Hardly. He would have had a lower salary when running his business as more tax efficient using dividends. Indeed according to the Guarding his company broke the law in order to further reduce his tax by £100k
(sarcastic intake of breath) How terrible that he should have been a successful business man and used dividends to pay himself. Surely we must be able to find some hopeless numpty that has never had any advancement outside politics and the media? Oh hang on, we have got Boris and Mr Thicky. Maybe we should have one of them!
Remain is not over 50% as a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.
That's hardly a meaningful point. If Remain were the first choice of 49%, the second choice of 49%, the third choice of 1% and the fourth choice of 1%, your statement would still be true.
I don't think that's what he meant (though it's how I interpreted it at first). If I understand correctly, he's saying that if you did a cumulative score for 1st choices, 1st+2nd choices, and 1st+2nd+3rd choices, then Remain wouldn't have 50% of the share for any of those. Remember if you add up all the 1st choices for different options the total will be 100, but then if you add up the cumulative 1st and 2nd choices, the total will be 200, so Remain would need 100 to have an overall majority.
That last sentence should also show pretty clearly why it's a bogus analysis by HYUFD. Because for any option on any kind of ranked voting to have an overall majority by the second choice it'd have to get 100% of people ranking it first or second, and beyond the second choice it'd be impossible. Total garbage, but it's impressive how fast he came up with a plausible-sounding nonsense methodology to spin the results.
Or, actually maybe you did realise what he meant, in which case see the above as a correction for anyone who interpreted it like I did.
Hardly. He would have had a lower salary when running his business as more tax efficient using dividends. Indeed according to the Guarding his company broke the law in order to further reduce his tax by £100k
(sarcastic intake of breath) How terrible that he should have been a successful business man and used dividends to pay himself. Surely we must be able to find some hopeless numpty that has never had any advancement outside politics and the media? Oh hang on, we have got Boris and Mr Thicky. Maybe we should have one of them!
He could have made that point. He did not, in a typical politicians answer he made a completely misleading comparison. Why not just say, yes I am very fortunate but also very proud to have created and led a very successful company, it shows why people should make me PM.
Hardly. He would have had a lower salary when running his business as more tax efficient using dividends. Indeed according to the Guarding his company broke the law in order to further reduce his tax by £100k
Hardly. He would have had a lower salary when running his business as more tax efficient using dividends. Indeed according to the Guarding his company broke the law in order to further reduce his tax by £100k
Not according to the UNCHR. The wording it uses it entirely ambiguous. But, yes, the tyranny of the majority in most countries deems that certain law-abiding, taxpaying residents should not have a say in who decides the laws they live under or the taxes they pay. And you are fine with that. As am I. The difference between us is that I don't claim that the right to vote is an inalienable human right that in all circumstances should prevent a majority getting what it wants.
The UNCHR does say the right to vote is inalienable. The majority getting what it wants is ok so long as what the majority wants is not to take away the right to vote from their compatriots.
The idea that non citizens have a right to vote or are comparable is a nonsense of your own making.
Westminster retains the absolute power to resile from the backstop - which refutes your absolutist argument.
Not according to the Attorney General. If that was the case I'd have no issue. But the EU is opposed to any lawful unilateral exit.
The AG cannot limit UK sovereignty by his opinion. However loud his voice might be.
Sure, it is a treaty obligation; we retain the owner to abrogate any such treaty - not without consequences, of course. But that is no different in kind from the no deal Brexit you are entirely happy with. And in the former case, we retain the ability to argue justification for any treaty abrogation. A no deal Brexit is, by contrast, an absolute and binary decision.
A no deal Brexit isn't a unilateral abrogation. It is the entirely lawful consequence of Article 50 of the Treaties of the European Union as inserted by the Lisbon Treaty as ratified by the Irish (but not us) at referendum.
Nut from the point of view of consequences - which is what I was talking about - it is no different.
Support for No Deal and May's Deal now at 43% ie almost the same as support for Remain, most of those prefer No Deal to Revoke and Remain.
The 13% who back a soft Brexit are key to a majority but they still back Brexit.
While 81% of Remainers back Revoke and Remain 59% of Leavers back No Deal Brexit as the country polarised, with 73% of Leavers backing Leaving with No Deal or May's Deal
Support for Remain or No Deal is 80% - a MASSIVE majority of the country. As Remain is more popular than No Deal, we must Remain. Clearly.
Wrong, No Deal beat Revoke with Yougov in April.
It isn't April any more. Relying on a nearly-three-month-old poll is like saying Theresa May got a massive landslide majority in June 2017, according to polls in April 2017.
Here's one for HYUFD to get his head round from today's YouGov: * 28% of respondents make No Deal their 1st choice, 39% make it their 1st or 2nd choice; 54% make it their first, second, or third choice; leaving 46% making it their worst choice. * 43% of respondents make remain their 1st choice; 50% make it their 1st or 2nd choice; 58% make it their 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice; leaving 42% making it their worst choice. * So, head to head, Remain is the most favoured 1st, 2nd and 3rd combination choice, while No Deal is seen as worst choice by most people. https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1143846391095144448
All the Brexit options combined beat Remain at every stage.
Remain is not over 50% as a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.
54% of voters do not rank No Deal last and as their 4th choice
Dangerous to conflate Brexit and No Deal in your answer. People want to respect the democratic mandate, but that's very different to a (non-elected) PM pushing through No Deal against the wishes of the HoC and 72% of the country.
The very problem of Brexit is that you cannot have all the Brexits at the same time. The superposition must at some point collapse, so the polling superposition can only take you so far.
Here's one for HYUFD to get his head round from today's YouGov: * 28% of respondents make No Deal their 1st choice, 39% make it their 1st or 2nd choice; 54% make it their first, second, or third choice; leaving 46% making it their worst choice. * 43% of respondents make remain their 1st choice; 50% make it their 1st or 2nd choice; 58% make it their 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice; leaving 42% making it their worst choice. * So, head to head, Remain is the most favoured 1st, 2nd and 3rd combination choice, while No Deal is seen as worst choice by most people. https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1143846391095144448
I think it is a big mistake to take opinion polls literally. But if you ever are going to, this is the one to do it with.
Not according to the UNCHR. The wording it uses it entirely ambiguous. But, yes, the tyranny of the majority in most countries deems that certain law-abiding, taxpaying residents should not have a say in who decides the laws they live under or the taxes they pay. And you are fine with that. As am I. The difference between us is that I don't claim that the right to vote is an inalienable human right that in all circumstances should prevent a majority getting what it wants.
The UNCHR does say the right to vote is inalienable. The majority getting what it wants is ok so long as what the majority wants is not to take away the right to vote from their compatriots.
The idea that non citizens have a right to vote or are comparable is a nonsense of your own making.
Comments
So the question is, which colleague or parent saw the video and reported her?
So let’s not get into the politics of touché...
The idea that non citizens have a right to vote or are comparable is a nonsense of your own making.
Relying on a nearly-three-month-old poll is like saying Theresa May got a massive landslide majority in June 2017, according to polls in April 2017.
You have the most bizarre view of this.