politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Are we seeing the Tony Blair effect on BREXIT? Those saying LE
Comments
-
Bloody eighth !! ... even PB thread chasers stop at fourth ..SeanT said:I may be a sleazy bipolar schizophrenic sex addict preying on Corbynite interns, but I trust you all got your copy of the Sunday Times today, and checked out the Books section
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/835814961968517121
0 -
I still don't agree with Roger's assessment that you would need a green screen the size of a boat to do it though.rcs1000 said:0 -
I think it was Antonio in the Merchant of Venice who said of Gratiano: "His reasons are like 2 grains of wheat hidden in two bushels of chaff, you will search all day 'ere you will find them, and when you do find them they are not worth the search"rcs1000 said:I'm struggling to understand why CNN would want to fake that footage.
0 -
That implies that there was a time when it wasn't too much for him.rottenborough said:Seems Corbyn has gone all snarly in an interview this afternoon. Becoming too much for him?
0 -
Her pride must be alloyed with jealousy that her sister has pipped her by one place.SeanT said:I may be a sleazy bipolar schizophrenic sex addict preying on Corbynite interns, but I trust you all got your copy of the Sunday Times today, and checked out the Books section
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/8358149619685171210 -
30th Jan 1997, actuallyAlastairMeeks said:
I am flattered that you think me educational.Sunil_Prasannan said:
To paraphrase T Blair: "Meeks! Meeks! Meeks!"AlastairMeeks said:Meanwhile, other dastardly Europeans seem intent on exploiting the rulebook to make life difficult for dominant English:
https://www.ft.com/content/f9f3ffc2-fc1a-11e6-96f8-3700c5664d30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDSsgvMhh6A0 -
English is the best language in the world!AlastairMeeks said:Meanwhile, other dastardly Europeans seem intent on exploiting the rulebook to make life difficult for dominant English:
https://www.ft.com/content/f9f3ffc2-fc1a-11e6-96f8-3700c5664d300 -
No one is saying you don't have the right to have an opinion. That doesn't mean calling the site admin a prat is a good idea.braeside02 said:GeoffM-Not quite sure where you are coming from.Am I not entitled to an opinion.Plse clarify.Sounds like censorship to me.Tell me I'm wrong. Is this all because I love Hitler??
0 -
But there will be television debates in the presidential. It was TV debates in the primaries that put Fillon and Hamon where they are, against what the polls predicted before then.rcs1000 said:
Here is why Marine Le Pen won't win the French election.Cyan said:Bit of a trick question, that. She is likely to do better than he does in the multi-candidate debates. It's unlikely the polls will say 60-40 after R1. But even if they do, how can he seriously say at that point that he won't debate her head-to-head because he abhors what she stands for? Or what other reason might he give that doesn't haemorrhage support?
1. She's polling worse now than she was one, two or three years ago. There is no momentum in the FN vote share.
2. Even in 2015, straight after the most terrible Islamic terrorism in French history, when the FN was 5-6 points higher in the polls, the FN failed to win a single region. Even in Nord-Pas de Calais, where MLP herself was the candidate, she attracted almost no transfer votes. (She went from 40.6% in the first round to 42.2% in the second.)
3. In the 2015 Departmental elections, the FN was so transfer unfriendly they ended up with fewer councillors (62) than the Communist Party (121), or the Radical Party of the Left (63). Bear in mind this was a time when the FN was polling substantially higher than today.
4. Unlike UKIP, the PVV, or other insurgent parties, the FN has repeatedly underperformed its opinion polls scores. For example, in the 2015 Deptartmentals, it was expected to get 30-32% in the First Round and got 25.2%.
And Le Pen is not using the FN flame now. The FN doesn't even get mentioned in most of her publicity.
As for her opponents, I think Fillon and Hamon have more chance against her than Macron, who won't cut it in the adversarial stuff.0 -
Good spot! Is it just me, or does anyone else think Sean has the posher surname?AlastairMeeks said:
Her pride must be alloyed with jealousy that her sister has pipped her by one place.SeanT said:I may be a sleazy bipolar schizophrenic sex addict preying on Corbynite interns, but I trust you all got your copy of the Sunday Times today, and checked out the Books section
twitter.com/thomasknox/status/835814961968517121
0 -
Better .... but no cigar ....SeanT said:
How about fifth? Because I'm number 5 in Germany this week, AS WELLJackW said:
Bloody eighth !! ... even PB thread chasers stop at fourth ..SeanT said:I may be a sleazy bipolar schizophrenic sex addict preying on Corbynite interns, but I trust you all got your copy of the Sunday Times today, and checked out the Books section
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/835814961968517121
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/834858488153141249
0 -
As having only just come back after many years lurking I'm feeling rather guilty for having kicked this off (my wife thinks it is hilarious in between telling me to stop wasting my time).rcs1000 said:
Thanks Roger for the professional perspective. However I still think the most persuasive argument is the one I put yesterday and reiterated by rcs1000 - Why? Why? Why?
It is conspiracy theory stuff.0 -
You are confusing primaries - when lots of voters switch candidates within a party - with generals when there is much less volatility.Cyan said:
But there will be television debates in the presidential. It was TV debates in the primaries that put Fillon and Hamon where they are, against what the polls predicted before then.rcs1000 said:
Here is why Marine Le Pen won't win the French election.Cyan said:Bit of a trick question, that. She is likely to do better than he does in the multi-candidate debates. It's unlikely the polls will say 60-40 after R1. But even if they do, how can he seriously say at that point that he won't debate her head-to-head because he abhors what she stands for? Or what other reason might he give that doesn't haemorrhage support?
1. She's polling worse now than she was one, two or three years ago. There is no momentum in the FN vote share.
2. Even in 2015, straight after the most terrible Islamic terrorism in French history, when the FN was 5-6 points higher in the polls, the FN failed to win a single region. Even in Nord-Pas de Calais, where MLP herself was the candidate, she attracted almost no transfer votes. (She went from 40.6% in the first round to 42.2% in the second.)
3. In the 2015 Departmental elections, the FN was so transfer unfriendly they ended up with fewer councillors (62) than the Communist Party (121), or the Radical Party of the Left (63). Bear in mind this was a time when the FN was polling substantially higher than today.
4. Unlike UKIP, the PVV, or other insurgent parties, the FN has repeatedly underperformed its opinion polls scores. For example, in the 2015 Deptartmentals, it was expected to get 30-32% in the First Round and got 25.2%.
And Le Pen is not using the FN flame now. The FN doesn't even get mentioned in most of her publicity.
As for who has the most chance against her, I think Fillon and Hamon have more chance than Macron, who won't cut it in the adversarial stuff.0 -
Daily Telegraph fact checks Leave's claims:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/eu-referendum-claims-won-brexit-fact-checked/0 -
LEAVE 494logical_song said:Daily Telegraph fact checks Leave's claims:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/eu-referendum-claims-won-brexit-fact-checked/
REMAIN 122 0 -
Interesting... it looks as though the contribution was about £350mn/week in 2012/13.logical_song said:Daily Telegraph fact checks Leave's claims:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/eu-referendum-claims-won-brexit-fact-checked/
Edit: looks like they are checking both sides there.0 -
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/835867339946082304rottenborough said:Seems Corbyn has gone all snarly in an interview this afternoon. Becoming too much for him?
0 -
Not sure if turning elections into referendums is entirely wise, particularly when your own party is c.20pts behind the leading party.
