politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How long will May’s honeymoon period can go on?
Options
Comments
-
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
0 -
Indeed there were reasonable people bringing up the subject who got ignored.LordWakefield said:
Ann Cryer Labour MP for Keighley brought the subject up around the same time as Nick Griffin and still nothing was done.AlsoIndigo said:
So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.SouthamObserver said:No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.
There were victims coming forward who got ignored.
There was evidence discovered that got ignored.
There were witnesses that came forward that got ignored.
None of that should have happened. If Griffin and his cronies were the only source then that means no reasonable people, no victims, no evidence and no witnesses. In which case yes I think no/minimal follow up would be reasonable. And since there were no victims or anything else raping wouldn't have continued as there were no victims.0 -
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.0 -
Good point HYUFD - maybe Labour aren't the shoo-in I had imagined (and posted to such effect). It could be close ..... very close.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
0 -
Such voters are hardly likely to warm to Corbyn after his continued backing for unrestricted free movement though now are they? They are more likely to vote Tory in a May v Corbyn battle in my view than they would have been in a Cameron v Brown or Ed Miliband battle given such voters will be socially conservative, concerned about immigration and have backed LeavePhilip_Thompson said:
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.0 -
Yes if the Tories get some defections from UKIP and Labour lose a few to the LDs the Tories could scrape home, on a swing from 2015 matching the latest yougov it would be literally tiedpeter_from_putney said:
Good point HYUFD - maybe Labour aren't the shoo-in I had imagined (and posted to such effect). It could be close ..... very close.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
0 -
Well, you could start by naming any Peebies who are among their number. I find it a good rule, when I don't know all the ins and outs of an issue, to look at what the neo-fascists recommend - and then go the opposite way!Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't want to be rude by naming names especially if they're not here to defend themselves. I can do if you really want, I think many people will read that and think of a name but I don't personally like the idea of "name and shame" do you REALLY want names to be named?Innocent_Abroad said:
"Certain people" is too easy. Name names or shut up.Philip_Thompson said:
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.AlsoIndigo said:
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.PlatoSaid said:
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
0 -
Bring it on, once people get used to moving their money with anonymous digital crypto-currencies they won't go back to using the US-controlled banks.David_Evershed said:
Trump just has to put a tax on cash remitted to Mexico by Mexicans working in the USA to collect money for the wall.SouthamObserver said:0 -
Exactly. Nick Griffin is a total red herring. There were dozens of other credible sources. The wickedness was in ignoring them, not Nick Griffin.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed there were reasonable people bringing up the subject who got ignored.LordWakefield said:
Ann Cryer Labour MP for Keighley brought the subject up around the same time as Nick Griffin and still nothing was done.AlsoIndigo said:
So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.SouthamObserver said:No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.
There were victims coming forward who got ignored.
There was evidence discovered that got ignored.
There were witnesses that came forward that got ignored.
None of that should have happened. If Griffin and his cronies were the only source then that means no reasonable people, no victims, no evidence and no witnesses. In which case yes I think no/minimal follow up would be reasonable. And since there were no victims or anything else raping wouldn't have continued as there were no victims.
0 -
Issue will be at Copeland, who are motivated to vote. What is motivating Labour voters to vote in the seat of nuclear power in the UK, with a unilateralist anti-nuke leader? The NHS? Maybe. But an independent "Protect our NHS" candidate - a la Dr. Richard Taylor in Wyre Forest - could have a dramatic impact. My guess would be disproportionately at Labour's expense.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
I am not dipping my toe in this market until we know the full list of candidates.0 -
Griffin should have been listened to.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Or do crimes only count if the person reporting them is socially / politically acceptable?
Mind you, the way this country acts sometimes I do wonder.0 -
Yes, the Tories will certainly want a good local candidateMarqueeMark said:
Issue will be at Copeland, who are motivated to vote. What is motivating Labour voters to vote in the seat of nuclear power in the UK, with a unilateralist anti-nuke leader? The NHS? Maybe. But an independent "Protect our NHS" candidate - a la Dr. Richard Taylor in Wyre Forest - could have a dramatic impact. My guess would be disproportionately at Labour's expense.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
I am not dipping my toe in this market until we know the full list of candidates.0 -
Yep - it was Tory cabinet ministers and a back bench Labour MP telling lies about the NHS.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.isam said:
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be usedPhilip_Thompson said:
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.AlsoIndigo said:
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.PlatoSaid said:
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
0 -
In 2015 UKIP took many protest votes from the Lib Dems and took some working class C2,D,E votes from Labour.Philip_Thompson said:
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.
In 2017 UKIP may not get as many protest votes because people have got more used to them. UKIP are seen as part of the establishment now.0 -
I'll name just one then (although he's not the only one) since he's quite vocal on this subject and writes thread headers on it too but our own Mr Meeks has made this claim repeatedly. I'm not going to name any other names as I don't see how it helps and think it's rude.Innocent_Abroad said:
Well, you could start by naming any Peebies who are among their number. I find it a good rule, when I don't know all the ins and outs of an issue, to look at what the neo-fascists recommend - and then go the opposite way!Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't want to be rude by naming names especially if they're not here to defend themselves. I can do if you really want, I think many people will read that and think of a name but I don't personally like the idea of "name and shame" do you REALLY want names to be named?Innocent_Abroad said:
"Certain people" is too easy. Name names or shut up.Philip_Thompson said:
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.AlsoIndigo said:
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.PlatoSaid said:
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on0 -
Really Southam, that's all it was?SouthamObserver said:
A stopped clock is right a couple of times a day. The shame of Rotherham is not that a white supremacist holocaust denier was ignored, but that far more credible sources were. Indeed, Griffin's involvement gave wicked people cover.isam said:
It's probably worth a look on a risk/reward basis, especially when they turn out to be correct to the power of 1,4000SouthamObserver said:
Nope - I just believe it is reasonable to treat racially-charged claims made by avowed white supremacists and holicaust deniers with a degree of scepticism. You clearly don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree.philiph said:
Oh, I get it.SouthamObserver said:
No, you follow up ony. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.philiph said:
OKSouthamObserver said:
It turned out sources.philiph said:
It turned out to be unreasonable.SouthamObserver said:
It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.Sandpit said:
Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?NickPalmer said:
The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.
