Okay, I can imagine some Labour people who might be willing to jump ship, but would anyone on here put down any money on a Tory MP crossing the floor to join with them?
There's always one.
Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler defected to the SDP.
The original TPD?
Nah. that was Sir Winston Churchill, he ratted not once, but twice.
F*cking hate rats.
That is because you are a classic case of putting party before principles. Something you have unfortunately exhibited far too often on these pages.
That means a lot from someone who was willing the share the same cesspit as Nigel Farage for so long.
Nope. Wrong again. I was happy to use UKIP to achieve one speficic aim which was to leave the EU. As soon as that aim was achieved I left and hope they will sink into obscurity and failure. Principles before party you see. Something you clearly have no understanding of.
Churchill rightly said that he did not leave the party, the party left him. He was a man of principle even if one did not always agree with what he stood for. You stand for nothing except seeing your party in power. In that you are the exact opposite of someone like SouthamObserver.
You enabled and legitimised people like Nigel Farage and Arron Banks, I'm not sure I could live with that.
It is clear you can, which speaks volumes about you.
Speaking as a Corbyn fan I can tell you that demonising your opponents and their supporters does nothing you want it to. I realise you just doing this to one other poster doesn't make a difference but everyone seems to make no effort to understand their opponents but instead dismiss and label them and then they wonder why nobody* listens to them.
*Nobody outside of the group they haven't dismissed.
In the end you stop caring about what the person complaining actually wants, they don't care about your concerns so it is more important to beat them and get past your opponent.
Edit: Although I should say you are definitely not the worst for it and I had to pick a non Corbyn bashing post to make the point.
IME (in and around NYC mostly) chicken is no better or worse than in the UK. Beef is much better than in the UK (it’s far more likely to be grass-fed here) and pork (as pork, rather than bacon or other processed pork) is generally better or as good as here too. Lamb, when you can find it, is much worse.
Really? I love lamb, but if it is a pale imitation of the good stuff, I wonder what I have beenmissing.
The lamb from my Devon village has been famously good since the Domesday book....
IME (in and around NYC mostly) chicken is no better or worse than in the UK. Beef is much better than in the UK (it’s far more likely to be grass-fed here) and pork (as pork, rather than bacon or other processed pork) is generally better or as good as here too. Lamb, when you can find it, is much worse. Fish is generally poor unless you can find a supplier who lands it as close possible to where you are: we have a supplier at our farmer’s market who lands it in Long Island Sound so its generally good, but we don’t buy fish from our local supermarkets now after getting literally rotten or wormy cuts.
Vegetables, greengrocer produce, around the city is pretty poor for the most part, but this may be due to location as when we’ve bought groceries around my wife’s home town in Rhode Island it’s been better.
In general I’d say the quality of food in the UK is higher.
And that's before you get onto the rubbery cheese, funny milk, sour chocolate, and general scarcity of decent fresh healthy restaurant food once you get away from either coast.
Try eating a Ginsters pastie and living. .
You'll live. You won't live well, but you'll live.
Okay, I can imagine some Labour people who might be willing to jump ship, but would anyone on here put down any money on a Tory MP crossing the floor to join with them?
There's always one.
Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler defected to the SDP.
The original TPD?
Nah. that was Sir Winston Churchill, he ratted not once, but twice.
F*cking hate rats.
That is because you are a classic case of putting party before principles. Something you have unfortunately exhibited far too often on these pages.
That means a lot from someone who was willing the share the same cesspit as Nigel Farage for so long.
Nope. Wrong again. I was happy to use UKIP to achieve one speficic aim which was to leave the EU. As soon as that aim was achieved I left and hope they will sink into obscurity and failure. Principles before party you see. Something you clearly have no understanding of.
Churchill rightly said that he did not leave the party, the party left him. He was a man of principle even if one did not always agree with what he stood for. You stand for nothing except seeing your party in power. In that you are the exact opposite of someone like SouthamObserver.
You enabled and legitimised people like Nigel Farage and Arron Banks, I'm not sure I could live with that.
It is clear you can, which speaks volumes about you.
If you thought the referendum was about personality it’s no surprise you can’t get over it.
