politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ahead of EURef the Electoral Commission turns to Facebook t
Comments
-
Show me a bad loser and I'll show you a loser:
@Arron_banks · 9m9 minutes ago
Vote leave document is full of lies and misrepresentations we will consult but expect judicial review .0 -
O/T: In Berlin (oddly for the first time) for a conference and afterwards went for a few hours round the centre. Really overwhelming history, with dozens of towering buildings, plaques and artistic displays commemorating massive events - the Brandenburg Gate, the Reichstag, Kennedy's speech, the Soviet war memorial... I went round the Holocaust museum, which is very well done - as you go in, you see a lot of anonymous concrete blocks, like forgotten tombs - then it takes you through the awful story, with commentaries and notes from survivors and the lost, and then you emerge, and at the exit the concrete blocks are 7 foot high with narrow passages to thread your way back to street normality.
What really struck me about the exhibition was how completely random the Holocaust was - pictures of ordinary families in the 1920s going about their business, and footnotes that, say, 11 of the 13 people in the picture had been killed. It's like these cases you read about where a madman shoots a dozen random passers-by, escalated to nearly the whole continent.
I know it's all been said before, but the museum is worthwhile for quietly bringing it home.0 -
Employer's put all sorts of stuff in employment contracts they make you sign - quite a bit of it wouldn't necessarily stand up in the courts. It's there so you know what sort of stuff might piss them off and to structure your behaviour accordingly.MonikerDiCanio said:
Is that legal ?tlg86 said:Sky News are reporting that Goldman Sachs has told staff in Europe that they are not allowed to campaign for either side in the referendum.
I'm supposed to not join any major competitor or client of my firm, if I resign, within 6 months to discourage poaching. In practice, this is so restrictive that it would deny me any real chance to earn a living.0 -
What part of that will be for the government to decide do you struggle to understand?Big_G_NorthWales said:
This is not a conspiracy by me. Just wanting a fair answer to free movement of labourIndigo said:
Is it a false promise ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - it is a genuine question that needs a responsible answer and not prevarication. If it was honest and credible I could vote for leave. The reason I am not committed yet is that I think this referendum may be won by leave on a false promise of stopping free movement of labourblackburn63 said:
I'm beginning to think you're a spoof.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The new deal they are going to broker with the EUblackburn63 said:
What new treaty is that?Big_G_NorthWales said:Now Vote Leave have won designation am I correct in assuming they will accept free movement of labour as part of their new treaty
Leave won't be brokering anything, that will be the govt, led by Cameron.
I suspect you know that and you're chuckling at me.
If the public voted say 60% out on the basis of thinking it was going to get no free movement, it would be political suicide to go for an EEA/EFTA solution, irrespective of what the Leave campaign says. That call is one the government of the day will have to make based on how the referendum goes, who it least cares about pissing off, and how much political capital it thinks it has.
And I sorry but what he says isn't prevarication, its how the world is. Leave can suggest what it wants, the government chooses what happens.
I don't believe you are a waver at all to be honest, your line of questioning has been conspicuously aimed at trying to drive a wedge between the different factions of the leave camp, Nabavi and Meeks were playing the same game a month or so ago, and sadly for them and you, the leave campaign is smart enough (so far) not to bite.0 -
True, GS always plays both sides politically when it thinks that both sides could win.Indigo said:
They have already reportedly given several hundred thousand quid to Remain.MP_SE said:
I thought they were going to throw their support behind the Remain campaign...tlg86 said:Sky News are reporting that Goldman Sachs has told staff in Europe that they are not allowed to campaign for either side in the referendum.
They must been getting worried.
They don't want to be seen supporting the losing side.0 -
True, but in a PR system that the Democrats use in their primary at this point Sanders needs to be racking wins with 60-65%+ of the vote to overcome it.AndyJS said:Clinton only leads Sanders by 1,289 to 1,038, excluding superdelegates.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
Sanders lost the nomination on March 15th when his voters preferred to vote for Kasich to try to stop Trump.
Their system is designed to work with only 2 candidates though, if there was a 3rd candidate or a 4th one it would be impossible for anyone to get a majority at least without superdelegates0 -
I doubt the Mayfair, Belgravia and Fitzrovia vote will be the key swing area on election night, even if GS staff still have the energy and time to canvass and deliver leaflets after working their hours!tlg86 said:Sky News are reporting that Goldman Sachs has told staff in Europe that they are not allowed to campaign for either side in the referendum.
0 -
Why don't they merge their campaigns and get over it.AlastairMeeks said:Show me a bad loser and I'll show you a loser:
@Arron_banks · 9m9 minutes ago
Vote leave document is full of lies and misrepresentations we will consult but expect judicial review .0 -
The idea that the post referendum government will have discretion over free movement of labour needs to be made clear in the campaign for it to be acceptablePhilip_Thompson said:
What part of that will be for the government to decide do you struggle to understand?Big_G_NorthWales said:
This is not a conspiracy by me. Just wanting a fair answer to free movement of labourIndigo said:
Is it a false promise ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - it is a genuine question that needs a responsible answer and not prevarication. If it was honest and credible I could vote for leave. The reason I am not committed yet is that I think this referendum may be won by leave on a false promise of stopping free movement of labourblackburn63 said:
I'm beginning to think you're a spoof.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The new deal they are going to broker with the EUblackburn63 said:
What new treaty is that?Big_G_NorthWales said:Now Vote Leave have won designation am I correct in assuming they will accept free movement of labour as part of their new treaty
Leave won't be brokering anything, that will be the govt, led by Cameron.