The spate o diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.
If you put all those with long track records of lying on ignore, we will be short of action on the words of politicians, police and man utd supporters to name a few.
You only follow up on things put forward by people who share your views.
While I don't endorse BNP etc, I think the logic of your statement leads to a nasty dictatorial intolerant outcome.
You follow up on accusations of child abuse from 'Nick'
That went well.
You are putting a filter on that has a political element where it does not belong.
I'm off. Moving house on Monday, stuff to do.
well sorry, but - bollocks0 -
You don't think ignore credible sources like the actual victims was a shame?Floater said:
Really Southam, that's all it was?SouthamObserver said:A stopped clock is right a couple of times a day. The shame of Rotherham is not that a white supremacist holocaust denier was ignored, but that far more credible sources were. Indeed, Griffin's involvement gave wicked people cover.
well sorry, but - bollocks
It's a thought I suppose.0 -
.
Nick Griffin was probably a part of the reason why they were ignored. People tend to assume bad motives to people who come up with the same answer as nasty people even if they happen to arrive at those answers for virtuous reasons, and in isolation from those nasty people.SouthamObserver said:
Exactly. Nick Griffin is a total red herring. There were dozens of other credible sources. The wickedness was in ignoring them, not Nick Griffin.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed there were reasonable people bringing up the subject who got ignored.LordWakefield said:
Ann Cryer Labour MP for Keighley brought the subject up around the same time as Nick Griffin and still nothing was done.AlsoIndigo said:
So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.SouthamObserver said:No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.
There were victims coming forward who got ignored.
There was evidence discovered that got ignored.
There were witnesses that came forward that got ignored.
None of that should have happened. If Griffin and his cronies were the only source then that means no reasonable people, no victims, no evidence and no witnesses. In which case yes I think no/minimal follow up would be reasonable. And since there were no victims or anything else raping wouldn't have continued as there were no victims.
People do that here all the time, its the same as saying most BNP members vote UKIP, and trying to imply by association that most kippers are fascists. Parties cant choose who supports them, and people reporting crimes cant choose who else reported them.0 -
The victims should have been listened to.Floater said:
Griffin should have been listened to.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Or do crimes only count if the person reporting them is socially / politically acceptable?
Mind you, the way this country acts sometimes I do wonder.0 -
I suspect the Establishment dont see it that wayDavid_Evershed said:
In 2015 UKIP took many protest votes from the Lib Dems and took some working class C2,D,E votes from Labour.Philip_Thompson said:
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.
In 2017 UKIP may not get as many protest votes because people have got more used to them. UKIP are seen as part of the establishment now.0 -
Griffin was never the original source of the crime reporting. He made hay out of the fact reported.crimes were being ignored. Had the authorities done their jobs and listened to the victims in the first place then Griffin would never have got the chance to get involved. He is a side show.AlsoIndigo said:.
Nick Griffin was probably a part of the reason why they were ignored. People tend to assume bad motives to people who come up with the same answer as nasty people even if they happen to arrive at those answers for virtuous reasons, and in isolation from those nasty people.SouthamObserver said:
Exactly. Nick Griffin is a total red herring. There were dozens of other credible sources. The wickedness was in ignoring them, not Nick Griffin.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed there were reasonable people bringing up the subject who got ignored.LordWakefield said:
Ann Cryer Labour MP for Keighley brought the subject up around the same time as Nick Griffin and still nothing was done.AlsoIndigo said:
So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.SouthamObserver said:No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.
There were victims coming forward who got ignored.
There was evidence discovered that got ignored.
There were witnesses that came forward that got ignored.
None of that should have happened. If Griffin and his cronies were the only source then that means no reasonable people, no victims, no evidence and no witnesses. In which case yes I think no/minimal follow up would be reasonable. And since there were no victims or anything else raping wouldn't have continued as there were no victims.
People do that here all the time, its the same as saying most BNP members vote UKIP, and trying to imply by association that most kippers are fascists. Parties cant choose who supports them, and people reporting crimes cant choose who else reported them.0 -
Yep, the fact that a white supremacist and holocaust denier latched onto the issue gave the wicked and the lazy a way to play the many credible sources down. Rotherham is undoubtedly a disgraceful low point for the PC left; not because Nick Griffin was ignored, but because he was used an excuse not to look into uncomfortable truths.AlsoIndigo said:.
Nick Griffin was probably a part of the reason why they were ignored. People tend to assume bad motives to people who come up with the same answer as nasty people even if they happen to arrive at those answers for virtuous reasons, and in isolation from those nasty people.SouthamObserver said:
Exactly. Nick Griffin is a total red herring. There were dozens of other credible sources. The wickedness was in ignoring them, not Nick Griffin.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed there were reasonable people bringing up the subject who got ignored.LordWakefield said:
Ann Cryer Labour MP for Keighley brought the subject up around the same time as Nick Griffin and still nothing was done.AlsoIndigo said:
So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.SouthamObserver said:No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.
There were victims coming forward who got ignored.
