Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't give a monkey's. Ban cousin marriages, bad mad mullahs, ban sharia law, ban the burqa. Those that like these stupid unBritish things can go and enjoy them in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
I know two white English-born people who have married cousins. It's not illegal though I think they did look into the genetic issues - apparently a 2% higher risk - before (in one case) having kids. There are a host of legal things which you can do which may increase the risk of childbirth more, like having a child when you're 35 (increases the risk near four times). Would you ban them all, or only the ones you feel aren't sufficiently British? How about a ban on mad authors?
I know of two in the 1940s but no prior cousins for at least 5 generations. They had 5 children all healthy. Two won scholarships to grammar schools, (1 made head girl). 1 refused to do the entrance exam! The other 2 were of average intelligence. I always wonder if being children of cousins tilted the intelligence factor.
More like wwc can't be fucked to do polls, they get calls a thousand times a day about ppi and an accident that wasn't your fault, and tons of junk emails a day they ain't got time for that.
The samples are shit. Only loud lefties can be bothered to do polls no matter their demographics.
I can't recall where I read it - but one psephologist analysis of the vote was 2.8m DNV did. And almost all of them chose Brexit.
They were discounted by pollsters or not counted at all. It shows how a junk sample is very misleading.
If a company got one poll correct, the question has to be asked whether it was a false positive.
After the referendum and GE 2015, polls have to be taken with the same seriousness that we used to take subsamples. Still, they'e grist for the mill on here.
As an aside, is it 'grist to the mill' or 'grist for the mill'. I thought the latter, but the web seems to go for either.
More like wwc can't be fucked to do polls, they get calls a thousand times a day about ppi and an accident that wasn't your fault, and tons of junk emails a day they ain't got time for that.
The samples are shit. Only loud lefties can be bothered to do polls no matter their demographics.
I can't recall where I read it - but one psephologist analysis of the vote was 2.8m DNV did. And almost all of them chose Brexit.
They were discounted by pollsters or not counted at all. It shows how a junk sample is very misleading.
A million extra voters on GE2015 turned out to vote Leave – bet they weren’t on the books.
Except that the poll asked the sample how they voted and matched it to that (in fact the sample is marginally more pro-Leave than the actual result)
Interesting?
No. So many people think they voted labour at the last election that the samples show Labour won a majority. When ofcourse they didn't. People forget/lie about how they voted.
Buy if u want another referundum, be my guest we started from 20 points behind last time and won by 4 points, this time.........
Didn't polls also show remain would win? *innocent face*
Yup. But this sample is based on actual votes in the referendum. In fact the sample is marginally more pro-leave than the actual result!
Interesting.
Not really interesting, more meaningless. Everyone knew when the vote was and that was the date that mattered. Time to move on.
The difference between this and other referendums is that we have ANOTHER date with destiny. The day we pull the trigger on Article 50.
If the trend in that Welsh poll continues (and today's economic news will shunt it that way) then we could see polls showing REMAIN 60/40 next year. As the economy goes swiftly down the toilet.
At that point I expect Prime Minister May would do the British thing, and extract some ludicrous, craven, face-saving fudge from Brussels, allowing us to revote and STAY.
It is for just that reason I am convinced May will not be able to wait until next year, even if she secretly wanted to do so. When she will declare article 50 will come up again and again, and she will need to continually justify during the leadership campaign why she thinks we need to wait, and why until 2017 as I believe she had previously indicated. In order to reassure the more strident leavers, and given she will need to lay our at least the bare bones of her brexit strategy in the leadership campaign, she will need to pull the trigger before then, as what needs a longer delay if we know in general what we are aiming for.
Leadsome and other Leaver MPs will not permit backsliding. Even if dozens of Tory Leaver MPs are bremorsed into not wanting to leave after all, so so many will not, plenty of remainers will think it is too late even if the economy goes to hell, and the members would not stand for it. Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
And all of this requires getting some more fudge from Brussels, which would be more politically disastrous than any negative impacts from a Brexit - they don't agree on much, many would have liked us to stay, but let us remain now, but they don't want to be blackmailed by other nations voting to leave. (granted they cannot kick us out if we don't actually declare article 50, but for that reason wouldn't offer anything to us before we declare either).
