What's the point of having a thread based on the article at the top of the thread, when it doesn't even attempt to explain or define what a "Christian/Jewish/Muslim ward" is?
I guess that there are some parts of London and/or other cities where a substantial proportion of the church-attending population / congregation of Christian churches is of Black African and/or Polish origin.
So the Conservatives who have been rejecting calls for an enquiry into their Islamophobia problem and instead recently lashed out at their Muslim accusers are losing Muslim support and seeing it coalesce behind their main rival....
Surprising indeed.... must be because the switchers are racists, can't think of another reason why Muslims would vote for the Conservatives main rivals rather than the Conservatives.
A big step towards a united Ireland today with the appointment of PSNI Deputy Chief Constable Drew Harris to become the Garda Commissioner. He will swear an oath of allegiance to uphold the Irish constitution and take out an Irish passport.
And FPT: What is it about being a small state, classical liberal and free speech activist that calls for journalists to be shot by vigilantes? Not one of Gladstone's priorities Serious lack of the usual PB intellectual rigour on here tonight. All very depressing
I'm pretty sure they are just alt-right, very often their free speech activism extends only to people who insult minorities and women. Do these people jump to the defence of someone like Abu Hamza or maybe a less serious offender as an example (who isn't famous enough for me to name).
I can respect an actual free speech activist, say like (someone from) the ACLU which would defend nazi's and all other kinds of crazies on the basis of free speech, rather than hating Muslims or Jews and wanting free speech to insult or incite in regards to them and defending only that area of free speech they would (from the little I know of them) defend cranks and racists from all sides.
I can see the merit in arguing for free speech in that way as long as there isn't actual incitement to violence. These low grade xenophobes just like to justify their crap with the rallying cry of free speech.
Which isn't to say there might not be merit in an actual free speech activist campaigning for them to be allowed to say what they say, just that isn't what they are.
A big step towards a united Ireland today with the appointment of PSNI Deputy Chief Constable Drew Harris to become the Garda Commissioner. He will swear an oath of allegiance to uphold the Irish constitution and take out an Irish passport.
How's that a big step? People move between the two countries all the time.
I don't get it. The clip linked to clearly shows Truss did use the "wood-burning Goves ... hot air" gag that her aide seems to be claiming she did not.
And FPT: What is it about being a small state, classical liberal and free speech activist that calls for journalists to be shot by vigilantes? Not one of Gladstone's priorities Serious lack of the usual PB intellectual rigour on here tonight. All very depressing
I'm pretty sure they are just alt-right, very often their free speech activism extends only to people who insult minorities and women. Do these people jump to the defence of someone like Abu Hamza or maybe a less serious offender as an example (who isn't famous enough for me to name).
I can respect an actual free speech activist, say like (someone from) the ACLU which would defend nazi's and all other kinds of crazies on the basis of free speech, rather than hating Muslims or Jews and wanting free speech to insult or incite in regards to them and defending only that area of free speech they would (from the little I know of them) defend cranks and racists from all sides.
I can see the merit in arguing for free speech in that way as long as there isn't actual incitement to violence. These low grade xenophobes just like to justify their crap with the rallying cry of free speech.
Which isn't to say there might not be merit in an actual free speech activist campaigning for them to be allowed to say what they say, just that isn't what they are.
To me, incitement to violence is the bar, but unfortunately even that is not as easy to interpret as it feels it should be.
And FPT: What is it about being a small state, classical liberal and free speech activist that calls for journalists to be shot by vigilantes? Not one of Gladstone's priorities Serious lack of the usual PB intellectual rigour on here tonight. All very depressing
I'm pretty sure they are just alt-right, very often their free speech activism extends only to people who insult minorities and women. Do these people jump to the defence of someone like Abu Hamza or maybe a less serious offender as an example (who isn't famous enough for me to name).
I can respect an actual free speech activist, say like (someone from) the ACLU which would defend nazi's and all other kinds of crazies on the basis of free speech, rather than hating Muslims or Jews and wanting free speech to insult or incite in regards to them and defending only that area of free speech they would (from the little I know of them) defend cranks and racists from all sides.
I can see the merit in arguing for free speech in that way as long as there isn't actual incitement to violence. These low grade xenophobes just like to justify their crap with the rallying cry of free speech.
Which isn't to say there might not be merit in an actual free speech activist campaigning for them to be allowed to say what they say, just that isn't what they are.
There is of course merit in free speech activism, but that is really not what they are engaged in. Rather they are taking advantage of the strongest protection of free speech in the world (not without reason is it the First Amendment - though it’s only in the last century that it’s become interpreted so broadly) to engage is large scale trolling at others’ expense.
Didn’t the sainted TSE recently write a thread header suggesting that Labour’s perceived anti-semitism (whether accurate or not) might electorally benefit it in certain places?
Edited: Whatever the case the fact that we might now need to take account of religious voting patterns is not an improvement.
I wonder how much Ed Miliband being Jewish cost Labour in 2015.
I strongly suspect that it was a significant electoral handicap. The 2 main British political parties fare better, all other things being equal, when led by a WASP.
I don't think it is possible to classify wards by religion in the way that TSE suggests - there is far too much overlapping of different ethnic groups to do this except in a few instances.
In any case, what matters to a political party is whether a particular policy or political view increases or decreases its net support overall. "For the many, not the few" is an excellent campaigning slogan for Labour, and sums up its beliefs in fairness, equality and justice, from both a social and economic perspective.
Hostility to oligarchs such as Philip Green, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg and Roman Abramovich, and to the Zionist regime, is in line with these values and is not likely to be a vote-loser with most of the British population. Providing a public organisation (including political parties) doesn't discriminate per se against individuals of a particular background just because of that background, it is not "out of order".
What's the definition of these three types of ward ?
The London Datastore (the data services of the London Assembly) trawled through the 2011 census and published data showing what percentage of the population were of which religion. The religions listed were Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and no religion. Using this data I sourced the top 10 wards that had elections, excluding those that had boundary changes, this means that places like Tower Hamlets were excluded from the calculations
There are more Tory votes in Jewish wards or Labour votes in Muslim wards than Labour and Tory votes combined in Christian wards.
How are there so few Christian wards? Or so many Jewish/Muslim ones? What's the definition?
EDIT: Counting the wards I'm guessing its the 'top 30' of each religion which is not the same thing.
