Just catching up with Boris' latest Telegraph column. Wherein his knowledge of Churchill enables him to discern the cure for mental ill health. Astounding that whole armies of scientists, researchers and qualified people, not to mention sufferers, have been wasting their time. Why didn't they simply ask Boris what Churchill did?
Well, in a field where none of the hundreds of drug treatments reliably outperforms placebo, constructive suggestions of alternative approaches are to be welcomed. Actually Churchill's best dictum on the point was that "there is nothing better for the inside of a man than the outside of a horse," but I can see that that doesn't suit Boris's agenda.
Boris's top-secret masterplan looks suspiciously like what I've been advocating on pb: massively extend the transition period; punt the backstop to appease ERG; remove the hard border for Ireland; lose the Irish Sea border for the DUP; lose TM's red lines to persuade the EU. Either I've just doxed myself as an old Etonian icing sugar addict or fools seldom differ.
But do we know if this would satisfy the ERG? They strike me as being unhinged enough to defeat MV4.
I keep banging on about Cameron's, and then May's, failure to set up a commission to nail down what Brexit should mean, but the corollary of this is there is no agreed ERG position either: just dozens of different unicorns. A massively extended transition period to ensure the backstop is never implemented (and probably an agreed exit mechanism just in case) should satisfy most of them if it means we will leave on halloween.
Two or three ERG members care about vassalage but I doubt the rest know what it means (and I'd need to look it up), and the odd one that does care seems not to have noticed an FTA with the USA (or with Europe) would mean reentering the same state they've been railing against for years.
Yes, any modern comprehensive trade agreement will involve anti-state aid provisions, opening of public works to competition and third party binding arbitration.
I think you need to explain that to @Philip_Thompson . He still thinks free trade agreements can be achieved without rule taking...
That isn't rule taking. Agreeing to rules and sticking to what you've agreed is not rule taking. I have no issues with any of those rules being agreed to.
What is wrong is agreeing to rules then the rules changing without our agreement. The EU Parliament, the US Congress etc can change their rules. That is the difference.
Just been digging through the ComRes tables. Fascinating to see how few Brexit Party supporters are former Conservative voters:
Percentage of Brexit Party VI by vote behaviour last election: Conservatives 57% Labour 20% Some other party 11% (presumably mainly UKIP) Did not vote 7% Lib Dems 3% SNP 0.6% Plaid Cymru 0.3%
This should be remembered every time posters (eg HYUFD) lazily add Bxp + Con figures to come up with fantasy numbers for the Drive-over-the-cliff Party.
Interesting - what really surprises me is the low non-voter % for BXP. That suggests real mainstream inroads, rather than the sort of "for two pins I'd vote for a change" type who sometimes gave UKIP high ratings. Basically, as your figures show, they are mostly taking a chunk of regular Tory voters. Whether that remains true is likely to decide the election if it's any time soon.
One of the false assumptions of 2017, common on PB, was that the Kippers would all go Tory. The same may well be true of the BXP.
Also worth noting that current Conservative supporters are only 65:35 to Leave, and that's going by their 2016 vote rather than current opinion. There are a lot of Tory remainers there to lose.
Wow. That is an amazing statistic. Are 35% of current Conservative supporters still in favour of Remaining members of the EU? That is huge, and actually hard to believe in the current bonkers climate.
If true (what do the other pollsters say?), it would mean that even if Boris succeeds in his key goal of winning back Brexit Party supporters, he will simultaneously piss off enough current Conservative supporters to negate any gains.
I’d hate to be a smart Tory analyst trying to explain this to The Clown. I just don’t think he is the type of personality to appreciate being shown that there are errors in his homework.
Given 57% of Brexit Party voters voted Tory in 2017 but only 35% of the Tory vote is still made up of Remainers it is clear where the gains are, if Remainers are still voting Tory they clearly would not touch Corbyn if their life depended on it anyway, at most they would go LD
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Those current Remain Con voters are easier to keep than trying to win back Brexit Party bampots. Once a voter has crossed the rubicon they are bloody difficult to win back. Ask SLab. Indeed, you yourself are evidence of the zeal of the convert.
Mr. Chris, sorry, I don't, it was from a while ago.
I do remember the question wasn't a preference between zero hours or full time work, it was more akin to an approve/disapprove from people in zero hours.
Mr. G, polling showed a majority of those on zero hours contracts are content with them. The idea zero hours = evil is nonsense (as is the idea there's no room to sharpen up regulation here and there).
Just been digging through the ComRes tables. Fascinating to see how few Brexit Party supporters are former Conservative voters:
This should be remembered every time posters (eg HYUFD) lazily
pdf
Interesting - what really surprises me is the low non-voter % for BXP. That suggests real mainstream inroads, rather than the sort of "for two pins I'd vote for a change" type who sometimes gave UKIP high ratings. Basically, as your figures show, they are mostly taking a chunk of regular Tory voters. Whether that remains true is likely to decide the election if it's any time soon.
One of the false assumptions of 2017, common on PB, was that the Kippers would all go Tory. The same may well be true of the BXP.
Also worth noting that current Conservative supporters are only 65:35 to Leave, and that's going by their 2016 vote rather than current opinion. There are a lot of Tory remainers there to lose.
Wow. That is an amazing statistic. Are 35% of current Conservative supporters still in favour of Remaining members of the EU? That is huge, and actually hard to believe in the current bonkers climate.
If true (what do the other pollsters say?), it would mean that even if Boris succeeds in his key goal of winning back Brexit Party supporters, he will simultaneously piss off enough current Conservative supporters to negate any gains.
I’d hate to be a smart Tory analyst trying to explain this to The Clown. I just don’t think he is the type of personality to appreciate being shown that there are errors in his homework.
