politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With the court challenge to Theresa May’s Royal Prerogative pl

Is Unilever an early exemplar of an emerging theme - 'Don't mess with Brexit'?

Indigo said:

AnneJGP said:

The only meaningful way I can see would be for the EU negotiators to come & do the negotiating with the MPs as a body in the Commons. A recipe for a right old dog's breakfast of a result. Hardest Brexit of all, would be my guess.

Its nonsense anyway. Parliament legislates, the Executive enacts in accordance with the legislation and the powers granted therein.

Can anyone name another treaty in which parliament has been involved to any extent ? When parliament debated Lisbon was the a line by line discussion, or was the vote in effect "take it or leave it". Why is this one any different ?

I think the Maastricht Treaty had about 25 full days' debate in a Committee of the Whole House, which was indeed line-by-line, on top of the usual debates and votes for second reading, report stage and so on.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

david_herdson said:

TonyE said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'

As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.

I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.

Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.

Her way out might be to simply call a general election and get a settled mandate that way, maybe in early Spring. That way the so called remain tories will be skewered. Sign up to the manifesto, or stand as an independent.

That's not the way the Tory Party works. Any number of MPs have been selected and elected with views on the record that contradict official policy. Their main obstacle would be their local Association but that would depend on the strength of their views and the extent to which it varied from their local members.

It is not the usual way it happens but 1 or 2 key statements could be taken at the selection/endorsement meeting of the Executive and the incumbent MP asked a Yes or No on them. The Executive can then decide to endorse or reject the MP.

True. How often does that happen though?

Patrick said:

Is Unilever an early exemplar of an emerging theme - 'Don't mess with Brexit'?

Maybe, but maybe more a theme of 'Don't take the public for suckers - you tax dodging bastards".

logical_song said:

SNP's Nicola Sturgeon announces new independence referendum bill
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37634338

@ScottyNational: News : Sturgeon placates indy supporters by confirming that the date of the next referendum is firmly set in sand

david_herdson said:

MikeSmithson said:

david_herdson said:

rcs1000 said:

david_herdson said:

TOPPING said:

david_herdson said:

rcs1000 said:

I'll repeat what I've said a hundred times already.

It's irrelevant whether Parliament needs to be consulted or not. It is a political mistake not to get Article 50 rubber stamped, and as soon as possible.

But that implies that parliament is a rubber stamp. The government should be making it clear that it doesn't regard parliament in that light (whatever it actually feels).

To that end, it shouldn't grant a vote on Article 50 but it should be holding a full debate on what the terms - or at least the principles - of Brexit negotiations should be. The government needs parliament to have some kind of buy-in and ownership of the process.

No it is saying to MPs: please acknowledge the democratic process of the referendum.

1. They won't. Are you really telling me that the MPs for Sunderland, with UKIP breathing down their necks, will vote against their constituents. And the vast, vast majority of Conservatives will vote for the motion. It would be 550-100.

2. But let's pretend it won't be a thumping victory for the government. Mrs May then calls an election. Wins a massive majority with a manifesto that is explicit about the goals of Brexit, and therefore cannot be challenged in the Lords under the Salisbury convention.

I agree that they won't but going through that charade isn't good for anybody as it's a deception against both itself and the public about what it might do and where power really lies.

It's interesting that you mention the Salisbury Convention. What I'd suggest is needed is an equivalent convention, based on the same principle, that parliament does not overturn the substance of a referendum result.

If TMay gets her way on this, and I think she will, then that will set the convention.

For practical purposes, yes, I think you're right. It'd still be helpful for the convention to be acknowledged though, as the Salisbury one is, rather than drifting in out of habit.

Legislation, or even an acknowledgement, would never get through the Commons or the Lords. Nor should it.

To make it stick you would need an Oliver Cromwell and a civil war between those who support parliament and those who support the Queen.

EDIT: And we know who won last time.

logical_song said:

Moses_ said:

SouthamObserver said:

Moses_ said:

SouthamObserver said:

To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.