I suspect you know that and you're chuckling at me.
If the public voted say 60% out on the basis of thinking it was going to get no free movement, it would be political suicide to go for an EEA/EFTA solution, irrespective of what the Leave campaign says. That call is one the government of the day will have to make based on how the referendum goes, who it least cares about pissing off, and how much political capital it thinks it has.
And I sorry but what he says isn't prevarication, its how the world is. Leave can suggest what it wants, the government chooses what happens.
I don't believe you are a waver at all to be honest, your line of questioning has been conspicuously aimed at trying to drive a wedge between the different factions of the leave camp, Nabavi and Meeks were playing the same game a month or so ago, and sadly for them and you, the leave campaign is smart enough (so far) not to bite.0 -
So Trump now 10% higher than Cruz and Kasich combined, while Hillary less than 10% ahead of SandersJackW said:National - YouGov/Economist
Trump 53 .. Cruz 25 .. Kasich 18
Clinton 49 .. Sanders 41
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/04/13/tale-two-conventions/0 -
Read that vote leave did not have a case as they did not directly apply for designation rather doing so under the umbrella of GOSpeedy said:
Why don't they merge their campaigns and get over it.AlastairMeeks said:Show me a bad loser and I'll show you a loser:
@Arron_banks · 9m9 minutes ago
Vote leave document is full of lies and misrepresentations we will consult but expect judicial review .0 -
Just got a bullshit letter from Will Straw personally addressed to me.
This means war. I've just ordered 1,000 leaflets from Vote Leave to deliver locally.0 -
I might join Twitter just to troll him.AlastairMeeks said:Show me a bad loser and I'll show you a loser:
@Arron_banks · 9m9 minutes ago
Vote leave document is full of lies and misrepresentations we will consult but expect judicial review .0 -
Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992 for the Dems and it went for Carter twice, Hillary's dream is Trump 2016, Cruz 2020RobD said:
Isn't Georgia supposed to be solid red?JackW said:Georgia - Lake Research
Clinton 50 .. Trump 37
Clinton 47 .. Cruz 40
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/LRPmemo.GeorgiaDemocraticParty.F.041116.pdf0 -
Leave.EU didn't not Vote Leave.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Read that vote leave did not have a case as they did not directly apply for designation rather doing so under the umbrella of GOSpeedy said:
Why don't they merge their campaigns and get over it.AlastairMeeks said:Show me a bad loser and I'll show you a loser:
@Arron_banks · 9m9 minutes ago
Vote leave document is full of lies and misrepresentations we will consult but expect judicial review .0 -
Well write and tell someone, what are we supposed to do about it ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
The idea that the post referendum government will have discretion over free movement of labour needs to be made clear in the campaign for it to be acceptablePhilip_Thompson said:
What part of that will be for the government to decide do you struggle to understand?Big_G_NorthWales said:
This is not a conspiracy by me. Just wanting a fair answer to free movement of labourIndigo said:
Is it a false promise ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - it is a genuine question that needs a responsible answer and not prevarication. If it was honest and credible I could vote for leave. The reason I am not committed yet is that I think this referendum may be won by leave on a false promise of stopping free movement of labourblackburn63 said:
I'm beginning to think you're a spoof.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The new deal they are going to broker with the EUblackburn63 said:
What new treaty is that?Big_G_NorthWales said:Now Vote Leave have won designation am I correct in assuming they will accept free movement of labour as part of their new treaty
Leave won't be brokering anything, that will be the govt, led by Cameron.
I suspect you know that and you're chuckling at me.
If the public voted say 60% out on the basis of thinking it was going to get no free movement, it would be political suicide to go for an EEA/EFTA solution, irrespective of what the Leave campaign says. That call is one the government of the day will have to make based on how the referendum goes, who it least cares about pissing off, and how much political capital it thinks it has.
And I sorry but what he says isn't prevarication, its how the world is. Leave can suggest what it wants, the government chooses what happens.
I don't believe you are a waver at all to be honest, your line of questioning has been conspicuously aimed at trying to drive a wedge between the different factions of the leave camp, Nabavi and Meeks were playing the same game a month or so ago, and sadly for them and you, the leave campaign is smart enough (so far) not to bite.
