politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov London poll boost sees even UKIP & CON voters warming t

JackW said:

Missouri - Monmouth Uni - Sample 406 - 9-11 Oct

Clinton 41 .. Trump 46

http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_MO_101216/

There are very few elections one should want to lose, but for the Republicans, this may be one. Imagine what the 2018 mid-terms would be like under President Trump.

Alanbrooke said:

Scott_P said:

@ITVJoel: Unilever told Tesco it wanted to up its prices by 10% due to weak £. Tesco refused and so, as of today, Unilever is not supplying them.

@PaulBrandITV: Brexit just got real. No more Hellmans Mayo or Marmite in Tesco! twitter.com/itvjoel/status…

@PaulBrandITV: Or online at least - still in stores

who will it hurt more Unilever or Tesco ?

few people go to a supermarket just for one product

Unilever owns over 400 common brands...

nunu said:

chestnut said:

YellowSubmarine said:

All three London Mayor's todate have understood the job.

Playing with a train set.

chestnut said:

YellowSubmarine said:

All three London Mayor's todate have understood the job.

Playing with a train set.

Y

chestnut said:

YellowSubmarine said:

All three London Mayor's todate have understood the job.

Playing with a train set.

Its a glorified county council.

Ditto the Scottish Parliament

Paul O’Connell interview: "I wanted to find Alastair Campbell and knock him out on 2005 Lions tour"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/10/12/paul-oconnell-interview-i-wanted-to-find-alastair-campbell-and-k/

Alanbrooke said:

Aldi dont sell any of them

And neither do Tesco...

Alanbrooke said:

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:

Scott_P said:

@JoannaPartridge: I've been told #Tesco isn't the only major retailer which has been approached by #Unilever, who are demanding 10% price rises across board

sell Unilever

If you can convince people to pay 10% more you must be quite the salesman.

4king daft.

firstly theyre cutting their sales, then they're doing it by threatening the end user with a price increase.

Brand trashing.

Funny how Aldi havent put their brands up by 10%. Even Cuckoo Clock brands

With Tesco being massacred by Aldi and Lidl there is no way they will tolerate Unilevers demand.

Whats the back story on Unilever?

Gardenwalker said:

If May can hold on, perhaps immigration will actually go down naturally in response to a falling pound and uncertainties over residency status:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/number-of-eu-workers-coming-to-britain-to-fall-sharply-before-br/

It could well do. There's the pull factor of getting in before the drawbridge is possibly pulled up, against the push factors of the £ is worth less in Zlotys and Lev or whatever, the risk that those arriving post 23rd June will not be granted residency, the much smaller risk that it's ultra hard Brexit and some of those here pre June 23rd are declared illegal ( highly undesirable I might add but not 100% impossible if the EU play serious silly buggers I suppose), And the knowledge that substantial elements of the locals are distinctly dischuffed with the levels of immigration.

Scott_P said:

Alanbrooke said:

Aldi dont sell any of them

And neither do Tesco...

should lift tescos market share then

Florida - Opinion Savvy - Sample 533 - 10-11 Oct

Clinton 47 .. Trump 44

http://opinionsavvy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/OS-FL-General-10.12.16.pdf

Jason said:

Is there a current price anywhere for the UK NOT to leave the EU? It's got to be a value bet now. If Jeremy Corbyn is landing blows over Brexit, it's dead in the water.

Highly unlikely. An awful lot of MPs may not like the idea of Brexit, but they know that it has to happen. Were the referendum result to be set aside then it would be hugely damaging and dangerous for democracy. It would convince a great many voters either that they can only get what they want by rejecting all of the establishment parties and veering to the extremes, or that the system is no longer capable of delivering full stop.

This leaves two other, more likely, scenarios. Firstly - and this is what I think is most likely - the courts will throw out the campaigners' attempts to force a Parliamentary vote on A50, in which case the Government will invoke it according to Theresa May's wishes and that will be the end of that. Secondly, if the Government is compelled to ask Parliament for permission, then A50 would almost certainly clear the Commons, but could well be vetoed by the Lords. Were that the case then the Prime Minister would go to the country on a manifesto committing her to Brexit (quite possibly together with the abolition of the Lords or the removal of virtually all of its remaining power,) win a comfortable majority, and then invoke A50 anyway.

