The past comments on the IRA were shrugged off – “every veteran has said a few odd things”.

Well thats one view I suppose....

Interesting, thanks.

If there were a leadership challenge and Corbyn was on the ballot, do you think he would win again?

Alastair,

"Doesn't the Bible short circuit this by saying it is the innerant word of God and any alterations will bring down plague of famine or other appropriate disaster"

No. A few sects like to think that, but there are two separate and contradictory stories of the creation in the first few pages of Genesis. You're so last fifth century. It's full of useful advice and stories of a wandering, vengeful tribe, and then you've got the New Testament. Have you read that bit - you'll like Revelations

I can't help feeling that Labour campaigners 'cautiously warming to McDonnell' is extremely bad news for the party. It suggests they are still in the early stages of the decline-denial-acceptance-revival sequence.

Having said that, Nick is surely right that pragmatism isn’t quite the same as centrism.

CD13 said:

Alastair,

"Doesn't the Bible short circuit this by saying it is the innerant word of God and any alterations will bring down plague of famine or other appropriate disaster"

No. A few sects like to think that, but there are two separate and contradictory stories of the creation in the first few pages of Genesis. You're so last fifth century. It's full of useful advice and stories of a wandering, vengeful tribe, and then you've got the New Testament. Have you read that bit - you'll like Revelations

That's why I got confused the final verses of revelations talk about the penalty for editing the text.

I thought that applied to the whole Bible rather than just revelations.

McDonnell was, in the bit I saw, quite good today against Osborne, certainly much better than Corbyn was on Budget day. But he needs a full set of Terry Pratchett's Luggage to carry all his baggage about with him. And, fundamentally, he is not willing to address real world problems. He resists every spending cut instinctively but has only unrealistic and extremely optimistic ideas about generating the tax to pay for it.

Labour really need to square this circle. The solution to higher public spending cannot always be borrowing/stealing from our children. It may be higher taxes. SLAB get very little attention these days, even in the Scottish media, but pushing an additional penny in the £ to pay for at least some of what they want shows a road to credibility that Ed never found.

With all respect I don't think that a group of whom "nobody disliked Corbyn personally" is at all representative of the nation, even if it is representative of the campaigners.

The likes of Miliband etc are generally perceived as well-intentioned if misguided but with Corbyn's extreme views on the country, stability, security and his shall we say interesting friends there is plenty to actually dislike about Corbyn. Let alone his decades of disloyalty to the pragmatic Labour cause.

I'm curious too about the penultimate line, Labour has never been led from the centre-right. Not only were Brown and Miliband definitely of the centre-left but Blair himself was still very much of the centre-left even if he was to the right of the Labour party as a whole. I think it subconsciously betrays a peculiar line of thinking to suggest that Labour is only now not being led by the "centre-right".

FrancisUrquhart said:

The past comments on the IRA were shrugged off – “every veteran has said a few odd things”.

Well thats one view I suppose....

I simply cannot understand why expressing support for terrorism or terrorists is described as an "odd" view. No-one would describe some MP who in the past supported the Nazis or apartheid as having an "odd" view. Repellent would be more accurate. And, yet, standing shoulder to shoulder with people who have shot babies and blown up children is only seen as "odd" in the way that someone who thinks that standing on your head cures baldness might be said to have an "odd" view.

NickPalmer said:

Cyclefree said:

Interesting, thanks.

If there were a leadership challenge and Corbyn was on the ballot, do you think he would win again?

If it happened this year? Yes, easily - possibly by more than the 60% he got last time. It would have arisen out of a PLP move which would be seen as an attempted coup - not as bad as an attempt to exclude him from the candidates, but still essentially a demand that the membership reconsider. To give an analogy - Eurosceptics often refer with some disdain to the tendency in EU referendums to "have another one until they get the right answer". It would be seen like that.

If at some point the membership had become disillusioned with Corbyn, then they might welcome a chance to express it. But they wouldn't like being pushed into it.

Thank you.

Alastair,

To be fair to St John of Patmos, he was knocking on a bit, and he'd had a bit of a rough life.

the OT is basically the story of a wandering tribe of sinners and written by a wandering group of sinners. An example to all. The Muslims like the first five chapters where loads of smiting goes on. They're not so keen on the rest.

