politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s Ipsos MORI satisfaction ratings drop to lowest point

SystemSystem Posts: 11,685
edited April 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s Ipsos MORI satisfaction ratings drop to lowest point since GE2017

LDs up 4% to 10% with @IpsosMORI – their highest share in any poll since GE2017 pic.twitter.com/YysjQCFjhn

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    edited April 2018
    Firstly....
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    edited April 2018
    ... and secondly, the polling was done before much of the recent kerfuffle, so we don't know whether, or how much that might have impacted Mrs. May's approval ratings.
    Though Jezza does seem to be experiencing a deserved downdraft.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Corbyn is toxic to all but communist headbangers and blind party loyalists who would support Ken Livingstone if he was leader.

    Lucky for him there are a few of those out there.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    It's worth noting, mind, that the government is less popular than Jeremy Corbyn.
  • Options
    BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    Governments are unpopular, Alaistair.

    The key graph may well be:

    https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ipsosmoripoliticalmonitorapril2018-180430110008/95/ipsos-mori-political-monitor-april-2018-10-638.jpg?cb=1525086076

    Even at his best, his absolute best, Corbyn - as befits an election loser - was not net popular, and he's starting to head back down to the levels of Ed Miliband, IDS and Kinnock.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,997
    Vince on -7 as well. Maybe, just maybe, the tide’s turning.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to make a televised speech this evening to reveal 'dramatic news' about Iran, his office said today.

    Netanyahu has called a special meeting of his Security Cabinet before he is set to speak on a 'significant development' on the Iran nuclear deal.

    His speech follows the visit by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo yesterday, during which the pair discussed Iran and the accord.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5674503/Israeli-PM-Netanyahu-says-reveal-dramatic-news-Iran-nuclear-deal.html

    Just off to check on the nuclear bomb shelter at the end of the garden...
  • Options
    BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    So, on the governments are unpopular line, ipsos have helpfully asked the same question for decades.

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/political-monitor-satisfaction-ratings-1997-present

    tldr summary

    Labour in 1997 remained popular until ca. 1999
    Cameron's coalition first went unpopular in Sept. 2010, and remained that way for the rest of the parliament, getting back to ca. minus 10 (a historically good score) just before the election.

    Another polling company sometimes publish Europe wide stats. Turns out all governments are unpopular. Who would have thought?

    Its about as headline worthy as none of the above being seen as a better PM than Corbyn.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    A sobering story on the growth of anti-Semitism in Germany:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/germany-jews-muslim-migrants/558677/

    With an interesting postscript -
    …After the video documenting an anti-Semitic attack in Berlin went viral, it emerged that the man wearing a kippa wasn’t a Jew, but an Arab-Israeli. Initially skeptical of the claim that it was dangerous for observant Jews to walk the streets of Berlin, he undertook the experiment of walking around in a kippa. It convinced him he’d been wrong. He said he publicized the attack to document “for the police and for the German people and even the world to see how terrible it is these days as a Jew to go through Berlin streets.”
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    **Betting Post**
    As of now both Hamilton and Vettel can both be backed to win the title at odds against.
    Vettel 2.08, Hamilton 2.32.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/motor-sport/event/28455074/market?marketId=1.136273652
    I’m on Lewis, having backed Vettel at better odds earlier. Lewis was 1.6ish a month ago.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to make a televised speech this evening to reveal 'dramatic news' about Iran, his office said today.

    Netanyahu has called a special meeting of his Security Cabinet before he is set to speak on a 'significant development' on the Iran nuclear deal.

    His speech follows the visit by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo yesterday, during which the pair discussed Iran and the accord.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5674503/Israeli-PM-Netanyahu-says-reveal-dramatic-news-Iran-nuclear-deal.html

    Just off to check on the nuclear bomb shelter at the end of the garden...