Sorry no.

What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.

Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.

The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.

Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain

Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*

* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.

The 'will of the people' was not 'clearly expressed'. There was less than 4% in it.

Erm...Waterloo was a damn close run thing too - but nonetheless decisive. The EU never ever offered an associate membership or two-speed options or anything other than balls-deep in or right the way out. More fool them. We needed to be given the choice as the whole EU stay-or-go thing has been a festering turd for 40 years in UK politics. It's frankly a scandal there was no referendum earlier (esp re ratifying Lisbon). A very simple binary choice was required. In or out. We chose out. That's pretty fucking clear to me.

Richard_Tyndall said:

IanB2 said:

I am not so sure. If the EU is willing (which I admit could go either way) we could stop the process at any point after A50 until the point of actual exit.

Probably not if we intend to abide by the terms of the treaty. As I mentioned last night the Lisbon Treaty was the first opportunity a state had to leave the EU and stay in accordance with its treaty obligations. Prior to Lisbon the only alternative would be to breach the treaty obligations. As far as I know Britain has never breached Treaty obligations in modern times.

As has already been pointed out, the A50 is worded in such a way that once it has been triggered it cannot be revoked. Unless the states wanted to rip up Lisbon and have a completely new treaty there is no way they could legally allow the UK to change its mind and revoke Article 50. SO the choice we would have would be to complete the leave process and then seek to rejoin under Article 49 - which would include a requirement to join both Schengen and the Euro.

But that's not the way it would be done. Instead the 27 other members of the EU would unanimously vote to extend the negotiations period by 25 years. Then at the next Treaty revision, they'd change it to explicitly allow an application to be rescinded.

Finding 27 countries who want our money to keep flowing towards Brussels wouldn't be a problem.

CarlottaVance said:

Sturgeon wants to remove Scotland from the Union which accounts for 60% of its trade and which transfers money into Scotland, to one which accounts for 15% of its trade and will expect Scotland to transfer money out of Scotland

Yes indeed.

And the chances that her efforts are successful depend on voters' stupidity. Recently I heard someone say that Scots didn't have a vote in the EU referendum. "What on earth is this guy talking about?" I wondered. It hit me later what he meant. What he meant was that British citizens living in Scotland didn't get a vote on whether or not Scotland should become a member of the EU.

How is one supposed to respond? Point out that exactly the same statement could be made about people living in England, or London, or the Isle of Wight? Point out that Scotland can only ever become a member of the EU if it is independent, and that people in Scotland recently voted against independence?

But no; against stupidity even the gods battle in vain. The SNP encourage a massive nationalistic chip on their shoulder among their followers and voters: every damned thing they don't like is about the English (who sometimes appear as "Westminster", sometimes "the London media") stopping them getting what they want. They live in the infantile borderland between Tantrum World and Pretending to be Like a Grown-Up. There's no reasoning with them.

If ratings agencies say an independent Scotland would get a crap rating, that must be because they're evil-minded people seeking to do Scotland down. I'm no fan of ratings agencies, but such an accusation indicates a complete lack of understanding of what lending money is all about.

When the SNP politicians are behind closed doors, of course, the "we" who want "control over our own affairs" becomes a very different "we". A Labour-Tory-LibDem coalition in the Scottish parliament would be far preferable to the SNP-Green shower that's in power in Edinburgh at the moment.

MaxPB said:

Patrick said:

Is Unilever an early exemplar of an emerging theme - 'Don't mess with Brexit'?

More like don't play politics. The Dutch side of the board are clearly trying to exert pressure on the UK operation, now they have their reaction. To lose 29% of the grocery market overnight is a disaster for the company, I'd be very, very surprised of Sainsbury's and Asda agreed to price rises now that Tesco have told them to get lost so it could rise to being cut off from 60% of the grocery market soon. That's a material impact on the company's bottom line for nothing really. If they had come in and said we need a 3% price rise for the next few months which will be reviewed if Sterling recovers, Tesco management would have waived it through and raised prices for consumers by 2%, which most people wouldn't have noticed.