There was evidence discovered that got ignored.
There were witnesses that came forward that got ignored.
None of that should have happened. If Griffin and his cronies were the only source then that means no reasonable people, no victims, no evidence and no witnesses. In which case yes I think no/minimal follow up would be reasonable. And since there were no victims or anything else raping wouldn't have continued as there were no victims.
People do that here all the time, its the same as saying most BNP members vote UKIP, and trying to imply by association that most kippers are fascists. Parties cant choose who supports them, and people reporting crimes cant choose who else reported them.
0 -
I think you need to read up on Rotherham. Start hereSandpit said:
Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?NickPalmer said:
The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.
The spate of instant psychiatric diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-girls-could-have-been-spared-ann-cryer
http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2016-06-10/mbe-for-rotherham-youth-worker-who-exposed-child-sexual-exploitation/0 -
The old political establishment, in a post Brexit, Trump as POTUS world the forces which drove UKIP are now leading the new establishmentAlanbrooke said:
I suspect the Establishment dont see it that wayDavid_Evershed said:
In 2015 UKIP took many protest votes from the Lib Dems and took some working class C2,D,E votes from Labour.Philip_Thompson said:
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.
In 2017 UKIP may not get as many protest votes because people have got more used to them. UKIP are seen as part of the establishment now.0 -
Exactly.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, the fact that a white supremacist and holocaust denier latched onto the issue gave the wicked and the lazy a way to play the many credible sources down. Rotherham is undoubtedly a disgraceful low point for the PC left; not because Nick Griffin was ignored, but because he was used an excuse not to look into uncomfortable truths.AlsoIndigo said:.
Nick Griffin was probably a part of the reason why they were ignored. People tend to assume bad motives to people who come up with the same answer as nasty people even if they happen to arrive at those answers for virtuous reasons, and in isolation from those nasty people.SouthamObserver said:
Exactly. Nick Griffin is a total red herring. There were dozens of other credible sources. The wickedness was in ignoring them, not Nick Griffin.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed there were reasonable people bringing up the subject who got ignored.LordWakefield said:
Ann Cryer Labour MP for Keighley brought the subject up around the same time as Nick Griffin and still nothing was done.AlsoIndigo said:
So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.SouthamObserver said:No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.
There were victims coming forward who got ignored.
There was evidence discovered that got ignored.
There were witnesses that came forward that got ignored.
None of that should have happened. If Griffin and his cronies were the only source then that means no reasonable people, no victims, no evidence and no witnesses. In which case yes I think no/minimal follow up would be reasonable. And since there were no victims or anything else raping wouldn't have continued as there were no victims.
People do that here all the time, its the same as saying most BNP members vote UKIP, and trying to imply by association that most kippers are fascists. Parties cant choose who supports them, and people reporting crimes cant choose who else reported them.0 -
the establishments havent swapped over yetHYUFD said:
The old political establishment, in a post Brexit, Trump as POTUS world the forces which drove UKIP are now leading the new establishmentAlanbrooke said:
I suspect the Establishment dont see it that wayDavid_Evershed said:
In 2015 UKIP took many protest votes from the Lib Dems and took some working class C2,D,E votes from Labour.Philip_Thompson said:
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.
In 2017 UKIP may not get as many protest votes because people have got more used to them. UKIP are seen as part of the establishment now.
that will take at least a decade0 -
Wife is in London doing editing stuff, just nips out to local coffee house, scruffy, no make-up. Who should be in there? Only Benedict Cumberbatch.
They've met before, so she couldn't hide, had to say "hi..."
Oh, the horror. She's mortified.0 -
I once almost ran over Bruce Oldfield in Knightsbridge - I swerved and missed him by 2". I can still see his O faceMarqueeMark said:Wife is in London doing editing stuff, just nips out to local coffee house, scruffy, no make-up. Who should be in there? Only Benedict Cumberbatch.
They've met before, so she couldn't hide, had to say "hi..."
Oh, the horror. She's mortified.0 -
All the regular bettors here have moderate liabilities on UKIP, zero on the Tories and profit on Labour.peter_from_putney said:
Good point HYUFD - maybe Labour aren't the shoo-in I had imagined (and posted to such effect). It could be close ..... very close.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
0 -
I get told I look like him quite a lot.. and I don't take it as a compliment!MarqueeMark said:Wife is in London doing editing stuff, just nips out to local coffee house, scruffy, no make-up. Who should be in there? Only Benedict Cumberbatch.
They've met before, so she couldn't hide, had to say "hi..."
Oh, the horror. She's mortified.
Cant see it myself, more like Paul Newman0 -
Like a corpse thenisam said:
I get told I look like him quite a lot.. and I don't take it as a compliment!MarqueeMark said:Wife is in London doing editing stuff, just nips out to local coffee house, scruffy, no make-up. Who should be in there? Only Benedict Cumberbatch.
They've met before, so she couldn't hide, had to say "hi..."
Oh, the horror. She's mortified.
Cant see it myself, more like Paul Newman0 -
Whities all the sameisam said:
I get told I look like him quite a lot.. and I don't take it as a compliment!MarqueeMark said:Wife is in London doing editing stuff, just nips out to local coffee house, scruffy, no make-up. Who should be in there? Only Benedict Cumberbatch.
They've met before, so she couldn't hide, had to say "hi..."
Oh, the horror. She's mortified.
