politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview : October 8th 2015
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview : October 8th 2015
Bolsover South on Bolsover (Lab defence)
Result of council at last election (2015): Labour 32, Independents 5 (Labour majority of 27)
Result of ward at last election (2015): Two Labour HOLDS elected unopposed
Candidates duly nominated: Juliet Armstrong (Con), John Bagshaw (UKIP), Pat Cooper (Lab), Jon Dale (TUSC)
Comments
-
1st0
-
Tory gain nailed on in the Beast's backyard.0
-
They may be opposed to a two speed EU and they may need unanimous ratification but unanimity includes us and they're also opposed to losing our market and losing our funding. Compromise is possible.Richard_Tyndall said:
It is nothing to do with our great nation. Whatever might be devised currently needs 28 other equally great nations each with its own agendas to agree. Some of them are fundamentally opposed to a two speed EU and every single one of them needs to ratify any new deal. And the whole point of this discussion is that the EU/Eurozone split is unstable and has to be changed or it will collapse. The EU cannot continue as it is with some countries outside and some in the Eurozone.Philip_Thompson said:The EU has already split in two - EZ and non-EZ. It wasn't dismantled to do so. I am disappointed in your lack of confidence in our great nation to come up with a reasonable solution that works for us.
As for the EU/EZ split being unstable, I don't agree. Presently the EZ itself is unstable more than the EU/EZ split is unstable. There is no mad rush from the likes of Sweden to join the EZ.0 -
Tonight we'll see if the Greens and LD can defend themselves, any switch to or from Labour will be critical.
Totnes is critical for the Greens, and the Goldsworths are critical for the LD.0 -
CAP reform will never be achieved as the EU is protectionist. New Zealand is a fantastic example of what can happen when farmers are weaned off of subsidies. It is truly exciting to think of the opportunities, innovation and increased productivity that could occur if UK farmers slowly lose their subsidies. It is things like this which make a future outside of the EU really attractive.Philip_Thompson said:
With CAP the reason it will not get reformed is not because of any superstate nonsense (it long predates all that) but for the same reason any US Presidential candidate in favour of agricultural reform there will not get past the Iowa Primary. The farmers lobby are too powerful in too many nations. It is plain grubby national politics and fear of the farmers lobby that prevents CAP reform not ideological dreams of a superstate.JEO said:
This is just simply not true though. Our case on the Common Agricultural Policy is one of the strongest there is. Economists and agricultural experts from left, right and centre decry it as terrible policy. We vote to reduce it every time. And yet it never gets reduced. The problem is that we address each issue as a "What is good policy?" question, while the rest of Europe tends to address each issue as a "What most moves towards a European superstate?" question.EPG said:
Exactly. If Britain makes a good case, it will not lose votes. There is also the problem that many of the UK's negative votes are "virtue-signalling", while other countries with less historic need to viscerally appease Eurosceptics would have abstained or negotiated compromises instead of voting against things.Philip_Thompson said:No it is not! It is money borrowed using the ECB fund as collateral for our share. This was covered at the time.
Just finished reading your link on where we have lost votes and it appears to me reading that, that we have lost votes because we have lost votes not because the EZ was acting unanimously. It is well known that we want to serious reforms to CAP but that we do not have agreement for that so it is no surprise to see we've lost votes on that. We'd have lost those votes whether the EZ existed or not. On a number of votes (but not all) the Netherlands has also voted against.
QMV is an issue yes, but the EZ bloc vote is a danger not a fact.0 -
I 100% agree that the CAP should be abolished. It isn't going to happen as too many nations won't stand up to the farmers though - not because of any actual principle. It is grubby politics, no more.MP_SE said:CAP reform will never be achieved as the EU is protectionist. New Zealand is a fantastic example of what can happen when farmers are weaned off of subsidies. It is truly exciting to think of the opportunities, innovation and increased productivity that could occur if UK farmers slowly lose their subsidies. It is things like this which make a future outside of the EU really attractive.
0 -
Like almost every rich country, Britain would have agricultural subsidies even outside the EU. Too many rich people benefit from the CAP for it to go otherwise. The LEAVE position of honesty would have to begin by accepting that Britain would be more protectionist outside the EU - if not under Metrosexual Osborne, then some future Labour/Ukip government.MP_SE said:
CAP reform will never be achieved as the EU is protectionist. New Zealand is a fantastic example of what can happen when farmers are weaned off of subsidies. It is truly exciting to think of the opportunities, innovation and increased productivity that could occur if UK farmers slowly lose their subsidies. It is things like this which make a future outside of the EU really attractive.Philip_Thompson said:
With CAP the reason it will not get reformed is not because of any superstate nonsense (it long predates all that) but for the same reason any US Presidential candidate in favour of agricultural reform there will not get past the Iowa Primary. The farmers lobby are too powerful in too many nations. It is plain grubby national politics and fear of the farmers lobby that prevents CAP reform not ideological dreams of a superstate.JEO said:
This is just simply not true though. Our case on the Common Agricultural Policy is one of the strongest there is. Economists and agricultural experts from left, right and centre decry it as terrible policy. We vote to reduce it every time. And yet it never gets reduced. The problem is that we address each issue as a "What is good policy?" question, while the rest of Europe tends to address each issue as a "What most moves towards a European superstate?" question.EPG said:
Exactly. If Britain makes a good case, it will not lose votes. There is also the problem that many of the UK's negative votes are "virtue-signalling", while other countries with less historic need to viscerally appease Eurosceptics would have abstained or negotiated compromises instead of voting against things.Philip_Thompson said:No it is not! It is money borrowed using the ECB fund as collateral for our share. This was covered at the time.
Just finished reading your link on where we have lost votes and it appears to me reading that, that we have lost votes because we have lost votes not because the EZ was acting unanimously. It is well known that we want to serious reforms to CAP but that we do not have agreement for that so it is no surprise to see we've lost votes on that. We'd have lost those votes whether the EZ existed or not. On a number of votes (but not all) the Netherlands has also voted against.