She has already clearly said she won't invoke Article 50 this year.
Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
Article 50 can't be constitutionally triggered without a vote in parliament. No PM will win that vote unless they have a watertight plan for what happens next. There aren't enough anti-EU fanatics in parliament to vote for it blind, regardless of the referendum result.
Indeed. Even many avowed eurosceptics want to wait until a solid plan is secured.
Didn't polls also show remain would win? *innocent face*
Yup. But this sample is based on actual votes in the referendum. In fact the sample is marginally more pro-leave than the actual result!
Interesting.
Not really interesting, more meaningless. Everyone knew when the vote was and that was the date that mattered. Time to move on.
The difference between this and other referendums is that we have ANOTHER date with destiny. The day we pull the trigger on Article 50.
If the trend in that Welsh poll continues (and today's economic news will shunt it that way) then we could see polls showing REMAIN 60/40 next year. As the economy goes swiftly down the toilet.
At that point I expect Prime Minister May would do the British thing, and extract some ludicrous, craven, face-saving fudge from Brussels, allowing us to revote and STAY.
I think a rerun of the Referendum would have a similar outcome to the Winchester by-election in 1997. IMHO, the numbers you should watch are for those who want a fresh referendum, currently 2:1 against.
A fair point (as always) But you rather blithely ignore the economic question. If we really are in financial meltdown then that will change the game entirely. It depends on the severity of the downturn.
Where is this financial meltdown? The commercial property market is just under £1 trillion (2014 est £0.8tn). There is £0.015 trillion where shares are suspended for the 6 entities listed in the Tgraph article. What about the £9 trillion in private wealth (most in housing). Is that in some meltdown? Or what about the FTSE100 where most of the UK share value is? I met 11 people running SMEs today and none had had a single contract cancelled or delayed and none were worried about Brexit. Also the view from the member of a very large private wealth company is that their investments are up on 6 months ago. But I do not mix with north london chattering classes, these days, so clearly I do not mix in the right circles........
Going to repeat myself. Only about 13% of the economy is concerned with Europe. It's a very important chunk of course. The world still revolves about its axis. It's the effect on the City and overall business/consumer sentiment that bothers me, short term.
She has already clearly said she won't invoke Article 50 this year.
Hence why i said she had previously indicated she would wait until 2017 - the point remains that any hope some people have of brexit not occurring is predicated on delaying the declaration as long as possible, and leavers know that, and she will be pressured into upping that timetable precisely so there is no fear she is trying such a tactic. And if she did try it, she would be challenged and brought down. Which is why she won't. And why she will face enormous pressure to change her tune on when to declare.
All but the fringe and the fools have said Brexit is Brexit - even the LD pitch is Brexit will happen - but we were discussing a scenario in which that would change. It is far far easier to imagine a situation wherein May declares earlier than she said she would right now, than a situation she will ever be strong enough to not declare at all, even if she wanted to.
First Leadsom promises live on prime TV to publish her tax return. Then she qualifies this by saying only if she gets to the final two. Now she won't publish at all.
First she promises to submit under Article 50 the minute she is elected. Then she says she won't.
How can she ever hope to get away with such slippery a performance?
Hopefully she wasn't as creative with her tax return as she was with her CV
Was there any poll before the referendum that showed Wales in favour of Brexit? Is Welsh opinion polling on Brexit as error prone as that for the rest of the UK?
The sample is matched to actual votes in the referendum - ergo a decisive cohort have changed their minds.....
Actually, the only good comparison would be if the same voters had been asked for their voting intention on the eve of poll. There's a tendency for some voters to claim to have voted for the winner, after the event, when in fact they didn't.
The response I have had to posting a simple poll that matched its sample to actual voters is somewhat telling: the poll is simply not to be believed. I suspect the response would have been entirely different if the Welsh poll showed the opposite result...
