Would anyone have even picked up on the "objective reasons" allowance for discrimination if I hadn't flagged it? The mainstream journos haven't picked up on it yet, and given they are claiming ever closer union now has a UK opt out - something clearly not true in the text - I don't think they would have.
I am now beginning to understand just how tedious the Scottish independence debates we had on here were for people who were not that interested in them.
LOL. PB for the next few months/years will be EU/Corbyn central. I had a feeling the latest news wasn't going to go down well among Conservatives/right-wingers.
I'm EUed out after 24 hours. Still, it's something to bet on.
Tbh I'm EUed out generally. It's a topic that I just cannot get passionate about at all.
Not unreasonable - I am quite sure I'll be sick of US elections in a few months as well. It's going to be rough going.
In anecdotal news, the media furore over the deal has been effective in one area so far, as a 59 year relative of mine who has never voted in any election ever, insists they will now be voting in any referendum, for Leave. Time will tell on that one of course.
I may be able to shed a little bit of light on the "objective justification" brouhaha. Just a little.
It's a phrase much used in the concept of EU discrimination legislation (in, for example, employment law to justify age discrimination or indirect sex discrimination) and seems to be used by analogy here. In order to demonstrate an objective justification, one must first show a legitimate aim. The legitimate aim cannot normally be related to cost alone and cannot itself be discriminatory. So the fact that a particular course of action would otherwise be very expensive would not by itself permit discrimination.
Even if you can show a legitimate aim, you need also to show that the means being adopted are proportionate. So if the impact on the person being discriminated against is disproportionate, it is unlawful. This is usually treated quite stringently against the person seeking to discriminate also.
Set against that, where two people are not in relevantly the same position, they can be treated differently and that isn't discrimination at all. Since most differences between Eurozone countries and non-Eurozone countries would come in that category, I'm not at all sure what the provision is trying to deal with.
It is one of the bits of what's been announced that has more significance than has generally been appreciated, but the significance remains murky. Its significance has no doubt been considered at length behind closed doors, but more light would be welcome.
That's very interesting. I know it's not your legal specialism, but can you unpack any further the phrase "not in relevantly the same position"? Presumably, in employment law, that is defined fairly precisely.
If only it was defined precisely. The technical term is "comparator" and there is an inordinate body of case law on who is and who is not a comparator (and when a hypothetical comparator is to be used).
I don't seem to be the only person puzzled by this:
On the upside, I've never seen a pb-er demolished so well, as you have just Deconstructed Nabavi. A silly and diminished person: waste no more of your time on him.
I've often said that I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of the table from @Cyclefree.
That would mean I was really in trouble
Indeed. Reminds me of the time Joanna Lumley kebabbed Phil Woolas in front of the cameras. He really had the look of a boy caught playing with himself by a furious Aunty.
That is not an image I wanted before dinner.
I hope you're wearing sensible shoes before meeting your parole officer. ;-)
Not my parole officer.
The place I'm going has a strict dress code and a sensible shoes policy.
I have chosen appropriately.
I can imagine you rummaging through your Imelda Marcos size shoe cupboard looking for some.
I read that 2012 election could have been determine by Romney spending so much in swing states it boosted the unemployment rate and helped Obama!
Excellent!
Edit: New Hampshire's GDP is around $57bn so $100m in a month is quite a lot. There will also be lots of other expenses, presumably - travel and subsistence for the campaigns and journalists.
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
On the contrary, it gives good opportunities to green up the book. I wonder if anyone here has been happy to see Trump out at 3/1 today?
I am now beginning to understand just how tedious the Scottish independence debates we had on here were for people who were not that interested in them.
LOL. PB for the next few months/years will be EU/Corbyn central. I had a feeling the latest news wasn't going to go down well among Conservatives/right-wingers.
I'm EUed out after 24 hours. Still, it's something to bet on.
Tbh I'm EUed out generally. It's a topic that I just cannot get passionate about at all.
I can't remember the last time I was so depressed about my country's future. I've voted for the winning side (if you include Lib Dems in 2010) every election I've voted in. Now people seem to be blind to the danger.
So you were responsible for Tony Blair - what did not blind you to that danger
(about a third of the way down the rather long page)
Jeb! is spending an awful lot of money for a very small number of votes so far. I guess he only has until Super Tuesday to be close enough to Trump, Cruz and Rubio.
'This Presidential candidate declared himself a big winner last night. Nothing is going to happen in the next couple of weeks but the week of February 14th, look for crystal clear photos of this candidate in some very compromising positions to be released.' http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2016/02/blind-item-3-1129.html
I am now beginning to understand just how tedious the Scottish independence debates we had on here were for people who were not that interested in them.
LOL. PB for the next few months/years will be EU/Corbyn central. I had a feeling the latest news wasn't going to go down well among Conservatives/right-wingers.
I'm EUed out after 24 hours. Still, it's something to bet on.
Tbh I'm EUed out generally. It's a topic that I just cannot get passionate about at all.
Not unreasonable - I am quite sure I'll be sick of US elections in a few months as well. It's going to be rough going.
In anecdotal news, the media furore over the deal has been effective in one area so far, as a 59 year relative of mine who has never voted in any election ever, insists they will now be voting in any referendum, for Leave. Time will tell on that one of course.
I'm kind of feeling 'meh' regarding the US Elections. None of the candidates seem to be all that great.
On the EU ref, my mum is pretty much on the fence. My dad is going to vote OUT, (he's angry about immigration), and most of my politically-minded friends are also voting OUT (but for the kind of reasons Owen Jones would vote OUT).