Acceptable to whom anyway, pretty much everyone else seems to have clocked that Vote Leave is about LEAVING, it isn't their responsibility to decide what happens next, any more than it is the job of your demolition contractor to decide what you build next.0 -
Sorry substitute leave EU for vote leave, my mistakeIndigo said:
Leave.EU didn't not Vote Leave.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Read that vote leave did not have a case as they did not directly apply for designation rather doing so under the umbrella of GOSpeedy said:
Why don't they merge their campaigns and get over it.AlastairMeeks said:Show me a bad loser and I'll show you a loser:
@Arron_banks · 9m9 minutes ago
Vote leave document is full of lies and misrepresentations we will consult but expect judicial review .0 -
Yeah. If the Democrats were to win more states on top of Obama 2008 one day, Georgia would be one of the first on the list. But she is not going to beat Cruz by seven points there.HYUFD said:
Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992 for the Dems and it went for Carter twice, Hillary's dream is Trump 2016, Cruz 2020RobD said:
Isn't Georgia supposed to be solid red?JackW said:Georgia - Lake Research
Clinton 50 .. Trump 37
Clinton 47 .. Cruz 40
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/LRPmemo.GeorgiaDemocraticParty.F.041116.pdf0 -
True, but if Sanders were to win New York, Hillary's home state, he would still have a shout and the superdelegates would start switching to him pretty fastSpeedy said:
True, but in a PR system that the Democrats use in their primary at this point Sanders needs to be racking wins with 60-65%+ of the vote to overcome it.AndyJS said:Clinton only leads Sanders by 1,289 to 1,038, excluding superdelegates.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
Sanders lost the nomination on March 15th when his voters preferred to vote for Kasich to try to stop Trump.
Their system is designed to work with only 2 candidates though, if there was a 3rd candidate or a 4th one it would be impossible for anyone to get a majority at least without superdelegates0 -
I see that Cameron was talking up tax havens today at PMQ's.
As someone who has personally invested in offshore tax funds I can think of only three reasons why you would invest in one. You live in said territory- as I did, you generate illicit funds that need hiding, or you want to avoid paying taxes in your own country and do not declare your offshore funds at home on your tax returns.
The thing is the fund management costs and the returns are pretty crap in offshore funds- well in mine they are- and as someone with an MA in Economics, and MBA I am reasonably financially literate.If my pension fund deliberately chose offshore funds that cost more to deliver less, I would be seriously pissed- but there again I do not know what they invest in.
There is little point asking people to show off their tax returns- those who are hiding income offshore are hiding it from their tax return. That is the whole point of the thing.
I'm glad my father wasn't someone who made his living facilitating an offshore fund for criminals and tax avoiders.0 -
I would accept a lose agreement with the EU that requires a reduced contribution, accepts free movement of labour, but allows us to recover sovereigntyIndigo said:
Well write and tell someone, what are we supposed to do about it ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
The idea that the post referendum government will have discretion over free movement of labour needs to be made clear in the campaign for it to be acceptablePhilip_Thompson said:
What part of that will be for the government to decide do you struggle to understand?Big_G_NorthWales said:
This is not a conspiracy by me. Just wanting a fair answer to free movement of labourIndigo said:
Is it a false promise ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - it is a genuine question that needs a responsible answer and not prevarication. If it was honest and credible I could vote for leave. The reason I am not committed yet is that I think this referendum may be won by leave on a false promise of stopping free movement of labourblackburn63 said:
I'm beginning to think you're a spoof.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The new deal they are going to broker with the EUblackburn63 said:
What new treaty is that?Big_G_NorthWales said:Now Vote Leave have won designation am I correct in assuming they will accept free movement of labour as part of their new treaty
Leave won't be brokering anything, that will be the govt, led by Cameron.
I suspect you know that and you're chuckling at me.
If the public voted say 60% out on the basis of thinking it was going to get no free movement, it would be political suicide to go for an EEA/EFTA solution, irrespective of what the Leave campaign says. That call is one the government of the day will have to make based on how the referendum goes, who it least cares about pissing off, and how much political capital it thinks it has.
And I sorry but what he says isn't prevarication, its how the world is. Leave can suggest what it wants, the government chooses what happens.
I don't believe you are a waver at all to be honest, your line of questioning has been conspicuously aimed at trying to drive a wedge between the different factions of the leave camp, Nabavi and Meeks were playing the same game a month or so ago, and sadly for them and you, the leave campaign is smart enough (so far) not to bite.
Acceptable to whom anyway, pretty much everyone else seems to have clocked that Vote Leave is about LEAVING, it isn't their responsibility to decide what happens next, any more than it is the job of your demolition contractor to decide what you build next.0 -
I would've thought Arizona would be higher than Georgia on that list.EPG said:
Yeah. If the Democrats were to win more states on top of Obama 2008 one day, Georgia would be one of the first on the list. But she is not going to beat Cruz by seven points there.HYUFD said:
Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992 for the Dems and it went for Carter twice, Hillary's dream is Trump 2016, Cruz 2020RobD said:
Isn't Georgia supposed to be solid red?JackW said:Georgia - Lake Research
Clinton 50 .. Trump 37
Clinton 47 .. Cruz 40
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/LRPmemo.GeorgiaDemocraticParty.F.041116.pdf-1 -
A couple of years ago I went to a talk by Captain Winkle Brown. It was supposed to be about aircraft, but he spent a fair while talking about the liberation of Bergen Belsen, where he acted as an interpreter.NickPalmer said:O/T: In Berlin (oddly for the first time) for a conference and afterwards went for a few hours round the centre. Really overwhelming history, with dozens of towering buildings, plaques and artistic displays commemorating massive events - the Brandenburg Gate, the Reichstag, Kennedy's speech, the Soviet war memorial... I went round the Holocaust museum, which is very well done - as you go in, you see a lot of anonymous concrete blocks, like forgotten tombs - then it takes you through the awful story, with commentaries and notes from survivors and the lost, and then you emerge, and at the exit the concrete blocks are 7 foot high with narrow passages to thread your way back to street normality.