I won't be 100% totally convinced that we are leaving until A50 has been triggered. But I'm at about 99.75% at the moment.

Blue_rog said:

Scott_P said:

@ITVJoel: Unilever told Tesco it wanted to up its prices by 10% due to weak £. Tesco refused and so, as of today, Unilever is not supplying them.

@PaulBrandITV: Brexit just got real. No more Hellmans Mayo or Marmite in Tesco! twitter.com/itvjoel/status…

@PaulBrandITV: Or online at least - still in stores

I believe the ingredients for both of those are sourced from the UK

Isn't Marmite essentially yeast extract left over from brewing? I recall the Magor brewery in Monmoutshire used to supply their old year extract ( I'm going back over 30 years mind).

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

Anna Sour-by*?

* I didn't invent that, BTW!

@StigAbell: Someone should just shout "stop talking Britain down" and "weak pound is good for exports" until dispute is resolved. That should do it. twitter.com/ITVJoel/status…

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/786261088274755585

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.

Will the £350M a week for the NHS cover the increased cost of Marmite?

Alistair said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/786249951777026048

I am simultaneously android delighted and annoyed by this.

Delighted because it is an excellent description of what was happening. Pissed of because I was in the middle of requesting the data to analyse myself to find this out.

The way the Black vote jumped in such a huge digital step up and down had made me very suspicious of the weighting and number if African Americans in the poll.

Fantastic analysis.

538 figures the LAT poll is skewed by R+0.6
NYT is suggesting that should be more like R+3.5

Jonathan said:

Will the £350M a week for the NHS cover the increased cost of Marmite?

No, as every household will definitely be £4,300/year worse off, equating to 2,606 125g jars of Marmite at £1.65 each from Tesco.

Black_Rook said:

Jason said:

Is there a current price anywhere for the UK NOT to leave the EU? It's got to be a value bet now. If Jeremy Corbyn is landing blows over Brexit, it's dead in the water.

Highly unlikely. An awful lot of MPs may not like the idea of Brexit, but they know that it has to happen. Were the referendum result to be set aside then it would be hugely damaging and dangerous for democracy. It would convince a great many voters either that they can only get what they want by rejecting all of the establishment parties and veering to the extremes, or that the system is no longer capable of delivering full stop.

This leaves two other, more likely, scenarios. Firstly - and this is what I think is most likely - the courts will throw out the campaigners' attempts to force a Parliamentary vote on A50, in which case the Government will invoke it according to Theresa May's wishes and that will be the end of that. Secondly, if the Government is compelled to ask Parliament for permission, then A50 would almost certainly clear the Commons, but could well be vetoed by the Lords. Were that the case then the Prime Minister would go to the country on a manifesto committing her to Brexit (quite possibly together with the abolition of the Lords or the removal of virtually all of its remaining power,) win a comfortable majority, and then invoke A50 anyway.

I won't be 100% totally convinced that we are leaving until A50 has been triggered. But I'm at about 99.75% at the moment.

Personally, I think Mrs May is making a major tactical blunder by not forcing the Commons to endorse Brexit.

Labour MPs, whose areas voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, will be faced with a dilemma: back their constituents, and back democracy, or back the EU.

They will - I guarantee - back democracy,

And aside from a few Remainers who won't be standing in 2020, who will oppose it in the Conservative Party? Opposing the will of the people would, in all but a very few cases, be signing their own deselection warrant.

Following a 550-100 vote in the Commons, and a referendum victory the Lords would not stand in the way. Even Paddy Ashdown and Vince Cable say they peoples' voice must be respected.

Most importantly, this ties everyone to Brexit. People cannot walk away from having voted for it in the Commons.

If there is no vote, and if we run into serious economic problems in 2017 or 2018 (and ones that might be nothing to do with Brexit), then the decision will have been widely taken. People will not be able to complain that they would have opposed it.

The biggest threat to Brexit is not the government not invoking Article 50, it is of the government falling between invocation and Brexit, and being replaced - in a General Election - by pro-Europeans. This eliminates that risk.

Sean_F said:

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.

yes the obnoxious toad who backed ramping up uni fees so that kids leave with £50k of debt is now suddenly worried about them

Sean_F said:

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.