The NT is different - it's a story of the Jesus movement and sets a very high bar for non-sinners. I like the woman taken in adultery story. A rattling good read.

As with all, the Church decided on which books made it and which didn't.

LewisDuckworth said:

I once heard an old buffer at my sports club bar refer to "odd chap Hitler".

Was it the 'tache?

@NCPoliticsEU · 3m3 minutes ago

ICM (#EURef):

REMAIN 41 (-2)
LEAVE 43 (+2)

On topic, David Cameron looks more vulnerable to a challenge this year than Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn remains rock solid in his power base.

Thanks Nick. Very interesting stuff.

This in particular: "pragmatism isn’t quite the same as centrism".

I would say this. To win elections you need a coalition of 36+% of voters, ideally 40+%. You don't have to pitch for the centre to get them but it's a good idea tactically to do that because if you capture the centre you stop the other side from getting those votes and almost force them into a core-vote strategy, which will tend to be a losing one. To that extent I think it's always going to be pragmatic to try to win the centre ground.

However, when one says "centre" one doesn't mean a population of Nick Clegg clones but people who don't buy into left or right ideology and who judge parties primarily on the credibility of their leader and their economic policy.

I think a credible leader could come from any wing of the Labour Party. However, they can't have a history of apologising for the IRA.

The economic platform is tricky. You need to frame the economic debate in terms that Labour can win. I tend to think that you won't succeed in this unless the Tories help you, as they did in 1992. But in principle I think a (relatively) left-wing platform could win. I certainly think you could sell renationalisation of utilities if you present it as something that would benefit consumers and not just producers (and if you actually mean it).

Wanderer said:

in principle I think a (relatively) left-wing platform could win.

Interesting that the SNP, who campaign heavily in the rhetoric of a left-wing platform, have bottled actually standing on one at the coming election

Mr. L, I think you greatly overestimate Umunna.

FrancisUrquhart said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@NCPoliticsEU · 3m3 minutes ago

ICM (#EURef):

REMAIN 41 (-2)
LEAVE 43 (+2)

Imagine if Leave even had a functioning campaign....

We only need to see movement in the phone polls too:

https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/712091444421513217

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The past comments on the IRA were shrugged off – “every veteran has said a few odd things”.

Well thats one view I suppose....

I simply cannot understand why expressing support for terrorism or terrorists is described as an "odd" view. No-one would describe some MP who in the past supported the Nazis or apartheid as having an "odd" view. Repellent would be more accurate. And, yet, standing shoulder to shoulder with people who have shot babies and blown up children is only seen as "odd" in the way that someone who thinks that standing on your head cures baldness might be said to have an "odd" view.



It's not a view many would approve of, but I can't see how it would mystify you. Labour has it's roots in class struggle rather than patriotism. It's not a huge step from that to see terrorists and soldiers as combatants rather than instinctively supporting the former and condemning the latter.

After all, Britain kills people too. Not only that, but we actively support people who if they were to carry out the activities we support across a border, we would designate as terrorists. To misquote a phrase, when you lie down with dogs, don't criticise others for having fleas.

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@NCPoliticsEU · 3m3 minutes ago

ICM (#EURef):

REMAIN 41 (-2)
LEAVE 43 (+2)

Phone or online ?

All within MOE for ICM - assume polling done before today's sorry events.

McDonnell did not say a few things about the IRA. he said a lot. All of it supportive.

Days like today show how important it is that political parties interested in winning power have to be sound on national security issues. Labour's current leadership is not sound on national security issues. That is what makes Labour unelectable.

Could someone like me accept a Labour leader to the left of me? Absolutely. Just as with Tony Blair I happily accepted one to the right of me. But there are certain no-no's that are non-negotiable. This is what Labour members have got to get to grips with. They might be happy to shrug things away; normal voters are not. If labour does want to win power that lesson has to be absorbed.

Tonight's schedule:

Utah caucus (it's online voting too) ends at 5 AM GMT, partial results may come out between 1-3 AM GMT when in-person voting begins and ends.
Expect a Cruz-Sanders victory with Trump 3rd in the low teens, it's WTA if Cruz gets more than 50%.