Cant see it myself, more like Paul Newman0 -
We have a pro Brexit PM and Cabinet after a pro Remain PM and Cabinet and Trump and his Cabinet are about to replace the Obama administration, in a decade we could have a Labour PM and a Democratic President again, in political terms at least the new establishment runs the show for nowAlanbrooke said:
the establishments havent swapped over yetHYUFD said:
The old political establishment, in a post Brexit, Trump as POTUS world the forces which drove UKIP are now leading the new establishmentAlanbrooke said:
I suspect the Establishment dont see it that wayDavid_Evershed said:
In 2015 UKIP took many protest votes from the Lib Dems and took some working class C2,D,E votes from Labour.Philip_Thompson said:
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.
In 2017 UKIP may not get as many protest votes because people have got more used to them. UKIP are seen as part of the establishment now.
that will take at least a decade
0 -
How quickly we misremember http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.htmlPhilip_Thompson said:
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.isam said:
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be usedPhilip_Thompson said:
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.AlsoIndigo said:
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.PlatoSaid said:
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on0 -
German socialists want to reduce foreign aid to countries that wont take back failed asylum seekers
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/einwanderungsdebatte-gabriel-csu-blockiert-loesung-bei-abschiebungen-nach-nordafrika-14608684.html0 -
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.MrsB said:
How quickly we misremember http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.htmlPhilip_Thompson said:
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.isam said:
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be usedPhilip_Thompson said:
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.AlsoIndigo said:
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.PlatoSaid said:
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on0 -
IndeedMrsB said:
How quickly we misremember http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.htmlPhilip_Thompson said:
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.isam said:
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be usedPhilip_Thompson said:
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.AlsoIndigo said:
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.PlatoSaid said:
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tuition-fees-clegg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8123832/Nick-Clegg-admits-breaking-tuition-fees-pledge.html0 -
changing the figureheads is only the startHYUFD said:
We have a pro Brexit PM and Cabinet after a pro Remain PM and Cabinet and Trump and his Cabinet are about to replace the Obama administration, in a decade we could have a Labour PM and a Democratic President again, in political terms at least the new establishment runs the show for nowAlanbrooke said:
the establishments havent swapped over yetHYUFD said:
The old political establishment, in a post Brexit, Trump as POTUS world the forces which drove UKIP are now leading the new establishmentAlanbrooke said:
I suspect the Establishment dont see it that wayDavid_Evershed said:
In 2015 UKIP took many protest votes from the Lib Dems and took some working class C2,D,E votes from Labour.Philip_Thompson said:
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.
In 2017 UKIP may not get as many protest votes because people have got more used to them. UKIP are seen as part of the establishment now.
that will take at least a decade
the layers below need time to adopt the new realities, that means both culture and people changes all of which take time to get bedded in0 -
MrsB said:
How quickly we misremember http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.htmlPhilip_Thompson said:
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.isam said:
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be usedPhilip_Thompson said:
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.AlsoIndigo said:
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.PlatoSaid said:
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
You are making my point for me!! Amazing0 -
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.Philip_Thompson said:
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.</p>MrsB said:
How quickly we misremember http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.htmlPhilip_Thompson said:
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.isam said:
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be usedPhilip_Thompson said:
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.AlsoIndigo said:
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.PlatoSaid said:
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on0 -
To an extent but the UK civil service is supposed to impartially serve whichever party forms the government of the day, hence Sir Ivan Roger's has resigned from the civil service and been replaced by Sir Tim Bristow while in the US the new administration appoints its own senior civil servants and ambassadors and the old ones will depart with Obama.Alanbrooke said:
changing the figureheads is only the startHYUFD said:
We have a pro Brexit PM and Cabinet after a pro Remain PM and Cabinet and Trump and his Cabinet are about to replace the Obama administration, in a decade we could have a Labour PM and a Democratic President again, in political terms at least the new establishment runs the show for nowAlanbrooke said:
the establishments havent swapped over yetHYUFD said:
The old political establishment, in a post Brexit, Trump as POTUS world the forces which drove UKIP are now leading the new establishmentAlanbrooke said:
I suspect the Establishment dont see it that wayDavid_Evershed said:
In 2015 UKIP took many protest votes from the Lib Dems and took some working class C2,D,E votes from Labour.Philip_Thompson said:
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.
In 2017 UKIP may not get as many protest votes because people have got more used to them. UKIP are seen as part of the establishment now.
