Brown is yesterday's man, well into his anecdotage.
If only he had held a refendum on the Lisbon Treaty we wouldn’t be here now with Brexit.
Thread Goodwined at 1412hrs.
Leaving is Remainers' fault.
It is indeed. If Remainer politicians hadn't messed us around so much then there wouldn't have been ex-Remainers like myself switching to Leave to get Leave over 50%.
Ditto if the Remain campaign hadn't been so relentlessly negative.
It generally is the losers fault they lost.
Double Goodwin.
I'm familiar with the phrase Godwin but this is a new one to me, what are you trying to say?
Are you trying to claim that when a government/establishment loses an election that its actions have no bearing with why it lost?
Remain had the full backing of the government, the civil service, the unions, most of the press, most of business, scientific leaders, universities, fear of uncertainty and others yet its nothing to do with Remainers why they lost?
Named after Matthew Goodwin – that Brexit itself or the bad consequences of Brexit are the fault of Remainers – which is the conclusion of 99% of the articles he writes.
Well the referendum result absolutely is the result of Remainers. Remainers called the election, chose the terms of the vote, ran government for decades before and f###ed it up so royally they lost.
There's an old saying that "oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them" and that is doubly so here.
What angers me about the Standard front page isn't the Corbyn story but the 3.2% rail fares increase which is outrageous given the crap service inflicted on many railway users.
Last time I looked inflation is nowhere near 3.2% and my salary isn't going up 3.2% next year so I'm out of pocket and my living standards are eroded once again.
No wonder so many people are fed up with the Conservative model of failure and are looking to embrace alternative models of failure.
Petrol seems to be going up by far more than 3.2% at the minute so rail users are the fortunate ones.
Rail users are effectively hugely subsidised by non rail users. Guess the user/ non user status of poster by contribution. Easy peasy.
Running a railway is a cost of running a successful economy. Would you charge hospital users on a pay-as-you-go basis? School users?
Socialists seem utterly incapable of incorporating costing as a factor in any kind of evaluation. That's a significant part of the reason for socialism's consistent failures.
What angers me about the Standard front page isn't the Corbyn story but the 3.2% rail fares increase which is outrageous given the crap service inflicted on many railway users.
Last time I looked inflation is nowhere near 3.2% and my salary isn't going up 3.2% next year so I'm out of pocket and my living standards are eroded once again.
No wonder so many people are fed up with the Conservative model of failure and are looking to embrace alternative models of failure.
Petrol seems to be going up by far more than 3.2% at the minute so rail users are the fortunate ones.
Rail users are effectively hugely subsidised by non rail users. Guess the user/ non user status of poster by contribution. Easy peasy.
Running a railway is a cost of running a successful economy. Would you charge hospital users on a pay-as-you-go basis? School users?
You generally don't choose to be born. You generally don't choose to be sick.
You do choose to use a railway. Why shouldn't you pay for it?
Why should those who work from home, or pay through the nose to drive, or cycle, or walk pay for the choice of others?
Or is he relying on polls - almost all of which predicted a remain win by up to 10 per cent in one case on the day of the referendum.
The majority of polls before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave would win. I don't think that's a strong argument to dismiss the current polls, which also have the benefit of being able to weight against the 2016 result.
Disappointingly selective of you William. The majority of the polls in the last week before the referendum had Remain winning, albeit by a small margin (apart from Populus, who I am delighted to say had Remain ahead by 10%, oh dear).
Really? heres the polls as published on a reliably good political website on the day before polling:
With the rise of postal voting, I think polls 2-3 weeks before may well be a better predictor, they certainly seemed to be for Brexit.
Well, the very next article was "Two massive poll boosts for REMAIN with voting starting in less than nine hours". All phone polls, but playing into the received wisdom that there would be a late switch to the status quo.
Brown is yesterday's man, well into his anecdotage.
If only he had held a refendum on the Lisbon Treaty we wouldn’t be here now with Brexit.
Thread Goodwined at 1412hrs. Leaving is Remainers' fault.
It is indeed. If Remainer politicians hadn't messed us around so much then there wouldn't have been ex-Remainers like myself switching to Leave to get Leave over 50%. Ditto if the Remain campaign hadn't been so relentlessly negative.
It generally is the losers fault they lost.
Double Goodwin.
I'm familiar with the phrase Godwin but this is a new one to me, what are you trying to say?
Are you trying to claim that when a government/establishment loses an election that its actions have no bearing with why it lost?
Remain had the full backing of the government, the civil service, the unions, most of the press, most of business, scientific leaders, universities, fear of uncertainty and others yet its nothing to do with Remainers why they lost?