Despite the wide range of political views here, we're all students of British elections and (hopefully) how to make money from reading the signs. There's no support for this mythical centrist party in the polling. 56% of the public believe that none of the existing parties represent them but that's going to cover a massive range of opinion and any real party with real policies won't be able to appeal to all or even most of them. What is this mythical centrist party going to offer that the Lib Dems aren't already offering?
It's not fear about the duopoly, it's incredulity, but if they want to waste £50m then it'll be interesting to watch.
More than 2/3 of the original members of the SDP hadn't been in any political party before. Don't estimate the appeal of any alternative to disillusioned ex-Conservatives, ex-Labour and even ex-LD supporters.
I wasn't around when the SDP was formed, but it feels like in the current climate the first question anyone wanting to support a new party would ask is, 'who did the members of it used to belong to?' Since there would be high profile people backing it (otherwise it really would go nowhere), I am sure concerns would immediately arise if there were too many former Tories, or Labour figures, or LDs, or whoever, and that would put a lot of people off. It seems to me that the disillusioned ex-somethings sometimes seem just as reluctant to break bread with anyone on the other side as those who still a part of it.
And of course some end up returning to the fold.
Blair signing up to a new party would be toxic to that party's chance of getting off the runway.
Osborne to a lesser degree.
Cameron would be a plus. But I think he is a Tory til the day he dies.
IME (in and around NYC mostly) chicken is no better or worse than in the UK. Beef is much better than in the UK (it’s far more likely to be grass-fed here) and pork (as pork, rather than bacon or other processed pork) is generally better or as good as here too. Lamb, when you can find it, is much worse. Fish is generally poor unless you can find a supplier who lands it as close possible to where you are: we have a supplier at our farmer’s market who lands it in Long Island Sound so its generally good, but we don’t buy fish from our local supermarkets now after getting literally rotten or wormy cuts.
Vegetables, greengrocer produce, around the city is pretty poor for the most part, but this may be due to location as when we’ve bought groceries around my wife’s home town in Rhode Island it’s been better.
In general I’d say the quality of food in the UK is higher.
And that's before you get onto the rubbery cheese, funny milk, sour chocolate, and general scarcity of decent fresh healthy restaurant food once you get away from either coast.
Try eating a Ginsters pastie and living. .
You'll live. You won't live well, but you'll live.
Actually I like their pasties.
Every time i return to the UK, I always try to make sure I get a Greggs steak bake.
Okay, I can imagine some Labour people who might be willing to jump ship, but would anyone on here put down any money on a Tory MP crossing the floor to join with them?
There's always one.
Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler defected to the SDP.
The original TPD?
Nah. that was Sir Winston Churchill, he ratted not once, but twice.
F*cking hate rats.
That is because you are a classic case of putting party before principles. Something you have unfortunately exhibited far too often on these pages.
That means a lot from someone who was willing the share the same cesspit as Nigel Farage for so long.
Nope. Wrong again. I was happy to use UKIP to achieve one speficic aim which was to leave the EU. As soon as that aim was achieved I left and hope they will sink into obscurity and failure. Principles before party you see. Something you clearly have no understanding of.
Churchill rightly said that he did not leave the party, the party left him. He was a man of principle even if one did not always agree with what he stood for. You stand for nothing except seeing your party in power. In that you are the exact opposite of someone like SouthamObserver.
You enabled and legitimised people like Nigel Farage and Arron Banks, I'm not sure I could live with that.
It is clear you can, which speaks volumes about you.
Speaking as a Corbyn fan I can tell you that demonising your opponents and their supporters does nothing you want it to. I realise you just doing this to one other poster doesn't make a difference but everyone seems to make no effort to understand their opponents but instead dismiss and label them and then they wonder why nobody* listens to them.
*Nobody outside of the group they haven't dismissed.
In the end you stop caring about what the person complaining actually wants, they don't care about your concerns so it is more important to beat them and get past your opponent.
So what you're saying is Corbynites and Leavers are two cheeks of the same arse. I agree.
Both blame a minority for the ills of the country and offering an economically illiterate solution to these problems they've identified that are caused be a global elite.
