The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
FDP, (Free Democrats party) up 3.6% to 12% good news.
The FDP are not a Libertarian Party, But they are pro personal freedom and pro economic freedom so they are probably the party a German Libertarian would vote for. (Similar to D66 in the Netherlands or the ACT in New Zeeland)
So if the rise of 3.6% is typical, (and no reason to think it is) then there is a good chance that they will brake the 5%, needed limit to get back in the national parliament.
Yes, the rise is indeed typical and they should get back in:
That said, I think of them mainly a party of business, more interested in free markets than in personal liberty, unlike, say, D66. I don't mean they're authoritarians, but they're not especially big on liberalism in general. The perceived need for the party arises because the Christian Democrats, although centre-right, are a classic interventionist party, like pre-Thatcher Conservatives.
Surbiton is right to point out that the wilder fringes of PB were predicting a big AfD (=UKIP) breakthrough after Merkel's handlg of the migration crisis. In reality the AfD appears largely deflated these days, partly because of party splits and a perception of right-wing extremism (which is electoral poison in Germany for familiar reasons) but also because Merkel is perceived to have weathered the migrant issue reasonably well. Despite occasional incidents, the new arrivals seem to have settled down and are gradually being absorbed.
Merkel also notably toughened her language on immigration in the North Rhine campaign
"If Blair was a key figure in a breakaway party then 37 per cent would be less likely to support it and 8 per cent more likely."
(From YouGov survey of Labour supporters)
The same poll had a new 'progressive' party on 17%, with Labour on 19%, the LDs on 8%, the Tories on 44% and UKIP on 5%. One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blair-allies-plot-new-party-to-replace-dead-horse-labour-pcsj8zdp5
That would be marvelous - 550 seats for the Tories.
I doubt it would be that many, the Tories would still be down 5% on the main poll due to losses to the progressives, in a decade or so there is no reason once May departs and if the 'progressives' get a charismatic, electable leader they could not do a Macron and En Marche and win but they would need to overtake Labour first
"If Blair was a key figure in a breakaway party then 37 per cent would be less likely to support it and 8 per cent more likely."
(From YouGov survey of Labour supporters)
The same poll had a new 'progressive' party on 17%, with Labour on 19%, the LDs on 8%, the Tories on 44% and UKIP on 5%. One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blair-allies-plot-new-party-to-replace-dead-horse-labour-pcsj8zdp5
That would be marvelous - 550 seats for the Tories.
I doubt it would be that many, the Tories would still be down 5% on the main poll due to losses to the progressives, in a decade or so there is no reason once May departs and if the 'progressives' get a charismatic, electable leader they could not do a Macron and En Marche and win but they would need to overtake Labour first
Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.
Yes - despite the fact that elimination of subsidies has been a huge success in New Zealand, for example, its certain that farmers will continue to have their hands held unnecessarily.
Thought experiment: what would British politics look like today if the EU referendum had gone the other way, 52/48 to Remain?
Would Cameron still be PM? Who would've been his successor? Would there already be loads of demand for a second referendum? Would UKIP still be thriving, possibly even topping the polls?
Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.
If Brexit goes badly, I imagine all Government subsidies will come under pressure, because the Government will be skint.
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
I remember PB Tories here crowing in 2015 that Merkel will be gone.
Brave woman. Europe's greatest statesperson since Brandt.
The woman who destroyed Europe, the greatest political blunder in post war European politics, the worst German chancellor of all time & other such measured judgments - another dive down the rabbithole of amnesia for them.
They're all on tenterhooks to see if Macron can make a go of it, then it'll be 'he's pretty centre right really', 'never liked that Le Pen' and so on.
Many Brexit-backers laughed when Trump behaved so boorishly and ignorantly towards Merkel when she went over there. Compare and contrast with May, they said. But Merkel showed herself to be a strong, confident, highly knowledgable leader. She owned him and reaped the benefits. Schulz and the SPD were ahead or level in the polls when she made that trip.
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !
Precisely what I have been predicting will happen, with "The Progressive (aargh!) Democratic Party" set to become H.M. Official Opposition in the HoC.
The vote share of such a party would be desperately inefficient, see 1983. The opposition would still be Labour I think.
It depends how many defections there were.
But a result of Con 44%, Labour 18%. Progressives 17% would result in a huge Conservative majority.
