politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos MORI referendum REMAIN lead drops by an astonishing

OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):

2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?

Richard_Nabavi said:

OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):

2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted in a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?

I'll have a go at Lebanon.

Richard_Nabavi said:

OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):

2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?

Lebanon?

To clarify, I did make a small edit there: 'to' a single country, not 'in' a single country.

I'm going to go for The Federated States of Micronesia

Sweden?

GeoffM said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):

2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?

It's got to be somewhere massive. Russia?

We have a winner!

Yes, I was amazed as well

Russian Federation 274,700
Germany 173,100
USA 121,000
Turkey 87,800
Sweden 75,100

In addition, however, the UNHCR registered 245,700 directly

Richard_Nabavi said:

GeoffM said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):

2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?

It's got to be somewhere massive. Russia?

We have a winner!

Yes, I was amazed as well

Russian Federation 274,700
Germany 173,100
USA 121,000
Turkey 87,800
Sweden 75,100

In addition, however, the UNHCR registered 245,700 directly

How many of those were ethnic Russians fleeing Ukraine after Russia started a war there?

Sandpit said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

GeoffM said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):

2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?

It's got to be somewhere massive. Russia?

We have a winner!

Yes, I was amazed as well

Russian Federation 274,700
Germany 173,100
USA 121,000
Turkey 87,800
Sweden 75,100

In addition, however, the UNHCR registered 245,700 directly

How many of those were ethnic Russians fleeing Ukraine after Russia started a war there?

Probably most of them, I'd have thought.

"Well I've gone from a certain Remain to a probable Leave in the last few months."


Splitter!!!!!! TPD!!!

Why was the anthem being booed?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omfg

Manchester City to be charged by Uefa after fans boo Champions League anthem before clash with Sevilla

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/11947651/Manchester-City-to-be-charged-by-Uefa-after-fans-boo-Champions-League-anthem-before-clash-with-Sevilla.html

I know, I know. I fully expect one of those rare outbreaks of football unity for the next round of matches involving English teams, perhaps involving sarcastically loud and operatic, fist on club badge, mock North Korean style patriotic 'aahing' of the anthem.

Morris_Dancer said:

Why was the anthem being booed?

UEFA punished Man City over financial fair play.

Plus City fans think Uefa have been lenient towards racist chants at their players by other teams.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, hmm. And if the migration business settles down?

Others here have made similar journeys (perhaps to a greater or lesser extent), but my feeling is that when the vote comes, the status quo will win. Recent events have been helpful for Out, of course.

I'm not fussed about the migrant crisis/immigration.

My view has always been down to pure economics.

It is unlikely that we'll get protection for the City of London nor our financial services industry, add in I'm expecting deeper integration in the Eurozone which I suspect will be bad for us, that's what has switched my vote.

Owen Paterson gave an excellent interview to Sky News on leaving the EU. A real positive case for leaving with little negativity. Well worth checking out.

Cricket = Honours even after day 1 ?

The Russian stat is surprising, until you realise it's about Ukraine and that:

In Soviet Russia, asylum claims YOU*!

*If you happen to leave in eastern Ukraine.

Morris_Dancer said:

The Russian stat is surprising, until you realise it's about Ukraine and that:

In Soviet Russia, asylum claims YOU*!

*If you happen to leave in eastern Ukraine.

You mean Novorossiya?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omfg

Manchester City to be charged by Uefa after fans boo Champions League anthem before clash with Sevilla

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/11947651/Manchester-City-to-be-charged-by-Uefa-after-fans-boo-Champions-League-anthem-before-clash-with-Sevilla.html

That's pathetic. Like something out of 1984, or North Korea

JEO said:

rcs1000,

I understand your point, but I believe 1.5 million are estimated to arrive in Germany this year. They do not yet seem minded to turn them away. Therefore, I think it's reasonable getting about 0.5 mill before they start doing that. Even when they start doing that, so many people are already on route that many will still be sneaking in beyond that and yet still successfully getting asylum once in (e.g. like the channel tunnel refugees). I could easily see 2.5 million getting to Germany, with maybe half getting passports.

We could easily see ten times as many as Cameron decided to accept if we don't get protection from it.

I speak to a few Germans through various forums and I have no reason to believe they are anything other than normal, law-abiding, working people, not particularly politically committed one way or another. They are all absolutely furious at the migration that they see as being forced on them.