The top 10 wards of each religion were tallied to produce the swing chart at the bottom, it was editorially decided by Mike to only publish the full results for the top 10 Christian, Jewish and Muslim wards.
There are more Tory votes in Jewish wards or Labour votes in Muslim wards than Labour and Tory votes combined in Christian wards.
How are there so few Christian wards? Or so many Jewish/Muslim ones? What's the definition?
EDIT: Counting the wards I'm guessing its the 'top 30' of each religion which is not the same thing.
And who are the 23.7% Others in the Christian wards ?
I am sorry so say that I don't know. The 2018 votes were tallied by Britain Elects and standardised to the form they used in 2014 which was Con, Lab, Lib Dem, UKIP, Green, Ind and Others. As most of the top 10 Christian wards were in Havering, I would imagine it was the Ratepayer groupings that prevent a single party winning a majority on the council
Didn’t the sainted TSE recently write a thread header suggesting that Labour’s perceived anti-semitism (whether accurate or not) might electorally benefit it in certain places?
Edited: Whatever the case the fact that we might now need to take account of religious voting patterns is not an improvement.
I wonder how much Ed Miliband being Jewish cost Labour in 2015.
I strongly suspect that it was a significant electoral handicap. The 2 main British political parties fare better, all other things being equal, when led by a WASP.
I don't think it is possible to classify wards by religion in the way that TSE suggests - there is far too much overlapping of different ethnic groups to do this except in a few instances.
In any case, what matters to a political party is whether a particular policy or political view increases or decreases its net support overall. "For the many, not the few" is an excellent campaigning slogan for Labour, and sums up its beliefs in fairness, equality and justice, from both a social and economic perspective.
Hostility to oligarchs such as Philip Green, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg and Roman Abramovich, and to the Zionist regime, is in line with these values and is not likely to be a vote-loser with most of the British population. Providing a public organisation (including political parties) doesn't discriminate per se against individuals of a particular background just because of that background, it is not "out of order".
The problem passive racists such as Corbyn (*) don't understand is that it's all stereotyping. In their minds, Jews are rich and powerful, and therefore cannot be discriminated against as they are rich and powerful. This has directly led to Corbyn's and Labour's recent issues.
Likewise, the implication that all Muslims are terrorists or want to somehow disrupt society.
The problems are that people who are rich and powerful can be discriminated against, and that the correlation between *any* religion or gender to power or poverty is far from 1:1. You will have some Jews who are poor and need help, and Muslims who are rich. Likewise, you will have rich people who are kind and helpful people in their community, and poor people who cause pain for everyone around them. Businessmen who are good for their community, and trade unionists who steal.
People are individuals, and should be judged as such on their words and actions. Judging people by their faith, gender or any other exterior characteristic is incredibly lazy, and often dangerous.
(*) BTW, has Corbyn visited Israel after his trip to Palestine? After all, he likes talking to both sides ...
Aren't there any Jedi wards? Hindu wards? Sikh wards?
Yes, there are indeed. The figures for the top 10 Hindu and Sikh wards are
Top 10 Hindu wards: Con 27.4% (+3.0%) winning 5 seats (unchanged) Lab 57.2% (+10.2%) winning 25 seats (+1) Lib Dem 10.8% (-1.0%) winning 0 seats (-1) Green 4.3% (-3.3%) winning 0 seats (unchanged) Ind 0.3% (-0.4%) winning 0 seats (unchanged) There were no UKIP candidates (-1.0%) and no Other candidates (-7.5%)
Top 10 Sikh wards Con 27.8% (+1.0%) winning 7 seats (+1) Lab 47.8% (+4.9%) winning 20 seats (-1) Lib Dem 11.7% (+2.0%) winning 0 seats (unchanged) Green 9.4% (+0.1%) winning 0 seats (unchanged) Ind 1.0% (-1.6%) winning 0 seats (unchanged) Others 2.3% (+1.7%) winning 0 seats (unchanged) There were no UKIP candidates (-8.1%)
Well in 2014 the Labour leader was of Jewish background and in 2018 the Labour party was widely regarded as anti-semitic (whether accurately or not is perhaps irrelevent).
Isn't it mostly accounted for by the swing back to Labour from Lutfer Rahman's "Tower Hamlets First Party"?
That might be right.
But what about in Newham and other boroughs ?
The overall result in Newham was:
Lab 67.2% (+7.5%) winning 60 councillors (unchanged) Con 15.2% (-7.8%) winning 0 councillors (unchanged) Lib Dem 5.9% (+2.4%) winning 0 councillors (unchanged) Green 5.2% (+4.4%) winning 0 councillors (unchanged) Ind 1.3% (+0.8%) winning 0 councillors (unchanged) UKIP 0.3% (-3.9%) winning 0 councillors (unchanged) Others 4.9% (-3.6%) winning 0 councillors (unchanged) Swing: 7.7% from Con to Lab
Has Corbyn visited Israel after his trip to Palestine? After all, he likes talking to both sides ...
Corbyn says he likes talking to both sides. The minor detail he has never actually done so seems to have passed him by.
But then, he also claimed his manifesto was fully costed and that he had a low violence threshold (by which I think he meant he had a very tight criteria of when violence was appropriate, given he was talking about whether or not he was a 'total pacifist' at the time).
It's odd how very dishonest he is yet keeps his reputation as principled. I think it's probably because he genuinely believes what he's saying at the time he's saying it. Like Tony Blair without the charm or intelligence.
So rather than Labour antisemitism, it is Tory Islamophobia that had the big impact.
I'm glad we've cleared that one up.
Nah, you have push and pull. *If* you believe that people take their religion as a major factor in their votes, that is.
If a party appears to be *for* your religion, it will pull you towards voting for them. If it appears to be *against* your religion, then it will push you away from voting for them.
Likewise , if a party appears to be *against* a religion you don't like, it will pull you towards voting for them. And if a party appears to be *for* a religion you don't like, it will push you away from voting for them.
So as an example, some Muslims voting for a Labour party that is riven with anti-Semitism might be doing so because they approve of anti-Semitism, rather than because of any problems in the Consevartive party. And the same is true for other religions, genders etc.
A big step towards a united Ireland today with the appointment of PSNI Deputy Chief Constable Drew Harris to become the Garda Commissioner. He will swear an oath of allegiance to uphold the Irish constitution and take out an Irish passport.
Not really. The Patton report envisaged a 50:50 split between catholics and non-catholics in NI, and regular secondments and exchanges of officers between the PSNI and Eire.
