans.
It's even broader than that. Hate spills out of inequality, with the absurd notion put about that poor people are poor because of asylum seekers who are really really poor. It's not the fault of today's fuck you asset stripping society where a handful gorge off the backs of the vast majority. Oh no, it's th fault of this Syrian kid so why not try and drown him?
Making this country even poorer and more unequal than it already is cannot be how we move forward to resolve these systematic and structural issues in society.
Do you have a picture of a "foreigners go home" van?
I saw the "in the UK illegally? go home" van but not the one targetted at all foreigners
I saw some screenshots of his Facebook account, he’s very pro Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson’s comments on letterboxes.
and?
You can ave very strong views bout immigration and immigrants themselves, but that doesnt translate to wanting to see a child bullied. Even if you firmly believe he and his family shouldnt be here, doesnt mean you approve of bullying.
It means all leave voters are disgusting racists apparently.
And they still wonder why they lost the referendum.
Probably not all, but possibly most. "They" don't wonder why "they" lost the referendum. Most of "they/us" know full well that a number of reasons culminated in a national catastrophe that has made us the laughing stock of the world. One of those reasons definitely was division/hatred and racism and it was utilised to deadly effect by the de facto supporters of, and apologists for, Vladimir Putin
Keep shovelling. That EU Hyperbole Mountain won't move on its own....
I saw some screenshots of his Facebook account, he’s very pro Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson’s comments on letterboxes.
and?
You can ave very strong views bout immigration and immigrants themselves, but that doesnt translate to wanting to see a child bullied. Even if you firmly believe he and his family shouldnt be here, doesnt mean you approve of bullying.
Being radicalised by Tommy Robinson is a real issue.
Cf Darren Osborne.
Robinson is a phenomena. As with all these kinds of things he could melt away, people like him do more often than not. But stick him together with Paul Joseph Watson, and the UKIP party machine you have the potential for something very big and very ugly to come out, but by the time you see it, it will be almost too late.
Ask a class of 15 yr old predominantly white kids who Tommy Robinson is... They'll know.
It had been smouldering away for some time, but the Leave campaigns in the referendum acted like bellows on the glow. Leave campaigners decided to pander to voters' xenophobia to win the referendum. Among the many disastrous consequences of that has been the move into the mainstream of such figures, enabled by Leave campaigners who were prepared to live with that as collateral damage.
Many of the same enthusiastic Leavers who fell in enthusiastically behind those campaigns have spent much of 2018 frothing about Labour's problems with anti-Semitism. Pick-n-mix racism is in vogue.
totally, rightly or wrongly (usually wrongly) the police will chase the most frivolous of crimes if they can attach a hate aspect to it. What happened here (the claim is the broken arm was a part of the bullying) is horrendous and the police should be prosecuting anyone who carries on with this kind of behaviour. The syrian kid wont be the first victim of this person, the fat kid, the one with glasses, the one who's mum cant be arsed or is unable to wash and iron his clothes will have been bullied also.
The problem is that the bully is going to need police protection. His facebook page has gone absolubtely NUTS. He and his family are in serious serious trouble here.
It's a social media fuss. Happens frequently when someone puts up a video of someone else clearly bullying someone smaller. Ends up on some spotted facebook page gets shared by lots of angry keyboard warriors. It might be best for the family (who are also probably known ne'er-do-wells) to bugger off for a couple of weeks.
It will boil over. Outrage buses are a regular event on social media.
Why do many people think Corbyn is against freedom of movement ?
He is after all a Socialist. He maybe lukewarm about the EU, true.
Cast your mind back to mid June 2016 when some Labour leaders were getting jittery about losing Northern seats to Leave.
"But aides said Mr Corbyn did not support curbs. A spokesman for the Labour leader said he held to his view that free movement was ‘not a problem or a fear’ but an ‘opportunity’."
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
Can you please enlighten us as to what is in fact wrong with chlorinated chicken.
If you have to chlorinate chicken to make it safe, what does that say about welfare standards?
One Matt in Hancock and the world's your oyster The bars are temples but the pearls ain't free You'll find a god in every Tory cloister And if you're lucky then the god's a she I can feel an angel sliding up to me
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read it
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.
Good! Because "this whole thing" isnt Brexit which is why it was negotiated by and for Remainers. It's why the deals biggest cheerleaders are remainers. Shoot down the deal, tell the Irish we have a deal if they drop the backstop, run the clock down and prepare for no deal. Let the Irish sort their own mess out.
With respect that is just a rant and even I trust our HOC to stop that in its tracks
Was that said as someone who backed remain or leave? Do you expect HOC MPs who backed remain or leave to stop it?
ERG have no more than 80 mps with the rest alligned against no deal
If our good faith and sincere co-operation isn't good enough and the Irish would rather an immediate hard border than an open border as we seek out an amicable solution then that is their choice.