IME (in and around NYC mostly) chicken is no better or worse than in the UK. Beef is much better than in the UK (it’s far more likely to be grass-fed here) and pork (as pork, rather than bacon or other processed pork) is generally better or as good as here too. Lamb, when you can find it, is much worse. Fish is generally poor unless you can find a supplier who lands it as close possible to where you are: we have a supplier at our farmer’s market who lands it in Long Island Sound so its generally good, but we don’t buy fish from our local supermarkets now after getting literally rotten or wormy cuts.
Vegetables, greengrocer produce, around the city is pretty poor for the most part, but this may be due to location as when we’ve bought groceries around my wife’s home town in Rhode Island it’s been better.
In general I’d say the quality of food in the UK is higher.
And that's before you get onto the rubbery cheese, funny milk, sour chocolate, and general scarcity of decent fresh healthy restaurant food once you get away from either coast.
Try eating a Ginsters pastie and living. .
You'll live. You won't live well, but you'll live.
Actually I like their pasties.
Every time i return to the UK, I always try to make sure I get a Greggs steak bake.
Trump Tower fire is a “three-alarm” fire. According to Wikipedia, that would mean about twenty appliances attending. FDNY “alarms” range from one to five.
May well be another stabbing attack in London this evening. There are some serious tools that could be brought to bear effectively against what appears to be youth gang driven trouble, yet it would cause all sorts of people all kinds of upset.
There appears also to have been a rather successful chemical weapons attack by the government in Syria today. Claims of such attacks are two a penny and frequent use of Chlorine based weapons has been a fairly regular feature of the conflict in the last 3 to 4 years. If this one is verified, however, its rather sizeable in its casualties. Bear in mind the US administration was in debate a few weeks ago about a possible missile strike on the back of other chemical attacks.
That is because you are a classic case of putting party before principles. Something you have unfortunately exhibited far too often on these pages.
That means a lot from someone who was willing the share the same cesspit as Nigel Farage for so long.
Nope. Wrong again. I was happy to use UKIP to achieve one speficic aim which was to leave the EU. As soon as that aim was achieved I left and hope they will sink into obscurity and failure. Principles before party you see. Something you clearly have no understanding of.
Churchill rightly said that he did not leave the party, the party left him. He was a man of principle even if one did not always agree with what he stood for. You stand for nothing except seeing your party in power. In that you are the exact opposite of someone like SouthamObserver.
You enabled and legitimised people like Nigel Farage and Arron Banks, I'm not sure I could live with that.
It is clear you can, which speaks volumes about you.
Speaking as a Corbyn fan I can tell you that demonising your opponents and their supporters does nothing you want it to. I realise you just doing this to one other poster doesn't make a difference but everyone seems to make no effort to understand their opponents but instead dismiss and label them and then they wonder why nobody* listens to them.
*Nobody outside of the group they haven't dismissed.
In the end you stop caring about what the person complaining actually wants, they don't care about your concerns so it is more important to beat them and get past your opponent.
So what you're saying is Corbynites and Leavers are two cheeks of the same arse. I agree.
Both blame a minority for the ills of the country and offering an economically illiterate solution to these problems they've identified that are caused be a global elite.
So in response to a post where I point out demonising your opponents is counter productive you chose to insult (or attempt to insult) your opponents...
I think until self styled moderates in each party realise that they have to fight for or earn power rather than have it granted to them on the basis of it being blindingly obvious they are superior to their opponents they are going to struggle.
Until something is tangible of course it is easy to mock. Until something has substance it doesn't need to be taken that seriously. When it does, people can reassess.
It's a nonrandom sample taken from an unrepresentative sample frame, weighted to be approximately representative, (possibly) adjusted by a turnout model which may or may not be accurate, and distributed to people who don't care if it's accurate and won't fire the pollster if it isn't.
So it's no better or worse than the others...
However it's not a voodoo poll, if that's what you're asking.
Until something is tangible of course it is easy to mock. Until something has substance it doesn't need to be taken that seriously. When it does, people can reassess.
Night all
It was clearly enough to rattle the shadow Chancellor. Attacking it as the party of the few when it wants to raise taxes on the rich.
Until something is tangible of course it is easy to mock. Until something has substance it doesn't need to be taken that seriously. When it does, people can reassess.