Though the Tories were on 49% in the headline poll with the parties as now
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
FDP, (Free Democrats party) up 3.6% to 12% good news.
The FDP are not a Libertarian Party, But they are pro personal freedom and pro economic freedom so they are probably the party a German Libertarian would vote for. (Similar to D66 in the Netherlands or the ACT in New Zeeland)
So if the rise of 3.6% is typical, (and no reason to think it is) then there is a good chance that they will brake the 5%, needed limit to get back in the national parliament.
Yes, the rise is indeed typical and they should get back in:
That said, I think of them mainly a party of business, more interested in free markets than in personal liberty, unlike, say, D66. I don't mean they're authoritarians, but they're not especially big on liberalism in general. The perceived need for the party arises because the Christian Democrats, although centre-right, are a classic interventionist party, like pre-Thatcher Conservatives.
Surbiton is right to point out that the wilder fringes of PB were predicting a big AfD (=UKIP) breakthrough after Merkel's handlg of the migration crisis. In reality the AfD appears largely deflated these days, partly because of party splits and a perception of right-wing extremism (which is electoral poison in Germany for familiar reasons) but also because Merkel is perceived to have weathered the migrant issue reasonably well. Despite occasional incidents, the new arrivals seem to have settled down and are gradually being absorbed.
The new arrivals will be like the Turks were in the 60s and 70s. Germany needed young people to work and pay taxes. Many of the influx were actually middle class professional. You cannot take your family thousands of miles if you are poor !
Emily Thornberry rocks....Fallon just looks like another old man who would be much better suited sorting out his shed, much like Corbyn, McDonnell, Trump, Ellerson and the other irritating old, white men who should have sodded off years ago.....
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
I remember PB Tories here crowing in 2015 that Merkel will be gone.
Brave woman. Europe's greatest statesperson since Brandt.
The woman who destroyed Europe, the greatest political blunder in post war European politics, the worst German chancellor of all time & other such measured judgments - another dive down the rabbithole of amnesia for them.
They're all on tenterhooks to see if Macron can make a go of it, then it'll be 'he's pretty centre right really', 'never liked that Le Pen' and so on.
Many Brexit-backers laughed when Trump behaved so boorishly and ignorantly towards Merkel when she went over there. Compare and contrast with May, they said. But Merkel showed herself to be a strong, confident, highly knowledgable leader. She owned him and reaped the benefits. Schulz and the SPD were ahead or level in the polls when she made that trip.
The CDU's reversal in fortunes is due to the Trump trip?
Thought experiment: what would British politics look like today if the EU referendum had gone the other way, 52/48 to Remain?
Would Cameron still be PM? Would there already be loads of demand for a second referendum? Would UKIP still be thriving, possibly even topping the polls?
UKIP would probably be on 25% close to level pegging with the Tories and Labour rather than 5% as now
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !
Precisely what I have been predicting will happen, with "The Progressive (aargh!) Democratic Party" set to become H.M. Official Opposition in the HoC.
The vote share of such a party would be desperately inefficient, see 1983. The opposition would still be Labour I think.
It depends how many defections there were.
But a result of Con 44%, Labour 18%. Progressives 17% would result in a huge Conservative majority.
The names of all three of those parties don't represent the values that they would hold though.
I would regard myself as progressive but I doubt that a party named that way would represent my values.
The £120 I win today will be small compensation for defeat in our final game at the Lane. But it will be something.
Is your entire betting strategy based on emotional hedging?
To be honest: emotional hedging is one of the more rational approaches. Casino_Royale's friend increased his REMAIN bet by £10,000 just to win an argument. SeanT and WilliamGlenn similarly bet in the heat of debate. Compared with such willy-waving, emotional hedging seems entirely rational, although it's not as profitable as value betting.
True, but it prevented me from making a packet as the Brexit results were coming out. I largely passed up one of the greatest apparent value bets because I was wary of being double gutted and only put a small stake on.
The curse of the successful gambler: "I should have bet more"
Not really for me...after more than a decade of betting for a living (I'm not any more) I generally didn't take that attitude. One of the axioms was never bet an amount you are emotionally uncomfortable with losing (which in this case wasn't much given it would have come on top of the nation rejecting my position on the issue which had largely determined my voting pattern over the previous two decades). I wasn't thinking I should have bet more as much as thinking I know why I didn't make a packet here. That feels OK rather than a curse when you know the reasoning was solid.