Straws in the wind, anecdote not data and all the rest of it.

Morris_Dancer said:

The Russian stat is surprising, until you realise it's about Ukraine and that:

In Soviet Russia, asylum claims YOU*!

*If you happen to leave in eastern Ukraine.

Those evil Russians eh? Can't even accept the world's assylum seekers without some evil white cat stroking motive.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Why was the anthem being booed?

UEFA punished Man City over financial fair play.

Plus City fans think Uefa have been lenient towards racist chants at their players by other teams.

Plus UEFA ludicrously made CSKA play behind closed doors due to their fans poor behaviour - after City fans had already bought tickets and accommodation. So City fans were punished for the sins of CSKA fans.

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

The Russian stat is surprising, until you realise it's about Ukraine and that:

In Soviet Russia, asylum claims YOU*!

*If you happen to leave in eastern Ukraine.

You mean Novorossiya?

Historically, "Novorossiya" covers an area greater than Eastern Ukraine....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya

JEO said:

Restricting the EU vote to British nationals seems an entirely reasonable thing to do:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11945477/Brexit-Block-non-UK-citizens-from-voting-in-EU-referendum-says-new-report.html

It would be fairly toxic if British citizens vote to leave the EU, but are kept in by foreign nationals.

Commonwealth citizens living in the UK are entitled to vote in General Elections, so why not the EU referendum?

Whether they should be allowed to vote in General Elections is another matter but that should be reformed for all or for none, not just one referendum.

EU citizens OTOH are not entitled to vote in General Elections, so can't vote in the referendum. Quite rightly too.

@JamesClayton5: SNP source says it's "very, very likely" that they'll use their next opposition day (24th Nov) to vote on Trident. Massive prob for Labour

Sandpit said:

JonCisBack said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omfg

Manchester City to be charged by Uefa after fans boo Champions League anthem before clash with Sevilla

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/11947651/Manchester-City-to-be-charged-by-Uefa-after-fans-boo-Champions-League-anthem-before-clash-with-Sevilla.html

That's pathetic. Like something out of 1984, or North Korea

If every team's fans now start to boo the anthem, then what will they do?

"Nice to see your home fans booing you! That's what loyal support is!" - W. Rooney.

JonCisBack said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omfg

Manchester City to be charged by Uefa after fans boo Champions League anthem before clash with Sevilla

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/11947651/Manchester-City-to-be-charged-by-Uefa-after-fans-boo-Champions-League-anthem-before-clash-with-Sevilla.html

That's pathetic. Like something out of 1984, or North Korea

meanwhile routine racist chanting by many uefa member supporters, etc, gets what?

I had survived many months without attracting the attention of The National, the SNP's American-owned propaganda sheet. But then, like buses, two from The National turned up at the same time.

a second bus sped into the terminus with Cat Boyd at the wheel, she being a tribune of the nationalist movement no more forgiving than the one who had earlier in the week instructed Joanne and Muriel to fuck off over the border.

The idea that I'm a member of the Scottish establishment, and that somehow I represent it in a nutshell, will take some time to get used to; I may have to dine out on it for years before the risible laughter all around me finally subsides. Ms Boyd forgets that the Scottish establishment – the new establishment – consists of people like herself.

But, more seriously, I must also get used to the idea that I am now officially an enemy of Miss Sturgeon's one-party state.

http://www.scottishreview.net/KennethRoy23a.html

JEO said:

It would be nice if financial sector wrongdoers got punished in this country:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/iceland-does-what-the-us-wont-26-top-bankers-sent-to-prison-for-role-in-financial-crisis/

You might want to check out Southwark Crown Court where a number of them are currently on trial, with more to come. One has just been sentenced to 14 years in prison and another is out after being convicted of the UK's biggest fraud.

Our maximum sentence for fraud is too low and the sentences which are given are also too low. But it's not the case that nothing is happening.

Scott_P said:

Isn’t it about time the SNP started investigating those in their ranks who are behind the worst abuses, and, if they are revealed to be members‎, start expelling them or at least issuing meaningful warnings. Isn’t proper action by Nicola Sturgeon – who is much more reasonable and sensible than the ego-maniac Alex Salmond – overdue, to clean up her party?