Night all
It was clearly enough to rattle the shadow Chancellor. Attacking it as the party of the few when it wants to raise taxes on the rich.
That he attacked it, even incorrectly, does not necessarily mean he was rattled by it. It seems just as plausible he scanned the story, interpreted it in his own way like most of us, and dismissed it through his own worldview (presumably a part of which is since Labour is the party of the many, any one else is automatically for the few), and being rattled didn't enter in to the equation.
Every polling firm has the Tories ahead apart from Survation's poll from a month ago. It would be nice to see another poll from them because they are of course the new gold standard.
It's a nonrandom sample taken from an unrepresentative sample frame, weighted to be approximately representative, (possibly) adjusted by a turnout model which may or may not be accurate, and distributed to people who don't care if it's accurate and won't fire the pollster if it isn't.
So it's no better or worse than the others...
However it's not a voodoo poll, if that's what you're asking.
I was wondering whether it might qualify as voodoo so thanks for clearing up the fact that it isn't.
Despite the wide range of political views here, we're all students of British elections and (hopefully) how to make money from reading the signs. There's no support for this mythical centrist party in the polling. 56% of the public believe that none of the existing parties represent them but that's going to cover a massive range of opinion and any real party with real policies won't be able to appeal to all or even most of them. What is this mythical centrist party going to offer that the Lib Dems aren't already offering?
It's not fear about the duopoly, it's incredulity, but if they want to waste £50m then it'll be interesting to watch.
More than 2/3 of the original members of the SDP hadn't been in any political party before. Don't estimate the appeal of any alternative to disillusioned ex-Conservatives, ex-Labour and even ex-LD supporters.
I wasn't around when the SDP was formed, but it feels like in the current climate the first question anyone wanting to support a new party would ask is, 'who did the members of it used to belong to?' Since there would be high profile people backing it (otherwise it really would go nowhere), I am sure concerns would immediately arise if there were too many former Tories, or Labour figures, or LDs, or whoever, and that would put a lot of people off. It seems to me that the disillusioned ex-somethings sometimes seem just as reluctant to break bread with anyone on the other side as those who still a part of it.
And of course some end up returning to the fold.
Blair signing up to a new party would be toxic to that party's chance of getting off the runway.
Osborne to a lesser degree.
Cameron would be a plus. But I think he is a Tory til the day he dies.
Cameron may be many things but he is a Conservative loyalist to his core.
This seems silly but the mention of chlorinated chicken might make people think that their roasts will suddenly smell like a swimming pool. It's something that Britain should accept if we can get a good trade deal and once it's happening people will wonder what the fuss was about.
It's not as easy as that. Leaving aside the fact that you haven't defined what a "good" trade deal is, it puts British farmers in a bind. If US can supply cheap food that meets standards A to the UK, then to compete UK farmers will have to lower their standards to A. But if they lower their standards to A, then they lose their European markets which require the higher standards B. Either way, UK farmers lose. I think it was @NickPalmer of this parish who wrote an article some time ago pointing this out: perhaps he could furnish you with a link
Chlorinated chicken isn't on it's own lower standards. The argument is that chlorination is something that covers up contamination earlier in the supply chain but on it's own I can't see the problem with it.
I don't think that the American farmers would dispute that the chlorination was to deal with the infections and other problems from their often (not always) extremely intensive farming - they would argue that it works, so what's the problem? The case against is that (a) very intensive farming has lots of other problems, such as overuse of antibiotics (because otherwise an infection can rip through a huge flock) (b) the idea that it's OK to have infections so long as you chlorinate them away in the end feels unsafe (25% of American report gastric problems each year) and (c) it's pretty self-evidently bad on welfare grounds.
Chlorination per se is not thought to be a problem, and I'll drink chlorinated water without a qualm. But it's a marker for these other issues, and as viewcode says it would undermine British farming dramatically in either of the two ways that he describes. (It's my day job, so can link to details if you like.)
Every polling firm has the Tories ahead apart from Survation's poll from a month ago. It would be nice to see another poll from them because they are of course the new gold standard.