Given 57% of Brexit Party voters voted Tory in 2017 but only 35% of the Tory vote is still made up of Remainers it is clear where the gains are, if Remainers are still voting Tory they clearly would not touch Corbyn if their life depended on it anyway, at most they would go LD
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Those current Remain Con voters are easier to keep than trying to win back Brexit Party bampots. Once a voter has crossed the rubicon they are bloody difficult to win back. Ask SLab. Indeed, you yourself are evidence of the zeal of the convert.
I am coming to the conclusion that HY doesn’t really believe all this no deal nonsense himself, but needs to say it in order to stay “in” with his local Tories, without which his ambitions of scaling the heights of Epping Parish Council would turn to dust.
In addition to the clue of his excessive zeal, it is noticeable that what is often advanced by way of assertion generally goes unsupported by evidence or argumentation.
Who was the last Tory PM who was sensible, competent and boring?
Not May clearly. Cameron held the referendum and sparked all this. Surely not boring and many say not sensible. Not Major. Probably the closest but nobody who gets the 1997 election result is truly competent ... and the party was so divided then it wasn't sensible either. Clearly not Thatcher. She was never boring.
That is all for my lifetime. So when exactly is that referring to?
I have been doing a lot of thinking about Labour's Anti-Semitism problem after yesterday's "Gentiles Labour Forum" shenanigans so close to home. Its a multi-faceted problem:
1. Palestine is a totemic issue for a lot of left activists, and that places it over and above every other problem area in the country
2. They see this as an entirely Israeli problem. Whilst Egypt imprisons Gaza jointly with Israel, only the latter gets called to task.
3. The blessed Jeremy has been a long-standing advocate for Palestine. As you need to work towards the leader to be anyone these days, that has seen a lot of people enthusiastically joining in the cause without understanding it. That what you read on Facebook is the authoritative fountain of all knowledge for many people just adds to the problem.
4 5. AS has become the proxy war between those supporting and opposed to the Corbyn. Anyone saying we have a problem is LYING as Jeremy has always been a man of peace* - they must be lying for a reason whuch makes tthey right wing Blairites. The latest AS smear is that those lying are Israeli shills. Which is Demonstrable Fact because look at this infographic on Facebook proving it.
AS is to the Labour Party as Racism is to Brexit. Whilst its absolutely true that not all supporters of the blessed Corbyn are Anti-Semites, it absolutely IS true that all anti-semites are supporters of his.
Remove Corbyn, kill the AS problem. Both sides know this, hence the Labour Party making such a tit of itself over the Panorama documentary.
I think the main problems with anti-semitism lies with the clique that surrounds Corbyn. Corbyn has had a siege mentality as Leader from day one and has surrounded himself with the assorted Trots, anti-semites, SWP mob that flooded into the party after his election.
He will never taken any action against any of them because they are the only allies he has got.
They hold the reigns of power and Corbyn is their puppet. We saw it over and over with the issue of Brexit, Corbyn would say something vaguely positive about remaining or a 2nd referendum only to backtrack hours later once Milne had got to him.
Corbyn is quite dim, the problem does not end with his departure. I think it has now become very difficult indeed to destroy the hard left's grip on the party. Corbyn was their chance in a lifetime and once inside the gates they have concentrated on controlling all the internal levers of power.
I think Labour is now beyond hope and have left the party for the Lib Dems. You think it's worth staying to fight, fair enough and good luck.
Mr. Chris, sorry, I don't, it was from a while ago.
I do remember the question wasn't a preference between zero hours or full time work, it was more akin to an approve/disapprove from people in zero hours.
Though in that survey people weren't asked to approve or disapprove of zero hours contracts, only whether they were happy with their "work-life balance."
Who was the last Tory PM who was sensible, competent and boring?
Not May clearly. Cameron held the referendum and sparked all this. Surely not boring and many say not sensible. Not Major. Probably the closest but nobody who gets the 1997 election result is truly competent ... and the party was so divided then it wasn't sensible either. Clearly not Thatcher. She was never boring.
That is all for my lifetime. So when exactly is that referring to?
Sure, there used to be people who'd say "I have no politics, but I vote Conservative for the good of the country," but that was pre-Thatcher.
Mr. G, polling showed a majority of those on zero hours contracts are content with them. The idea zero hours = evil is nonsense (as is the idea there's no room to sharpen up regulation here and there).
Mr. Chris, I think it was a couple of years ago. I have vague memories of Corbyn slamming zero hours contracts a short time after polling showed a majority on them approved/liked them.
Mr. G, polling showed a majority of those on zero hours contracts are content with them. The idea zero hours = evil is nonsense (as is the idea there's no room to sharpen up regulation here and there).
No - that's about whether they wanted to work more hours, not whether they were content with a zero-hours contract or would prefer to be on a standard contract.
Mr. Chris, I think it was a couple of years ago. I have vague memories of Corbyn slamming zero hours contracts a short time after polling showed a majority on them approved/liked them.
Mr. Chris, I think it was a couple of years ago. I have vague memories of Corbyn slamming zero hours contracts a short time after polling showed a majority on them approved/liked them.
Mr. Chris, to be frank, I'm not going to be looking, I just remember it.
The point being that the idea zero hours = evil capitalism is not the case. There's certainly room to sharpen up regulation, but they aren't inherently wicked.
Very good jobs and wages figures just out. Real-term pay (adjusted for inflation) up 1.4% compared with a year ago,. Unemployment at 3.8% is best figure since 1974.
Those are stonkingly good figures when you consider that both the UK economy and the world economies are not doing particularly well. It shows that the structural changes and sound economic management of the last 9 years have really brought benefits. A pity that it's probably all going to be thrown away.
But over 1.5 million are now part-time self employed. How much of that is voluntary? Very different to the mid-1970s.
Also how many million on zero hours contracts
The statistics say very few.
There were estimated to be around 780,000 people employed on zero hours contracts as their main job between April and June 2018. That's roughly 2.4% of people in employment, or about one in 40 workers.
Mr. Chris, I think it was a couple of years ago. I have vague memories of Corbyn slamming zero hours contracts a short time after polling showed a majority on them approved/liked them.
