politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The blue on blue fight is making the EURef seem like an all

Kind-of on topic, the EU Ref doing wonders for public perception of the Conservative Party. not.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/706842777481510912

Brind still pushing the absurd line that there's no Tory mandate. Just to repeat, the Conservatives won more votes at the 2015 GE than any party at any election this century. Including Blair in 2001.

I will be voting Remain but the argument from the left that the EU is a backdoor route to impose socialism on the country against its democratic decision is the sort of case which has pushed so many on the centre-right to Leave. If they carry on making such a partisan argument then Leave will win, sooner or later.

FPT
The big problem with nuclear is that everyone's mindset is deeply and irretrievably stuck in the 'massive pressurised water uranium fuel' mode. The early nuclear industry went to PWR for two hugely valid reasons:
1. It is a simple 'brute force' approach that worked first reliably to power nuclear submarines; and
2. Uranium PWR yields by-products that can be used to make nuclear weapons.

But PWR is not inherently a good technical model for civilian powergen:
1. It fails to Unsafe (as opposed to fails to Safe). When pumped coolant systems fuck-up the whole doodah can and will melt. (Fukushima, 3 Mile Island etc).
2. The resulting melt is so hot it ionises the coolant and fills the entire building with hydrogen gas. BOOM! This also leaves you with an unclearable-uppable amount of mess (Chernobyl, etc).
3. Uranium PWR breeds heavy and very long half-life radioactive nuclear waste.
4. To contain the pressure and heat you need a monster heavy concrete and steel building to house things. This means mega sized decommissioning costs. And shitty economics overall.

We thus have a 'nuclear is bad and expensive and unsafe' default kneejerk reaction.

But there are tested (in the 1960s!) and viable alternate nuclear options such as Thorium fuelled low pressure designs for which the above negatives no longer apply. The politics of getting a nuclear provider to destroy their existing business model to make the conversion are probably insurmountable. Right up until China or India or deliver working Thorium designs.

And fission is inherently safe too. We should put much more R&D effort into getting away from Uranium / Plutonium and into Thorium or light isotope fission.

david_herdson said:

Brind still pushing the absurd line that there's no Tory mandate. Just to repeat, the Conservatives won more votes at the 2015 GE than any party at any election this century. Including Blair in 2001.

I will be voting Remain but the argument from the left that the EU is a backdoor route to impose socialism on the country against its democratic decision is the sort of case which has pushed so many on the centre-right to Leave. If they carry on making such a partisan argument then Leave will win, sooner or later.

I hope Labour ENJOYS the Trade Union Act 2016, which it will become when it eventually becomes law.

How is the Thatcher speech very helpful to Cameron and allies ? The speech is out of date,the Community is now a union with 28 countries looking to a superstate.

The word community might help for a start.

I'm dubious about the premise in the first sentence of Don's article. Yes, he is right that the whole debate does look a bit like a Tory-only affair, although another way of looking at that is to say that only the Conservatives are having a serious debate about a serious issue, leaving Labour and the LibDems looking irrelevant. And yes, a lot of voters will tune out of the mud-slinging from both sides.

However, it's a big step from that to concluding that women, and non-Tory/UKIP voters, won't turn out. They will, and mainly for Remain, because they'll have picked up the general message that Brexit is a danger to jobs and prosperity.

SeanT said:

david_herdson said:

Kind-of on topic, the EU Ref doing wonders for public perception of the Conservative Party. not.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/706842777481510912

The Conservatives aren't really "divided", there's ten percent at the top, Cameron, his europhile clique, and the careerists - and then there's the rest of the party.

The PM really has screwed this. The BCC thing just looks AWFUL. Astonishingly inept.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/row-about-bcc-boss-shows-how-careful-cameron-must-be-with-his-party/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Not sure I agree with your first assertion. MPs are divided close to 50-50. Members and activists are divided about 2-1. Con voters by about 3-2. Differences through the party's levels swinging from Remain through to Leave but no overwhelming margin anywhere.

I do agree with you re the BCC though. Fortunately for Cameron, few members of the public will notice but still, not something to be repeated.

Plato_Says said:

Golly, women are such poor wee things.

I'm so glad I've never been infected by this victim mongering mindset.

There's no real gender gap on this issue, save that more women than men are undecided.