Wonder if Javid will come out (weakly/"on balance") for "leave". Osborne could then 'unite the party' by having him as Chancellor of the Exchequer
He and Hannan would make for a strong team.
I'd be extremely relaxed about Javid as Chancellor. I wouldn't be with Hancock !
Hannan is not even in parliament
If we all vote Leave he will be unemployed, not that he would care too much as he'd find plenty of media work to keep him busy. I'm sure he won't have too much trouble finding somewhere to stand for the next election, even with the seat reductions.
Excellent article in The Commentator by former UK Ambassador Charles Crawford on the why's and wherefores of what has been agreed, why it is so meagre and what some of it really means.
David Cameron's negotiations with Brussels on reforming Britain's relationship with the EU amount to a footling, if not embarrassing, pile of not much, says former British ambassador Charles Crawford...
For example, can EU member states within the Eurozone take impossibly expensive emergency measures to save the Eurozone and send London part of the bill? Are there any limits on Brussels mission-creep through the wide array of ‘qualified majority voting’ policy areas that Tony Blair conceded in 2007 in the Lisbon Treaty? Can any decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ, the EU’s top judicial authority pronouncing on the application of EU norms) not have in mind the treaty-enshrined principle of ‘ever-closer union’?
Breaking: President Hollande of France says he is opposed to "new negotiations" over Britain's EU deal at next summit (AFP)
So the "Deal" has basically been kyboshed by the French.
That should tell the UK all it needs to know about the EU and how they operate.
I'm done with this, will be voting Leave for sure. The next few months will be as painful as Scotland all over again though, with both sides seemingly doing their best to bat for their opponents!
Excellent article in The Commentator by former UK Ambassador Charles Crawford on the why's and wherefores of what has been agreed, why it is so meagre and what some of it really means.
David Cameron's negotiations with Brussels on reforming Britain's relationship with the EU amount to a footling, if not embarrassing, pile of not much, says former British ambassador Charles Crawford...
For example, can EU member states within the Eurozone take impossibly expensive emergency measures to save the Eurozone and send London part of the bill? Are there any limits on Brussels mission-creep through the wide array of ‘qualified majority voting’ policy areas that Tony Blair conceded in 2007 in the Lisbon Treaty? Can any decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ, the EU’s top judicial authority pronouncing on the application of EU norms) not have in mind the treaty-enshrined principle of ‘ever-closer union’?
Since the former ambassador would dispense with a referendum and go straight to Leave, I can see why you'd like it.
Excellent article in The Commentator by former UK Ambassador Charles Crawford on the why's and wherefores of what has been agreed, why it is so meagre and what some of it really means.
I see that he agrees with my view that the Eurozone part was a bit better than expected:
Those of us who have worked within government on European issues might be impressed by the way crafty officials have squeezed the EU’s desiccated treaty texts to extract some drops of noteworthy policy juice here and there.
Excellent article in The Commentator by former UK Ambassador Charles Crawford on the why's and wherefores of what has been agreed, why it is so meagre and what some of it really means.
I see that he agrees with my view that the Eurozone part was a bit better than expected:
Those of us who have worked within government on European issues might be impressed by the way crafty officials have squeezed the EU’s desiccated treaty texts to extract some drops of noteworthy policy juice here and there.
No, that's the conclusion to the whole piece. This iswhat he says about economic governance:
'Finally, economic governance. The proposals twist and turn within existing treaty language to give a clear guarantee that Eurozone members can not impose new burdens on non-Eurozone members, except when they might'
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
I just had a text from an old friend who is an ultra party loyalist (he makes TSE look like Philip Hollobone, and virtually didn't speak to me for two months when I had my UKIP spasm a year ago) who worked in CCHQ during GE2015 and is treasurer of a London constituency branch.
He's one of the ones who were chanting "five more years" to Cameron in that insider video of his thank you speech to party workers - 'the sweetest victory'.
He said he'd given it a lot of thought and reluctantly decided to back Leave. He hopes it doesn't damage the Government too much but can't in all honesty support this deal.
If Cameron is losing people like him, he's in trouble.
I am now beginning to understand just how tedious the Scottish independence debates we had on here were for people who were not that interested in them.
LOL. PB for the next few months/years will be EU/Corbyn central. I had a feeling the latest news wasn't going to go down well among Conservatives/right-wingers.
I'm EUed out after 24 hours. Still, it's something to bet on.
Tbh I'm EUed out generally. It's a topic that I just cannot get passionate about at all.
Not unreasonable - I am quite sure I'll be sick of US elections in a few months as well. It's going to be rough going.
In anecdotal news, the media furore over the deal has been effective in one area so far, as a 59 year relative of mine who has never voted in any election ever, insists they will now be voting in any referendum, for Leave. Time will tell on that one of course.
I'm kind of feeling 'meh' regarding the US Elections. None of the candidates seem to be all that great. On the EU ref, my mum is pretty much on the fence. My dad is going to vote OUT, (he's angry about immigration), and most of my politically-minded friends are also voting OUT (but for the kind of reasons Owen Jones would vote OUT).
I do wonder how well the polling is picking up this underlying sentiment? We have immigration at or near the top of the issues people are concerned about and yet the EU is further down that list. If however there is a long campaign linking the two against the backdrop of the chaos with migration into the EU, we may have a Leave vote as a reaction to the utter ineptitude of the EU and its member governments. Fear of Remaining In counteracts the Project Fear campaign? The 1st GE of 1974 was about who governs the UK and enough voters said "Not You". Maybe this time they also reject the status quo and say "Not You".