Very good jobs and wages figures just out. Real-term pay (adjusted for inflation) up 1.4% compared with a year ago,. Unemployment at 3.8% is best figure since 1974.
Those are stonkingly good figures when you consider that both the UK economy and the world economies are not doing particularly well. It shows that the structural changes and sound economic management of the last 9 years have really brought benefits. A pity that it's probably all going to be thrown away.
But over 1.5 million are now part-time self employed. How much of that is voluntary? Very different to the mid-1970s.
Also how many million on zero hours contracts
The statistics say very few.
There were estimated to be around 780,000 people employed on zero hours contracts as their main job between April and June 2018. That's roughly 2.4% of people in employment, or about one in 40 workers.
Very good jobs and wages figures just out. Real-term pay (adjusted for inflation) up 1.4% compared with a year ago,. Unemployment at 3.8% is best figure since 1974.
Those are stonkingly good figures when you consider that both the UK economy and the world economies are not doing particularly well. It shows that the structural changes and sound economic management of the last 9 years have really brought benefits. A pity that it's probably all going to be thrown away.
But over 1.5 million are now part-time self employed. How much of that is voluntary? Very different to the mid-1970s.
Also how many million on zero hours contracts
The statistics say very few.
There were estimated to be around 780,000 people employed on zero hours contracts as their main job between April and June 2018. That's roughly 2.4% of people in employment, or about one in 40 workers.
So answer your own question then. How many million?
Mr. Chris, to be frank, I'm not going to be looking, I just remember it.
The point being that the idea zero hours = evil capitalism is not the case. There's certainly room to sharpen up regulation, but they aren't inherently wicked.
That may be your point. Mine is that - on the polling evidence we can actually identify - only 25% of those on zero-hour contracts prefer them to guaranteed hours.
Captain Boris: the worst navigator in hostile waters since Edward Smith.
Who was the last significant politician to do a drastic handbrake-turn the second they got into office? I know there are examples, but my memory is drawing a blank.
Heath did a pretty rapid and complete U-turn on Selsdon Man proto-Thatcherite policies, but if certainly wasn't the second he got into office.
There have been lots of major U-turns over the years - Wilson on the Common Market, Thatcher on monetarism, Blair (and Clegg!) on tuition fees to name a few, but no PM has previously been elected on a platform which is a complete and total fantasy both politically and economically.
Boris knows it is fantasy. Conservative MPs and members know it is fantasy. Everyone and their dog knows it is fantasy. And yet he is going to be there shortly: in office and without a plan or a mandate, or even a steady foundation of political principles.
We are never going to witness a car crash like this again during our lifetimes.
Mr. Chris, sorry, I don't, it was from a while ago.
I do remember the question wasn't a preference between zero hours or full time work, it was more akin to an approve/disapprove from people in zero hours.
Captain Boris: the worst navigator in hostile waters since Edward Smith.
Who was the last significant politician to do a drastic handbrake-turn the second they got into office? I know there are examples, but my memory is drawing a blank.
Heath did a pretty rapid and complete U-turn on Selsdon Man proto-Thatcherite policies, but if certainly wasn't the second he got into office.
There have been lots of major U-turns over the years - Wilson on the Common Market, Thatcher on monetarism, Blair (and Clegg!) on tuition fees to name a few, but no PM has previously been elected on a platform which is a complete and total fantasy both politically and economically.
Boris knows it is fantasy. Conservative MPs and members know it is fantasy. Everyone and their dog knows it is fantasy. And yet he is going to be there shortly: in office and without a plan or a mandate, or even a steady foundation of political principles.
We are never going to witness a car crash like this again during our lifetimes.
Mr. G, remembering something without being able to reference it is not 'doing a Boris'. I didn't break a promise, and I didn't hide in a cupboard in Afghanistan.
If people choose to either actively disbelieve what I said or discount it due to lack of a reference, then fair enough. But to compare me to Boris? You rapscallion!
Very good jobs and wages figures just out. Real-term pay (adjusted for inflation) up 1.4% compared with a year ago,. Unemployment at 3.8% is best figure since 1974.
Those are stonkingly good figures when you consider that both the UK economy and the world economies are not doing particularly well. It shows that the structural changes and sound economic management of the last 9 years have really brought benefits. A pity that it's probably all going to be thrown away.
But over 1.5 million are now part-time self employed. How much of that is voluntary? Very different to the mid-1970s.
Also how many million on zero hours contracts
The statistics say very few.
There were estimated to be around 780,000 people employed on zero hours contracts as their main job between April and June 2018. That's roughly 2.4% of people in employment, or about one in 40 workers.
So answer your own question then. How many million?
Since you are too stupid to work it out 0.78 Million, does that help you. 1 in 40 and not anywhere near the hardly any you purported. Not only did I answer your stupid question , I now have to spell out the numbers for you. PS : can you provide any statistical evidence to support your "statistics say very few".
Mr. Chris, I think it was a couple of years ago. I have vague memories of Corbyn slamming zero hours contracts a short time after polling showed a majority on them approved/liked them.
Did the BBC (and so you) miss this bit from the actual report; "Zero-hours workers, when compared to the average UK employee, are just as satisfied with their job (60% versus 59%), happier with their work-life balance (65% vs. 58%), and less likely to think they are treated unfairly by their organisation (27% vs. 29%)."?
Mr. Chris, there's no reason those things can't both be true.
Someone seeking work can like their part-time job, whilst hoping it becomes full-time.
Sorry, but I'm not having that.
Your claim that I queried in the first place was "polling showed a majority of those on zero hours contracts are content with them."
What the poll from 18 months ago actually says is this: "The poll shows that two-thirds (66 per cent) of zero-hours contract workers would rather have a contract with guaranteed hours. Just one in four (25 per cent) say they prefer being on a zero-hours contract." https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/great-jobs-with-guaranteed-hours_0.pdf
If they'd prefer a different kind of employment, then it's quite misleading to say they are content with the kind they have now.