I think you already have the answer in the WDA. That will not be re-opened
So they claim but the WDA won't pass Parliament. You and I both want the same end goal - a good deal to pass. This deal as it stands won't pass. It can't pass. Fix the backstop it can. IDS, Boris, the DUP etc have all said the backstop is the one thing making them vote this down.
If you want to save May's deal the path is clear. Stop arguing with those who want the deal fixed and argue with our partners to save this deal.
I have no problem with the deal and fear that ERG will lose brexit altogether
A deal that can't pass Parliament is no deal.
Do you agree that if the backstop goes this deal could pass Parliament?
It would probably pass if there was a unilateral exit mechanism from the backstop...
Yes and if Paris was in Scotland, Parisians would be Scots. The backstop is the heart and soul of the deal, you raging loyalist quarterwit.
I saw some screenshots of his Facebook account, he’s very pro Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson’s comments on letterboxes.
and?
You can ave very strong views bout immigration and immigrants themselves, but that doesnt translate to wanting to see a child bullied. Even if you firmly believe he and his family shouldnt be here, doesnt mean you approve of bullying.
Being radicalised by Tommy Robinson is a real issue.
Cf Darren Osborne.
Robinson is a phenomena. As with all these kinds of things he could melt away, people like h
Ask a class of 15 yr old predominantly white kids who Tommy Robinson is... They'll know.
It had been smouldering away for some time, but the Leave campaigns in the referendum acted like bellows on the glow. Leave campaigners decided to pander to voters' xenophobia to win the referendum. Among the many disastrous consequences of that has been the move into the mainstream of such figures, enabled by Leave campaigners who were prepared to live with that as collateral damage.
Many of the same enthusiastic Leavers who fell in enthusiastically behind those campaigns have spent much of 2018 frothing about Labour's problems with anti-Semitism. Pick-n-mix racism is in vogue.
Tommy Robinson predates Brexit. He got his spurs pointing out that local councils, local journalists and the local police were at best knowingly allowing the systematic raping and grooming of young white girls by predominantly older Pakistani men, and at worst actively facilitating the said behaviour.
Action was deliberately not taken because of the race and nationality of the perpetrators and the nationality and race of the victims.
It's an embarrassment to us all that it took someone like him to point out such a breathtaking unbelievable act was taking place, and not just in one part of the country but in multiple places over many years.
Q17. If the Government loses the vote in the House of Commons, there could be a general election and the potential of a Labour Government. If the only two scenarios were the Government's Brexit agreement passing the House of Commons or a Labour led Government which would you prefer?
It had been smouldering away for some time, but the Leave campaigns in the referendum acted like bellows on the glow. Leave campaigners decided to pander to voters' xenophobia to win the referendum. Among the many disastrous consequences of that has been the move into the mainstream of such figures, enabled by Leave campaigners who were prepared to live with that as collateral damage.
Many of the same enthusiastic Leavers who fell in enthusiastically behind those campaigns have spent much of 2018 frothing about Labour's problems with anti-Semitism. Pick-n-mix racism is in vogue.
Tommy Robinson predates Brexit. He got his spurs pointing out that local councils, local journalists and the local police were at best knowingly allowing the systematic raping and grooming of young white girls by predominantly older Pakistani men, and at worst actively facilitating the said behaviour.
Action was deliberately not taken because of the race and nationality of the perpetrators and the nationality and race of the victims.
It's an embarrassment to us all that it took someone like him to point out such a breathtaking unbelievable act was taking place, and not just in one part of the country but in multiple places over many years.
Now lets talk about the Leave campaign.
Sure. The Leave campaigns in the referendum acted like bellows on the glow. Leave campaigners decided to pander to voters' xenophobia to win the referendum. Among the many disastrous consequences of that has been the move into the mainstream of such figures, enabled by Leave campaigners who were prepared to live with that as collateral damage.
Many of the same enthusiastic Leavers who fell in enthusiastically behind those campaigns have spent much of 2018 frothing about Labour's problems with anti-Semitism. Pick-n-mix racism is in vogue
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
Can you please enlighten us as to what is in fact wrong with chlorinated chicken.
If you have to chlorinate chicken to make it safe, what does that say about welfare standards?
I have no truck with US foods that cut corners on animal welfare - and I'm happy not to see it here for that reason. But if chlorination kills salmonella at source, rather than hoping the way the food is prepared does the job, I'm not sure it is so clear cut...
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
Can you please enlighten us as to what is in fact wrong with chlorinated chicken.
If you have to chlorinate chicken to make it safe, what does that say about welfare standards?
That you have higher standards of food safety and consider 15% to 20% contamination of salmonella to not be an acceptable risk.
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
Can you please enlighten us as to what is in fact wrong with chlorinated chicken.