Turnout amongst non-Tory voters is going to be critical.

I think a better reply to the Rees Mogg argument is that workers have an interest in preventing a race to the bottom. International agreements to maintain minimum levels of leave etc are beneficial to them.

"paid holiday, parental leave, health and safety and equal treatment for part-time workers "

Yeah yeah no doubt there were still poorhouses until 1975... my parents never had paid holiday or went abroad before the almighty EU sorted it all out

IIRC women when told Sindy could make them worse off broke for No, men were much more likely to say Yes regardless.

blackburn63 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I'm dubious about the premise in the first sentence of Don's article. Yes, he is right that the whole debate does look a bit like a Tory-only affair, although another way of looking at that is to say that only the Conservatives are having a serious debate about a serious issue, leaving Labour and the LibDems looking irrelevant. And yes, a lot of voters will tune out of the mud-slinging from both sides.

However, it's a big step from that to concluding that women, and non-Tory/UKIP voters, won't turn out. They will, and mainly for Remain, because they'll have picked up the general message that Brexit is a danger to jobs and prosperity.

Supporters of the Euro said the same, it proved to be the opposite.

Women as a rule are far more independent and self reliant than men, they won't be swayed by scaremongering.

Richard_Nabavi said:

blackburn63 said:

Women as a rule are far more independent and self reliant than men, they won't be swayed by scaremongering.

Indeed so, which is why they'll vote for Remain.

My female hairdresser will beg to disagree - she's planning to put an Out poster in her window come June.

blackburn63 said:

Donald Brind is right, I've been saying this for weeks. The tories by their own admission are obsessed by the EU whether for or against, most of Labour simply aren't bothered.

I stick by my long term prediction that Leave wins narrowly on a low turnout. Cameron is Leave's biggest strength, lefties will enjoy abstaining and see him get a kicking.

Everyone I know in the Labour Party is absolutely committed to a Remain vote. Over the past few weeks I have heard eloquent speeches in favour from some unexpected quarters including committed Corbynites and former Militants. I have had no indications from anyone, either privately or publicly, that they see this is a backdoor way of having a kick at Cameron. It is much too important for that.

Patrick said:

But there are tested (in the 1960s!) and viable alternate nuclear options such as Thorium fuelled low pressure designs for which the above negatives no longer apply.

Making Thorium viable is about handling highly corrosive, incredibly hot, radioactive salts that will explode if they come into contact with water.

It is not an easy problem.

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

Brind still pushing the absurd line that there's no Tory mandate. Just to repeat, the Conservatives won more votes at the 2015 GE than any party at any election this century. Including Blair in 2001.

I will be voting Remain but the argument from the left that the EU is a backdoor route to impose socialism on the country against its democratic decision is the sort of case which has pushed so many on the centre-right to Leave. If they carry on making such a partisan argument then Leave will win, sooner or later.

I hope Labour ENJOYS the Trade Union Act 2016, which it will become when it eventually becomes law.

@Casino

You missed a discussion last night about Crossrail.

The question was: have we had to pay hundred of millions of pounds extra to allow German trains to run through the tunnels?

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

Brind still pushing the absurd line that there's no Tory mandate. Just to repeat, the Conservatives won more votes at the 2015 GE than any party at any election this century. Including Blair in 2001.

I will be voting Remain but the argument from the left that the EU is a backdoor route to impose socialism on the country against its democratic decision is the sort of case which has pushed so many on the centre-right to Leave. If they carry on making such a partisan argument then Leave will win, sooner or later.

It seems to be an implicit admission that Labour can't win an election.

If we had PR, 90 or so UKIP and DUP MPs would be providing supply and confidence to a Conservative government, whose policies would be similar to now.

Yes. Actually, I suspect the DUP would vote on a division-by-division basis but that's detail. There'd still be a Conservative-led government and it would, if anything, be doing things that would up the metropolitan left even more.

It's a scandal, frankly, that the Lords, which is supposed to have some nod towards vote shares, still has so few UKIP peers and so many Lib Dems.

Alistair said:

Patrick said:

But there are tested (in the 1960s!) and viable alternate nuclear options such as Thorium fuelled low pressure designs for which the above negatives no longer apply.

