Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At least ComRes didn’t bring Nelson Mandela into its controver
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At least ComRes didn’t bring Nelson Mandela into its controversial poll
All the discussion over alleged leading questions in the ComRes poll have provided a peg fo me to highlight one of my favourite polls ever.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://youtu.be/G0ZZJXw4MTA
A phrase about great minds springs to - well, mind!
Anorak said:
» show previous quotes
£23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.
Have to say I was happy with it having paid £32. It is very nice , smooth and I would say a bully bargain at £23.
PS: Having forgotten I posted 5th actually
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
The Daily Mail. where else?
I have to say if Brexit is so popular and such a good thing why do the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Mail have to distort things so massively? Dodgy polls, endless stories about this person or that person distantly related to somebody who once did X or Y. It is beyond parody, do they really think we can be led by this onslaught into backing Johnson, the Tories and No Deal Brexit?
But do not approve of a level playing field across countries.
How do you reconcile?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ds4jZ90XgAUiE1Y.jpg
Singapore is also a city state and massive natural port at the nexus of the world's fastest growing economies.
I want to work with other countries where it suits us [eg CERN is a great example] while simultaneously competing with them as much as we can.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/967005/brexit-news-currency-brexit-coin-stamps-eu-referendum
Sounds like a good idea to me. It should help distract from the collapse in the value of the currency.
Trying to force everyone to be the same and taking power away from the people at the ballot box is what will lead to conflict and resentment.
Go on. Give us details of what you would like removed and how this would enable competition. So that we can see who this would benefit and who would suffer as a result.
Same isn't true with politicians. Corporations are more honest than politicians/bureaucrats - both want your money, but one forces you to hand it over and the other offers you a choice of something you want so that you do.
What a selling point! 'Won't be as bad as all that, Sir!'
In some areas we may reach the same goals as the EU and set the same rules, in others we may want stricted rules than they do, and in some we may want looser. Either way it should be our choice.
The consumer does not have the ability, time, or knowledge to make rational decisions in every purchase.
No consumer looks at medicine in a pharmacy and thinks “I wish the company that manufactured this had the freedom not to make this drug in a safe manner”.
A group of MPs and peers wants the Court of Session in Edinburgh to rule that suspending parliament to make the UK leave the EU without a deal is "unlawful and unconstitutional".
Cross-party backing
More than 70 politicians have put their names behind the move, including Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson and SNP MP Joanna Cherry.
The case is beginning in the Scottish courts because they sit through the summer, unlike their English counterparts.
The Commons Speaker John Bercow has said the idea of the parliamentary session ending in order to force through a no-deal Brexit is "simply not going to happen" and that that was "so blindingly obvious it almost doesn't need to be stated".
One of the petitioners, Edinburgh South Labour MP Ian Murray, said: "When Boris Johnson unveiled his vacuous slogan 'taking back control', voters weren't told that this could mean shutting down parliament. The prime minister's undemocratic proposal to hold Westminster in contempt simply can't go unchallenged."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49320773
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/aug/13/quiz-identify-these-pop-superstars
LOL that is a bit rich for me Topping, pretty as they look.
I think we should as a people be free to determine who our compatriots are. Personally I feel English and view the English as my compatriots, with to a lesser extent the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish tagging along with us. I don't view the French as my compatriots. Power to the people though, that should be up to us the people to determine.
If those in Yorkshire feel they are alien to us and want an independent Yorkshire I'd have no objections. But I don't think they do.
The fact he was a fratricidal lunatic wasn't terribly good either.
Why did you not call out 'Peoples' Vote' polls to the same degree?
So if that - a stacked deck - is a Bad Thing within the UK, why is it a Good Thing between the UK and other countries?
What regulations do you want to see removed to ensure that Britain can compete?
https://www.historia-hamburg.de/media/product/f94/banknote-ro-110-1-milliarde-mark-reichsbanknote-15-12-1922-ff3.jpg
A thousand Reichsmarks over printed to be worth a Billion (Milliard in German is 1000 Million)
I believe in evolution and survival of the fittest. I believe that is the key to progress. If we think we can improve our country by lowering taxes for example, and another nation believes they can improve theirs by raising taxes and spending on XYZ I see no reason why we shouldn't do what we want, and they shouldn't do what they want. If we realise that XYZ works, then we can copy them - and we benefit from their experimentation. If they realise XYZ is a disaster they can drop it - and we benefit from not copying their failure.
Either way, the greater the variance, the greater the chance to have successes and failures which leads to progress. Harmonisation leads to stagnation.
You seem very confident in your opinions on the air defence policing procedures for the UK and RoI.
Does it come from a professional background?
For instance, do you want to remove the obligation to provide details of trades to regulators so that they can monitor for possible insider trading in the markets?
If so, why? Who do you think will benefit from the removal of this provision? And where might the costs fall?