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't give a monkey's. Ban cousin marriages, bad mad mullahs, ban sharia law, ban the burqa. Those that like these stupid unBritish things can go and enjoy them in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
I know two white English-born people who have married cousins. It's not illegal though I think they did look into the genetic issues - apparently a 2% higher risk - before (in one case) having kids. There are a host of legal things which you can do which may increase the risk of childbirth more, like having a child when you're 35 (increases the risk near four times). Would you ban them all, or only the ones you feel aren't sufficiently British? How about a ban on mad authors?
The risk of a birth defect is doubled if you marry your cousin (and that's presuming no history of cousin marriage, which adds to the problem).
Besides, of course, the intention of the law is to make fundamentalist Muslims not move here, and to make those already here go back to an Islamic society which welcomes their views on gay people, women, democracy, etc.
One-off first cousin marriages are rarely a problem. Successive first cousin marriages most certainly are.
To make an alternative species comparison... As many here know, I bred pedigree cats for a long while.
It was a complete no-no to include any offspring closer than 5 generations in the breeding pool. So that's parents or siblings plus grandparents/great grandparents/great great grandparents/great great great grandparents.
Anything less put offspring at significant risk of inherited genetic disorders, early death et al.
If pedigree cats have stricter breeding rules than humans - that says it all.
It's so bloody obvious May is going to win this, stop dicking about and let's have a Prime Minister tomorrow night. I don't give a shit that I don't get to vote. Just do it and move on to the next phase of Brexit - whatever that is.
Now hang on, you're not looking at the wider picture. I'm on a May/Leadsom final and the bet's void if there's no members' vote.
With Betfair? I wouldn't assume it would be void at all, based on their rules:
[says a man on May/Gove @ 11.0 ]
Which contenders will come first and second in the Conservative leadership contest.
This market will be settled based on the first official announcement of the next permanent Conservative Party leader as chosen by a Conservative Party leadership contest. Betfair reserves the right to suspend, cancel unmatched bets and turn in-play or re-open this market as and when information becomes available to it. Additional runners may be added upon request.
In the event of any ambiguity over an announcement, Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.
More like wwc can't be fucked to do polls, they get calls a thousand times a day about ppi and an accident that wasn't your fault, and tons of junk emails a day they ain't got time for that.
The samples are shit. Only loud lefties can be bothered to do polls no matter their demographics.
I can't recall where I read it - but one psephologist analysis of the vote was 2.8m DNV did. And almost all of them chose Brexit.
They were discounted by pollsters or not counted at all. It shows how a junk sample is very misleading.
Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
Article 50 can't be constitutionally triggered without a vote in parliament. No PM will win that vote unless they have a watertight plan for what happens next. There aren't enough anti-EU fanatics in parliament to vote for it blind, regardless of the referendum result.
Indeed. Even many avowed eurosceptics want to wait until a solid plan is secured.
It seems the most sensible approach - but how long politically can be allowed for it to be developed is where even people who want that solid plan may disagree.
I hope neither you nor any of your family ever fall in love with someone from another country then.
My gf is from Switzerland, one of the reasons I'd be happy for the government to ensure no more family reunions is so my prospective mother in law has no chance of coming to the UK.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't give a monkey's. Ban cousin marriages, bad mad mullahs, ban sharia law, ban the burqa. Those that like these stupid unBritish things can go and enjoy them in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
I know two white English-born people who have married cousins. It's not illegal though I think they did look into the genetic issues - apparently a 2% higher risk - before (in one case) having kids. There are a host of legal things which you can do which may increase the risk of childbirth more, like having a child when you're 35 (increases the risk near four times). Would you ban them all, or only the ones you feel aren't sufficiently British? How about a ban on mad authors?
I know of two in the 1940s but no prior cousins for at least 5 generations. They had 5 children all healthy. Two won scholarships to grammar schools, (1 made head girl). 1 refused to do the entrance exam! The other 2 were of average intelligence. I always wonder if being children of cousins tilted the intelligence factor.
Nick's friends are dangerously confusing absolute and relative percentages. According to wikipedia "Cousin marriage" "In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.1–2.0% over an average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3% , or about the same as that of any woman over age 40." An extra 2% on top of a base 3% is actually a 66% increase. I am puzzled the report doesn't distinguish between types of birth defect; there is no reason why the defects caused by paired recessives and those caused by aging in the parents should be the same.