    Well that doesn't sound really f*cking ominous at all!
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited April 2018
    Nigelb said:

    A sobering story on the growth of anti-Semitism in Germany:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/germany-jews-muslim-migrants/558677/

    With an interesting postscript -
    …After the video documenting an anti-Semitic attack in Berlin went viral, it emerged that the man wearing a kippa wasn’t a Jew, but an Arab-Israeli. Initially skeptical of the claim that it was dangerous for observant Jews to walk the streets of Berlin, he undertook the experiment of walking around in a kippa. It convinced him he’d been wrong. He said he publicized the attack to document “for the police and for the German people and even the world to see how terrible it is these days as a Jew to go through Berlin streets.”

    I remember a couple of years ago, somebody did something similar in France and they received a huge amount of abuse and were spat at.

    When interviewed by Adrian Chiles on Radio Daily Mirror, Chiles pretty much said well you went around asking for it and come on I get similar level of abuse when I go out and about because I am a famous fat WBA fan.

    In a nutshell, how some people don't see antisemitism as real racism.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    FPT: Mr. Sandpit, small margin, though, and tying up money for a long while, probably. Bottas could be a threat to Hamilton. Maybe Ricciardo too.

    On-topic: neither of them are exactly flavour of the month.

    Mr. Urquhart, wrong sort of bigotry, it seems...
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,114
    A sub sample I know, but a pretty stark one.

    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/990938040553168896

    Still, 20-25 SLab gains at the next GE for sure.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,024
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Nigelb said:

    A sobering story on the growth of anti-Semitism in Germany:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/germany-jews-muslim-migrants/558677/

    With an interesting postscript -
    …After the video documenting an anti-Semitic attack in Berlin went viral, it emerged that the man wearing a kippa wasn’t a Jew, but an Arab-Israeli. Initially skeptical of the claim that it was dangerous for observant Jews to walk the streets of Berlin, he undertook the experiment of walking around in a kippa. It convinced him he’d been wrong. He said he publicized the attack to document “for the police and for the German people and even the world to see how terrible it is these days as a Jew to go through Berlin streets.”

    I remember a couple of years ago, somebody did something similar in France and they received a huge amount of abuse and were spat at.

    When interviewed by Adrian Chiles on Radio Daily Mirror, Chiles pretty much said well you went around asking for it and come on I get similar level of abuse when I go out and about because I am a famous fat WBA fan.

    In a nutshell, how some people don't see antisemitism as real racism.
    Did Chiles really say that? Wow.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited April 2018
    JosiasJessop said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Nigelb said:

    A sobering story on the growth of anti-Semitism in Germany:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/germany-jews-muslim-migrants/558677/

    With an interesting postscript -
    …After the video documenting an anti-Semitic attack in Berlin went viral, it emerged that the man wearing a kippa wasn’t a Jew, but an Arab-Israeli. Initially skeptical of the claim that it was dangerous for observant Jews to walk the streets of Berlin, he undertook the experiment of walking around in a kippa. It convinced him he’d been wrong. He said he publicized the attack to document “for the police and for the German people and even the world to see how terrible it is these days as a Jew to go through Berlin streets.”

    I remember a couple of years ago, somebody did something similar in France and they received a huge amount of abuse and were spat at.

    When interviewed by Adrian Chiles on Radio Daily Mirror, Chiles pretty much said well you went around asking for it and come on I get similar level of abuse when I go out and about because I am a famous fat WBA fan.

    In a nutshell, how some people don't see antisemitism as real racism.
    Did Chiles really say that? Wow.
    Yes, he really did. I posted on her at the time with I believe the actual quote.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    AlastairMeeks said:

    It's worth noting, mind, that the government is less popular than Jeremy Corbyn.

    Well, they 'should' be.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Theuniondivvie said:

    A sub sample I know, but a pretty stark one.

    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/990938040553168896

    Still, 20-25 SLab gains at the next GE for sure.

    While not exactly disagreeing, look at the figure for greater London as well.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008
    Before the LDs get too excited remember they got 13% in the local elections in 2014 when the wards up on Thursday were last contested
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,680
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    A sub sample I know, but a pretty stark one.

    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/990938040553168896

    Still, 20-25 SLab gains at the next GE for sure.