Well done Harry. A new angle on voting behaviour! I
I had lunch with a friend the other day who told me a quaint story. She had just been to Tel Aviv for a wedding. She wrote on facebook that she was sitting on the beach having a great time except for a lifeguard who kept barking through his megaphone. 'He sounded like Hitler'.
Her estranged husband (a celebrity lawyer) emailed her to say it was a shocking comment and was a huge embarrassment to him. (He's Jewish she isn't).
By chance the same day an interview with him about his views on 'upskirting' was printed in which he said '....But if girls really want to avoid it they could always try wearing longer skirts' The article was deluged with 'dislikes'. He sacked his PR and received an email from my chum 'Is it better to be a sexist than an antisemite?
2014 was already a very good result for Labour in London. An additional 1.9% swing to them was impressive, undermined only by hopeless expectations management. Less commented upon, the result in May in London was beyond abysmal for the Conservatives.
F1: backed Bottas at 6.5 and 10 (7 and 10.5 with boost), both each way (third the odds, top 2) to be fastest qualifier/winner respectively in Austria.
The new Mercedes engine looks good (perhaps a quibble with Perez's retirement), Bottas has been driving well, and last year he got, I think, the pole and win in Austria.
The overnight primary result in NY-14 (Bronx & Queen’s) is astonishing. Rep Joe Crowley, tipped to succeed Pelosi, was comprehensively beaten by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old local Hispanic woman running well to his left.
F1: backed Bottas at 6.5 and 10 (7 and 10.5 with boost), both each way (third the odds, top 2) to be fastest qualifier/winner respectively in Austria.
The new Mercedes engine looks good (perhaps a quibble with Perez's retirement), Bottas has been driving well, and last year he got, I think, the pole and win in Austria.
Looks a decent bet at those odds, though I think Austria might just see the pendulum swing back to Ferrari.
2014 was already a very good result for Labour in London. An additional 1.9% swing to them was impressive, undermined only by hopeless expectations management. Less commented upon, the result in May in London was beyond abysmal for the Conservatives.
All of which is very true. But to win an election Labour need to win outside London, which is after all only about 10% of the country. Even winning London, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, West Yorkshire, Plymouth and Newcastle wouldn't be enough if they fall back everywhere else. That comes with real dangers for those areas as well. Look at the SNP - almost every seat in Scotland in 2015 and a good result in 2017 (again poor expectations management undermined the latter) and yet Scotland was never more politically marginalised in the UK than it has been in the last four years.
In a sense that's one of the oddities about Corbyn. He is at one and the same time a naked populist who unashamedly tries to bribe people into voting for him, and yet at the same time seems to campaign on a core vote strategy (or over Brexit, a de-cored vote strategy). I think that must be simple incompetence because if it isn't it's a damn strange strategy.
This is, to my eyes, a weird story. There are over 20 men imprisoned for every one female prisoner, but to deal with short term reoffending (ie those with small custodial sentences committing further crime after release) the answer is to create some residential centres. But, apparently, only for women. It doesn't explicitly state that in the article but it is repeatedly implied.
The overnight primary result in NY-14 (Bronx & Queen’s) is astonishing. Rep Joe Crowley, tipped to succeed Pelosi, was comprehensively beaten by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old local Hispanic woman running well to his left.
This was probably the determining factor: That willingness for Ocasio-Cortez supporters, he said, may have been fueled in part by recent images of Latino children being separated from their families at the border. He said recent calls by party leaders for civility did not sit well with voters who see the Trump administration as a direct threat.
"All through the party people are seeing things they’ve never seen in their lives and the notion that we should be told how to act by leaders who have never had these things happen to their communities at a moment like this — people are fed up," Kwatra said. “Moments like that are galvanizing events and the fact it happened over the last few weeks — I think it would be impossible to say that it didn’t have a motivating factor for some voters.”...
F1: backed Bottas at 6.5 and 10 (7 and 10.5 with boost), both each way (third the odds, top 2) to be fastest qualifier/winner respectively in Austria.
The new Mercedes engine looks good (perhaps a quibble with Perez's retirement), Bottas has been driving well, and last year he got, I think, the pole and win in Austria.
Those odds look good, if nothing else as a decent trading bet given that he did indeed win the race from pole last year.
Perhaps covered overnight, but if not, and for those who missed it, seems pro-Corbyn types have decided how they want to rejig the rules so they can get another far left nutbar when the current one is no longer in place. Reduce the level of MP support necessary to 5%: https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1011699001211740160
No, the interesting Irish perspective is Ireland is doing nothing re Brexit. So if Brexit is the catastrophe remainers claim, then Ireland is deep in the brown stuff - worse than we are . Yet currently they are working on business as usual post 2019.
Somewhat selective citing of figures there Scott. A Brexiteer might point out that 63% of companies plan to keep investment either unchanged or increase it, while 42% say the changes either way would be minimal.
That would be good news if true. Doesn't seem likely if we have a cliff-edge Brexit though.
To my mind the real thing is that hardly anyone is saying they will significantly increase their exposure to the UK. That suggests to me that the real story of Brexit is how market size matters much more than regulatory regime (although as we've strongly hinted we'll keep most existing EU regs that may have a bearing on their decision).
A big step towards a united Ireland today with the appointment of PSNI Deputy Chief Constable Drew Harris to become the Garda Commissioner. He will swear an oath of allegiance to uphold the Irish constitution and take out an Irish passport.
How's that a big step? People move between the two countries all the time.
William is called master at reading momentous events from the mundane.
Mr. Brooke, Blair can make a persuasive argument, but the history of the intelligence, or lack thereof, pertaining to Iraq has holed his credibility beneath the waterline.
On the EU, we've also had Brown (successor to Blair, of course) promise a referendum then renege upon it, and Cameron (successor to Brown) deliver a referendum the campaigns of which, whilst dreadful, clearly indicated leaving the single market and customs union.
If the mainstream political class keeps behaving in a manner that could not necessarily be described as trustworthy, it is hardly surprising that trust in them is declining and voters may seek alternatives.
That said, I agree that there's a real risk of the far right rising (the far left, of course, currently occupying the front bench of Her Majesty's Loyal[ish] Opposition). The larger risk is if we get a departure in name only, damaging the political class' credibility even more.
Under those circumstances, the danger is not a revival of either UKIP or a new Farage-Banks political party, but something further right of that.