Making Thorium viable is about handling highly corrosive, incredibly hot, radioactive salts that will explode if they come into contact with water.

It is not an easy problem.

The Germans ran a commercial (albeit small) thorium reactor for a little while. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300

SeanT said:

david_herdson said:

SeanT said:

david_herdson said:

Kind-of on topic, the EU Ref doing wonders for public perception of the Conservative Party. not.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/706842777481510912

The Conservatives aren't really "divided", there's ten percent at the top, Cameron, his europhile clique, and the careerists - and then there's the rest of the party.

The PM really has screwed this. The BCC thing just looks AWFUL. Astonishingly inept.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/row-about-bcc-boss-shows-how-careful-cameron-must-be-with-his-party/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Not sure I agree with your first assertion. MPs are divided close to 50-50. Members and activists are divided about 2-1. Con voters by about 3-2. Differences through the party's levels swinging from Remain through to Leave but no overwhelming margin anywhere.

I do agree with you re the BCC though. Fortunately for Cameron, few members of the public will notice but still, not something to be repeated.

A bit of hyperbole, praps. I'm on my second martini in the bar of the Uma Paro, Paro, Bhutan.

But Cameron really has alienated many in his party, far beyond the solidly and fiercely eurosceptic 30-40%.

The Meeks article below is just the most preposterous nonsense.

Cameron is starting a probably-career-ending referendum campaign two points ahead of his opponents. The idea it's all going superbly to plan, thanks to his mettle and genius, is....

Eesh.

*orders third Martini*

I didn't read Alastair's piece as suggesting Cameron had been a genius, rather that he was working energetically to get out of a bad situation.

The bad situation, of course, is having to hold a referendum in the first place. There's next to no political upside in it for the Tories and a horrible amount of risk. We all know why Cameron promised to hold it. He was answering the need of the moment. Now the bill is due and he is simply trying to pay it by winning. He may be damaging himself in the process but from his point of view almost any kind of win is better than any kind of loss.

Heaven knows we're all miserable now if he does.

peter_from_putney said:

From the BBC's Website:

"The singer Morrissey is said to be "considering very seriously" an invitation to enter the London mayoral race.
An entry on his semi-official website revealed he had been asked to stand by the Animal Welfare Party."

Should he enter the contest, how is this likely to affect support for the Labour and Tory candidates respectively?

Patrick said:

(Snip)

But there are tested (in the 1960s!) and viable alternate nuclear options such as Thorium fuelled low pressure designs for which the above negatives no longer apply. The politics of getting a nuclear provider to destroy their existing business model to make the conversion are probably insurmountable. Right up until China or India or deliver working Thorium designs.

And fission is inherently safe too. We should put much more R&D effort into getting away from Uranium / Plutonium and into Thorium or light isotope fission.

We're going off-topic, but I wouldn't say the thorium reactors were "tried and tested" (if you're thinking of MSRE or THTR). A robust power generation plant capable of 1GW or more has not, I think, been tried.

MSRE only generated 7.4 MW. It was a testbed. THTR was another testbed that generated only 300 MW, and further research was abandoned.

Now onto fusion (because I want to):
Even the 'standard[ Deuterium-Deuterium or Deuterium-Tritium fusion has problems because the high neutron flux weakens the materials, which is why materials research is vital for new designs. The neutrons can make the reactor itself radioactive, and means massive shielding is required.

However, Deuterium-3Helium or Proton-11Boron fusion have two advantages:

1) They produce far fewer neutrons, meaning less shielding is needed and the reactor might last longer.
2) Direct conversion to electricity might be possible, meaning no messy and inefficient heat cycle is needed.

The disadvantage is that much greater (approx 10 times) the energy is needed to fuse these chemicals than 'standard' Deuterium-Deuterium or Deuterium-Tritium, and the reason we haven't got energy reliably produced from fusion is that we cannot even reach those conditions for DD or DT.

If I really wanted to invest forresearch in new tech, I would put some money into Deuterium-3Helium or Proton-11Boron fusion.

http://www.fusenet.eu/node/575
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/three-alternative-fusion-projects-that-are-making-progress
http://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.031030

Guess what I was reading about whilst ill ?

peter_from_putney said:

From the BBC's Website:

"The singer Morrissey is said to be "considering very seriously" an invitation to enter the London mayoral race.
An entry on his semi-official website revealed he had been asked to stand by the Animal Welfare Party."