QMV is an issue yes, but the EZ bloc vote is a danger not a fact.0 -
They are not critical.. too much hyperbole.. they are just evidence of how things might be going...eg if it's pissing down it will seriously affect turnout.Speedy said:Tonight we'll see if the Greens and LD can defend themselves, any switch to or from Labour will be critical.
Totnes is critical for the Greens, and the Goldsworths are critical for the LD.0 -
Re the CAP
Aren't inefficient French farms the real road block in all this?0 -
Wow, Jeb Bush is supposed to be a champion of liberal moderate republicans, right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/jeb-bush-voting-rights-act-opposes/index.html
So he opposes now the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Guess who attacks Bush about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ben-carson-voting-rights-act-jeb-bush/
This says more about how low Bush has fallen, that he needs to come off as a racist to try to climb back up in the polls.0 -
P.S. Switzerland is often cited as a success outside the EU - but they have HUGE subsidies to agriculture. As does Japan. It sometimes seems like LEAVE wants the free-trade of New Zealand, the public services of Norway, the income of Switzerland and the immigration policy of Japan, but in real life they would get to choose one at best. The leading anti-EU party in Britain does not support free trade at all.0
-
Well it's to see if the Corbyn effect sucks up the votes from the Greens and the LD.SquareRoot said:
They are not critical.. too much hyperbole.. they are just evidence of how things might be going...eg if it's pissing down it will seriously affect turnout.Speedy said:Tonight we'll see if the Greens and LD can defend themselves, any switch to or from Labour will be critical.
Totnes is critical for the Greens, and the Goldsworths are critical for the LD.0 -
Sweden also being one of the countries that has made clear its very strong opposition to a two speed Europe.Philip_Thompson said:
They may be opposed to a two speed EU and they may need unanimous ratification but unanimity includes us and they're also opposed to losing our market and losing our funding. Compromise is possible.Richard_Tyndall said:
It is nothing to do with our great nation. Whatever might be devised currently needs 28 other equally great nations each with its own agendas to agree. Some of them are fundamentally opposed to a two speed EU and every single one of them needs to ratify any new deal. And the whole point of this discussion is that the EU/Eurozone split is unstable and has to be changed or it will collapse. The EU cannot continue as it is with some countries outside and some in the Eurozone.Philip_Thompson said:The EU has already split in two - EZ and non-EZ. It wasn't dismantled to do so. I am disappointed in your lack of confidence in our great nation to come up with a reasonable solution that works for us.
As for the EU/EZ split being unstable, I don't agree. Presently the EZ itself is unstable more than the EU/EZ split is unstable. There is no mad rush from the likes of Sweden to join the EZ.0 -
The whole EU edifice is grubby politics.Philip_Thompson said:
I 100% agree that the CAP should be abolished. It isn't going to happen as too many nations won't stand up to the farmers though - not because of any actual principle. It is grubby politics, no more.MP_SE said:CAP reform will never be achieved as the EU is protectionist. New Zealand is a fantastic example of what can happen when farmers are weaned off of subsidies. It is truly exciting to think of the opportunities, innovation and increased productivity that could occur if UK farmers slowly lose their subsidies. It is things like this which make a future outside of the EU really attractive.
0 -
Spain, as Salmond is fond of saying, is not the UK. There is no long history of democracy here, no transparency, and only nominally and occasionally a free press. In short, if we follow Salmond's advice and 'calm souch' until Spain gets around to behaving democratically and allowing a negotiated referendum, there won't be anything left of Catalonia to self-determine. And not to be cruel, but we have to remember one more thing: Salmond lost.
http://www.ara.cat/en/reply-to-Alex-Salmond_0_1445255719.html0 -
The UK could be more protectionist, or less protectionist, outside the EU. That would depend upon the views of whichever party formed the government of the day.EPG said:
Like almost every rich country, Britain would have agricultural subsidies even outside the EU. Too many rich people benefit from the CAP for it to go otherwise. The LEAVE position of honesty would have to begin by accepting that Britain would be more protectionist outside the EU - if not under Metrosexual Osborne, then some future Labour/Ukip government.MP_SE said:
CAP reform will never be achieved as the EU is protectionist. New Zealand is a fantastic example of what can happen when farmers are weaned off of subsidies. It is truly exciting to think of the opportunities, innovation and increased productivity that could occur if UK farmers slowly lose their subsidies. It is things like this which make a future outside of the EU really attractive.Philip_Thompson said:
With CAP the reason it will not get reformed is not because of any superstate nonsense (it long predates all that) but for the same reason any US Presidential candidate in favour of agricultural reform there will not get past the Iowa Primary. The farmers lobby are too powerful in too many nations. It is plain grubby national politics and fear of the farmers lobby that prevents CAP reform not ideological dreams of a superstate.JEO said:
This is just simply not true reduced. The problem is that we address each issue as a "What is good policy?" question, while the rest of Europe tends to address each issue as a "What most moves towards a European superstate?" question.EPG said:
Exactly. If Britain makes a good case, it will not lose votes. There is also the problem that many of the UK's negative votes are "virtue-signalling", while other countries with less historic need to viscerally appease Eurosceptics would have abstained or negotiated compromises instead of voting against things.Philip_Thompson said:No it is not! It is money borrowed using the ECB fund as collateral for our share. This was covered at the time.
Just finished reading your link on where we have lost votes and it appears to me reading that, that we have lost votes because we have lost votes not because the EZ was acting unanimously. It is well known that we want to serious reforms to CAP but that we do not have agreement for that so it is no surprise to see we've lost votes on that. We'd have lost those votes whether the EZ existed or not. On a number of votes (but not all) the Netherlands has also voted against.
QMV is an issue yes, but the EZ bloc vote is a danger not a fact.0 -
Football is interesting!0
-
You'd be surprised how much opposition there is to reauthorizing it. The South is entirely different than it was in the 60s.Speedy said:Wow, Jeb Bush is supposed to be a champion of liberal moderate republicans, right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/jeb-bush-voting-rights-act-opposes/index.html
So he opposes now the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Guess who attacks Bush about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ben-carson-voting-rights-act-jeb-bush/
This says more about how low Bush has fallen, that he needs to come off as a racist to try to climb back up in the polls.