What really struck me about the exhibition was how completely random the Holocaust was - pictures of ordinary families in the 1920s going about their business, and footnotes that, say, 11 of the 13 people in the picture had been killed. It's like these cases you read about where a madman shoots a dozen random passers-by, escalated to nearly the whole continent.
I know it's all been said before, but the museum is worthwhile for quietly bringing it home.
I have yet to go to any museum about the Holocaust, but his words had more effect than any museum I can imagine. Likewise, at uni I had an emeritus professor who had been a Japanese POW. His testimony was incredibly powerful.
Sadly, I am probably the last generation to directly benefit from such personal memories.
https://www.sundaypost.com/news/scottish-news/scots-wartime-hero-describes-horror-of-notorious-nazi-concentration-camp-belsen/
Edit: another link:
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-04-14/british-war-veteran-tells-itv-news-of-the-horrors-he-saw-at-bergen-belsen-nazi-concentration-70-years-ago/0 -
Probably not but even if she won it by 1% she would be unbeatableEPG said:
Yeah. If the Democrats were to win more states on top of Obama 2008 one day, Georgia would be one of the first on the list. But she is not going to beat Cruz by seven points there.HYUFD said:
Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992 for the Dems and it went for Carter twice, Hillary's dream is Trump 2016, Cruz 2020RobD said:
Isn't Georgia supposed to be solid red?JackW said:Georgia - Lake Research
Clinton 50 .. Trump 37
Clinton 47 .. Cruz 40
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/LRPmemo.GeorgiaDemocraticParty.F.041116.pdf0 -
Trump would likely poll better in Arizona than Georgia, Cruz the reverse. Arizona has only voted for a Democrat once since 1960, in 1996, Georgia has voted three times for a Democrat in that timescale (plus its EC votes went to Byrd in 1960 and Wallace in 1968)Danny565 said:
I would've thought Arizona would be higher than Georgia on that list.EPG said:
Yeah. If the Democrats were to win more states on top of Obama 2008 one day, Georgia would be one of the first on the list. But she is not going to beat Cruz by seven points there.HYUFD said:
Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992 for the Dems and it went for Carter twice, Hillary's dream is Trump 2016, Cruz 2020RobD said:
Isn't Georgia supposed to be solid red?JackW said:Georgia - Lake Research
Clinton 50 .. Trump 37
Clinton 47 .. Cruz 40
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/LRPmemo.GeorgiaDemocraticParty.F.041116.pdf0 -
Well you have flaunted your virtue around a bit, was it fun ? You said all of that a few days ago, no one believed you then, no harm in trying again I guesstyson said:I'm glad my father wasn't someone who made his living facilitating an offshore fund for criminals and tax avoiders.
0 -
I worked there for three and a half years. I remember my mother's horror when I went into work on Boxing Day,tlg86 said:
My sister instilled a decent drinking culture in her team when she was there.rcs1000 said:
If you work at Goldman Sachs, it's unlikely you'll have much time for a private life.Cyclefree said:
How can they stop staff doing something in their private life? Provided that the person doesn't link what they have to say to GS I don't see the issue. Indeed, it seems to me interference with the electoral process. Staff in the UK are voters and are entitled to take as much interest in this vote as in any other.tlg86 said:Sky News are reporting that Goldman Sachs has told staff in Europe that they are not allowed to campaign for either side in the referendum.
0 -
It's toxic for their party. Labour tore itself apart already, now Saint Daniel is calling the government incompetent. Fortunately this is merely a mild toxin whereas Labour has taken hemlockMikeK said:0 -
The lucky thing for the Conservative Party is that the referendum campaign has only about 9 and a bit weeks to go.EPG said:
It's toxic for their party. Labour tore itself apart already, now Saint Daniel is calling the government incompetent. Fortunately this is merely a mild toxin whereas Labour has taken hemlockMikeK said:0 -
It's not on offer. Cameron tried his best (we are told) to get concessions out of the EU, and came back with nothing at all to speak of. The EU doesnt want to reform, it thinks things are fine, except that were are not federal enough yet. The only words on people's lips amount to "ever closer union". After Dave's agreement we wont see those words on any more documents, but that is the founding principle of the EU, and the ECJ so that is what will happen.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would accept a lose agreement with the EU that requires a reduced contribution, accepts free movement of labour, but allows us to recover sovereignty
Our choices come down to
1) Remain - accept more Europe, accept the Eurozone federalising and starting to operate as a single entity, accept that they will outvote us on more or less anything they really care about.