Arizona primary ends voting at 2 AM GMT.
Expect a Trump-Hillary victory, it's WTA for Trump.

Idaho caucus (democrats only) begins at 1 AM GMT.
Who knows?

Samoa should come sometime by tomorrow afternoon.

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The past comments on the IRA were shrugged off – “every veteran has said a few odd things”.

Well thats one view I suppose....

I simply cannot understand why expressing support for terrorism or terrorists is described as an "odd" view. No-one would describe some MP who in the past supported the Nazis or apartheid as having an "odd" view. Repellent would be more accurate. And, yet, standing shoulder to shoulder with people who have shot babies and blown up children is only seen as "odd" in the way that someone who thinks that standing on your head cures baldness might be said to have an "odd" view.



It just shows how utterly removed from reality Labour party members are. A real pragmatist, of course, would know that a party with a leader who has expressed consistent and vocal support for the IRA will never get close to power.

Despite your first comment, I'm impressed by their optimism.

If they've been with you through the campaign last year when similar optimism led the party into a series of errors, I expect most of them must remember losing in Broxtowe and Gedling by huge amounts in 1992. They must also know we won Sherwood in 1992, but are nearly 5,000 votes behind the Tories.

They will also know the last boundary review removed Gedling (L) and Rushcliffe (C) and would have turned Nottingham South into a Tory-leaning marginal under 2010 results. Prob be a Tory seat by 5-7k if we apply 2015 results. Nottingham East, on the other hand, would probably have a Lab maj of only two or three thousand thousand. On top of that the results of any new review would be worse for Labour, given IER. Locally then, even if we did just as well as last time (we're doing significantly worse so far) we'd be down a seat, and struggling to hold another.

So If I were in your old friends position, I'd be more worried about losing the proposed Nottingham East and South seats locally than optimistic about gaining anywhere, let alone thinking about McDonnell as chancellor.

Complacency comes in many forms, and one of them is refusing to see how bad things are.

Nice and interesting thread Nick. I was approached by a Lib Dem asking for my vote and I said without giving it too much though that I probably would go with them this time.

Later I gave it a lot more thought and concluded that if an election was to be held in the next month I would-for the first time in my life-vote for a Cameron led Tory Party.

Choosing your party is as much as anything deciding who you don't want. I loathe the right wing anti Cameron Tories even more than Farage so my first priority is to keep them out.

I don't like Corbyn either in character or for his priorities. I see him as an opportunist lacking talent or an ability to win but wanting the top job anyway. Rather like Miliband but without the heart.

No one else-least of all the Libs-can be trusted or have any chance of keeping the Johnson/IDS faction out. So it's got to be Cameron

MP_SE said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@NCPoliticsEU · 3m3 minutes ago

ICM (#EURef):

REMAIN 41 (-2)
LEAVE 43 (+2)

Woohoo.

Imagine how close we could run it if Vote Leave pulled their finger out their ARSE?

HopiSen said:

Despite your first comment, I'm impressed by their optimism.

If they've been with you through the campaign last year when similar optimism led the party into a series of errors, I expect most of them must remember losing in Broxtowe and Gedling by huge amounts in 1992. They must also know we won Sherwood in 1992, but are nearly 5,000 votes behind the Tories.

They will also know the last boundary review removed Gedling (L) and Rushcliffe (C) and would have turned Nottingham South into a Tory-leaning marginal under 2010 results. Prob be a Tory seat by 5-7k if we apply 2015 results. Nottingham East, on the other hand, would probably have a Lab maj of only two or three thousand thousand. On top of that the results of any new review would be worse for Labour, given IER. Locally then, even if we did just as well as last time (we're doing significantly worse so far) we'd be down a seat, and struggling to hold another.

So If I were in your old friends position, I'd be more worried about losing the proposed Nottingham East and South seats locally than optimistic about gaining anywhere, let alone thinking about McDonnell as chancellor.

Complacency comes in many forms, and one of them is refusing to see how bad things are.

Things are only bad if you are a Labour party member or supporter who really wants to win the next general election.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The past comments on the IRA were shrugged off – “every veteran has said a few odd things”.

Well thats one view I suppose....