Excellent article in The Commentator by former UK Ambassador Charles Crawford on the why's and wherefores of what has been agreed, why it is so meagre and what some of it really means.
I see that he agrees with my view that the Eurozone part was a bit better than expected:
Those of us who have worked within government on European issues might be impressed by the way crafty officials have squeezed the EU’s desiccated treaty texts to extract some drops of noteworthy policy juice here and there.
No, that's the conclusion to the whole piece.
Maybe, it's not clear. Given what he says about the other three headings, I thought that paragraph referred to the immediately-preceding economic bit.
If he's referring to the whole thing, then it's a bit more generous than my interpretation.
Breaking: President Hollande of France says he is opposed to "new negotiations" over Britain's EU deal at next summit (AFP)
So the "Deal" has basically been kyboshed by the French.
That should tell the UK all it needs to know about the EU and how they operate.
I'm done with this, will be voting Leave for sure. The next few months will be as painful as Scotland all over again though, with both sides seemingly doing their best to bat for their opponents!
The Evening Standard tonight lists a series of hostile response to what is already a stupendously shite deal, including the Bulgarians, Czechs and Poles as well as the French.
I expect some of this is for their domestic audiences and it wouldn't be watered down too much (Tusk and Merkel will make the consequences clear if they do) but, oh boy, what a chasm there is between their PoV and our own.
''I expect some of this is for their domestic audiences and it wouldn't be watered down too much (Tusk and Merkel will make the consequences clear if they do) but, oh boy, what a chasm there is between their PoV and our own. ''
Maybe agreement is simply unreachable, even for a consummate politician like Dave.
The Evening Standard tonight lists a series of hostile response to what is already a stupendously shite deal, including the Bulgarians, Czechs and Poles as well as the French.
I expect some of this is for their domestic audiences and it wouldn't be watered down too much (Tusk and Merkel will make the consequences clear if they do) but, oh boy, what a chasm there is between their PoV and our own.
It will be interesting to see how that plays out here. For those not taking too much notice of the textual detail, having a load of EU leaders moaning like hell about how generous the deal is to the UK is quite helpful to Cameron.
'' For those not taking too much notice of the textual detail, having a load of EU leaders moaning like hell about how generous the deal is to the UK is quite helpful to Cameron. ''
Helpful to Cameron's reputation, but not helpful to IN.
Excellent article in The Commentator by former UK Ambassador Charles Crawford on the why's and wherefores of what has been agreed, why it is so meagre and what some of it really means.
David Cameron's negotiations with Brussels on reforming Britain's relationship with the EU amount to a footling, if not embarrassing, pile of not much, says former British ambassador Charles Crawford...
For example, can EU member states within the Eurozone take impossibly expensive emergency measures to save the Eurozone and send London part of the bill? Are there any limits on Brussels mission-creep through the wide array of ‘qualified majority voting’ policy areas that Tony Blair conceded in 2007 in the Lisbon Treaty? Can any decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ, the EU’s top judicial authority pronouncing on the application of EU norms) not have in mind the treaty-enshrined principle of ‘ever-closer union’?
Since the former ambassador would dispense with a referendum and go straight to Leave, I can see why you'd like it.
Maybe but you have to bear in mind that most Leavers have not been lifelong "frothers".
Many of us started as supporters of the single market and have been driven over time slowly and inexorably, by events, to Leave.
'' For those not taking too much notice of the textual detail, having a load of EU leaders moaning like hell about how generous the deal is to the UK is quite helpful to Cameron. ''
Helpful to Cameron's reputation, but not helpful to IN.
'' For those not taking too much notice of the textual detail, having a load of EU leaders moaning like hell about how generous the deal is to the UK is quite helpful to Cameron. ''
Helpful to Cameron's reputation, but not helpful to IN.
Quite. Same as with Farage, someone needs to get the other EU leaders to STFU - they have the opposite effect to what they think they do.
So we have the kippers/ booers predictably saying that the deal is crap and we should leave, Those in the stay camp look on aghast at some of the vitriol being spouted by the usual suspects.
In is going to win by a fair margin imho, because Booers only offers loathing of the EU and nothing positive..
Sensible people will vote to stay in the EU despite its shortcomings.
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
The Evening Standard tonight lists a series of hostile response to what is already a stupendously shite deal, including the Bulgarians, Czechs and Poles as well as the French.
I expect some of this is for their domestic audiences and it wouldn't be watered down too much (Tusk and Merkel will make the consequences clear if they do) but, oh boy, what a chasm there is between their PoV and our own.
It will be interesting to see how that plays out here. For those not taking too much notice of the textual detail, having a load of EU leaders moaning like hell about how generous the deal is to the UK is quite helpful to Cameron.
That may not be a complete coincidence.. we were told by Lansley last year that there was a row due in February.
Excellent article in The Commentator by former UK Ambassador Charles Crawford on the why's and wherefores of what has been agreed, why it is so meagre and what some of it really means.
David Cameron's negotiations with Brussels on reforming Britain's relationship with the EU amount to a footling, if not embarrassing, pile of not much, says former British ambassador Charles Crawford...
For example, can EU member states within the Eurozone take impossibly expensive emergency measures to save the Eurozone and send London part of the bill? Are there any limits on Brussels mission-creep through the wide array of ‘qualified majority voting’ policy areas that Tony Blair conceded in 2007 in the Lisbon Treaty? Can any decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ, the EU’s top judicial authority pronouncing on the application of EU norms) not have in mind the treaty-enshrined principle of ‘ever-closer union’?