'EXCLUSIVE: Theresa May urges Scots to use local elections to reject independence
Introducing the party conference, May writes: “We will also be looking forward to the local elections in May, when voters across Scotland will have the chance to send a clear message to the SNP that they do not want a second independence referendum, by voting Scottish Conservative and Unionist on 4 May.”'
http://tinyurl.com/zlwce3j0 -
That was her big advantage and remains it. By being so absent from the campaign she managed to give the impression of being neutral. And she has not said a lot to associate herself with the Brexit apart from aiming to make it a success - without being too clear what that means. She's positioning herself as a project manager. It might be annoying to people who are strongly pro or anti, but it is just what most people who have other stuff on their mind are looking for. A real bit of good luck for the tories that she was available.FF43 said:
I agree with you on referendums. What I meant to say about Theresa May is that just as Leavers can't deal with the consequences of Brexit because they don't accept there are any, Mrs May can't deal with the consequences either because she has never explained her switch from Remain to Leave.isam said:
The PM in referendums should not campaign heavily either way, as it means he or she cannot do their job afterwards f they lose. If only Cameron had sat impartially from the sidelines, we would be hearing a lot less moaning.
If one result is so disastrous for the country that the PM has to campaign hard against it, there should be no referendum. He was elected to make such judgements
Most people must know this, but they would lose imagined PB capital by fessing up, so don't admit it
Imagine the chaos that having a partisan for Brexit running the show could have caused.
As it is we are facing the biggest peace time challenge since the Great Reform Act with a national mood of calm and even boredom. Quite a trick to pull off.0 -
In 2015, it was £8.5 billion NET, so 8.5 billion/52 = £163 million a week.RobD said:
Interesting... it looks as though the contribution was about £350mn/week in 2012/13.logical_song said:Daily Telegraph fact checks Leave's claims:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/eu-referendum-claims-won-brexit-fact-checked/
If everyone recalls, the Sunil on Sunday only ever tweeted the 8.5 billion figure during the referendum campaign.0 -
As a United fan I can hardly believe we are still in this. Been totally outplayed for over an hour now. Worst performance for several months.0
-
Who would they get to present the Sunday Farage instead?AlastairMeeks said:0 -
Well number one on the list can't spell Ford.RobD said:
Good spot! Is it just me, or does anyone else think Sean has the posher surname?AlastairMeeks said:
Her pride must be alloyed with jealousy that her sister has pipped her by one place.SeanT said:I may be a sleazy bipolar schizophrenic sex addict preying on Corbynite interns, but I trust you all got your copy of the Sunday Times today, and checked out the Books section
twitter.com/thomasknox/status/8358149619685171210 -
Richard Tyndall--Thank you for your SAGE advice.Perhaps in the future I can return the compliment.0
-
In fairness it is even at the best of times a tough job full of people constantly out for you, and it must take tremendous self control to deal with the level of disruption and negativity that one will face.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/835867339946082304rottenborough said:Seems Corbyn has gone all snarly in an interview this afternoon. Becoming too much for him?
That said, that is what the job entails and whinging about it will not change that, you stop or ignore it by being a winner. Jeremy Corbyn cannot point to winning, so has nothing to alleviate the stress other than anger and whinging at present.0 -
8.5 months after the vote and how far has the UK come in leaving the EU? - not very far at all. makes me think of that now oft quoted line from the Hotel California...you can check out etc etc. The question for me is what does leaving look like? In which case there is a real lack of clarity and strategy (nothing to do with JC this time) which remains key to the topic asked by Yougov.0
-
According to the polls there is a big unionist vote out there.Theuniondivvie said:Not sure if turning elections into referendums is entirely wise, particularly when your own party is c.20pts behind the leading party.
'EXCLUSIVE: Theresa May urges Scots to use local elections to reject independence
Introducing the party conference, May writes: “We will also be looking forward to the local elections in May, when voters across Scotland will have the chance to send a clear message to the SNP that they do not want a second independence referendum, by voting Scottish Conservative and Unionist on 4 May.”'
http://tinyurl.com/zlwce3j0 -
He looked and sounded a bit like a very bad teacher working with bottom set year 9 last thing on Friday afternoon. Sort of stupid and grumpy by turns, and not getting that it was his fault that he was being asked the same question three times.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/835867339946082304rottenborough said:Seems Corbyn has gone all snarly in an interview this afternoon. Becoming too much for him?
What a hostage to fortune that still is as well.0 -
Hah! We have a winner!SandyRentool said:
Well number one on the list can't spell Ford.RobD said:
Good spot! Is it just me, or does anyone else think Sean has the posher surname?AlastairMeeks said:
Her pride must be alloyed with jealousy that her sister has pipped her by one place.SeanT said:I may be a sleazy bipolar schizophrenic sex addict preying on Corbynite interns, but I trust you all got your copy of the Sunday Times today, and checked out the Books section
twitter.com/thomasknox/status/8358149619685171210 -
Pitching for all the unionist vote to consolidate first, I would imagine.Theuniondivvie said:Not sure if turning elections into referendums is entirely wise, particularly when your own party is c.20pts behind the leading party.
'EXCLUSIVE: Theresa May urges Scots to use local elections to reject independence
Introducing the party conference, May writes: “We will also be looking forward to the local elections in May, when voters across Scotland will have the chance to send a clear message to the SNP that they do not want a second independence referendum, by voting Scottish Conservative and Unionist on 4 May.”'
http://tinyurl.com/zlwce3j0 -
RobD-Now I understand.Some are more equal than others.0
-
Oops, my bad - I was assuming that the £250mn/week figure was valid for the final data point on that curve. Looks like it is nearer £300mn/week *gross*.Sunil_Prasannan said:
In 2015, it was £8.5 billion NET, so 8.5 billion/52 = £163 million a week.RobD said:
Interesting... it looks as though the contribution was about £350mn/week in 2012/13.logical_song said:Daily Telegraph fact checks Leave's claims:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/eu-referendum-claims-won-brexit-fact-checked/
If everyone recalls, the Sunil on Sunday only ever tweeted the 8.5 billion figure during the referendum campaign.0 -
I guess some might say that I can't spell Rentoul!RobD said:
Hah! We have a winner!SandyRentool said:
Well number one on the list can't spell Ford.RobD said:
Good spot! Is it just me, or does anyone else think Sean has the posher surname?AlastairMeeks said:
Her pride must be alloyed with jealousy that her sister has pipped her by one place.SeanT said:I may be a sleazy bipolar schizophrenic sex addict preying on Corbynite interns, but I trust you all got your copy of the Sunday Times today, and checked out the Books section
twitter.com/thomasknox/status/8358149619685171210 -
The PM does not yet have the power to trigger A50, so no surprise we haven't made much progress on that front.swing_voter said:8.5 months after the vote and how far has the UK come in leaving the EU? - not very far at all. makes me think of that now oft quoted line from the Hotel California...you can check out etc etc. The question for me is what does leaving look like? In which case there is a real lack of clarity and strategy (nothing to do with JC this time) which remains key to the topic asked by Yougov.
0 -
Considering that on paper at least that constitutes 55% of the electorate that's probably quite a clever strategy. Certainly more sensible than the current Labour strategy of unionism with full federation on SNP-lite policies, which looks a bit like trying to ride two unbroken horses at once while doing a handstand.kle4 said:
Pitching for all the unionist vote to consolidate first, I would imagine.Theuniondivvie said:Not sure if turning elections into referendums is entirely wise, particularly when your own party is c.20pts behind the leading party.
'EXCLUSIVE: Theresa May urges Scots to use local elections to reject independence
Introducing the party conference, May writes: “We will also be looking forward to the local elections in May, when voters across Scotland will have the chance to send a clear message to the SNP that they do not want a second independence referendum, by voting Scottish Conservative and Unionist on 4 May.”'
http://tinyurl.com/zlwce3j
0 -
Perhaps a sign he privately knows things are bad, or that even some of his closest allies are telling him now things are bad, but more likely just that his occasional temper is flaring during this high stress period. A couple of rallies with the Islington Palestine Solidarity Society and he'll calm down.ydoethur said:
That implies that there was a time when it wasn't too much for him.rottenborough said:Seems Corbyn has gone all snarly in an interview this afternoon. Becoming too much for him?