At the same time, the lunatic left is trying to rewrite the Labour leadership rulebook so a tiny percentage of MPs' support is required to get on the next shortlist. Perhaps Blair might care to observe the beam of the far left, rather than the mote of the far right.
On topic, I bet that the issue here is as much (and probably more) to do with the demographic change within these types of wards, than changing voting habits within each religious group.
Muslim voters have always leaned heavily towards Labour, and within London the non-Muslim population within wards that might be categorised as "Muslim" (as discussed in the thread) has been declining significantly. The 'extra' Labour voters in the chart are probably extra Muslim voters rather than Muslim switchers.
F1: backed Bottas at 6.5 and 10 (7 and 10.5 with boost), both each way (third the odds, top 2) to be fastest qualifier/winner respectively in Austria.
The new Mercedes engine looks good (perhaps a quibble with Perez's retirement), Bottas has been driving well, and last year he got, I think, the pole and win in Austria.
Those odds look good, if nothing else as a decent trading bet given that he did indeed win the race from pole last year.
I think Hamilton is on a charge after the disappointment of Canada. I would not bet against him.
Your post appears to be at odds with reality. I appreciate some people wish to don the 'racism' spectacles to view our departure from the EU (as happened with the bandwagon-jumping when the Polish chap was killed, only for it to be revealed it was a mixed race gang that he'd provoked), but pretending that the rise in anti-Semitism is related to our probable departure from the EU rather than the change in the Labour Party is just plain daft.
Edited extra bit: Mr. B2, it won't happened, but there's a great opportunity for the blues here. They're not going to win in London. But if they shifted attention, and some cash, to the North, it'd be assuage concerns and gain them favour. Instead of blowing £2bn on buggering Stonehenge with a tunnel, they could spend it around Manchester, Leeds and outlying areas. Cash on rail would particularly be welcomed.
2014 was already a very good result for Labour in London. An additional 1.9% swing to them was impressive, undermined only by hopeless expectations management. Less commented upon, the result in May in London was beyond abysmal for the Conservatives.
No, 'beyond abysmal' for the Tories in London would have been losing Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth, Barnet, Hillingdon and Westminster which was possible. In the end the Tories held all the Labour target councils in London just losing Kingston upon Thames and Richmond Upon Thames to the LDs. For many wealthy upper middle class Londoners keeping out Corbynism clearly beat protesting about Brexit.
While the Tories also did badly in some areas of outer London like Redbridge, with their loss of councillors in double figures, in other areas like Enfield and Waltham Forest the Tories did better than expected with their number of councillors virtually unchanged.
Vettel's got a good chance, and I suspect Hamilton's odds are too short. The Briton's been lacklustre at some races, and outclassed at others (by both his team mate and Vettel). He's fortunate, frankly, that neither Vettel nor Bottas have more points. The Finn really should be a contender, but the Baku puncture and French collision cost him a lot.
On topic it would indeed appear that being anti-semitic is a successful electoral strategy.
Which is disappointing.
Well a nationwide referendum was won with a dose of Islamophobia using the type of messaging the Nazis used with the Jews so it isn’t surprising is it.
2014 was already a very good result for Labour in London. An additional 1.9% swing to them was impressive, undermined only by hopeless expectations management. Less commented upon, the result in May in London was beyond abysmal for the Conservatives.
No, 'beyond abysmal' for the Tories in London would have been losing Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth, Barnet, Hillingdon and Westminster which was possible. In the end the Tories held all the Labour target councils in London just losing Kingston upon Thames and Richmond Upon Thames to the LDs. For many wealthy upper middle class Londoners keeping out Corbynism clearly beat protesting about Brexit.
While the Tories also did badly in some areas of outer London like Redbridge, with their loss of councillors in double figures, in other areas like Enfield and Waltham Forest the Tories did better than expected with their number of councillors virtually unchanged.
The only result it stands comparison with is 1994. It's actually worse for the Conservatives than 1971.
F1: backed Bottas at 6.5 and 10 (7 and 10.5 with boost), both each way (third the odds, top 2) to be fastest qualifier/winner respectively in Austria.
The new Mercedes engine looks good (perhaps a quibble with Perez's retirement), Bottas has been driving well, and last year he got, I think, the pole and win in Austria.
Those odds look good, if nothing else as a decent trading bet given that he did indeed win the race from pole last year.
I think Hamilton is on a charge after the disappointment of Canada. I would not bet against him.
Don’t disagree, Lewis’ performance last time out was back to his old self, and he’s definitely on a roll with Silverstone next up after Austria. I think Bottas should be second favourite for the next couple of races, so he’s value out at 10/1 behind Vettel.
2014 was already a very good result for Labour in London. An additional 1.9% swing to them was impressive, undermined only by hopeless expectations management. Less commented upon, the result in May in London was beyond abysmal for the Conservatives.
No, 'beyond abysmal' for the Tories in London would have been losing Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth, Barnet, Hillingdon and Westminster which was possible. In the end the Tories held all the Labour target councils in London just losing Kingston upon Thames and Richmond Upon Thames to the LDs. For many wealthy upper middle class Londoners keeping out Corbynism clearly beat protesting about Brexit.
While the Tories also did badly in some areas of outer London like Redbridge, with their loss of councillors in double figures, in other areas like Enfield and Waltham Forest the Tories did better than expected with their number of councillors virtually unchanged.
The only result it stands comparison with is 1994. It's actually worse for the Conservatives than 1971.
In London only, elsewhere in the country the Tories won areas like Basildon and Nuneaton they did not win in 1994 or 1971 and they also did much better in areas like Walsall and Dudley.
London is now the safest Labour region in the country, even more so than the North, in 1971 and 1994 London was a swing region. In that context the Tories could have done worse in London than they did in May especially after the Brexit vote but avoided wipeout
F1: backed Bottas at 6.5 and 10 (7 and 10.5 with boost), both each way (third the odds, top 2) to be fastest qualifier/winner respectively in Austria.
The new Mercedes engine looks good (perhaps a quibble with Perez's retirement), Bottas has been driving well, and last year he got, I think, the pole and win in Austria.
Those odds look good, if nothing else as a decent trading bet given that he did indeed win the race from pole last year.
I think Hamilton is on a charge after the disappointment of Canada. I would not bet against him.
Don’t disagree, Lewis’ performance last time out was back to his old self, and he’s definitely on a roll with Silverstone next up after Austria. I think Bottas should be second favourite for the next couple of races, so he’s value out at 10/1 behind Vettel.