But would you say that Colchester should become an independent country if 52% of those who voted, voted for independence?
It doesn't matter what I want to see removed, I am not a dictator and that is not what Brexit means. If I say I want changes to say Working Time, Medicines and Accounting hypothetically to choose 3 from your list, then if we spiral off into debating the merits and cons of changing Working Time, Medicines and Accounting that is a wasted segway. Brexit doesn't mean that.
Brexit means we all decide. If collectively we decide we want the same Working Time regulations but want to change say Advertisements then that is what we collectively do even if I opposed changing Adverisements and wanted Working Time changed but we do the opposite.
Furthermore its not just what we change now, it is also about what changes in the future. What if in the future the EU passes regulations you dislike on those and you are powerless to stop them? If Westminster passes regulations you dislike you can vote for another party, if the EU does I don't see how we get it reversed.
I am a democrat. I want us to democratically control what gets changed. The principle is what I want, not any specifics.
Laters!
Thankfully I doubt even the combined forces of the Electoral Commission and SNP could utilise Madiba to look good for the #indyref2 question - Although one does wonder what the question will be-
"Scotland is not yet an independent Country. Should it be?"
I probably shouldn't give them ideas.
But is that really the only issue or is it that it also comes down on (in your view) the wrong side of the argument?
As an example. County Durham Brexit voters don’t want a liberalised Labour market. They want strong employment protections and a well paid job for life.
Its most malignant effect has been to suck liquidity out of the market and to reduce the equity price discovery mechanism by effectively destroying the equity research business.
If there's no majority and no mandate for any changes then nothing will change. So what's the concern?
I would rather have the right regulations passed by our elected representatives, than the right regulations passed by politicians we don't elect.
I'd even rather have the wrong regulations passed by politicians that we elect, than the right regulations passed by politicians we don't . . . because at the next election we can demand changes, whereas if the unelected screws up [or circumstances change] we are impotent.
Democracy is not a libertarian concept. The fact you are trying to segway into Libertarianism or Labour regulations or whatever is why I didn't want to give specific examples. If County Durham voters win elections I respect that. I am backing democracy here, not Libertarianism.
At elections I will fight for my libertarian values, and I will respect it if I lose, but I want the ability to have elections to control issues. That is the issue not specifics.
Your overriding political concern is identity, not liberty.
Brexit is a fine example of people being mislead by the power of misinformation to vote against their own self interests.
Who decides who sets the laws. That is my concern. Identity plays into that.
His father was ruthless but clever. Caracalla was just a savage.
Westminster can be an elected dictatorship on 30% of the vote.
Voters can be irrational. I still want them to have control. If voters screw up, they can reverse it at the next election. Democracy trumps everything else.
Tricky.
Once we leave the EU, we will still be treaty bound to implement into UK law a whole host of regulations set by international bodies made up of unelected beauracrats, under penalty of unlimited fines.
So, for example, the way that letters are addressed in the UK is set by technical committees of the International Postal Union. Those standards are embedded into UK law. And we then implement them.
Now, there is an argument (made by @Richard_Tyndall) which is an excellent one. Right now, on many (but not the Internatioanl Postal Union for example) of these standards setting bodies the UK is represented by the EU. Post Brexit, we will have our own representative. That is a genuine and serious reason for wanting a change.
But it is not true to say that suddently we will be free to have our own standards for fire safety in consumer goods (those are set by UL in the US), or acceptable electromagnetic radiation, or indeed many other things.
Now, there are areas where regulations are set locally: in particular health & safety, environmental impact, services regulation and employment law. But in most of these cases (with the possible exception of employment), those regulations are simply non tariff barriers that we'll be negotiating in the case of free trade agreements.
The US, for example, insisted in each of its free trade agreements that (a) US GM products are allowed in, and (b) that they are not discriminated against in any way (such as labelling).
Leaving the EU is about increasing the linkage between our rulers and our rules. It should mean greater accountability.
But we need to be honest too: in FTAs our sovereignty will be constrained; and we will still continue to bound by much of the product regulation that we had in the EU.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
As we don’t have separation of powers, a party can be given a majority on circa 30% of the vote and then essentially have unchecked power over anything for the next 5 years. This is a fact. Parliament is sovereign.
We have unfortunately also seen voters vote away democracy in favour of "strong" Government and last night's ComRes poll reminds us that desire for "strong leadership" isn't far below the surface and you could imagine even the British signing away democracy under the right conditions.
Democracy means Britain could elect a Marxist Government - democracy also means we could vote away our democratic rights and the latter frightens me as much as the former. We are already seeing some of the supporters of Johnson using the language of the authoritarian against those opposed to Brexit.
I've seen plenty of Facebook keyboard warriors threatening all manner of civil unrest if unrest if we don't leave on 31/10. Hopefully that's talk - I'm also far from convinced the anger has anything to do with the negation (as they see it) of democracy.