politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So far punters are putting their money on an EU Referendum
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So far punters are putting their money on an EU Referendum REMAIN
This is a chart that we’ll see a lot over the coming months as we get closer to the election day in the EU referendum. My plan is to update it regularly showing changes so we can see how gambling sentiment is changing.
Comments
-
First! Were all these polls with the final wording of the question?0
-
I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.
0 -
I think Remain 55% may be pretty close to the mark. I don't think it will be decisive, but I just don't think Leave will win.surbiton said:I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.0 -
I think Lab, LD and others will be more like 80% In (provided that they can be motivated to vote), but agree that the 2015 Con voters are likely to be decisive. The Leave campaign is going to be strongly associated with the kippers and the hard right of the Conservatives. That is going to be pretty repellent to a lot of voters.surbiton said:I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.
In terms of betting though I am on Leave, on 3/1 or so. Already I am significantly in the Green. The polls will tighten as we get closer to the day so expect to be able to have an all green position on the night.
I think the poll will be next year but probably the autumn.
0 -
I'm interested to hear what the pb Tories think of Cameron wanting to give the vote to 16 year olds, considering when Milliband proposed it they were dead against.0
-
What has he said? I for one am quite against such a change to the franchise.blackburn63 said:I'm interested to hear what the pb Tories think of Cameron wanting to give the vote to 16 year olds, considering when Milliband proposed it they were dead against.
0 -
I don't think Cameron is in favour of it; however, if the Lords vote in favour of that amendment (not sure if that the right technical term!), there is a feeling that Cameron will just accept it as it will be to his side's advantage.RobD said:
What has he said? I for one am quite against such a change to the franchise.blackburn63 said:I'm interested to hear what the pb Tories think of Cameron wanting to give the vote to 16 year olds, considering when Milliband proposed it they were dead against.
What we don't know is whether it is the thin end of the wedge - i.e. will it lead to 16 year olds voting in all elections.0 -
blackburn's comment seemed to suggest he had said something about it. I sincerely hope he does make a stand on the issue. Why Labour and Lib Dems think they can force through their own manifesto commitments which were defeated at the ballot box is beyond me.tlg86 said:
I don't think Cameron is in favour of it; however, if the Lords vote in favour of that amendment (not sure if that the right technical term!), there is a feeling that Cameron will just accept it as it will be to his side's advantage.RobD said:
What has he said? I for one am quite against such a change to the franchise.blackburn63 said:I'm interested to hear what the pb Tories think of Cameron wanting to give the vote to 16 year olds, considering when Milliband proposed it they were dead against.
What we don't know is whether it is the thin end of the wedge - i.e. will it lead to 16 year olds voting in all elections.0 -
Rob, tig86 is probably correct and I was chiding the Tories.0
-
So when you said "I'm interested to hear what the pb Tories think of Cameron wanting to give the vote to 16 year olds", you didn't actual mean that Cameron has said he wanted to give votes to 16 year olds? Okay.blackburn63 said:Rob, tig86 is probably correct and I was chiding the Tories.
0 -
The word of the moment on here is nuance. If you read what tig86 says Cameron would approve whilst knowing that giving it his tacit approval would upset Tories.RobD said:
So when you said "I'm interested to hear what the pb Tories think of Cameron wanting to give the vote to 16 year olds", you didn't actual mean that Cameron has said he wanted to give votes to 16 year olds? Okay.blackburn63 said:Rob, tig86 is probably correct and I was chiding the Tories.
0 -
I don't think he has said anything - but blackburn63 is right to be concerned - Cameron should be fighting this and he isn't. It's another thing that will not do him or the IN side any favours as it will be seen to be an attempt to rig the vote. He won't be popular with his party either if it is extended to all elections and this is his legacy.RobD said:
blackburn's comment seemed to suggest he had said something about it. I sincerely hope he does make a stand on the issue. Why Labour and Lib Dems think they can force through their own manifesto commitments which were defeated at the ballot box is beyond me.tlg86 said:
I don't think Cameron is in favour of it; however, if the Lords vote in favour of that amendment (not sure if that the right technical term!), there is a feeling that Cameron will just accept it as it will be to his side's advantage.RobD said:
What has he said? I for one am quite against such a change to the franchise.blackburn63 said:I'm interested to hear what the pb Tories think of Cameron wanting to give the vote to 16 year olds, considering when Milliband proposed it they were dead against.
What we don't know is whether it is the thin end of the wedge - i.e. will it lead to 16 year olds voting in all elections.0 -
He doesn't want to. I'm not sure where your information's come from but it's misleading.blackburn63 said:I'm interested to hear what the pb Tories think of Cameron wanting to give the vote to 16 year olds, considering when Milliband proposed it they were dead against.
What's happened is that the unelected Europhile losers in the Lords - the likes of Kinnock and Ashdown - may combine to alter the bill to give the vote to 16- and 17-year olds. Cameron has indicated that he might live with that although I would expect at least one further shot at reversing that clause when it returns to the Commons.
The fact is that including them in the referendum vote will mean having to revise the electoral register, a process that will likely take a year or so, so ruling out an early date. While amending the register on a sign-up basis could be done more quickly than if it's part of the annual registration process, I'm not sure the Electoral Commission would be happy with that approach. Even if the Commission were content that an accelerated process were permissible and were it carried out, there'd probably still be uncertainty over the process right up to close to the campaign proper, with Court challenges and the rest. Cameron has clearly taken the view that if a tactical retreat is necessary then it's better to back down on this than risk losing control over the date.0 -
Incidentally the ref in 2016 is 1/3, 2017 is 2/1, I think it should be the other way round.0
-
tig86 at 6.50 makes my point far better than I did.
It's to be remembered that in the sycophantic world of pb Tories Dave walks on water.0 -
Does that actually mean he approves though, or concedes it to get the bill through? Two very different things.blackburn63 said:
The word of the moment on here is nuance. If you read what tig86 says Cameron would approve whilst knowing that giving it his tacit approval would upset Tories.RobD said:
So when you said "I'm interested to hear what the pb Tories think of Cameron wanting to give the vote to 16 year olds", you didn't actual mean that Cameron has said he wanted to give votes to 16 year olds? Okay.blackburn63 said:Rob, tig86 is probably correct and I was chiding the Tories.
0 -
He did just win us a general election after being told for years that we'd never win a majority again.blackburn63 said:It's to be remembered that in the sycophantic world of pb Tories Dave walks on water.