Mr. Chris, there's no reason those things can't both be true.
Someone seeking work can like their part-time job, whilst hoping it becomes full-time.
Sorry, but I'm not having that.
Your claim that I queried in the first place was "polling showed a majority of those on zero hours contracts are content with them."
What the poll from 18 months ago actually says is this: "The poll shows that two-thirds (66 per cent) of zero-hours contract workers would rather have a contract with guaranteed hours. Just one in four (25 per cent) say they prefer being on a zero-hours contract." https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/great-jobs-with-guaranteed-hours_0.pdf
If they'd prefer a different kind of employment, then it's quite misleading to say they are content with the kind they have now.
You can be happy with something but also want something else at the same time, can’t you?
Briefly on topic, I think B&R will be a LibDem win, but an unconvincing one. I think the local MP is broadly popular, and the Brexit Party may well be the dog that didn't bite. I'm going for:
Mr. Chris, I think it was a couple of years ago. I have vague memories of Corbyn slamming zero hours contracts a short time after polling showed a majority on them approved/liked them.
Did the BBC (and so you) miss this bit from the actual report; "Zero-hours workers, when compared to the average UK employee, are just as satisfied with their job (60% versus 59%), happier with their work-life balance (65% vs. 58%), and less likely to think they are treated unfairly by their organisation (27% vs. 29%)."?
And from their 2015 version; "The proportion of zero-hours contract employees who are either very satisfied or satisfied with their jobs is 65%, slightly higher than the proportion for employees as a whole (63%).
Zero-hours contract employees are more likely to see their work–life balance in a positive light (62% strongly agree or agree they have the right balance) than other employees (58%)"
Mr. Chris, if it's a straight approval/disapproval, it's entirely possible to approve of your current situation whilst also wanting more/something else. A chap can enjoy roast carrots yet might be glad to have roast parsnips too.
And I do think this is a side issue. My point is that zero hours are sometimes portrayed as wicked and exploitative, and that's usually not the case.
Boris knows it is fantasy. Conservative MPs and members know it is fantasy. Everyone and their dog knows it is fantasy. And yet he is going to be there shortly: in office and without a plan or a mandate, or even a steady foundation of political principles.
We are never going to witness a car crash like this again during our lifetimes.
Why does the car have to crash? Boris tries one of these clever schemes to prevent MPs from stopping No Deal, Parliament comes up with some devilshly cunning counter-measure with the help of the duplicitous speaker, the holding pattern holds with everyone blaming everyone else for their treachery, and the car just carries on whizzing around the circuit for the next few years.
Interesting - what really surprises me is the low non-voter % for BXP. That suggests real mainstream inroads, rather than the sort of "for two pins I'd vote for a change" type who sometimes gave UKIP high ratings. Basically, as your figures show, they are mostly taking a chunk of regular Tory voters. Whether that remains true is likely to decide the election if it's any time soon.
One of the false assumptions of 2017, common on PB, was that the Kippers would all go Tory. The same may well be true of the BXP.
Also worth noting that current Conservative supporters are only 65:35 to Leave, and that's going by their 2016 vote rather than current opinion. There are a lot of Tory remainers there to lose.
Wow. That is an amazing statistic. Are 35% of current Conservative supporters still in favour of Remaining members of the EU? That is huge, and actually hard to believe in the current bonkers climate.
If true (what do the other pollsters say?), it would mean that even if Boris succeeds in his key goal of winning back Brexit Party supporters, he will simultaneously piss off enough current Conservative supporters to negate any gains.
I’d hate to be a smart Tory analyst trying to explain this to The Clown. I just don’t think he is the type of personality to appreciate being shown that there are errors in his homework.
Given 57% of Brexit Party voters voted Tory in 2017 but only 35% of the Tory vote is still made up of Remainers it is clear where the gains are, if Remainers are still voting Tory they clearly would not touch Corbyn if their life depended on it anyway, at most they would go LD
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Those current Remain Con voters are easier to keep than trying to win back Brexit Party bampots. Once a voter has crossed the rubicon they are bloody difficult to win back. Ask SLab. Indeed, you yourself are evidence of the zeal of the convert.
I am coming to the conclusion that HY doesn’t really believe all this no deal nonsense himself, but needs to say it in order to stay “in” with his local Tories, without which his ambitions of scaling the heights of Epping Parish Council would turn to dust.
In addition to the clue of his excessive zeal, it is noticeable that what is often advanced by way of assertion generally goes unsupported by evidence or argumentation.
Must be soul-destroying dedicating untold hours, days, weeks and years to a cause that in your heart of hearts you don’t even believe in. Tragic.
Jeremy Corbyn's cognitive dissonance is such that he genuinely thinks he is an anti-racist and despises racism wherever he sees or finds it while at the same time believing the Jews are responsible for many of life's ills and injustices and hence not included in the category of people against whom one could be racist.
Boris's top-secret masterplan looks suspiciously like what I've been advocating on pb: massively extend the transition period; punt the backstop to appease ERG; remove the hard border for Ireland; lose the Irish Sea border for the DUP; lose TM's red lines to persuade the EU. Either I've just doxed myself as an old Etonian icing sugar addict or fools seldom differ.
Won't the hard right complain about the cost? Continuing contributions?
Just catching up with Boris' latest Telegraph column. Wherein his knowledge of Churchill enables him to discern the cure for mental ill health. Astounding that whole armies of scientists, researchers and qualified people, not to mention sufferers, have been wasting their time. Why didn't they simply ask Boris what Churchill did?
Well, in a field where none of the hundreds of drug treatments reliably outperforms placebo, constructive suggestions of alternative approaches are to be welcomed. Actually Churchill's best dictum on the point was that "there is nothing better for the inside of a man than the outside of a horse," but I can see that that doesn't suit Boris's agenda.