What we have learnt in recent years is the fact that a particular pollster did best at the most recent General Election is no guide to how well they are doing in the current Parliament. T In the run up to the last election a good deal of attention was paid to ComRes polls which had been the most accurate in 2015. In fact last June they came out with a double-digit lead for the Conservatives and was the second worst in terms of overstating the Conservative lead
It's a nonrandom sample taken from an unrepresentative sample frame, weighted to be approximately representative, (possibly) adjusted by a turnout model which may or may not be accurate, and distributed to people who don't care if it's accurate and won't fire the pollster if it isn't.
So it's no better or worse than the others...
However it's not a voodoo poll, if that's what you're asking.
I was wondering whether it might qualify as voodoo so thanks for clearing up the fact that it isn't.
No, it isn't voodoo. "Voodoo" is a term used to describe self-selecting responses: the person seeks out the poll and the responses aren't representative. Instead, NCPolitics use a technique similar to SurveyMonkey's: they place popup polls on other websites and use that as their sample frame. it's a practical technique rather that one garnished by theory, and you could say that if the viewership of the "other websites" is broadly representative then it works out, but it triggers my pedant gene something chronic.
However, there is no change in how Scots would vote in a second independence referendum since the last Panelbase poll, with 43% for “yes” and 57% for “no”.
A total of 58% do not want one in the next few years, while 17% favour a new referendum while the UK is negotiating to leave the EU and 25% want one when the UK has finished negotiating to leave the EU.
Fewer expect Scotland to become independent than at any time since the May 2015 UK election. The poll finds 27% (-2%) expect Scotland to become independent within the next five to ten years, while 19% (-1%) think it will happen but not for at least 10 or 15 years. A further 11% (+1%) expect it, but not for at least 20 or 30 years, and 30% (-2%) do not expect independence at any point in the next few decades.
Incidentally, I'm banging on about the NCPolitics poll, but it's just my opinion backed up by some speedreading. Can somebody backstop me, check to make sure I'm right? I'd hate to mislead.
Some younger voters who seemed to swing to Labour last June seem willing to back Labour at Westminster, but not Holyrood, with 11% who voted Labour in 2017 saying they would vote SNP in a Holyrood election, whereas only 1% would make that switch in a Westminster contest.
“Support remains high enough for the independence flame still to be burning, but not strongly enough for the SNP to contemplate another ballot any time soon,”
Scottish attitudes to Brexit show little sign of change, with 63% saying they would vote for the UK to remain in the EU compared with 37% who support withdrawal — almost unchanged from the 62% against 38% result in 2016.
It's a nonrandom sample taken from an unrepresentative sample frame, weighted to be approximately representative, (possibly) adjusted by a turnout model which may or may not be accurate, and distributed to people who don't care if it's accurate and won't fire the pollster if it isn't.
So it's no better or worse than the others...
However it's not a voodoo poll, if that's what you're asking.
A bit old given that the poll was conducted over such a long period.
Some younger voters who seemed to swing to Labour last June seem willing to back Labour at Westminster, but not Holyrood, with 11% who voted Labour in 2017 saying they would vote SNP in a Holyrood election, whereas only 1% would make that switch in a Westminster contest.
It is sort of my hope that we can make an argument to those that do support independence of Labour for Westminster and SNP for Holyrod. Those that are left wing and support the SNP anyway. Delicate balance between that and keeping the general Labour unionist vote on side, much easier to be on one side or the other strongly supporting one outcome.
I don't think it's a format issue, rather the server which stored the recording no longer exists. All you download is a pointer telling the audio player where to look for the file.
Theresa May is going to lead the Tories into the 2022 election and win an overall majority.
What’s the best way for me to bet on that outcome?
No bookie is offering the full spectrum on that AFAIK, your best bet is probably:
1. 'Theresa May Exit Date 2' on Betfair Exchange, some money at 6/1 or so for 2022 or later; or 2. Tweet at William Hill, Ladbrokes, Betfred, and PaddyPower requesting odds. They all offer this (RequestABet, or PickYourPunt, the name varies).
Good luck. For what it's worth, I have some bets on May surviving to 2022 which I'm happy with.
I can't really see the Tories going for that, although it would take away some of Jezza's steam, I think he could keep the momentum going on different policies to knock the Tories off track anyway.
I tried with VLC player, and it complains that it cannot connect to rtsp://rmv8.bbc.net.uk/radio4..., implying that the server is no longer online.