0 -
Nope, we are all equally likely to get put on the naughty step for calling the admin a prat.braeside02 said:RobD-Now I understand.Some are more equal than others.
0 -
Panelbase poll of local council voting intentions (percentage changes are from last local elections in May 2012) :RobD said:
According to the polls there is a big unionist vote out there.Theuniondivvie said:Not sure if turning elections into referendums is entirely wise, particularly when your own party is c.20pts behind the leading party.
'EXCLUSIVE: Theresa May urges Scots to use local elections to reject independence
Introducing the party conference, May writes: “We will also be looking forward to the local elections in May, when voters across Scotland will have the chance to send a clear message to the SNP that they do not want a second independence referendum, by voting Scottish Conservative and Unionist on 4 May.”'
http://tinyurl.com/zlwce3j
SNP 47% (+15)
Conservatives 26% (+13)
Labour 14% (-17)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-2)
Greens 4% (+2)
UKIP 3% (+3)
Wouldn't be surprised if after this weekend's Khan/Corbyn love bomb SLab were even lower, would be surprised if SCons were substantially higher. However if the above results were replicated, that means by Tessy logic there is a mandate for Indy 2, no?0 -
True she has never explained it.Mrs May is a convert because the people voted to leave.New converts can become very dogmatic and at the moment that dogma seems to be working well for her.FF43 said:
I agree with you on referendums. What I meant to say about Theresa May is that just as Leavers can't deal with the consequences of Brexit because they don't accept there are any, Mrs May can't deal with the consequences either because she has never explained her switch from Remain to Leave.isam said:
The PM in referendums should not campaign heavily either way, as it means he or she cannot do their job afterwards f they lose. If only Cameron had sat impartially from the sidelines, we would be hearing a lot less moaning.
If one result is so disastrous for the country that the PM has to campaign hard against it, there should be no referendum. He was elected to make such judgements
Most people must know this, but they would lose imagined PB capital by fessing up, so don't admit it0 -
Certainly is! Since Trump arrived it's been a daily dietkjh said:
As having only just come back after many years lurking I'm feeling rather guilty for having kicked this off (my wife thinks it is hilarious in between telling me to stop wasting my time).rcs1000 said:
Thanks Roger for the professional perspective. However I still think the most persuasive argument is the one I put yesterday and reiterated by rcs1000 - Why? Why? Why?
It is conspiracy theory stuff.0 -
I'm quite surprised that the poll is 45-45, and the government needs to be a bit concerned. Firstly, there's usually a "winner effect" that adds a few points to a winner's polling after a vote. Secondly, there's a strong narrative coming from May (and Corbyn fwiw) that we must respect the result. Thirdly, the Mail and Sun are as rabidly anti-EU and anti-Remain as ever. So if all was well "Right to leave" should have a significant lead.
The counter-narrative is seemingly only the continual drip of relatively small anti-Brexit stories about business and immigrants. May and co are going to have to manage this much better, or else she and her government will start to be harmed by Brexit. Of course there's no effective opposition at the moment but the worry must be that the moment Labour gets its act together there'll be a step change in the polls.
An early election is a risk but surely it's more risky to wait.0 -
He's always been quite aggressive though. Think about the way he pushed that journalist last year.kle4 said:
Perhaps a sign he privately knows things are bad, or that even some of his closest allies are telling him now things are bad, but more likely just that his occasional temper is flaring during this high stress period. A couple of rallies with the Islington Palestine Solidarity Society and he'll calm down.ydoethur said:
That implies that there was a time when it wasn't too much for him.rottenborough said:Seems Corbyn has gone all snarly in an interview this afternoon. Becoming too much for him?
I think it's more that he's just a rather unpleasant person.0 -
Unless independence is an issue dealt with by local councils, I don't think so. More about sending a message to the national government!Theuniondivvie said:
Panelbase poll of local council voting intentions (percentage changes are from last local elections in May 2012) :RobD said:
According to the polls there is a big unionist vote out there.Theuniondivvie said:Not sure if turning elections into referendums is entirely wise, particularly when your own party is c.20pts behind the leading party.
'EXCLUSIVE: Theresa May urges Scots to use local elections to reject independence
Introducing the party conference, May writes: “We will also be looking forward to the local elections in May, when voters across Scotland will have the chance to send a clear message to the SNP that they do not want a second independence referendum, by voting Scottish Conservative and Unionist on 4 May.”'
http://tinyurl.com/zlwce3j
SNP 47% (+15)
Conservatives 26% (+13)
Labour 14% (-17)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-2)
Greens 4% (+2)
UKIP 3% (+3)
Wouldn't be surprised if after this weekend's Khan/Corbyn love bomb SLab were even lower, would be surprised if SCons were substantially higher. However if the above results were replicated, that means by Tessy logic there is a mandate for Indy 2, no?
Edit: and really TUD, how could you forget to start your post with a Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon alert
0 -
Quite. Fact is the SNP are still rampant and when they start to decline (it is inevitable for a party eventually, but doesn't have to be for a long time if they are good/lucky) will probably be more dependent in their own actions than anyone else, so my not based on evidence guess is that SCON have achieved pipping Labour to second place, and now want to try to turn Scotland into an effectively two party situation. Of course SNP would win such a contest, but it restructures things beneficially for SCON if they could pull it off, though from this distance it seems a long shot to put it mildly.ydoethur said:
Considering that on paper at least that constitutes 55% of the electorate that's probably quite a clever strategy. Certainly more sensible than the current Labour strategy of unionism with full federation on SNP-lite policies, which looks a bit like trying to ride two unbroken horses at once while doing a handstand.kle4 said:
Pitching for all the unionist vote to consolidate first, I would imagine.Theuniondivvie said:Not sure if turning elections into referendums is entirely wise, particularly when your own party is c.20pts behind the leading party.
'EXCLUSIVE: Theresa May urges Scots to use local elections to reject independence
Introducing the party conference, May writes: “We will also be looking forward to the local elections in May, when voters across Scotland will have the chance to send a clear message to the SNP that they do not want a second independence referendum, by voting Scottish Conservative and Unionist on 4 May.”'
http://tinyurl.com/zlwce3j0 -
Edmund's (almost) Father in Law in the first episode of BlackAdder II!!!!!!Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/835867339946082304rottenborough said:Seems Corbyn has gone all snarly in an interview this afternoon. Becoming too much for him?
0 -
This isn't a game of "Who the fuck am I"......Sunil_Prasannan said:
"Do you know who I am? I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal. People know me. I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."Ishmael_Z said:
I am sure rcs1000 would never stoop to saying "Do you know who I am", but do you know who he is?braeside02 said:RCS1000--Never said or suggested that you ignorant prat.
0 -
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you, but I think from a partisan point of view if Corbyn genuinely is planning to stay until the next election then it makes sense from May's point of view to wait in the hope the damage he does to the Labour Party is actually irreparable.Dadge said:I'm quite surprised that the poll is 45-45, and the government needs to be a bit concerned. Firstly, there's usually a "winner effect" that adds a few points to a winner's polling after a vote. Secondly, there's a strong narrative coming from May (and Corbyn fwiw) that we must respect the result. Thirdly, the Mail and Sun are as rabidly anti-EU and anti-Remain as ever. So if all was well "Right to leave" should have a significant lead.