Yeah I know that deeply pisses me off. Just like my generation did, they'll age and their views will alter. Freedom to live in Rome, or Paris or whatever and live in Corbyn's la la land might look attractive at 20, but by 35 95%+ of them will be in the UK and freedom of movement will look different as they compete for jobs, as will Corbyn's views on the economy ( welcome to the real world!), security and foreign policy. 'twas ever thus.

taffys said:

Before the referendum Stronger IN claimed that 'leaving the EU meant leaving the single market (from Euro guido).

52% still voted for that.

All that remain love for Keir Starmer. And it turned out he was talking through his ar$e when he said there was no mandate for a hard Brexit.

Still, it was good while is lasted, eh?

You can't get into "he said, she said". Let us not forget that one of the most prominent Leavers said "A small vote for Leave is not a vote for a big change in our relationship with the EU". That sounds pretty much like promising EEA to me.

All any politician can do is to try and secure the best deal for the next two decades for the people of the UK, and to try and ensure that such a deal satisfies 70% of the voters.

That means immigration controls, but it also probably means the smallest possible change in our trading arrangements that satisfies the immigration control requirement.

rcs1000 said:

Black_Rook said:

Jason said:

Is there a current price anywhere for the UK NOT to leave the EU? It's got to be a value bet now. If Jeremy Corbyn is landing blows over Brexit, it's dead in the water.

Highly unlikely. An awful lot of MPs may not like the idea of Brexit, but they know that it has to happen. Were the referendum result to be set aside then it would be hugely damaging and dangerous for democracy. It would convince a great many voters either that they can only get what they want by rejecting all of the establishment parties and veering to the extremes, or that the system is no longer capable of delivering full stop.

This leaves two other, more likely, scenarios. Firstly - and this is what I think is most likely - the courts will throw out the campaigners' attempts to force a Parliamentary vote on A50, in which case the Government will invoke it according to Theresa May's wishes ...ll of its remaining power,) win a comfortable majority, and then invoke A50 anyway.

I won't be 100% totally convinced that we are leaving until A50 has been triggered. But I'm at about 99.75% at the moment.

Personally, I think Mrs May is making a major tactical blunder by not forcing the Commons to endorse Brexit. Labour MPs, whose areas voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, will be faced with a dilemma: back their constituents, and back democracy, or back the EU.
..... And aside from a few Remainers who won't be standing in 2020, who will oppose it in the Conservative Party? Opposing the will of the people would, in all but a very few cases, be signing their own deselection warrant. Following a 550-100 vote in the Commons, and a referendum victory the Lords would not stand in the way. .......The biggest threat to Brexit is not the government not invoking Article 50, it is of the government falling between invocation and Brexit, and being replaced - in a General Election - by pro-Europeans. ..

I agree. The alternative is an early GE in March just to give the voters a chance to endorse Mrs May's Govt. All she needs is a vote on something in the HoC or Lords that goes against her to overturn her intention to wait until GE2020. Better still if by then Labour's NEC reduce the minimum number of MPs required for a Leadership candidate thus ensuring that a hard leftie gets back on the slate for Corbyn's replacement.

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.

williamglenn said:

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.

48% is smaller than 52% last time I checked

welshowl said:

Sean_F said:

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.

Yeah I know that deeply pisses me off. Just like my generation did, they'll age and their views will alter. Freedom to live in Rome, or Paris or whatever and live in Corbyn's la la land might look attractive at 20, but by 35 95%+ of them will be in the UK and freedom of movement will look different as they compete for jobs, as will Corbyn's views on the economy ( welcome to the real world!), security and foreign policy. 'twas ever thus.

I don't know about votes counting more than others. But the thing that makes this politically salient (if not, yet, politically decisive) is the real evidence of intergenerational inequality, eg Fraser Nelson's recent thing on pension provision (or lack of).

Willets, I think, wrote a book on this a while back.

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Personally, I think Mrs May is making a major tactical blunder by not forcing the Commons to endorse Brexit.

Labour MPs, whose areas voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, will be faced with a dilemma: back their constituents, and back democracy, or back the EU.