Should he enter the contest, how is this likely to affect support for the Labour and Tory candidates respectively?

He's been dreaming of the time when the English are sick to death of Labour and Tory

LA based Mancunian Mayor of London....

peter_from_putney said:

From the BBC's Website:

"The singer Morrissey is said to be "considering very seriously" an invitation to enter the London mayoral race.
An entry on his semi-official website revealed he had been asked to stand by the Animal Welfare Party."

Should he enter the contest, how is this likely to affect support for the Labour and Tory candidates respectively?

It would unite them in ignoring the self-important miserable has-been.

Wouldn't he be better off standing in Manchester next year anyway?

Tykejohnno said:

anothernick said:

blackburn63 said:

Donald Brind is right, I've been saying this for weeks. The tories by their own admission are obsessed by the EU whether for or against, most of Labour simply aren't bothered.

I stick by my long term prediction that Leave wins narrowly on a low turnout. Cameron is Leave's biggest strength, lefties will enjoy abstaining and see him get a kicking.

Everyone I know in the Labour Party is absolutely committed to a Remain vote. Over the past few weeks I have heard eloquent speeches in favour from some unexpected quarters including committed Corbynites and former Militants. I have had no indications from anyone, either privately or publicly, that they see this is a backdoor way of having a kick at Cameron. It is much too important for that.

That's where the gap is between labour members and labour voters,totally not listening.

All the polling evidence I have seen suggests Labour voters are overwhelmingly in favour of Remain and I have seen no suggestion that they intend to use the referendum to pass judgement on Cameron. This is one issue which unites everyone in the Labour Party and almost all its supporters - last time I looked less than 10 MPs out of 230 were declared for Leave - this reflects the balance of opinion amongst both Labour members and Labour voters IMO.

@JosiasJessop Did you watch the recent Spacex rocket launch ?

Also Open Q (Don't wiki it )

Who won the biggest % of the eligible electorate in the last hundred years for their party.

Good gag from the Biden's speech last night:

"Ted Cruz? An inspiration to every kid in America who worries that he’ll never be able to run for president because nobody likes him."

Pulpstar said:

TRIVIA TIME !

Who won the biggest % of the eligible electorate in the last hundred years for their party.

david_herdson said:

Brind still pushing the absurd line that there's no Tory mandate. Just to repeat, the Conservatives won more votes at the 2015 GE than any party at any election this century. Including Blair in 2001.

Not quite sure I understand the question but if it's what I think it is then either Attlee in 1951 (when he lost) or Baldwin in 1931 (when he didn't become PM). If pushed, I'd say the former as there were some pretty dismal turnouts in the 1920s/30s.

Umm

@EuroGuido @PeoplesMomentum @vote_leave @GuidoFawkes Gov. lawyers got this wrong over carrier bags. https://t.co/21LnuPIKnI

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

Brind still pushing the absurd line that there's no Tory mandate. Just to repeat, the Conservatives won more votes at the 2015 GE than any party at any election this century. Including Blair in 2001.

I will be voting Remain but the argument from the left that the EU is a backdoor route to impose socialism on the country against its democratic decision is the sort of case which has pushed so many on the centre-right to Leave. If they carry on making such a partisan argument then Leave will win, sooner or later.

It seems to be an implicit admission that Labour can't win an election.

If we had PR, 90 or so UKIP and DUP MPs would be providing supply and confidence to a Conservative government, whose policies would be similar to now.

It's a scandal, frankly, that the Lords, which is supposed to have some nod towards vote shares, still has so few UKIP peers and so many Lib Dems.

What nods would they be - nodding dogs or nodding peers?

There has never been any correlation between vote share and membership of the HoL - only a determination of the government to appoint many more peers of their party than the opposition.

The lack of UKIP peers is the Prime Minister's fault for completely failing to appoint any.

Can you think of any Kipper peers who you think should have a seat in the Lords?

Wanderer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Would all you people so convinced that Leave has a good chance please place some bets? How are we supposed to make money if the odds reflect reality?

Leave has lost its lustre for me. I traded out on Borisnacht and it's not tempting atm. That's partly because the US game is so much more entertaining. We could do with some IDS vs Osborne penis-size row to liven things up.