The counter-narrative is seemingly only the continual drip of relatively small anti-Brexit stories about business and immigrants. May and co are going to have to manage this much better, or else she and her government will start to be harmed by Brexit. Of course there's no effective opposition at the moment but the worry must be that the moment Labour gets its act together there'll be a step change in the polls.
An early election is a risk but surely it's more risky to wait.
Indeed, getting rid of him quickly so Labour can be salvaged and provide a functioning democratic alternative is probably the best argument for an immediate election. However, I doubt if there will be one unless the Lords decide to go out with a bang by trying to block Brexit.0 -
x
0 -
Mr. Isam, then the way to get rid of him is easy.
"Ten pounds ought to do the trick."0 -
Video clip embedded here. Enjoy.Scott_P said:
htps://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/835867339946082304rottenborough said:Seems Corbyn has gone all snarly in an interview this afternoon. Becoming too much for him?
0 -
One of my favourite ever comedy episodesMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Isam, then the way to get rid of him is easy.
"Ten pounds ought to do the trick."0 -
Just caught up with AQ.
Arron Banks saying, I paraphrase, that there is still a role for UKIP because when the government misses its target on immigration, people will turn to UKIP.
Why I was having a discussion on here only the other day about UKIP and how it was simply an anti-immigration party whereas the person I was discussing with maintained that it was not.
Nasty, nasty fuckers.0 -
Nope. Scottish politics is entirely governed by attitudes to independence. If you support independence you will (with a 90% correlation) vote SNP or Green; if you don't it will be Conservative, Labour or LD. The Conservatives have a clearcut pro-Union position which is why it is doing better than the other two. A personable Ruth Davidson helps this along, but it isn't the fundamental.RobD said:
Unless independence is an issue dealt with by local councils, I don't think so. More about sending a message to the national government!
Edit: and really TUD, how could you forget to start your post with a Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon alert
0 -
£281 million a week is the gross figure ignoring the 'rebate' which never gets paid in the first place.RobD said:
Oops, my bad - I was assuming that the £250mn/week figure was valid for the final data point on that curve. Looks like it is nearer £300mn/week *gross*.Sunil_Prasannan said:
In 2015, it was £8.5 billion NET, so 8.5 billion/52 = £163 million a week.RobD said:
Interesting... it looks as though the contribution was about £350mn/week in 2012/13.logical_song said:Daily Telegraph fact checks Leave's claims:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/eu-referendum-claims-won-brexit-fact-checked/
If everyone recalls, the Sunil on Sunday only ever tweeted the 8.5 billion figure during the referendum campaign.0 -
SLAB's vote would probably > if they stopped "campaigning" !!Theuniondivvie said:
Panelbase poll of local council voting intentions (percentage changes are from last local elections in May 2012) :RobD said:
According to the polls there is a big unionist vote out there.Theuniondivvie said:Not sure if turning elections into referendums is entirely wise, particularly when your own party is c.20pts behind the leading party.
'EXCLUSIVE: Theresa May urges Scots to use local elections to reject independence
Introducing the party conference, May writes: “We will also be looking forward to the local elections in May, when voters across Scotland will have the chance to send a clear message to the SNP that they do not want a second independence referendum, by voting Scottish Conservative and Unionist on 4 May.”'
http://tinyurl.com/zlwce3j
SNP 47% (+15)
Conservatives 26% (+13)
Labour 14% (-17)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-2)
Greens 4% (+2)
UKIP 3% (+3)
Wouldn't be surprised if after this weekend's Khan/Corbyn love bomb SLab were even lower, would be surprised if SCons were substantially higher. However if the above results were replicated, that means by Tessy logic there is a mandate for Indy 2, no?0 -
If the Unionists and Nats were fighting a two-way race north of the border, that makes it difficult for Labour to win in their own strength. I think I am right in saying that they would have won five, rather than ten, elections without Scottish seats. Moreover, a resurgence in Conservative strength north of the border would make it easier for them to win in future. If they can rally the unionist vote behind them there are a number of seats you would expect them to win in straight contests with the SNP, although it would be unlikely for them to win half (or even near it).kle4 said:
Quite. Fact is the SNP are still rampant and when they start to decline (it is inevitable for a party eventually, but doesn't have to be for a long time if they are good/lucky) will probably be more dependent in their own actions than anyone else, so my not based on evidence guess is that SCON have achieved pipping Labour to second place, and now want to try to turn Scotland into an effectively two party situation. Of course SNP would win such a contest, but it restructures things beneficially for SCON if they could pull it off, though from this distance it seems a long shot to put it mildly.ydoethur said:
Considering that on paper at least that constitutes 55% of the electorate that's probably quite a clever strategy. Certainly more sensible than the current Labour strategy of unionism with full federation on SNP-lite policies, which looks a bit like trying to ride two unbroken horses at once while doing a handstand.kle4 said:
Pitching for all the unionist vote to consolidate first, I would imagine.Theuniondivvie said:Not sure if turning elections into referendums is entirely wise, particularly when your own party is c.20pts behind the leading party.
'EXCLUSIVE: Theresa May urges Scots to use local elections to reject independence
Introducing the party conference, May writes: “We will also be looking forward to the local elections in May, when voters across Scotland will have the chance to send a clear message to the SNP that they do not want a second independence referendum, by voting Scottish Conservative and Unionist on 4 May.”'
http://tinyurl.com/zlwce3j
That's leaving aside their potential as an alternative government at Holyrood - imagine the situation of an SNP/Labour coalition or a Conservative/Labour coalition. What problems that would cause Labour with their remaining voters.0 -
Although it did produce a great Ron Burgundy quote from Sunil so it's actually worked out pretty well.MarqueeMark said:
This isn't a game of "Who the fuck am I"......Sunil_Prasannan said:
"Do you know who I am? I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal. People know me. I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."Ishmael_Z said:
I am sure rcs1000 would never stoop to saying "Do you know who I am", but do you know who he is?braeside02 said:RCS1000--Never said or suggested that you ignorant prat.
0 -
Although who knows what the world economy - or the EU - looks like in five years. Could there be a cyclical upturn in France? (Heck, the PMIs suggest that the Eurozone economy, after a decade of decay, is finally getting its mojo back. And with savings rates elevated everywhere you could easily see a four or five year run of above trend growth.)SeanT said:Macron is surging. He must now be strong favorite to be president. He'll thrash Le Pen.
This is good in terms of keeping out the FN, but fairly disastrous for France, I think. He's an effete version of Blair, without a reformed Thatcherite economy to fund his plans. He will continue relative French decline, and exacerbate right wing anxieties about culture and identity.
Which means that the FN, or someone like them, really COULD win next time around.
https://twitter.com/idvck/status/835912259192901632
On the other hand, it could all go tits up. And there might not even be a Eurozone / EU in five years time.
Nevertheless, if the French vote overwhelmingly for Macron over Le Pen, they are explicitly choosing more-EU over less-EU.
(I feel sorry for the French: their only credible anti-EU party has a long history of rampant anti-semitism, and believes that Frances problems are due to insufficient trade barriers, big business, and people retiring too late and on too small state pensions.)0 -
That's a relatively old poll, who knows, the surge may have dried to a crusty, dry high water mark by now.RobD said:
Unless independence is an issue dealt with by local councils, I don't think so. More about sending a message to the national government!Theuniondivvie said:
Panelbase poll of local council voting intentions (percentage changes are from last local elections in May 2012) :RobD said:
According to the polls there is a big unionist vote out there.Theuniondivvie said:Not sure if turning elections into referendums is entirely wise, particularly when your own party is c.20pts behind the leading party.