0 -
AAAAH.. So predictable.. You throw out a bone, see if anyone will take a bite at it and irrespective of the answer you use it to attack Dave.. That's why I didn't reply to you.blackburn63 said:tig86 at 6.50 makes my point far better than I did.
It's to be remembered that in the sycophantic world of pb Tories Dave walks on water.
Nothing Dave ever does is good enough. Dave is a seriously good politician and a v good PM, several cuts above the likes of Farage.0 -
Pity the schmuck who repliedSquareRoot said:
AAAAH.. So predictable.. You throw out a bone, see if anyone will take a bite at it and irrespective of the answer you use it to attack Dave.. That's why I didn't reply to you.blackburn63 said:tig86 at 6.50 makes my point far better than I did.
It's to be remembered that in the sycophantic world of pb Tories Dave walks on water.
Nothing Dave ever does is good enough. Dave is a seriously good politician and a v good PM, several cuts above the likes of Farage.
0 -
Please list at least 5 names of these people. Do they exist on here?blackburn63 said:tig86 at 6.50 makes my point far better than I did.
It's to be remembered that in the sycophantic world of pb Tories Dave walks on water.0 -
Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
0 -
James Dyson loses EU battle over vacuum cleaners
British inventor wanted to scrap EU energy labelling rules, claiming they allowed rivals to achieve misleadingly good efficiency ratings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11989054/James-Dyson-loses-EU-battle-over-vacuum-cleaners.html
This is as good an example of EU corruption and inefficiency as you will read anywhere, and how all entrepreneurs are likely to suffer from the bureaucrats dead hand.0 -
How are energy efficiency labels an example of EU corruption?MikeK said:James Dyson loses EU battle over vacuum cleaners
British inventor wanted to scrap EU energy labelling rules, claiming they allowed rivals to achieve misleadingly good efficiency ratings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11989054/James-Dyson-loses-EU-battle-over-vacuum-cleaners.html
This is as good an example of EU corruption and inefficiency as you will read anywhere, and how all entrepreneurs are likely to suffer from the bureaucrats dead hand.0 -
I'm not sure that a single clear alternative is necessary but several clear alternatives are. I don't think it's realistic to expect the respective political grandchildren of Tony Benn and Enoch Powell to agree on their vision for the future but if each has a credible vision that plays to their own supporters then each can oppose In effectively (while noting that Benn and Powell lost in 1975). But at the moment there isn't *any* credible alternative and that is a problem.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
I'd fully agree on the necessity of positivity for Remain. A grudging, least-worst, vote for In is in effect simply a delayed Out.0 -
Never mind. UKIP's '102 MPs' can rally to his cause.MikeK said:James Dyson loses EU battle over vacuum cleaners
British inventor wanted to scrap EU energy labelling rules, claiming they allowed rivals to achieve misleadingly good efficiency ratings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11989054/James-Dyson-loses-EU-battle-over-vacuum-cleaners.html
This is as good an example of EU corruption and inefficiency as you will read anywhere, and how all entrepreneurs are likely to suffer from the bureaucrats dead hand.
Margot Parker MEP is on board. “I personally bought a Dyson last week but had I known this ECJ judgment was coming I would have bought two of them.” Clown's overpaid if she can splash out on a couple.
For many the labels are quite a useful pointer to which products to avoid. Still, the billionaire Dyson has garnered much free publicity for his expensive vacuum cleaners.0 -
Perhaps UKIPs MEPs could get their snouts out of the trough long enough to turn up and agitate on the issue?watford30 said:
Never mind. UKIP's '102 MPs' can rally to billionaire Dyson's cause.MikeK said:James Dyson loses EU battle over vacuum cleaners
British inventor wanted to scrap EU energy labelling rules, claiming they allowed rivals to achieve misleadingly good efficiency ratings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11989054/James-Dyson-loses-EU-battle-over-vacuum-cleaners.html
This is as good an example of EU corruption and inefficiency as you will read anywhere, and how all entrepreneurs are likely to suffer from the bureaucrats dead hand.
0 -
Leave need to decide what the alternative is. Is it inside the EEA (in which case they have to address the numerous issues that gives rise to) or a bespoke agreement (in which case they need to explain how we would be able to negotiate such an arrangement) or a Farage like fantasy where Britannia once again rules the waves and all our former colonies bend over backwards to replace any lost trade with the EU.david_herdson said:
I'm not sure that a single clear alternative is necessary but several clear alternatives are. I don't think it's realistic to expect the respective political grandchildren of Tony Benn and Enoch Powell to agree on their vision for the future but if each has a credible vision that plays to their own supporters then each can oppose In effectively (while noting that Benn and Powell lost in 1975). But at the moment there isn't *any* credible alternative and that is a problem.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
I'd fully agree on the necessity of positivity for Remain. A grudging, least-worst, vote for In is in effect simply a delayed Out.
As Cameron said, of course Britain could survive outside the EU but those in favour of that need to explain why it will be better and address the downsides. And not by the same sort of fantasy nonsense that the Nationalists did.0 -
The outcome is identicalRobD said:
Does that actually mean he approves though, or concedes it to get the bill through? Two very different things.blackburn63 said:
The word of the moment on here is nuance. If you read what tig86 says Cameron would approve whilst knowing that giving it his tacit approval would upset Tories.RobD said:
So when you said "I'm interested to hear what the pb Tories think of Cameron wanting to give the vote to 16 year olds", you didn't actual mean that Cameron has said he wanted to give votes to 16 year olds? Okay.blackburn63 said:Rob, tig86 is probably correct and I was chiding the Tories.
0 -
Yes, but conceding a point doesn't mean he approves of it, as your original post implied.blackburn63 said:
The outcome is identicalRobD said:
Does that actually mean he approves though, or concedes it to get the bill through? Two very different things.blackburn63 said:
The word of the moment on here is nuance. If you read what tig86 says Cameron would approve whilst knowing that giving it his tacit approval would upset Tories.RobD said:
So when you said "I'm interested to hear what the pb Tories think of Cameron wanting to give the vote to 16 year olds", you didn't actual mean that Cameron has said he wanted to give votes to 16 year olds? Okay.blackburn63 said:Rob, tig86 is probably correct and I was chiding the Tories.