Named after Matthew Goodwin – that Brexit itself or the bad consequences of Brexit are the fault of Remainers – which is the conclusion of 99% of the articles he writes.
Well the referendum result absolutely is the result of Remainers. Remainers called the election, chose the terms of the vote, ran government for decades before and f###ed it up so royally they lost. There's an old saying that "oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them" and that is doubly so here.
You mean that the Conservatives were to blame for most of those. Indeed they were. And we are suffering the consequences now. If only they had had the courage to split the party over Europe forty years ago.....
What angers me about the Standard front page isn't the Corbyn story but the 3.2% rail fares increase which is outrageous given the crap service inflicted on many railway users.
Last time I looked inflation is nowhere near 3.2% and my salary isn't going up 3.2% next year so I'm out of pocket and my living standards are eroded once again.
No wonder so many people are fed up with the Conservative model of failure and are looking to embrace alternative models of failure.
The way rail fares are messed about with is a disgrace. If I was confident I was getting a fair (no pun intended) and reliable price for a journey I would use a lot more trains than I do. But the bottom line is that net taxpayer subsidies for the network amount to about £4bn a year. That is £4bn taken from all taxpayers and given to those who use the railways, many of whom are not even taxpayers.
Is this a good investment? Actually, I would say yes because the alternative is even more clogged roads or reduced economic activity but I can understand the desire to bring what is paid and what is spent into closer balance.
What is depressing is that Chris Grayling has been left in charge of this. That is never going to go well. His continued existence at such a high level of UK politics is a genuine mystery to me.
Nationalise it. At least that way the public have got one arse to kick.
The infrastructure is already nationalised, and what we are discussing here are the regulated fairs. The ones that the government already control the price of.... not sure what nationalisation would achieve.
What British Rail was like - remember?
I remember the trains being not particularly busy as no one was using them. Under government management we witnessed decline decline decline. The very opposite we see now. The biggest problem the uk railways have now is managing the extra capacity.
Or is he relying on polls - almost all of which predicted a remain win by up to 10 per cent in one case on the day of the referendum.
The majority of polls before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave would win. I don't think that's a strong argument to dismiss the current polls, which also have the benefit of being able to weight against the 2016 result.
Disappointingly selective of you William. The majority of the polls in the last week before the referendum had Remain winning, albeit by a small margin (apart from Populus, who I am delighted to say had Remain ahead by 10%, oh dear).
Really? heres the polls as published on a reliably good political website on the day before polling:
With the rise of postal voting, I think polls 2-3 weeks before may well be a better predictor, they certainly seemed to be for Brexit.
Well, the very next article was "Two massive poll boosts for REMAIN with voting starting in less than nine hours". All phone polls, but playing into the received wisdom that there would be a late switch to the status quo.
There was a prevalent PB view at the time that phone polls were more accurate, but I think postal voting makes late swings obselete, or nearly so.
If we had no postal voting in 2017,then the trend to Labour would have meant PM Jezza.
Brown is yesterday's man, well into his anecdotage.
If only he had held a refendum on the Lisbon Treaty we wouldn’t be here now with Brexit.
Thread Goodwined at 1412hrs. Leaving is Remainers' fault.
It is indeed. If Remainer politicians hadn't messed us around so much then there wouldn't have been ex-Remainers like myself switching to Leave to get Leave over 50%. Ditto if the Remain campaign hadn't been so relentlessly negative.
It generally is the losers fault they lost.
Double Goodwin.
I'm familiar with the phrase Godwin but this is a new one to me, what are you trying to say?
Are you trying to claim that when a government/establishment loses an election that its actions have no bearing with why it lost?
Remain had the full backing of the government, the civil service, the unions, most of the press, most of business, scientific leaders, universities, fear of uncertainty and others yet its nothing to do with Remainers why they lost?
Named after Matthew Goodwin – that Brexit itself or the bad consequences of Brexit are the fault of Remainers – which is the conclusion of 99% of the articles he writes.
Well the referendum result absolutely is the result of Remainers. Remainers called the election, chose the terms of the vote, ran government for decades before and f###ed it up so royally they lost. There's an old saying that "oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them" and that is doubly so here.
You mean that the Conservatives were to blame for most of those. Indeed they were. And we are suffering the consequences now. If only they had had the courage to split the party over Europe forty years ago.....
No the Conservatives were not to blame for most of those. The Conservatives weren't in power for decades before. The Conservatives weren't the ones who ratified Lisbon without a referendum. Labour were.
But whether Labour or Conservatives what was consistent from 1973 to 2016 was an uninterrupted period of Remainers being in power.
EDIT: One might say that's still continuing now indeed.
Brown is yesterday's man, well into his anecdotage.