I clicked on the bit saying "Listen to this item" and it gave me the file 2002_44_thu_01.ram . Did you do that?
Yep, but the file doesn't contain any sound.
In many cases, web pages do not link directly to a RealAudio file. Instead, they link to a .ram (Real Audio Metadata) or SMIL file. This is a small text file containing a link to the audio stream. When a user clicks on such a link, the user's web browser downloads the .ram or .smil file and launches the user's media player. The media player reads the PNM or RTSP URL from the file and then plays the stream.[5]
You were mostly right! I'm kinda surprised that the server is no longer online. You'd have thought of all institutions that the BBC would be keen on archiving everything.
I can't really see the Tories going for that, although it would take away some of Jezza's steam,
Why not? It electorally cost free as there isn't a single tory voter in the country who will switch their vote over this policy. It'll cost a fortune and probably won't work but who gives a fuck? We're in the realm of post-facts politics now and May is now tribbing herself on the trunk of magic money tree for Brexit, DUP, etc. anyway.
I can't really see the Tories going for that, although it would take away some of Jezza's steam,
Why not? It electorally cost free as there isn't a single tory voter in the country who will switch their vote over this policy. It'll cost a fortune and probably won't work but who gives a fuck? We're in the realm of post-facts politics now and May is now tribbing herself on the trunk of magic money tree for Brexit, DUP, etc. anyway.
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought that would have been a bit of an ideological hurdle for them, not that the Tories can't be pragmatic but nationalisation especially that promoted by Corbyn sounds like a bitter pill to swallow.
Edit: Pragmatic in a vote winning sense
You are right about it probably being beneficial in electoral terms, although I do wonder how many could maybe abstain from voting Conservative due to this as part of other grievances they have, as opposed how many it would attract over from Labour, again as a part of other offers.
This seems silly but the mention of chlorinated chicken might make people think that their roasts will suddenly smell like a swimming pool. It's something that Britain should accept if we can get a good trade deal and once it's happening people will wonder what the fuss was about.
It's not as easy as that. Leaving aside the fact that you haven't defined what a "good" trade deal is, it puts British farmers in a bind. If US can supply cheap food that meets standards A to the UK, then to compete UK farmers will have to lower their standards to A. But if they lower their standards to A, then they lose their European markets which require the higher standards B. Either way, UK farmers lose. I think it was @NickPalmer of this parish who wrote an article some time ago pointing this out: perhaps he could furnish you with a link
Chlorinated chicken isn't on it's own lower standards. The argument is that chlorination is something that covers up contamination earlier in the supply chain but on it's own I can't see the problem with it.
That's absolutely correct.
However, if you read the new Trump policy on free trade deals - it's a 500 page report published here - you'll see that this is not about chlorinated chicken.
The US policy is that a host of things that we regard dear are non tariff barriers. So, a compulsory requirement to label GM crops would constitute a non-tariff barrier, and would not be allowed. (Forget us saying no GM crops to be sold in the UK; we wouldn't even be allowed to label products containing GM crops as such.)
We left the EU to increase our sovereignty, not to sell it out at the first available opportunity.
Comments
*Nobody outside of the group they haven't dismissed.
In the end you stop caring about what the person complaining actually wants, they don't care about your concerns so it is more important to beat them and get past your opponent.
Edit: Although I should say you are definitely not the worst for it and I had to pick a non Corbyn bashing post to make the point.
Actually I like their pasties.
For most voters it wasn’t.
Osborne to a lesser degree.
Cameron would be a plus. But I think he is a Tory til the day he dies.
https://twitter.com/johnmooneyst/status/982749617363259392?s=21
Both blame a minority for the ills of the country and offering an economically illiterate solution to these problems they've identified that are caused be a global elite.
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/982723687353810944?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://vote-2012.proboards.com/posts/recent&tfw_site=proboards
There appears also to have been a rather successful chemical weapons attack by the government in Syria today. Claims of such attacks are two a penny and frequent use of Chlorine based weapons has been a fairly regular feature of the conflict in the last 3 to 4 years. If this one is verified, however, its rather sizeable in its casualties. Bear in mind the US administration was in debate a few weeks ago about a possible missile strike on the back of other chemical attacks.