I feel the same about hedging (which I did so much on Betfair that the second version of the premium charge was always going to end my full time betting days). You can think I'm gutted I hedged out, but if that's the system you know the feeling you potentially dodged (I should have hedged out and taken the profit) and fully accept it.
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !
Precisely what I have been predicting will happen, with "The Progressive (aargh!) Democratic Party" set to become H.M. Official Opposition in the HoC.
The vote share of such a party would be desperately inefficient, see 1983. The opposition would still be Labour I think.
It depends how many defections there were.
But a result of Con 44%, Labour 18%. Progressives 17% would result in a huge Conservative majority.
There was a LD at 8%. The Progressives have to absorb the Liberals and make it 25% plus attract some soft Right people from the Tories and take it to 30%.
If they cannot have clear water between them and Labour, then over time Labour will regroup like they did with Kinnock , Smith and Blair.
Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.
The Time's piece also indicated that in an austerity dominant environment, it is dawning on farmers that their subsidies might be slightly less important than say the NHS...as said, sating the bleeding obvious...
The good thing for free marketeers is that we will be able to flood our supermarkets with cheap meat from god knows where....
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !
Precisely what I have been predicting will happen, with "The Progressive (aargh!) Democratic Party" set to become H.M. Official Opposition in the HoC.
The vote share of such a party would be desperately inefficient, see 1983. The opposition would still be Labour I think.
It depends how many defections there were.
But a result of Con 44%, Labour 18%. Progressives 17% would result in a huge Conservative majority.
The names of all three of those parties don't represent the values that they would hold though.
The names of the current parties don't in any way represent the values they hold either...
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
I remember PB Tories here crowing in 2015 that Merkel will be gone.
Brave woman. Europe's greatest statesperson since Brandt.
The woman who destroyed Europe, the greatest political blunder in post war European politics, the worst German chancellor of all time & other such measured judgments - another dive down the rabbithole of amnesia for them.
They're all on tenterhooks to see if Macron can make a go of it, then it'll be 'he's pretty centre right really', 'never liked that Le Pen' and so on.
Her decision to chaotically and unilaterally invite 1m or more refugees was a grotesque error of epochal proportions, and quite possibly nudged Brexit over the line to LEAVE. So even in terms of basic EU politics she has been a disaster.
As for the long term effects on Germany, from this influx of 1m almost-unemployable young Muslim men it is, to be polite, quite hard to be optimistic.
Nonetheless German voters seem to like her, and she does have a certain gravitas, and from a Brexit British perspective she's definitely a better bet than Schulz. C'est tout.
She's made some big errors, but as a political survivor she seems barely under threat after 12 years in the top job, which has to be respected.
Yes, in the narrow terms of staying popular and getting re-elected she is certainly very successful - the most successful politician of her time. But I suspect history will be much less kind.
Without her migrant madness, for instance, I'm pretty sure Brexit wouldn't have happened.
There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
Because "no deal" will be economically crippling for us
Yet, no deal would also be crippling for them. Maybe not proportionately as bad, but bad nonetheless.
We want: * A quick deal on citizens * A comprehensive FTA * No truck with the ECJ
They want: * A deal on citizens * As much cash as possible
Definitely not a one-sided negotiation, even if you might judge one side stronger than the other.
Yes, we may well judge one side's position to be stronger than the other, Baskerville, and to illustrate I intend to organise a game of Brexit Poker at the next PB bash.
The rules will be exactly the same as for normal poker except that players who nominate themselves as EU may keep their cards close to their chest, whilst those playing as the UK will place them face up on the table before bidding begins.
Personally I intend to play on the EU side but judging from some of the comments I read on here there will be no shortage of people willing to play as the UK.
I do hope they bring plenty of money.
I don't understand the basis for your rules of Brexit Poker. Sure, the UK's red lines will be face up on the table, but so are the EU's already.
I sincerely doubt ALL the cards will be face up on the table for either side, nor that either side will give away precisely how important each of its negotiating positions really is. I also fully expect both sides to create any number of canards both to complicate the negotiations, and to create chips with which to barter.
