Alistair said:

From 2003 good old Daily Mail

Who could forget the great size 12 scandal?

rcs1000 said:

MP_SE said:

SouthamObserver said:

rcs1000 said:

justin124 said:

'His detached view FWIW was that Remain ought to - also arguably cynically - contrast life in Britain in 1973 with life now and major on "Don't go back to isolation". Obviously withdrawal would not really mean a return to black and white TV etc. but the subliminal message would be that things have got better while we were in the EU and withdrawal was to pull out of that process. '
I would argue that everyday life has not changed that much since 1973 . Mobile phones and PCs and that is it.Most other changes are refinements of gadgets which were already available.

You spend your entire day using electronic devices. You don't need to go to the shops. Your car actually works when you turn it on.

I'd say the changes are at least as significant as in the previous 40 years.

Edit to add: nothing to do with the EU, of course. Merely a reflection that there has been fairly rapid technological change.

It's at least arguable that the single market in Europe has incentivised the creation of technical standards around a lot of products.

Technical standards set by organisations such as the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). The ISO alone have published more than 19,000 standards since the 40s.

Then there is the United Nations Economic Commission Europe (UNECE) who are responsible for the majority of technical standardisation for transport (including docks, railways, road networks, etc).

I could go on and on and on. It is a myth that the EU initiates a significant amount of technical standards.

But it is also worth remembering that a large chunk of EU legislation that we implement is actually generated by these international standards bodies - just via the EU.

Indeed. The EU essentially rubber stamps the standards coming from these bodies. It kind of destroys the myth that the EU is the top table for the setting of standards.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Alistair said:

From 2003 good old Daily Mail

Who could forget the great size 12 scandal?

I had because as we all know it doesn't exist anymore. Probably caused by militant homosexuals.

justin124 said:

The 100 year old is almost certainly totally indifferent as to whether the service provided is the result of internet systems , telephone contact or indeed the postal service.Organisations have opted to rely on the new communication systems but would still function if they reverted to the former systems.

Just In Time stocking would take a massive hit.

Seriously, twitter does itself no favours, it's just removed #Cruzsexscandal from trends list

Plato_Says said:

Seriously, twitter does itself no favours, it's just removed #Cruzsexscandal from trends list

Maybe it's putting too much strain on the servers.

taffys said:

JackW said:

taffys said:

Alistair said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

I must admit, I thought that Trump would run Hillary close, and that - while it would be close - she would probably just edge it.

Increasingly, I am of the opinion that Trump does not have a broad enough coalition to win the election. He's managed to get an incredibly firm 38-40% of the electorate, but I think Hillary will comfortable manage to get two-thirds of the other 60% out to vote against him.

So, somewhat sadly, I'm going to call this one as a reasonably comfortable win for Hillary.

If Trump runs a smart campaign, which has to be a safe assumption at this point, it's hard to see how he does worse than Romney, nor how Clinton does as well as Obama.

-31 favorability.

Yes and many polls predict that Cruz would beat Hillary,

What do you reckon to that now?

Trump has zero friends. All the polls are being run by organisations that cannot abide him, including (and indeed especially) the republican side.

So the polls that broadly have been accurate on the GOP nomination are being skewed against Trump to favour Clinton for POTUS.

It's a view.

Well there are polls and polls. Its interesting how Trump is a lion the republican race only polls and yet withers in the face of Hillary's fiery righteousness when its repub v. dem.

And how those Turkeys in the repub race fly like eagles when it comes to facing Hillary.

I think you'll find it might have something to do with Donald Trump - putative President.

As has been noted previously US voters faced with the scary choice of death by head shot (Trump) and death by poison (Clinton) choose the latter in the hope of an antidote.

Plato_Says said:

Seriously, twitter does itself no favours, it's just removed #Cruzsexscandal from trends list

There is tediously murky legal issues over the algorithmic creation of 'stories' and other info aggregation efforts.

Breitbart has egg all over its face. If you sell your brand as truth to power - then get caught like this?

Seriously bad for business

MP_SE said:

Breitbart and Drudge not reporting the Cruz story.

John McDonnell has proposed that people who express anti-Semitic views be permanently banned from the Labour Party, even if they claim to have changed their opinions.

http://labourlist.org/2016/03/mcdonnell-demands-life-bans-for-any-party-member-with-anti-semitic-views/

What about those that have expressed support for banned terrorist organisations?