'EXCLUSIVE: Theresa May urges Scots to use local elections to reject independence
Introducing the party conference, May writes: “We will also be looking forward to the local elections in May, when voters across Scotland will have the chance to send a clear message to the SNP that they do not want a second independence referendum, by voting Scottish Conservative and Unionist on 4 May.”'
http://tinyurl.com/zlwce3j
SNP 47% (+15)
Conservatives 26% (+13)
Labour 14% (-17)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-2)
Greens 4% (+2)
UKIP 3% (+3)
Wouldn't be surprised if after this weekend's Khan/Corbyn love bomb SLab were even lower, would be surprised if SCons were substantially higher. However if the above results were replicated, that means by Tessy logic there is a mandate for Indy 2, no?
Edit: and really TUD, how could you forget to start your post with a Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon alert0 -
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"TOPPING said:Just caught up with AQ.
Arron Banks saying, I paraphrase, that there is still a role for UKIP because when the government misses its target on immigration, people will turn to UKIP.
Why I was having a discussion on here only the other day about UKIP and how it was simply an anti-immigration party whereas the person I was discussing with maintained that it was not.
Nasty, nasty fuckers.
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies0 -
Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I was disagreeing with it being a mandate for independence.FF43 said:
Nope. Scottish politics is entirely governed by attitudes to independence. If you support independence you will (with a 90% correlation) vote SNP or Green; if you don't it will be Conservative, Labour or LD. The Conservatives have a clearcut pro-Union position which is why it is doing better than the other two. A personable Ruth Davidson helps this along, but it isn't the fundamental.RobD said:
Unless independence is an issue dealt with by local councils, I don't think so. More about sending a message to the national government!
Edit: and really TUD, how could you forget to start your post with a Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon alert0 -
Well I would certainly suggest working out both RCS100's relationship with this site and his views on the EU before going off the deep end with him.braeside02 said:Richard Tyndall--Thank you for your SAGE advice.Perhaps in the future I can return the compliment.
0 -
TOPPING said:
Just caught up with AQ.
Arron Banks saying, I paraphrase, that there is still a role for UKIP because when the government misses its target on immigration, people will turn to UKIP.
Why I was having a discussion on here only the other day about UKIP and how it was simply an anti-immigration party whereas the person I was discussing with maintained that it was not.
Nasty, nasty fuckers.
Indeed - UKIP is essentially the new BNP.
0 -
Only a couple of weeks.Theuniondivvie said:
That's a relatively old poll, who knows, the surge may have dried to a crusty, dry high water mark by now.RobD said:
Unless independence is an issue dealt with by local councils, I don't think so. More about sending a message to the national government!Theuniondivvie said:
Panelbase poll of local council voting intentions (percentage changes are from last local elections in May 2012) :RobD said:
According to the polls there is a big unionist vote out there.Theuniondivvie said:Not sure if turning elections into referendums is entirely wise, particularly when your own party is c.20pts behind the leading party.
'EXCLUSIVE: Theresa May urges Scots to use local elections to reject independence
Introducing the party conference, May writes: “We will also be looking forward to the local elections in May, when voters across Scotland will have the chance to send a clear message to the SNP that they do not want a second independence referendum, by voting Scottish Conservative and Unionist on 4 May.”'
http://tinyurl.com/zlwce3j
SNP 47% (+15)
Conservatives 26% (+13)
Labour 14% (-17)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-2)
Greens 4% (+2)
UKIP 3% (+3)
Wouldn't be surprised if after this weekend's Khan/Corbyn love bomb SLab were even lower, would be surprised if SCons were substantially higher. However if the above results were replicated, that means by Tessy logic there is a mandate for Indy 2, no?
Edit: and really TUD, how could you forget to start your post with a Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon alert0 -
What about Santa Monica property?SeanT said:Also, don't bet against London property. Or against a UKIP revival.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/26/immigration-will-not-dramatically-fall-after-brexit-says-amber-rudd?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I don't think the Tories will get anywhere near migration in the tens of thousands. Not even sure they want to. They just want to have the ultimate control over numbers. And to stop migrants claiming benefits - or sleeping rough etc. And this is what angers voters, it's not hard working polish plumbers, it's Roma sleeping in subways and Bulgarians sending child benefit home.
Sensible politics. It's gonna be soft Brexit with a hard appearance. Venus in leather.0 -
Richard Tyndall--Noted.I lost my rag with him because he misinterpreted my post.0
-
It's a subtle distinction, Sam. Difference between being anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. I won't presume what that difference is but let's suppose that it could mean on the one hand welcoming all those already here but not wanting more vs not liking any, past or future.isam said:
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"TOPPING said:Just caught up with AQ.
Arron Banks saying, I paraphrase, that there is still a role for UKIP because when the government misses its target on immigration, people will turn to UKIP.
Why I was having a discussion on here only the other day about UKIP and how it was simply an anti-immigration party whereas the person I was discussing with maintained that it was not.
Nasty, nasty fuckers.
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
Now, there may be one or two Kippers who genuinely believe the former interpretation. But many, many more belong in the second camp and in any case the line between the two is blurred. UKIP is an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant party, as articulated by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.0 -
Theoretically you could but for what purpose? You're saying the whole scene is real but they shoot it without presenter who they put in afterwards. So the pans zooms etc are all real. Seems pointlessRobD said:
This is the infamous CNN footage? Why couldn't you do it with a green screen just behind the reporter, and then superimpose him on the footage obtained from a camera on the boat?Roger said:
The only way it could practically have been superimposed is by using a blue/green screen which because he’s full length would have meant that the screen was behind the boat. In other words it would have to be huge. A massive building job with a foreground boat in an exterior studio. The alternative would be building the skeleton of the boat around the person and shooting it in a green/blue screen studio which would be just as expensive and completely prohibitive for news footage.0 -
No change since November.
And this gets a header?0 -
@Jack_Blanchard_: Big new signing for Corbyn's comms team. Am told @FromSteveHowell is joining from Freshwater. He's changed his Twitter profile & everything!0
-
Attitudes towards hardworking Polish plumbers vary according to whether someone is hiring a plumber or they are themselves a British plumber with a large mortgage.SeanT said:I don't think the Tories will get anywhere near migration in the tens of thousands. Not even sure they want to. They just want to have the ultimate control over numbers. And to stop migrants claiming benefits - or sleeping rough etc. And this is what angers voters, it's not hard working polish plumbers, it's Roma sleeping in subways and Bulgarians sending child benefit home.
0 -
Ah yes, the Lords. It seems unlikely to me that the Lords will try to usurp the craven Commons, but it is likely that they'll send the Bill back to them with a couple of amendments. That's problematic for May. She can try to spin it as "blocking Brexit" but at least half of the public will just see it as reasonable compromise on a big subject that the country is divided on. What she ought to do is water down the amendments so that the opposition at least feels they've been listened to, even if the practical effect of the amendments is almost zero. If she gets all arsey about it and picks a major fight with the Lords she just creates another negative narrative for the media to run with.ydoethur said:
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you, but I think from a partisan point of view if Corbyn genuinely is planning to stay until the next election then it makes sense from May's point of view to wait in the hope the damage he does to the Labour Party is actually irreparable.Dadge said:I'm quite surprised that the poll is 45-45, and the government needs to be a bit concerned. Firstly, there's usually a "winner effect" that adds a few points to a winner's polling after a vote. Secondly, there's a strong narrative coming from May (and Corbyn fwiw) that we must respect the result. Thirdly, the Mail and Sun are as rabidly anti-EU and anti-Remain as ever. So if all was well "Right to leave" should have a significant lead.