0 -
Don't feed the kippers..;) Everything is an example of how awful the EU isRobD said:
How are energy efficiency labels an example of EU corruption?MikeK said:James Dyson loses EU battle over vacuum cleaners
British inventor wanted to scrap EU energy labelling rules, claiming they allowed rivals to achieve misleadingly good efficiency ratings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11989054/James-Dyson-loses-EU-battle-over-vacuum-cleaners.html
This is as good an example of EU corruption and inefficiency as you will read anywhere, and how all entrepreneurs are likely to suffer from the bureaucrats dead hand.0 -
But you did reply didn't you, and predictably managed to point out that your dad is bigger than mine.SquareRoot said:
AAAAH.. So predictable.. You throw out a bone, see if anyone will take a bite at it and irrespective of the answer you use it to attack Dave.. That's why I didn't reply to you.blackburn63 said:tig86 at 6.50 makes my point far better than I did.
It's to be remembered that in the sycophantic world of pb Tories Dave walks on water.
Nothing Dave ever does is good enough. Dave is a seriously good politician and a v good PM, several cuts above the likes of Farage.
Power for the sake of power is all you're interested in, you have no concept of principles or sticking by what you believe in.
This is the party of "the living wage", even though the Tories objected initially to the minimum wage. This govt is worse than Brown for buying votes.
0 -
UKIP and their Dear Leader are a model of consistency; and never change their opinion on things such as the "Bedroom tax" in pursuit of votes!blackburn63 said:
But you did reply didn't you, and predictably managed to point out that your dad is bigger than mine.SquareRoot said:
AAAAH.. So predictable.. You throw out a bone, see if anyone will take a bite at it and irrespective of the answer you use it to attack Dave.. That's why I didn't reply to you.blackburn63 said:tig86 at 6.50 makes my point far better than I did.
It's to be remembered that in the sycophantic world of pb Tories Dave walks on water.
Nothing Dave ever does is good enough. Dave is a seriously good politician and a v good PM, several cuts above the likes of Farage.
Power for the sake of power is all you're interested in, you have no concept of principles or sticking by what you believe in.
This is the party of "the living wage", even though the Tories objected initially to the minimum wage. This govt is worse than Brown for buying votes.0 -
Dyson on the carpet then ....MikeK said:James Dyson loses EU battle over vacuum cleaners
British inventor wanted to scrap EU energy labelling rules, claiming they allowed rivals to achieve misleadingly good efficiency ratings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11989054/James-Dyson-loses-EU-battle-over-vacuum-cleaners.html
This is as good an example of EU corruption and inefficiency as you will read anywhere, and how all entrepreneurs are likely to suffer from the bureaucrats dead hand.
0 -
People who have changed their own opinions may care to remember glass houses.foxinsoxuk said:
UKIP and their Dear Leader are a model of consistency; and never change their opinion on things such as the "Bedroom tax" in pursuit of votes!blackburn63 said:
But you did reply didn't you, and predictably managed to point out that your dad is bigger than mine.SquareRoot said:
AAAAH.. So predictable.. You throw out a bone, see if anyone will take a bite at it and irrespective of the answer you use it to attack Dave.. That's why I didn't reply to you.blackburn63 said:tig86 at 6.50 makes my point far better than I did.
It's to be remembered that in the sycophantic world of pb Tories Dave walks on water.
Nothing Dave ever does is good enough. Dave is a seriously good politician and a v good PM, several cuts above the likes of Farage.
Power for the sake of power is all you're interested in, you have no concept of principles or sticking by what you believe in.
This is the party of "the living wage", even though the Tories objected initially to the minimum wage. This govt is worse than Brown for buying votes.0 -
Has Cameron really backed 16 - 17 years on the vote?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34708742
It appears that there is a Labour amendment to The EU Referendum Bill to add 16 year olds into the franchise. Doesn't appear to be Cameron pushing for it.
There are plenty of bloody fools who think that 16 year olds are fit to vote, but as far as I can see Cameron hasn't yet become one.0 -
DavidL is right. Apart from anything else the Leavers will find themselves arguing and contradicting themselves over being in the EEA or similar. They are attempting to sell a pig in a poke.DavidL said:
Leave need to decide what the alternative is. Is it inside the EEA (in which case they have to address the numerous issues that gives rise to) or a bespoke agreement (in which case they need to explain how we would be able to negotiate such an arrangement) or a Farage like fantasy where Britannia once again rules the waves and all our former colonies bend over backwards to replace any lost trade with the EU.david_herdson said:
I'm not sure that a single clear alternative is necessary but several clear alternatives are. I don't think it's realistic to expect the respective political grandchildren of Tony Benn and Enoch Powell to agree on their vision for the future but if each has a credible vision that plays to their own supporters then each can oppose In effectively (while noting that Benn and Powell lost in 1975). But at the moment there isn't *any* credible alternative and that is a problem.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
I'd fully agree on the necessity of positivity for Remain. A grudging, least-worst, vote for In is in effect simply a delayed Out.
As Cameron said, of course Britain could survive outside the EU but those in favour of that need to explain why it will be better and address the downsides. And not by the same sort of fantasy nonsense that the Nationalists did.
For example vacuum cleaner ratings would apply within the EEA as well as the EU surely?0 -
Turnout will be key. I suspect that an EU vote will not attract the same vote as the General Election or the Scottish referendum. If it resembled the 2014 European elections, leave will win.surbiton said:I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.0 -
There's no positive case for the EU that can be made that will be persuasive to English and Welsh voters and Ulster Unionists. Threatening them with the terrors of the earth if they vote Leave is easily the most effective strategy.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.0 -
Not necessarily France only voted 51 49% for the Maastricht Treaty and Quebec only 51 49% to stay in Canada in their second referendum. It would be a vote to stay in the EU but confirm us outside the eurozone. The only way the position would change is if the UK voted very narrowly In Scotland very strongly In and then Scotland voted for independencedavid_herdson said:
I'm not sure that a single clear alternative is necessary but several clear alternatives are. I don't think it's realistic to expect the respective political grandchildren of Tony Benn and Enoch Powell to agree on their vision for the future but if each has a credible vision that plays to their own supporters then each can oppose In effectively (while noting that Benn and Powell lost in 1975). But at the moment there isn't *any* credible alternative and that is a problem.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
I'd fully agree on the necessity of positivity for Remain. A grudging, least-worst, vote for In is in effect simply a delayed Out.0 -
More like sucking it up.JackW said:
Dyson on the carpet then ....MikeK said:James Dyson loses EU battle over vacuum cleaners
British inventor wanted to scrap EU energy labelling rules, claiming they allowed rivals to achieve misleadingly good efficiency ratings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11989054/James-Dyson-loses-EU-battle-over-vacuum-cleaners.html
This is as good an example of EU corruption and inefficiency as you will read anywhere, and how all entrepreneurs are likely to suffer from the bureaucrats dead hand.0 -
Its just fluff and nonsense.DavidL said:
More like sucking it up.JackW said:
Dyson on the carpet then ....MikeK said:James Dyson loses EU battle over vacuum cleaners
British inventor wanted to scrap EU energy labelling rules, claiming they allowed rivals to achieve misleadingly good efficiency ratings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11989054/James-Dyson-loses-EU-battle-over-vacuum-cleaners.html
This is as good an example of EU corruption and inefficiency as you will read anywhere, and how all entrepreneurs are likely to suffer from the bureaucrats dead hand.