Tim, the problem with our position is its inflexibility. We have to leave the EU come what may. They are under no similar constraint and can be as flexible or otherwise as they see fit. Moreover, we have no way of knowing what their 'walk away' position is or just how flexible they might be. We just have to test it out, as any poker player would.
They know exactly where we stand.
Our differing assessments arise from the fact that I believe that the UK is capable of walking without a deal rather than a punitive one. That being the case, we are not over a barrel. There are so many issues at stake, with different exchange rates on each of them, and such scope for arbitrage and creation of value, that I don't see a lack of issues on which to be flexible for either party.
Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.
The Time's piece also indicated that in an austerity dominant environment, it is dawning on farmers that their subsidies might be slightly less important than say the NHS...as said, sating the bleeding obvious...
The good thing for free marketeers is that we will be able to flood our supermarkets with cheap meat from god knows where....
Yup. It will teach the farmers to have voted for Brexit. No more subsidies mate !
Yes, in the narrow terms of staying popular and getting re-elected she is certainly very successful - the most successful politician of her time. But I suspect history will be much less kind.
Without her migrant madness, for instance, I'm pretty sure Brexit wouldn't have happened.
I think history will judge Frau Merkel very poorly. She inherited a golden legacy: Schroeder and Haartz had transformed the German labour market (which people forget used to be as hide-bound as the French one), and sorted out the worst of the problems in the East. Germany was (and is) the world's largest capital goods maker at the time when Chinese demand for the machines than make things were going through the rood. Policies enacted under the previous administration left Germany without debt or deficits at the time when the world went to pot.
Germany's actions made the Eurozone crisis much worse for the periphery. Mrs Merkel's stubborn insistence on running triple surpluses made it much harder for Spain, Portugal, Greece or Ireland to rebalance. Sure, with the exception of Greece, they are all on the mend now. But the process has taken four or five years longer than it might have, had Germany not insisted on "begger thy neighbour" policies.
And then there was the migrant invitations: done without any regard for any of her neighbours who would have to live with the decisions she took. (And which, of course, led to the deaths of tens of thousands in the Mediterranean.)
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !
Precisely what I have been predicting will happen, with "The Progressive (aargh!) Democratic Party" set to become H.M. Official Opposition in the HoC.
The vote share of such a party would be desperately inefficient, see 1983. The opposition would still be Labour I think.
It depends how many defections there were.
But a result of Con 44%, Labour 18%. Progressives 17% would result in a huge Conservative majority.
The names of all three of those parties don't represent the values that they would hold though.
The names of the current parties don't in any way represent the values they hold either...
Yes, indeed, that is exactly the continuation of my point. Only UKIP and the SNP have a name that accurately represents them. Calling something "Progressive" just takes that bad habit and makes it worse.
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !
Precisely what I have been predicting will happen, with "The Progressive (aargh!) Democratic Party" set to become H.M. Official Opposition in the HoC.
The vote share of such a party would be desperately inefficient, see 1983. The opposition would still be Labour I think.
It depends how many defections there were.
But a result of Con 44%, Labour 18%. Progressives 17% would result in a huge Conservative majority.
The names of all three of those parties don't represent the values that they would hold though.
I would regard myself as progressive but I doubt that a party named that way would represent my values.
I would label myself as a conservative in many ways....but don't find that much common ground with the reckless position of this Conservative party that has thrust our country into the unknown....
Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologues, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
The these days rather maligned Edward Heath was always firm in his belied that membership of the EU would strongly benefit UK agriculture. I think though you are a little unfair in assuming all farmers were brexiteers. It has been suggested to me in crude numerical terms the overall split was something like 60:40 in favour of leaving but with larger agri-businesses strongly in favour of remaining.
Anecdotes from Richmond Park (Just back from leafleting and canvassing for Sarah Olney).
Disclaimer: I have £100 @ 5/4 with William Hill that Zac will win as I've thought his chances were 75%+ because, if the turnout is similar to 2015, then there will be an extra 16,000 voters compared with the by-election and many will be stay-at-home Tories in the by-election who were upset with Zac for calling the by-election or who will only vote for a Tory (Zac stood as an independent). He could get say 10,000-11,000 of the extra 16,000 which would give him a majority of 2,000 -4,000.