Sustaining interest over the next 107 days will not be easy - even PBers are drooping.

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

Brind still pushing the absurd line that there's no Tory mandate. Just to repeat, the Conservatives won more votes at the 2015 GE than any party at any election this century. Including Blair in 2001.

I will be voting Remain but the argument from the left that the EU is a backdoor route to impose socialism on the country against its democratic decision is the sort of case which has pushed so many on the centre-right to Leave. If they carry on making such a partisan argument then Leave will win, sooner or later.

It seems to be an implicit admission that Labour can't win an election.

If we had PR, 90 or so UKIP and DUP MPs would be providing supply and confidence to a Conservative government, whose policies would be similar to now.

It's a scandal, frankly, that the Lords, which is supposed to have some nod towards vote shares, still has so few UKIP peers and so many Lib Dems.

What nods would they be - nodding dogs or nodding peers?

There has never been any correlation between vote share and membership of the HoL - only a determination of the government to appoint many more peers of their party than the opposition.

The lack of UKIP peers is the Prime Minister's fault for completely failing to appoint any.

I wouldn't put the blame anywhere else.

Not sure you're right about there never having been an intent to link vote share and peers: it was explicitly stated in the 2010 Coalition agreement. Obviously, that's lapsed now and you're right that PMs have tended to shift the field in their direction but all the same, a party ought to be entitled to something like at least the worst share they've achieved in the last three GEs subject to qualifying criteria which UKIP and the Greens ought to meet.

SouthamObserver said:

No-one is listening to Labour because no-one is interested in what Labour has to say. Corbyn and his mates have made the party an irrelevance. The only voices that matter in this referendum are Tory ones, because they are the ones that will be making the decisions well into the future.

If Remain loses because Labour voters stay at home that will be a shocking indictment of Labour's leadership and membership.

I don't expect that Remain will lose or that Labour voters will stay at home. Voters are intelligent enough to be able to see this is an important national decision which transcends party loyalty and personal opinions they may have about Cameron or anyone else.

Tykejohnno said:

How is the Thatcher speech very helpful to Cameron and allies ? The speech is out of date,the Community is now a union with 28 countries looking to a superstate.

The word community might help for a start.

She only said that to be nice at the beginning of the speech before she let them have it at the end.

peter_from_putney said:

From the BBC's Website:

"The singer Morrissey is said to be "considering very seriously" an invitation to enter the London mayoral race.
An entry on his semi-official website revealed he had been asked to stand by the Animal Welfare Party."

Should he enter the contest, how is this likely to affect support for the Labour and Tory candidates respectively?

I just pity the aide who will have to come up with an egregious pun for Cameron to use at PMQs to explain why being a fan doesn't translate to political support.

SeanT said:

Wanderer said:

SeanT said:

david_herdson said:

SeanT said:

david_herdson said:

Kind-of on topic, the EU Ref doing wonders for public perception of the Conservative Party. not.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/706842777481510912

The Conser

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/row-about-bcc-boss-shows-how-careful-cameron-must-be-with-his-party/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Not sureething to be repeated.

A bit of hyperbole, praps. I'm on my second martini in the bar of the Uma Paro, Paro, Bhutan.



*orders third Martini*

I didn't read Alastair's piece as suggesting Cameron had been a genius, rather that he was working energetically to get out of a bad situation.

The bad situation, of course, is having to hold a referendum in the first place. There's next to no political upside in it for the Tories and a horrible amount of risk. We all know why Cameron promised to hold it. He was answering the need of the moment. Now the bill is due and he is simply trying to pay it by winning. He may be damaging himself in the process but from his point of view almost any kind of win is better than any kind of loss.

From the Meeks article:

"He has been focussed all of the year so far on securing his deal with the EU, personally criss-crossing the continent to secure the agreement of heads of state."

"Whatever one thinks of the deal, the Prime Minister cannot be faulted for lack of effort or commitment."

Maybe not, but one can fault the PM for being a lying, deluded idiot who over-promised a grand reform of the EU and then delivered a few meaningless promises written in felt tip by Jacques Delors' special needs granddaughter.

And if this "deal" was the result of Cameron working at his hardest and most energetic, one hesitates to guess what his deal might have contained if he was lazier. Perhaps a "legally binding promise" to sterilise all British males?