Note: now getting vacuum cleaner ads in the banner!0 -
The answer is to join EFTA with a Swiss-style bilateral deal, as Open Europe has suggested.DavidL said:
Leave need to decide what the alternative is. Is it inside the EEA (in which case they have to address the numerous issues that gives rise to) or a bespoke agreement (in which case they need to explain how we would be able to negotiate such an arrangement) or a Farage like fantasy where Britannia once again rules the waves and all our former colonies bend over backwards to replace any lost trade with the EU.david_herdson said:
I'm not sure that a single clear alternative is necessary but several clear alternatives are. I don't think it's realistic to expect the respective political grandchildren of Tony Benn and Enoch Powell to agree on their vision for the future but if each has a credible vision that plays to their own supporters then each can oppose In effectively (while noting that Benn and Powell lost in 1975). But at the moment there isn't *any* credible alternative and that is a problem.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
I'd fully agree on the necessity of positivity for Remain. A grudging, least-worst, vote for In is in effect simply a delayed Out.
As Cameron said, of course Britain could survive outside the EU but those in favour of that need to explain why it will be better and address the downsides. And not by the same sort of fantasy nonsense that the Nationalists did.
I disagree that they should have to say how it would be negotiated. That would be open season for BSE and the Government to phone up their international contacts to say why they'd never agree to such a deal, even if in reality they would.
Britain leaving the EU bears no comparison to Scottish independence. The proposal to return to the status quo ante-bellum prior to 1973, when we were members of EFTA, is an unremarkable one.
0 -
Not quite correct.dr_spyn said:Has Cameron really backed 16 - 17 years on the vote?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34708742
It appears that there is a Labour amendment to The EU Referendum Bill to add 16 year olds into the franchise. Doesn't appear to be Cameron pushing for it.
There are plenty of bloody fools who think that 16 year olds are fit to vote, but as far as I can see Cameron hasn't yet become one.
The Scottish referendum was a reserved issue and Cameron didn't block extending the franchise to 16/17 year olds.
0 -
Then it will be close. Just like Scotland was. Head usually wins over heart but it is never easy.Sean_F said:
There's no positive case for the EU that can be made that will be persuasive to English and Welsh voters and Ulster Unionists. Threatening them with the terrors of the earth if they vote Leave is easily the most effective strategy.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.0 -
I tend to agree.Jonathan said:
Turnout will be key. I suspect that an EU vote will not attract the same vote as the General Election or the Scottish referendum. If it resembled the 2014 European elections, leave will win.surbiton said:I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.
I would be highly surprised if there was a large turnout, and on a motivational scale, Leave 'want it more'.
The 45+ age group tends towards Leave.
Once the pro-Europe but unregistered youth, and the ineligible, non-UK London vote are removed from the equation things start to look much dicier for Remain.0 -
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.0 -
Labour just don't get it do they. They are seen as rigging the vote with 16 yr olds and drive more of the WWC vote away at the next election and guarantee that Cameron "wins" the referendum.dr_spyn said:Has Cameron really backed 16 - 17 years on the vote?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34708742
It appears that there is a Labour amendment to The EU Referendum Bill to add 16 year olds into the franchise. Doesn't appear to be Cameron pushing for it.
There are plenty of bloody fools who think that 16 year olds are fit to vote, but as far as I can see Cameron hasn't yet become one.
Tactical masterstroke.0 -
There is no way that a referendum on the EU is going to motivate people in the same way as Scottish Independence (on either side).Casino_Royale said:
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.0 -
The Open Europe proposal is the closest I have seen to a realistic way forward outside the EU. But will the various strands of Leavers sign up to it?Casino_Royale said:
The answer is to join EFTA with a Swiss-style bilateral deal, as Open Europe has suggested.DavidL said:
Leave need to decide what the alternative is. Is it inside the EEA (in which case they have to address the numerous issues that gives rise to) or a bespoke agreement (in which case they need to explain how we would be able to negotiate such an arrangement) or a Farage like fantasy where Britannia once again rules the waves and all our former colonies bend over backwards to replace any lost trade with the EU.david_herdson said:
I'm not sure that a single clear alternative is necessary but several clear alternatives are. I don't think it's realistic to expect the respective political grandchildren of Tony Benn and Enoch Powell to agree on their vision for the future but if each has a credible vision that plays to their own supporters then each can oppose In effectively (while noting that Benn and Powell lost in 1975). But at the moment there isn't *any* credible alternative and that is a problem.DavidL said:
I'd fully agree on the necessity of positivity for Remain. A grudging, least-worst, vote for In is in effect simply a delayed Out.
As Cameron said, of course Britain could survive outside the EU but those in favour of that need to explain why it will be better and address the downsides. And not by the same sort of fantasy nonsense that the Nationalists did.
I disagree that they should have to say how it would be negotiated. That would be open season for BSE and the Government to phone up their international contacts to say why they'd never agree to such a deal, even if in reality they would.
Britain leaving the EU bears no comparison to Scottish independence. The proposal to return to the status quo ante-bellum prior to 1973, when we were members of EFTA, is an unremarkable one.0 -
I think that at an emotional level, most voters incline towards Leave, but fear the consequences of it.DavidL said:
Then it will be close. Just like Scotland was. Head usually wins over heart but it is never easy.Sean_F said:
There's no positive case for the EU that can be made that will be persuasive to English and Welsh voters and Ulster Unionists. Threatening them with the terrors of the earth if they vote Leave is easily the most effective strategy.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.0 -
I think Leave only has the lead in the over 65s. ABs are also much more likely to turnout than CDEs and tend to be pro-Remain.chestnut said:
I tend to agree.Jonathan said:
Turnout will be key. I suspect that an EU vote will not attract the same vote as the General Election or the Scottish referendum. If it resembled the 2014 European elections, leave will win.surbiton said:I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.