I hope neither you nor any of your family ever fall in love with someone from another country then.
My gf is from Switzerland, one of the reasons I'd be happy for the government to ensure no more family reunions is so my prospective mother in law has no chance of coming to the UK.
One of the more interesting things on here is just how many posters have a non-Brit partner.
Only people classed as 'immigrants' are counted as immigrants, as only they can stay permanently in the US. Everyone else has to go home sooner or later.
The Americans have the massive advantage of not having the idiocy of Article 8. In the UK it is far too easy to arrive as a visitor, overstay, find a boy/girlfriend, ideally have a baby, and claim Article 8 for instant permanent right to remain.
That's not the point I'm making. I'm talking about only counting as immigrants those who unequivocally have the right to stay permanently, not those that might at some future point acquire that right. The UK doesn't do that.
If it did, the number actually settling permanently would be substantially higher than the number who had the right to stay permanently for the reason I stated and others.
I hope neither you nor any of your family ever fall in love with someone from another country then.
My gf is from Switzerland, one of the reasons I'd be happy for the government to ensure no more family reunions is so my prospective mother in law has no chance of coming to the UK.
Still no challenge to Jeremy Corbyn? Maybe Labour MPs have given up trying to get rid of him.
They will be blaming Jeremy for the Iraq war because he did not oppose it hard enough.
Has there ever been such an incompetent coup attempt?
You would have to ask @Morris_Dancer the answer to that question. I am rather hazy on events that happened 2 to 3 thousand years ago.
Don’t think you have to go quite as far back as that, the coup attempt against Brown was dire.
No, this is like burning down the house you share with someone you hate to get them to leave.
More like a bratty teenager holding a match and shouting they they will burn it down, they really will, and then storming off to their room in a huff. Unless things change and they either leave the house themselves, or follow through.
More like wwc can't be fucked to do polls, they get calls a thousand times a day about ppi and an accident that wasn't your fault, and tons of junk emails a day they ain't got time for that.
The samples are shit. Only loud lefties can be bothered to do polls no matter their demographics.
I can't recall where I read it - but one psephologist analysis of the vote was 2.8m DNV did. And almost all of them chose Brexit.
They were discounted by pollsters or not counted at all. It shows how a junk sample is very misleading.
Usually a safe bet to ignore non-voters. For once, it didn't work.
I hope neither you nor any of your family ever fall in love with someone from another country then.
My gf is from Switzerland, one of the reasons I'd be happy for the government to ensure no more family reunions is so my prospective mother in law has no chance of coming to the UK.
One of the more interesting things on here is just how many posters have a non-Brit partner.
Five nephews, two foreign partners. If you look at the early British Empire, the Brits have always been willing to marry out. That's probably why I find the 'Little Englander' epithet so distasteful.
I hope neither you nor any of your family ever fall in love with someone from another country then.
My gf is from Switzerland, one of the reasons I'd be happy for the government to ensure no more family reunions is so my prospective mother in law has no chance of coming to the UK.
One of the more interesting things on here is just how many posters have a non-Brit partner.
Even among my friends, I just went to a wedding in Greece, next year a wedding where the bride is half Iranian, another has a long term partner from Finland and in 2018 there's a probably wedding in Italy for a friend who's gf is Italian. Brexit may be sub-optimal for a lot of us if we leave the single market.
Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
Article 50 can't be constitutionally triggered without a vote in parliament. No PM will win that vote unless they have a watertight plan for what happens next. There aren't enough anti-EU fanatics in parliament to vote for it blind, regardless of the referendum result.
Wishful thinking. Article 50 can be triggered; the 1972 European Communities Act requires parliamentary repeal, but it would be silly to refuse if under EU law we were already out.
The royal prerogative can't be used to frustrate the will of parliament, e.g. to turn the 1972 ECA into a dead letter.
Wait for things to get a bit worse, declare a limited state of emergency and then reach for the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 I am still amazed that parliament passed such an idiotically broad and illiberal law, but there you go.
I hope neither you nor any of your family ever fall in love with someone from another country then.