Didn't Boris say that that there's nothing better for the outside of a man than the inside of...
Boris knows it is fantasy. Conservative MPs and members know it is fantasy. Everyone and their dog knows it is fantasy. And yet he is going to be there shortly: in office and without a plan or a mandate, or even a steady foundation of political principles.
We are never going to witness a car crash like this again during our lifetimes.
Why does the car have to crash? Boris tries one of these clever schemes to prevent MPs from stopping No Deal, Parliament comes up with some devilshly cunning counter-measure with the help of the duplicitous speaker, the holding pattern holds with everyone blaming everyone else for their treachery, and the car just carries on whizzing around the circuit for the next few years.
In which case the car will crash at the ballot boxes, because at some point the voters *will* have their say on this hopeless shower.
This is why I find it so hard to understand the Lib Dems picking Swinson. This scenario is Lib Dem gold, and yet they seem determined to suppress their own support. I’d have gone with the safe pair of hands from Kingston and Surbiton.
If you are willing to prop up a Conservative government you really shouldn't be in the Labour Party. Sarah Champion completely idiotic today. Poker bluffs don't work if you say you're bluffing, so her argument is completely stupid. No time for people like her and Nandy who go on about how we must leave but yet didn't vote for the withdrawal agreement.
Boris knows it is fantasy. Conservative MPs and members know it is fantasy. Everyone and their dog knows it is fantasy. And yet he is going to be there shortly: in office and without a plan or a mandate, or even a steady foundation of political principles.
We are never going to witness a car crash like this again during our lifetimes.
Why does the car have to crash? Boris tries one of these clever schemes to prevent MPs from stopping No Deal, Parliament comes up with some devilshly cunning counter-measure with the help of the duplicitous speaker, the holding pattern holds with everyone blaming everyone else for their treachery, and the car just carries on whizzing around the circuit for the next few years.
The default option is not to whiz around the circuit it is to crash out at Shuttlecock.
If you are willing to prop up a Conservative government you really shouldn't be in the Labour Party. Sarah Champion completely idiotic today. Poker bluffs don't work if you say you're bluffing, so her argument is completely stupid. No time for people like her and Nandy who go on about how we must leave but yet didn't vote for the withdrawal agreement.
The parliamentary Labour Party has always had a rich assortment of thickos.
If you are willing to prop up a Conservative government you really shouldn't be in the Labour Party. Sarah Champion completely idiotic today. Poker bluffs don't work if you say you're bluffing, so her argument is completely stupid. No time for people like her and Nandy who go on about how we must leave but yet didn't vote for the withdrawal agreement.
The parliamentary Labour Party has always had a rich assortment of thickos.
Not as bad as the SNO VONCing Callaghan's government in 1979.
Briefly on topic, I think B&R will be a LibDem win, but an unconvincing one. I think the local MP is broadly popular, and the Brexit Party may well be the dog that didn't bite. I'm going for:
538 did a really interesting analysis: if you're polling 35-40% in the primary polls in the second half of the year before an election, then you're the odds on favourite to get the nomination.
If, on the other hand, you're polling 20-25%, then while you have a good chance, it's little better than those on 10-15%.
Biden's biggest problems, though, are:
1. He has clear negative momentum. Every poll sees him slip, and the early primary polls show him in the worst positions of all.
2. He entered the race late, and has nothing of the organisation of Warren or Sanders.
3. He really doesn't look like he's enjoying the race.
Just catching up with Boris' latest Telegraph column. Wherein his knowledge of Churchill enables him to discern the cure for mental ill health. Astounding that whole armies of scientists, researchers and qualified people, not to mention sufferers, have been wasting their time. Why didn't they simply ask Boris what Churchill did?
Well, in a field where none of the hundreds of drug treatments reliably outperforms placebo, constructive suggestions of alternative approaches are to be welcomed. Actually Churchill's best dictum on the point was that "there is nothing better for the inside of a man than the outside of a horse," but I can see that that doesn't suit Boris's agenda.
Didn't Boris say that that there's nothing better for the outside of a man than the inside of...
Wasn’t it Cameron who liked nothing better than the inside of a pig?
Briefly on topic, I think B&R will be a LibDem win, but an unconvincing one. I think the local MP is broadly popular, and the Brexit Party may well be the dog that didn't bite. I'm going for:
LD 40% Con 35% BXP 15%
So Tories down 14%, LibDems up 11%, Labour maybe down 15% and BXP up at 15%. I think the Tories and LibDems would be happy with those results, the others less so. The big result would be the Tory/DUP majority cut to wafer thin.
538 did a really interesting analysis: if you're polling 35-40% in the primary polls in the second half of the year before an election, then you're the odds on favourite to get the nomination.
If, on the other hand, you're polling 20-25%, then while you have a good chance, it's little better than those on 10-15%.
Biden's biggest problems, though, are:
1. He has clear negative momentum. Every poll sees him slip, and the early primary polls show him in the worst positions of all.
2. He entered the race late, and has nothing of the organisation of Warren or Sanders.
3. He really doesn't look like he's enjoying the race.
Hope you are wrong because that means we are looking at two Trump terms imho.
Briefly on topic, I think B&R will be a LibDem win, but an unconvincing one. I think the local MP is broadly popular, and the Brexit Party may well be the dog that didn't bite. I'm going for:
LD 40% Con 35% BXP 15%
So Tories down 14%, LibDems up 11%, Labour maybe down 15% and BXP up at 15%. I think the Tories and LibDems would be happy with those results, the others less so. The big result would be the Tory/DUP majority cut to wafer thin.
Briefly on topic, I think B&R will be a LibDem win, but an unconvincing one. I think the local MP is broadly popular, and the Brexit Party may well be the dog that didn't bite. I'm going for:
LD 40% Con 35% BXP 15%
So Tories down 14%, LibDems up 11%, Labour maybe down 15% and BXP up at 15%. I think the Tories and LibDems would be happy with those results, the others less so. The big result would be the Tory/DUP majority cut to wafer thin.