This problem now cuts across party or ideological lines, threatening basic freedoms and eroding civic norms that were taken for granted until the madness and bitterness of the referendum period.

http://www.capx.co/shouldnt-nicola-sturgeon-be-expelling-some-nationalist-extremists/

LOL, they will want Stasi rounding up suspected SNP supporters soon. Cannot beat them at the ballot box so let us just put them in gulags, UK democracy you just got to love the loyalist unionists chutzpah.

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_P said:

@JamesClayton5: SNP source says it's "very, very likely" that they'll use their next opposition day (24th Nov) to vote on Trident. Massive prob for Labour

Fantastic. *Gets popcorn*

Like the tax credits vote this week, watch for all the Tory MPs to turn up for the vote. Embarrassing the SNP and Labour at the same time is known as killing two birds with one stone.

Why would the SNP be embarrassed (Unless 3 in a bed MacNeil locks himself in the loo again :P ) ?

Sandpit is easily confused.

Mr. P, bah. Political equivalent of giving a starving man a leather shoe to eat. It's an improvement, but not by enough.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. P, bah. Political equivalent of giving a starving man a leather shoe to eat. It's an improvement, but not by enough.

But if you wish to hold out for nothing but an English Government, - you will get nothing.

@ProfChalmers: I see that some MPs are furious that they might not be able to vote on things they don't want to vote on.

@OwenThompson: The Tories ended the union today - not SNP & not the people of Scotland - result of this will have huge consequences for whole UK #EVEL

This EVEL motion does not go anywhere near far enough. It is no more than English Veto for English Laws. We need English Votes for English Laws.

On issues where the Scots have decided to devolve matters out of Westminster there should be zero votes by Scottish MPs on those matters.

Scott_P said:

@KateEMcCann: Government passes Evel motion - Ayes 312 to 270 Noes

Easy win.

That leaves foxhunting and Human Rights reform as the trickiest votes to go - except EU ref natch.

@davidtorrance: I agree with the SNP that EVEL is a nonsense, but the point remains that until 19 September 2014 it as a party had consistently supported it

JEO said:

Philip_Thompson said:

This EVEL motion does not go anywhere near far enough. It is no more than English Veto for English Laws. We need English Votes for English Laws.

On issues where the Scots have decided to devolve matters out of Westminster there should be zero votes by Scottish MPs on those matters.

Entirely agree. This proposal does not deserve to be called English votes, when it is merely veto power.

I agree. What does confuse me is why a Conservative government has been so pusillanimous on this matter. It feels to me like Cameron is trying to fob us off with the minimum he thinks he can get away with rather than actually tackling a serious constitutional issue.

Now, my own view is that Cameron is a nasty PR spiv with not a principled bone in his body but people on here keep telling me he is proper Conservative who really does care about more than political power. Actions, as always, speak louder than words and I am damned if I can see why I should shift my opinion of the man.

''Actions, as always, speak louder than words and I am damned if I can see why I should shift my opinion of the man. ''

To be honest, I'm struggling to think of a situation where more than a veto would be necessary.

HurstLlama said:

JEO said:

Philip_Thompson said:

This EVEL motion does not go anywhere near far enough. It is no more than English Veto for English Laws. We need English Votes for English Laws.

On issues where the Scots have decided to devolve matters out of Westminster there should be zero votes by Scottish MPs on those matters.

Entirely agree. This proposal does not deserve to be called English votes, when it is merely veto power.

I agree. What does confuse me is why a Conservative government has been so pusillanimous on this matter. It feels to me like Cameron is trying to fob us off with the minimum he thinks he can get away with rather than actually tackling a serious constitutional issue.

Now, my own view is that Cameron is a nasty PR spiv with not a principled bone in his body but people on here keep telling me he is proper Conservative who really does care about more than political power. Actions, as always, speak louder than words and I am damned if I can see why I should shift my opinion of the man.

You are rather confused about your history. A proper Conservative is someone who takes a pragmatic and realistic view. Cameron is bang in the centre of the great tradition of Conservative Prime Ministers, doing the best that can be done in the circumstances. Of course it's a bit of a fudge - most things in the great unwritten British constitution, such as the Salisbury Convention or indeed our constitutional monarchy, are fudges, which gradually get honoured by tradition.

The key point is that it's a damned sight better than what was there before.

Richard_Nabavi said:

HurstLlama said:

JEO said:

Philip_Thompson said:

This EVEL motion does not go anywhere near far enough. It is no more than English Veto for English Laws. We need English Votes for English Laws.