The Times also say that Hamilton is back in a happy place and is expected to sign a new two year contract in time for the British Grand Prix.
Mr. Sandpit/Mr. L, hard to say. Hamilton's had up-and-down performances all season. At the last race, his two closest rivals were both out of contention for the victory from the first corner. You can't read much into his win because he was never under pressure.
2014 was already a very good result for Labour in London. An additional 1.9% swing to them was impressive, undermined only by hopeless expectations management. Less commented upon, the result in May in London was beyond abysmal for the Conservatives.
No, 'beyond abysmal' for the Tories in London would have been losing Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth, Barnet, Hillingdon and Westminster which was possible. In the end the Tories held all the Labour target councils in London just losing Kingston upon Thames and Richmond Upon Thames to the LDs. For many wealthy upper middle class Londoners keeping out Corbynism clearly beat protesting about Brexit.
While the Tories also did badly in some areas of outer London like Redbridge, with their loss of councillors in double figures, in other areas like Enfield and Waltham Forest the Tories did better than expected with their number of councillors virtually unchanged.
The only result it stands comparison with is 1994. It's actually worse for the Conservatives than 1971.
In London only
Er yes, that is indeed what I (and indeed the thread as a whole) was discussing.
F1: backed Bottas at 6.5 and 10 (7 and 10.5 with boost), both each way (third the odds, top 2) to be fastest qualifier/winner respectively in Austria.
The new Mercedes engine looks good (perhaps a quibble with Perez's retirement), Bottas has been driving well, and last year he got, I think, the pole and win in Austria.
Those odds look good, if nothing else as a decent trading bet given that he did indeed win the race from pole last year.
I think Hamilton is on a charge after the disappointment of Canada. I would not bet against him.
Don’t disagree, Lewis’ performance last time out was back to his old self, and he’s definitely on a roll with Silverstone next up after Austria. I think Bottas should be second favourite for the next couple of races, so he’s value out at 10/1 behind Vettel.
The Times also say that Hamilton is back in a happy place and is expected to sign a new two year contract in time for the British Grand Prix.
Yeah, they’re just haggling over the last few million in the contract but it’s been a done deal for a while, both sides are keen to get it signed ASAP.
Was trying to get back to the UK for Silverstone and the Goodwood Festival, but now looks like work is going to get in the way as usual - and a couple of weeks off when you work for yourself doesn’t help pay the mortgage!
I’ve asked Shadsy to price up Boris not standing in the next Tory leadership contest. Anyone got any ideas on what would be a good price? ttps://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1011708180286656513?s=21
Certainly not odds against. After all he didn’t stand last time, when it became clear he didn’t have the support of his MP colleagues. It’s unlikely his support has increased much in the meantime, and especially not after this week. 2/1 or 3/2 that he does stand?
Speaking of religious factors, here in Indonesia we have various regional Governor's elections, many of which are poisoned with religion.
In North Sumatra there's a choice between the Mulim pair of Edy Rahmyadi, former army general and generally shifty looking bloke, and his deputy Musa who (I have heard) smokes meth, and Djarot, a genial moustachioed Javanese Muslim (in the tolerant tradition) transplant, formerly the effective Mayor of Blitar, then subsequently deputy Mayor of Jakarta under the imprisoned Chinese Christian Ahok (imprisoned on bullshit blasphemy charges), and his deputy, Christian, Sihar Sitorus, the son of a (deceased) palm oil magnate who chopped down thousands of hectares of rainforest and was imprisoned for three years.
The Muslim % in the region is around 68%, and many mosqes have been putting out banners about not choosing 'kafir' (on the basis that Djarot is connected to Christian Ahok, and has a Christian deputy),and saying that it is 'haram' not to vote, and so on.
So the religious influence is very strong, the question is whether the religious brainwashing is sufficiently strong to get sufficiently many of the Muslim vote to support the dodgy bloke.
In the previous election, in Christian areas (generally more rural), around 90%-95% supported President Jokowi over his fascist-loving opponent, the Islamist-aligned Prabowo, however in Muslim areas support for the fascist was up to 70-75%, and in city around 55% for Prabowo.
The polls closed 1pm local time (7am) and 'quick count' is in process. Unfortunately any sort of analysis of WHERE the count is coming from is hopelessly absent, given the question of whether the remaining votes could break 90%+ for the non-Islamist pair or they are more even.
To make it worse there are two separate 'quick count' (exit poll I think) organisations, one currently saying 59.25% for the Islamist pair from 61% counted, and one saying 61.5% from 48.5% counted. I'm not really sure what kind of exit poll works if you haven't polled ALL the areas, but there you go.
However sensible the arguments Blair might put forward, the fact that it is him making them discredits them. Has he not yet realised that any public intervention he makes is utterly counterproductive ?
Mr. Eagles, he's openly ambitious and probably deeply regrets not standing last time. Psychologically, he'll *really* want to stand.
However, he will have lost quite a lot of support, I think. Does 'standing' involve merely announcing one's candidacy? Do you have to be on the list at the first round of voting?
He's also likely, if he does it, to announce as quickly as possible otherwise what support he has would scatter to other candidates.
Mr. Eagles, he's openly ambitious and probably deeply regrets not standing last time. Psychologically, he'll *really* want to stand.
However, he will have lost quite a lot of support, I think. Does 'standing' involve merely announcing one's candidacy? Do you have to be on the list at the first round of voting?
He's also likely, if he does it, to announce as quickly as possible otherwise what support he has would scatter to other candidates.
Standing = his name is on the ballot paper in the first round of the MPs section.
No, the interesting Irish perspective is Ireland is doing nothing re Brexit. So if Brexit is the catastrophe remainers claim, then Ireland is deep in the brown stuff - worse than we are . Yet currently they are working on business as usual post 2019.
Because Ireland are banking on the EU insisting on a Brexit In Name Only worst of all case scenarios where we regain no control just simply lose our MEPs and voting rights.
And as Theresa May and Hammond won't countenance no deal the Irish think they will get that.
Mr. Eagles, thanks for that definition. On that basis, bearing in mind his probably eroded MP support but also likely desire and the uncertainty of the timing of the next leadership contest, I'm personally inclined to steer clear. If I were more interested in backing it, I'd probably want 3, 2.5 at the lowest, on him not standing. He might go through with it even if it looks very unlikely he'll win, having fluffed it last time.