My gf is from Switzerland, one of the reasons I'd be happy for the government to ensure no more family reunions is so my prospective mother in law has no chance of coming to the UK.
Ha! I moved to my wife's country and now live less than two hundred miles from my m-i-l rather than 3,500. Funnily enough though, in many respects I get on better with her than my wife does...
More like wwc can't be fucked to do polls, they get calls a thousand times a day about ppi and an accident that wasn't your fault, and tons of junk emails a day they ain't got time for that.
The samples are shit. Only loud lefties can be bothered to do polls no matter their demographics.
I can't recall where I read it - but one psephologist analysis of the vote was 2.8m DNV did. And almost all of them chose Brexit.
They were discounted by pollsters or not counted at all. It shows how a junk sample is very misleading.
Usually a safe bet to ignore non-voters. For once, it didn't work.
And pollsters will have another truck load of new/latent voters to deal with next time. Were they accurate post SIndy?
Was there any poll before the referendum that showed Wales in favour of Brexit? Is Welsh opinion polling on Brexit as error prone as that for the rest of the UK?
The sample is matched to actual votes in the referendum - ergo a decisive cohort have changed their minds.....
Actually, the only good comparison would be if the same voters had been asked for their voting intention on the eve of poll. There's a tendency for some voters to claim to have voted for the winner, after the event, when in fact they didn't.
The response I have had to posting a simple poll that matched its sample to actual voters is somewhat telling: the poll is simply not to be believed. I suspect the response would have been entirely different if the Welsh poll showed the opposite result...
What I'm saying is well-attested. Ask any pollster, they'll tell you more people will claim to have supported the winner than did so.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't give a monkey's. Ban cousin marriages, bad mad mullahs, ban sharia law, ban the burqa. Those that like these stupid unBritish things can go and enjoy them in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
I know two white English-born people who have married cousins. It's not illegal though I think they did look into the genetic issues - apparently a 2% higher risk - before (in one case) having kids. There are a host of legal things which you can do which may increase the risk of childbirth more, like having a child when you're 35 (increases the risk near four times). Would you ban them all, or only the ones you feel aren't sufficiently British? How about a ban on mad authors?
It should be remembered that whilst marrying cousins and having children increases the risk of bad genes being passed on , it also increases the chances of good genes being passed on . You can also note the behaviour of 2 closely related species of UK butterflies . The High Brown Fritillary is very averse to mating with close relatives especially siblings . The Dark Green Fritillary behaves in exactly the opposite manner . The High Brown has become extremely endangered as numbers fall it becomes even harder to find an acceptable mate whilst the Dark Green is maintaining numbers well .
Interesting. This discussion is classic PB, isn't it?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't give a monkey's. Ban cousin marriages, bad mad mullahs, ban sharia law, ban the burqa. Those that like these stupid unBritish things can go and enjoy them in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
I know two white English-born people who have married cousins. It's not illegal though I think they did look into the genetic issues - apparently a 2% higher risk - before (in one case) having kids. There are a host of legal things which you can do which may increase the risk of childbirth more, like having a child when you're 35 (increases the risk near four times). Would you ban them all, or only the ones you feel aren't sufficiently British? How about a ban on mad authors?
The risk of a birth defect is doubled if you marry your cousin (and that's presuming no history of cousin marriage, which adds to the problem).
Besides, of course, the intention of the law is to make fundamentalist Muslims not move here, and to make those already here go back to an Islamic society which welcomes their views on gay people, women, democracy, etc.
One-off first cousin marriages are rarely a problem. Successive first cousin marriages most certainly are.
To make an alternative species comparison... As many here know, I bred pedigree cats for a long while.
It was a complete no-no to include any offspring closer than 5 generations in the breeding pool. So that's parents or siblings plus grandparents/great grandparents/great great grandparents/great great great grandparents.
Anything less put offspring at significant risk of inherited genetic disorders, early death et al.
If pedigree cats have stricter breeding rules than humans - that says it all.
Quite. In the middle ages the Church in each parish kept "Blood Books" with sole intention of making sure genetic defects caused by inbreeding did not occur. The population didn't move around much in those days so the blood book was the insurance policy. The consanguinity rules were strictly applied.