On issues where the Scots have decided to devolve matters out of Westminster there should be zero votes by Scottish MPs on those matters.

Entirely agree. This proposal does not deserve to be called English votes, when it is merely veto power.

I agree. What does confuse me is why a Conservative government has been so pusillanimous on this matter. It feels to me like Cameron is trying to fob us off with the minimum he thinks he can get away with rather than actually tackling a serious constitutional issue.

Now, my own view is that Cameron is a nasty PR spiv with not a principled bone in his body but people on here keep telling me he is proper Conservative who really does care about more than political power. Actions, as always, speak louder than words and I am damned if I can see why I should shift my opinion of the man.

You are rather confused about your history. A proper Conservative is someone who takes a pragmatic and realistic view. Cameron is bang in the centre of the great tradition of Conservative Prime Ministers, doing the best that can be done in the circumstances. Of course it's a bit of a fudge - most things in the great unwritten British constitution, such as the Salisbury Convention, are.

Drivel, Mr. Nabavi, pure drivel. Very unusual from you but drivel nonetheless.

Edited extra bit: You edited and added to your post after I replied.

Does anyone know what is happening re reversing the Lords amendment re 16 year olds voting in Local Elections?

Committee Stage in Commons was yesterday and I see no mention of it being reversed. One more day of Committee still to come but I can't see any sign of it on list of amendments.

taffys said:

''Actions, as always, speak louder than words and I am damned if I can see why I should shift my opinion of the man. ''

To be honest, I'm struggling to think of a situation where more than a veto would be necessary.

Because there are two different scenarios where EV4EL may apply, and the current proposal only deals with one of those scenarios - that where there is a UK majority but not an English majority for a piece of legislation then the English PMs can 'Veto' it.

The scenario not covered by the proposal is that where there is a clear English majority in favour of something but not a UK majority, such as allowing fox hunting. The 'Veto' there doesn't work because it's the final vote (of all UK PMs) where the legislation will fail to pass.

The test would be could the Conservatives alone have got something through 2010-15, when they had an overall majority in England? A real English Parliament would also have allowed the Conservatives to propose legislation in England as the govt, even if in the UK they had been the opposition to a hypothetical rainbow coalition.

taffys said:

''I think the conclusion towards the end is sound: she is the kind of intelligent, credible, reassuring figure who could make Brexit seem a lot less "dangerous"

Not great for tories though. PM going head to head with his own Home Secretary. Ugly.

Are "full and frank" debates only allowed within Labour xD ?

JosiasJessop said:

HurstLlama said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

HurstLlama said:

JEO said:

Philip_Thompson said:

This EVEL motion does not go anywhere near far enough. It is no more than English Veto for English Laws. We need English Votes for English Laws.

On issues where the Scots have decided to devolve matters out of Westminster there should be zero votes by Scottish MPs on those matters.

Entirely agree. This proposal does not deserve to be called English votes, when it is merely veto power.

I agree. What does confuse me is why a Conservative government has been so pusillanimous on this matter. It feels to me like Cameron is trying to fob us off with the minimum he thinks he can get away with rather than actually tackling a serious constitutional issue.

Now, my own view is that Cameron is a nasty PR spiv with not a principled bone in his body but people on here keep telling me he is proper Conservative who really does care about more than political power. Actions, as always, speak louder than words and I am damned if I can see why I should shift my opinion of the man.

You are rather confused about your history. A proper Conservative is someone who takes a pragmatic and realistic view. Cameron is bang in the centre of the great tradition of Conservative Prime Ministers, doing the best that can be done in the circumstances. Of course it's a bit of a fudge - most things in the great unwritten British constitution, such as the Salisbury Convention, are.

Drivel, Mr. Nabavi, pure drivel. Very unusual from you but drivel nonetheless.

So what's your definition of a 'proper Conservative' ?

Someone with principles to start with and as that knocks Cameron out there isn't much point, in the context of this discussion, in pushing further.

Anyway, I am glad you are on Mr. Jessop as I wanted to ask your advice. What do you know about outdoor clothing from a company called Regatta. I ask because there is a shop near me having a big sale and most of the Regatta stuff is being marked down by 50% (e.g. a pair of boots which was £90 is on offer for £45). I don't suppose I will ever do really serious walking again so I don't need top notch stuff, so do you think that the Regatta range will be suitable?

Just seen a tweet Nuttall may take a run at Oldham.

Does this mean UKIP might fancy their chances?