Mr. Sandpit/Mr. L, hard to say. Hamilton's had up-and-down performances all season. At the last race, his two closest rivals were both out of contention for the victory from the first corner. You can't read much into his win because he was never under pressure.
it's a qualifying format right now, so I think you perhaps can. And note that he felt there was another three tenths he could have found on his qualifying lap... When the setup is right, I don't think Bottas can get close to him in qualifying; the only time he's really challenged is when Hamilton has been struggling with the tyres.
But don't forget that in France, Mercedes benefitted from the special reduced tread Pirellis which they won't have in Austria. While there's probably little to choose in ultimate pace between the two teams, Ferrari has the better chance of getting the car setup right in Austria.
However sensible the arguments Blair might put forward, the fact that it is him making them discredits them. Has he not yet realised that any public intervention he makes is utterly counterproductive ?
Also it's not a solution. The reason why 'popularists' are succeeding at least electorally is because of the failure of the 'old' mainstream.
Not just failure of their policies, but failure to communicate and listen to people. That failure is just as, if not more important. The disconnect between politicans and the people is oh so clear to see.
Mr. Thompson, indeed. That would be the worst of all results. Which may be the aim. From the EU perspective, they get influence on the UK with none vice versa or they get referendum 2.
The overnight primary result in NY-14 (Bronx & Queen’s) is astonishing. Rep Joe Crowley, tipped to succeed Pelosi, was comprehensively beaten by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old local Hispanic woman running well to his left...
Interesting implications for the Democrats Presidential nominee choice...
Mr. B, Bottas has, I think, outscored Hamilton at 3/8 races this year. Bearing in mind he's had a DNF and suffered the French collision, which wasn't his fault, that's 3/6.
Maybe Hamilton really has turned a corner. But one race is not sufficient to make that case, particularly when the preceding event, at a circuit he's previously dominated, was a notably weak performance.
No, the interesting Irish perspective is Ireland is doing nothing re Brexit. So if Brexit is the catastrophe remainers claim, then Ireland is deep in the brown stuff - worse than we are . Yet currently they are working on business as usual post 2019.
Because Ireland are banking on the EU insisting on a Brexit In Name Only worst of all case scenarios where we regain no control just simply lose our MEPs and voting rights.
And as Theresa May and Hammond won't countenance no deal the Irish think they will get that.
The chances are steadily increasing that we end up with no deal by default, as neither side is prepared to compromise to the extent required to get a deal that will stick with all those who need to approve it.
We should have approached the negotiations the other way around, starting with WTO terms and opting back in to things, rather than starting with the status quo and trying to selectively opt out.
No, the interesting Irish perspective is Ireland is doing nothing re Brexit. So if Brexit is the catastrophe remainers claim, then Ireland is deep in the brown stuff - worse than we are . Yet currently they are working on business as usual post 2019.
Of course they are! They don't want to change, nor do they want a border on the island. If the Belfast Agreement is to be honoured then Op Gull will have to be expanded to include EU nationals and their area of operations will be the Irish Sea.
No, the interesting Irish perspective is Ireland is doing nothing re Brexit. So if Brexit is the catastrophe remainers claim, then Ireland is deep in the brown stuff - worse than we are . Yet currently they are working on business as usual post 2019.
Because Ireland are banking on the EU insisting on a Brexit In Name Only worst of all case scenarios where we regain no control just simply lose our MEPs and voting rights.
And as Theresa May and Hammond won't countenance no deal the Irish think they will get that.
The chances are steadily increasing that we end up with no deal by default, as neither side is prepared to compromise to the extent required to get a deal.
We should have approached the negotiations the other way around, starting with WTO terms and opting back in to things, rather than starting with the status quo and trying to selectively opt out.
Indeed. Set WTO as a fallback and prepare for it. Doesn't mean we will end up with WTO, in fact a good deal would have been more likely all along had the EU known we were serious about WTO as a fallback.
The overnight primary result in NY-14 (Bronx & Queen’s) is astonishing. Rep Joe Crowley, tipped to succeed Pelosi, was comprehensively beaten by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old local Hispanic woman running well to his left...
Interesting implications for the Democrats Presidential nominee choice...
The tone deafness of the 'civility police's is truly astonishing.
Comments
Surprising indeed.... must be because the switchers are racists, can't think of another reason why Muslims would vote for the Conservatives main rivals rather than the Conservatives.
I can respect an actual free speech activist, say like (someone from) the ACLU which would defend nazi's and all other kinds of crazies on the basis of free speech, rather than hating Muslims or Jews and wanting free speech to insult or incite in regards to them and defending only that area of free speech they would (from the little I know of them) defend cranks and racists from all sides.
I can see the merit in arguing for free speech in that way as long as there isn't actual incitement to violence. These low grade xenophobes just like to justify their crap with the rallying cry of free speech.
Which isn't to say there might not be merit in an actual free speech activist campaigning for them to be allowed to say what they say, just that isn't what they are.
But rather than AV they prefer Oi Vai ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44618162/wood-burning-gove-liz-truss-fumes-at-cabinet-colleague
And there are only trivial differences from the version posted on gov.uk:
…or enjoying the warm glow of our wood-burning Goves…I mean stoves. I can see their point: there’s enough hot air and smoke at the Environment Department already.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chief-secretary-to-the-treasury-liz-truss-speech-to-the-london-school-of-economics
The recent New Yorker article is a good one:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/02/how-social-media-trolls-turned-uc-berkeley-into-a-free-speech-circus
I don't think it is possible to classify wards by religion in the way that TSE suggests - there is far too much overlapping of different ethnic groups to do this except in a few instances.
In any case, what matters to a political party is whether a particular policy or political view increases or decreases its net support overall. "For the many, not the few" is an excellent campaigning slogan for Labour, and sums up its beliefs in fairness, equality and justice, from both a social and economic perspective.
Hostility to oligarchs such as Philip Green, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg and Roman Abramovich, and to the Zionist regime, is in line with these values and is not likely to be a vote-loser with most of the British population. Providing a public organisation (including political parties) doesn't discriminate per se against individuals of a particular background just because of that background, it is not "out of order".
Likewise, the implication that all Muslims are terrorists or want to somehow disrupt society.
The problems are that people who are rich and powerful can be discriminated against, and that the correlation between *any* religion or gender to power or poverty is far from 1:1. You will have some Jews who are poor and need help, and Muslims who are rich. Likewise, you will have rich people who are kind and helpful people in their community, and poor people who cause pain for everyone around them. Businessmen who are good for their community, and trade unionists who steal.