The counter-narrative is seemingly only the continual drip of relatively small anti-Brexit stories about business and immigrants. May and co are going to have to manage this much better, or else she and her government will start to be harmed by Brexit. Of course there's no effective opposition at the moment but the worry must be that the moment Labour gets its act together there'll be a step change in the polls.
An early election is a risk but surely it's more risky to wait.
Indeed, getting rid of him quickly so Labour can be salvaged and provide a functioning democratic alternative is probably the best argument for an immediate election. However, I doubt if there will be one unless the Lords decide to go out with a bang by trying to block Brexit.0 -
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.TOPPING said:
It's a subtle distinction, Sam. Difference between being anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. I won't presume what that difference is but let's suppose that it could mean on the one hand welcoming all those already here but not wanting more vs not liking any, past or future.isam said:
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"TOPPING said:Just caught up with AQ.
Arron Banks saying, I paraphrase, that there is still a role for UKIP because when the government misses its target on immigration, people will turn to UKIP.
Why I was having a discussion on here only the other day about UKIP and how it was simply an anti-immigration party whereas the person I was discussing with maintained that it was not.
Nasty, nasty fuckers.
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
Now, there may be one or two Kippers who genuinely believe the former interpretation. But many, many more belong in the second camp and in any case the line between the two is blurred. UKIP is an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant party, as articulated by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
UKIP want controls on EU immigration
They're not the same thing, you just like to conflate the two so you feel good about yourself. Virtue signalling I think they call it.0 -
The phrase can't polish a turd comes to mind....Scott_P said:@Jack_Blanchard_: Big new signing for Corbyn's comms team. Am told @FromSteveHowell is joining from Freshwater. He's changed his Twitter profile & everything!
0 -
Thank you. That made me laugh!GeoffM said:
That's actually really interesting and a great expert rebuttal to bring this PB arc to a close.Roger said:For Viewcode
There is nothing in the footage.... [snippety snip] ...footage.
I'm grateful that you posted it on here rather than keep it by Vanilla.
I wish you'd post here more often on your particular areas of knowledge - films, etc - and perhaps less on the areas in which you don't know very much at all (everything else, basically). Cheers!0 -
Mr. Isam, it's very good, although I personally prefer Money (with the baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells).0
-
I was just disagreeing with your assertion you'd need a green screen the size of a boat.Roger said:
Theoretically you could but for what purpose? You're saying the whole scene is real but they shoot it without presenter who they put in afterwards. So the pans zooms etc are all real. Seems pointlessRobD said:
This is the infamous CNN footage? Why couldn't you do it with a green screen just behind the reporter, and then superimpose him on the footage obtained from a camera on the boat?Roger said:
The only way it could practically have been superimposed is by using a blue/green screen which because he’s full length would have meant that the screen was behind the boat. In other words it would have to be huge. A massive building job with a foreground boat in an exterior studio. The alternative would be building the skeleton of the boat around the person and shooting it in a green/blue screen studio which would be just as expensive and completely prohibitive for news footage.0 -
I don't think there are any souls so benighted that they think SNP councils can declare UDI. My original point was if Tessy is trying to turn council elctions into a poll on whether there should be a second refendum, she can't claim a bigger vote for indy supporting parties is meaningless in that contextRobD said:
Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I was disagreeing with it being a mandate for independence.FF43 said:
Nope. Scottish politics is entirely governed by attitudes to independence. If you support independence you will (with a 90% correlation) vote SNP or Green; if you don't it will be Conservative, Labour or LD. The Conservatives have a clearcut pro-Union position which is why it is doing better than the other two. A personable Ruth Davidson helps this along, but it isn't the fundamental.RobD said:
Unless independence is an issue dealt with by local councils, I don't think so. More about sending a message to the national government!
Edit: and really TUD, how could you forget to start your post with a Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon alert0 -
Just spotted this from Prof Curtice:
https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/835917713914662914
Ukip and Anti-Ukip.
The bleed of 2015 LD voters to the Tories in the same poll is probably indicative of nearly all of the Leave-leaning supporters they still had departing for the Tories. Most of those people were probably the residual Yellow Tory vote that didn't initially defect in the last GE, and have not found it particularly difficult to cross over since - after both the election of pale-pink Farron, and his adoption of a hard line Continuity Remain position.0 -
Some footage from CNN that looks fake, mainly due to the low quality of the video IMO.Monksfield said:0 -
And me, the lack of self awareness was world class!Roger said:
Thank you. That made me laugh!GeoffM said:
That's actually really interesting and a great expert rebuttal to bring this PB arc to a close.Roger said:For Viewcode
There is nothing in the footage.... [snippety snip] ...footage.
I'm grateful that you posted it on here rather than keep it by Vanilla.
I wish you'd post here more often on your particular areas of knowledge - films, etc - and perhaps less on the areas in which you don't know very much at all (everything else, basically). Cheers!0 -
It's a tiny movement rather than an established trend, and it may just be noise. However, it can be made to fit a particular narrative...ThreeQuidder said:No change since November.
And this gets a header?0 -
Football is indeed a funny old game. Can't believe we won that. Southampton by far the better team. Bringing on Fellaini instead of Rooney was bizarre and frankly disrespectful. Southampton taking off their goal scorer with 10 minutes to go for anything less than a plaster cast was weird. But Ibra. The man is a god.0
-
She can shoot them all down and return to the Lords, daring them to do it again - given the febrile atmosphere and the acknowledgement from nearly all that the Lords does need some kind of reform, the implicit threat of abolition or severe change as a consequence of Brexit stubbornness, a kneejerk response that would be unlikely to lead to a system designed for effective long term governance, the Lords would I imagine back down having made their play initially.Dadge said:
Ah yes, the Lords. It seems unlikely to me that the Lords will try to usurp the craven Commons, but it is likely that they'll send the Bill back to them with a couple of amendments. That's problematic for May. She can try to spin it as "blocking Brexit" but at least half of the public will just see it as reasonable compromise on a big subject that the country is divided on. What she ought to do is water down the amendments so that the opposition at least feels they've been listened to, even if the practical effect of the amendments is almost zero. If she gets all arsey about it and picks a major fight with the Lords she just creates another negative narrative for the media to run with.ydoethur said:
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you, but I think from a partisan point of view if Corbyn genuinely is planning to stay until the next election then it makes sense from May's point of view to wait in the hope the damage he does to the Labour Party is actually irreparable.Dadge said:I'm o wait.
Indeed, getting rid of him quickly so Labour can be salvaged and provide a functioning democratic alternative is probably the best argument for an immediate election. However, I doubt if there will be one unless the Lords decide to go out with a bang by trying to block Brexit.
I would also very much doubt May will not spin it for all it is worth - she threatened judges not to defy the will of the people after the High Court judgement on A50, per the Telegraph, even while her own lawyers acknowledged the case was a legitimate legal issue and the government had a plan in place if they lost, so she's hardly likely to not spin even only a few amendments for everything she can.0 -
It is true that you can isolate anything but it is firstly costly and secondly with the equipment that would be used on an outside broadcast it's very unlikely. And why would you do it if we accept that all the ingredients are on sight? Also to do it to any sort of standard you'd need motion control to match the move.FrancisUrquhart said:
Not for a second do I doubt that this is real and I can't believe this argument is still going on....BUT This statement isn't true anymore.Roger said:
He zooms and pans right and shows the warship. If they had used green/blue screen the background zoom would not have matched the foreground zoom. Almost impossible.