Who'd be an editor :

Eliana Johnson in "National Review" on why a contested convention favours Ted Cruz.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433136/republican-contested-convention-favors-ted-cruz-over-donald-trump

JackW said:

taffys said:

JackW said:

taffys said:

Alistair said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

I must admit, I thought that Trump would run Hillary close, and that - while it would be close - she would probably just edge it.

Increasingly, I am of the opinion that Trump does not have a broad enough coalition to win the election. He's managed to get an incredibly firm 38-40% of the electorate, but I think Hillary will comfortable manage to get two-thirds of the other 60% out to vote against him.

So, somewhat sadly, I'm going to call this one as a reasonably comfortable win for Hillary.

If Trump runs a smart campaign, which has to be a safe assumption at this point, it's hard to see how he does worse than Romney, nor how Clinton does as well as Obama.

-31 favorability.

Yes and many polls predict that Cruz would beat Hillary,

What do you reckon to that now?

Trump has zero friends. All the polls are being run by organisations that cannot abide him, including (and indeed especially) the republican side.

So the polls that broadly have been accurate on the GOP nomination are being skewed against Trump to favour Clinton for POTUS.

It's a view.

Well there are polls and polls. Its interesting how Trump is a lion the republican race only polls and yet withers in the face of Hillary's fiery righteousness when its repub v. dem.

And how those Turkeys in the repub race fly like eagles when it comes to facing Hillary.

I think you'll find it might have something to do with Donald Trump - putative President.

As has been noted previously US voters faced with the scary choice of death by head shot (Trump) and death by poison (Clinton) choose the latter in the hope of an antidote.

Trump should leak some illegal business deal or something, he can't afford to let Hillary monopolize the "hopefully the president will get arrested and we'll end up with somebody other than these two" vote.

L

justin124 said:

Without wishing to get too personal but happy to use your own example , are you suggesting that the provision of care home services is dramatically different today compared with - say - 1990?
There are still a lot of business organisations - small sole traders admittedly - who do not rely on or use the internet.

If nothing else the supply chain they rely on to get consumable items would take a masivenhit from the disappearance of the internet. A second order effect for sure but they would face raised prices and stock shortages.

A B Stoddard in "The Hill" on a path to the Presidency for Trump. Some path ....

http://thehill.com/opinion/ab-stoddard/274103-ab-stoddard-how-the-donald-can-win

edmundintokyo said:

JackW said:

taffys said:

JackW said:

taffys said:

Alistair said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

I must admit, I thought that Trump would run Hillary close, and that - while it would be close - she would probably just edge it.

Increasingly, I am of the opinion that Trump does not have a broad enough coalition to win the election. He's managed to get an incredibly firm 38-40% of the electorate, but I think Hillary will comfortable manage to get two-thirds of the other 60% out to vote against him.

So, somewhat sadly, I'm going to call this one as a reasonably comfortable win for Hillary.

If Trump runs a smart campaign, which has to be a safe assumption at this point, it's hard to see how he does worse than Romney, nor how Clinton does as well as Obama.

-31 favorability.

Yes and many polls predict that Cruz would beat Hillary,

What do you reckon to that now?

Trump has zero friends. All the polls are being run by organisations that cannot abide him, including (and indeed especially) the republican side.

So the polls that broadly have been accurate on the GOP nomination are being skewed against Trump to favour Clinton for POTUS.

It's a view.

Well there are polls and polls. Its interesting how Trump is a lion the republican race only polls and yet withers in the face of Hillary's fiery righteousness when its repub v. dem.

And how those Turkeys in the repub race fly like eagles when it comes to facing Hillary.

I think you'll find it might have something to do with Donald Trump - putative President.

As has been noted previously US voters faced with the scary choice of death by head shot (Trump) and death by poison (Clinton) choose the latter in the hope of an antidote.

Trump should leak some illegal business deal or something, he can't afford to let Hillary monopolize the "hopefully the president will get arrested and we'll end up with somebody other than these two" vote.

Clarence Darrow -- When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President. I’m beginning to believe it.

Freggles said:

Trumpets shouldn't get too happy about this. If the convention is contested, it gives Cruz delegates ample excuse to coalesce around another candidate.

The way things are going, there won't be any alternatives left at that point.

Standards:

It can be argued that Vodafone and Nokia gained their massive advantages in the international market in the early 2000s due to the decision by major European countries to standardise on the 2G GSM standard back in 1987/8, which was then mandated by the EU.

This is in comparison to the American market, which was stifled during that period by competing standards that meant a phone that worked in one city might not work in the next (until they eventually developed phones that could use all standards, but that took a while).

The European 2G market was much larger than the fragmented US market, meaning many other countries chose GSM rather than the US alternatives such as CDMA. That was to the distinct advantage of European countries.