If you have to chlorinate chicken to make it safe, what does that say about welfare standards?
Don't US chickens have lower rates of salmonella than UK ones?
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
Can you please enlighten us as to what is in fact wrong with chlorinated chicken.
If you have to chlorinate chicken to make it safe, what does that say about welfare standards?
Don't US chickens have lower rates of salmonella than UK ones?
According to the Adam Smith Institute:
“immersing poultry meat in chlorine dioxide solution of the strength used in the United States reduces prevalence of salmonella from 14% in controls to 2%. EU chicken samples typically have 15-20% salmonella.”
But that’s a much more accurate modelling that other Brexit forecasts that have been done in the past (with worse numbers) where they’ve assumed we drop out of all EU trade deals, and don’t replace them.
Renegotiated Nafta specifically prevents countries from having deals with both the US and China
Remain voters were more motivated by hatred of the white working class than leavers were ever motivated by racism.
It was their big chance to brand anyone with a different opinion than them as nasty, racist, knuckle dragging scumbags, all the while patting themselves on the back about how open minded and tolerant they are.
Remain voters were more motivated by hatred of the white working class than leavers were ever motivated by racism.
It was their big chance to brand anyone with a different opinion than them as nasty, racist, knuckle dragging scumbags, all the while patting themselves on the back about how open minded and tolerant they are.
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
Can you please enlighten us as to what is in fact wrong with chlorinated chicken.
If you have to chlorinate chicken to make it safe, what does that say about welfare standards?
Don't US chickens have lower rates of salmonella than UK ones?
According to the Adam Smith Institute:
“immersing poultry meat in chlorine dioxide solution of the strength used in the United States reduces prevalence of salmonella from 14% in controls to 2%. EU chicken samples typically have 15-20% salmonella.”
So their pre-chlorine immersion rates are comparable (or better) than ours, but the chlorine improves things further?
Plus we chlorinate our tap water. If its good enough for tap water, its good enough for chickens.
But that’s a much more accurate modelling that other Brexit forecasts that have been done in the past (with worse numbers) where they’ve assumed we drop out of all EU trade deals, and don’t replace them.
"successful trade negotiations" implies deals at least as good as the UK /EU currently has - are you that confident?
But that’s a much more accurate modelling that other Brexit forecasts that have been done in the past (with worse numbers) where they’ve assumed we drop out of all EU trade deals, and don’t replace them.
"successful trade negotiations" implies deals at least as good as the UK /EU currently has - are you that confident?
I guess we won’t know until we try. One thing for certain is that the negotiators will only have our interests in mind.
But that’s a much more accurate modelling that other Brexit forecasts that have been done in the past (with worse numbers) where they’ve assumed we drop out of all EU trade deals, and don’t replace them.
Renegotiated Nafta specifically prevents countries from having deals with both the US and China
Don't some countries already have deals with both? How does that work?
Remain voters were more motivated by hatred of the white working class than leavers were ever motivated by racism.
It was their big chance to brand anyone with a different opinion than them as nasty, racist, knuckle dragging scumbags, all the while patting themselves on the back about how open minded and tolerant they are.
The idea anyway that we "successfully sign new deals with US, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain" and that is only worth about 0.2% of GDP seems a tad bizarre. Why would so many successful deals be worth so little?
Remain voters were more motivated by hatred of the white working class than leavers were ever motivated by racism.
It was their big chance to brand anyone with a different opinion than them as nasty, racist, knuckle dragging scumbags, all the while patting themselves on the back about how open minded and tolerant they are.
Remain voters were more motivated by hatred of the white working class than leavers were ever motivated by racism.
It was their big chance to brand anyone with a different opinion than them as nasty, racist, knuckle dragging scumbags, all the while patting themselves on the back about how open minded and tolerant they are.
Citation required.
No - projection, I think.
That's what I thought.
A friend of mine was an active UKIP member until last month, he quit when he said the new intake were like those American nationalists that chant 'Jews will not replace us', except the new UKIP intake are more likely to chant 'Muslims will not replace us'.
Not in total base, no. SNP voters generally are the least enthusiastic, particularly on fishing (-21) but Scottish voters in total are +13.
There are some curious (treat with caution) subsample breaks - with the Young (+32) more in favour of the Deal's Immigration plans than the old (+14), and the highest approval of all in London (+50) - but these are small base subsamples so I wouldn't read too much into them
The government in not publishing the legal advice as commanded to by the humble address. May isn't just bringing Her Majesty's Government into contempt, she's bringing the Crown in Parliament into contempt as in effect Brenda is ignoring the explicit request from the Commons
The idea anyway that we "successfully sign new deals with US, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain" and that is only worth about 0.2% of GDP seems a tad bizarre. Why would so many successful deals be worth so little?
