Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
By definition a hedge fund should make money on both sides of the outcome. Hence the name hedge.
"Hedge funds" in this context is just a catch-all for "financial" things which are all evil and capitalist. You know the baby-eating fat-cat institutions who drink human blood and perform ritual sacrifices.
"Bankers" is equally as useful in such situations. Or "The City".
The broad brush of the body of polling remains clear. There are more than enough Lab/LD/Grn/Nat voters to block a Boris majority as in 2017. The questions are ( a ) Is that their priority ? ( b ) are they organised enough ?
I think the only honest answers to those questions at the moment is we don't know.
Have no firm information but I would guess that we will see three or four poles tonight
Bloody Poles, coming over here, providing a snapshot of public opinion based on a representative sample of the electorate.
The problem with all poles over here is that nobody Czechs them properly.
I don't get that, it's all Greek to me.
Can we Finnish with the puns please?
The PB Community is always Hungary for more election predictions.
In the run up to Xmas the PB community is Hungary for Turkey.
So they'll all be Russian home to get out the best China.
Dunno but they'll get the Turkey from Iceland and maybe some Geese from Canada or Duck from Pekin!!
So in the week Boris broke the law, lied to the Queen, is agreed by all meda outlets to be the most disgusting human being to threaten civiliation since Genghis Khan, his polling is down by.....one point?
I’ve been watching the Ken Burns/Lyn Novick series of documentary films about the Virtnam war & one the things that’s very striking is just how long it took for Nixon’s polling to drop as the revelations about the truth of his conduct became unavoidable even for the true believers. Even at the very end he still held onto a core 25% or so of the population who believed he could do no wrong.
Well, according to the figures at BritainElects, the most recent Tory ratings for the 8 pollsters listed there are: 27, 29, 30, 31, 31, 33, 36, 38
On the whole, the Tories aren't currently that far above the core 25% support you quote for Nixon.
So in the week Boris broke the law, lied to the Queen, is agreed by all meda outlets to be the most disgusting human being to threaten civiliation since Genghis Khan, his polling is down by.....one point?
Well I am glad that you agree with all of those things but missed out quite a few others that we will save for another day
The day after Boris wins a majority you mean?
Who is this boris to which you refer do you mean Al who’s brother can’t serve in his government or who’s sister says he is beholden to the hedge fund managers who bank roll him?
Yeah that's the one. The one who 37% of people think would make best PM. As opposed to the other bloke, his name escapes me, the one with the beard who wants to re-model the UK into a colder version of Venezuela.
Think he's thought of by 16% as best PM. That bloke.
So in the week Boris broke the law, lied to the Queen, is agreed by all meda outlets to be the most disgusting human being to threaten civiliation since Genghis Khan, his polling is down by.....one point?
But a significant swing from the No Deal bloc to the anti-No Deal one.
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
It’s more than a disgrace but I struggle to find words to condemn it as much as it deserves.
Given the state of the MoS and the Borisgraph, I'm assuming at least one of the nationals is digging deep on his pole dancing tech advisor.
Whatever happened to the softly, softly, Dacre gone, less rabid Mail.
Not been keeping track of the Sunday lately, but the Daily has bern back to rabid in recent weeks.
They read some circulation figures, perhaps?
The MOS used to be the less vile version and was a bit more pro EU . That switched when it’s editor moved to the weekly version which is still vile but a little less vile than when Dacre was editor.
It’s more than a disgrace but I struggle to find words to condemn it as much as it deserves.
Given the state of the MoS and the Borisgraph, I'm assuming at least one of the nationals is digging deep on his pole dancing tech advisor.
Whatever happened to the softly, softly, Dacre gone, less rabid Mail.
Not been keeping track of the Sunday lately, but the Daily has bern back to rabid in recent weeks.
They read some circulation figures, perhaps?
The MOS used to be the less vile version and was a bit more pro EU . That switched when it’s editor moved to the weekly version which is still vile but a little less vile than when Dacre was editor.
The sooner the tabloid dead tree press dies the better. It is already far less read or influential than it was in past decades.
Does anyone know a useful tool that I can use to calculate how take home pay would be affected if I took either an extra weeks holiday a year or went down to 4 days?
Does anyone know a useful tool that I can use to calculate how take home pay would be affected if I took either an extra weeks holiday a year or went down to 4 days?