A tad misleading. The Bank knows, they just aren’t making it public.
That amount is but a piffle compared to the European central banks amount of which we will never know where that has gone either..
UK QE was hundreds of billions of pounds. Around a quarter of UK government debt is owned by the BoE.
(As a percentage of GDP, the Japanese top the QE charts by a country mile. IIRC, they've spent 100% or so of GDP. The Eurozone is second in the high 20s, having been a late starter but going on for longer. The UK is just a smidgen behind the Eurozone, while the US is around 20% of GDP.)
If you are willing to prop up a Conservative government you really shouldn't be in the Labour Party. Sarah Champion completely idiotic today. Poker bluffs don't work if you say you're bluffing, so her argument is completely stupid. No time for people like her and Nandy who go on about how we must leave but yet didn't vote for the withdrawal agreement.
And yet voting for the withdrawal agreement was also seen as propping up the Conservative Party. And not unrightly so.
Just catching up with Boris' latest Telegraph column. Wherein his knowledge of Churchill enables him to discern the cure for mental ill health. Astounding that whole armies of scientists, researchers and qualified people, not to mention sufferers, have been wasting their time. Why didn't they simply ask Boris what Churchill did?
Dare I ask the treatment? Pol Roger for Breakfast, brandy for dinner?
Briefly on topic, I think B&R will be a LibDem win, but an unconvincing one. I think the local MP is broadly popular, and the Brexit Party may well be the dog that didn't bite. I'm going for:
LD 40% Con 35% BXP 15%
The history tells you the seat wasn't a Liberal or LD seat until Richard Livsey won it in 1985. It was for a very long time a Labour seat and was only taken by the Conservatives in 1979.
In 1985, at the by-election, the Liberal candidate only just got home against Labour with the Conservatives third on nearly 28% and the truth is there has always been a solid Conservative vote in the seat - whether and the extent to which that is diluted by the coming of TBP remains to be seen.
Livsey held by 46 in 1987 and lost by 130 in 1992 so it's been that close.
The current Conservative majority and vote share compares well to the high water mark of 1983 but is still beatable as 1985 showed. As for the LDs, their best vote share was 46.4% in 2010.
The question for me and what will determine the outcome is not what happens to the Conservative vote but what happens to the near 18% Labour vote. If that breaks tactically to Jane Dodds, I think she will win but if not it will be very close.
I predicted a 5,000 LD majority two or three weeks back - I think 2,000 - 3,000 now more likely.
Very good jobs and wages figures just out. Real-term pay (adjusted for inflation) up 1.4% compared with a year ago,. Unemployment at 3.8% is best figure since 1974.
Those are stonkingly good figures when you consider that both the UK economy and the world economies are not doing particularly well. It shows that the structural changes and sound economic management of the last 9 years have really brought benefits. A pity that it's probably all going to be thrown away.
But over 1.5 million are now part-time self employed. How much of that is voluntary? Very different to the mid-1970s.
Also how many million on zero hours contracts
The statistics say very few.
There were estimated to be around 780,000 people employed on zero hours contracts as their main job between April and June 2018. That's roughly 2.4% of people in employment, or about one in 40 workers.
So answer your own question then. How many million?
Since you are too stupid to work it out 0.78 Million, does that help you. 1 in 40 and not anywhere near the hardly any you purported. Not only did I answer your stupid question , I now have to spell out the numbers for you. PS : can you provide any statistical evidence to support your "statistics say very few".
"How many million" - "very few [million]".
0.78 million is below a million so very few millions.
Had you not used the word million in your question the answer would have been different.
Is it that incendiary? Surely a Queen's Speech is long overdue?
Since the start of the twentieth century there have been annual State Opening's of Parliament every single year with only 2011 and 2018 being cancelled altogether [three times in the early 20th century it was brought forward]. We haven't yet had a 2019 one with the last one in 2017 so this is highly irregular and when it does finally occur it will be long, long overdue.
Not at all. England scored the runs completed by the batsmen (2) plus the allowance for the boundary (4). Simon Taufel seemingly doesn't understand how commas work.
If the fielder throws the ball and instead of it hitting the bat it had hit the stumps [but the batsman was safe] and then gone on to the boundary there would have been overthrows again. The rule has always in my experience been what's happened in the middle. The 'act' was when the ball hit the bat [or the stumps in past cases].
Not at all. England scored the runs completed by the batsmen (2) plus the allowance for the boundary (4). Simon Taufel seemingly doesn't understand how commas work.
Not at all. England scored the runs completed by the batsmen (2) plus the allowance for the boundary (4). Simon Taufel seemingly doesn't understand how commas work.
The only way for Labour MPs like Sarah Champion and Caroline Flint actively to ensure a No Deal Brexit would be to refuse to vote against the government in a vote of no confidence. That would mean they lose the Labour whip and so would no longer be Labour MPs. In this way, they would not only inflict severe and sustained harm on the constituents they say they care about, they would also lose their jobs come the next election and any influence they may have to influence future events.
There is a madness at play currently in this country everywhere that you look. And it's hard to see how it ends. But of all the madness there is, Labour MPs supporting a No Deal are perhaps the most insane of all (Kate Hoey does not count, she is UKIP).
Jeremy Corbyn's cognitive dissonance is such that he genuinely thinks he is an anti-racist and despises racism wherever he sees or finds it while at the same time believing the Jews are responsible for many of life's ills and injustices and hence not included in the category of people against whom one could be racist.
There's no real evidence Corbyn gives a damn about Jews either way. It's Israel he has a problem with.
Is it that incendiary? Surely a Queen's Speech is long overdue?
Since the start of the twentieth century there have been annual State Opening's of Parliament every single year with only 2011 and 2018 being cancelled altogether [three times in the early 20th century it was brought forward]. We haven't yet had a 2019 one with the last one in 2017 so this is highly irregular and when it does finally occur it will be long, long overdue.