that will take at least a decade
the layers below need time to adopt the new realities, that means both culture and people changes all of which take time to get bedded in0 -
He is specifically saying that Leave shouldn't be using £350m!!!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.Philip_Thompson said:
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.</p>MrsB said:
How quickly we misremember http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.htmlPhilip_Thompson said:
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.isam said:
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be usedPhilip_Thompson said:
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.AlsoIndigo said:PlatoSaid said:
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
Yes it is possible to spend some of the EU money on the NHS, I didn't think anyone disputed that, it was saying £350m could be spent that was controversial
What Farage is saying is we could spend the net figure on a whole load of different things, not the gross figure on the NHS.. thanks for providing the link0 -
Well we could spend £10bn per year extra if we wanted to. That money is available.MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.Philip_Thompson said:
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.</p>MrsB said:
How quickly we misremember http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.htmlPhilip_Thompson said:
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.isam said:
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be usedPhilip_Thompson said:
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.AlsoIndigo said:
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.PlatoSaid said:
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on0 -
Of course, the £200m or £350m or whatever is all dependent on Brexit not shrinking the economy as a whole (relative to what it would have been without Brexit).isam said:
He is specifically saying that Leave shouldn't be using £350m!!!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.Philip_Thompson said:
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.</p>MrsB said:
How quickly we misremember http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.htmlPhilip_Thompson said:
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.isam said:
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be usedPhilip_Thompson said:
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.AlsoIndigo said:PlatoSaid said:
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
Yes it is possible to spend some of the EU money on the NHS, I didn't think anyone disputed that, it was saying £350m could be spent that was controversial
What Farage is saying is we could spend the net figure on a whole load of different things, not the gross figure on the NHS.. thanks for providing the link0 -
Maybe. I suppose it could be more if the economy grew because of it as well.No_Offence_Alan said:
Of course, the £200m or £350m or whatever is all dependent on Brexit not shrinking the economy as a whole (relative to what it would have been without Brexit).isam said:
He is specifically saying that Leave shouldn't be using £350m!!!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.Philip_Thompson said:
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.</p>MrsB said:
How quickly we misremember http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.htmlPhilip_Thompson said:
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.isam said:
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be usedPhilip_Thompson said:
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.AlsoIndigo said:PlatoSaid said:
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
Yes it is possible to spend some of the EU money on the NHS, I didn't think anyone disputed that, it was saying £350m could be spent that was controversial
What Farage is saying is we could spend the net figure on a whole load of different things, not the gross figure on the NHS.. thanks for providing the link
Lets not bother eh?0 -
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.Philip_Thompson said:
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.</p>MrsB said:
How quickly we misremember http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.htmlPhilip_Thompson said:
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.isam said:
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be usedPhilip_Thompson said:
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.AlsoIndigo said:
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.PlatoSaid said:
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on0 -
The first of the new realities that will come as a shock to some will be the lack of synergy between Trump and Brexit.Alanbrooke said:
changing the figureheads is only the startHYUFD said:
We have a pro Brexit PM and Cabinet after a pro Remain PM and Cabinet and Trump and his Cabinet are about to replace the Obama administration, in a decade we could have a Labour PM and a Democratic President again, in political terms at least the new establishment runs the show for nowAlanbrooke said:
the establishments havent swapped over yetHYUFD said:
The old political establishment, in a post Brexit, Trump as POTUS world the forces which drove UKIP are now leading the new establishmentAlanbrooke said:
I suspect the Establishment dont see it that wayDavid_Evershed said:
In 2015 UKIP took many protest votes from the Lib Dems and took some working class C2,D,E votes from Labour.Philip_Thompson said:
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.
In 2017 UKIP may not get as many protest votes because people have got more used to them. UKIP are seen as part of the establishment now.
that will take at least a decade
the layers below need time to adopt the new realities, that means both culture and people changes all of which take time to get bedded in0 -
http://labourlist.org/2017/01/exclusive-the-runners-and-riders-in-contest-to-be-labours-copeland-candidate/MarqueeMark said:
Issue will be at Copeland, who are motivated to vote. What is motivating Labour voters to vote in the seat of nuclear power in the UK, with a unilateralist anti-nuke leader? The NHS? Maybe. But an independent "Protect our NHS" candidate - a la Dr. Richard Taylor in Wyre Forest - could have a dramatic impact. My guess would be disproportionately at Labour's expense.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
I am not dipping my toe in this market until we know the full list of candidates.
Both the frontrunners are well known local councillors, pro nuclear with long track records of campaigning on health issues. Both look formidable.0 -
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.Philip_Thompson said:
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.</p>MrsB said:
How quickly we misremember http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.htmlPhilip_Thompson said:
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.isam said:
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be usedPhilip_Thompson said:
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.AlsoIndigo said:
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.PlatoSaid said:
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.Philip_Thompson said:The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted0 -
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted0 -
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.0 -
And both have that squawking Labour albatross around their necks.foxinsoxuk said:
http://labourlist.org/2017/01/exclusive-the-runners-and-riders-in-contest-to-be-labours-copeland-candidate/MarqueeMark said:
Issue will be at Copeland, who are motivated to vote. What is motivating Labour voters to vote in the seat of nuclear power in the UK, with a unilateralist anti-nuke leader? The NHS? Maybe. But an independent "Protect our NHS" candidate - a la Dr. Richard Taylor in Wyre Forest - could have a dramatic impact. My guess would be disproportionately at Labour's expense.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
I am not dipping my toe in this market until we know the full list of candidates.
Both the frontrunners are well known local councillors, pro nuclear with long track records of campaigning on health issues. Both look formidable.
Jeremy Corbyn.0 -
The wall is now a fence anyways and some areas you have o use your imagination.SouthamObserver said:
The wall will not be hardball.another_richard said:0 -
Ivan Rogers quits the civil service altogether.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38542076
Perhaps the Lib Dems should see if he's interested in being a candidate?0 -
Are we still allowed to talk about Brexit? There were calls by some Leavers on here the other day that discussion of it should be licensed.0
-
It's an old-fashioned shake-down. Mexico cannot (politically) and will not fund the wall.nunu said:
The wall is now a fence anyways and some areas you have o use your imagination.SouthamObserver said:
The wall will not be hardball.another_richard said:
Also: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1iNrdtXAAUv1e2.jpg0 -
Troughton campaigned for Owen Smith.MarqueeMark said:
And both have that squawking Labour albatross around their necks.foxinsoxuk said:
http://labourlist.org/2017/01/exclusive-the-runners-and-riders-in-contest-to-be-labours-copeland-candidate/MarqueeMark said:
Issue will be at Copeland, who are motivated to vote. What is motivating Labour voters to vote in the seat of nuclear power in the UK, with a unilateralist anti-nuke leader? The NHS? Maybe. But an independent "Protect our NHS" candidate - a la Dr. Richard Taylor in Wyre Forest - could have a dramatic impact. My guess would be disproportionately at Labour's expense.HYUFD said:
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%foxinsoxuk said:Second, like the Tories in Copeland.
I am not dipping my toe in this market until we know the full list of candidates.