The GSM standard was developed by ETSI.

Not an argument for EU membership, but it is somewhere the EU, yet alone European organisations, definitely helped.

'No-one told me I was going to be interviewed by a Muslim': Moment Burma democracy heroine Suu Kyi lost her cool with BBC's Mishal Husain after being quizzed over violence towards Muslim minority

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3508710/Moment-Burma-heroine-lost-cool-Today-s-Mishal-Suu-Kyi-s-anger-no-one-told-going-interviewed-Muslim-heated-questioning-BBC.html

JosiasJessop said:

Standards:

It can be argued that Vodafone and Nokia gained their massive advantages in the international market in the early 2000s due to the decision by major European countries to standardise on the 2G GSM standard back in 1987/8, which was then mandated by the EU.

This is in comparison to the American market, which was stifled during that period by competing standards that meant a phone that worked in one city might not work in the next (until they eventually developed phones that could use all standards, but that took a while).

The European 2G market was much larger than the fragmented US market, meaning many other countries chose GSM rather than the US alternatives such as CDMA. That was to the distinct advantage of European countries.

The GSM standard was developed by ETSI.

Not an argument for EU membership, but it is somewhere the EU, yet alone European organisations, definitely helped.

Yes, there were four separate US 2G mobile standards: GSM, TDMA, CDMA, and that Motorola system that was only ever used by Nextel.

sarissa said:

And back on topic, is the first (weighted) poll to suggest Scotland on is own is keeping Remain in the lead against the opinion of the rest of the UK?

I would demand tribute from English Remainers if that was to happen.

JosiasJessop said:

Standards:

It can be argued that Vodafone and Nokia gained their massive advantages in the international market in the early 2000s due to the decision by major European countries to standardise on the 2G GSM standard back in 1987/8, which was then mandated by the EU.

This is in comparison to the American market, which was stifled during that period by competing standards that meant a phone that worked in one city might not work in the next (until they eventually developed phones that could use all standards, but that took a while).

The European 2G market was much larger than the fragmented US market, meaning many other countries chose GSM rather than the US alternatives such as CDMA. That was to the distinct advantage of European countries.

The GSM standard was developed by ETSI.

Not an argument for EU membership, but it is somewhere the EU, yet alone European organisations, definitely helped.

http://m.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/23/cameron_remain_o2_wtf/

GSM had nothing to do with the EU.

MaxPB said:

JosiasJessop said:

Standards:

It can be argued that Vodafone and Nokia gained their massive advantages in the international market in the early 2000s due to the decision by major European countries to standardise on the 2G GSM standard back in 1987/8, which was then mandated by the EU.

This is in comparison to the American market, which was stifled during that period by competing standards that meant a phone that worked in one city might not work in the next (until they eventually developed phones that could use all standards, but that took a while).

The European 2G market was much larger than the fragmented US market, meaning many other countries chose GSM rather than the US alternatives such as CDMA. That was to the distinct advantage of European countries.

The GSM standard was developed by ETSI.

Not an argument for EU membership, but it is somewhere the EU, yet alone European organisations, definitely helped.

http://m.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/23/cameron_remain_o2_wtf/

GSM had nothing to do with the EU.

The EU mandated GSM, and ensured that the required frequencies could only be used by GSM.

http://www.cellular-news.com/story/25102.php

So, as is often the case, the Register is wrong.

rottenborough said:

Twitter people getting pretty worked up that no news outlet has yet broken the Cruz news.

If they don't I am sure TheDonald will remind them....

rottenborough said:

Twitter people getting pretty worked up that no news outlet has yet broken the Cruz news.

The National Enquirer is, despite its reputation, highly reliable. It puts the BBC to shame.

He's conspicuously allowing Cruz to self destruct and the media to ignore the whole thing.

Then he'll come out shaming them all for ignoring the whole scandal, whilst they'd have been all over any of his.

It's a perfect result for his PR machine

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

Twitter people getting pretty worked up that no news outlet has yet broken the Cruz news.

If they don't I am sure TheDonald will remind them....

rottenborough said:

Gaius said:

Sean_F said:

Jack W, I'm hoping that Hilary and the Donald will exchange the vilest insults during the campaign. And everything piece of mud they fling at each other will be true.

If nothing else, this is the most entertaining presidental election I can remember.

Yep. Although little to do with politics. Can anyone actually remember a single policy position on the GOP side?

THE WALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL... ;-)

It's been verified as a reputable source by ABC.

It's like the NOTW.