I simply cannot understand why expressing support for terrorism or terrorists is described as an "odd" view. No-one would describe some MP who in the past supported the Nazis or apartheid as having an "odd" view. Repellent would be more accurate. And, yet, standing shoulder to shoulder with people who have shot babies and blown up children is only seen as "odd" in the way that someone who thinks that standing on your head cures baldness might be said to have an "odd" view.

It's not a view many would approve of, but I can't see how it would mystify you. Labour has it's roots in class struggle rather than patriotism. It's not a huge step from that to see terrorists and soldiers as combatants rather than instinctively supporting the former and condemning the latter.

After all, Britain kills people too. Not only that, but we actively support people who if they were to carry out the activities we support across a border, we would designate as terrorists. To misquote a phrase, when you lie down with dogs, don't criticise others for having fleas.


UK have supported actively many "terrorists" over the years. Tories pretending they are whiter than white is a real hoot, try Yemen for a starter. Not heard Cameron say anything against his partners there yet other than yes we take cheques.

Casino_Royale said:

MP_SE said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@NCPoliticsEU · 3m3 minutes ago

ICM (#EURef):

REMAIN 41 (-2)
LEAVE 43 (+2)

Woohoo.

Imagine how close we could run it if Vote Leave pulled their finger out their ARSE?

Lol. I've replied to JackW so many times on pb threads that my iPhone now automatically corrects 'arse' to ARSE.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@NCPoliticsEU · 3m3 minutes ago

ICM (#EURef):

REMAIN 41 (-2)
LEAVE 43 (+2)

Imagine if Leave even had a functioning campaign....

Believe in BRITAIN!

Be LEAVE!

Repetition on the scale you use it might make readers think you have OCD.

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

Wanderer said:

in principle I think a (relatively) left-wing platform could win.

Interesting that the SNP, who campaign heavily in the rhetoric of a left-wing platform, have bottled actually standing on one at the coming election

They have never been left wing unless you are comparing them to the Tories. They have always ( this century at least ) been centre party. No left wing rubbish and no heartless Tory cruelty , just a fair and balanced position

The SNP are useful idiots for the Westminster Tories, that's clear.

HopiSen said:

Despite your first comment, I'm impressed by their optimism.

If they've been with you through the campaign last year when similar optimism led the party into a series of errors, I expect most of them must remember losing in Broxtowe and Gedling by huge amounts in 1992. They must also know we won Sherwood in 1992, but are nearly 5,000 votes behind the Tories.

They will also know the last boundary review removed Gedling (L) and Rushcliffe (C) and would have turned Nottingham South into a Tory-leaning marginal under 2010 results. Prob be a Tory seat by 5-7k if we apply 2015 results. Nottingham East, on the other hand, would probably have a Lab maj of only two or three thousand thousand. On top of that the results of any new review would be worse for Labour, given IER. Locally then, even if we did just as well as last time (we're doing significantly worse so far) we'd be down a seat, and struggling to hold another.

So If I were in your old friends position, I'd be more worried about losing the proposed Nottingham East and South seats locally than optimistic about gaining anywhere, let alone thinking about McDonnell as chancellor.

Complacency comes in many forms, and one of them is refusing to see how bad things are.

Nick did say that he didn't want to overstate the interest in McDonnell. Sounds like a group where party loyalty is paramount.

I do wonder though about the insouciance on display. Where's the sense of urgency? "Either Corbyn will break through or he'll move on".

Meanwhile we wake up and find ourselves in the mid-2020s.

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The past comments on the IRA were shrugged off – “every veteran has said a few odd things”.

Well thats one view I suppose....

I simply cannot understand why expressing support for terrorism or terrorists is described as an "odd" view. No-one would describe some MP who in the past supported the Nazis or apartheid as having an "odd" view. Repellent would be more accurate. And, yet, standing shoulder to shoulder with people who have shot babies and blown up children is only seen as "odd" in the way that someone who thinks that standing on your head cures baldness might be said to have an "odd" view.

It's not a view many would approve of, but I can't see how it would mystify you. Labour has it's roots in class struggle rather than patriotism. It's not a huge step from that to see terrorists and soldiers as combatants rather than instinctively supporting the former and condemning the latter.

After all, Britain kills people too. Not only that, but we actively support people who if they were to carry out the activities we support across a border, we would designate as terrorists. To misquote a phrase, when you lie down with dogs, don't criticise others for having fleas.