2) Leave - Invoke Article 50. Negotiate leaving the EU. Regain control over everything. Then give some of it away again as we negotiate our trade agreements with the EU and everyone else, this may or may not include Free Movement.
0 -
But Arizona has a significant (and growing) Hispanic population, where we know there is more room for a further swing to the Democrats, especially if Trump is the candidate.HYUFD said:
Trump would likely poll better in Arizona than Georgia, Cruz the reverse. Arizona has only voted for a Democrat once since 1960, in 1996, Georgia has voted three times for a Democrat in that timescale (plus its EC votes went to Byrd in 1960 and Wallace in 1968)Danny565 said:
I would've thought Arizona would be higher than Georgia on that list.EPG said:
Yeah. If the Democrats were to win more states on top of Obama 2008 one day, Georgia would be one of the first on the list. But she is not going to beat Cruz by seven points there.HYUFD said:
Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992 for the Dems and it went for Carter twice, Hillary's dream is Trump 2016, Cruz 2020RobD said:
Isn't Georgia supposed to be solid red?JackW said:Georgia - Lake Research
Clinton 50 .. Trump 37
Clinton 47 .. Cruz 40
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/LRPmemo.GeorgiaDemocraticParty.F.041116.pdf
In Georgia, the Democrats are mainly powered by the black vote, where they would already have been pretty much at their ceiling with Obama.0 -
rcs1000 said:
The lucky thing for the Conservative Party is that the referendum campaign has only about 9 and a bit weeks to go.EPG said:
It's toxic for their party. Labour tore itself apart already, now Saint Daniel is calling the government incompetent. Fortunately this is merely a mild toxin whereas Labour has taken hemlockMikeK said:
I agree and I think that was why David Cameron wanted to get it over with as soon as possible. There are nearly 4 more years for a post referendum cabinet to re-establish itself and go on to win well in 20200 -
Please give me a good reason why people invest in offshore tax havens. Provide me a link of these wonderful funds that deliver great returns for lower management charges that are better than own own domestic funds and I will eat my words.
Folk with money just love paying more for a fund that is delivering less. That is obviously why they go offshore. It is something based on altruism- it is their form of charity to make the likes of Cameron's father and family rich. Bless. My heart melts.Indigo said:
Well you have flaunted your virtue around a bit, was it fun ? You said all of that a few days ago, no one believed you then, no harm in trying again I guesstyson said:I'm glad my father wasn't someone who made his living facilitating an offshore fund for criminals and tax avoiders.
0 -
Likewise when I was at IBM when I went in on New Years Day, until I mentioned they were paying me triple-time and time-off in lieu for the pleasure of my companyrcs1000 said:
I worked there for three and a half years. I remember my mother's horror when I went into work on Boxing Day,tlg86 said:
My sister instilled a decent drinking culture in her team when she was there.rcs1000 said:
If you work at Goldman Sachs, it's unlikely you'll have much time for a private life.Cyclefree said:
How can they stop staff doing something in their private life? Provided that the person doesn't link what they have to say to GS I don't see the issue. Indeed, it seems to me interference with the electoral process. Staff in the UK are voters and are entitled to take as much interest in this vote as in any other.tlg86 said:Sky News are reporting that Goldman Sachs has told staff in Europe that they are not allowed to campaign for either side in the referendum.
0 -
According to YouGov 32 per cent of respondents felt the Tory leader would do a better job of holding the First Minister to account than Kezia Dugdale, who was preferred by just 13 per cent.
Roughly the same share favoured Davidson as the more competent, although the Labour leader was counted as more in touch with ordinary people
https://www.sundaypost.com/news/political-news/poll-reveals-voters-think-ruth-davidson-better-opposition-leader-kezia-dugdale/
Wales
Labour 35
PC 21
Tories 19
UKIP 17
LD 6
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2016/04/11/the-new-welsh-political-barometer-poll-2/0 -
Shouldn't it be show me a 'good' loser and I'll show you a loser?AlastairMeeks said:Show me a bad loser and I'll show you a loser:
@Arron_banks · 9m9 minutes ago
Vote leave document is full of lies and misrepresentations we will consult but expect judicial review .0 -
In fairness your description of leave is credible and I look forward to the campaign. I do have respect for Michael Gove and will listen to him intently and with an open mindIndigo said:
It's not on offer. Cameron tried his best (we are told) to get concessions out of the EU, and came back with nothing at all to speak of. The EU doesnt want to reform, it thinks things are fine, except that were are not federal enough yet. The only words on people's lips amount to "ever closer union". After Dave's agreement we wont see those words on any more documents, but that is the founding principle of the EU, and the ECJ so that is what will happen.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would accept a lose agreement with the EU that requires a reduced contribution, accepts free movement of labour, but allows us to recover sovereignty
Our choices come down to
1) Remain - accept more Europe, accept the Eurozone federalising and starting to operate as a single entity, accept that they will outvote us on more or less anything they really care about.