The broad brush of the body of polling remains clear. There are more than enough Lab/LD/Grn/Nat voters to block a Boris majority as in 2017. The questions are ( a ) Is that their priority ? ( b ) are they organised enough ?
I think the only honest answers to those questions at the moment is we don't know.
Have no firm information but I would guess that we will see three or four poles tonight
Bloody Poles, coming over here, providing a snapshot of public opinion based on a representative sample of the electorate.
The problem with all poles over here is that nobody Czechs them properly.
I don't get that, it's all Greek to me.
Can we Finnish with the puns please?
The PB Community is always Hungary for more election predictions.
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
The broad brush of the body of polling remains clear. There are more than enough Lab/LD/Grn/Nat voters to block a Boris majority as in 2017. The questions are ( a ) Is that their priority ? ( b ) are they organised enough ?
I think the only honest answers to those questions at the moment is we don't know.
Have no firm information but I would guess that we will see three or four poles tonight
Bloody Poles, coming over here, providing a snapshot of public opinion based on a representative sample of the electorate.
The problem with all poles over here is that nobody Czechs them properly.
I don't get that, it's all Greek to me.
Can we Finnish with the puns please?
The PB Community is always Hungary for more election predictions.
There's Nor-way they'll be accurate though.
Romaniers will not accept Norway as a soluntion
...without something to Sweden the deal!
That needs some careful consideration, it needs to be Moldova
It’s more than a disgrace but I struggle to find words to condemn it as much as it deserves.
Given the state of the MoS and the Borisgraph, I'm assuming at least one of the nationals is digging deep on his pole dancing tech advisor.
Whatever happened to the softly, softly, Dacre gone, less rabid Mail.
Not been keeping track of the Sunday lately, but the Daily has bern back to rabid in recent weeks.
They read some circulation figures, perhaps?
The MOS used to be the less vile version and was a bit more pro EU . That switched when it’s editor moved to the weekly version which is still vile but a little less vile than when Dacre was editor.
The sooner the tabloid dead tree press dies the better. It is already far less read or influential than it was in past decades.
The Daily Mail is very successful in its internet form. The 65th most visited website in the world and the average time spent on it 6 mins.
The Guardian can only dream at those stats.
I think people that write Daily Fail really do need to have a rethink.
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
Even Carole Cadwalladr admitted she was wrong to post that story.
Excellent take down on the FTPA in this week's Spectator:
"the unforeseen consequence of allowing opposition parties to hold a PM hostage who does not have a majority...It has no confidence in Johnson, but won't allow him to step down and call an election...This impasse was impossible in the British system until Cameron's Act."
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
But it is total rubbish unless you know why the Hedge funds took the short positions. They may have come to the conclusion that Boris would be bad for the economy irrespective of he no deals or not.
Excellent take down on the FTPA in this week's Spectator:
"the unforeseen consequence of allowing opposition parties to hold a PM hostage who does not have a majority...It has no confidence in Johnson, but won't allow him to step down and call an election...This impasse was impossible in the British system until Cameron's Act."
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
Even Carole Cadwalladr admitted she was wrong to post that story.
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
But it is total rubbish unless you know why the Hedge funds took the short positions. They may have come to the conclusion that Boris would be bad for the economy irrespective of he no deals or not.
You people really do have trouble reading, don't you?
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
But it is total rubbish unless you know why the Hedge funds took the short positions. They may have come to the conclusion that Boris would be bad for the economy irrespective of he no deals or not.
Exactly. Short positions could / will have been taken in the utilities in case of Labour winning. Does that mean Corbyn is/could be in-cahoots?
The broad brush of the body of polling remains clear. There are more than enough Lab/LD/Grn/Nat voters to block a Boris majority as in 2017. The questions are ( a ) Is that their priority ? ( b ) are they organised enough ?
I think the only honest answers to those questions at the moment is we don't know.
Have no firm information but I would guess that we will see three or four poles tonight
Bloody Poles, coming over here, providing a snapshot of public opinion based on a representative sample of the electorate.
The problem with all poles over here is that nobody Czechs them properly.
I don't get that, it's all Greek to me.
Can we Finnish with the puns please?
The PB Community is always Hungary for more election predictions.
There's Nor-way they'll be accurate though.
Romaniers will not accept Norway as a soluntion
...without something to Sweden the deal!
That needs some careful consideration, it needs to be Moldova
but 12 points ahead of the opposition...... How bad are they then.......