Except of course for the monarchy and ruling classes not so much in England but certainly in France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. For the very wealthy a papal exemption against the rule could always be obtained. Just look at the results. The number of members of the royal families born with genetic defects was way above the norm. In the 19th century even our own royal family started to be affected.
Mr. Palmer's 2% extra risk is frankly bollocks. Interbreeding leads to birth defects. Even the BBC agrees.
Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
Article 50 can't be constitutionally triggered without a vote in parliament. No PM will win that vote unless they have a watertight plan for what happens next. There aren't enough anti-EU fanatics in parliament to vote for it blind, regardless of the referendum result.
Wishful thinking. Article 50 can be triggered; the 1972 European Communities Act requires parliamentary repeal, but it would be silly to refuse if under EU law we were already out.
Article 50 requires that the withdrawing state make the decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements.
An unelected PM acting against the wishes of the majority in parliament on the basis of an advisory referendum with a thin majority would not be good enough. When you add in the interference of the monarch in the days before the vote, it would take us squarely into real constitutional crisis territory.
That's clutching at straws, to be honest.
The PM would not ask parliament for A50 without a coherent negotiating strategy. So long as there is such a strategy set out parliament would surely give its assent. The notion that the majority who voted Remain would transform into a blocking majority is wishful thinking by some.
There is no reason to expect a constitutional crisis or for the Queen to be drawn into controversy.
If a company got one poll correct, the question has to be asked whether it was a false positive.
After the referendum and GE 2015, polls have to be taken with the same seriousness that we used to take subsamples. Still, they'e grist for the mill on here.
As an aside, is it 'grist to the mill' or 'grist for the mill'. I thought the latter, but the web seems to go for either.
I think Opinium and TNS did very well. They consistently (in the last few weeks) showed a very close race. Yougov and Survation performed adequately.
More like wwc can't be fucked to do polls, they get calls a thousand times a day about ppi and an accident that wasn't your fault, and tons of junk emails a day they ain't got time for that.
The samples are shit. Only loud lefties can be bothered to do polls no matter their demographics.
I can't recall where I read it - but one psephologist analysis of the vote was 2.8m DNV did. And almost all of them chose Brexit.
They were discounted by pollsters or not counted at all. It shows how a junk sample is very misleading.
If a company got one poll correct, the question has to be asked whether it was a false positive.
After the referendum and GE 2015, polls have to be taken with the same seriousness that we used to take subsamples. Still, they'e grist for the mill on here.
As an aside, is it 'grist to the mill' or 'grist for the mill'. I thought the latter, but the web seems to go for either.
The biggest issue with the EUref polls was a lack of past data that pollsters could refer to when producing their samples. But if their samples now indicate they have changed their minds, or have not changed them, that would be meaningful information.
If a company got one poll correct, the question has to be asked whether it was a false positive.
After the referendum and GE 2015, polls have to be taken with the same seriousness that we used to take subsamples. Still, they'e grist for the mill on here.
As an aside, is it 'grist to the mill' or 'grist for the mill'. I thought the latter, but the web seems to go for either.
I think Opinium and TNS did very well. They consistently (in the last few weeks) showed a very close race. Yougov and Survation performed adequately.
I'm going to ask people in my office if they're voting for the next General or whatever election. Better than the pollsters.
I hope neither you nor any of your family ever fall in love with someone from another country then.
My gf is from Switzerland, one of the reasons I'd be happy for the government to ensure no more family reunions is so my prospective mother in law has no chance of coming to the UK.
Ha! I moved to my wife's country and now live less than two hundred miles from my m-i-l rather than 3,500. Funnily enough though, in many respects I get on better with her than my wife does...
My wife's Ukranian, I get on fantastically with the in-laws as they speak almost no English and I speak almost no Ukranian or Russian
Keiran Pedley From recent YouGov on Labour members. 90% voted Remain. Labour members aren't even representative of Labour voters https://t.co/LYC8surYnk
I hope neither you nor any of your family ever fall in love with someone from another country then.