It has nothing to do with 'racism'. Any attempt to restrict the right to vote would rightly have the offending state in court in an instant.0 -
In the medium term, the UK would be more protectionist, like almost every rich country, because powerful interest groups favour protection. It's more subtle nowadays because of the WTO, but trade in services is easy to restrict, and as we saw with VW, safety and environmental standards often serve as protection by stealth. Trade policy tends to liberalise more slowly than a single electoral cycle, as we have seen with the extremely slow pace of trade talks since GATT.Sean_F said:The UK could be more protectionist, or less protectionist, outside the EU. That would depend upon the views of whichever party formed the government of the day.
0 -
The den of thieves that is FIFA is even more so.MarqueeMark said:Football is interesting!
0 -
Steven Winstone @steven_winstone 2 hrs2 hours ago
Secret French plans to exit the Euro
http://www.upr.fr/actualite/retour-sur-quelques-plans-secrets-concernant-la-sortie-de-leuro-par-vincent-brousseau0 -
Ah, so that would explain the Vote Labour sign that I've seen on my cycle home from Woking railway station. During the GE there was a Ukip flag a few houses down, but not on display for this by election.0
-
If that is the outcome of the political process then so be it.EPG said:
In the medium term, the UK would be more protectionist, like almost every rich country, because powerful interest groups favour protection. It's more subtle nowadays because of the WTO, but trade in services is easy to restrict, and as we saw with VW, safety and environmental standards often serve as protection by stealth. Trade policy tends to liberalise more slowly than a single electoral cycle, as we have seen with the extremely slow pace of trade talks since GATT.Sean_F said:The UK could be more protectionist, or less protectionist, outside the EU. That would depend upon the views of whichever party formed the government of the day.
0 -
So secret it's written in French!Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:Steven Winstone @steven_winstone 2 hrs2 hours ago
Secret French plans to exit the Euro
http://www.upr.fr/actualite/retour-sur-quelques-plans-secrets-concernant-la-sortie-de-leuro-par-vincent-brousseau0 -
Tim_B said:
You'd be surprised how much opposition there is to reauthorizing it. The South is entirely different than it was in the 60s.Speedy said:Wow, Jeb Bush is supposed to be a champion of liberal moderate republicans, right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/jeb-bush-voting-rights-act-opposes/index.html
So he opposes now the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Guess who attacks Bush about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ben-carson-voting-rights-act-jeb-bush/
This says more about how low Bush has fallen, that he needs to come off as a racist to try to climb back up in the polls.
It has nothing to do with 'racism'. Any attempt to restrict the right to vote would rightly have the offending state in court in an instant.
50 years after the end of Jim Crow, I don't think it's necessary to subject some States to special supervision.
0 -
Firstly, the UK is one of the most pro-free trade countries in the world. Secondly, New Zealand is an example of very successful removal of agricultural subsidies. Thirdly, even if we did maintain agricultural subsidies, they would be far smaller than the EU, which has the highest rates by far in the Western world. Fourthly, any money we spent on agricultural subsidies would at least be spent here in the UK, rather than to imaginary grape farms in Italy.EPG said:
Like almost every rich country, Britain would have agricultural subsidies even outside the EU. Too many rich people benefit from the CAP for it to go otherwise. The LEAVE position of honesty would have to begin by accepting that Britain would be more protectionist outside the EU - if not under Metrosexual Osborne, then some future Labour/Ukip government.0 -
While simultaneously actually de facto creating a two speed Europe. Sweden is where we were under Blair - the population ensuring they won't join the Euro while leaders aren't willing to give up on the notion of joining it.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sweden also being one of the countries that has made clear its very strong opposition to a two speed Europe.Philip_Thompson said:
They may be opposed to a two speed EU and they may need unanimous ratification but unanimity includes us and they're also opposed to losing our market and losing our funding. Compromise is possible.Richard_Tyndall said:
It is nothing to do with our great nation. Whatever might be devised currently needs 28 other equally great nations each with its own agendas to agree. Some of them are fundamentally opposed to a two speed EU and every single one of them needs to ratify any new deal. And the whole point of this discussion is that the EU/Eurozone split is unstable and has to be changed or it will collapse. The EU cannot continue as it is with some countries outside and some in the Eurozone.Philip_Thompson said:The EU has already split in two - EZ and non-EZ. It wasn't dismantled to do so. I am disappointed in your lack of confidence in our great nation to come up with a reasonable solution that works for us.
As for the EU/EZ split being unstable, I don't agree. Presently the EZ itself is unstable more than the EU/EZ split is unstable. There is no mad rush from the likes of Sweden to join the EZ.0 -
All politics is grubby.Richard_Tyndall said:
The whole EU edifice is grubby politics.Philip_Thompson said:
I 100% agree that the CAP should be abolished. It isn't going to happen as too many nations won't stand up to the farmers though - not because of any actual principle. It is grubby politics, no more.MP_SE said:CAP reform will never be achieved as the EU is protectionist. New Zealand is a fantastic example of what can happen when farmers are weaned off of subsidies. It is truly exciting to think of the opportunities, innovation and increased productivity that could occur if UK farmers slowly lose their subsidies. It is things like this which make a future outside of the EU really attractive.
0 -
I'll make do with some real games for now!Tim_B said:
The den of thieves that is FIFA is even more so.MarqueeMark said:Football is interesting!
0 -
Germany go behind against Ireland.0
-
-
-
The EU is considerably worse than ours. It would be impossible to have an EU expenses scandal because it is completely expected that they rip off the taxpayer.Philip_Thompson said:
All politics is grubby.Richard_Tyndall said:
The whole EU edifice is grubby politics.Philip_Thompson said:
I 100% agree that the CAP should be abolished. It isn't going to happen as too many nations won't stand up to the farmers though - not because of any actual principle. It is grubby politics, no more.MP_SE said:CAP reform will never be achieved as the EU is protectionist. New Zealand is a fantastic example of what can happen when farmers are weaned off of subsidies. It is truly exciting to think of the opportunities, innovation and increased productivity that could occur if UK farmers slowly lose their subsidies. It is things like this which make a future outside of the EU really attractive.