2) Leave - Invoke Article 50. Negotiate leaving the EU. Regain control over everything. Then give some of it away again as we negotiate our trade agreements with the EU and everyone else, this may or may not include Free Movement.0 -
It is clear. The official leave campaigns slogan is "Vote Leave Take Control". If we Vote Leave then the elected government will Take Control and have discretion over free movement of labour.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The idea that the post referendum government will have discretion over free movement of labour needs to be made clear in the campaign for it to be acceptablePhilip_Thompson said:
What part of that will be for the government to decide do you struggle to understand?Big_G_NorthWales said:
This is not a conspiracy by me. Just wanting a fair answer to free movement of labourIndigo said:
Is it a false promise ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - it is a genuine question that needs a responsible answer and not prevarication. If it was honest and credible I could vote for leave. The reason I am not committed yet is that I think this referendum may be won by leave on a false promise of stopping free movement of labourblackburn63 said:
I'm beginning to think you're a spoof.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The new deal they are going to broker with the EUblackburn63 said:
What new treaty is that?Big_G_NorthWales said:Now Vote Leave have won designation am I correct in assuming they will accept free movement of labour as part of their new treaty
Leave won't be brokering anything, that will be the govt, led by Cameron.
I suspect you know that and you're chuckling at me.
If the public voted say 60% out on the basis of thinking it was going to get no free movement, it would be political suicide to go for an EEA/EFTA solution, irrespective of what the Leave campaign says. That call is one the government of the day will have to make based on how the referendum goes, who it least cares about pissing off, and how much political capital it thinks it has.
And I sorry but what he says isn't prevarication, its how the world is. Leave can suggest what it wants, the government chooses what happens.
I don't believe you are a waver at all to be honest, your line of questioning has been conspicuously aimed at trying to drive a wedge between the different factions of the leave camp, Nabavi and Meeks were playing the same game a month or so ago, and sadly for them and you, the leave campaign is smart enough (so far) not to bite.
At the ballot box we will have control to elect a government that uses the control how we want to.
How much clearer can we be? Vote Leave, Take Control.0 -
I have to admit, that initial quote got my head scratching somewhat.Roger said:
Shouldn't it be show me a 'good' loser and I'll show you a loser?AlastairMeeks said:Show me a bad loser and I'll show you a loser:
@Arron_banks · 9m9 minutes ago
Vote leave document is full of lies and misrepresentations we will consult but expect judicial review .0 -
You come across as a bad loserSeanT said:
"Nunu" is the nickname my ex girlfriend gave to her vagina.nunu said:
This reminds me of Dave's "closet racists mostly" comment which back fired, I'm sure Remainers won't be so stupid as to say something like that again. Also how can you say the majority are of leavers are "apathetic" given the oldies who are most likely to vote leave are also most likely to turn out? If anything the 18-24 year old are most ignorant/apathetic.Bob__Sykes said:Repost...
<<<blackburn63 said:
» show previous quotes
Brilliant question from Douglas as usual.
You see Dave lovers, he's going nowhere, vote Leave with your conscience clear.
Douglas is far cleverer than Cameron and Dave knows it. He called Reckless "fat arse", he never dared abuse Douglas.>>>
Given that the vast majority of those voting Leave are either confirmed fruitcakes or politically apathetic/ignorant*, I doubt the potential "cleverness" of Carswell's question will have little impact in helping Leave. If Cameron had said "No" or waffled, then that would surely be seized on by Leave campaigners as a "Vote Leave, Get Rid of Cameron" signal, because that is a much clearer and easier to sell message and would surely shift more votes their way, eg in stubbornly pro-EU areas like Scotland or the Welsh Valleys etc.
One suspects "Leave" might need to do a bit of "Get Rid of Cameron" dog whistling by June time anyway...
(*I recognise many Leave supporters are vocal on here and are not (all) fruitcakes, and I myself have had to make a finely balanced decision myself as to which side i come down on, but this is a website for the politically aware and engaged - not your "average voter". My comment is not directed to you!)
Just saying.0 -
A very fair summary.Indigo said:
It's not on offer. Cameron tried his best (we are told) to get concessions out of the EU, and came back with nothing at all to speak of. The EU doesnt want to reform, it thinks things are fine, except that were are not federal enough yet. The only words on people's lips amount to "ever closer union". After Dave's agreement we wont see those words on any more documents, but that is the founding principle of the EU, and the ECJ so that is what will happen.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would accept a lose agreement with the EU that requires a reduced contribution, accepts free movement of labour, but allows us to recover sovereignty
Our choices come down to
1) Remain - accept more Europe, accept the Eurozone federalising and starting to operate as a single entity, accept that they will outvote us on more or less anything they really care about.