People are individuals, and should be judged as such on their words and actions. Judging people by their faith, gender or any other exterior characteristic is incredibly lazy, and often dangerous.
(*) BTW, has Corbyn visited Israel after his trip to Palestine? After all, he likes talking to both sides ...
Tories continue their vendetta against business. This won't lose them many votes in the short run, but it isn't good for our political culture.
Top 10 Hindu wards:
Con 27.4% (+3.0%) winning 5 seats (unchanged)
Lab 57.2% (+10.2%) winning 25 seats (+1)
Lib Dem 10.8% (-1.0%) winning 0 seats (-1)
Green 4.3% (-3.3%) winning 0 seats (unchanged)
Ind 0.3% (-0.4%) winning 0 seats (unchanged)
There were no UKIP candidates (-1.0%) and no Other candidates (-7.5%)
Top 10 Sikh wards
Con 27.8% (+1.0%) winning 7 seats (+1)
Lab 47.8% (+4.9%) winning 20 seats (-1)
Lib Dem 11.7% (+2.0%) winning 0 seats (unchanged)
Green 9.4% (+0.1%) winning 0 seats (unchanged)
Ind 1.0% (-1.6%) winning 0 seats (unchanged)
Others 2.3% (+1.7%) winning 0 seats (unchanged)
There were no UKIP candidates (-8.1%)
Interesting graphs, Mr. Hayfield. Clear outliers with the Jewish and Muslim bars.
Mr. Recidivist, I agree, though it's legitimate to point out many of those loudly pro-EU voices were also pro-single currency.
Lab 67.2% (+7.5%) winning 60 councillors (unchanged)
Con 15.2% (-7.8%) winning 0 councillors (unchanged)
Lib Dem 5.9% (+2.4%) winning 0 councillors (unchanged)
Green 5.2% (+4.4%) winning 0 councillors (unchanged)
Ind 1.3% (+0.8%) winning 0 councillors (unchanged)
UKIP 0.3% (-3.9%) winning 0 councillors (unchanged)
Others 4.9% (-3.6%) winning 0 councillors (unchanged)
Swing: 7.7% from Con to Lab
I'm glad we've cleared that one up.
But then, he also claimed his manifesto was fully costed and that he had a low violence threshold (by which I think he meant he had a very tight criteria of when violence was appropriate, given he was talking about whether or not he was a 'total pacifist' at the time).
It's odd how very dishonest he is yet keeps his reputation as principled. I think it's probably because he genuinely believes what he's saying at the time he's saying it. Like Tony Blair without the charm or intelligence.
If a party appears to be *for* your religion, it will pull you towards voting for them. If it appears to be *against* your religion, then it will push you away from voting for them.
Likewise , if a party appears to be *against* a religion you don't like, it will pull you towards voting for them. And if a party appears to be *for* a religion you don't like, it will push you away from voting for them.
So as an example, some Muslims voting for a Labour party that is riven with anti-Semitism might be doing so because they approve of anti-Semitism, rather than because of any problems in the Consevartive party. And the same is true for other religions, genders etc.
I had lunch with a friend the other day who told me a quaint story. She had just been to Tel Aviv for a wedding. She wrote on facebook that she was sitting on the beach having a great time except for a lifeguard who kept barking through his megaphone. 'He sounded like Hitler'.
Her estranged husband (a celebrity lawyer) emailed her to say it was a shocking comment and was a huge embarrassment to him. (He's Jewish she isn't).
By chance the same day an interview with him about his views on 'upskirting' was printed in which he said '....But if girls really want to avoid it they could always try wearing longer skirts' The article was deluged with 'dislikes'. He sacked his PR and received an email from my chum 'Is it better to be a sexist than an antisemite?
Betting PostF1: backed Bottas at 6.5 and 10 (7 and 10.5 with boost), both each way (third the odds, top 2) to be fastest qualifier/winner respectively in Austria.
The new Mercedes engine looks good (perhaps a quibble with Perez's retirement), Bottas has been driving well, and last year he got, I think, the pole and win in Austria.
And this is one hell of a classy concession gesture:
https://twitter.com/aynrandpaulryan/status/1011798919624286208?s=21
In a sense that's one of the oddities about Corbyn. He is at one and the same time a naked populist who unashamedly tries to bribe people into voting for him, and yet at the same time seems to campaign on a core vote strategy (or over Brexit, a de-cored vote strategy). I think that must be simple incompetence because if it isn't it's a damn strange strategy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44622498
Could have taken the trouble to appear in his own (very well funded) campaign, though:
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2018/06/27/from-future-speaker-to-primary-loser-inside-crowleys-crushing-defeat-490979
This was probably the determining factor:
That willingness for Ocasio-Cortez supporters, he said, may have been fueled in part by recent images of Latino children being separated from their families at the border. He said recent calls by party leaders for civility did not sit well with voters who see the Trump administration as a direct threat.
"All through the party people are seeing things they’ve never seen in their lives and the notion that we should be told how to act by leaders who have never had these things happen to their communities at a moment like this — people are fed up," Kwatra said. “Moments like that are galvanizing events and the fact it happened over the last few weeks — I think it would be impossible to say that it didn’t have a motivating factor for some voters.”...
https://twitter.com/CloughOlive/status/1011858602670415872
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1011699001211740160
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/joe-crowleys-loss-to-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-an-earthquake-in-democratic-politics.html?
“Shocking,” one senior Democratic House aide said of the result Tuesday night, noting that Crowley had been spending “a ton of time” in the district....
That would be good news if true. Doesn't seem likely if we have a cliff-edge Brexit though.
To my mind the real thing is that hardly anyone is saying they will significantly increase their exposure to the UK. That suggests to me that the real story of Brexit is how market size matters much more than regulatory regime (although as we've strongly hinted we'll keep most existing EU regs that may have a bearing on their decision).
Have a good morning.
the barrel is truly being scraped - Blair
where do we invade next ?
On the EU, we've also had Brown (successor to Blair, of course) promise a referendum then renege upon it, and Cameron (successor to Brown) deliver a referendum the campaigns of which, whilst dreadful, clearly indicated leaving the single market and customs union.
If the mainstream political class keeps behaving in a manner that could not necessarily be described as trustworthy, it is hardly surprising that trust in them is declining and voters may seek alternatives.