0 -
Don't listen to them. These are by far and away the most important elections in this country today.kle4 said:
0 -
The Walking Dead returns on Sunday.
The premiere is being shown at a sold out Madison Square Garden on Friday evening.
Why is it called Madison SQUARE Garden when it's actually round?
I'm still determined to get on it somehow as an extra0 -
@kle4, @Philip_thompson
PB would have been so much fun if projected back in time..say to when Mike was born (he never bites), or the Greek era as it's commonly known.
Local elections then would have a huge impact. We'd also all be hiding and perhaps unable to cast our votes - me, because Smithson had a big club and was out to get me, and you two because you hadn't demurred.
I probably would have had to invent the cap, so I could put it in my hand when I went to apologise.0 -
"Nevertheless, other specious arguments can always be made to patronise or silence the majority of the public who want a slow-down in the rate of immigration. Against stiff competition one of the most dishonest is the argument that people who live in very ‘multicultural’ areas have the most positive views of mass immigration and that the problem is the kind of knuckle-dragging racists you allegedly find everywhere outside of London. This particular smear has several interesting flaws, not the least of which is that it ignores the possibility that many people who see the area around them change out of all recognition often (if they have the money) make their home elsewhere. Many people who lived in an area like Tower Hamlets but who don’t like living in a place where a growing number of women walk around in black tents moved away some time ago. Such people will of course now be registered as people who haven’t experienced enough ‘diversity’. But perhaps they have. Perhaps they have experienced more than enough and learnt, besides, that much of what is called ‘diversity’ has begun to look distinctly un-diverse."Cyclefree said:
An argument often cited by cretins on here, so easily dismissed it is embarrassing for them0 -
0
-
Scotland can concentrate on the rugby world cup then....0
-
GOAL - Scotland 2-2 Poland
Robert Lewandowski
you knew it...0 -
Care to explain what is cretinous about it?isam said:
"Nevertheless, other specious arguments can always be made to patronise or silence the majority of the public who want a slow-down in the rate of immigration. Against stiff competition one of the most dishonest is the argument that people who live in very ‘multicultural’ areas have the most positive views of mass immigration and that the problem is the kind of knuckle-dragging racists you allegedly find everywhere outside of London. This particular smear has several interesting flaws, not the least of which is that it ignores the possibility that many people who see the area around them change out of all recognition often (if they have the money) make their home elsewhere. Many people who lived in an area like Tower Hamlets but who don’t like living in a place where a growing number of women walk around in black tents moved away some time ago. Such people will of course now be registered as people who haven’t experienced enough ‘diversity’. But perhaps they have. Perhaps they have experienced more than enough and learnt, besides, that much of what is called ‘diversity’ has begun to look distinctly un-diverse."Cyclefree said:
An argument often cited by cretins on here, so easily dismissed it is embarrassing for them0 -
The most important football news of tonight, in fact ever is this
Liverpool have appointed Klopp as manager
which leads to this tweet from last year
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/536541909896798209?ref_src=twsrc^tfw0 -
My sympathies to the Tartan Army0
-
Do you mean you think there are some states that can be taken of special supervision or do you mean all states can be taken off special supervision?Sean_F said:Tim_B said:
You'd be surprised how much opposition there is to reauthorizing it. The South is entirely different than it was in the 60s.Speedy said:Wow, Jeb Bush is supposed to be a champion of liberal moderate republicans, right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/jeb-bush-voting-rights-act-opposes/index.html
So he opposes now the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Guess who attacks Bush about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ben-carson-voting-rights-act-jeb-bush/
This says more about how low Bush has fallen, that he needs to come off as a racist to try to climb back up in the polls.
It has nothing to do with 'racism'. Any attempt to restrict the right to vote would rightly have the offending state in court in an instant.
50 years after the end of Jim Crow, I don't think it's necessary to subject some States to special supervision.
Because some of the crap that still goes on today is shady as all hell.0 -
94th minute. Only Scotland could achieve that.TheWhiteRabbit said:GOAL - Scotland 2-2 Poland
Robert Lewandowski
you knew it...0 -
It is a thoroughly dishonest argument.isam said:
"Nevertheless, other specious arguments can always be made to patronise or silence the majority of the public who want a slow-down in the rate of immigration. Against stiff competition one of the most dishonest is the argument that people who live in very ‘multicultural’ areas have the most positive views of mass immigration and that the problem is the kind of knuckle-dragging racists you allegedly find everywhere outside of London. This particular smear has several interesting flaws, not the least of which is that it ignores the possibility that many people who see the area around them change out of all recognition often (if they have the money) make their home elsewhere. Many people who lived in an area like Tower Hamlets but who don’t like living in a place where a growing number of women walk around in black tents moved away some time ago. Such people will of course now be registered as people who haven’t experienced enough ‘diversity’. But perhaps they have. Perhaps they have experienced more than enough and learnt, besides, that much of what is called ‘diversity’ has begun to look distinctly un-diverse."Cyclefree said:
An argument often cited by cretins on here, so easily dismissed it is embarrassing for them0 -
Crap such as???Alistair said:
Do you mean you think there are some states that can be taken of special supervision or do you mean all states can be taken off special supervision?Sean_F said:Tim_B said:
You'd be surprised how much opposition there is to reauthorizing it. The South is entirely different than it was in the 60s.Speedy said:Wow, Jeb Bush is supposed to be a champion of liberal moderate republicans, right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/jeb-bush-voting-rights-act-opposes/index.html
So he opposes now the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Guess who attacks Bush about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ben-carson-voting-rights-act-jeb-bush/
This says more about how low Bush has fallen, that he needs to come off as a racist to try to climb back up in the polls.
It has nothing to do with 'racism'. Any attempt to restrict the right to vote would rightly have the offending state in court in an instant.
50 years after the end of Jim Crow, I don't think it's necessary to subject some States to special supervision.