    While not exactly disagreeing, look at the figure for greater London as well.
    That's what struck me - the Scots with the SNP have a (relatively) popular alternative, yet we keep hearing London's going (further) Labour
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008
    Theuniondivvie said:

    A sub sample I know, but a pretty stark one.

    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/990938040553168896

    Still, 20-25 SLab gains at the next GE for sure.

    Those in Greater London are even more dissatisfied which is not good news for Labour ahead of Thursday as London is the only region with all council seats up for election
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,298
    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,114
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    A sub sample I know, but a pretty stark one.

    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/990938040553168896

    Still, 20-25 SLab gains at the next GE for sure.

    While not exactly disagreeing, look at the figure for greater London as well.
    2 strongly pro EU regions; who could have predicted?
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,298
    Abbott responding to Javid reading her script and unconvincing
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    The inevitable rise of Mordaunt commences!
    https://twitter.com/PennyMordaunt/status/990887967647584257

    As an aside, Women and Equalities is in an ineffably stupid term.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    HYUFD said:

    Before the LDs get too excited remember they got 13% in the local elections in 2014 when the wards up on Thursday were last contested

    Oh, let them have their moment - there's not been many occasions in recent years for the LibDems to get excited. 2010 in the rose garden with Cameron? Anything more recent?
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,298
    Javid to Abbott - 'she does not have a monopoly on the anger' to huge cheer.

    He is really going to cause labour problems
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,620
    Lib Dems receiving their annual dog muck and potholes boost.

    Flash in the pan.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,997
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,298
    OldKingCole said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
    Yes exactly
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,114
    edited April 2018
    A cabal of 5th columnists? The Brexiteer armoury of epithets continues to expand.

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/990976313904295936
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,311
    LibDems - Spinning Here!
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    OldKingCole said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
    Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    SandyRentool said:

    Lib Dems receiving their annual dog muck and potholes boost.

    Which one is Vince?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Morris_Dancer said:

    The inevitable rise of Mordaunt commences!
    https://twitter.com/PennyMordaunt/status/990887967647584257

    As an aside, Women and Equalities is in an ineffably stupid term.

    Agree on both sentiments, Mr. Dancer.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,653
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    A sub sample I know, but a pretty stark one.

    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/990938040553168896

    Still, 20-25 SLab gains at the next GE for sure.

    While not exactly disagreeing, look at the figure for greater London as well.
    The 2 most Remain parts of the country.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,283
    STAFF at Sainsbury's and Asda have been assured their jobs are not at risk, following the announcement the companies have agreed terms for a £12 billion merger
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    AlastairMeeks said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
    Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
    You think Walmart lack negotiation heft?
  • Options
    nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138
    Foxy said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    A sub sample I know, but a pretty stark one.

    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/990938040553168896

    Still, 20-25 SLab gains at the next GE for sure.

    While not exactly disagreeing, look at the figure for greater London as well.
    The 2 most Remain parts of the country.
    I wonder how long that promise will last.....
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008
    edited April 2018
    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Before the LDs get too excited remember they got 13% in the local elections in 2014 when the wards up on Thursday were last contested

    Oh, let them have their moment - there's not been many occasions in recent years for the LibDems to get excited. 2010 in the rose garden with Cameron? Anything more recent?
    They actually did quite well in the county council elections last year getting 18%, up 4% on 2013, before collapsing again at the general election to 7%
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/990984036096016384
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    AlastairMeeks said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
    Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
    The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Mr. P, does make a second (or third, as you like) referendum likelier, and gives an incentive for those acting in a helpful manner for the EU to try and get us the worst possible deal (customs union membership).
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/990984681947529221
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,856
    Sandpit said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
    Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
    The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.
    So what’s the point?
    I’m struggling to get this one.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,001
    HYUFD said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Before the LDs get too excited remember they got 13% in the local elections in 2014 when the wards up on Thursday were last contested

    Oh, let them have their moment - there's not been many occasions in recent years for the LibDems to get excited. 2010 in the rose garden with Cameron? Anything more recent?
    They actually did quite well in the county council elections last year getting 18%, up 4% on 2013, before collapsing again at the general election to 7%
    Damn it. I just wrote a long piece agreeing with this, and then Chrome crashed.