Because Trade Deals aren't that important. What is orders of magnitude more important is making stuff people want to buy and having an educated workforce to create it.
The idea anyway that we "successfully sign new deals with US, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain" and that is only worth about 0.2% of GDP seems a tad bizarre. Why would so many successful deals be worth so little?
The short time-scale, I guess - it'd take several years to get all those done, then would take a good while before companies adapt to new opportunities.
You have to hand it to May. The ultimate selling machine. "I may have most of my own side dead against it but believe me it's a mega deal and the legal advice is you'd be a fool to turn it down. Can you see the advice? No, that's confidential. Oh, you've brought Her Majesty into it by passing a resolution? Sorry, you still can't see it. But if you could it would prove how amazing a deal it is"
The idea anyway that we "successfully sign new deals with US, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain" and that is only worth about 0.2% of GDP seems a tad bizarre. Why would so many successful deals be worth so little?
Because Trade Deals aren't that important. What is orders of magnitude more important is making stuff people want to buy and having an educated workforce to create it.
You have to hand it to May. The ultimate selling machine. "I may have most of my own side dead against it but believe me it's a mega deal and the legal advice is you'd be a fool to turn it down. Can you see the advice? No, that's confidential. Oh, you've brought Her Majesty into it by passing a resolution? Sorry, you still can't see it. But if you could it would prove how amazing a deal it is"
You have to hand it to May. The ultimate selling machine. "I may have most of my own side dead against it but believe me it's a mega deal and the legal advice is you'd be a fool to turn it down. Can you see the advice? No, that's confidential. Oh, you've brought Her Majesty into it by passing a resolution? Sorry, you still can't see it. But if you could it would prove how amazing a deal it is"
Aren’t they refusing because the principle is such advice stays private? If legal advice was always made public the government may be less inclined to seek it.
The idea anyway that we "successfully sign new deals with US, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain" and that is only worth about 0.2% of GDP seems a tad bizarre. Why would so many successful deals be worth so little?
The short time-scale, I guess - it'd take several years to get all those done, then would take a good while before companies adapt to new opportunities.
So basically the Treasury hasn't modelled for benefits for new deals afterall?
The idea anyway that we "successfully sign new deals with US, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain" and that is only worth about 0.2% of GDP seems a tad bizarre. Why would so many successful deals be worth so little?
Because Trade Deals aren't that important. What is orders of magnitude more important is making stuff people want to buy and having an educated workforce to create it.
+1
And, as you have often pointed out, nobody would want a trade deal with the USA unless they were desperate.
You have to hand it to May. The ultimate selling machine. "I may have most of my own side dead against it but believe me it's a mega deal and the legal advice is you'd be a fool to turn it down. Can you see the advice? No, that's confidential. Oh, you've brought Her Majesty into it by passing a resolution? Sorry, you still can't see it. But if you could it would prove how amazing a deal it is"
Questioning the use of " " there.
I've got a link to something you'll definitely want to buy.
The idea anyway that we "successfully sign new deals with US, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain" and that is only worth about 0.2% of GDP seems a tad bizarre. Why would so many successful deals be worth so little?
Because Trade Deals aren't that important. What is orders of magnitude more important is making stuff people want to buy and having an educated workforce to create it.
So if we leave the EU's trade deal what's the big deal?
Bit of cake and eat it there it seems. 'The EU oh that trade deal is critical. Absolutely vital. Can't cope without it. Trade deals with US, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain? Oh no, they're puny, insignificant. Don't even think about them.'
You have to hand it to May. The ultimate selling machine. "I may have most of my own side dead against it but believe me it's a mega deal and the legal advice is you'd be a fool to turn it down. Can you see the advice? No, that's confidential. Oh, you've brought Her Majesty into it by passing a resolution? Sorry, you still can't see it. But if you could it would prove how amazing a deal it is"
Aren’t they refusing because the principle is such advice stays private? If legal advice was always made public the government may be less inclined to seek it.
That is the excuse. The reason is that revealing the legal opinions would embarrass Number 10.
You have to hand it to May. The ultimate selling machine. "I may have most of my own side dead against it but believe me it's a mega deal and the legal advice is you'd be a fool to turn it down. Can you see the advice? No, that's confidential. Oh, you've brought Her Majesty into it by passing a resolution? Sorry, you still can't see it. But if you could it would prove how amazing a deal it is"
Aren’t they refusing because the principle is such advice stays private? If legal advice was always made public the government may be less inclined to seek it.
That is the excuse. The reason is that revealing the legal opinions would embarrass Number 10.
It's especially embarrassing as they'd led everyone to believe they would release the legal opinions and then refused to do so. If it was some high minded principle that could have been said ages ago.
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
Can you please enlighten us as to what is in fact wrong with chlorinated chicken.
If you have to chlorinate chicken to make it safe, what does that say about welfare standards?