Because some of the crap that still goes on today is shady as all hell.0 -
Piers Morgan doesn't need to self-immolate.TheScreamingEagles said:The most important football news of tonight, in fact ever is this
Liverpool have appointed Klopp as manager
which leads to this tweet from last year
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/536541909896798209?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
There'd be a hell of queue to do it for him.....0 -
This one is interesting too -Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/facebook-posts-about-the-migrant-crisis-should-be-the-least-of-angela-merkels-worries/0 -
"Ulster Scots reach Euro finals"0
-
They were winning 45% of the time??Alistair said:
94th minute. Only Scotland could achieve that.TheWhiteRabbit said:GOAL - Scotland 2-2 Poland
Robert Lewandowski
you knew it...
On another subject: has TFS got a place on QT tonight. Sadly I did not get an invitation.
Good line up with Tim Farron and Priti Patel.0 -
Good evening, everyone.
Just a flying visit. Mr. B, when The Walking Dead returns, please refrain from spoilers. I try and catch it on Channel 5 (well, 5*, I think) but typically forget/miss the start of a new season and end up being several weeks late.0 -
Gerrymandering is shady crap. Both parties are guilty.Alistair said:
Do you mean you think there are some states that can be taken of special supervision or do you mean all states can be taken off special supervision?Sean_F said:Tim_B said:
You'd be surprised how much opposition there is to reauthorizing it. The South is entirely different than it was in the 60s.Speedy said:Wow, Jeb Bush is supposed to be a champion of liberal moderate republicans, right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/jeb-bush-voting-rights-act-opposes/index.html
So he opposes now the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Guess who attacks Bush about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ben-carson-voting-rights-act-jeb-bush/
This says more about how low Bush has fallen, that he needs to come off as a racist to try to climb back up in the polls.
It has nothing to do with 'racism'. Any attempt to restrict the right to vote would rightly have the offending state in court in an instant.
50 years after the end of Jim Crow, I don't think it's necessary to subject some States to special supervision.
Because some of the crap that still goes on today is shady as all hell.
Paradoxically, the Voting Rights Act facilitates gerrymandering, by requiring the creation of majority/minority districts. Partisan Republicans love majority/minority districts.0 -
Sean_F said:
I heard James Kirkup debate the speech with Tim Montgomerie on R4. His argument was that the reason the public had a negative view of immigration was because the politicians kept saying they were stealing their jobs.isam said:
"Nevertheless, other specious arguments can always be made to patronise or silence the majority of the public who want a slow-down in the rate of immigration. Against stiff competition one of the most dishonest is the argument that people who live in very ‘multicultural’ areas have the most positive views of mass immigration and that the problem is the kind of knuckle-dragging racists you allegedly find everywhere outside of London. This particular smear has several interesting flaws, not the least of which is that it ignores the possibility that many people who see the area around them change out of all recognition often (if they have the money) make their home elsewhere. Many people who lived in an area like Tower Hamlets but who don’t like living in a place whereCyclefree said:Sean_F said:
It is a thoroughly dishonest argument.isam said:
"Nevertheless, other specious arguments can always be made to patronise or silence the majority of the public who want a slow-down in the rate of immigration. Against stiff competition one of the most dishonest is the argument that people who live in very ‘multicultural’ areas have the most positive views of mass immigration and that the problem is the kind of knuckle-dragging racists you allegedly find everywhere outside of London. This particular smear has several interesting flaws, not the least of which is that it ignores the possibility that many people who see the area around them change out of all recognition often (if they have the money) make their home elsewhere. Many people who lived in an area like Tower Hamlets but who don’t like living in a place where a growing number of women walk around in black tents moved away some time ago. Such people will of course now be registered as people who haven’t experienced enough ‘diversity’. But perhaps they have. Perhaps they have experienced more than enough and learnt, besides, that much of what is called ‘diversity’ has begun to look distinctly un-diverse."Cyclefree said:
An argument often cited by cretins on here, so easily dismissed it is embarrassing for them
There is an entire class of (affluent and well-off, and generally urban dwelling) people who think the bulk of their fellow countrymen are incapable of making up their own mind unless told what's good for them.0 -
Hmm.
What happens to the EU referendum if another country withdraws before it?
Daniel HannanVerified account @DanHannanMEP 4h4 hours ago
Now Slovakia moots withdrawal from the EU. Is Britain seriously going to cling to this collapsing project? #Slovaxit http://www.contra-magazin.com/2015/10/fluechtlinge-slowakischer-premier-droht-mit-eu-austritt/ …0 -
I promise.Morris_Dancer said:Good evening, everyone.
Just a flying visit. Mr. B, when The Walking Dead returns, please refrain from spoilers. I try and catch it on Channel 5 (well, 5*, I think) but typically forget/miss the start of a new season and end up being several weeks late.0 -
Well, the BBC is certainly doing its bit on that problem.Cyclefree said:
This one is interesting too -Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/facebook-posts-about-the-migrant-crisis-should-be-the-least-of-angela-merkels-worries/0 -
Virginia might not need it today, but Alabama does need the Voting Rights Act.Sean_F said:
Gerrymandering is shady crap. Both parties are guilty.Alistair said:
Do you mean you think there are some states that can be taken of special supervision or do you mean all states can be taken off special supervision?Sean_F said:Tim_B said:
You'd be surprised how much opposition there is to reauthorizing it. The South is entirely different than it was in the 60s.Speedy said:Wow, Jeb Bush is supposed to be a champion of liberal moderate republicans, right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/jeb-bush-voting-rights-act-opposes/index.html
So he opposes now the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Guess who attacks Bush about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ben-carson-voting-rights-act-jeb-bush/
This says more about how low Bush has fallen, that he needs to come off as a racist to try to climb back up in the polls.
It has nothing to do with 'racism'. Any attempt to restrict the right to vote would rightly have the offending state in court in an instant.
50 years after the end of Jim Crow, I don't think it's necessary to subject some States to special supervision.
Because some of the crap that still goes on today is shady as all hell.
Paradoxically, the Voting Rights Act facilitates gerrymandering, by requiring the creation of majority/minority districts. Partisan Republicans love majority/minority districts.
Keeping it for 100 years until the last segregationist dies of old age is a good insurance policy.0 -
If Eastern Europe decides to give a massive fuck you to the EU then it changes the game for us, especially since Germany will be losing a lot of their northern EU partners who vote their agenda through.Speedy said:Hmm.
What happens to the EU referendum if another country withdraws before it?