Since the former ambassador would dispense with a referendum and go straight to Leave, I can see why you'd like it.
Maybe but you have to bear in mind that most Leavers have not been lifelong "frothers".
Many of us started as supporters of the single market and have been driven over time slowly and inexorably, by events, to Leave.
"David Cameron did not want to do that. He maybe thought (not unreasonably) that the Eurozone crisis would compel EU capitals to go back towards first principles and open a treaty renegotiation within which some serious UK concessions could be achieved."
I think this is key for David Cameron. I think his strategy has been poor, he should have been brave enough to come out for Leave if he didn't get what we wanted, and more tolerant of those in his party that disagreed. But, he always had an extremely difficult hand to deal with. If he had been able to open up treaty change to get more for the UK I think he'd have taken it.
Us Leavers must stop attacking Cameron and start attacking the EU if we are to have a chance (just a slim one) of maybe running this very close.
So we have the kippers/ booers predictably saying that the deal is crap and we should leave, Those in the stay camp look on aghast at some of the vitriol being spouted by the usual suspects.
In is going to win by a fair margin imho, because Booers only offers loathing of the EU and nothing positive..
Sensible people will vote to stay in the EU despite its shortcomings.
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
So we have the kippers/ booers predictably saying that the deal is crap and we should leave, Those in the stay camp look on aghast at some of the vitriol being spouted by the usual suspects.
In is going to win by a fair margin imho, because Booers only offers loathing of the EU and nothing positive..
Sensible people will vote to stay in the EU despite its shortcomings.
You are not related to IOS by any chance ?
NO and I guess you believe in vox pops from Clacton..
'' For those not taking too much notice of the textual detail, having a load of EU leaders moaning like hell about how generous the deal is to the UK is quite helpful to Cameron. ''
Helpful to Cameron's reputation, but not helpful to IN.
Yes, helpful to Remain.
You're making the mistake that many ardent EUphiles make. That the soft Leavers are basically xenophobes who just want a bit of good ol' foreigner bashing. If Johnny Foreigner don't like it, it must be good etc.
Quite apart from being rather insulting, that argument only works if it forces everyone in the UK to look at the substance of the proposals that Cameron has negotiated for the UK again.
But here's the problem: there isn't any. And, by the same token, the more they look at it the more angry they may get.
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
Excellent article in The Commentator by former UK Ambassador Charles Crawford on the why's and wherefores of what has been agreed, why it is so meagre and what some of it really means.
David Cameron's negotiations with Brussels on reforming Britain's relationship with the EU amount to a footling, if not embarrassing, pile of not much, says former British ambassador Charles Crawford...
For example, can EU member states within the Eurozone take impossibly expensive emergency measures to save the Eurozone and send London part of the bill? Are there any limits on Brussels mission-creep through the wide array of ‘qualified majority voting’ policy areas that Tony Blair conceded in 2007 in the Lisbon Treaty? Can any decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ, the EU’s top judicial authority pronouncing on the application of EU norms) not have in mind the treaty-enshrined principle of ‘ever-closer union’?
Since the former ambassador would dispense with a referendum and go straight to Leave, I can see why you'd like it.
Maybe but you have to bear in mind that most Leavers have not been lifelong "frothers".
Many of us started as supporters of the single market and have been driven over time slowly and inexorably, by events, to Leave.
"David Cameron did not want to do that. He maybe thought (not unreasonably) that the Eurozone crisis would compel EU capitals to go back towards first principles and open a treaty renegotiation within which some serious UK concessions could be achieved."
I think this is key for David Cameron. I think his strategy has been poor, he should have been brave enough to come out for Leave if he didn't get what we wanted, and more tolerant of those in his party that disagreed. But, he always had an extremely difficult hand to deal with. If he had been able to open up treaty change to get more for the UK I think he'd have taken it.
Us Leavers must stop attacking Cameron and start attacking the EU if we are to have a chance (just a slim one) of maybe running this very close.
CR, I like your reasoning on this. Could be fruitful.
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
Note the correlation for McCain between Iowa and New Hampshire.
Is California still winner takes all for delegates?
By congressional district, yes, plus a small statewide bonus. Will probably be modelled by a cubic law, so if still in contention (unlikely as it's so late in the schedule) some pluralism in the delegates is possible.
Interestingly, Texas has moved from pure PR in 2012 to a Winner-takes-Most system that can probably modelled by a square law. Cruz is supposed to be a shoe-in there, isn't he?
On the upside, I've never seen a pb-er demolished so well, as you have just Deconstructed Nabavi. A silly and diminished person: waste no more of your time on him.
I've often said that I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of the table from @Cyclefree.
That would mean I was really in trouble
Indeed. Reminds me of the time Joanna Lumley kebabbed Phil Woolas in front of the cameras. He really had the look of a boy caught playing with himself by a furious Aunty.
That is not an image I wanted before dinner.
Anecdote alert. In my 20s, drunk on champagne and zoned on heroin, at a very glamorous literary dinner at the Savoy (the launch of the Rattle Bag by Seamus Heaney and Ted Hughes) I propositioned Joanna Lumley (then 15 years older than me?) and suggested she and I get a room upstairs.
She looked at me for just the right amount of time (enough to flatter me that I was regarded as a proper suitor), then said "that;s awfully kind, but I think you're a little too young".