UK have supported actively many "terrorists" over the years. Tories pretending they are whiter than white is a real hoot, try Yemen for a starter. Not heard Cameron say anything against his partners there yet other than yes we take cheques.

And Thatcher's friends, the Khmer Rouge

Scott_P said:

malcolmg said:

They have never been left wing unless you are comparing them to the Tories. They have always ( this century at least ) been centre party. No left wing rubbish and no heartless Tory cruelty , just a fair and balanced position

What happened to the "progressive majority"?

@davidtorrance: Reminded of Herbert Morrison's line about "socialism" being whatever a Labour gov does; SNP appear to think "progressive" is whatever SG does

LOL, pretty dire when you are down to quoting that tosser.

PS: We will find out very soon who the public believe are progressive party and even you surely know the answer. The rats are scrabbling for the list. Will be easy to play spot the losers.

EPG said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The past comments on the IRA were shrugged off – “every veteran has said a few odd things”.

Well thats one view I suppose....

I simply cannot understand why expressing support for terrorism or terrorists is described as an "odd" view. No-one would describe some MP who in the past supported the Nazis or apartheid as having an "odd" view. Repellent would be more accurate. And, yet, standing shoulder to shoulder with people who have shot babies and blown up children is only seen as "odd" in the way that someone who thinks that standing on your head cures baldness might be said to have an "odd" view.

It's not a view many would approve of, but I can't see how it would mystify you. Labour has it's roots in class struggle rather than patriotism. It's not a huge step from that to see terrorists and soldiers as combatants rather than instinctively supporting the former and condemning the latter.

After all, Britain kills people too. Not only that, but we actively support people who if they were to carry out the activities we support across a border, we would designate as terrorists. To misquote a phrase, when you lie down with dogs, don't criticise others for having fleas.

UK have supported actively many "terrorists" over the years. Tories pretending they are whiter than white is a real hoot, try Yemen for a starter. Not heard Cameron say anything against his partners there yet other than yes we take cheques.

And Thatcher's friends, the Khmer Rouge

Pinochet , we could be here all night.

Useful article form Huffpollster :

REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST SEES GOP IN A WEAK POSITION - Stuart Stevens (R): “The simple truth is that there simply aren’t enough white voters in the America of 2016 to win a national election without also getting a substantial share of the non-white vote. Romney won 17 percent of the non-white vote. Depending on white voter turnout, a Republican needs between 25 percent and 35 percent of the non-white vote to win….Only 12 percent of Hispanics have a favorable view of [Donald] Trump with 77 percent unfavorable. Even among Hispanic Republicans, he has a 60 percent unfavorable ranking. Among African Americans, 86 percent have an unfavorable view of Trump. To have even a chance at winning a national election, a nominee must get 90-plus percent of their own party. But one out of every three Republicans view Trump unfavorably….In my view, Donald Trump, if he does claim the party’s mantle, would be a historically weak and vulnerable nominee. But let’s not kid ourselves. Even if John Kasich or Ted Cruz, the remaining two candidates, were to emerge, the advantage is still very much with the Democrats.“

Richard_Nabavi said:

I can't help feeling that Labour campaigners 'cautiously warming to McDonnell' is extremely bad news for the party. It suggests they are still in the early stages of the decline-denial-acceptance-revival sequence.

YES! I agree with Nabavi - for once.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Roger said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@NCPoliticsEU · 3m3 minutes ago

ICM (#EURef):

REMAIN 41 (-2)
LEAVE 43 (+2)

Imagine if Leave even had a functioning campaign....

Believe in BRITAIN!

Be LEAVE!

Repetition on the scale you use it might make readers think you have OCD.

Translation: "That's a very catchy slogan, Sunil. I'm surprised the official "Leave" campaigns haven't adopted it".

Sunil, the best advertising does keep repeating the message.