My gf is from Switzerland, one of the reasons I'd be happy for the government to ensure no more family reunions is so my prospective mother in law has no chance of coming to the UK.
Ha! I moved to my wife's country and now live less than two hundred miles from my m-i-l rather than 3,500. Funnily enough though, in many respects I get on better with her than my wife does...
My wife's Ukranian, I get on fantastically with the in-laws as they speak almost no English and I speak almost no Ukranian or Russian
If Leadsom won, could we see a similar influx of new Tory members to sure up her position in the event that she were challenged?
If Leadsom won, she'd be safe due to the outflow of existing Tory members, without need for new ones....
We both know that isn't how the tories work; if Leadsom won before you could say "flexible principles" we would have Nabavi and TSE on here telling us that she was the "near perfect" leader.
First Leadsom promises live on prime TV to publish her tax return. Then she qualifies this by saying only if she gets to the final two. Now she won't publish at all.
First she promises to submit under Article 50 the minute she is elected. Then she says she won't.
How can she ever hope to get away with such slippery a performance?
Tax returns are an entirely private affair. I don't think anyone should be bullied into publishing them.
I agree - but the said she would - and it begs the obvious questions - nothing to do with bullying at all. She needs to grow up - no 10 is not the place to do it.
Comments
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/750640588639260672
They were discounted by pollsters or not counted at all. It shows how a junk sample is very misleading.
If a company got one poll correct, the question has to be asked whether it was a false positive.
After the referendum and GE 2015, polls have to be taken with the same seriousness that we used to take subsamples. Still, they'e grist for the mill on here.
As an aside, is it 'grist to the mill' or 'grist for the mill'. I thought the latter, but the web seems to go for either.
Buy if u want another referundum, be my guest we started from 20 points behind last time and won by 4 points, this time.........
All but the fringe and the fools have said Brexit is Brexit - even the LD pitch is Brexit will happen - but we were discussing a scenario in which that would change. It is far far easier to imagine a situation wherein May declares earlier than she said she would right now, than a situation she will ever be strong enough to not declare at all, even if she wanted to.
It was a complete no-no to include any offspring closer than 5 generations in the breeding pool. So that's parents or siblings plus grandparents/great grandparents/great great grandparents/great great great grandparents.
Anything less put offspring at significant risk of inherited genetic disorders, early death et al.
If pedigree cats have stricter breeding rules than humans - that says it all.
[says a man on May/Gove @ 11.0
Which contenders will come first and second in the Conservative leadership contest.
This market will be settled based on the first official announcement of the next permanent Conservative Party leader as chosen by a Conservative Party leadership contest. Betfair reserves the right to suspend, cancel unmatched bets and turn in-play or re-open this market as and when information becomes available to it. Additional runners may be added upon request.
In the event of any ambiguity over an announcement, Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
https://twitter.com/rossfootball/status/750745388999667712
Come on Wales!
@stephenkb: I have been ringing round CLPs and the most negative picture for Corbyn would put it at 80-20 new joiners for him.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/labour-membership-hit-600000
Be interesting to see what the results are.
iPad = Murray match
1) A government needs a strong opposition to keep them honest (cf IDS and Iraq)
2) Andrea Leadsom is a modern day Blair. She was 45 minutes away from being Chief Executive of Barclays.
Except of course for the monarchy and ruling classes not so much in England but certainly in France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. For the very wealthy a papal exemption against the rule could always be obtained. Just look at the results. The number of members of the royal families born with genetic defects was way above the norm. In the 19th century even our own royal family started to be affected.
Mr. Palmer's 2% extra risk is frankly bollocks. Interbreeding leads to birth defects. Even the BBC agrees.
There is no reason to expect a constitutional crisis or for the Queen to be drawn into controversy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
Going to see them next week!
From recent YouGov on Labour members. 90% voted Remain. Labour members aren't even representative of Labour voters https://t.co/LYC8surYnk
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Would any PM, be it a Brexiter or Remainer, trigger article 50 if they were in a position that they had just had to bailout the banking system again?
Would they not have to 'wait for the economy to stablise' before pulling the trigger?