In my frustration, I went back to my table, put my hand up Mariella Frostrup's skirt, a fairly brutal approach which nonetheless then led to a ten month affair.
Now I am 52.
*sobs, gently, into gin and tonic*
You need to add that to her 'personal life' section on Wikipedia
''In my frustration, I went back to my table, put my hand up Mariella Frostrup's skirt, a fairly brutal approach which nonetheless then led to a ten month affair.''
Nowadays that would lead to a ten month prison sentence.
'' For those not taking too much notice of the textual detail, having a load of EU leaders moaning like hell about how generous the deal is to the UK is quite helpful to Cameron. ''
Helpful to Cameron's reputation, but not helpful to IN.
Yes, helpful to Remain.
You're making the mistake that many ardent EUphiles make. That the soft Leavers are basically xenophobes who just want a bit of good ol' foreigner bashing. If Johnny Foreigner don't like it, it must be good etc.
Quite apart from being rather insulting, that argument only works if it forces everyone in the UK to look at the substance of the proposals that Cameron has negotiated for the UK again.
But here's the problem: there isn't any. And, by the same token, the more they look at it the more angry they may get.
I don't think any foreigner-bashing instinct is implied. It's just that if the other side in a negotiation are complaining that one is getting too good a deal, that's a good sign. Conversely, if the other side are happy that sets alarm bells ringing. It would be consistent with the UK Eurosceptic response to the proposals if other leaders were chortling with satisfaction.
I think this kind of thing may have an influence on people that won't be looking into the question for themselves and who will judge on mood-music.
Of course, Leave has a lot of mood music playing for it.
Excellent article in The Commentator by former UK Ambassador Charles Crawford on the why's and wherefores of what has been agreed, why it is so meagre and what some of it really means.
David Cameron's negotiations with Brussels on reforming Britain's relationship with the EU amount to a footling, if not embarrassing, pile of not much, says former British ambassador Charles Crawford...
For example, can EU member states within the Eurozone take impossibly expensive emergency measures to save the Eurozone and send London part of the bill? Are there any limits on Brussels mission-creep through the wide array of ‘qualified majority voting’ policy areas that Tony Blair conceded in 2007 in the Lisbon Treaty? Can any decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ, the EU’s top judicial authority pronouncing on the application of EU norms) not have in mind the treaty-enshrined principle of ‘ever-closer union’?
Since the former ambassador would dispense with a referendum and go straight to Leave, I can see why you'd like it.
Maybe but you have to bear in mind that most Leavers have not been lifelong "frothers".
Many of us started as supporters of the single market and have been driven over time slowly and inexorably, by events, to Leave.
"David Cameron did not want to do that. He maybe thought (not unreasonably) that the Eurozone crisis would compel EU capitals to go back towards first principles and open a treaty renegotiation within which some serious UK concessions could be achieved."
I think this is key for David Cameron. I think his strategy has been poor, he should have been brave enough to come out for Leave if he didn't get what we wanted, and more tolerant of those in his party that disagreed. But, he always had an extremely difficult hand to deal with. If he had been able to open up treaty change to get more for the UK I think he'd have taken it.
Us Leavers must stop attacking Cameron and start attacking the EU if we are to have a chance (just a slim one) of maybe running this very close.
Cameron is the sleek, slightly portly son of a stockbroker, who went to Eton, then Oxford, and then married a beautiful aristocrat's daughter, before becoming prime minister. The idea a man gifted such luck by the system would threaten to overthrow a significant part of that system is rhapsodically laughable.
A kulak like Thatcher might have left Europe, not a boyar like Cameron.
Perhaps, but that's irrelevant: Leave won't win by attacking him.
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
Note the correlation for McCain between Iowa and New Hampshire.
What do you make of the GOP Nom odds?
I'm not sure Rubio should be making up 58% of the market, especially checking Iowa/NH correlation.
Yeah. 58% looks high to me. The odds seem to have the assumption of marcomentum built in - and we just don't have any evidence of that yet.
You'd have to be pretty brave to back @ 1.75
Do you think the Donald/Cruz odds are right?
If Cruz'z odds go out much further then I'll be kinda forced to back him on a simple value calculation. Is there something I'm missing that justifies Cruz at only a 15% chance?
'' For those not taking too much notice of the textual detail, having a load of EU leaders moaning like hell about how generous the deal is to the UK is quite helpful to Cameron. ''
Helpful to Cameron's reputation, but not helpful to IN.
Yes, helpful to Remain.
You're making the mistake that many ardent EUphiles make. That the soft Leavers are basically xenophobes who just want a bit of good ol' foreigner bashing. If Johnny Foreigner don't like it, it must be good etc.
Quite apart from being rather insulting, that argument only works if it forces everyone in the UK to look at the substance of the proposals that Cameron has negotiated for the UK again.
But here's the problem: there isn't any. And, by the same token, the more they look at it the more angry they may get.
I don't think any foreigner-bashing instinct is implied. It's just that if the other side in a negotiation are complaining that one is getting too good a deal, that's a good sign. Conversely, if the other side are happy that sets alarm bells ringing. It would be consistent with the UK Eurosceptic response to the proposals if other leaders were chortling with satisfaction.
I think this kind of thing may have an influence on people that won't be looking into the question for themselves and who will judge on mood-music.
Of course, Leave has a lot of mood music playing for it.
'' For those not taking too much notice of the textual detail, having a load of EU leaders moaning like hell about how generous the deal is to the UK is quite helpful to Cameron. ''
Helpful to Cameron's reputation, but not helpful to IN.