Both the frontrunners are well known local councillors, pro nuclear with long track records of campaigning on health issues. Both look formidable.
Jeremy Corbyn.0 -
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.0 -
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.0 -
A trade war would be hard to confine to the US Southern border, and is already having effect.Anorak said:
It's an old-fashioned shake-down. Mexico cannot (politically) and will not fund the wall.nunu said:
The wall is now a fence anyways and some areas you have o use your imagination.SouthamObserver said:
The wall will not be hardball.another_richard said:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily-chart-2
0 -
After Cameron left without invoking Article 50 the rest of the world concluded that it might never happen.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.0 -
Yep, Texas, California and Arizona will be disproportionately hit, but the effect will be felt across large swathes of the US beyond that. Alaska and Hawaii probably immune!foxinsoxuk said:
A trade war would be hard to confine to the US Southern border, and is already having effect.Anorak said:
It's an old-fashioned shake-down. Mexico cannot (politically) and will not fund the wall.nunu said:
The wall is now a fence anyways and some areas you have o use your imagination.SouthamObserver said:
The wall will not be hardball.another_richard said:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily-chart-20 -
And as it's the weekend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q__bSi5rBlw0 -
And on that Brexit-based devaluation of sterling, do we think the French and Germans are goingfoxinsoxuk said:
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
a) Ha! That showed the Brits!
or
b) Bastards!!!0 -
The Ft. Lauderdale shooting was staged apperently.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFU0qlAmfRo&t=127s0 -
.
PB's own medical examiner got the cause of death wrong - the patient is alive, well and chirpy - yet he refuses to accept it - and still wants him buried.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
Ring that bell
"The fear of being buried alive peaked during the cholera epidemics of the 18th and 19th centuries but accounts of live burial have been recorded even further back. When his tomb was reopened, the philosopher John Duns Scotus (1266 – 1308) was reportedly found outside his coffin with his hands torn and bloody after attempting to escape. The fears of being buried alive were heightened by reports of doctors and accounts in literature and the newspapers. As well as dealing with the subject in "The Fall of the House of Usher" and "The Cask of Amontillado", Edgar Allan Poe wrote "The Premature Burial", which was published in 1844. It contained accounts of supposedly genuine cases of premature burial as well as detailing the narrator's own (perceived) interment while still alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_coffin0 -
Neither, I expectMarqueeMark said:
And on that Brexit-based devaluation of sterling, do we think the French and Germans are goingfoxinsoxuk said:
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
a) Ha! That showed the Brits!
or
b) Bastards!!!
Though it obviously means earning in pounds is worth less compared to $ € CHF and ¥. This may make a difference to where mobile people want to work, whether financiers or cabbage pickers. Devaluation is not a sign of economic strength, but usually a correction showing overall lack of economic potential.0 -
Oh God. I've just remembered I've got a £10 1846/1 double on trump winning and then declaring war on mexico.foxinsoxuk said:
A trade war would be hard to confine to the US Southern border, and is already having effect.Anorak said:
It's an old-fashioned shake-down. Mexico cannot (politically) and will not fund the wall.nunu said:
The wall is now a fence anyways and some areas you have o use your imagination.SouthamObserver said:
The wall will not be hardball.another_richard said:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily-chart-2
That's probably down to 50/1 now.
Please no.
0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.0
-
Shame that the Southern European economies are being wrecked because the Euro is run to suit Germany.foxinsoxuk said:
Neither, I expectMarqueeMark said:
And on that Brexit-based devaluation of sterling, do we think the French and Germans are goingfoxinsoxuk said:
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
a) Ha! That showed the Brits!
or
b) Bastards!!!
Though it obviously means earning in pounds is worth less compared to $ € CHF and ¥. This may make a difference to where mobile people want to work, whether financiers or cabbage pickers. Devaluation is not a sign of economic strength, but usually a correction showing overall lack of economic potential.0 -
Out of curiosity - and many years after the thought first occurred - are you actually a morris dancer, or is it just a whimsical handle chosen for this forum?Morris_Dancer said:Good afternoon, everyone.
And good afternoon!0 -
Plus the increase in consumer confidence and the increase oin the purchasing managers' indices and the increase in overseas investment into the UK.foxinsoxuk said:
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.0 -
I see the British red cross is having a "back to Wigan pier" moment.
It might get a cheap headline, but it is just insulting in genuine crisis e.g. Syria and actually harms any sensible debate.0 -
LOL - that must be it !williamglenn said:
After Cameron left without invoking Article 50 the rest of the world concluded that it might never happen.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
You show a huge capacity for self delusion.0 -
Mr. Anorak, the sight of my wiffle stick being waved gaily through England's merry streets brings smiles to the faces of all who delight in its presence.
[I am not a morris dancer. I wanted a name that was both unmistakably British, yet also quite silly].0 -
Yet I can remember lower rates of exchanges in last 10 years..........foxinsoxuk said:
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
I don't recall the end of the world then or even a massive spike in inflation.0 -
And still very much a modern fascination: see the 1988 Dutch film "The Vanishing" (but NOT the English remake - truly awful what they did to that!!)PlatoSaid said:.
PB's own medical examiner got the cause of death wrong - the patient is alive, well and chirpy - yet he refuses to accept it - and still wants him buried.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
Ring that bell
"The fear of being buried alive peaked during the cholera epidemics of the 18th and 19th centuries but accounts of live burial have been recorded even further back. When his tomb was reopened, the philosopher John Duns Scotus (1266 – 1308) was reportedly found outside his coffin with his hands torn and bloody after attempting to escape. The fears of being buried alive were heightened by reports of doctors and accounts in literature and the newspapers. As well as dealing with the subject in "The Fall of the House of Usher" and "The Cask of Amontillado", Edgar Allan Poe wrote "The Premature Burial", which was published in 1844. It contained accounts of supposedly genuine cases of premature burial as well as detailing the narrator's own (perceived) interment while still alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_coffin0 -
Isn’t premature burial supposed to have contributed to the vampire myth; scratch marks on the inside of the coffin, when the corpses of those suspected were examined?PlatoSaid said:.