The Tories haven't won a working majority for more than 32 years. Longer than many people on this board have been alive. And there's little prospect of them winning one in the foreseeable future. When they have finished stirring up division and accusing everyone whom opposes them of surrender they might usefully consider how they got themselves into this position.
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
But it is total rubbish unless you know why the Hedge funds took the short positions. They may have come to the conclusion that Boris would be bad for the economy irrespective of he no deals or not.
Exactly. Short positions could / will have been taken in the utilities in case of Labour winning. Does that mean Corbyn is/could be in-cahoots?
Hedge funds will hedge, that is what they are for, and speculators will speculate.
It is when those speculators try to rig the market by financing the PM that it gets dodgy.
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
But it is total rubbish unless you know why the Hedge funds took the short positions. They may have come to the conclusion that Boris would be bad for the economy irrespective of he no deals or not.
Exactly. Short positions could / will have been taken in the utilities in case of Labour winning. Does that mean Corbyn is/could be in-cahoots?
Neither of the statements I quoted - the one invented by the Telegraph, or the one debunked by FullFact - says anything whatsoever about the motivation for establishing the positions. Why did you think they did?
So in the week Boris broke the law, lied to the Queen, is agreed by all meda outlets to be the most disgusting human being to threaten civiliation since Genghis Khan, his polling is down by.....one point?
Don't forget Arcurigate which might yet do for Boris, though I doubt it. Boris's history shows he is not the resigning type. Nonetheless, we should bear in mind the Prime Minister is the one man who does know what went on and whether he has left any bodies buried to be dug up by the GLA or enterprising journalists.
Excellent take down on the FTPA in this week's Spectator:
"the unforeseen consequence of allowing opposition parties to hold a PM hostage who does not have a majority...It has no confidence in Johnson, but won't allow him to step down and call an election...This impasse was impossible in the British system until Cameron's Act."
OT the Cambridgeshire today was won by Lord North, aka the worst prime minister until David Cameron.
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
But it is total rubbish unless you know why the Hedge funds took the short positions. They may have come to the conclusion that Boris would be bad for the economy irrespective of he no deals or not.
Exactly. Short positions could / will have been taken in the utilities in case of Labour winning. Does that mean Corbyn is/could be in-cahoots?
Neither of the statements I quoted - the one invented by the Telegraph, or the one debunked by FullFact - says anything whatsoever about the motivation for establishing the positions. Why did you think they did?
OED: "Surrender: Stop resisting to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority."
The EU is not an enemy nor an opponent.
The Act surrenders in part the executive's treaty-making powers and agency.
The Act is parliament taking back control. Power decentralised is safer. Who on this whole planet would trust both Boris and Corbyn? One of them is the PM and the other has a fair chance of becoming the PM. With those two around, the less power the PM has, the better.
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
But it is total rubbish unless you know why the Hedge funds took the short positions. They may have come to the conclusion that Boris would be bad for the economy irrespective of he no deals or not.
Exactly. Short positions could / will have been taken in the utilities in case of Labour winning. Does that mean Corbyn is/could be in-cahoots?
Neither of the statements I quoted - the one invented by the Telegraph, or the one debunked by FullFact - says anything whatsoever about the motivation for establishing the positions. Why did you think they did?
Nope. Do you?
And what on earth does "Nope. Do you?" have to do with my comment?
So in the week Boris broke the law, lied to the Queen, is agreed by all meda outlets to be the most disgusting human being to threaten civiliation since Genghis Khan, his polling is down by.....one point?
I’ve been watching the Ken Burns/Lyn Novick series of documentary films about the Virtnam war & one the things that’s very striking is just how long it took for Nixon’s polling to drop as the revelations about the truth of his conduct became unavoidable even for the true believers. Even at the very end he still held onto a core 25% or so of the population who believed he could do no wrong.
Well, according to the figures at BritainElects, the most recent Tory ratings for the 8 pollsters listed there are: 27, 29, 30, 31, 31, 33, 36, 38
On the whole, the Tories aren't currently that far above the core 25% support you quote for Nixon.
I think in the context of 'modern' politics the most remarkable thing is the relatively low 25% mark.
Trump has now ca. 40% 'diehard' supporters, Tories+BXP=45% as communicating vessels, I believe that is something - worrying - to ponder.
I don't believe the claims that remainer MPs have been colluding with foreign governments to help write our legislation regarding Brexit.
Just a moments consideration about the inevitable public backlash would be enough to stop them being so stupid.
I actually REALLY hope they have though.