I would be highly surprised if there was a large turnout, and on a motivational scale, Leave 'want it more'.
The 45+ age group tends towards Leave.
Once the pro-Europe but unregistered youth, and the ineligible, non-UK London vote are removed from the equation things start to look much dicier for Remain.
I think the turnout will be more like a GE than the Euros or the AV referendum.0 -
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.Casino_Royale said:
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.0 -
Have you ever tried to determine what a 16/17 old should think, let alone on a political issue?Williamz said:
Labour just don't get it do they. They are seen as rigging the vote with 16 yr olds and drive more of the WWC vote away at the next election and guarantee that Cameron "wins" the referendum.dr_spyn said:Has Cameron really backed 16 - 17 years on the vote?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34708742
It appears that there is a Labour amendment to The EU Referendum Bill to add 16 year olds into the franchise. Doesn't appear to be Cameron pushing for it.
There are plenty of bloody fools who think that 16 year olds are fit to vote, but as far as I can see Cameron hasn't yet become one.
Tactical masterstroke.
0 -
Indeed. For the Referendum to be seen as decisive, either Leave has to win, or Remain has to gain a majority in England outside London. A narrow win for Remain delivered by Londoners and Scots would pretty well be UKIP's ideal result. (A vote to Leave would damage their raison d'ëtre somewhat.) If they then refused to contest London and Scottish seats it would only do them good in the rest of England. They could even promise to restore the Poll Tax in London!chestnut said:
I tend to agree.Jonathan said:
Turnout will be key. I suspect that an EU vote will not attract the same vote as the General Election or the Scottish referendum. If it resembled the 2014 European elections, leave will win.surbiton said:I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.
I would be highly surprised if there was a large turnout, and on a motivational scale, Leave 'want it more'.
The 45+ age group tends towards Leave.
Once the pro-Europe but unregistered youth, and the ineligible, non-UK London vote are removed from the equation things start to look much dicier for Remain.
0 -
As we saw in the general election and ScotRef, the campaign debate and the outcome will also depend on the polling.
If the polls shows the status quo will win, then the campaign will be a damp squib. If it's close or even a rogue poll shows Leave ahead it could be quite lively.
0 -
A narrow leave vote would be heavily contested and could easily see a second vote.Innocent_Abroad said:
Indeed. For the Referendum to be seen as decisive, either Leave has to win, or Remain has to gain a majority in England outside London. A narrow win for Remain delivered by Londoners and Scots would pretty well be UKIP's ideal result. (A vote to Leave would damage their raison d'ëtre somewhat.) If they then refused to contest London and Scottish seats it would only do them good in the rest of England. They could even promise to restore the Poll Tax in London!chestnut said:
I tend to agree.Jonathan said:
Turnout will be key. I suspect that an EU vote will not attract the same vote as the General Election or the Scottish referendum. If it resembled the 2014 European elections, leave will win.surbiton said:I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.
I would be highly surprised if there was a large turnout, and on a motivational scale, Leave 'want it more'.
The 45+ age group tends towards Leave.
Once the pro-Europe but unregistered youth, and the ineligible, non-UK London vote are removed from the equation things start to look much dicier for Remain.0 -
I think that we will pick up the Indyref enthusiasm bug. There will only be so many times that the words "once in a generation/lifetime/etc" can be used before people are motivated. 2014 EU elections I don't think resembles this unique event.Jonathan said:
Turnout will be key. I suspect that an EU vote will not attract the same vote as the General Election or the Scottish referendum. If it resembled the 2014 European elections, leave will win.surbiton said:I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.
Ironic in a way because it is precisely the nature of our relationship to the EU, including those all-important EU elections, that the referendum will determine.0 -
The committed Leavers would never accept a Remain vote, no matter how decisive.0
-
I don't think so. Leave means Leave. There may well be buyers remorse afterwards but there could not be a second vote if the mirage of associate status evaporates. If Remain win then we are in for the duration.Jonathan said:
A narrow leave vote would be heavily contested and could easily see a second vote.Innocent_Abroad said:
Indeed. For the Referendum to be seen as decisive, either Leave has to win, or Remain has to gain a majority in England outside London. A narrow win for Remain delivered by Londoners and Scots would pretty well be UKIP's ideal result. (A vote to Leave would damage their raison d'ëtre somewhat.) If they then refused to contest London and Scottish seats it would only do them good in the rest of England. They could even promise to restore the Poll Tax in London!chestnut said:
I tend to agree.Jonathan said:
Turnout will be key. I suspect that an EU vote will not attract the same vote as the General Election or the Scottish referendum. If it resembled the 2014 European elections, leave will win.surbiton said:I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.
I would be highly surprised if there was a large turnout, and on a motivational scale, Leave 'want it more'.
The 45+ age group tends towards Leave.
Once the pro-Europe but unregistered youth, and the ineligible, non-UK London vote are removed from the equation things start to look much dicier for Remain.
If 42% were willing to turnout for AV then far more will turnout for such a critical vote. Ironically the best hope for the Leavers is a low-key campaign sufficiently dull to keep the turnout low. I don't think the kippers and their fellow travellers are capable of this though!0 -
The middle class and graduates tend to be more pro Remain than the working class and non graduates though and they vote more, UKIP and Yes Scotland voters are a similar demographicchestnut said:
I tend to agree.Jonathan said:
Turnout will be key. I suspect that an EU vote will not attract the same vote as the General Election or the Scottish referendum. If it resembled the 2014 European elections, leave will win.surbiton said:I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.
I would be highly surprised if there was a large turnout, and on a motivational scale, Leave 'want it more'.
The 45+ age group tends towards Leave.
Once the pro-Europe but unregistered youth, and the ineligible, non-UK London vote are removed from the equation things start to look much dicier for Remain.0 -
Yougov generally has the tipping point somewhere among the age cohort 40-59. ICM brackets 35-64 year olds together, so we can't tell where the tipping point is, but it's probably among people in their mid 40s.foxinsoxuk said:
I think Leave only has the lead in the over 65s. ABs are also much more likely to turnout than CDEs and tend to be pro-Remain.chestnut said:
I tend to agree.Jonathan said:
Turnout will be key. I suspect that an EU vote will not attract the same vote as the General Election or the Scottish referendum. If it resembled the 2014 European elections, leave will win.surbiton said:I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.