    Basically.

    Yes.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/990985199138869248
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,755
    Gardenwalker said:

    Sandpit said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
    Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
    The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.
    So what’s the point?
    I’m struggling to get this one.
    they're being economic with the actualite ?
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Absolute majority for another Con/LD coalition.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/990984036096016384

    LOL, they still haven’t worked out that they either accept the deal or leave without one.

    Here’s Lib Dem peer Lord Roberts comparing Brexit to the rise of Hitler.
    https://twitter.com/_/status/990967981449637889
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/990985199138869248

    Conversely could be good for the Tories and bad for the LDs before the locals, certainly with Leave voters
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,856
    Alanbrooke said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Sandpit said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
    Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
    The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.
    So what’s the point?
    I’m struggling to get this one.
    they're being economic with the actualite ?
    The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.

    It should be allowed to go ahead, of course.
    The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Sandpit said:


    LOL, they still haven’t worked out that they either accept the deal or leave without one.

    Parliament can vote to withdraw Article 50
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Before the LDs get too excited remember they got 13% in the local elections in 2014 when the wards up on Thursday were last contested

    Oh, let them have their moment - there's not been many occasions in recent years for the LibDems to get excited. 2010 in the rose garden with Cameron? Anything more recent?
    They actually did quite well in the county council elections last year getting 18%, up 4% on 2013, before collapsing again at the general election to 7%
    Damn it. I just wrote a long piece agreeing with this, and then Chrome crashed.

    Basically.

    Yes.
    They will certainly be hoping to up their voteshare again compared to 2014
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,997
    AndyJS said:

    Absolute majority for another Con/LD coalition.

    In your dreams. Can’t see the LD’s being caught a second time. C&S maybe.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,856
    Scott_P said:

    Sandpit said:


    LOL, they still haven’t worked out that they either accept the deal or leave without one.

    Parliament can vote to withdraw Article 50
    Of even add an amendment calling for a second ref.

    I’ve gone through my own grieving process after Brexit, but if I was a hard Brexiter I’d be bricking it at the moment.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,071
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/990984036096016384

    LOL, they still haven’t worked out that they either accept the deal or leave without one.

    Here’s Lib Dem peer Lord Roberts comparing Brexit to the rise of Hitler.
    He’s just comparing the Henry VIII clause to Enabling Act.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,755
    Gardenwalker said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Sandpit said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
    Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
    The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.
    So what’s the point?
    I’m struggling to get this one.
    they're being economic with the actualite ?
    The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.

    It should be allowed to go ahead, of course.
    The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
    It should be blocked in the public interest

    oligopolies help no-one
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,680
    https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/990987301969940480
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,001
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Before the LDs get too excited remember they got 13% in the local elections in 2014 when the wards up on Thursday were last contested

    Oh, let them have their moment - there's not been many occasions in recent years for the LibDems to get excited. 2010 in the rose garden with Cameron? Anything more recent?
    They actually did quite well in the county council elections last year getting 18%, up 4% on 2013, before collapsing again at the general election to 7%
    Damn it. I just wrote a long piece agreeing with this, and then Chrome crashed.

    Basically.

    Yes.
    They will certainly be hoping to up their voteshare again compared to 2014
    I would have thought they'll manage a decent increase because:

    1. The councils up for election this time around are more Remain-y than last year
    2. 2014 was a terrible year for the LDs
    3. UKIP has gone away

    Against that, the LDs under Tim Farron were at 10-12% in the polls last year, against 7-8% now, and that's a big deficit to make up.

    My guess is that the LDs will manage a NEV share of 16-17%, and a small (20-30?) net gain of councillors, pretty much all of which will be in London.
  • Options
    RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    Scott_P said:

    Sandpit said:


    LOL, they still haven’t worked out that they either accept the deal or leave without one.

    Parliament can vote to withdraw Article 50
    They can vote for whatever they want. Article 50 is not governed by British law, and there is no guarantee that unilateral revocation would be legal under the Lisbon Treaty.