2) Leave - Invoke Article 50. Negotiate leaving the EU. Regain control over everything. Then give some of it away again as we negotiate our trade agreements with the EU and everyone else, this may or may not include Free Movement.0 -
That's a total cop out. Cameron will resign and a Leaver will head the negotiations. Leave will not get away with prevaricating on immigration between now and June. Your problem is how to keep the anti-immigration voters fired up once they realise the Tory Leavers are going to sell them out and accept deal with free movement.Philip_Thompson said:
What part of that will be for the government to decide do you struggle to understand?Big_G_NorthWales said:
This is not a conspiracy by me. Just wanting a fair answer to free movement of labourIndigo said:
Is it a false promise ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - it is a genuine question that needs a responsible answer and not prevarication. If it was honest and credible I could vote for leave. The reason I am not committed yet is that I think this referendum may be won by leave on a false promise of stopping free movement of labourblackburn63 said:
I'm beginning to think you're a spoof.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The new deal they are going to broker with the EUblackburn63 said:
What new treaty is that?Big_G_NorthWales said:Now Vote Leave have won designation am I correct in assuming they will accept free movement of labour as part of their new treaty
Leave won't be brokering anything, that will be the govt, led by Cameron.
I suspect you know that and you're chuckling at me.
If the public voted say 60% out on the basis of thinking it was going to get no free movement, it would be political suicide to go for an EEA/EFTA solution, irrespective of what the Leave campaign says. That call is one the government of the day will have to make based on how the referendum goes, who it least cares about pissing off, and how much political capital it thinks it has.
And I sorry but what he says isn't prevarication, its how the world is. Leave can suggest what it wants, the government chooses what happens.
I don't believe you are a waver at all to be honest, your line of questioning has been conspicuously aimed at trying to drive a wedge between the different factions of the leave camp, Nabavi and Meeks were playing the same game a month or so ago, and sadly for them and you, the leave campaign is smart enough (so far) not to bite.0 -
'I would accept a lose agreement with the EU that requires a reduced contribution, accepts free movement of labour, but allows us to recover sovereignty'
....a 'lose' agreement is exactly what we got in 19730 -
I've thought for quite a while that I am a convinced Leaver. Yesterday I realised that actually my head is a Don't Know.Indigo said:
It's not on offer. Cameron tried his best (we are told) to get concessions out of the EU, and came back with nothing at all to speak of. The EU doesnt want to reform, it thinks things are fine, except that were are not federal enough yet. The only words on people's lips amount to "ever closer union". After Dave's agreement we wont see those words on any more documents, but that is the founding principle of the EU, and the ECJ so that is what will happen.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would accept a lose agreement with the EU that requires a reduced contribution, accepts free movement of labour, but allows us to recover sovereignty
Our choices come down to
1) Remain - accept more Europe, accept the Eurozone federalising and starting to operate as a single entity, accept that they will outvote us on more or less anything they really care about.
2) Leave - Invoke Article 50. Negotiate leaving the EU. Regain control over everything. Then give some of it away again as we negotiate our trade agreements with the EU and everyone else, this may or may not include Free Movement.
It's only my heart that says Leave, and the only reason is that we were taken in on a lie. I realised this when someone posted on here a comment about the Sir Edward Heath interview admitting that he lied.
But that was then, this is now. Politicians always seem to have some subterfuge or other even if it doesn't amount to an outright lie. We are where we are, and my head doesn't know what would be the best route to take.
For starters, I am ignoring all the propaganda & unpleasant personalities on both sides.
Sir Edward left a legacy of poison for his cherished project, I'm afraid.0 -
Speedy said:
Why don't they merge their campaigns and get over it.AlastairMeeks said:Show me a bad loser and I'll show you a loser:
@Arron_banks · 9m9 minutes ago
Vote leave document is full of lies and misrepresentations we will consult but expect judicial review .
I suspect because the Kippers know the Tory Leavers are going to sell them out on immigration0 -
Arizona has a libertarian tradition which favours Trump, they are not so libertarian on the borders though and the Hispanic population in Arizona is not yet as high as in California, New Mexico or Texas. Romney won Arizona by 9% in 2012, Georgia by 8% and Hillary does seem to be holding most of the black voteDanny565 said:
But Arizona has a significant (and growing) Hispanic population, where we know there is more room for a further swing to the Democrats, especially if Trump is the candidate.HYUFD said:
Trump would likely poll better in Arizona than Georgia, Cruz the reverse. Arizona has only voted for a Democrat once since 1960, in 1996, Georgia has voted three times for a Democrat in that timescale (plus its EC votes went to Byrd in 1960 and Wallace in 1968)Danny565 said:
I would've thought Arizona would be higher than Georgia on that list.EPG said:
Yeah. If the Democrats were to win more states on top of Obama 2008 one day, Georgia would be one of the first on the list. But she is not going to beat Cruz by seven points there.HYUFD said:
Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992 for the Dems and it went for Carter twice, Hillary's dream is Trump 2016, Cruz 2020RobD said:
Isn't Georgia supposed to be solid red?JackW said:Georgia - Lake Research
Clinton 50 .. Trump 37
Clinton 47 .. Cruz 40
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/LRPmemo.GeorgiaDemocraticParty.F.041116.pdf
In Georgia, the Democrats are mainly powered by the black vote, where they would already have been pretty much at their ceiling with Obama.0 -
Cameron just told us this very day in PMQ that he won't resign, and will stay and oversee the implementation of Leave, should they win. Carswell asked him, and he said yes, some people thought it was a stupid question, but the value of that answer is here to see right now.OllyT said:
That's a total cop out. Cameron will resign and a Leaver will head the negotiations. Leave will not get away with prevaricating on immigration between now and June. Your problem is how to keep the anti-immigration voters fired up once they realise the Tory Leavers are going to sell them out and accept deal with free movement.Philip_Thompson said:
What part of that will be for the government to decide do you struggle to understand?Big_G_NorthWales said:
This is not a conspiracy by me. Just wanting a fair answer to free movement of labourIndigo said:
Is it a false promise ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - it is a genuine question that needs a responsible answer and not prevarication. If it was honest and credible I could vote for leave. The reason I am not committed yet is that I think this referendum may be won by leave on a false promise of stopping free movement of labourblackburn63 said:
I'm beginning to think you're a spoof.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The new deal they are going to broker with the EUblackburn63 said:
What new treaty is that?Big_G_NorthWales said:Now Vote Leave have won designation am I correct in assuming they will accept free movement of labour as part of their new treaty
Leave won't be brokering anything, that will be the govt, led by Cameron.