Unilever have made a huge error, all it will take now is for The Sun to rabble rouse a bit and print a front page of their products and instruct readers to avoid them until Unilever gives in and "respects the public's wishes" or something like that.

The major consequence of this is that P&G, Nestle, etc., will all make sure that no individual price rise is more than 1-2%.

CarlottaVance said:

King Bhumibol has died:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37643326#"

First Asian financial crisis started in Thailand......

If the (admittedly wildly biased) commentator on The World Tonight is correct then the Crown Prince who is in line to succeed is hated and there could indeed be very rough times ahead for Thailand.

National - Rasmussen

Clinton 41 .. Trump 43

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/rasmussen-26154

TGOHF said:

SouthamObserver said:

Moses_ said:

SouthamObserver said:

Moses_ said:

SouthamObserver said:

To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.

Sorry no.

What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.

Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.

The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.

Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain

Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*

* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.

The will of the people is to leave the EU. It is up to Parliament to approve the terms on which it will happen. Likewise, I would not expect a divorce deal with Scotland to be done without sign-off of the deal by the English and Scottish (and Welsh and Northern Irish) Parliaments.

What about the Borders - if they want to Brexit and stay in the Uk - will they get a separate vote ?

All I see is a poster trying to spread Brexit doom with a Scottish angle - which bears no relation to Sindy 2 polling or Scottish opinion on a preference for the Uk over the EU.

You really don't understand the Borders at all.

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

Patrick said:

Is Unilever an early exemplar of an emerging theme - 'Don't mess with Brexit'?

More like don't play politics. The Dutch side of the board are clearly trying to exert pressure on the UK operation, now they have their reaction. To lose 29% of the grocery market overnight is a disaster for the company, I'd be very, very surprised of Sainsbury's and Asda agreed to price rises now that Tesco have told them to get lost so it could rise to being cut off from 60% of the grocery market soon. That's a material impact on the company's bottom line for nothing really. If they had come in and said we need a 3% price rise for the next few months which will be reviewed if Sterling recovers, Tesco management would have waived it through and raised prices for consumers by 2%, which most people wouldn't have noticed.

Unilever have made a huge error, all it will take now is for The Sun to rabble rouse a bit and print a front page of their products and instruct readers to avoid them until Unilever gives in and "respects the public's wishes" or something like that.

The major consequence of this is that P&G, Nestle, etc., will all make sure that no individual price rise is more than 1-2%.

In that sense Unilever has done the British consumer a massive favour as food price inflation will be held down to 2-3% over the next year or so vs 4-6% which is what I was expecting.

taffys said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/13/great-marmite-war-reality-brexit-bite

Polly Toynbee, bravely standing up for the right of giant corporations to hike prices on consumers.

A new arrogance is developing amongst the elite. Once the plebs see the price of their beer and bingo going up, they will soon change their tunes.

Just as nauseating as the others.

Polly Toynbee, bravely standing up for the right of giant corporations who funnel their profits through Switzerland to hike prices on consumers

This Brexit lark has made some odd bedfellows....

TCPoliticalBetting said:

taffys said:

''That's what happens when companies try and play politics. ''

See those bodies hanging from lamp posts in Soho?

That's Unilever's PR representatives, that is.

Maybe the problem is that the UK Head for Unilever has little experience dealing with retail negotiations and has been in UK for what looks like just 12 months?
https://www.unilever.co.uk/about/who-we-are/our-local-leadership/gina-boswell.html
Uk is only Unilever's 4th biggest market.

Probably quite a lot less at this point in time given they've been kicked out of 29% of it!

SouthamObserver said:

As long as it's just Unilever, then a boycott (very SNP, of course) is possible. If other companies start putting up process it gets trickier.

As Robert points out, the price rises will be limited to 1-2% rather than the 10% Unilever asked for, no company wants that kind of bad press. When you're on the wrong side of the argument vs Tesco and people are calling Tesco a consumer champion that's a huge PR loss.