    I guess not having the separation of powers formalised in a constitution is fine, until legislators start acting like idiots by trying to usurp the proper functions of the executive.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,755
    Scott_P said:

    Sandpit said:


    LOL, they still haven’t worked out that they either accept the deal or leave without one.

    Parliament can vote to withdraw Article 50
    guffaw

    because all those European nations are just lining up to welcome us back

    #pefidiousalbion
  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited April 2018
    OldKingCole said:

    AndyJS said:

    Absolute majority for another Con/LD coalition.

    In your dreams. Can’t see the LD’s being caught a second time. C&S maybe.
    Can you see Vince declining the chance to recline in a Ministerial Limo and have his name in bold letters on a big posh door? He has had power once, and by and large once you have had it you crave it - at almost any cost.

    You are convinced it would be different this time....
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,001
    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/990987301969940480

    They should be careful what they wish for: people have a habit of punishing politicians for calling unnecessary votes.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,856
    Alanbrooke said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Sandpit said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
    Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
    The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.
    So what’s the point?
    I’m struggling to get this one.
    they're being economic with the actualite ?
    The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.

    It should be allowed to go ahead, of course.
    The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
    It should be blocked in the public interest

    oligopolies help no-one
    I’m not convinced. I guess your point is that between them Tesco’s and “Assbury” would have 60%+ of the market. But perhaps Assbury could be forced to divest some stores.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,951
    williamglenn said:

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/990984036096016384

    LOL, they still haven’t worked out that they either accept the deal or leave without one.

    Here’s Lib Dem peer Lord Roberts comparing Brexit to the rise of Hitler.
    He’s just comparing the Henry VIII clause to Enabling Act.
    For once I agree with you and the noble Lord.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/990987386405441536
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/990984036096016384

    LOL, they still haven’t worked out that they either accept the deal or leave without one.

    Here’s Lib Dem peer Lord Roberts comparing Brexit to the rise of Hitler.
    https://twitter.com/_/status/990967981449637889
    Cue anti-Brexit, anti-semite Labour supporters' heads spinning round like Linda Blair....
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,997
    Gardenwalker said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Sandpit said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
    Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
    The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.
    So what’s the point?
    I’m struggling to get this one.
    they're being economic with the actualite ?
    The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.

    It should be allowed to go ahead, of course.
    The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
    It should be blocked in the public interest

    oligopolies help no-one
    I’m not convinced. I guess your point is that between them Tesco’s and “Assbury” would have 60%+ of the market. But perhaps Assbury could be forced to divest some stores.
    I would have thought that some divestment was a given. Either as a result of the CMA or as a result of local demand.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008
    edited April 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Before the LDs get too excited remember they got 13% in the local elections in 2014 when the wards up on Thursday were last contested

    Oh, let them have their moment - there's not been many occasions in recent years for the LibDems to get excited. 2010 in the rose garden with Cameron? Anything more recent?
    They actually did quite well in the county council elections last year getting 18%, up 4% on 2013, before collapsing again at the general election to 7%
    Damn it. I just wrote a long piece agreeing with this, and then Chrome crashed.

    Basically.

    Yes.
    They will certainly be hoping to up their voteshare again compared to 2014
    I would have thought they'll manage a decent increase because:

    1. The councils up for election this time around are more Remain-y than last year
    2. 2014 was a terrible year for the LDs
    3. UKIP has gone away

    Against that, the LDs under Tim Farron were at 10-12% in the polls last year, against 7-8% now, and that's a big deficit to make up.

    My guess is that the LDs will manage a NEV share of 16-17%, and a small (20-30?) net gain of councillors, pretty much all of which will be in London.
    They will likely make gains in SW London especially, elsewhere they will need to gain more of the collapsing UKIP vote than the Tories or Labour to make net gains
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Gardenwalker said:

    Of even add an amendment calling for a second ref.

    I’ve gone through my own grieving process after Brexit, but if I was a hard Brexiter I’d be bricking it at the moment.