MonikerDiCanio said:

rottenborough said:

Twitter people getting pretty worked up that no news outlet has yet broken the Cruz news.

The National Enquirer is, despite its reputation, highly reliable. It puts the BBC to shame.

Two explosions heard in Belgium, police operation related?

Reuters
Bulgaria says ready to erect fence on border with Greece https://t.co/COTLcKBWKC

LadyBucket said:

I don't know how far along the PM is with his "thinking" but when he comes back, he needs to start banging a few heads together.

I predict two u-turns on "Academies" and "Sugar Tax." I don't know why they are rushing these announcements, as they have clearly not been thought through.

We may be four years away from a GE but I sense things are beginning to turn in Labour's favour, in spite of Jeremy Corbyn.

The academies move seems very silly to me. Huge numbers of schools have already converted and more are doing so, in part because the deal for doing so is very good. Cunning move by Gove, basically if you are a crap school you have to convert, if you want to convert you get favourable terms, but as a political argument it is basically dead.

Now forcing ALL schools just brings it up and pisses off a lot of people for little reward.

Breitbart has a lot to answer here re Cruz.

Gaius said:

Plato_Says said:

A lot of anti Trump GOP outlets are getting their arses handed to them this morning.

I'm glued to the reaction, we just don't get fun like this here.

JackW said:

Who'd be an editor :

Eliana Johnson in "National Review" on why a contested convention favours Ted Cruz.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433136/republican-contested-convention-favors-ted-cruz-over-donald-trump

Apart from the fun us political nerds are getting something very important is happening that will have far reaching implications.

The media, and this includes new media are being exposed as corrupt.

How this will play out is fascinating.

Plato_Says said:

It's been verified as a reputable source by ABC.

It's like the NOTW.

MonikerDiCanio said:

rottenborough said:

Twitter people getting pretty worked up that no news outlet has yet broken the Cruz news.

The National Enquirer is, despite its reputation, highly reliable. It puts the BBC to shame.

The National Enquirers stories about politicians foibles are usually well researched and accurate.

But they do carry stories whose veracity I doubt. Such as this one about Princess Diana's secret daughter.

rcs1000 said:

AndyJS said:

rcs1000 said:

Reading Slate, they point out that Obama lost the "Whites without a college degree" demographic 64:36 in 2012.

He also lost white voters 59:39, white men 62:35 and white women 56:42.

http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/

Those are the numbers that concern me about Trump. To overcome Hillary he needs to do very notably better with these groups than Romney. Can Trump win "Whites without a college degree" 75:25 make up for losing some college educated and minority voters? I'd reckon probably not.

For this reason, I'm sticking by my prediction of a Hillary victory.

Because of the US system, I guess we need to see how all this breaks down in the crucial swing states rather than simple countrywide figures e.g. It seems like Trump will do a lot better in Florida, but also so far in the primaries the places he has done well are in states that Hiliary does well too (and will win regardless of the fact Trump does well there among GOP supporters).

rottenborough said:

Ben Shapiro Verified account ‏@benshapiro 2m2 minutes ago
BTW, if #CruzSexScandal turns out to be true, I'll dump Cruz faster than Trump dumps his latest wife when he sees a supermodel upgrade.

Lyin' cheatin' Ted's a wrong'n.

Plato_Says said:

Andrew Neil
Revealed: Belgian police knew for 3 months where Paris bomber Abdeslam was living. Failed to act or pass info to Federal Intel services.

Meanwhile I heard on R4 Today programme this morning (8.35+) Philippe de Backer is Belgian European Member of Parliament from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe state that the solution to improving security intelligence was more integration at the EU level of security.
It went unchallenged by the R4 interviewer.

Alistair said:

Gaius said:

Plato_Says said:

A lot of anti Trump GOP outlets are getting their arses handed to them this morning.

I'm glued to the reaction, we just don't get fun like this here.

JackW said:

Who'd be an editor :

Eliana Johnson in "National Review" on why a contested convention favours Ted Cruz.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433136/republican-contested-convention-favors-ted-cruz-over-donald-trump

Apart from the fun us political nerds are getting something very important is happening that will have far reaching implications.

The media, and this includes new media are being exposed as corrupt.

How this will play out is fascinating.

Breitbart is going to take a hammering over this. Has the story and sat on it. So much for fearless truth reporting.

I've never been a big Breitbart fan, as frankly a lot of its stories do not hold up to scrutiny. (Such as the one about Japan not allowing Muslims to become citizens.)

Glenn Beck and Drudge are another two who've sat on this sex scandal. Lots of difficult questions from their listeners and readers. It's their USP.