Daniel HannanVerified account @DanHannanMEP 4h4 hours ago
Now Slovakia moots withdrawal from the EU. Is Britain seriously going to cling to this collapsing project? #Slovaxit http://www.contra-magazin.com/2015/10/fluechtlinge-slowakischer-premier-droht-mit-eu-austritt/ …0 -
@bbclaurak: New referendum campaign 'Vote Leave - Take Control' going live right now - more on @bbcnews in a min
@bbclaurak: Campaign has politicians and money from Tory and Labour MPs and donors, and UKIPs Douglas Carswell and cash from Stuart Wheeler0 -
Because the places that are heavily populated by immigrants cannot help but have large population of people who are pro immigrant, being immigrants themselves..Tim_B said:
Care to explain what is cretinous about it?isam said:
"Nevertheless, other specious arguments can always be made to patronise or silence the majority of the public who want a slow-down in the rate of immigration. Against stiff competition one of the most dishonest is the argument that people who live in very ‘multicultural’ areas have the most positive views of mass immigration and that the problem is the kind of knuckle-dragging racists you allegedly find everywhere outside of London. This particular smear has several interesting flaws, not the least of which is that it ignores the possibility that many people who see the area around them change out of all recognition often (if they have the money) make their home elsewhere. Many people who lived in an area like Tower Hamlets but who don’t like living in a place where a growing number of women walk around in black tents moved away some time ago. Such people will of course now be registered as people who haven’t experienced enough ‘diversity’. But perhaps they have. Perhaps they have experienced more than enough and learnt, besides, that much of what is called ‘diversity’ has begun to look distinctly un-diverse."Cyclefree said:
An argument often cited by cretins on here, so easily dismissed it is embarrassing for them
Tim used this terrible argument all the time regarding polls showing people in London being wildly in favour of immigration, and other left wingers on here, some who are also Tories, regurgitate it.. most people in London are the children of immigrants or are from other parts of the UK.. they are either closely related to immigrants or are "immigrants" themselves
The places next door to those populated by immigrants are generally anti immigration... precisely because they see the dramatic changes to their nearby towns and don't want it to happen where they live, or have moved from those towns to escape
I gave the example of Upminster and Hornchurch, where I live, compared to Barking. I can guarantee that v few people indeed move from U&H to B but plenty move in the opposite direction. I would think it rings true from most outer London towns compared to those 5 miles inward.
0 -
@simonk133: Just noticed that Euro 2016 Group B contains literally not one proper country0
-
Germany doesn't need northern EU partners as long as it has money to bribe and threaten eurozone governments to toe it's line.MaxPB said:
If Eastern Europe decides to give a massive fuck you to the EU then it changes the game for us, especially since Germany will be losing a lot of their northern EU partners who vote their agenda through.Speedy said:Hmm.
What happens to the EU referendum if another country withdraws before it?
Daniel HannanVerified account @DanHannanMEP 4h4 hours ago
Now Slovakia moots withdrawal from the EU. Is Britain seriously going to cling to this collapsing project? #Slovaxit http://www.contra-magazin.com/2015/10/fluechtlinge-slowakischer-premier-droht-mit-eu-austritt/ …0 -
38 degrees is warning me that Osborne is planning on killing every firstborn.
Should I sign their petition ?0 -
Surely there must be a suitable vacancy for someone with Blatter's abilities in the European Commission?0
-
Gerrymandering is nothing to do with the Voting Rights Act - it happens in every state.Sean_F said:
Gerrymandering is shady crap. Both parties are guilty.Alistair said:
Do you mean you think there are some states that can be taken of special supervision or do you mean all states can be taken off special supervision?Sean_F said:Tim_B said:
You'd be surprised how much opposition there is to reauthorizing it. The South is entirely different than it was in the 60s.Speedy said:Wow, Jeb Bush is supposed to be a champion of liberal moderate republicans, right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/jeb-bush-voting-rights-act-opposes/index.html
So he opposes now the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Guess who attacks Bush about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ben-carson-voting-rights-act-jeb-bush/
This says more about how low Bush has fallen, that he needs to come off as a racist to try to climb back up in the polls.
It has nothing to do with 'racism'. Any attempt to restrict the right to vote would rightly have the offending state in court in an instant.
50 years after the end of Jim Crow, I don't think it's necessary to subject some States to special supervision.
Because some of the crap that still goes on today is shady as all hell.
Paradoxically, the Voting Rights Act facilitates gerrymandering, by requiring the creation of majority/minority districts. Partisan Republicans love majority/minority districts.
It's not shady either - they do it in the open.0 -
Belgium are pretty handy, lots of highly rated individuals at least.TheScreamingEagles said:@simonk133: Just noticed that Euro 2016 Group B contains literally not one proper country
0 -
Already a member of Leave.EU - I will join Vote Leave now as well.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: New referendum campaign 'Vote Leave - Take Control' going live right now - more on @bbcnews in a min
@bbclaurak: Campaign has politicians and money from Tory and Labour MPs and donors, and UKIPs Douglas Carswell and cash from Stuart Wheeler0 -
Wales has a golden opportunity.TheScreamingEagles said:@simonk133: Just noticed that Euro 2016 Group B contains literally not one proper country
But football is a corrupt sport, so Belgium would probably qualify instead.0 -
Why does Alabama need it?Speedy said:
Virginia might not need it today, but Alabama does need the Voting Rights Act.Sean_F said:
Gerrymandering is shady crap. Both parties are guilty.Alistair said:
Do you mean you think there are some states that can be taken of special supervision or do you mean all states can be taken off special supervision?Sean_F said:Tim_B said:
You'd be surprised how much opposition there is to reauthorizing it. The South is entirely different than it was in the 60s.Speedy said:Wow, Jeb Bush is supposed to be a champion of liberal moderate republicans, right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/jeb-bush-voting-rights-act-opposes/index.html
So he opposes now the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Guess who attacks Bush about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ben-carson-voting-rights-act-jeb-bush/
This says more about how low Bush has fallen, that he needs to come off as a racist to try to climb back up in the polls.
It has nothing to do with 'racism'. Any attempt to restrict the right to vote would rightly have the offending state in court in an instant.