And then Meeks says this:

"David Cameron once said that he wanted to be Prime Minister because he thought he’d be rather good at it. It seems that he was right."

A good prime minister would not be facing a referendum he didn't want, which he might well lose, which he might well lose because he so foolishly mishandled the "deal", and which, even if he wins, will probably end his career and leave his party venomously divided.

This is the achievement of a pretty bad prime minister. Because that, in the end, is what Cameron has turned out to be. Bad, with a thin veneer of accomplishment.

I take it that you're back to 60% Remain.

Norm said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

blackburn63 said:

Women as a rule are far more independent and self reliant than men, they won't be swayed by scaremongering.

Indeed so, which is why they'll vote for Remain.

My female hairdresser will beg to disagree - she's planning to put an Out poster in her window come June.

There was a female hairdresser on the radio the other week, saying she was going to vote Leave. Reason? EU regulations preventing the use of more powerful hairdryers mean it will take longer to dry hair meaning she can take fewer clients per day meaning less money.

Charles said:

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

Brind still pushing the absurd line that there's no Tory mandate. Just to repeat, the Conservatives won more votes at the 2015 GE than any party at any election this century. Including Blair in 2001.

I will be voting Remain but the argument from the left that the EU is a backdoor route to impose socialism on the country against its democratic decision is the sort of case which has pushed so many on the centre-right to Leave. If they carry on making such a partisan argument then Leave will win, sooner or later.

It seems to be an implicit admission that Labour can't win an election.

If we had PR, 90 or so UKIP and DUP MPs would be providing supply and confidence to a Conservative government, whose policies would be similar to now.

It's a scandal, frankly, that the Lords, which is supposed to have some nod towards vote shares, still has so few UKIP peers and so many Lib Dems.

What nods would they be - nodding dogs or nodding peers?

There has never been any correlation between vote share and membership of the HoL - only a determination of the government to appoint many more peers of their party than the opposition.

The lack of UKIP peers is the Prime Minister's fault for completely failing to appoint any.

Can you think of any Kipper peers who you think should have a seat in the Lords?

An intriguing question ...

LucyJones said:

There was a female hairdresser on the radio the other week, saying she was going to vote Leave. Reason? EU regulations preventing the use of more powerful hairdryers mean it will take longer to dry hair meaning she can take fewer clients per day meaning less money.

.. which wouldn't change if we left, because no-one in their right mind thinks we are going to do anything other than retain compatibility with EU product type approvals, in any scenario.

LondonBob said:

david_herdson said:

Latest Michigan GOP poll (Mitchell/Fox). Changes from the previous Mitchell/Fox poll on 2 March:

Trump 42 (-)
Kasich 20 (+6)
Cruz 19 (-)
Rubio 9 (-6)
Carson 4 (-1)

No great evidence of a Trump collapse there.

https://twitter.com/americaelect/status/706831103680716800

The only thing I might guess is that maybe the post Super Tuesday boost was negated by the poor debate performance. That said even a distinctly average performance in the next debate should see a boost instead.

I think Rubio's votes transferring to Kasich will be beneficial, Kasich is a formidable prospect as a VP pick, Rubio isn't (even if we ignore that he is bought and paid for, thus unacceptable for Trump).

Even for a Trump-Kasich ticket Michigan is not an achievable target for the GOP. McCain lost it by 17 points to Obama, Pennsylvania and Ohio will be the targets.

Looks to me like Kasich is definitely playing for VP. Does he have any control over his delegates past the first round though ?

Plato_Says said:

What were they doing to produce such idiotic offspring?

Students were offered counselling after small sombrero hats were worn at a tequila-themed party https://t.co/obSEaw7BK7

"Jones didn't get them all" as my American uncle used to say (a reference to the loons who killed themselves at Jonestown).

Plato_Says said:

What were they doing to produce such idiotic offspring?

Students were offered counselling after small sombrero hats were worn at a tequila-themed party https://t.co/obSEaw7BK7

SAFEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SPACEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

SouthamObserver said:

Tykejohnno said:

anothernick said:

Tykejohnno said:

anothernick said:

blackburn63 said:

Donald Brind is right, I've been saying this for weeks. The tories by their own admission are obsessed by the EU whether for or against, most of Labour simply aren't bothered.