Don't US chickens have lower rates of salmonella than UK ones?
According to the Adam Smith Institute:
“immersing poultry meat in chlorine dioxide solution of the strength used in the United States reduces prevalence of salmonella from 14% in controls to 2%. EU chicken samples typically have 15-20% salmonella.”
So their pre-chlorine immersion rates are comparable (or better) than ours, but the chlorine improves things further?
Plus we chlorinate our tap water. If its good enough for tap water, its good enough for chickens.
We should filter the chicken, too, then fluorinate it. Then we can pasteurise it and irradiate it. And round off with some freeze-drying.
It's good enough for [other thing we eat] then it's good enough for chicken.
The idea anyway that we "successfully sign new deals with US, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain" and that is only worth about 0.2% of GDP seems a tad bizarre. Why would so many successful deals be worth so little?
The short time-scale, I guess - it'd take several years to get all those done, then would take a good while before companies adapt to new opportunities.
Not to mention that these hypothetical trade deals run up against the Irish problem. If we sign up for American chicken, then how does the EU make sure none of it is sold into Europe, if there is no border in the Irish Sea and none between Northern Ireland and Ireland? Donald Trump has spotted the problem already.
It certainly begs the question that if you won't accept a referendum result the first time it goes against you, why would you accept it the second time around?
The idea anyway that we "successfully sign new deals with US, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain" and that is only worth about 0.2% of GDP seems a tad bizarre. Why would so many successful deals be worth so little?
The short time-scale, I guess - it'd take several years to get all those done, then would take a good while before companies adapt to new opportunities.
Not to mention that these hypothetical trade deals run up against the Irish problem. If we sign up for American chicken, then how does the EU make sure none of it is sold into Europe, if there is no border in the Irish Sea and none between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Donald Trump has spotted the problem already.
Quality standards enforcable at the point of sale and documentation on sourcing?
Q1. When UK Govt's negotiations over the terms of Britain's exit from EU are complete, would you support or oppose holding a People's Vote - a referendum - asking the public their view? - Support 48% 👈 - Oppose 34% - Don't know 18%
(Large margin of 14 pts for a PV, Daily Mail doesn't mention a PV at all)
Q3. From what you have seen/heard so far, do you support or oppose UK Govt's agreement? - Strongly support 9% 🤔 - Somewhat support 28% 🤔 - Neither support nor oppose 26% - Somewhat oppose 13% - Strongly oppose 22% - Don't know 2%
(Daily Mail reported this number as "Britons Back May's Deal")
Q5. If the Government was to lose the vote, which of the following comes closest to your view? - Theresa May should resign as PM 48% 👈 - Theresa May should not resign as PM 40% - Don't know 12% (Margin of 8% for May to resign. DM failed to mention the people want May gone.)
Q7. If there was referendum tomorrow with following options on ballot paper, which would you support? - The government's Brexit agreement 35% - Leaving the EU without a deal 41% - Don't know 24%
(People would ACTUALLY CHOOSE NO DEAL OVER MAY'S DEAL. DM says "Britons Back May's Deal")
Q8. If there was referendum tomorrow with following options on ballot paper, which would you support? - Government's Brexit agreement 37% - Remain in EU 46% - Don't know 17%
(For some reason, can't imagine why, the DM completely neglected to mention that people would much rather remain than vote for May's deal)
Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only) - Remain 44% - Govt Brexit Agreement 22% - Leaving EU with no deal 29%
("Britons Back May's Deal")
Q14. Do you agree 'Govt's Brexit agreement is not ideal but it is better than any other option available' - Strongly agree 15% 🤔 - Somewhat agree 37% - Neither agree nor disagree 23% - Somewhat disagree 6% - Strongly disagree 13% - Don't know 5%
(Daily Mail, really maximising the truth's scope reported it as 52:19 for "is it the best on offer?")
Q??? Would staying in the EU be humiliating?
Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24. (But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)
Q1. When UK Govt's negotiations over the terms of Britain's exit from EU are complete, would you support or oppose holding a People's Vote - a referendum - asking the public their view? - Support 48% 👈 - Oppose 34% - Don't know 18%
(Large margin of 14 pts for a PV, Daily Mail doesn't mention a PV at all)
Q3. From what you have seen/heard so far, do you support or oppose UK Govt's agreement? - Strongly support 9% 🤔 - Somewhat support 28% 🤔 - Neither support nor oppose 26% - Somewhat oppose 13% - Strongly oppose 22% - Don't know 2%
(Daily Mail reported this number as "Britons Back May's Deal")
Q5. If the Government was to lose the vote, which of the following comes closest to your view? - Theresa May should resign as PM 48% 👈 - Theresa May should not resign as PM 40% - Don't know 12% (Margin of 8% for May to resign. DM failed to mention the people want May gone.)