I was at a talk a few months ago were exactly this was shown in relation to some recent Hollywood films.0 -
I don't buy the conspiracy theory for one moment, just correcting your assertion that almost impossible.Roger said:
It is true that you can isolate anything but it is firstly costly and secondly with the equipment that would be used on an outside broadcast it's very unlikely. And why would you do it if we accept that all the ingredients are on sight?FrancisUrquhart said:
Not for a second do I doubt that this is real and I can't believe this argument is still going on....BUT This statement isn't true anymore.Roger said:
He zooms and pans right and shows the warship. If they had used green/blue screen the background zoom would not have matched the foreground zoom. Almost impossible.
I was at a talk a few months ago were exactly this was shown in relation to some recent Hollywood films.
I actually can't believe this conversation about a completely uninteresting CNN clip is still going 2-3 days later. It not like we are discussing some newly unearthed footage of JFK shooting etc.0 -
Nah. I'm conflating them because they are the same.isam said:
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.TOPPING said:
It's a subtle distinction, Sam. Difference between being anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. I won't presume what that difference is but let's suppose that it could mean on the one hand welcoming all those already here but not wanting more vs not liking any, past or future.isam said:
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"TOPPING said:Just caught up with AQ.
Arron Banks saying, I paraphrase, that there is still a role for UKIP because when the government misses its target on immigration, people will turn to UKIP.
Why I was having a discussion on here only the other day about UKIP and how it was simply an anti-immigration party whereas the person I was discussing with maintained that it was not.
Nasty, nasty fuckers.
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
Now, there may be one or two Kippers who genuinely believe the former interpretation. But many, many more belong in the second camp and in any case the line between the two is blurred. UKIP is an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant party, as articulated by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
UKIP want controls on EU immigration
They're not the same thing, you just like to conflate the two so you feel good about yourself. Virtue signalling I think they call it.
UKIP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party. The BNP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party.
You might prefer to think UKIP is different from the BNP because it makes you feel less bad. But that's between you and your therapist.0 -
Given May's Tories have just won Copeland off Labour in part because of Brexit to say Blair has suddenly shifted opinion dramatically is over the top, especially given those saying Brexit was right still total the same as in October and even on this poll there is not even a plurality of regret for Brexit0
-
Welcome to PB!FrancisUrquhart said:
I don't buy the conspiracy theory for one moment, just correcting your assertion that almost impossible.Roger said:
It is true that you can isolate anything but it is firstly costly and secondly with the equipment that would be used on an outside broadcast it's very unlikely. And why would you do it if we accept that all the ingredients are on sight?FrancisUrquhart said:
Not for a second do I doubt that this is real and I can't believe this argument is still going on....BUT This statement isn't true anymore.Roger said:
He zooms and pans right and shows the warship. If they had used green/blue screen the background zoom would not have matched the foreground zoom. Almost impossible.
I was at a talk a few months ago were exactly this was shown in relation to some recent Hollywood films.
I actually can't believe this conversation about a completely uninteresting CNN clip is still going 2-3 days later. It not like we are discussing some newly unearthed footage of JFK shooting etc. 0 -
TWR Previous thread, given life expectancy is about 83 and you are on average only likely to need care for a year or a couple of years at the end of life if you need it at all an annuity can play an important contribution to that care funding. Anyway, given the government has a manifesto commitment that the family home will not be included in calculations of assets towards care home fees and given almost 40% of the population now rent and have no home asset to put towards their care home fees anyway and thus will still be reliant almost immediately on the state for support the only viable longterm solution to social care fees beyond an annuity is an increase in NI for 50-65 year olds, which could also be used to pay increased funds for the NHS too0
-
I've been offered a job there, albeit one that would still involve me being in the UK for a week a month. I think my wife would very much enjoy the sunshine.SeanT said:
Are you actually moving there? If I was gonna go to Cali I'd choose Santa Barbara I think. LA is just too depressing with its horrible crime and dreary suburbs.rcs1000 said:
What about Santa Monica property?SeanT said:Also, don't bet against London property. Or against a UKIP revival.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/26/immigration-will-not-dramatically-fall-after-brexit-says-amber-rudd?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I don't think the Tories will get anywhere near migration in the tens of thousands. Not even sure they want to. They just want to have the ultimate control over numbers. And to stop migrants claiming benefits - or sleeping rough etc. And this is what angers voters, it's not hard working polish plumbers, it's Roma sleeping in subways and Bulgarians sending child benefit home.
Sensible politics. It's gonna be soft Brexit with a hard appearance. Venus in leather.
But anyway shouldn't you be staying in the U.K. personally steering all your many successful businesses?0 -
I mean if we were talking about pizza toppings, well that is a totally different matter!RobD said:
Welcome to PB!FrancisUrquhart said:
I don't buy the conspiracy theory for one moment, just correcting your assertion that almost impossible.Roger said:
It is true that you can isolate anything but it is firstly costly and secondly with the equipment that would be used on an outside broadcast it's very unlikely. And why would you do it if we accept that all the ingredients are on sight?FrancisUrquhart said:
Not for a second do I doubt that this is real and I can't believe this argument is still going on....BUT This statement isn't true anymore.Roger said:
He zooms and pans right and shows the warship. If they had used green/blue screen the background zoom would not have matched the foreground zoom. Almost impossible.
I was at a talk a few months ago were exactly this was shown in relation to some recent Hollywood films.
I actually can't believe this conversation about a completely uninteresting CNN clip is still going 2-3 days later. It not like we are discussing some newly unearthed footage of JFK shooting etc.0 -
Haha no you are conflating them either because you are stupid, and wrong, or trying to make yourself feel good!TOPPING said:
Nah. I'm conflating them because they are the same.isam said:
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.TOPPING said:
It's a subtle distinction, Sam. Difference between being anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. I won't presume what that difference is but let's suppose that it could mean on the one hand welcoming all those already here but not wanting more vs not liking any, past or future.isam said:
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"TOPPING said:Just caught up with AQ.
Arron Banks saying, I paraphrase, that there is still a role for UKIP because when the government misses its target on immigration, people will turn to UKIP.
Why I was having a discussion on here only the other day about UKIP and how it was simply an anti-immigration party whereas the person I was discussing with maintained that it was not.
Nasty, nasty fuckers.
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
Now, there may be one or two Kippers who genuinely believe the former interpretation. But many, many more belong in the second camp and in any case the line between the two is blurred. UKIP is an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant party, as articulated by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
UKIP want controls on EU immigration
They're not the same thing, you just like to conflate the two so you feel good about yourself. Virtue signalling I think they call it.
UKIP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party. The BNP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party.
You might prefer to think UKIP is different from the BNP because it makes you feel less bad. But that's between you and your therapist.
You said they were both "anti immigrant", which isn't true. I am just correcting you, no need to go full blown mental about it0 -
They both are anti-immigrant. Only in your head is there a distinction.isam said:
Haha no you are conflating them either because you are stupid, and wrong, or trying to make yourself fell good!TOPPING said:
Nah. I'm conflating them because they are the same.isam said:
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.TOPPING said:
It's a subtle distinction, Sam. Difference between being anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. I won't presume what that difference is but let's suppose that it could mean on the one hand welcoming all those already here but not wanting more vs not liking any, past or future.isam said:
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"TOPPING said:Just caught up with AQ.
Arron Banks saying, I paraphrase, that there is still a role for UKIP because when the government misses its target on immigration, people will turn to UKIP.
Why I was having a discussion on here only the other day about UKIP and how it was simply an anti-immigration party whereas the person I was discussing with maintained that it was not.
Nasty, nasty fuckers.
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
Now, there may be one or two Kippers who genuinely believe the former interpretation. But many, many more belong in the second camp and in any case the line between the two is blurred. UKIP is an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant party, as articulated by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
UKIP want controls on EU immigration
They're not the same thing, you just like to conflate the two so you feel good about yourself. Virtue signalling I think they call it.
UKIP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party. The BNP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party.