I stick by my long term prediction that Leave wins narrowly on a low turnout. Cameron is Leave's biggest strength, lefties will enjoy abstaining and see him get a kicking.

Everyone I know in the Labour Party is absolutely committed to a Remain vote. Over the past few weeks I have heard eloquent speeches in favour from some unexpected quarters including committed Corbynites and former Militants. I have had no indications from anyone, either privately or publicly, that they see this is a backdoor way of having a kick at Cameron. It is much too important for that.

That's where the gap is between labour members and labour voters,totally not listening.

All the polling evidence I have seen suggests Labour voters are overwhelmingly in favour of Remain and I have seen no suggestion that they intend to use the referendum to pass judgement on Cameron. This is one issue which unites everyone in the Labour Party and almost all its supporters - last time I looked less than 10 MPs out of 230 were declared for Leave - this reflects the balance of opinion amongst both Labour members and Labour voters IMO.

We'll see,but its not just the Tories who will have they troubles if the breakdown of the labour votes are in a very high percentage for leave.

Corbyn has a free pass within Labour, just as the Tories have a free pass in the country. I know which one I'd rather have.

We are unfortunately all Tories now...

Lol http://www.lbc.co.uk/why-hasnt-yvette-cooper-taken-in-syrian-refugee-126339

During the Labour leadership contest, Ms Cooper said she would help in any way that she could, including taking in a refugee.

But appearing on LBC to discuss the EU referendum, she told Nick Ferrari that she hadn't invited one into her spare room... because the government told her not to.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Tykejohnno said:

How is the Thatcher speech very helpful to Cameron and allies ? The speech is out of date,the Community is now a union with 28 countries looking to a superstate.

The word community might help for a start.

She only said that to be nice at the beginning of the speech before she let them have it at the end.

Thanks for that,so putting that speech part into the article was even more clueless.

SeanT said:

A good prime minister would not be facing a referendum he didn't want, which he might well lose, which he might well lose because he so foolishly mishandled the "deal", and which, even if he wins, will probably end his career and leave his party venomously divided.

This is the achievement of a pretty bad prime minister. Because that, in the end, is what Cameron has turned out to be. Bad, with a thin veneer of accomplishment.

That is certainly the case for the prosecution against Cameron. An EU in/out referendum was arguably the one thing no Conservative Prime Minister should ever ever have allowed to happen.

david_herdson said:

It's a scandal, frankly, that the Lords, which is supposed to have some nod towards vote shares, still has so few UKIP peers and so many Lib Dems.

Agreed,Mr Herdson. And even more of a scandal that the Upper House is not a properly elected one.

But you Tories messed that one up in the last Parliament (with a bit of help from Labour, of course).

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

Brind still pushing the absurd line that there's no Tory mandate. Just to repeat, the Conservatives won more votes at the 2015 GE than any party at any election this century. Including Blair in 2001.

I will be voting Remain but the argument from the left that the EU is a backdoor route to impose socialism on the country against its democratic decision is the sort of case which has pushed so many on the centre-right to Leave. If they carry on making such a partisan argument then Leave will win, sooner or later.

I hope Labour ENJOYS the Trade Union Act 2016, which it will become when it eventually becomes law.

@Casino

You missed a discussion last night about Crossrail.

The question was: have we had to pay hundred of millions of pounds extra to allow German trains to run through the tunnels?

No.

Sean_F said:

anothernick said:

SouthamObserver said:

No-one is listening to Labour because no-one is interested in what Labour has to say. Corbyn and his mates have made the party an irrelevance. The only voices that matter in this referendum are Tory ones, because they are the ones that will be making the decisions well into the future.

If Remain loses because Labour voters stay at home that will be a shocking indictment of Labour's leadership and membership.

I don't expect that Remain will lose or that Labour voters will stay at home. Voters are intelligent enough to be able to see this is an important national decision which transcends party loyalty and personal opinions they may have about Cameron or anyone else.

Labour supporters break about 70/30 for Leave, a very big lead, but less overwhelming than the Parliamentary party.

Anecdotal, but amongst the Labour supporters I know any suggestion of Leave is met with incredulity. They may or may not vote but they will not vote Leave.