A new Parliamentary session is required - using the timing to avoid Parliamentary oversight is however a different matter...
Just catching up with Boris' latest Telegraph column. Wherein his knowledge of Churchill enables him to discern the cure for mental ill health. Astounding that whole armies of scientists, researchers and qualified people, not to mention sufferers, have been wasting their time. Why didn't they simply ask Boris what Churchill did?
Dare I ask the treatment? Pol Roger for Breakfast, brandy for dinner?
Hard work.
Telling people with mental ill health that their cure is to work harder is the epitome of the nasty party's return.
Boris Johnson is a &**&**&& &&**+**
I did write the words but decided he's not worth a ban.
You can read what you like into polls at the moment, my main take is that Harris' massive betting favoritism over the other big 3 is undeserved.
The Iowa number for Buttigieg is extraordinary. But it shouldn't surprise us that Buttigieg is doing well there: Iowa is whiter and more religious than the typical US state, and Buttigieg is (so to speak) whiter and more religious than the typical Democratic nominee.
What all the recent polls, though, show is that the more voters see of Biden, the less impressed they are with him. The last five polls have seen Biden get (in order) 30%, 27%, 24%, 17% and 16%. Change Research has shown Biden dropping from 27% to 16% in a month.
Very good jobs and wages figures just out. Real-term pay (adjusted for inflation) up 1.4% compared with a year ago,. Unemployment at 3.8% is best figure since 1974.
Those are stonkingly good figures when you consider that both the UK economy and the world economies are not doing particularly well. It shows that the structural changes and sound economic management of the last 9 years have really brought benefits. A pity that it's probably all going to be thrown away.
But over 1.5 million are now part-time self employed. How much of that is voluntary? Very different to the mid-1970s.
Also how many million on zero hours contracts
The statistics say very few.
There were estimated to be around 780,000 people employed on zero hours contracts as their main job between April and June 2018. That's roughly 2.4% of people in employment, or about one in 40 workers.
So answer your own question then. How many million?
Since you are too stupid to work it out 0.78 Million, does that help you. 1 in 40 and not anywhere near the hardly any you purported. Not only did I answer your stupid question , I now have to spell out the numbers for you. PS : can you provide any statistical evidence to support your "statistics say very few".
"How many million" - "very few [million]".
0.78 million is below a million so very few millions.
Had you not used the word million in your question the answer would have been different.
That's not the way we speak English over here. God if even Malc gets this what hope is there for anyone else.
The only way for Labour MPs like Sarah Champion and Caroline Flint actively to ensure a No Deal Brexit would be to refuse to vote against the government in a vote of no confidence. That would mean they lose the Labour whip and so would no longer be Labour MPs. In this way, they would not only inflict severe and sustained harm on the constituents they say they care about, they would also lose their jobs come the next election and any influence they may have to influence future events.
There is a madness at play currently in this country everywhere that you look. And it's hard to see how it ends. But of all the madness there is, Labour MPs supporting a No Deal are perhaps the most insane of all (Kate Hoey does not count, she is UKIP).
Although the madness of ERG being the ones who stopped us leaving is right up there.
Jeremy Corbyn's cognitive dissonance is such that he genuinely thinks he is an anti-racist and despises racism wherever he sees or finds it while at the same time believing the Jews are responsible for many of life's ills and injustices and hence not included in the category of people against whom one could be racist.
There's no real evidence Corbyn gives a damn about Jews either way. It's Israel he has a problem with.
You can read what you like into polls at the moment, my main take is that Harris' massive betting favoritism over the other big 3 is undeserved.
The Iowa number for Buttigieg is extraordinary. But it shouldn't surprise us that Buttigieg is doing well there: Iowa is whiter and more religious than the typical US state, and Buttigieg is (so to speak) whiter and more religious than the typical Democratic nominee.
What all the recent polls, though, show is that the more voters see of Biden, the less impressed they are with him. The last five polls have seen Biden get (in order) 30%, 27%, 24%, 17% and 16%. Change Research has shown Biden dropping from 27% to 16% in a month.
Unless someone pulls ahead properly (and a lot of road to go), if I have understood things, there are so many proportional awards across the primaries that we will be heading to contested convention.
Comments
https://metro.co.uk/2013/05/07/a-mare-for-the-mayor-as-boris-johnson-gets-on-his-high-horse-at-the-olympic-park-3715080/
What is wrong is agreeing to rules then the rules changing without our agreement. The EU Parliament, the US Congress etc can change their rules. That is the difference.
Those current Remain Con voters are easier to keep than trying to win back Brexit Party bampots. Once a voter has crossed the rubicon they are bloody difficult to win back. Ask SLab. Indeed, you yourself are evidence of the zeal of the convert.
I do remember the question wasn't a preference between zero hours or full time work, it was more akin to an approve/disapprove from people in zero hours.
https://twitter.com/darkgreener/status/1151123619327725570
When was the last time the Tories were sensible, competent and boring in office?
In addition to the clue of his excessive zeal, it is noticeable that what is often advanced by way of assertion generally goes unsupported by evidence or argumentation.
Not May clearly.
Cameron held the referendum and sparked all this. Surely not boring and many say not sensible.
Not Major. Probably the closest but nobody who gets the 1997 election result is truly competent ... and the party was so divided then it wasn't sensible either.
Clearly not Thatcher. She was never boring.
That is all for my lifetime. So when exactly is that referring to?
https://order-order.com/2019/07/16/nhs-cash-new-labour-spads/
He will never taken any action against any of them because they are the only allies he has got.
They hold the reigns of power and Corbyn is their puppet. We saw it over and over with the issue of Brexit, Corbyn would say something vaguely positive about remaining or a 2nd referendum only to backtrack hours later once Milne had got to him.
Corbyn is quite dim, the problem does not end with his departure. I think it has now become very difficult indeed to destroy the hard left's grip on the party. Corbyn was their chance in a lifetime and once inside the gates they have concentrated on controlling all the internal levers of power.