50 years after the end of Jim Crow, I don't think it's necessary to subject some States to special supervision.
Because some of the crap that still goes on today is shady as all hell.
Paradoxically, the Voting Rights Act facilitates gerrymandering, by requiring the creation of majority/minority districts. Partisan Republicans love majority/minority districts.
Keeping it for 100 years until the last segregationist dies of old age is a good insurance policy.0 -
Looks interesting and what a lot of PBers have been saying for a while
"Vote leave - take control."
The message of a new, cross-party campaign vying to get the UK to leave the EU could hardly be clearer.
On Friday, the group, which contains politicians and, crucially, financial backers from across the political spectrum, launches officially.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-344780080 -
I think he'd flourish there.SandyRentool said:Surely there must be a suitable vacancy for someone with Blatter's abilities in the European Commission?
0 -
That's a very racist statement. You should take a long hard look at your skin colour prejudices.Speedy said:
Virginia might not need it today, but Alabama does need the Voting Rights Act.Sean_F said:
Gerrymandering is shady crap. Both parties are guilty.Alistair said:
Do you mean you think there are some states that can be taken of special supervision or do you mean all states can be taken off special supervision?Sean_F said:Tim_B said:
You'd be surprised how much opposition there is to reauthorizing it. The South is entirely different than it was in the 60s.Speedy said:Wow, Jeb Bush is supposed to be a champion of liberal moderate republicans, right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/jeb-bush-voting-rights-act-opposes/index.html
So he opposes now the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Guess who attacks Bush about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ben-carson-voting-rights-act-jeb-bush/
This says more about how low Bush has fallen, that he needs to come off as a racist to try to climb back up in the polls.
It has nothing to do with 'racism'. Any attempt to restrict the right to vote would rightly have the offending state in court in an instant.
50 years after the end of Jim Crow, I don't think it's necessary to subject some States to special supervision.
Because some of the crap that still goes on today is shady as all hell.
Paradoxically, the Voting Rights Act facilitates gerrymandering, by requiring the creation of majority/minority districts. Partisan Republicans love majority/minority districts.
Keeping it for 100 years until the last segregationist dies of old age is a good insurance policy.0 -
Without those partners the southern nations will be able to outvote Germany+Finland+Benelux. Without us in there voting through a free trade agenda with them it makes life very hard. Germany can only whip southern Europe because they know it doesn't matter, they don't have the numbers to overturn Germany and their partners.Speedy said:
Germany doesn't need northern EU partners as long as it has money to bribe and threaten eurozone governments to toe it's line.MaxPB said:
If Eastern Europe decides to give a massive fuck you to the EU then it changes the game for us, especially since Germany will be losing a lot of their northern EU partners who vote their agenda through.Speedy said:Hmm.
What happens to the EU referendum if another country withdraws before it?
Daniel HannanVerified account @DanHannanMEP 4h4 hours ago
Now Slovakia moots withdrawal from the EU. Is Britain seriously going to cling to this collapsing project? #Slovaxit http://www.contra-magazin.com/2015/10/fluechtlinge-slowakischer-premier-droht-mit-eu-austritt/ …0 -
If you find it, could you send me a link to Vote Leave now.Casino_Royale said:
Already a member of Leave.EU - I will join Vote Leave now as well.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: New referendum campaign 'Vote Leave - Take Control' going live right now - more on @bbcnews in a min
@bbclaurak: Campaign has politicians and money from Tory and Labour MPs and donors, and UKIPs Douglas Carswell and cash from Stuart Wheeler
I might sign up0 -
Fantastic news. It must be kept warm, positive and internationalist in tone to win.TheScreamingEagles said:Looks interesting and what a lot of PBers have been saying for a while
"Vote leave - take control."
The message of a new, cross-party campaign vying to get the UK to leave the EU could hardly be clearer.
On Friday, the group, which contains politicians and, crucially, financial backers from across the political spectrum, launches officially.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-344780080 -
Sounds like hair product.TheScreamingEagles said:Looks interesting and what a lot of PBers have been saying for a while
"Vote leave - take control."
The message of a new, cross-party campaign vying to get the UK to leave the EU could hardly be clearer.
On Friday, the group, which contains politicians and, crucially, financial backers from across the political spectrum, launches officially.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-344780080 -
O/T
You can bid to have lunch with Nigel Farage.
Vast majority of bids look to be from fake accounts with zero feedback.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/321881571046?ssPageName=STRK:MESCX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1554.l26490 -
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34478008Casino_Royale said:
Already a member of Leave.EU - I will join Vote Leave now as well.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: New referendum campaign 'Vote Leave - Take Control' going live right now - more on @bbcnews in a min
@bbclaurak: Campaign has politicians and money from Tory and Labour MPs and donors, and UKIPs Douglas Carswell and cash from Stuart Wheeler
"This new campaign, Vote Leave, is funded by major Conservative donor and City millionaire Peter Cruddas, John Mills, Labour's biggest private financial backer, and Stuart Wheeler, for years a Tory donor but more recently a supporter of UKIP."
"The expectation is that they will spend up to £20m, around half the amount the Tories spent in the 12 months before the election.
And it will fold in three existing campaign groups: Conservatives for Britain, Business for Britain and the Labour Leave campaign."
They won't be short of resources.
Goodnight0 -
Lawson, Hoey and Carswell is a fantastic line-up that covers all the bases.Casino_Royale said:
Fantastic news. It must be kept warm, positive and internationalist in tone to win.TheScreamingEagles said:Looks interesting and what a lot of PBers have been saying for a while
"Vote leave - take control."
The message of a new, cross-party campaign vying to get the UK to leave the EU could hardly be clearer.
On Friday, the group, which contains politicians and, crucially, financial backers from across the political spectrum, launches officially.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-344780080 -
There can't be many segregationists left alive today.Speedy said:
Virginia might not need it today, but Alabama does need the Voting Rights Act.Sean_F said:
Gerrymandering is shady crap. Both parties are guilty.Alistair said:
Do you mean you think there are some states that can be taken of special supervision or do you mean all states can be taken off special supervision?Sean_F said:Tim_B said:
You'd be surprised how much opposition there is to reauthorizing it. The South is entirely different than it was in the 60s.Speedy said:Wow, Jeb Bush is supposed to be a champion of liberal moderate republicans, right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/jeb-bush-voting-rights-act-opposes/index.html
So he opposes now the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Guess who attacks Bush about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ben-carson-voting-rights-act-jeb-bush/
This says more about how low Bush has fallen, that he needs to come off as a racist to try to climb back up in the polls.