Q7. If there was referendum tomorrow with following options on ballot paper, which would you support? - The government's Brexit agreement 35% - Leaving the EU without a deal 41% - Don't know 24%
(People would ACTUALLY CHOOSE NO DEAL OVER MAY'S DEAL. DM says "Britons Back May's Deal")
Q8. If there was referendum tomorrow with following options on ballot paper, which would you support? - Government's Brexit agreement 37% - Remain in EU 46% - Don't know 17%
(For some reason, can't imagine why, the DM completely neglected to mention that people would much rather remain than vote for May's deal)
Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only) - Remain 44% - Govt Brexit Agreement 22% - Leaving EU with no deal 29%
("Britons Back May's Deal")
Q14. Do you agree 'Govt's Brexit agreement is not ideal but it is better than any other option available' - Strongly agree 15% 🤔 - Somewhat agree 37% - Neither agree nor disagree 23% - Somewhat disagree 6% - Strongly disagree 13% - Don't know 5%
(Daily Mail, really maximising the truth's scope reported it as 52:19 for "is it the best on offer?")
Q??? Would staying in the EU be humiliating?
Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24. (But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)
Q22
Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'
Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24. (But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)
It was Q22:
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation
Bercow has invited Kier Starmer to write him a letter so he can rule whether the government is in Contempt of Parliament for ignoring the terms of the Humble Address?
Any experts on Parliamentary diddling can tell us what happens if the government is held in contempt of parliament by the Speaker?
Q1. When UK Govt's negotiations over the terms of Britain's exit from EU are complete, would you support or oppose holding a People's Vote - a referendum - asking the public their view? - Support 48% 👈 - Oppose 34% - Don't know 18%
Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24. (But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)
…………………………
>
That's what remain and leave have been doing on here for moths.
Q1. When UK Govt's negotiations over the terms of Britain's exit from EU are complete, would you support or oppose holding a People's Vote - a referendum - asking the public their view? - Support 48% 👈 - Oppose 34% - Don't know 18%
(Large margin of 14 pts for a PV, Daily Mail doesn't mention a PV at all)
Q3. From what you have seen/heard so far, do you support or oppose UK Govt's agreement? - Strongly support 9% 🤔 - Somewhat support 28% 🤔 - Neither support nor oppose 26% - Somewhat oppose 13% - Strongly oppose 22% - Don't know 2%
(Daily Mail reported this number as "Britons Back May's Deal")
Q5. If the Government was to lose the vote, which of the following comes closest to your view? - Theresa May should resign as PM 48% 👈 - Theresa May should not resign as PM 40% - Don't know 12% (Margin of 8% for May to resign. DM failed to mention the people want May gone.)
Q7. If there was referendum tomorrow with following options on ballot paper, which would you support? - The government's Brexit agreement 35% - Leaving the EU without a deal 41% - Don't know 24%
(People would ACTUALLY CHOOSE NO DEAL OVER MAY'S DEAL. DM says "Britons Back May's Deal")
Q8. If there was referendum tomorrow with following options on ballot paper, which would you support? - Government's Brexit agreement 37% - Remain in EU 46% - Don't know 17%
(For some reason, can't imagine why, the DM completely neglected to mention that people would much rather remain than vote for May's deal)
Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only) - Remain 44% - Govt Brexit Agreement 22% - Leaving EU with no deal 29%
("Britons Back May's Deal")
Q14. Do you agree 'Govt's Brexit agreement is not ideal but it is better than any other option available' - Strongly agree 15% 🤔 - Somewhat agree 37% - Neither agree nor disagree 23% - Somewhat disagree 6% - Strongly disagree 13% - Don't know 5%
(Daily Mail, really maximising the truth's scope reported it as 52:19 for "is it the best on offer?")
Q??? Would staying in the EU be humiliating?
Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24. (But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)
Q22
Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'
That's quite the rewording.
I was wondering, do pollsters place any kind of contractual requirement on their clients not to significantly misrepresent their work?
Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24. (But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)
Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'
Agree: 47 Disagree: 24
And among Con voters its 60: 20
You really haven't covered yourself in glory with this Survation poll, have you? First you accused Survation of Push Polling, then you cited a two week old poll as proof the Mail are lying - and now you can't even read the tables when you do have them in front of you....
Presumably, the ERG would be campaigning for Remain in that case.
I struggle to understand the ERG position.
I'm half expecting JRM to campaign for Remain because all good things come from Rome.
I suppose some people will only settle for 100% of nothing.
I was reading the German media the other day and they loathe the backstop.
The EU has for the first time effectively violated the principles of the four freedoms just to accommodate us.
They want us out of the backstop PDQ.
Precisely, it is mutually uncomfortable.