Yes, helpful to Remain.
You're making the mistake that many ardent EUphiles make. That the soft Leavers are basically xenophobes who just want a bit of good ol' foreigner bashing. If Johnny Foreigner don't like it, it must be good etc.
Quite apart from being rather insulting, that argument only works if it forces everyone in the UK to look at the substance of the proposals that Cameron has negotiated for the UK again.
But here's the problem: there isn't any. And, by the same token, the more they look at it the more angry they may get.
I don't think any foreigner-bashing instinct is implied. It's just that if the other side in a negotiation are complaining that one is getting too good a deal, that's a good sign. Conversely, if the other side are happy that sets alarm bells ringing. It would be consistent with the UK Eurosceptic response to the proposals if other leaders were chortling with satisfaction.
I think this kind of thing may have an influence on people that won't be looking into the question for themselves and who will judge on mood-music.
Of course, Leave has a lot of mood music playing for it.
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
Note the correlation for McCain between Iowa and New Hampshire.
What do you make of the GOP Nom odds?
I'm not sure Rubio should be making up 58% of the market, especially checking Iowa/NH correlation.
Yeah. 58% looks high to me. The odds seem to have the assumption of marcomentum built in - and we just don't have any evidence of that yet.
You'd have to be pretty brave to back @ 1.75
Do you think the Donald/Cruz odds are right?
If Cruz'z odds go out much further then I'll be kinda forced to back him on a simple value calculation. Is there something I'm missing that justifies Cruz at only a 15% chance?
I'[m staying pretty long Cruz, will send you my book in a bit.
'' For those not taking too much notice of the textual detail, having a load of EU leaders moaning like hell about how generous the deal is to the UK is quite helpful to Cameron. ''
Helpful to Cameron's reputation, but not helpful to IN.
Yes, helpful to Remain.
You're making the mistake that many ardent EUphiles make. That the soft Leavers are basically xenophobes who just want a bit of good ol' foreigner bashing. If Johnny Foreigner don't like it, it must be good etc.
Quite apart from being rather insulting, that argument only works if it forces everyone in the UK to look at the substance of the proposals that Cameron has negotiated for the UK again.
But here's the problem: there isn't any. And, by the same token, the more they look at it the more angry they may get.
I don't think any foreigner-bashing instinct is implied. It's just that if the other side in a negotiation are complaining that one is getting too good a deal, that's a good sign. Conversely, if the other side are happy that sets alarm bells ringing. It would be consistent with the UK Eurosceptic response to the proposals if other leaders were chortling with satisfaction.
I think this kind of thing may have an influence on people that won't be looking into the question for themselves and who will judge on mood-music.
Of course, Leave has a lot of mood music playing for it.
The complaints are just part of the choreography.
Dave will use his clout and influence to ensure the other leaders come round to supporting our phenomenally good "deal".
I just had a text from an old friend who is an ultra party loyalist (he makes TSE look like Philip Hollobone, and virtually didn't speak to me for two months when I had my UKIP spasm a year ago) who worked in CCHQ during GE2015 and is treasurer of a London constituency branch.
He's one of the ones who were chanting "five more years" to Cameron in that insider video of his thank you speech to party workers - 'the sweetest victory'.
He said he'd given it a lot of thought and reluctantly decided to back Leave. He hopes it doesn't damage the Government too much but can't in all honesty support this deal.
If Cameron is losing people like him, he's in trouble.
An all too noticeable trend including the likes of yours truly, principally because I feel I've been stitched up. I'm seeing very little drift in the opposite direction ....... the next batch of polls on the subject could prove interesting.
I may be able to shed a little bit of light on the "objective justification" brouhaha. Just a little.
It's a phrase much used in the concept of EU discrimination legislation (in, for example, employment law to justify age discrimination or indirect sex discrimination) and seems to be used by analogy here. In order to demonstrate an objective justification, one must first show a legitimate aim. The legitimate aim cannot normally be related to cost alone and cannot itself be discriminatory. So the fact that a particular course of action would otherwise be very expensive would not by itself permit discrimination.
Even if you can show a legitimate aim, you need also to show that the means being adopted are proportionate. So if the impact on the person being discriminated against is disproportionate, it is unlawful. This is usually treated quite stringently against the person seeking to discriminate also.
Set against that, where two people are not in relevantly the same position, they can be treated differently and that isn't discrimination at all. Since most differences between Eurozone countries and non-Eurozone countries would come in that category, I'm not at all sure what the provision is trying to deal with.
It is one of the bits of what's been announced that has more significance than has generally been appreciated, but the significance remains murky. Its significance has no doubt been considered at length behind closed doors, but more light would be welcome.
That's very interesting. I know it's not your legal specialism, but can you unpack any further the phrase "not in relevantly the same position"? Presumably, in employment law, that is defined fairly precisely.
Before we dive headlong into the phenomenological implications of "relevantly the same position", may I politely suggest that it may be a misspelling of the word "relatively"?
Anyhoo, while I'm here, what would you consider to be a cheeky offer on a house? I've seen one I like but I think it's overpriced (it's been SSTC then back on twice in the past year with no intervening possession, i.e. two collapsed sales). I'm considering 94% of asking price.
I didn't see it myself but today's Q&A session was not that acrimonious apparently.
Carswell on Cameron:
“Because Cameron’s not serious. It’s a smoke-and-mirrors referendum. His advisers told me the plan; it’s to work out from focus groups and pollsters what it would take to get the soft ‘outers’ and the undecideds to stay in, to offer them that, and once that hurdle is cleared to stick with the status quo.”