You might prefer to think UKIP is different from the BNP because it makes you feel less bad. But that's between you and your therapist.
You said they were both "anti immigrant", which isn't true. I am just correcting you, no need to go full blown mental about it0 -
But the spin doesn't seem to be working. And politicians spinning about how shit the UK constitution is is a dangerous game unless you're a Trump-style sub-fascist.kle4 said:
She can shoot them all down and return to the Lords, daring them to do it again - given the febrile atmosphere and the acknowledgement from nearly all that the Lords does need some kind of reform, the implicit threat of abolition or severe change as a consequence of Brexit stubbornness, a kneejerk response that would be unlikely to lead to a system designed for effective long term governance, the Lords would I imagine back down having made their play initially.Dadge said:
Ah yes, the Lords. It seems unlikely to me that the Lords will try to usurp the craven Commons, but it is likely that they'll send the Bill back to them with a couple of amendments. That's problematic for May. She can try to spin it as "blocking Brexit" but at least half of the public will just see it as reasonable compromise on a big subject that the country is divided on. What she ought to do is water down the amendments so that the opposition at least feels they've been listened to, even if the practical effect of the amendments is almost zero. If she gets all arsey about it and picks a major fight with the Lords she just creates another negative narrative for the media to run with.ydoethur said:
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you, but I think from a partisan point of view if Corbyn genuinely is planning to stay until the next election then it makes sense from May's point of view to wait in the hope the damage he does to the Labour Party is actually irreparable.Dadge said:I'm o wait.
Indeed, getting rid of him quickly so Labour can be salvaged and provide a functioning democratic alternative is probably the best argument for an immediate election. However, I doubt if there will be one unless the Lords decide to go out with a bang by trying to block Brexit.
I would also very much doubt May will not spin it for all it is worth - she threatened judges not to defy the will of the people after the High Court judgement on A50, per the Telegraph, even while her own lawyers acknowledged the case was a legitimate legal issue and the government had a plan in place if they lost, so she's hardly likely to not spin even only a few amendments for everything she can.0 -
She could, but it would be a bad time to pick a fight with the Lords, frankly. With everything else going off at once the last thing she needs is to have to think about the role of the second chamber.kle4 said:
She can shoot them all down and return to the Lords, daring them to do it again - given the febrile atmosphere and the acknowledgement from nearly all that the Lords does need some kind of reform, the implicit threat of abolition or severe change as a consequence of Brexit stubbornness, a kneejerk response that would be unlikely to lead to a system designed for effective long term governance, the Lords would I imagine back down having made their play initially.Dadge said:
Ah yes, the Lords. It seems unlikely to me that the Lords will try to usurp the craven Commons, but it is likely that they'll send the Bill back to them with a couple of amendments. That's problematic for May. She can try to spin it as "blocking Brexit" but at least half of the public will just see it as reasonable compromise on a big subject that the country is divided on. What she ought to do is water down the amendments so that the opposition at least feels they've been listened to, even if the practical effect of the amendments is almost zero. If she gets all arsey about it and picks a major fight with the Lords she just creates another negative narrative for the media to run with.ydoethur said:
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you, but I think from a partisan point of view if Corbyn genuinely is planning to stay until the next election then it makes sense from May's point of view to wait in the hope the damage he does to the Labour Party is actually irreparable.Dadge said:I'm o wait.
Indeed, getting rid of him quickly so Labour can be salvaged and provide a functioning democratic alternative is probably the best argument for an immediate election. However, I doubt if there will be one unless the Lords decide to go out with a bang by trying to block Brexit.
I would also very much doubt May will not spin it for all it is worth - she threatened judges not to defy the will of the people after the High Court judgement on A50, per the Telegraph, even while her own lawyers acknowledged the case was a legitimate legal issue and the government had a plan in place if they lost, so she's hardly likely to not spin even only a few amendments for everything she can.
Unless she did something really daring and threatened to abolish it completely, but I don't credit her with that much imagination or nerve.0 -
In the PS's primary in 2011, once Strauss-Kahn got walloped out of it months before, Hollande and Aubry were top in the polls and in R1. No great volatility. In 2016-17, Fillon and Hamon came from far further down in the polls, after doing well in the TV debates. There haven't been any other primaries. Volatility is in the air now. Le Pen is aware that she cannot win by presenting herself as principally the FN candidate. The party is transfer-unfriendly, but I don't think that will apply to Le Pen herself if she eats Macron's nuts for breakfast in front of a TV mega-audience.rcs1000 said:
You are confusing primaries - when lots of voters switch candidates within a party - with generals when there is much less volatility.Cyan said:
But there will be television debates in the presidential. It was TV debates in the primaries that put Fillon and Hamon where they are, against what the polls predicted before then.rcs1000 said:
Here is why Marine Le Pen won't win the French election.Cyan said:Bit of a trick question, that. She is likely to do better than he does in the multi-candidate debates. It's unlikely the polls will say 60-40 after R1. But even if they do, how can he seriously say at that point that he won't debate her head-to-head because he abhors what she stands for? Or what other reason might he give that doesn't haemorrhage support?
1. She's polling worse now than she was one, two or three years ago. There is no momentum in the FN vote share.
2. Even in 2015, straight after the most terrible Islamic terrorism in French history, when the FN was 5-6 points higher in the polls, the FN failed to win a single region. Even in Nord-Pas de Calais, where MLP herself was the candidate, she attracted almost no transfer votes. (She went from 40.6% in the first round to 42.2% in the second.)
3. In the 2015 Departmental elections, the FN was so transfer unfriendly they ended up with fewer councillors (62) than the Communist Party (121), or the Radical Party of the Left (63). Bear in mind this was a time when the FN was polling substantially higher than today.
4. Unlike UKIP, the PVV, or other insurgent parties, the FN has repeatedly underperformed its opinion polls scores. For example, in the 2015 Deptartmentals, it was expected to get 30-32% in the First Round and got 25.2%.
And Le Pen is not using the FN flame now. The FN doesn't even get mentioned in most of her publicity.
As for who has the most chance against her, I think Fillon and Hamon have more chance than Macron, who won't cut it in the adversarial stuff.0 -
Haha you are full blown mental!!TOPPING said:
They both are anti-immigrant. Only in your head is there a distinction.isam said:
Haha no you are conflating them either because you are stupid, and wrong, or trying to make yourself fell good!TOPPING said:
Nah. I'm conflating them because they are the same.isam said:
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.TOPPING said:
It's a subtle distinction, Sam. Difference between being anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. I won't presume what that difference is but let's suppose that it could mean on the one hand welcoming all those already here but not wanting more vs not liking any, past or future.isam said:
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"TOPPING said:Just caught up with AQ.
Arron Banks saying, I paraphrase, that there is still a role for UKIP because when the government misses its target on immigration, people will turn to UKIP.
Why I was having a discussion on here only the other day about UKIP and how it was simply an anti-immigration party whereas the person I was discussing with maintained that it was not.
Nasty, nasty fuckers.
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
Now, there may be one or two Kippers who genuinely believe the former interpretation. But many, many more belong in the second camp and in any case the line between the two is blurred. UKIP is an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant party, as articulated by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
UKIP want controls on EU immigration
They're not the same thing, you just like to conflate the two so you feel good about yourself. Virtue signalling I think they call it.
UKIP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party. The BNP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party.
You might prefer to think UKIP is different from the BNP because it makes you feel less bad. But that's between you and your therapist.
You said they were both "anti immigrant", which isn't true. I am just correcting you, no need to go full blown mental about it
I have outlined the distinction several times. You need a bogey man to make yourself feel good so don't accept it. Fair do's, we all have our little ways
0