PB's own medical examiner got the cause of death wrong - the patient is alive, well and chirpy - yet he refuses to accept it - and still wants him buried.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
Ring that bell
"The fear of being buried alive peaked during the cholera epidemics of the 18th and 19th centuries but accounts of live burial have been recorded even further back. When his tomb was reopened, the philosopher John Duns Scotus (1266 – 1308) was reportedly found outside his coffin with his hands torn and bloody after attempting to escape. The fears of being buried alive were heightened by reports of doctors and accounts in literature and the newspapers. As well as dealing with the subject in "The Fall of the House of Usher" and "The Cask of Amontillado", Edgar Allan Poe wrote "The Premature Burial", which was published in 1844. It contained accounts of supposedly genuine cases of premature burial as well as detailing the narrator's own (perceived) interment while still alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_coffin0 -
I was 80% sure that was the case, but thought I'd check. Not that there is anything wrong with being a morris dancer, obviously.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Anorak, the sight of my wiffle stick being waved gaily through England's merry streets brings smiles to the faces of all who delight in its presence.
[I am not a morris dancer. I wanted a name that was both unmistakably British, yet also quite silly].0 -
presumably that bet requires a real rather than trade war!Pong said:
Oh God. I've just remembered I've got a £10 1846/1 double on trump winning and then declaring war on mexico.foxinsoxuk said:
A trade war would be hard to confine to the US Southern border, and is already having effect.Anorak said:
It's an old-fashioned shake-down. Mexico cannot (politically) and will not fund the wall.nunu said:
The wall is now a fence anyways and some areas you have o use your imagination.SouthamObserver said:
The wall will not be hardball.another_richard said:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily-chart-2
That's probably down to 50/1 now.
Please no.
Though check the fine print. As I recall only Congress can declare war, though Trump will be Commander in chief. An undeclared military war may not count. Formal declarations ofwar are so mid 20th century.0 -
Shhh don't start Scott off again. :-)Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.0 -
How is ‘war’ defined?Pong said:
Oh God. I've just remembered I've got a £10 1846/1 double on trump winning and then declaring war on mexico.foxinsoxuk said:
A trade war would be hard to confine to the US Southern border, and is already having effect.Anorak said:
It's an old-fashioned shake-down. Mexico cannot (politically) and will not fund the wall.nunu said:
The wall is now a fence anyways and some areas you have o use your imagination.SouthamObserver said:
The wall will not be hardball.another_richard said:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily-chart-2
That's probably down to 50/1 now.
Please no.0 -
Well, he is an older white male who prefers the EU to his own countries interests.williamglenn said:Ivan Rogers quits the civil service altogether.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38542076
Perhaps the Lib Dems should see if he's interested in being a candidate?
Perfect match!0 -
let's not forget those best ever car salesDavid_Evershed said:
Plus the increase in consumer confidence and the increase oin the purchasing managers' indices and the increase in overseas investment into the UK.foxinsoxuk said:
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.0 -
From wiki: The term morris is believed to be from the late Middle English word morys, a variant of the word moorish – from the Moors of Morocco.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Anorak, the sight of my wiffle stick being waved gaily through England's merry streets brings smiles to the faces of all who delight in its presence.
[I am not a morris dancer. I wanted a name that was both unmistakably British, yet also quite silly].
Maybe not so British
Although the penchant for blacking up does seem a particularly English affectation. Well pre-1980 England, anyway.0 -
Are you sure about the increase in investment? The figures I saw showed a decrease. Consumer confidence is holding up, but as it's credit fuelled it isn't sustainable.David_Evershed said:
Plus the increase in consumer confidence and the increase oin the purchasing managers indices and the increase in overseas investment into the UK.foxinsoxuk said:
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.0 -
Trump doesn't really need a full blown trade war. Given that economic statistics are pretty easy to fudge, that Trump has apparently little problem in telling bare faced lies, and often suffers little negative effects from doing so, I expect him to claim victory on this point irrespective of the facts.foxinsoxuk said:
A trade war would be hard to confine to the US Southern border, and is already having effect.Anorak said:
It's an old-fashioned shake-down. Mexico cannot (politically) and will not fund the wall.nunu said:
The wall is now a fence anyways and some areas you have o use your imagination.SouthamObserver said:
The wall will not be hardball.another_richard said:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily-chart-2
More importantly, Obama's economic legacy is pretty decent, and stuff is happening completely independently of anything Trump will do which will significantly benefit US manufacturing jobs - for example:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-04/tesla-flips-the-switch-on-the-gigafactory
Trump is (IMO) a horse's ass, and likely a blunderer as President,but I do not write off the possibility of a second term.0 -
Your claim is certainly demonstrably wrongPhilip_Thompson said:Which is now demonstrably wrong.
So let's propose an experiment.
You claim triggering Article 50 was/is irrelevant to the market reaction.
Assuming we trigger in March (and I am not sure we will), will you stand by your assertion that it will have zero market impact?0 -
That whistling sound you heard was you missing the point in a rather spectacular fashion.Philip_Thompson said:
You don't think ignore credible sources like the actual victims was a shame?Floater said:
Really Southam, that's all it was?SouthamObserver said:A stopped clock is right a couple of times a day. The shame of Rotherham is not that a white supremacist holocaust denier was ignored, but that far more credible sources were. Indeed, Griffin's involvement gave wicked people cover.
well sorry, but - bollocks
It's a thought I suppose.