SouthamObserver said:

As long as it's just Unilever, then a boycott (very SNP, of course) is possible. If other companies start putting up process it gets trickier.

I am not sure the number of people happy to boycott Unilever is substantially greater than the number of people who might be upset at not being able to buy their favourite brands "because of Brexit"

It may yet be another interesting exercise in "the will of the people"

EDIT: Added extra bit. It might also be that the wealthier leafier parts that voted remain would join the boycott, and those more deprived areas that voted out would be most upset

''This Brexit lark has made some odd bedfellows.... ''

That is what is so magnificent about it, and why it will be increasingly popular.

Moses_ said:

logical_song said:

Moses_ said:

SouthamObserver said:

Moses_ said:

SouthamObserver said:

To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.

Sorry no.

What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.

The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.

Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain

Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*

* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.

The 'will of the people' was not 'clearly expressed'. There was less than 4% in it.

Christ on a bike it's a majority FFS.

Had remain won with 4% or even a few dozen votes we would not be having this conversation and the line would have been the people have spoken, that's it no further discussion needed Remain has a full mandate.

Remain fully engaged in this referendum they must accept the result. The present scenario just clearly demonstrates the worst aspects of the EU and its predatory ways. I can understand why you like it so much. A referendum is only acceptable if it agrees with your views, they did not by well over a million people.

You know it ......I know it ......everyone on the board knows it. Hypocrisy and being a sore loser is so EU.

I see your point - but the fact remains that had it been the opposite result by the same margin, we'd still be on here day after day arguing the toss with leavers who refused to accept the result. We all know this is true.

edit/ indeed Farage - thinking he had lost - was already trying to set this up in his comments during Referendum week.

"Gone With The Wind-up" - Final Scene

"Rasmussen ... Home. I'll go home to Rasmussen.. And I'll think of some way to get Trump back in front .. After all... tomorrow is another day."

JackW said:

"Gone With The Wind-up" - Final Scene

"Rasmussen ... Home. I'll go home to Rasmussen.. And I'll think of some way to get Trump back in front .. After all... tomorrow is another day."

Didn;t it show a big lead for Hill the other day? I notice it wasn't satirized then.

Dromedary said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sturgeon wants to remove Scotland from the Union which accounts for 60% of its trade and which transfers money into Scotland, to one which accounts for 15% of its trade and will expect Scotland to transfer money out of Scotland

Yes indeed.

And the chances that her efforts are successful depend on voters' stupidity. Recently I heard someone say that Scots didn't have a vote in the EU referendum. "What on earth is this guy talking about?" I wondered. It hit me later what he meant. What he meant was that British citizens living in Scotland didn't get a vote on whether or not Scotland should become a member of the EU.

How is one supposed to respond? Point out that exactly the same statement could be made about people living in England, or London, or the Isle of Wight? Point out that Scotland can only ever become a member of the EU if it is independent, and that people in Scotland recently voted against independence?

But no; against stupidity even the gods battle in vain. The SNP encourage a massive nationalistic chip on their shoulder among their followers and voters: every damned thing they don't like is about the English (who sometimes appear as "Westminster", sometimes "the London media") stopping them getting what they want. They live in the infantile borderland between Tantrum World and Pretending to be Like a Grown-Up. There's no reasoning with them.

If ratings agencies say an independent Scotland would get a crap rating, that must be because they're evil-minded people seeking to do Scotland down. I'm no fan of ratings agencies, but such an accusation indicates a complete lack of understanding of what lending money is all about.

When the SNP politicians are behind closed doors, of course, the "we" who want "control over our own affairs" becomes a very different "we". A Labour-Tory-LibDem coalition in the Scottish parliament would be far preferable to the SNP-Green shower that's in power in Edinburgh at the moment.

Nationalism clearly played a large part in the Brexit vote too. And, as many on here have said, some things are more important than money. The political trajectories of Scotland and England are clearly going in very different directions.