It has nothing to do with 'racism'. Any attempt to restrict the right to vote would rightly have the offending state in court in an instant.
50 years after the end of Jim Crow, I don't think it's necessary to subject some States to special supervision.
Because some of the crap that still goes on today is shady as all hell.
Paradoxically, the Voting Rights Act facilitates gerrymandering, by requiring the creation of majority/minority districts. Partisan Republicans love majority/minority districts.
Keeping it for 100 years until the last segregationist dies of old age is a good insurance policy.0 -
"Vote Leave - Take the Momentum"
Am I getting a bit muddled?0 -
What's the website for this new fancy campaign group?0
-
We haven't seen a trio like that impressive since the Goodies.JEO said:
Lawson, Hoey and Carswell is a fantastic line-up that covers all the bases.Casino_Royale said:
Fantastic news. It must be kept warm, positive and internationalist in tone to win.TheScreamingEagles said:Looks interesting and what a lot of PBers have been saying for a while
"Vote leave - take control."
The message of a new, cross-party campaign vying to get the UK to leave the EU could hardly be clearer.
On Friday, the group, which contains politicians and, crucially, financial backers from across the political spectrum, launches officially.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-344780080 -
Interesting that Carswell isn't backing the group that Farage and Banks set up.0
-
The Judean people's front or the people's front of Judea?TheScreamingEagles said:Interesting that Carswell isn't backing the group that Farage and Banks set up.
0 -
InevitableTheScreamingEagles said:Interesting that Carswell isn't backing the group that Farage and Banks set up.
0 -
@MrHarryCole: The idea the Electoral Commission will give nod to Banks/Farage over the Tory/Labour/UKIP umbrella group, post Carswell smear, is laughable.0
-
This could be the greatest coalition since The Seventh Coalition0
-
I hope the Remain campaign take a leaf out of this new group's book and have a campaign based around impressive independent politicians. If they go down the celebrity route over something as important as our country's future, then it will seriously diminish their side.0
-
@bbclaurak: Blimey - within minutes Lord Harris has just pulled out of Business for Britain - one of groups that's part of Vote Leave0
-
Eddie Izzard. Grant from EAstenders. job doneJEO said:I hope the Remain campaign take a leaf out of this new group's book and have a campaign based around impressive independent politicians. If they go down the celebrity route over something as important as our country's future, then it will seriously diminish their side.
0 -
I like politicians that are thinkers who are willing to be independent from both partisanship and rigid ideology.Jonathan said:
We haven't seen a trio like that impressive since the Goodies.JEO said:
Lawson, Hoey and Carswell is a fantastic line-up that covers all the bases.Casino_Royale said:
Fantastic news. It must be kept warm, positive and internationalist in tone to win.TheScreamingEagles said:Looks interesting and what a lot of PBers have been saying for a while
"Vote leave - take control."
The message of a new, cross-party campaign vying to get the UK to leave the EU could hardly be clearer.
On Friday, the group, which contains politicians and, crucially, financial backers from across the political spectrum, launches officially.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-344780080 -
I think they'll go for someone from industry, to push the economic risks of leaving the EU angle to the fore.JEO said:I hope the Remain campaign take a leaf out of this new group's book and have a campaign based around impressive independent politicians. If they go down the celebrity route over something as important as our country's future, then it will seriously diminish their side.
0 -
I thought you would find the article interesting. I too am the child of immigrants but it doesn't follow that I am in favour of unrestricted immigration, particularly by people who are either unwilling or unable to integrate.isam said:
Because the places that are heavily populated by immigrants cannot help but have large population of people who are pro immigrant, being immigrants themselves..Tim_B said:
Care to explain what is cretinous about it?isam said:
"Nevertheless, other specious arguments can always be made to patronise or silence the majority of the public who want a slow-down in the rate of immigration. Against stiff competition one of the most dishonest is the argument that people who live in very ‘multicultural’ areas have the most positive views of mass immigration and that the problem is the kind of knuckle-dragging racists you allegedly find everywhere outside of London. This particular smear has several interesting flaws, not the least of which is that it ignores the possibility that many people who see the area around them change out of all recognition often (if they have the money) make their home elsewhere. Many people who lived in an area like Tower Hamlets but who don’t like living in a place where a growing number of women walk around in black tents moved away some time ago. Such people will of course now be registered as people who haven’t experienced enough ‘diversity’. But perhaps they have. Perhaps they have experienced more than enough and learnt, besides, that much of what is called ‘diversity’ has begun to look distinctly un-diverse."Cyclefree said:
An argument often cited by cretins on here, so easily dismissed it is embarrassing for them
Tim used this terrible argument all the time regarding polls showing people in London being wildly in favour of immigration, and other left wingers on here, some who are also Tories, regurgitate it.. most people in London are the children of immigrants or are from other parts of the UK.. they are either closely related to immigrants or are "immigrants" themselves
The places next door to those populated by immigrants are generally anti immigration... precisely because they see the dramatic changes to their nearby towns and don't want it to happen where they live, or have moved from those towns to escape
I gave the example of Upminster and Hornchurch, where I live, compared to Barking. I can guarantee that v few people indeed move from U&H to B but plenty move in the opposite direction. I would think it rings true from most outer London towns compared to those 5 miles inward.
0 -
The problem with someone from industry is that they can be accused of having a vested interests. They'd have to pick them well so it's not a company that benefits from cheap labour or EU grants.TheScreamingEagles said:
I think they'll go for someone from industry, to push the economic risks of leaving the EU angle to the fore.JEO said:I hope the Remain campaign take a leaf out of this new group's book and have a campaign based around impressive independent politicians. If they go down the celebrity route over something as important as our country's future, then it will seriously diminish their side.
0