They don’t need any help on the legislation , Dominic Grieve was Attorney General and is quite capable . This story is garbage spouted by Dominic Cummings but I’m sure the DM readers will lap it up.
Excellent take down on the FTPA in this week's Spectator:
"the unforeseen consequence of allowing opposition parties to hold a PM hostage who does not have a majority...It has no confidence in Johnson, but won't allow him to step down and call an election...This impasse was impossible in the British system until Cameron's Act."
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
Full fact debunked a key claim in the article as being clearly contrary to the facts, which was in turn being relied on as the only evidence to support an otherwise unsubstantiated claim about donors to Johnson's campaign. The authors also refused a request by Full Fact to disclose the firms that had supposedly donated to Vote Leave that they claimed "almost entirely dominated" the short positions that they (falsely) claimed to have distorted the market. So the claims in the article are clearly discredited by implication. And as Hammond relied on that article as the source of his claims, he is discredited to.
So in the week Boris broke the law, lied to the Queen, is agreed by all meda outlets to be the most disgusting human being to threaten civiliation since Genghis Khan, his polling is down by.....one point?
I’ve been watching the Ken Burns/Lyn Novick series of documentary films about the Virtnam war & one the things that’s very striking is just how long it took for Nixon’s polling to drop as the revelations about the truth of his conduct became unavoidable even for the true believers. Even at the very end he still held onto a core 25% or so of the population who believed he could do no wrong.
Well, according to the figures at BritainElects, the most recent Tory ratings for the 8 pollsters listed there are: 27, 29, 30, 31, 31, 33, 36, 38
On the whole, the Tories aren't currently that far above the core 25% support you quote for Nixon.
I think in the context of 'modern' politics the most remarkable thing is the relatively low 25% mark.
Trump has now ca. 40% 'diehard' supporters, Tories+BXP=45% as communicating vessels, I believe that is something - worrying - to ponder.
I don't think you can quite compare support for an abstract concept like Brexit, or even No Deal Brexit - however stupid - with support for a particular politician or party.
The fact is that on either the mean or median of those poll ratings we're talking about 31-32% support for the Tories, which in historical terms is very low and would normally result in a landslide defeat.
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
Full fact debunked a key claim in the article as being clearly contrary to the facts, which was in turn being relied on as the only evidence to support an otherwise unsubstantiated claim about donors to Johnson's campaign. The authors also refused a request by Full Fact to disclose the firms that had supposedly donated to Vote Leave that they claimed "almost entirely dominated" the short positions that they (falsely) claimed to have distorted the market. So the claims in the article are clearly discredited by implication. And as Hammond relied on that article as the source of his claims, he is discredited to.
PS. And I note the casual insult in your conclusion i.e. "admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers." Cheers pal, that was classy.
The right are whipping themselves up into a frenzy. All about motivating the troops to turn out, whilst others sit at home.
The country is whipping itself up in to a frenzy.
An understandable frenzy if the reports of remainer behaviour are in any way true.
Accusations of traitor i've thought were a little over the top so far but the public are going to go f*cking nuts if this is true.
The public have tuned out - I've lost count of the number of people who have told me they have stopped following the news because its all about Brexit and they find it immensely tedious. Most people just want it to go away and they don't much care how.
The Act surrenders in part the executive's treaty-making powers and agency.
It does neither.
Apart from that, great post...
"Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3)". That's a direct quote from the schedule providing the text of the letter.
Seriously, Scott, you can say it's purile to call it the surrender act, or you could say that the leverage it relinquishes is of modest or no import, and either is a credible position, but you can't claim it doesn't do exactly what it does do and exactly what its sponsors designed it to do.
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
Full fact debunked a key claim in the article as being clearly contrary to the facts, which was in turn being relied on as the only evidence to support an otherwise unsubstantiated claim about donors to Johnson's campaign. The authors also refused a request by Full Fact to disclose the firms that had supposedly donated to Vote Leave that they claimed "almost entirely dominated" the short positions that they (falsely) claimed to have distorted the market. So the claims in the article are clearly discredited by implication. And as Hammond relied on that article as the source of his claims, he is discredited to.
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
Full fact debunked a key claim in the article as being clearly contrary to the facts, which was in turn being relied on as the only evidence to support an otherwise unsubstantiated claim about donors to Johnson's campaign. The authors also refused a request by Full Fact to disclose the firms that had supposedly donated to Vote Leave that they claimed "almost entirely dominated" the short positions that they (falsely) claimed to have distorted the market. So the claims in the article are clearly discredited by implication. And as Hammond relied on that article as the source of his claims, he is discredited to.