Indigo said:

IanB2 said:

I am not so sure. If the EU is willing (which I admit could go either way) we could stop the process at any point after A50 until the point of actual exit.

No. The ECJ rules in accordance with the Treaties, and only the treaties, and pays no attention to anything like intergovernmental agreements, or even agreements one the Council of Ministers. see
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/the_79_times_that_the_ecj_has_ignored_the_danish_renegotiation.html

In reality, if the will is there, I suggest that politics will be trumps

JackW said:

"Gone With The Wind-up" - Final Scene

"Rasmussen ... Home. I'll go home to Rasmussen.. And I'll think of some way to get Trump back in front .. After all... tomorrow is another day."

Is "Gone With The Wind-Up" an ARSE production?

If you really, really want to shake up the establishment and the elite in the UK - if you want to rock them to their very core of their being - the best thing you could do is to break the UK up.

IanB2 said:

I see your point - but the fact remains that had it been the opposite result by the same margin, we'd still be on here day after day arguing the toss with leavers who refused to accept the result. We all know this is true.

edit/ indeed Farage - thinking he had lost - was already trying to set this up in his comments during Referendum week.

Any movement at all towards closer integration would have been fair game. A 52-48 result to Remain could only have been seen as a result for the states quo. Which, in many ways would have been an even more impossible high-wire act for Prime Minister Cameron...

He was stuffed all ways round on anything less than a sizeable Remain majority.

taffys said:

JackW said:

"Gone With The Wind-up" - Final Scene

"Rasmussen ... Home. I'll go home to Rasmussen.. And I'll think of some way to get Trump back in front .. After all... tomorrow is another day."

Didn;t it show a big lead for Hill the other day? I notice it wasn't satirized then.

Yes +7 .. Trump moved +6 points overnight. Probably just over sampled beauty pageant organizers. A simple error.

How many Scots Remain votes came from SNP supporters who are ambivalent or sceptical towards the EU but just wanted to drive a wedge between Scotland and England, I wonder?

Must confess I hate Marmite , I would rather eat Persil but my son loves it .

tlg86 said:

David_Evershed said:

TGOHF said:

CarlottaVance said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.

http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/

One of the advantages they have is they don't sell under their own brand. Now, if the Mail and Sun declared war on Unilever products on their front page, well they would be in serious trouble.

taffys said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.

http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/

Shares down 5% today.

That's what happens when companies try and play politics.

Top of the Mail website:

#Marmitegate! Furious shoppers call for boycott of Unilever after Tesco stops selling Marmite - and 200 other items - in protest at Anglo-Dutch food giant's demand for a 10% Brexit price rise

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835034/Major-brands-axed-Tesco-shelves-row-supplier-Unilever-demanded-10-cent-price-rise-falling-pound.html#ixzz4MxwHNp00

"soap powder is soap powder, people will just get a non Unilever product"

Well quite..

Well not quite.

There is a reason for using brand names.

Unilever is not used as a brand name in this country.

During the 2012 Olympics, Proctor and Gamble pushed their own name quite a lot, something like "proud sponsor of mums". A friend of mine said this was an odd decision as he thinks a company like P&G should aim keep a low profile and not allow customers to realize that a number of brands are owned by the same people. Until yesterday I didn't know who owned Marmite (but I'd have guessed either P&G or Unilever). I'd suggest that Unilever have made a mistake in allowing their name to become associated with their products.

I assume most people have seen this before?

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/fascinating-graphic-shows-who-owns-all-the-major-brands-1599537576

@Maomentum_: The collectivisation of yeast extraction will be a priority of a future Corbyn government.
@ExMiliMed1

Indigo said:

IanB2 said:

Indigo said:

IanB2 said:

I am not so sure. If the EU is willing (which I admit could go either way) we could stop the process at any point after A50 until the point of actual exit.