I have just seen the beeb attacking the government over the fact 16000 people have lost their right to a car under the mobility scheme after being reassessed...which sounds bad until you find out the 650,000 ppl are on this scheme & historically once on it you never used to be reassessed. No wonder the welfare bill is bonkers....forget owls.for everybody, cars for everybody more like.
On the upside, I've never seen a pb-er demolished so well, as you have just Deconstructed Nabavi. A silly and diminished person: waste no more of your time on him.
I've often said that I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of the table from @Cyclefree.
That would mean I was really in trouble
Indeed. Reminds me of the time Joanna Lumley kebabbed Phil Woolas in front of the cameras. He really had the look of a boy caught playing with himself by a furious Aunty.
That is not an image I wanted before dinner.
Anecdote alert. In my 20s, drunk on champagne and zoned on heroin, at a very glamorous literary dinner at the Savoy (the launch of the Rattle Bag by Seamus Heaney and Ted Hughes) I propositioned Joanna Lumley (then 15 years older than me?) and suggested she and I get a room upstairs.
She looked at me for just the right amount of time (enough to flatter me that I was regarded as a proper suitor), then said "that;s awfully kind, but I think you're a little too young".
In my frustration, I went back to my table, put my hand up Mariella Frostrup's skirt, a fairly brutal approach which nonetheless then led to a ten month affair.
Now I am 52.
*sobs, gently, into gin and tonic*
You need to add that to her 'personal life' section on Wikipedia
Quality writing though. You can see why he is a best seller. Clickbait for the site. You can see why everyone salivates as they wait on his cherished opinions.
'' For those not taking too much notice of the textual detail, having a load of EU leaders moaning like hell about how generous the deal is to the UK is quite helpful to Cameron. ''
Helpful to Cameron's reputation, but not helpful to IN.
Yes, helpful to Remain.
You're making the mistake that many ardent EUphiles make. That the soft Leavers are basically xenophobes who just want a bit of good ol' foreigner bashing. If Johnny Foreigner don't like it, it must be good etc.
Quite apart from being rather insulting, that argument only works if it forces everyone in the UK to look at the substance of the proposals that Cameron has negotiated for the UK again.
But here's the problem: there isn't any. And, by the same token, the more they look at it the more angry they may get.
I don't think any foreigner-bashing instinct is implied. It's just that if the other side in a negotiation are complaining that one is getting too good a deal, that's a good sign. Conversely, if the other side are happy that sets alarm bells ringing. It would be consistent with the UK Eurosceptic response to the proposals if other leaders were chortling with satisfaction.
I think this kind of thing may have an influence on people that won't be looking into the question for themselves and who will judge on mood-music.
Of course, Leave has a lot of mood music playing for it.
The complaints are just part of the choreography.
Very likely
Moving on to the meta of the proposed 'deal', given that so many EU leaders have stated that Brexit is an existential threat for the European project, it's remarkable how shit it is.
I hope that those who vote remain consider that - once we're 'docked' to the EU it's going to become even more rubbish.
"OK hands up, its FOUR hours to Sydney." England fast bowler twists ankle in pre-Test kickabout. Time to fly in a replacement from London to bowl opening over, following a first innings collapse by England batsmen.
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
Note the correlation for McCain between Iowa and New Hampshire.
What do you make of the GOP Nom odds?
I'm not sure Rubio should be making up 58% of the market, especially checking Iowa/NH correlation.
Yeah. 58% looks high to me. The odds seem to have the assumption of marcomentum built in - and we just don't have any evidence of that yet.
You'd have to be pretty brave to back @ 1.75
Do you think the Donald/Cruz odds are right?
If Cruz'z odds go out much further then I'll be kinda forced to back him on a simple value calculation. Is there something I'm missing that justifies Cruz at only a 15% chance?
I'[m staying pretty long Cruz, will send you my book in a bit.
I think you'll lose a lot of money, long term, on Cruz.
In 2012, the evangelical vote accrued just to Santorun, against the insipid Romney. This time, evangelicals have a choice. Both Huckabee and Santorum will come out for Trump in hope of getting his VP slot. Rubio also picks up a portion of the evangelical vote.
Comments
A whopping $101.2 million has been spent on 2016 advertisements in New Hampshire, and a third of the amount has come from Team Bush,
Full list by candidate here:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-don-t-underestimate-trump-new-hampshire-n510366
(about a third of the way down the rather long page)
In anecdotal news, the media furore over the deal has been effective in one area so far, as a 59 year relative of mine who has never voted in any election ever, insists they will now be voting in any referendum, for Leave. Time will tell on that one of course.
I don't seem to be the only person puzzled by this:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c47a078c-ca94-11e5-be0b-b7ece4e953a0.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product
Edit: New Hampshire's GDP is around $57bn so $100m in a month is quite a lot. There will also be lots of other expenses, presumably - travel and subsistence for the campaigns and journalists.
http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2016/02/blind-item-3-1129.html
At the moment, it's looking like Trump will have half the declared delegates by the end of Super Tuesday, around 3x his nearest rival...
On the EU ref, my mum is pretty much on the fence. My dad is going to vote OUT, (he's angry about immigration), and most of my politically-minded friends are also voting OUT (but for the kind of reasons Owen Jones would vote OUT).
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6216/a_gruelling_uk_eu_settlement
That should tell the UK all it needs to know about the EU and how they operate.