    A number of the hard Brexiteers who parroted the slogan "Take Back Control" now seem really, really miffed that Parliament has voted to do just that...
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,856
    OldKingCole said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Sandpit said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
    Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
    The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.
    So what’s the point?
    I’m struggling to get this one.
    they're being economic with the actualite ?
    The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.

    It should be allowed to go ahead, of course.
    The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
    It should be blocked in the public interest

    oligopolies help no-one
    I’m not convinced. I guess your point is that between them Tesco’s and “Assbury” would have 60%+ of the market. But perhaps Assbury could be forced to divest some stores.
    I would have thought that some divestment was a given. Either as a result of the CMA or as a result of local demand.
    What I will say is that this country generally seems to love a bit of oligopoly. I think it’s one of the three or four factors that explains our low productivity.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,951
    Gardenwalker said:

    Scott_P said:

    Sandpit said:


    LOL, they still haven’t worked out that they either accept the deal or leave without one.

    Parliament can vote to withdraw Article 50
    Of even add an amendment calling for a second ref.

    I’ve gone through my own grieving process after Brexit, but if I was a hard Brexiter I’d be bricking it at the moment.
    Not at all. As I said a few days ago Parliament has no power over the EU treaties. They cannot unilaterally revoke article 50 no matter how much they might wish to.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Gardenwalker said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Sandpit said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
    Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
    The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.
    So what’s the point?
    I’m struggling to get this one.
    they're being economic with the actualite ?
    The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.

    It should be allowed to go ahead, of course.
    The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
    It should be blocked in the public interest

    oligopolies help no-one
    I’m not convinced. I guess your point is that between them Tesco’s and “Assbury” would have 60%+ of the market. But perhaps Assbury could be forced to divest some stores.
    Whilst it can take a while for people to switch their local shop those %s are not static. I'd expect Aldi to rise over time.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Richard_Tyndall said:


    Not at all. As I said a few days ago Parliament has no power over the EU treaties. They cannot unilaterally revoke article 50 no matter how much they might wish to.

    Unless the treaty allows it, which the author says it does.
  • Options
    rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    Gardenwalker said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Sandpit said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
    Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
    The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.
    So what’s the point?
    I’m struggling to get this one.
    they're being economic with the actualite ?
    The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.

    It should be allowed to go ahead, of course.
    The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
    It should be blocked in the public interest

    oligopolies help no-one
    I’m not convinced. I guess your point is that between them Tesco’s and “Assbury” would have 60%+ of the market. But perhaps Assbury could be forced to divest some stores.
    I would have thought that some divestment was a given. Either as a result of the CMA or as a result of local demand.
    What I will say is that this country generally seems to love a bit of oligopoly. I think it’s one of the three or four factors that explains our low productivity.
    The lack of consumer choice in the UK compared to the US is one of the things my American wife, who hates having to chose things, liked about living in the UK.
  • Options
    kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    Scott_P said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Of even add an amendment calling for a second ref.

    I’ve gone through my own grieving process after Brexit, but if I was a hard Brexiter I’d be bricking it at the moment.

    A number of the hard Brexiteers who parroted the slogan "Take Back Control" now seem really, really miffed that Parliament has voted to do just that...
    they were instructed by the people to take back control from EU rule not give back control to brussels which is what the are trying to implement by the back door
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    rcs1000 said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/990987301969940480

    They should be careful what they wish for: people have a habit of punishing politicians for calling unnecessary votes.
    Silvio Berlusconi has blocked Lega from working with Five Star Movement, and PD have refused to talk with Five Star Movement. Both Lega and Five Star Movement have risen in the polls as a consequence. This looks like a manoeuvre to get Lega to stand outside their previous bloc, paving the way to it being able to work with Five Star Movement with both parties strengthened.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    kjohnw said:

    they were instructed by the people to take back control from EU rule not give back control to brussels which is what the are trying to implement by the back door

    The UK Sovereign Parliament will decide the next steps.

    That's what you wanted.

    You won!

    Suck it up...
  • Options
    rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    Alanbrooke said:

    Scott_P said:

    Sandpit said:


    LOL, they still haven’t worked out that they either accept the deal or leave without one.