No. The ECJ rules in accordance with the Treaties, and only the treaties, and pays no attention to anything like intergovernmental agreements, or even agreements one the Council of Ministers. see
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/the_79_times_that_the_ecj_has_ignored_the_danish_renegotiation.html

In reality, if the will is there, I suggest that politics will be trumps

Kadi & Al Barakaat v. Council of the EU & EC Commission

Suggests you are wrong. The ECJ throwing out the ruling of the UN Security Council.

Does the UN Security Council have any legal standing, though?

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

CarlottaVance said:

King Bhumibol has died:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37643326#"

First Asian financial crisis started in Thailand......

If the (admittedly wildly biased) commentator on The World Tonight is correct then the Crown Prince who is in line to succeed is hated and there could indeed be very rough times ahead for Thailand.

He is not held in remotely the same regard as his father.

Lese majeste laws or not, In the age of the internet, photographs of him stepping out of a jet in Munich in what's clearly his wife's top, which doesn't even reach his (ample) midriff, will have been widely seen in Thailand......talk about 'letting light in on the magic'!

Agree; however, his (elder) sister, is wildly popular.

IIRC, the succession is, at least partly, in the gift of the King.

619 said:

JackW said:

National - Rasmussen

Clinton 41 .. Trump 43

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/rasmussen-26154

Has Trump tweeted about this yet?

Certainly not ... Trump thinks it's only a two point lead in California ...

tlg86 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

tlg86 said:

David_Evershed said:

TGOHF said:

CarlottaVance said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.

http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/

One of the advantages they have is they don't sell under their own brand. Now, if the Mail and Sun declared war on Unilever products on their front page, well they would be in serious trouble.

taffys said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.

http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/

Shares down 5% today.

That's what happens when companies try and play politics.

Top of the Mail website:

#Marmitegate! Furious shoppers call for boycott of Unilever after Tesco stops selling Marmite - and 200 other items - in protest at Anglo-Dutch food giant's demand for a 10% Brexit price rise

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835034/Major-brands-axed-Tesco-shelves-row-supplier-Unilever-demanded-10-cent-price-rise-falling-pound.html#ixzz4MxwHNp00

"soap powder is soap powder, people will just get a non Unilever product"

Well quite..

Well not quite.

There is a reason for using brand names.

Unilever is not used as a brand name in this country.

During the 2012 Olympics, Proctor and Gamble pushed their own name quite a lot, something like "proud sponsor of mums". A friend of mine said this was an odd decision as he thinks a company like P&G should aim keep a low profile and not allow customers to realize that a number of brands are owned by the same people. Until yesterday I didn't know who owned Marmite (but I'd have guessed either P&G or Unilever). I'd suggest that Unilever have made a mistake in allowing their name to become associated with their products.

I assume most people have seen this before?

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/fascinating-graphic-shows-who-owns-all-the-major-brands-1599537576

No, that's very interesting, thank you.

And people think a country of 60-70 million can be totally in charge of it’s own destiny.

SouthamObserver said:

If you really, really want to shake up the establishment and the elite in the UK - if you want to rock them to their very core of their being - the best thing you could do is to break the UK up.

Yes, I'm sure the anti-'liberal elite', anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, PB Trumper Leavers will be promoting exactly that.

https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/786491388204429312

Jobabob said:

SouthamObserver said:

If you really, really want to shake up the establishment and the elite in the UK - if you want to rock them to their very core of their being - the best thing you could do is to break the UK up.

Yes, I'm sure the anti-'liberal elite', anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, PB Trumper Leavers will be promoting exactly that.

Yep, I am sure they will :-D

I must confess to being rather more excited about this that I was about The Force Awakens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC9abcLLQpI

rcs1000 said:

I must confess to being rather more excited about this that I was about The Force Awakens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC9abcLLQpI

This might be the first 'proper' Star Wars movie since Empire. But I kept saying that about Queen albums in the 80's too, and I was always wrong.

Jobabob said:

Poor positioning by Kezia and ScotLab.

They should give qualified backing for independence.

Even if they don't believe in it?