It's actually very good for us. We get nearly all of the benefits of being in the EU without the fat fees, FoM, CFP or CAP. OK, we'd be a vassal state in respect of standards for goods, but at that level of benefit who cares? After all, Leavers say we were a vassal state with no say in EU law as full members, and at least the backstop vassalage would cover only a very restricted range of issues.
Presumably, the ERG would be campaigning for Remain in that case.
I struggle to understand the ERG position.
I'm half expecting JRM to campaign for Remain because all good things come from Rome.
I suppose some people will only settle for 100% of nothing.
I was reading the German media the other day and they loathe the backstop.
The EU has for the first time effectively violated the principles of the four freedoms just to accommodate us.
They want us out of the backstop PDQ.
Precisely, it is mutually uncomfortable.
It's actually very good for us. We get nearly all of the benefits of being in the EU without the fat fees, FoM, CFP or CAP. OK, we'd be a vassal state in respect of standards for goods, but at that level of benefit who cares? After all, Leavers say we were a vassal state with no say in EU law as full members, and at least the backstop vassalage would cover only a very restricted range of issues.
Doesn't all that stuff (FoM, fees, etc.) continue until a trade deal is done?
Bercow has invited Kier Starmer to write him a letter so he can rule whether the government is in Contempt of Parliament for ignoring the terms of the Humble Address?
Any experts on Parliamentary diddling can tell us what happens if the government is held in contempt of parliament by the Speaker?
Some guy in fancy dress drags David Lidington into the dungeon, I believe,
Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24. (But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)
Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'
Agree: 47 Disagree: 24
And among Con voters its 60: 20
You really haven't covered yourself in glory with this Survation poll, have you? First you accused Survation of Push Polling, then you cited a two week old poll as proof the Mail are lying - and now you can't even read the tables when you do have them in front of you....
The daily mail states it as "it would be humiliating". That's not nearly what the question asks, like the other questions, it's a gross misrepresentation of the data. On several of the questions, as I have just outlined, the Mail is clearly and unambigiously lying.
Also, I never accused Survation of push polling, but of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.
The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.
On a slightly related note, there was a time when OGH, or one of PB's officers, would have drawn attention to the statistical legerdemain we see going on here.
Comments
The event *is* the case.
https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/1067752594381172736?s=21
£8,500 wants to back Yes at 5 (4-1).
I really don't see how they have to help him with it though and it should be very obvious that any kind of relationship with a multiple abuser of children is not in the child's interests. The sentence is at the extreme end of what we have seen. The mother of this child was very, very far from being the only child that he raped.
As the 100th confirmed no is a special occasion, they're going to be announcing it live on Buzzfeed's instagram.
Look what hells got unleashed in Scotland with their referendum and the the UK as a whole with theirs. Not talking about the result, but the process. It started to get very very ugly in Scotland. Thankfully we have strong institutions and traditions which largely brought the country back together following the vote. Lesser, newer nations could have descended into conflict with the tensions that got unleashed.
Our apparent middle of the roadness is more down to our systems of government rather than our lack of desire for more extreme options.
Ask a class of 15 yr old predominantly white kids who Tommy Robinson is... They'll know.
I saw the "in the UK illegally? go home" van but not the one targetted at all foreigners
Many of the same enthusiastic Leavers who fell in enthusiastically behind those campaigns have spent much of 2018 frothing about Labour's problems with anti-Semitism. Pick-n-mix racism is in vogue.
It will boil over. Outrage buses are a regular event on social media.
He is after all a Socialist. He maybe lukewarm about the EU, true.
Cast your mind back to mid June 2016 when some Labour leaders were getting jittery about losing Northern seats to Leave.
"But aides said Mr Corbyn did not support curbs. A spokesman for the Labour leader said he held to his view that free movement was ‘not a problem or a fear’ but an ‘opportunity’."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/labour-rift-over-migration-deepens-as-tom-watson-calls-for-freed/
The bars are temples but the pearls ain't free
You'll find a god in every Tory cloister
And if you're lucky then the god's a she
I can feel an angel sliding up to me
Action was deliberately not taken because of the race and nationality of the perpetrators and the nationality and race of the victims.
It's an embarrassment to us all that it took someone like him to point out such a breathtaking unbelievable act was taking place, and not just in one part of the country but in multiple places over many years.
Now lets talk about the Leave campaign.
If the only two scenarios were the Government's Brexit agreement passing the House of Commons or a Labour led Government which would you prefer?