I would be highly surprised if there was a large turnout, and on a motivational scale, Leave 'want it more'.
The 45+ age group tends towards Leave.
Once the pro-Europe but unregistered youth, and the ineligible, non-UK London vote are removed from the equation things start to look much dicier for Remain.
I think the turnout will be more like a GE than the Euros or the AV referendum.
Remain have the lead among the under 40's, for sure.0 -
I can honestly say that the energy efficiency of a hoover is the last thing I'm bothered about - does it suck up pet hairs effectively, not jam, easy to empty, not too heavy, doesn't get stuck around furniture, hose bends rather than twists up... good build quality...
If it's a big thing like a freezer or washer or whatever - fair enough.RobD said:
How are energy efficiency labels an example of EU corruption?MikeK said:James Dyson loses EU battle over vacuum cleaners
British inventor wanted to scrap EU energy labelling rules, claiming they allowed rivals to achieve misleadingly good efficiency ratings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11989054/James-Dyson-loses-EU-battle-over-vacuum-cleaners.html
This is as good an example of EU corruption and inefficiency as you will read anywhere, and how all entrepreneurs are likely to suffer from the bureaucrats dead hand.0 -
The night before the ScotRef Glasgow had a party atmosphere. I was privileged to be there. Families were out leafleting. People were happy and talking politics. Cars were driving around beeping horns with Saltires or Union flags. It was the biggest democratic event I've witnessed.TOPPING said:
I think that we will pick up the Indyref enthusiasm bug. There will only be so many times that the words "once in a generation/lifetime/etc" can be used before people are motivated. 2014 EU elections I don't think resembles this unique event.Jonathan said:
Turnout will be key. I suspect that an EU vote will not attract the same vote as the General Election or the Scottish referendum. If it resembled the 2014 European elections, leave will win.surbiton said:I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.
Ironic in a way because it is precisely the nature of our relationship to the EU, including those all-important EU elections, that the referendum will determine.
Can't see that happening at all for an EU vote.0 -
Not in the immediate future short of Scottish independenceJonathan said:
A narrow leave vote would be heavily contested and could easily see a second vote.Innocent_Abroad said:
Indeed. For the Referendum to be seen as decisive, either Leave has to win, or Remain has to gain a majority in England outside London. A narrow win for Remain delivered by Londoners and Scots would pretty well be UKIP's ideal result. (A vote to Leave would damage their raison d'ëtre somewhat.) If they then refused to contest London and Scottish seats it would only do them good in the rest of England. They could even promise to restore the Poll Tax in London!chestnut said:
I tend to agree.Jonathan said:
Turnout will be key. I suspect that an EU vote will not attract the same vote as the General Election or the Scottish referendum. If it resembled the 2014 European elections, leave will win.surbiton said:I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.
I would be highly surprised if there was a large turnout, and on a motivational scale, Leave 'want it more'.
The 45+ age group tends towards Leave.
Once the pro-Europe but unregistered youth, and the ineligible, non-UK London vote are removed from the equation things start to look much dicier for Remain.0 -
The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
If the unionist side in the Scots referendum found it hard to sell a positive message about a political union that was 300 years old, and featured a common language, common monarchy and extensive shared history including fighting side-by-side in two world wars...
...how difficult is it going to be to sell a positive vision of a 40-year old political union between the UK and the EU which features none of these things?
The answer is 'impossible'. Forty years ago the 'Yes' side had some success portraying Europe as 'the future' but Britain's experiences in the EU since are unlikely to have reinforced that view. And Europe's serious relative economic decline isn't consistent with such a picture either.
Hence an almost total concentration on financial scare stories, most of which are entirely bogus.0 -
Surely Scotland leaving the Union would be a return to the status quo pre 1715?Casino_Royale said:
The answer is to join EFTA with a Swiss-style bilateral deal, as Open Europe has suggested.DavidL said:
Leave need to decide what the alternative is. Is it inside the EEA (in which case they have to address the numerous issues that gives rise to) or a bespoke agreement (in which case they need to explain how we would be able to negotiate such an arrangement) or a Farage like fantasy where Britannia once again rules the waves and all our former colonies bend over backwards to replace any lost trade with the EU.david_herdson said:
I'm not sure that a single clear alternative is necessary but several clear alternatives are. I don't think it's realistic to expect the respective political grandchildren of Tony Benn and Enoch Powell to agree on their vision for the future but if each has a credible vision that plays to their own supporters then each can oppose In effectively (while noting that Benn and Powell lost in 1975). But at the moment there isn't *any* credible alternative and that is a problem.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot y is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
I'd fully agree on the necessity of positivity for Remain. A grudging, least-worst, vote for In is in effect simply a delayed Out.
As Cameron said, of course Britain could survive outside the EU but those in favour of that need to explain why it will be better and address the downsides. And not by the same sort of fantasy nonsense that the Nationalists did.
I disagree that they should have to say how it would be negotiated. That would be open season for BSE and the Government to phone up their international contacts to say why they'd never agree to such a deal, even if in reality they would.
Britain leaving the EU bears no comparison to Scottish independence. The proposal to return to the status quo ante-bellum prior to 1973, when we were members of EFTA, is an unremarkable one.0 -
It would be good to have a poll on how often voters thought that their own capacity for reason had been praised. There might be an interesting partisan breakdown of the resultfoxinsoxuk said:
I don't think so. Leave means Leave. There may well be buyers remorse afterwards but there could not be a second vote if the mirage of associate status evaporates. If Remain win then we are in for the duration.Jonathan said:
A narrow leave vote would be heavily contested and could easily see a second vote.Innocent_Abroad said:
Indeed. For the Referendum to be seen as decisive, either Leave has to win, or Remain has to gain a majority in England outside London. A narrow win for Remain delivered by Londoners and Scots would pretty well be UKIP's ideal result. (A vote to Leave would damage their raison d'ëtre somewhat.) If they then refused to contest London and Scottish seats it would only do them good in the rest of England. They could even promise to restore the Poll Tax in London!chestnut said:
I tend to agree.Jonathan said:
Turnout will be key. I suspect that an EU vote will not attract the same vote as the General Election or the Scottish referendum. If it resembled the 2014 European elections, leave will win.surbiton said:I have always been a 60 - 40 IN over OUT person. However, I have been rechecking my hunch with some probability scores.