That said, I agree that there's a real risk of the far right rising (the far left, of course, currently occupying the front bench of Her Majesty's Loyal[ish] Opposition). The larger risk is if we get a departure in name only, damaging the political class' credibility even more.
Under those circumstances, the danger is not a revival of either UKIP or a new Farage-Banks political party, but something further right of that.
At the same time, the lunatic left is trying to rewrite the Labour leadership rulebook so a tiny percentage of MPs' support is required to get on the next shortlist. Perhaps Blair might care to observe the beam of the far left, rather than the mote of the far right.
Muslim voters have always leaned heavily towards Labour, and within London the non-Muslim population within wards that might be categorised as "Muslim" (as discussed in the thread) has been declining significantly. The 'extra' Labour voters in the chart are probably extra Muslim voters rather than Muslim switchers.
Your post appears to be at odds with reality. I appreciate some people wish to don the 'racism' spectacles to view our departure from the EU (as happened with the bandwagon-jumping when the Polish chap was killed, only for it to be revealed it was a mixed race gang that he'd provoked), but pretending that the rise in anti-Semitism is related to our probable departure from the EU rather than the change in the Labour Party is just plain daft.
Edited extra bit: Mr. B2, it won't happened, but there's a great opportunity for the blues here. They're not going to win in London. But if they shifted attention, and some cash, to the North, it'd be assuage concerns and gain them favour. Instead of blowing £2bn on buggering Stonehenge with a tunnel, they could spend it around Manchester, Leeds and outlying areas. Cash on rail would particularly be welcomed.
While the Tories also did badly in some areas of outer London like Redbridge, with their loss of councillors in double figures, in other areas like Enfield and Waltham Forest the Tories did better than expected with their number of councillors virtually unchanged.
Which is disappointing.
Vettel's got a good chance, and I suspect Hamilton's odds are too short. The Briton's been lacklustre at some races, and outclassed at others (by both his team mate and Vettel). He's fortunate, frankly, that neither Vettel nor Bottas have more points. The Finn really should be a contender, but the Baku puncture and French collision cost him a lot.
London is now the safest Labour region in the country, even more so than the North, in 1971 and 1994 London was a swing region. In that context the Tories could have done worse in London than they did in May especially after the Brexit vote but avoided wipeout
He ignored the old socialists Labour party to go more centre-right ,that includes his foriegn adventures ,today we have Jeremy corbyn.
Then we have this man opening our borders to millions of migrants from Eastern European which won the vote for us leaving the EU.
https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1011708180286656513?s=21
Was trying to get back to the UK for Silverstone and the Goodwood Festival, but now looks like work is going to get in the way as usual - and a couple of weeks off when you work for yourself doesn’t help pay the mortgage!
In North Sumatra there's a choice between the Mulim pair of Edy Rahmyadi, former army general and generally shifty looking bloke, and his deputy Musa who (I have heard) smokes meth, and Djarot, a genial moustachioed Javanese Muslim (in the tolerant tradition) transplant, formerly the effective Mayor of Blitar, then subsequently deputy Mayor of Jakarta under the imprisoned Chinese Christian Ahok (imprisoned on bullshit blasphemy charges), and his deputy, Christian, Sihar Sitorus, the son of a (deceased) palm oil magnate who chopped down thousands of hectares of rainforest and was imprisoned for three years.
The Muslim % in the region is around 68%, and many mosqes have been putting out banners about not choosing 'kafir' (on the basis that Djarot is connected to Christian Ahok, and has a Christian deputy),and saying that it is 'haram' not to vote, and so on.
So the religious influence is very strong, the question is whether the religious brainwashing is sufficiently strong to get sufficiently many of the Muslim vote to support the dodgy bloke.
In the previous election, in Christian areas (generally more rural), around 90%-95% supported President Jokowi over his fascist-loving opponent, the Islamist-aligned Prabowo, however in Muslim areas support for the fascist was up to 70-75%, and in city around 55% for Prabowo.
The polls closed 1pm local time (7am) and 'quick count' is in process. Unfortunately any sort of analysis of WHERE the count is coming from is hopelessly absent, given the question of whether the remaining votes could break 90%+ for the non-Islamist pair or they are more even.
To make it worse there are two separate 'quick count' (exit poll I think) organisations, one currently saying 59.25% for the Islamist pair from 61% counted, and one saying 61.5% from 48.5% counted. I'm not really sure what kind of exit poll works if you haven't polled ALL the areas, but there you go.
Has he not yet realised that any public intervention he makes is utterly counterproductive ?
However, he will have lost quite a lot of support, I think. Does 'standing' involve merely announcing one's candidacy? Do you have to be on the list at the first round of voting?
He's also likely, if he does it, to announce as quickly as possible otherwise what support he has would scatter to other candidates.
And as Theresa May and Hammond won't countenance no deal the Irish think they will get that.
When the setup is right, I don't think Bottas can get close to him in qualifying; the only time he's really challenged is when Hamilton has been struggling with the tyres.
But don't forget that in France, Mercedes benefitted from the special reduced tread Pirellis which they won't have in Austria. While there's probably little to choose in ultimate pace between the two teams, Ferrari has the better chance of getting the car setup right in Austria.
Not just failure of their policies, but failure to communicate and listen to people. That failure is just as, if not more important. The disconnect between politicans and the people is oh so clear to see.
. . . can anyone please explain why we would want free trade in goods but to lose free trade in services?
Sounds fab to me.
Maybe Hamilton really has turned a corner. But one race is not sufficient to make that case, particularly when the preceding event, at a circuit he's previously dominated, was a notably weak performance.
1997 £24.795bn
1998 £25.43bn
1999 £24.815bn
2000 £24.061bn
2001 £21.12bn
2002 £19.077bn
2003 £18.078bn
2004 £17.573bn
2005 £18.751bn
2006 £19.032bn
2007 £20.381bn
2008 £20.742bn
2009 £16.674bn
2010 £17.055bn
2011 £19.411bn
2012 £20.651bn
2013 £21.237bn
2014 £23.78bn
2015 £25.359bn
2016 £24.522bn
2017 £26.851bn
For 2018Q1 it is £6.863bn, which is the highest Q1 figure on record.
We should have approached the negotiations the other way around, starting with WTO terms and opting back in to things, rather than starting with the status quo and trying to selectively opt out.
That suits RoI perfectly well.