I think until self styled moderates in each party realise that they have to fight for or earn power rather than have it granted to them on the basis of it being blindingly obvious they are superior to their opponents they are going to struggle.
Night all
So it's no better or worse than the others...
However it's not a voodoo poll, if that's what you're asking.
Exactly what she deserves for doing the right thing after Brexit, and facing down massive establishment opposition. Kudos Mrs May.
Chlorination per se is not thought to be a problem, and I'll drink chlorinated water without a qualm. But it's a marker for these other issues, and as viewcode says it would undermine British farming dramatically in either of the two ways that he describes. (It's my day job, so can link to details if you like.)
In the run up to the last election a good deal of attention was paid to ComRes polls which had been the most accurate in 2015. In fact last June they came out with a double-digit lead for the Conservatives and was the second worst in terms of overstating the Conservative lead
https://www.ncpolitics.uk/2018/04/we-did-a-poll-heres-why-and-what-we-found.html/
Westminster (changes since September)
SNP 36% (-5%)
Con 28% (+1%)
Lab 27% (+3%),
Lib Dems 6% (nc)
Greens 2%(nc)
Seats: Conservative 13 (no change), Labour 13 (+6), Lib Dem 4 (no change) and SNP 29 (-6).
A total of 58% do not want one in the next few years, while 17% favour a new referendum while the UK is negotiating to leave the EU and 25% want one when the UK has finished negotiating to leave the EU.
Edit: also: *mini klaxon*
SNP 40% (-2%),
Con 28% (nc)
Lab 22% (nc)
LD 6% (nc)
Greens 3% (+1)
Some younger voters who seemed to swing to Labour last June seem willing to back Labour at Westminster, but not Holyrood, with 11% who voted Labour in 2017 saying they would vote SNP in a Holyrood election, whereas only 1% would make that switch in a Westminster contest.
“Support remains high enough for the independence flame still to be burning, but not strongly enough for the SNP to contemplate another ballot any time soon,”
Scottish attitudes to Brexit show little sign of change, with 63% saying they would vote for the UK to remain in the EU compared with 37% who support withdrawal — almost unchanged from the 62% against 38% result in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2017/results/scotland
Wanted to listen to this interview with Sean Thomas from 2002 but the format doesn't seem to work:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2002_44_thu_01.shtml
1. 'Theresa May Exit Date 2' on Betfair Exchange, some money at 6/1 or so for 2022 or later; or
2. Tweet at William Hill, Ladbrokes, Betfred, and PaddyPower requesting odds. They all offer this (RequestABet, or PickYourPunt, the name varies).
Good luck. For what it's worth, I have some bets on May surviving to 2022 which I'm happy with.
Click on the bit saying "Listen to this item"
Download the .ram file containing the item
Go to http://www.real.com/uk
Download RealPlayer
Use RealPlayer to listen to the .ram file
@Dura_Ace (on nationalisting railways)
I can't really see the Tories going for that, although it would take away some of Jezza's steam, I think he could keep the momentum going on different policies to knock the Tories off track anyway.
It is an interesting suggestion though
In many cases, web pages do not link directly to a RealAudio file. Instead, they link to a .ram (Real Audio Metadata) or SMIL file. This is a small text file containing a link to the audio stream. When a user clicks on such a link, the user's web browser downloads the .ram or .smil file and launches the user's media player. The media player reads the PNM or RTSP URL from the file and then plays the stream.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealAudio
Edit: Pragmatic in a vote winning sense
You are right about it probably being beneficial in electoral terms, although I do wonder how many could maybe abstain from voting Conservative due to this as part of other grievances they have, as opposed how many it would attract over from Labour, again as a part of other offers.
However, if you read the new Trump policy on free trade deals - it's a 500 page report published here - you'll see that this is not about chlorinated chicken.
The US policy is that a host of things that we regard dear are non tariff barriers. So, a compulsory requirement to label GM crops would constitute a non-tariff barrier, and would not be allowed. (Forget us saying no GM crops to be sold in the UK; we wouldn't even be allowed to label products containing GM crops as such.)
We left the EU to increase our sovereignty, not to sell it out at the first available opportunity.