I take the "people" behind the GE 2015 results:
Party GE2015 Exp.IN Score
Con 37% - 50% - 18.5%
Lab 31% - 70% - 21.7%
LD 8% - 75% - 6.0%
UKIP 13% - 10% - 1.3%
Others 11% - 70% - 7.7% [ SNP, PC, IND , NI ]
Total 100% 55.2% for IN
For OUT to win they have to win close to 65% of Tory voters, I do not think that will be possible.
I would be highly surprised if there was a large turnout, and on a motivational scale, Leave 'want it more'.
The 45+ age group tends towards Leave.
Once the pro-Europe but unregistered youth, and the ineligible, non-UK London vote are removed from the equation things start to look much dicier for Remain.
If 42% were willing to turnout for AV then far more will turnout for such a critical vote. Ironically the best hope for the Leavers is a low-key campaign sufficiently dull to keep the turnout low. I don't think the kippers and their fellow travellers are capable of this though!
0 -
The UK will leave anyway... when the entire corrupt organisation falls in on itself..may take a little while,but it will..0
-
Just because you can see no good in the EU does not mean that others cannot!runnymede said:The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
If the unionist side in the Scots referendum found it hard to sell a positive message about a political union that was 300 years old, and featured a common language, common monarchy and extensive shared history including fighting side-by-side in two world wars...
...how difficult is it going to be to sell a positive vision of a 40-year old political union between the UK and the EU which features none of these things?
The answer is 'impossible'. Forty years ago the 'Yes' side had some success portraying Europe as 'the future' but Britain's experiences in the EU since are unlikely to have reinforced that view. And Europe's serious relative economic decline isn't consistent with such a picture either.
Hence an almost total concentration on financial scare stories, most of which are entirely bogus.
There are many things about the EU that I like, enjoy and make my life better. Not just me either which is why younger people are so much more positive about it.
0 -
The ICM referendum poll with Don't Knows removed, is roughly 47-53 without SNP/Greens.
Their raw data has a tiny leaning towards out among Tories.
The percentage swing required from the current position is not very big. Just a few days of Euro-mess in the press.0 -
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.0 -
There are many things about the EU that I like, enjoy and make my life better
Why isn't the 'remain' campaign talking about all these wonderful things then?
0 -
I agree hence my guarded optimism, OUT voters are far more likely to vote imo.Jonathan said:
There is no way that a referendum on the EU is going to motivate people in the same way as Scottish Independence (on either side).Casino_Royale said:
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.
0 -
If the Scottish vote tipped the balance to keep the UK in, then a second EU referendum would be a reasonable expectation were the Scots to ever want another IndyRef.
0 -
Not too sure the skeleton hand of George Elector of Hanover waving from the a State coach en-route to open parliament has quite the same majesty.HYUFD said:
Surely Scotland leaving the Union would be a return to the status quo pre 1715?Casino_Royale said:
The answer is to join EFTA with a Swiss-style bilateral deal, as Open Europe has suggested.DavidL said:
Leave need to decide what the alternative is. Is it inside the EEA (in which case they have to address the numerous issues that gives rise to) or a bespoke agreement (in which case they need to explain how we would be able to negotiate such an arrangement) or a Farage like fantasy where Britannia once again rules the waves and all our former colonies bend over backwards to replace any lost trade with the EU.david_herdson said:
I'm not sure that a single clear alternative is necessary but several clear alternatives are. I don't think it's realistic to expect the respective political grandchildren of Tony Benn and Enoch Powell to agree on their vision for the future but if each has a credible vision that plays to their own supporters then each can oppose In effectively (while noting that Benn and Powell lost in 1975). But at the moment there isn't *any* credible alternative and that is a problem.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot y is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
I'd fully agree on the necessity of positivity for Remain. A grudging, least-worst, vote for In is in effect simply a delayed Out.
As Cameron said, of course Britain could survive outside the EU but those in favour of that need to explain why it will be better and address the downsides. And not by the same sort of fantasy nonsense that the Nationalists did.
I disagree that they should have to say how it would be negotiated. That would be open season for BSE and the Government to phone up their international contacts to say why they'd never agree to such a deal, even if in reality they would.
Britain leaving the EU bears no comparison to Scottish independence. The proposal to return to the status quo ante-bellum prior to 1973, when we were members of EFTA, is an unremarkable one.
Nor am I sure of your emphasis on 1715?
0 -
If 16-18 year olds tended to be right wing eurosceptics, we'd hear much less of this argument.NickPalmer said:The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.0 -
They have. The likes of Dan Hannah have mapped out a very positive vision.antifrank said:
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.Casino_Royale said:
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.0 -
OT for @TimT2 - read your Nature article, very interesting - thanks for sharing.0
-
Thank goodness that wasn't the outcome in the recent disturbance in the UK continuum.david_herdson said:A grudging, least-worst, vote for In is in effect simply a delayed Out.
0 -
Union of crowns: 1603. Union of nations: 1707.JackW said:
Not too sure the skeleton hand of George Elector of Hanover waving from the a State coach en-route to open parliament has quite the same majesty.HYUFD said:
Surely Scotland leaving the Union would be a return to the status quo pre 1715?Casino_Royale said:
The answer is to join EFTA with a Swiss-style bilateral deal, as Open Europe has suggested.DavidL said:
Leave need to decide what the alternative is. Is it inside the EEA (in which case they have to address the numerous issues that gives rise to) or a bespoke agreement (in which case they need to explain how we would be able to negotiate such an arrangement) or a Farage like fantasy where Britannia once again rules the waves and all our former colonies bend over backwards to replace any lost trade with the EU.david_herdson said:
I'm not sure that a single clear I'd fully agree on the necessity of positivity for Remain. A grudging, least-worst, vote for In is in effect simply a delayed Out.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot y is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
As Cameron said, of course Britain could survive outside the EU but those in favour of that need to explain why it will be better and address the downsides. And not by the same sort of fantasy nonsense that the Nationalists did.
I disagree that they should have to say how it would be negotiated. That would be open season for BSE and the Government to phone up their international contacts to say why they'd never agree to such a deal, even if in reality they would.
Britain leaving the EU bears no comparison to Scottish independence. The proposal to return to the status quo ante-bellum prior to 1973, when we were members of EFTA, is an unremarkable one.
Nor am I sure of your emphasis on 1715?