They will - I guarantee - back democracy,

And aside from a few Remainers who won't be standing in 2020, who will oppose it in the Conservative Party? Opposing the will of the people would, in all but a very few cases, be signing their own deselection warrant.

Following a 550-100 vote in the Commons, and a referendum victory the Lords would not stand in the way. Even Paddy Ashdown and Vince Cable say they peoples' voice must be respected.

If there is no vote, and if we run into serious economic problems in 2017 or 2018 (and ones that might be nothing to do with Brexit), then the decision will have been widely taken. People will not be able to complain that they would have opposed it.

The biggest threat to Brexit is not the government not invoking Article 50, it is of the government falling between invocation and Brexit, and being replaced - in a General Election - by pro-Europeans. This eliminates that risk.

Wouldn't a Commons vote on the Repeal Bill do basically the same thing?

I can see the attraction, though. And if the Commons did vote down Article 50, then call an election.

I think it should be tied directly to endorsing the referendum vote. Make people stand up and say they've listened to the voice of the people. A straight-up, straight-down motion with no amendments.

This isn't about executive privilege, this about making sure that no-one can later walk away from the decision to leave.

They have a perfect right to walk away from the decision if they believe it to be wrong. A referendum doesn't oblige anyone to change their mind or take a vow of silence.

Your plan would compound your initial mistake in thinking that Brexit would be in the control of people who think like you.

rcs1000 said:

Following a 550-100 vote in the Commons, and a referendum victory the Lords would not stand in the way. Even Paddy Ashdown and Vince Cable say they peoples' voice must be respected.

I don't know... you'd probably be proven right on the Lords, but I don't trust them. Lack of elections + militant pro-EU cheerleaders = trouble. It also occurs to me that May could be concerned about attempts to prevaricate on Brexit: she might discover that Labour and the rebel Tories respect the will of the people - honest - but that they don't consider the timing of A50 to be right. And that they will continue to argue that it's not right. For a very long time.

I think you make a very good argument for putting A50 to the Commons, but if Mrs May - for her own good reasons - is really determined to avoid going to the country, then this would explain why she therefore does not wish to have a vote on A50 in Parliament. She may feel that the risk of a crisis which would force a dissolution is too great.

EDIT: I see 619 has already posted this

https://twitter.com/JamesDMorris/status/786253451290374144

Alanbrooke said:

williamglenn said:

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.

Why not ?

The europhiles ignored the wishes of a majority of brits for decades.

If the result had been the other way round you'd be happily ignoring the 48% of Leavers and saying a win is a win we march on.

It depends on what the agreement we can reach will look like. If we can find an absolute majority (through polling) that would support one solution or another, that would help to give it a bit of sticking power and remove some of the controversy from the whole process.

Black_Rook said:

rcs1000 said:

Following a 550-100 vote in the Commons, and a referendum victory the Lords would not stand in the way. Even Paddy Ashdown and Vince Cable say they peoples' voice must be respected.

I don't know... you'd probably be proven right on the Lords, but I don't trust them. Lack of elections + militant pro-EU cheerleaders = trouble. It also occurs to me that May could be concerned about attempts to prevaricate on Brexit: she might discover that Labour and the rebel Tories respect the will of the people - honest - but that they don't consider the timing of A50 to be right. And that they will continue to argue that it's not right. For a very long time.

I think you make a very good argument for putting A50 to the Commons, but if Mrs May - for her own good reasons - is really determined to avoid going to the country, then this would explain why she therefore does not wish to have a vote on A50 in Parliament. She may feel that the risk of a crisis which would force a dissolution is too great.

Mrs May should table a simple motion of support in the Commons - "This house recognises the vote taken on x June, and calls upon the government to invoke Article 50 as soon as is practicable." As it would not be an Act of parliament, merely a motion, there would be no need for it to go through the Lords.

Tissue_Price said:

EDIT: I see 619 has already posted this
https://twitter.com/JamesDMorris "1 black voter alters the poll" NY Times

I am staggered at the basis of some polls in the USA. Perhaps those who attacked Plato over querying some of the USA polls, should re-consider their past comments?

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:

williamglenn said:

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.

Why not ?

The europhiles ignored the wishes of a majority of brits for decades.

If the result had been the other way round you'd be happily ignoring the 48% of Leavers and saying a win is a win we march on.