The problem is that if you can't see (or won't admit) that the Telegraph is completely misrepresenting what FullFact said, then I'm sceptical about everything you say unless you can quote chapter and verse to back it up.
Will they also be investigating the hedge funds bankrolling Bozo and the Tories who want a no deal to make themselves a big profit !
Another debunked claim from the discredited author of Project Fear. After reading such nonsense, Hammond can't expect to be taken seriously even by those who would like to believe his conniving claims:
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Actually, the claim debunked by FullFact wasn't that "donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit," but that "There was a major increase in the number of “short” positions taken by UK hedge funds when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative leader."
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
Full fact debunked a key claim in the article as being clearly contrary to the facts, which was in turn being relied on as the only evidence to support an otherwise unsubstantiated claim about donors to Johnson's campaign. The authors also refused a request by Full Fact to disclose the firms that had supposedly donated to Vote Leave that they claimed "almost entirely dominated" the short positions that they (falsely) claimed to have distorted the market. So the claims in the article are clearly discredited by implication. And as Hammond relied on that article as the source of his claims, he is discredited to.
PS. And I note the casual insult in your conclusion i.e. "admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers." Cheers pal, that was classy.
But from your reply, it seems that difference is indeed beyond your comprehension!
Comments
"Bankers" is equally as useful in such situations. Or "The City".
Should be popular with the voters...
27, 29, 30, 31, 31, 33, 36, 38
On the whole, the Tories aren't currently that far above the core 25% support you quote for Nixon.
Think he's thought of by 16% as best PM. That bloke.
Another brain rotted by the virus.
OED: "Surrender: Stop resisting to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority."
The EU is not an enemy nor an opponent.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/28/philip-hammond-has-come-fire-propagating-smear-boris-johnsons/
"Full fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, debunked the idea that donors to Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign stood to profit from a no-deal Brexit. They said it was a “misunderstanding of the data” and that “in reality, no such spike in the number of short positions seems to have occured”, while the Financial Times’ Alphaville said “no deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy”."
Not been keeping track of the Sunday lately, but the Daily has bern back to rabid in recent weeks.
They read some circulation figures, perhaps?
Might help.
Admittedly the difference between those two statements is probably beyond the comprehension of most No Dealers.
The Guardian can only dream at those stats.
I think people that write Daily Fail really do need to have a rethink.
https://twitter.com/Sunday_Mail/status/1178057718571163648
"the unforeseen consequence of allowing opposition parties to hold a PM hostage who does not have a majority...It has no confidence in Johnson, but won't allow him to step down and call an election...This impasse was impossible in the British system until Cameron's Act."
BoZo can resign whenever he likes
Dead cats from both sides this evening.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1178059103534551040
The Express is such a comic.
Every week a different name is banded about .
It is when those speculators try to rig the market by financing the PM that it gets dodgy.
Apart from that, great post...
Power decentralised is safer. Who on this whole planet would trust both Boris and Corbyn? One of them is the PM and the other has a fair chance of becoming the PM. With those two around, the less power the PM has, the better.
Just a moments consideration about the inevitable public backlash would be enough to stop them being so stupid.
I actually REALLY hope they have though.
Give this one up.
Trump has now ca. 40% 'diehard' supporters, Tories+BXP=45% as communicating vessels, I believe that is something - worrying - to ponder.
An understandable frenzy if the reports of remainer behaviour are in any way true.
Accusations of traitor i've thought were a little over the top so far but the public are going to go f*cking nuts if this is true.
https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/The-Telegraph-Tables-Snap-Poll-Sept-2019.pdf
No front page yet.
The fact is that on either the mean or median of those poll ratings we're talking about 31-32% support for the Tories, which in historical terms is very low and would normally result in a landslide defeat.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516071/Dominic-Cummings-thinks-PM-thrive-despite-constant-scandals.html
Seriously, Scott, you can say it's purile to call it the surrender act, or you could say that the leverage it relinquishes is of modest or no import, and either is a credible position, but you can't claim it doesn't do exactly what it does do and exactly what its sponsors designed it to do.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/08/25/crispin-odey-stopped-shorting-pound-now-investing-britain/
https://twitter.com/ChukaUmunna/status/1177979841804677120?s=19