    Parliament can vote to withdraw Article 50
    guffaw

    because all those European nations are just lining up to welcome us back

    #pefidiousalbion
    Why wouldn't they be? If the UK comes back, tail between its legs, no other country will ever be able to leave. We'd never get any concessions on anything ever again: "What are you going to do, leave?". Speaking as a European federalist, the whole Brexit process is increasingly likely to deliver my wildest dreams.
  • Options
    kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    Scott_P said:

    kjohnw said:

    they were instructed by the people to take back control from EU rule not give back control to brussels which is what the are trying to implement by the back door

    The UK Sovereign Parliament will decide the next steps.

    That's what you wanted.

    You won!

    Suck it up...
    if the clear instruction of the people is ignored then there will be a complete disconnect from democracy in this country as people realise what’s the point they don’t listen they think they know best
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    So, will there actually be another Italian election? Made a small sum last time backing Five Star for most seats.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,680
    https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/990990875818938370

    But not necessarily for the reasons Mr Dunt hopes.....
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,755
    rpjs said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Scott_P said:

    Sandpit said:


    LOL, they still haven’t worked out that they either accept the deal or leave without one.

    Parliament can vote to withdraw Article 50
    guffaw

    because all those European nations are just lining up to welcome us back

    #pefidiousalbion
    Why wouldn't they be? If the UK comes back, tail between its legs, no other country will ever be able to leave. We'd never get any concessions on anything ever again: "What are you going to do, leave?". Speaking as a European federalist, the whole Brexit process is increasingly likely to deliver my wildest dreams.
    in your dreams

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/01/brexit-cannot-be-cancelled-or-delayed-says-francois-hollande

    nobody on the continent cares any more.

    pain grille
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,205
    Scott_P said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:


    Not at all. As I said a few days ago Parliament has no power over the EU treaties. They cannot unilaterally revoke article 50 no matter how much they might wish to.

    Unless the treaty allows it, which the author says it does.
    It won't be the author who decides that question, though. Legally it would be the ECJ. Politically, it would be the other countries in the EU.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Cyclefree said:


    It won't be the author who decides that question, though. Legally it would be the ECJ. Politically, it would be the other countries in the EU.

    Indeed, but to claim, without reference to those, that it is impossible is simply not true
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Just had the very slightly bright idea of comparing the latest opinion polls with those just before the 2014 local elections:

    10 most recent opinion polls this year, averages:

    Con 41.4%
    Lab 39.8%
    LD 8.0%
    UKIP 3.5%
    Greens 2.2%
    Others 5.1%

    10 most recent opinion polls before 2014 local elections held on 22nd May, averages:

    Lab 35.3%
    Con 32.3%
    UKIP 14.0%
    LD 9.0%
    Greens 4.1%
    Others 5.2%

    Changes:

    Con +9.1%
    Lab +4.5%
    LD -1.0%
    UKIP -10.5%
    Greens -1.9%
    Others -0.1%

    Swing, 2.3% from Lab to Con

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/990990875818938370

    But not necessarily for the reasons Mr Dunt hopes.....


    I'm not sure what the Lords are hoping to achieve.

    If somehow they conspire to reverse the referendum, they destroy trust in democracy and with it themselves.

    If they let parliament block any deal, then we bust out without one - which may or not be a good thing, depending on who you ask, but is pointless from the Lords point of view.

    Or it gets reversed in the Commons, and all that happens is that the Lords get to feel good about how superior they are for a while....

  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/990991344259739650

    https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/990994535797927937
  • Options
    rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    rpjs said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Sandpit said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distribution centre closures and no job loses.

    Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.

    Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
    Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
    The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.
    So what’s the point?
    I’m struggling to get this one.
    they're being economic with the actualite ?
    The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.