Being duped into endorsing Cruz is one thing, knowingly backing him whilst having all this crap is another.

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

Gaius said:

Plato_Says said:

A lot of anti Trump GOP outlets are getting their arses handed to them this morning.

I'm glued to the reaction, we just don't get fun like this here.

JackW said:

Who'd be an editor :

Eliana Johnson in "National Review" on why a contested convention favours Ted Cruz.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433136/republican-contested-convention-favors-ted-cruz-over-donald-trump

Apart from the fun us political nerds are getting something very important is happening that will have far reaching implications.

The media, and this includes new media are being exposed as corrupt.

How this will play out is fascinating.

Breitbart is going to take a hammering over this. Has the story and sat on it. So much for fearless truth reporting.

I've never been a big Breitbart fan, as frankly a lot of its stories do not hold up to scrutiny. (Such as the one about Japan not allowing Muslims to become citizens.)

FrancisUrquhart said:

LadyBucket said:

I don't know how far along the PM is with his "thinking" but when he comes back, he needs to start banging a few heads together.

I predict two u-turns on "Academies" and "Sugar Tax." I don't know why they are rushing these announcements, as they have clearly not been thought through.

We may be four years away from a GE but I sense things are beginning to turn in Labour's favour, in spite of Jeremy Corbyn.

The academies move seems very silly to me. Huge numbers of schools have already converted and more are doing so, in part because the deal for doing so is very good. Cunning move by Gove, basically if you are a crap school you have to convert, if you want to convert you get favourable terms, but as a political argument it is basically dead.

Now forcing ALL schools just brings it up and pisses off a lot of people for little reward.

Two items from Osborne that are alienating the Conservative councillor base is 1) the announcement from Osborne on Academies and 2) the expansion of regional Mayors (the rest view it as threatening). Osborne should have let Nikki Morgan announce it but Osborne thought he would do it to improve his Leadership chances..... He has no political brain these days and clearly his advisors are chocolate tea pots.

Theuniondivvie said:

sarissa said:

And back on topic, is the first (weighted) poll to suggest Scotland on is own is keeping Remain in the lead against the opinion of the rest of the UK?

I can't decide which would afford maximum entertainment, Scottish votes narrowly keeping the UK in, or an Out vote with Scotland strongly voting Remain.

I'm workig on a #yourewelcomebritian #bettertogether style tweet thing for option 1. Need to hone it some more.

Theuniondivvie said:

sarissa said:

And back on topic, is the first (weighted) poll to suggest Scotland on is own is keeping Remain in the lead against the opinion of the rest of the UK?

I can't decide which would afford maximum entertainment, Scottish votes narrowly keeping the UK in, or an Out vote with Scotland strongly voting Remain.

Still bitter?

GeoffM said:

Theuniondivvie said:

sarissa said:

And back on topic, is the first (weighted) poll to suggest Scotland on is own is keeping Remain in the lead against the opinion of the rest of the UK?

I can't decide which would afford maximum entertainment, Scottish votes narrowly keeping the UK in, or an Out vote with Scotland strongly voting Remain.

I'm hoping for the second one which will be a complete Win-Win

So the former would be Lose-Lose?

Icing, meet cake.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Why have IS jihadists targeted Belgium?

IS thrives on chaos and disorder and, in Belgium, hopes to drive a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims.

In a way, they hope for what Samuel Huntington described as the clash of civilisations. And by creating a sphere of Islamophobia, they seek to create a fertile breeding ground.

Looking at how Islamist networks in Belgium have operated, there has always been one grievance they cite: the feeling that Belgium has treated them as second-class citizens.

The ban on wearing the full face veil in public and the fact that ritual halal slaughter of animals is no longer allowed on private grounds have been named as reasons to leave the country by Belgian jihadist fighters.

At the start, some went to fight Syrian President Bashar al-Assad while others were enticed by family or friends.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35882372

We move through the cycles so quickly these days...

France and Belgium are the only two countries in Europe to have officially banned the niqab/burka. Often overlooked but something ISIS has often mentioned in their anti French propaganda. The issue of women fully veiling is VERY important to ISIS. It's one of the first things they implement when taking control in an area and they punish harshly if not adhered to. In his "Call to Hijrah" speech, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi listed being able to wear "proper hijab" (ie being completely covered) as one of the reasons for women to go to the Caliphate.

Plato_Says said:

Being duped into endorsing Cruz is one thing, knowingly backing him whilst having all this crap is another.

Did poor old Jeb! know about this?

new thread