Deal Pass / Labour Govt
OA: 46 / 31
Con; 79 / 6
Lab: 29 / 62
Leave: 56 / 27
Remain: 51 / 36
Who are the nearly 30% of Labour voters who would prefer the deal to pass vs having a Labour government? And have Remainers finally rumbled Labour?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6437919/Poundland-pokes-fun-John-Lewis-Elton-John-Christmas-ad-naughty-scene-elves-having-sex.html
Many of the same enthusiastic Leavers who fell in enthusiastically behind those campaigns have spent much of 2018 frothing about Labour's problems with anti-Semitism. Pick-n-mix racism is in vogue
Forced choice between two options:
Deal / No Deal: 50 / 30
Deal / Labour Govt: 52 / 30
Deal / Remain: 40 / 42
“immersing poultry meat in chlorine dioxide solution of the strength used in the United States reduces prevalence of salmonella from 14% in controls to 2%. EU chicken samples typically have 15-20% salmonella.”
It was their big chance to brand anyone with a different opinion than them as nasty, racist, knuckle dragging scumbags, all the while patting themselves on the back about how open minded and tolerant they are.
Immigration: +24
Trade: +12
Sovereignty: +22
Security: +19
Fishing: +9
Plus we chlorinate our tap water. If its good enough for tap water, its good enough for chickens.
A friend of mine was an active UKIP member until last month, he quit when he said the new intake were like those American nationalists that chant 'Jews will not replace us', except the new UKIP intake are more likely to chant 'Muslims will not replace us'.
There are some curious (treat with caution) subsample breaks - with the Young (+32) more in favour of the Deal's Immigration plans than the old (+14), and the highest approval of all in London (+50) - but these are small base subsamples so I wouldn't read too much into them
If anyone has actually bothered to tell him.
I'm half expecting JRM to campaign for Remain because all good things come from Rome.
https://tinyurl.com/ybcnleuc
Gloomy outside once again. Fortunate I've got thoughts of differential front end grip to keep me warm.
Bit of cake and eat it there it seems. 'The EU oh that trade deal is critical. Absolutely vital. Can't cope without it. Trade deals with US, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain? Oh no, they're puny, insignificant. Don't even think about them.'
It's good enough for [other thing we eat] then it's good enough for chicken.
The EU has for the first time effectively violated the principles of the four freedoms just to accommodate us.
They want us out of the backstop PDQ.
Q1. When UK Govt's negotiations over the terms of Britain's exit from EU are complete, would you support or oppose holding a People's Vote - a referendum - asking the public their view?
- Support 48% 👈
- Oppose 34%
- Don't know 18%
(Large margin of 14 pts for a PV, Daily Mail doesn't mention a PV at all)
Q3. From what you have seen/heard so far, do you support or oppose UK Govt's agreement?
- Strongly support 9% 🤔
- Somewhat support 28% 🤔
- Neither support nor oppose 26%
- Somewhat oppose 13%
- Strongly oppose 22%
- Don't know 2%
(Daily Mail reported this number as "Britons Back May's Deal")
Q5. If the Government was to lose the vote, which of the following comes closest to your view?
- Theresa May should resign as PM 48% 👈
- Theresa May should not resign as PM 40%
- Don't know 12%
(Margin of 8% for May to resign. DM failed to mention the people want May gone.)
Q7. If there was referendum tomorrow with following options on ballot paper, which would you support?
- The government's Brexit agreement 35%
- Leaving the EU without a deal 41%
- Don't know 24%
(People would ACTUALLY CHOOSE NO DEAL OVER MAY'S DEAL. DM says "Britons Back May's Deal")
Q8. If there was referendum tomorrow with following options on ballot paper, which would you support?
- Government's Brexit agreement 37%
- Remain in EU 46%
- Don't know 17%
(For some reason, can't imagine why, the DM completely neglected to mention that people would much rather remain than vote for May's deal)
Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
- Remain 44%
- Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
- Leaving EU with no deal 29%
("Britons Back May's Deal")
Q14. Do you agree 'Govt's Brexit agreement is not ideal but it is better than any other option available'
- Strongly agree 15% 🤔
- Somewhat agree 37%
- Neither agree nor disagree 23%
- Somewhat disagree 6%
- Strongly disagree 13%
- Don't know 5%
(Daily Mail, really maximising the truth's scope reported it as 52:19 for "is it the best on offer?")
Q??? Would staying in the EU be humiliating?
Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24.
(But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)
More interesting might be 30 years or something, but good luck modelling that far ahead.
Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation
Any experts on Parliamentary diddling can tell us what happens if the government is held in contempt of parliament by the Speaker?
I was wondering, do pollsters place any kind of contractual requirement on their clients not to significantly misrepresent their work?
Agree: 47
Disagree: 24
And among Con voters its 60: 20
You really haven't covered yourself in glory with this Survation poll, have you? First you accused Survation of Push Polling, then you cited a two week old poll as proof the Mail are lying - and now you can't even read the tables when you do have them in front of you....
NEW THREAD
Also, I never accused Survation of push polling, but of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.
The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.
On a slightly related note, there was a time when OGH, or one of PB's officers, would have drawn attention to the statistical legerdemain we see going on here.