    It should be allowed to go ahead, of course.
    The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
    It should be blocked in the public interest

    oligopolies help no-one
    I’m not convinced. I guess your point is that between them Tesco’s and “Assbury” would have 60%+ of the market. But perhaps Assbury could be forced to divest some stores.
    I would have thought that some divestment was a given. Either as a result of the CMA or as a result of local demand.
    What I will say is that this country generally seems to love a bit of oligopoly. I think it’s one of the three or four factors that explains our low productivity.
    The lack of consumer choice in the UK compared to the US is one of the things my American wife, who hates having to chose things, liked about living in the UK.
    I'm puzzled ... if Sainsbury's and Asda can't offer low prices with 15% market share each, how can Lidl and Aldi both do it with market shares of nearer 5% and a lot of stores in places near where people live?

    Maybe they and the rather different Waitrose have a business model which works but the big four don't.
  • Options
    RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    Scott_P said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Of even add an amendment calling for a second ref.

    I’ve gone through my own grieving process after Brexit, but if I was a hard Brexiter I’d be bricking it at the moment.

    A number of the hard Brexiteers who parroted the slogan "Take Back Control" now seem really, really miffed that Parliament has voted to do just that...
    Posting rubbish multiple times does not make it more true. We did not vote for our legislature to surrender the independence we voted for.

    If May can’t reverse this amendment she should call another election.
  • Options
    PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274
    edited April 2018
    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/990990875818938370

    But not necessarily for the reasons Mr Dunt hopes.....

    I am not sure that the penny has yet dropped - parliament has already voted to leave the EU, without condition, under the provision of the Lisbon Treaty. All else is just empty posturing.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,680
    MarkHopkins said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/990990875818938370

    But not necessarily for the reasons Mr Dunt hopes.....

    Or it gets reversed in the Commons, and all that happens is that the Lords get to feel good about how superior they are for a while....
    Until the 'Lords Reform' train they've given a new head of steam to smashes them up.....
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited April 2018
    rpjs said:



    The lack of consumer choice in the UK compared to the US is one of the things my American wife, who hates having to chose things, liked about living in the UK.

    I wouldn't say there is huge consumer choice for US customers in the grocer sector when you get outside the suburbs of large cities. It is Walmart, Walmart, Walmart, perhaps one of out of a Safeway / Albertsons / PigglyWiggly and if you live in a really bad neighborhood DollarGeneral.

    Obviously in the burbs is where you get the big competition with the likes of WholeFoods, Publix, etc

    Travelling extensively across the states, when you get to some less fashionable states the small towns can be just Walmart and only with a tiny fresh food section.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Mr. Blue, indeed.

    Though, as an aside, I did mention the 6.25 (later 6, for a long while) on a second referendum before a certain date. Might try hedging that.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,945
    As I think @rcs1000 mentioned at the time, it is increasingly clear that Gina Miller has done Leave supporters a huge service by insisting that issuing the Article 50 notification went through Parliament.

    It guarantees that we are not able to revoke it without a total breakdown between Westminster and the country. Whether the procedure is revocable is moot;politically, the overwhelming majority of MPs voted for us to leave the EU by March next year. After that was decided, all else is just noise.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,680
    In one of those “careful what you wish for” unintended consequences, anti-Brexit agitators may have unleashed constitutional reforms with a wider reach than dreary negotiations about the product labels and border control (how anyone gets worked up about leaving the EU is one of life’s big mysteries, for me).

    So angry were (at least) 123,821 voters in response to the Lords’ vote to keep the UK in the Customs Union (that is: “stay in the EU in an even less satisfactory manner than now”) that they signed Robert McBride’s petition to “Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords”. Because the number of signatories exceeds 100,000, the Government is rules-bound to offer a debate in Parliament on the topic — and to offer a response.

    https://capx.co/heal-the-nation-abolish-the-house-of-lords/
  • Options
    DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    https://www.citymetric.com/guide-2018-london-elections-borough-westminster-wandsworth-hillingdon-barnet
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2018
    Interesting that the Tories are nearly 10% higher in the polls now compared to just before the 2014 local elections. On that basis they should expect to do pretty well and not lose many seats or councils. Labour on the other hand are only up 5%.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    AndyJS said:

    Just had the very slightly bright idea of comparing the latest opinion polls with those just before the 2014 local elections
    :...

    Very interesting, thanks.
This discussion has been closed.