You obviously didn't think, I suppose.0 -
but as it's credit fuelled it isn't sustainable.FF43 said:
Are you sure about the increase in investment? The figures I saw showed a decrease. Consumer confidence is holding up, but as it's credit fuelled it isn't sustainable.David_Evershed said:
Plus the increase in consumer confidence and the increase oin the purchasing managers indices and the increase in overseas investment into the UK.foxinsoxuk said:
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
you mean like the UK economy for the last 30 years ?0 -
Mr. Anorak, well, the word Blighty is ultimately of Arabic derivation, I believe.
Most words and customs have long roots.0 -
Buy before the price goes up. Like any imprt the new stock will be more expensive.Alanbrooke said:
let's not forget those best ever car salesDavid_Evershed said:
Plus the increase in consumer confidence and the increase oin the purchasing managers' indices and the increase in overseas investment into the UK.foxinsoxuk said:
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
There is a certain End of the Century bubble feeling in the air. I think that we are seeing the end of the long 20th Century.
0 -
I thought it was the noise made by the wind blowing in your left ear and straight out of the right one.Floater said:
That whistling sound you heard was you missing the point in a rather spectacular fashion.Philip_Thompson said:
You don't think ignore credible sources like the actual victims was a shame?Floater said:
Really Southam, that's all it was?SouthamObserver said:A stopped clock is right a couple of times a day. The shame of Rotherham is not that a white supremacist holocaust denier was ignored, but that far more credible sources were. Indeed, Griffin's involvement gave wicked people cover.
well sorry, but - bollocks
It's a thought I suppose.
You obviously didn't think, I suppose.0 -
Good.foxinsoxuk said:
Buy before the price goes up. Like any imprt the new stock will be more expensive.Alanbrooke said:
let's not forget those best ever car salesDavid_Evershed said:
Plus the increase in consumer confidence and the increase oin the purchasing managers' indices and the increase in overseas investment into the UK.foxinsoxuk said:
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
There is a certain End of the Century bubble feeling in the air. I think that we are seeing the end of the long 20th Century.
Imports down. balance of payments up
next0 -
Just tweaking your nose, old bean. London is a name of Roman origin, after all. York is from Old Norse, etc, etc. A country named by its European conquerors!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Anorak, well, the word Blighty is ultimately of Arabic derivation, I believe.
Most words and customs have long roots.0 -
By Tony Gallagher, or whoever writes the Sun's headlines.OldKingCole said:
How is ‘war’ defined?Pong said:
Oh God. I've just remembered I've got a £10 1846/1 double on trump winning and then declaring war on mexico.foxinsoxuk said:
A trade war would be hard to confine to the US Southern border, and is already having effect.Anorak said:
It's an old-fashioned shake-down. Mexico cannot (politically) and will not fund the wall.nunu said:
The wall is now a fence anyways and some areas you have o use your imagination.SouthamObserver said:
The wall will not be hardball.another_richard said:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily-chart-2
That's probably down to 50/1 now.
Please no.
The bet was laid by the sun newspaper's very own bookmaker. I'd be surprised if they argued on a technicality. Not paying out would cost them more than paying out.
I really hope it won't come to that though.
For the sake of the Mexicans.0 -
Isn’t Blighty Hindi? And wasn’t there a British settlement in the Lomndon are, pre-Roman?Anorak said:
Just tweaking your nose, old, bean. London is a name of Roman origin, after all. York is from Old Norse, etc, etc. A country named by its European conquerors!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Anorak, well, the word Blighty is ultimately of Arabic derivation, I believe.
Most words and customs have long roots.0 -
It very much depends on price elasticity. If demand for BMW's goes down 10% but the price goes up by 10%, the balance of payments remains much the same. We just are denied the benefits of new cars...Alanbrooke said:
Good.foxinsoxuk said:
Buy before the price goes up. Like any imprt the new stock will be more expensive.Alanbrooke said:
let's not forget those best ever car salesDavid_Evershed said:
Plus the increase in consumer confidence and the increase oin the purchasing managers' indices and the increase in overseas investment into the UK.foxinsoxuk said:
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.Philip_Thompson said:
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.foxinsoxuk said:
We haven't Brexited yet...Philip_Thompson said:
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.foxinsoxuk said:
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.Philip_Thompson said:
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!MrsB said:
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
There is a certain End of the Century bubble feeling in the air. I think that we are seeing the end of the long 20th Century.
Imports down. balance of payments up
next0 -
Mr. Anorak, York was Eboracum, a Roman city (then Eoferwic, Jorvik and York).
King Cole, you might be right. Sometimes such confusions occur (such as so-called Arabic numerals/numbers, which are really Indian).0 -
Not sure there was, not of any note in any case. This is rather heartening, though:OldKingCole said:
Isn’t Blighty Hindi? And wasn’t there a British settlement in the Lomndon are, pre-Roman?Anorak said:
Just tweaking your nose, old, bean. London is a name of Roman origin, after all. York is from Old Norse, etc, etc. A country named by its European conquerors!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Anorak, well, the word Blighty is ultimately of Arabic derivation, I believe.
Most words and customs have long roots.
Although there is evidence of scattered Brythonic settlements in the area, the first major settlement was founded by the Romans after the invasion of 43 AD. This lasted only until around 61, when the Iceni tribe led by Queen Boudica stormed it, burning it to the ground.0
This discussion has been closed.