I suspect you know that and you're chuckling at me.
If the public voted say 60% out on the basis of thinking it was going to get no free movement, it would be political suicide to go for an EEA/EFTA solution, irrespective of what the Leave campaign says. That call is one the government of the day will have to make based on how the referendum goes, who it least cares about pissing off, and how much political capital it thinks it has.
And I sorry but what he says isn't prevarication, its how the world is. Leave can suggest what it wants, the government chooses what happens.
I don't believe you are a waver at all to be honest, your line of questioning has been conspicuously aimed at trying to drive a wedge between the different factions of the leave camp, Nabavi and Meeks were playing the same game a month or so ago, and sadly for them and you, the leave campaign is smart enough (so far) not to bite.
The Tory Leavers won't do anything, whatever is decided will have to be passed by parliament.0 -
That would require Arron Banks to be a good loser.Roger said:
Shouldn't it be show me a 'good' loser and I'll show you a loser?AlastairMeeks said:Show me a bad loser and I'll show you a loser:
@Arron_banks · 9m9 minutes ago
Vote leave document is full of lies and misrepresentations we will consult but expect judicial review .0 -
Yes this is all a bit late, isn't it? They've already nailed their colours to the mast.Indigo said:
They have already reportedly given several hundred thousand quid to Remain.MP_SE said:
I thought they were going to throw their support behind the Remain campaign...tlg86 said:Sky News are reporting that Goldman Sachs has told staff in Europe that they are not allowed to campaign for either side in the referendum.
They must been getting worried.
They don't want to be seen supporting the losing side.
But note I did speculate the other day that 'Davos consensus' on Brexit might be starting to break up. If LEAVE is now considered a real possibility, then organisations like GS will be keen to ensure that even given LEAVE nothing (for them) will change too much.
In the event of LEAVE expect lots of mental gymnastics with previous prophets of economic doom telling us that actually things won't change much.0 -
There's another thread up,0
-
It's a Democrat poll, not credible, at all. I have some magic beans for sale if you believe it.JackW said:
Romney won by 8 points in 12 and McCain by 5 in 08.RobD said:
Isn't Georgia supposed to be solid red?JackW said:Georgia - Lake Research
Clinton 50 .. Trump 37
Clinton 47 .. Cruz 40
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/LRPmemo.GeorgiaDemocraticParty.F.041116.pdf
Sample only 400 so MoE higher. Under normal circumstances Georgia should be a comfortable hold but the times they ain't a normal.
In more worthwhile news Gingrich is tipping Kasich as VP. As he correctly notes Trump-Kasich brings in Florida and Ohio (also PA). Newt has been helping Trump behind the scene and promoting him in the media.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/12/newt-gingrich-donald-trumps-ability-focus-unlike-anybody-else-politics0 -
I'm still waiting in the pb Universe for a good reason why someone (or company) would invest offshore other than being a criminal laundering cash or a tax avoider? This is entirely a selfish request. As a UK resident I need to put some money in a fund with low management costs and offers good returns. Simple links would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.0
-
I thought you were resident in Italy ?tyson said:I'm still waiting in the pb Universe for a good reason why someone (or company) would invest offshore other than being a criminal laundering cash or a tax avoider? This is entirely a selfish request. As a UK resident I need to put some money in a fund with low management costs and offers good returns. Simple links would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
0 -
Great news that Vote Leave have been selected as the campaign. The further Farage and his mob are from leading this the better. He has a role to play in leading his team and appealing to his voters, his team and his voters will never be a majority of the votes in total.
I feel now like I'm 80% likely to Vote Leave after today.0 -
How about just a better return on investment? Is that not enough?tyson said:I'm still waiting in the pb Universe for a good reason why someone (or company) would invest offshore other than being a criminal laundering cash or a tax avoider? This is entirely a selfish request. As a UK resident I need to put some money in a fund with low management costs and offers good returns. Simple links would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
0