However Zac is claiming "The Lib Dems will try again to portray me as a 'hard Brexiteers'. So let me counter that now. I want to make sure we get a green Brexit." So Zac could lose 2,000+ to UKIP who might not trust him. The fact that UKIP are putting up a candidate against him this time illustrates this distrust. (They didn't put up a candidate in the by-election). So a majority of 1-2,000.
Back to my anecdotes. I'm looking for LibDem negatives to support my backing of Zac. But I've found none. A woman " I voted for Zac in the by-election but I really like Sarah." A man "Zac has blown it. I voted for him but not this time." Mothers at gate of St Pauls Prep school (Zac chats up the mums at school gates) barracking him. In my canvassing, no switch back to Zac is detectable. Smiles at doorsteps as I deliver leaflets with Sarah's photo on it. Odds on Sarah shortening on Oddschecker. Ladbrokes restricting bets on her to £60 (I've been trying to lay off my bet on Zac).
So, for what it's worth, I think the LibDem chance in Richmond Park is now about evens with the momentum running towards Sarah.
Good to hear. The Tories need Zac back like they need a hole in the head...
Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.
The Time's piece also indicated that in an austerity dominant environment, it is dawning on farmers that their subsidies might be slightly less important than say the NHS...as said, sating the bleeding obvious...
The good thing for free marketeers is that we will be able to flood our supermarkets with cheap meat from god knows where....
Argentina, New Zealand and Australia. Looking forward to it.
Oh! And I nearly forgot the bleached chickens from the US.
Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.
The Time's piece also indicated that in an austerity dominant environment, it is dawning on farmers that their subsidies might be slightly less important than say the NHS...as said, sating the bleeding obvious...
The good thing for free marketeers is that we will be able to flood our supermarkets with cheap meat from god knows where....
Yup. It will teach the farmers to have voted for Brexit. No more subsidies mate !
Apart from my afternoon rant here today, I've given up talking with Brexit fuckwits...they're just ideological morons (same Corbynites). I get more intellectual stimulation discussing metaphysics with Trotsky my dog....
Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.
If Brexit goes badly, I imagine all Government subsidies will come under pressure, because the Government will be skint.
There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth Peter, the Tories are incompetent lying toerags.
Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.
The Time's piece also indicated that in an austerity dominant environment, it is dawning on farmers that their subsidies might be slightly less important than say the NHS...as said, sating the bleeding obvious...
The good thing for free marketeers is that we will be able to flood our supermarkets with cheap meat from god knows where....
Yup. It will teach the farmers to have voted for Brexit. No more subsidies mate !
Ending the handouts for environmentally destructive farming practices was one of the reasons I voted Leave. Plus a desire to screw over all of those farmers who erect huge Vote Conservative placards in their fields.
Our differing assessments arise from the fact that I believe that the UK is capable of walking without a deal rather than a punitive one. That being the case, we are not over a barrel. There are so many issues at stake, with different exchange rates on each of them, and such scope for arbitrage and creation of value, that I don't see a lack of issues on which to be flexible for either party.
The UK should walk away from any deal it does not see as fair. Yes, it will cause meaningful near-term economic damage (and probably won't do much good for the popularity of the government), but you simply cannot go into any negotiation with the attitude that you have to get a deal.
Now, I am not one of those people that think we'll get away without being responsible for any payments down the line. I suspect UK civil servants who ended up in Strasbourg would have an excellent case against the UK government under TUPE legislation if we tried to walk and leave them without pensions.
But that's another story altogether. It is politically impossible for the UK government to walk away with a cash payment of more than (making up numbers here...) two years gross payments.
Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologues, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
When it comes to "morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice" I am afraid you are probably the perfect example.
Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.
The Time's piece also indicated that in an austerity dominant environment, it is dawning on farmers that their subsidies might be slightly less important than say the NHS...as said, sating the bleeding obvious...
The good thing for free marketeers is that we will be able to flood our supermarkets with cheap meat from god knows where....
Argentina, New Zealand and Australia. Looking forward to it.
Oh! And I nearly forgot the bleached chickens from the US.
If people given a free chose decide to by a good, any good, including bleached chickens, that then demonstrates that is there preferred option, and to stop then buying it is wrong IMO.
You may not like Bleached chickens, I may not like bleached chickens but we do not have the right to stop others buying bleached chickens.
Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologues, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
Wotcha, Tyson, That Times piece could be more accurately written as, "London based journalists have just woken up to the fact that there is a rural economy which produces about 60% of our food and it will be affected by us leaving the EU". The farmers have been talking about this for months and months. Oh, and by the way most farmers that I know or talk to on line were Remainers. The are now looking at how to make leaving work, for themselves, their business, the landscape and the Country as a whole.
We could go the New Zealand route, but I doubt if we will. For two reasons: firstly it has produced some silly effects in NZ (local produce priced beyond the reach of locals, animal welfare standards have been slashed below what would be acceptable in the UK to name but two). Secondly, imagine what the upland areas would look like ten years after the farmers were driven off the land. I therefore expect that some financial assistance will continue to be given to farmers but probably on a more eco-friendly basis than that mandated by the EU.
On the subject of slaughtering wildlife, how are you getting on with you Magpie problem? Have you bought an air-rifle yet or taken any steps to stop the buggers killing off your young song-birds?
It's A N Wilson, he's always suffered from being one stick short of the proverbial bundle.
My favourite Wilsonism was when he launched a campaign to get a bust of Matthew Arnold put into Poet's Corner in Westminster Abbey. He'd launched several nasty personal attacks on the Abbey and its staff and raised quite a lot of money before the Dean asked him if he'd not noticed that there had been a bust of Arnold in the Abbey since 1891.
Comments
Would Cameron still be PM? Who would've been his successor? Would there already be loads of demand for a second referendum? Would UKIP still be thriving, possibly even topping the polls?
I would regard myself as progressive but I doubt that a party named that way would represent my values.
I feel the same about hedging (which I did so much on Betfair that the second version of the premium charge was always going to end my full time betting days). You can think I'm gutted I hedged out, but if that's the system you know the feeling you potentially dodged (I should have hedged out and taken the profit) and fully accept it.
If they cannot have clear water between them and Labour, then over time Labour will regroup like they did with Kinnock , Smith and Blair.
The good thing for free marketeers is that we will be able to flood our supermarkets with cheap meat from god knows where....
https://twitter.com/chrissyohuruogu/status/863789677026971650
Fair play to the English Tories, at least they've suspended him. The Scotch sub branch begs their bad choices not to resign.
Germany's actions made the Eurozone crisis much worse for the periphery. Mrs Merkel's stubborn insistence on running triple surpluses made it much harder for Spain, Portugal, Greece or Ireland to rebalance. Sure, with the exception of Greece, they are all on the mend now. But the process has taken four or five years longer than it might have, had Germany not insisted on "begger thy neighbour" policies.
And then there was the migrant invitations: done without any regard for any of her neighbours who would have to live with the decisions she took. (And which, of course, led to the deaths of tens of thousands in the Mediterranean.)
Oh! And I nearly forgot the bleached chickens from the US.
Now, I am not one of those people that think we'll get away without being responsible for any payments down the line. I suspect UK civil servants who ended up in Strasbourg would have an excellent case against the UK government under TUPE legislation if we tried to walk and leave them without pensions.
But that's another story altogether. It is politically impossible for the UK government to walk away with a cash payment of more than (making up numbers here...) two years gross payments.
NEW THREAD
You may not like Bleached chickens, I may not like bleached chickens but we do not have the right to stop others buying bleached chickens.
https://twitter.com/RossMcCaff/status/863386703003832320
We could go the New Zealand route, but I doubt if we will. For two reasons: firstly it has produced some silly effects in NZ (local produce priced beyond the reach of locals, animal welfare standards have been slashed below what would be acceptable in the UK to name but two). Secondly, imagine what the upland areas would look like ten years after the farmers were driven off the land. I therefore expect that some financial assistance will continue to be given to farmers but probably on a more eco-friendly basis than that mandated by the EU.
On the subject of slaughtering wildlife, how are you getting on with you Magpie problem? Have you bought an air-rifle yet or taken any steps to stop the buggers killing off your young song-birds?
[blushes]
My favourite Wilsonism was when he launched a campaign to get a bust of Matthew Arnold put into Poet's Corner in Westminster Abbey. He'd launched several nasty personal attacks on the Abbey and its staff and raised quite a lot of money before the Dean asked him if he'd not noticed that there had been a bust of Arnold in the Abbey since 1891.
You'll be telling us the LMS was your favourite of the Big Four next.