JackW said:

Useful article form Huffpollster :

REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST SEES GOP IN A WEAK POSITION - Stuart Stevens (R): “The simple truth is that there simply aren’t enough white voters in the America of 2016 to win a national election without also getting a substantial share of the non-white vote. Romney won 17 percent of the non-white vote. Depending on white voter turnout, a Republican needs between 25 percent and 35 percent of the non-white vote to win….Only 12 percent of Hispanics have a favorable view of [Donald] Trump with 77 percent unfavorable. Even among Hispanic Republicans, he has a 60 percent unfavorable ranking. Among African Americans, 86 percent have an unfavorable view of Trump. To have even a chance at winning a national election, a nominee must get 90-plus percent of their own party. But one out of every three Republicans view Trump unfavorably….In my view, Donald Trump, if he does claim the party’s mantle, would be a historically weak and vulnerable nominee. But let’s not kid ourselves. Even if John Kasich or Ted Cruz, the remaining two candidates, were to emerge, the advantage is still very much with the Democrats.“

That level of racial division in politics is not healthy.

Conversely, by the same token, it shows Trump would walk it on the demographics of 1980.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Roger said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@NCPoliticsEU · 3m3 minutes ago

ICM (#EURef):

REMAIN 41 (-2)
LEAVE 43 (+2)

Imagine if Leave even had a functioning campaign....

Believe in BRITAIN!

Be LEAVE!

Repetition on the scale you use it might make readers think you have OCD.

Translation: "That's a very catchy slogan, Sunil. I'm surprised the official "Leave" campaigns haven't adopted it".

I find your slogan entertaining.

Casino_Royale said:

MP_SE said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@NCPoliticsEU · 3m3 minutes ago

ICM (#EURef):

REMAIN 41 (-2)
LEAVE 43 (+2)

Woohoo.

Imagine how close we could run it if Vote Leave pulled their finger out their ARSE?

Indeed. Rather worringly I am really struggling to motivate myself to help either of the campaigns.

JohnO said:

JackW said:

Casino_Royale said:

JackW said:

Casino_Royale said:

MP_SE said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@NCPoliticsEU · 3m3 minutes ago

ICM (#EURef):

REMAIN 41 (-2)
LEAVE 43 (+2)

Woohoo.

Imagine how close we could run it if Vote Leave pulled their finger out their ARSE?

LEAVE your fingers out of my ARSE !!

I'd much prefer it if one of my fingers could REMAIN in your ARSE indefinitely!!

I'm prostate on the floor at such ARSE worship ....

And in appreciation let me advise you that my first ARSE4EU referendum projection will be published exclusively on PB next Tuesday ....

I imagine (and I certainly hope) you meant prostrate. But at 115, one can't be sure.

So Seanin what's your take on Osborne ?

Casino_Royale said:

@Indigo - how long is it until Obama flies over to tell us all how to vote?

And will readers of the New York Times be penning lengthy letters to swing voters in Berkshire begging us to stay in the EU?

cough cough cough cough Mr president

that's 4cough Obama

JackW said:

Casino_Royale said:

JackW said:

Casino_Royale said:

MP_SE said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@NCPoliticsEU · 3m3 minutes ago

ICM (#EURef):

REMAIN 41 (-2)
LEAVE 43 (+2)

Woohoo.

Imagine how close we could run it if Vote Leave pulled their finger out their ARSE?

LEAVE your fingers out of my ARSE !!

I'd much prefer it if one of my fingers could REMAIN in your ARSE indefinitely!!

I'm prostate on the floor at such ARSE worship ....

And in appreciation let me advise you that my first ARSE4EU referendum projection will be published exclusively on PB next Tuesday ....

I can't wait to see what comes out of EUr ARSE.

In my diary!

JohnO said:

JackW said:

Casino_Royale said:

JackW said:

Casino_Royale said:

MP_SE said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@NCPoliticsEU · 3m3 minutes ago

ICM (#EURef):

REMAIN 41 (-2)
LEAVE 43 (+2)

Woohoo.

Imagine how close we could run it if Vote Leave pulled their finger out their ARSE?

LEAVE your fingers out of my ARSE !!

I'd much prefer it if one of my fingers could REMAIN in your ARSE indefinitely!!

I'm prostate on the floor at such ARSE worship ....

And in appreciation let me advise you that my first ARSE4EU referendum projection will be published exclusively on PB next Tuesday ....

I imagine (and I certainly hope) you meant prostrate. But at 115, one can't be sure.

There lies the the rub ....