Where's the evidence that there would have been a majority for leaving the EU at any point between 1975 and 2015? There wouldn't.

But there was one in 2016...

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I agree. The alternative is an early GE in March just to give the voters a chance to endorse Mrs May's Govt. All she needs is a vote on something in the HoC or Lords that goes against her to overturn her intention to wait until GE2020. Better still if by then Labour's NEC reduce the minimum number of MPs required for a Leadership candidate thus ensuring that a hard leftie gets back on the slate for Corbyn's replacement.

I actually think that an early election, especially given Mr Corbyn's total unelectability, is a good idea. It would give the government the chance to set out in their manifesto what the relationship with the EU should look like, and then get overwhelming support for that from the country.

The downsides are: (a) it would set back new constituencies two years; (b) it would mean that Labour in 2022 would likely have a more electable leader.

But I believe the advantages - to the country, not just to the Conservative Party - outweigh the disadvantages.

Black_Rook said:

Sean_F said:

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.

Ageism is very fashionable amongst some sections of the population nowadays (usually the same people who hypocritically wail about tidal waves of xenophobia and such like supposedly having been triggered by the referendum vote.) They maintain the pretence of being democrats, but in truth would rather than that electorate consisted entirely of those people who agree with them about everything.

Of course, the votes of the young would have a bit more weight when measured against those of the old, if only the young could be bothered to go out and vote in the same proportions.

Spot on - the Tories look after their voters very well. The young should learn from that.

taffys said:

''Did Parliament ever vote to endorse Dave's dud deal - the Remain offering? ''

If remain had won by a single vote that would have been taken unequivocally by remainers as a vote for ever closer union, forever.

In a parallel universe, Dave is clinging to power as his deal unravels.

Gardenwalker said:

welshowl said:

Sean_F said:

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.

Yeah I know that deeply pisses me off. Just like my generation did, they'll age and their views will alter. Freedom to live in Rome, or Paris or whatever and live in Corbyn's la la land might look attractive at 20, but by 35 95%+ of them will be in the UK and freedom of movement will look different as they compete for jobs, as will Corbyn's views on the economy ( welcome to the real world!), security and foreign policy. 'twas ever thus.

I don't know about votes counting more than others. But the thing that makes this politically salient (if not, yet, politically decisive) is the real evidence of intergenerational inequality, eg Fraser Nelson's recent thing on pension provision (or lack of).

Willets, I think, wrote a book on this a while back.

Yes I'm not saying there are not issues, but the premise that an 18yr old's vote is worth more that a 40yr old is bollocks. That said there are things to address on housing in particular ( we need to stop faffing about and build lots more), pensions ( not that 99.9% of 20 yr olds are thinking about that ), and student debt.

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:

williamglenn said:

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.

Why not ?

The europhiles ignored the wishes of a majority of brits for decades.

If the result had been the other way round you'd be happily ignoring the 48% of Leavers and saying a win is a win we march on.

Where's the evidence that there would have been a majority for leaving the EU at any point between 1975 and 2015? There wouldn't.

Here are 3 quickly found.

England 9–16 September 2015, R 40% , L43% DK17% 1,712 YouGov
England & Wales 26 June–3 July 2015, R42%, L43% DK15% 956 Panelbase/Sunday Times
UK 4–7 November 2014 R40% L43% DK17% 1,707 Opinium/The Observer

williamglenn said:

the referendum was not intended to be lost

Epic.

foxinsoxuk said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Essexit said:

Jonathan said:

Will the £350M a week for the NHS cover the increased cost of Marmite?

No, as every household will definitely be £4,300/year worse off, equating to 2,606 125g jars of Marmite at £1.65 each from Tesco.

The Business interest in this Tesco vs Unilever matter is that Tesco is headed up by Dave Lewis who worked for Unilever for 27 years and understands Unilever better than most of its employees. If he thinks he can hold off Unilever I would back him. One other factor IMHO is that Tesco carry far too many product lines. Dave Lewis when at Unilever reduced one division from circa 1,600 to 400 product lines.

Unilever are just leading where others have to follow. It is a worldwide company, with many products sourced abroad, and many products sourced locally are also dependent on imported ingredients, or imported fertilisers/pesticides etc.