I think Labour is now beyond hope and have left the party for the Lib Dems. You think it's worth staying to fight, fair enough and good luck.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
Though in that survey people weren't asked to approve or disapprove of zero hours contracts, only whether they were happy with their "work-life balance."
How many people on zero hours contracts want more hours? is not the same as
How many people on zero hours contracts want guaranteed hours?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2013/11/26/zero-hour-contracts-unfairly-demonised-and-oversim
The point being that the idea zero hours = evil capitalism is not the case. There's certainly room to sharpen up regulation, but they aren't inherently wicked.
This Brexit virus is making people utterly deranged. This is 10,000s of jobs at stake.
The correct response to this is 'Oh f**k off you racist old twit'.
Someone seeking work can like their part-time job, whilst hoping it becomes full-time.
Edited extra bit: in case it wasn't clear, that's just by way of comparison, obviously I know zero hours/part-time aren't the same thing.
We are never going to witness a car crash like this again during our lifetimes.
Life mimics art. Again.
If people choose to either actively disbelieve what I said or discount it due to lack of a reference, then fair enough. But to compare me to Boris? You rapscallion!
PS : can you provide any statistical evidence to support your "statistics say very few".
Your claim that I queried in the first place was "polling showed a majority of those on zero hours contracts are content with them."
What the poll from 18 months ago actually says is this:
"The poll shows that two-thirds (66 per cent) of zero-hours contract workers would rather have a contract with guaranteed hours. Just one in four (25 per cent) say they prefer being on a zero-hours contract."
https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/great-jobs-with-guaranteed-hours_0.pdf
If they'd prefer a different kind of employment, then it's quite misleading to say they are content with the kind they have now.
LD 40%
Con 35%
BXP 15%
Zero-hours contract employees are more likely to see their work–life balance in a positive light (62% strongly agree or agree they have the right balance) than other employees (58%)"
https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/zero-hours-and-short-hours-contracts-in-the-uk_2015-employer-employee-perspectives_tcm18-10713.pdf
And I do think this is a side issue. My point is that zero hours are sometimes portrayed as wicked and exploitative, and that's usually not the case.
This is why I find it so hard to understand the Lib Dems picking Swinson. This scenario is Lib Dem gold, and yet they seem determined to suppress their own support. I’d have gone with the safe pair of hands from Kingston and Surbiton.
If, on the other hand, you're polling 20-25%, then while you have a good chance, it's little better than those on 10-15%.
Biden's biggest problems, though, are:
1. He has clear negative momentum. Every poll sees him slip, and the early primary polls show him in the worst positions of all.
2. He entered the race late, and has nothing of the organisation of Warren or Sanders.
3. He really doesn't look like he's enjoying the race.
The big result would be the Tory/DUP majority cut to wafer thin.
LD 45
Con 25
BXP 20
Lab 7.5
Rags 2.5
Interesting if true. Incendiary if true.
It is now or never for No Deal MPs. Stop him becoming PM.
For popcorn value though...
(As a percentage of GDP, the Japanese top the QE charts by a country mile. IIRC, they've spent 100% or so of GDP. The Eurozone is second in the high 20s, having been a late starter but going on for longer. The UK is just a smidgen behind the Eurozone, while the US is around 20% of GDP.)
The Brexit party and Lib Dems perhaps..
It's what I think will happen
In 1985, at the by-election, the Liberal candidate only just got home against Labour with the Conservatives third on nearly 28% and the truth is there has always been a solid Conservative vote in the seat - whether and the extent to which that is diluted by the coming of TBP remains to be seen.
Livsey held by 46 in 1987 and lost by 130 in 1992 so it's been that close.
The current Conservative majority and vote share compares well to the high water mark of 1983 but is still beatable as 1985 showed. As for the LDs, their best vote share was 46.4% in 2010.
The question for me and what will determine the outcome is not what happens to the Conservative vote but what happens to the near 18% Labour vote. If that breaks tactically to Jane Dodds, I think she will win but if not it will be very close.
I predicted a 5,000 LD majority two or three weeks back - I think 2,000 - 3,000 now more likely.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/iowa/
Biden & Warren doing well in Nevada
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/nevada/
You can read what you like into polls at the moment, my main take is that Harris' massive betting favoritism over the other big 3 is undeserved.
0.78 million is below a million so very few millions.
Had you not used the word million in your question the answer would have been different.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/07/15/picture-proves-umpire-error-handed-england-cricket-world-cup/
Russian linesman II
Since the start of the twentieth century there have been annual State Opening's of Parliament every single year with only 2011 and 2018 being cancelled altogether [three times in the early 20th century it was brought forward]. We haven't yet had a 2019 one with the last one in 2017 so this is highly irregular and when it does finally occur it will be long, long overdue.
https://twitter.com/norcrosscricket/status/1150809671252492288
If the fielder throws the ball and instead of it hitting the bat it had hit the stumps [but the batsman was safe] and then gone on to the boundary there would have been overthrows again. The rule has always in my experience been what's happened in the middle. The 'act' was when the ball hit the bat [or the stumps in past cases].
Has Dharmaseena or Erasmus written a report on the final yet ?
There is a madness at play currently in this country everywhere that you look. And it's hard to see how it ends. But of all the madness there is, Labour MPs supporting a No Deal are perhaps the most insane of all (Kate Hoey does not count, she is UKIP).
This is boring and fed by disgruntled Indian betting markets, who lost out.
Boris Johnson is a &**&**&& &&**+**
I did write the words but decided he's not worth a ban.
What all the recent polls, though, show is that the more voters see of Biden, the less impressed they are with him. The last five polls have seen Biden get (in order) 30%, 27%, 24%, 17% and 16%. Change Research has shown Biden dropping from 27% to 16% in a month.
Although the madness of ERG being the ones who stopped us leaving is right up there.