I remember my Wolf Cub badge
0 -
Do you think that's what the public are seeing and hearing?Casino_Royale said:
They have. The likes of Dan Hannah have mapped out a very positive vision.antifrank said:
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.Casino_Royale said:
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.0 -
I see Jeremy Corbyn has beaten David Cameron by 5-1 in a Huffington Post "global male role model" poll. Yes, seems to have been a proper poll, not a voodoo poll:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/
My joy is qualified by the fact that some obscure blokes called Prince William and David Beckham did even better. Oh well. :-)0 -
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)NickPalmer said:The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.0 -
If you bothered to read what the ECJ said they absolutely accepted Dyson's claims about traditional vacuum cleaners and the massive drop in efficiency as soon as they start to be used in the real world. The reason they ruled against him was the claim that there is no test which can be used to measure the real efficiency. Something which is absolute bollocks.watford30 said:
Never mind. UKIP's '102 MPs' can rally to his cause.MikeK said:James Dyson loses EU battle over vacuum cleaners
British inventor wanted to scrap EU energy labelling rules, claiming they allowed rivals to achieve misleadingly good efficiency ratings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11989054/James-Dyson-loses-EU-battle-over-vacuum-cleaners.html
This is as good an example of EU corruption and inefficiency as you will read anywhere, and how all entrepreneurs are likely to suffer from the bureaucrats dead hand.
Margot Parker MEP is on board. “I personally bought a Dyson last week but had I known this ECJ judgment was coming I would have bought two of them.” Clown's overpaid if she can splash out on a couple.
For many the labels are quite a useful pointer to which products to avoid. Still, the billionaire Dyson has garnered much free publicity for his expensive vacuum cleaners.0 -
99% of 16 year olds are still at school, there is no way they can make a valued judgement and nor should they be allowed to until they are contributing to society.NickPalmer said:The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
0 -
The public will see and hear what they wish toantifrank said:
Do you think that's what the public are seeing and hearing?Casino_Royale said:
They have. The likes of Dan Hannah have mapped out a very positive vision.antifrank said:
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.Casino_Royale said:
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.
0 -
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?ThomasNashe said:
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)NickPalmer said:The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.0 -
For Times readers - David Aaronovitch has an interesting column today on Cameron's Remain strategy. After a few paragraphs of fairly predictable Tory bashing - he makes some acute observations about the psychology Cameron's using to win his side of the vote http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4611544.ece0
-
1707 thenJackW said:
Not too sure the skeleton hand of George Elector of Hanover waving from the a State coach en-route to open parliament has quite the same majesty.HYUFD said:
Surely Scotland leaving the Union would be a return to the status quo pre 1715?Casino_Royale said:
The answer is to join EFTA with a Swiss-style bilateral deal, as Open Europe has suggested.DavidL said:
Leave need to decide what the alternative is. Is it inside the EEA (in which case they have to address the numerous issues that gives rise to) or a bespoke agreement (in which case they need to explain how we would be able to negotiate such an arrangement) or a Farage like fantasy where Britannia once again rules the waves and all our former colonies bend over backwards to replace any lost trade with the EU.david_herdson said:
I'm not sure that a single clear alternative is necessary but several clear alternatives are. I don't think it's realistic to expect the respective political grandchildren of Tony Benn and Enoch Powell toDavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot y is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
I'd fully agree on the necessity of positivity for Remain. A grudging, least-worst, vote for In is in effect simply a delayed Out.
As Cameron said, of course Britain could survive outside the EU but those in favour of that need to explain why it will be better and address the downsides. And not by the same sort of fantasy nonsense that the Nationalists did.
I disagree that they should have to say how it would be negotiated. That would be open season for BSE and the Government to phone up their international contacts to say why they'd never agree to such a deal, even if in reality they would.
Britain leaving the EU bears no comparison to Scottish independence. The proposal to return to the status quo ante-bellum prior to 1973, when we were members of EFTA, is an unremarkable one.
Nor am I sure of your emphasis on 1715?0 -
Reductio ad absurdum.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?ThomasNashe said:
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)NickPalmer said:The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.0 -
No, you just won a general election for him. Big difference.RobD said:
He did just win us a general election after being told for years that we'd never win a majority again.blackburn63 said:It's to be remembered that in the sycophantic world of pb Tories Dave walks on water.
0 -
Haven't done any research into betting on the referendum, my feeling is REMAIN will will pretty easily, but it does strike me as very strange that people are using GE votes as a base resource when surely the Euros are more relevant on both subject and turnout... No ones even mentioned that as a resource0
-
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.Sean_F said:
If 16-18 year olds tended to be right wing eurosceptics, we'd hear much less of this argument.NickPalmer said:The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.0 -
TN, you are always right about everything, aren't you?ThomasNashe said:
Reductio ad absurdum.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?ThomasNashe said:
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)NickPalmer said:The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
0 -
"You think it is nasty? You ain't seen nothing yet."blackburn63 said:
The public will see and hear what they wish toantifrank said:
Do you think that's what the public are seeing and hearing?Casino_Royale said:
They have. The likes of Dan Hannah have mapped out a very positive vision.antifrank said:
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.Casino_Royale said:
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.
0 -
Yes, and Remain needs to watch their scaremongering.antifrank said:
"You think it is nasty? You ain't seen nothing yet."blackburn63 said:
The public will see and hear what they wish toantifrank said:
Do you think that's what the public are seeing and hearing?Casino_Royale said:
They have. The likes of Dan Hannah have mapped out a very positive vision.antifrank said:
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.Casino_Royale said:
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.DavidL said:Yeah, Matt is on topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.0 -
Kids Company the saga continues.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34676281
Very odd how no one noticed it was a very strange organisation before 2010.0 -
Its a bit like "what have the Romans ever done for us?" Indeed that would be a good Remain advert if updated!runnymede said:There are many things about the EU that I like, enjoy and make my life better
Why isn't the 'remain' campaign talking about all these wonderful things then?
I like the EWTD and other social protections, ability to retire to the sun, the ability to hire European staff with a minimum of hassle, the environmental approach on a continent wide basis, Fox jr like being able to take a Masters in the EU without needing to pay fees etc etc.
I even like the fact that vacuum manufacturers do not need to apply for 28 different energy assessments.
I also like the redistribution of taxes so that the historically poor parts of Europe develop to a level historically only seen in NW Europe economically and socially. Iberia, the Balkans and the old Communist block are much freer, wealthier and generally pleasant because we have helped them via the EU.
But that is enough banging on about Europe for one morning!0 -
We hear that Tory voters, on average being older will die off too...Casino_Royale said:
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.Sean_F said:
If 16-18 year olds tended to be right wing eurosceptics, we'd hear much less of this argument.NickPalmer said:The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.0