As someone famously pointed out, you cannot buck the markets. Supermarkets have been screwing suppliers for years, it takes a large supplier to stand up to them.

Even if all the raw materials had been sourced outside the UK, any products made in UK would justify only a 1% to 2% price rise so far. It looks more like Unilever trying to get the same amount of cash out of its UK division to compensate for the currency fluctuation in what is remitted to Unilever Inc.

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Black_Rook said:

Sean_F said:

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.

Ageism is very fashionable amongst some sections of the population nowadays (usually the same people who hypocritically wail about tidal waves of xenophobia and such like supposedly having been triggered by the referendum vote.) They maintain the pretence of being democrats, but in truth would rather than that electorate consisted entirely of those people who agree with them about everything.

Of course, the votes of the young would have a bit more weight when measured against those of the old, if only the young could be bothered to go out and vote in the same proportions.

Spot on - the Tories look after their voters very well. The young should learn from that.

Name a successful party of government that doesn't even try to look after their voters.

Labour 2010 - 2016........ oh sorry I missed the words "successful party of government"

Tissue_Price said:

williamglenn said:

the referendum was not intended to be lost

Epic.

It's just a statement of fact. Cameron used the referendum as nothing more than a tactic to manage splits in his own party.

CD13 said:

This Brexit is a bit tricky for Labour. Most of their MPs are Remainers, but some have voters who are mainly Leavers.

What do they do to look involved? Demand to see all the discussion plans - "It's my Parliamentary right." Then what? "Ah, we'll... er ... er... er... delay them."

Goodbye majority.

It's all a political game. The nation has decided we're leaving. The Government will implement it. We'll vote on the job they've done at the next election. No use Labour jumping up and down, shouting "Please, miss, may I look please? I promise I won't get it dirty."

"No you stupid boy, sit down."

At a time when UKIP are in existential crisis, how nice of Labour MPs to throw them an EU lifeline.

CD13 said:

This Brexit is a bit tricky for Labour. Most of their MPs are Remainers, but some have voters who are mainly Leavers.

What do they do to look involved? Demand to see all the discussion plans - "It's my Parliamentary right." Then what? "Ah, we'll... er ... er... er... delay them."

Goodbye majority.

It's all a political game. The nation has decided we're leaving. The Government will implement it. We'll vote on the job they've done at the next election. No use Labour jumping up and down, shouting "Please, miss, may I look please? I promise I won't get it dirty."

"No you stupid boy, sit down."

It's the same but worse situation with Tory MP's.
Around 1/3rd are Remainers but their Tory voters are even more overwhelmingly Leavers.

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:

williamglenn said:

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.

Why not ?

The europhiles ignored the wishes of a majority of brits for decades.

If the result had been the other way round you'd be happily ignoring the 48% of Leavers and saying a win is a win we march on.

Where's the evidence that there would have been a majority for leaving the EU at any point between 1975 and 2015? There wouldn't.

But there was one in 2016...

You may think that it's worth sacrificing the entire country's history on the altar of David Cameron's incompetence but I don't. He messed up; the referendum was not intended to be lost, and the responsible thing would be to play for time while addressing some of the underlying concerns of the people who voted for Leave, before having a rerun in better circumstances.

You are Jean Claude Juncker and I claim my five quid.

Here's a Euro instead. We'll be even soon enough.

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:

williamglenn said:

LadyBucket said:

Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.

I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!

48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.

Why not ?

The europhiles ignored the wishes of a majority of brits for decades.

If the result had been the other way round you'd be happily ignoring the 48% of Leavers and saying a win is a win we march on.

Where's the evidence that there would have been a majority for leaving the EU at any point between 1975 and 2015? There wouldn't.

But there was one in 2016...

You may think that it's worth sacrificing the entire country's history on the altar of David Cameron's incompetence but I don't. He messed up; the referendum was not intended to be lost, and the responsible thing would be to play for time while addressing some of the underlying concerns of the people who voted for Leave, before having a rerun in better circumstances.

You are Jean Claude Juncker and I claim my five quid.

Here's a Euro instead. We'll be even soon enough.

You're predicting £5 = 1 euro?

But yes, your comments about 'having a rerun in better circumstances' are exactly what you'd expect from the eurocrats.