I'm done with this, will be voting Leave for sure. The next few months will be as painful as Scotland all over again though, with both sides seemingly doing their best to bat for their opponents!
Those of us who have worked within government on European issues might be impressed by the way crafty officials have squeezed the EU’s desiccated treaty texts to extract some drops of noteworthy policy juice here and there.
Another GOP departure: CNN has learned @RickSantorum will exit race tonight. Plans endorsement.
'Finally, economic governance. The proposals twist and turn within existing treaty language to give a clear guarantee that Eurozone members can not impose new burdens on non-Eurozone members, except when they might'
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
I just had a text from an old friend who is an ultra party loyalist (he makes TSE look like Philip Hollobone, and virtually didn't speak to me for two months when I had my UKIP spasm a year ago) who worked in CCHQ during GE2015 and is treasurer of a London constituency branch.
He's one of the ones who were chanting "five more years" to Cameron in that insider video of his thank you speech to party workers - 'the sweetest victory'.
He said he'd given it a lot of thought and reluctantly decided to back Leave. He hopes it doesn't damage the Government too much but can't in all honesty support this deal.
If Cameron is losing people like him, he's in trouble.
If he's referring to the whole thing, then it's a bit more generous than my interpretation.
Almost 10,000 motorists fined for speeding in crackdown in New Forest with a drop of 15 in the number of dead animals last year.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14250690.Almost_10_000_speeding_motorists_caught_in_bid_to_prevent_animals_being_killed_in_New_Forest/
I expect some of this is for their domestic audiences and it wouldn't be watered down too much (Tusk and Merkel will make the consequences clear if they do) but, oh boy, what a chasm there is between their PoV and our own.
Maybe agreement is simply unreachable, even for a consummate politician like Dave.
Over 3/1 for Trump is k-e-r-azy.
Oh, my coat!
Helpful to Cameron's reputation, but not helpful to IN.
Maybe but you have to bear in mind that most Leavers have not been lifelong "frothers".
Many of us started as supporters of the single market and have been driven over time slowly and inexorably, by events, to Leave.
In is going to win by a fair margin imho, because Booers only offers loathing of the EU and nothing positive..
Sensible people will vote to stay in the EU despite its shortcomings.
Note the correlation for McCain between Iowa and New Hampshire.
Cameron‘plans EU row with French’
Andrew Lansley is also alleged to have said that the government had 'choreographed' a 'big row with the French'
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4529484.ece
Many of us started as supporters of the single market and have been driven over time slowly and inexorably, by events, to Leave.
"David Cameron did not want to do that. He maybe thought (not unreasonably) that the Eurozone crisis would compel EU capitals to go back towards first principles and open a treaty renegotiation within which some serious UK concessions could be achieved."
I think this is key for David Cameron. I think his strategy has been poor, he should have been brave enough to come out for Leave if he didn't get what we wanted, and more tolerant of those in his party that disagreed. But, he always had an extremely difficult hand to deal with. If he had been able to open up treaty change to get more for the UK I think he'd have taken it.
Us Leavers must stop attacking Cameron and start attacking the EU if we are to have a chance (just a slim one) of maybe running this very close.
Quite apart from being rather insulting, that argument only works if it forces everyone in the UK to look at the substance of the proposals that Cameron has negotiated for the UK again.
But here's the problem: there isn't any. And, by the same token, the more they look at it the more angry they may get.
Right result but the wrong way. Bloody rain spoiling a great match.
I think this is key for David Cameron. I think his strategy has been poor, he should have been brave enough to come out for Leave if he didn't get what we wanted, and more tolerant of those in his party that disagreed. But, he always had an extremely difficult hand to deal with. If he had been able to open up treaty change to get more for the UK I think he'd have taken it.
Us Leavers must stop attacking Cameron and start attacking the EU if we are to have a chance (just a slim one) of maybe running this very close.
CR, I like your reasoning on this.
Could be fruitful.
Interestingly, Texas has moved from pure PR in 2012 to a Winner-takes-Most system that can probably modelled by a square law. Cruz is supposed to be a shoe-in there, isn't he?
Nowadays that would lead to a ten month prison sentence.
I think this kind of thing may have an influence on people that won't be looking into the question for themselves and who will judge on mood-music.
Of course, Leave has a lot of mood music playing for it.
A kulak like Thatcher might have left Europe, not a boyar like Cameron.
Perhaps, but that's irrelevant: Leave won't win by attacking him.
The target is the EU.
You'd have to be pretty brave to back @ 1.75
Do you think the Donald/Cruz odds are right?
If Cruz'z odds go out much further then I'll be kinda forced to back him on a simple value calculation. Is there something I'm missing that justifies Cruz at only a 15% chance?
That's insane.
I didn't see it myself but today's Q&A session was not that acrimonious apparently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh2llRY69dc
Even the PM is laughing at it.
I hope that those who vote remain consider that - once we're 'docked' to the EU it's going to become even more rubbish.
But enough. Time to froth quietly over 'Man Up'.
England fast bowler twists ankle in pre-Test kickabout. Time to fly in a replacement from London to bowl opening over, following a first innings collapse by England batsmen.
Of course that other well known labour tw@tterer John Prescott definitely 100% writes his own tweets......
https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/694955249187078145
In 2012, the evangelical vote accrued just to Santorun, against the insipid Romney. This time, evangelicals have a choice. Both Huckabee and Santorum will come out for Trump in hope of getting his VP slot. Rubio also picks up a portion of the evangelical vote.
After Super Tuesday Cruz has nothing.