If only he had held a refendum on the Lisbon Treaty we wouldn’t be here now with Brexit.
Thread Goodwined at 1412hrs. Leaving is Remainers' fault.
It is indeed. If Remainer politicians hadn't messed us around so much then there wouldn't have been ex-Remainers like myself switching to Leave to get Leave over 50%. Ditto if the Remain campaign hadn't been so relentlessly negative.
It generally is the losers fault they lost.
Double Goodwin.
I'm familiar with the phrase Godwin but this is a new one to me, what are you trying to say?
Are you trying to claim that when a government/establishment loses an election that its actions have no bearing with why it lost?
Remain had the full backing of the government, the civil service, the unions, most of the press, most of business, scientific leaders, universities, fear of uncertainty and others yet its nothing to do with Remainers why they lost?
Named after Matthew Goodwin – that Brexit itself or the bad consequences of Brexit are the fault of Remainers – which is the conclusion of 99% of the articles he writes.
Well the referendum result absolutely is the result of Remainers. Remainers called the election, chose the terms of the vote, ran government for decades before and f###ed it up so royally they lost. There's an old saying that "oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them" and that is doubly so here.
You mean that the Conservatives were to blame for most of those. Indeed they were. And we are suffering the consequences now. If only they had had the courage to split the party over Europe forty years ago.....
No the Conservatives were not to blame for most of those. The Conservatives weren't in power for decades before. The Conservatives weren't the ones who ratified Lisbon without a referendum. Labour were.
But whether Labour or Conservatives what was consistent from 1973 to 2016 was an uninterrupted period of Remainers being in power.
EDIT: One might say that's still continuing now indeed.
I think that's unfair. People only started getting exercised about the EU when it was actually formed . The march from Maastricht to Lisbon via Amsterdam and Nice was certainly down to our Europhile governments, of both stripes.
I think that's unfair. People only started getting exercised about the EU when it was actually formed . The march from Maastricht to Lisbon via Amsterdam and Nice was certainly down to our Europhile governments, of both stripes.
What angers me about the Standard front page isn't the Corbyn story but the 3.2% rail fares increase which is outrageous given the crap service inflicted on many railway users.
Last time I looked inflation is nowhere near 3.2% and my salary isn't going up 3.2% next year so I'm out of pocket and my living standards are eroded once again.
No wonder so many people are fed up with the Conservative model of failure and are looking to embrace alternative models of failure.
Petrol seems to be going up by far more than 3.2% at the minute so rail users are the fortunate ones.
Rail users are effectively hugely subsidised by non rail users. Guess the user/ non user status of poster by contribution. Easy peasy.
Running a railway is a cost of running a successful economy. Would you charge hospital users on a pay-as-you-go basis? School users?
You generally don't choose to be born. You generally don't choose to be sick.
You do choose to use a railway. Why shouldn't you pay for it?
Why should those who work from home, or pay through the nose to drive, or cycle, or walk pay for the choice of others?
Not so. Many people don't have a choice – they have to use the railway.
Interesting that Freedland mentions the media's crying wolf problem at the top. The papers have smeared Corbyn so often that this is written off as more of the same.
I think that's unfair. People only started getting exercised about the EU when it was actually formed . The march from Maastricht to Lisbon via Amsterdam and Nice was certainly down to our Europhile governments, of both stripes.
That was quick work on the water butt!
Dispatched my beloved to Screwfix to get the correct bit to drill the requisite hole in the butt, hence skiving .
Many of us Remainers wanted to cherry pick our favourite polls, I certainly thought online polls were voodoo. In reality the evidence was there for those with cool heads. It was a toss up, and in that case the value is on the longer odds.
I believed the polls enough to profit from the FTSE, having moved to a defensive position a month before, then bought back much of the stocks in the post Brexit dip. A nice little earner.
Brown is yesterday's man, well into his anecdotage.
If only he had held a refendum on the Lisbon Treaty we wouldn’t be here now with Brexit.
Thread Goodwined at 1412hrs. Leaving is Remainers' fault.
It is indeed. If Remainer politicians hadn't messed us around so much then there wouldn't have been ex-Remainers like myself switching to Leave to get Leave over 50%. Ditto if the Remain campaign hadn't been so relentlessly negative.
It generally is the losers fault they lost.
Double Goodwin.
I'm familiar with the phrase Godwin but this is a new one to me, what are you trying to say?
Are you trying to claim that when a government/establishment loses an election that its actions have no bearing with why it lost?
Remain had the full backing of the government, the civil service, the unions, most of the press, most of business, scientific leaders, universities, fear of uncertainty and others yet its nothing to do with Remainers why they lost?
Named after Matthew Goodwin – that Brexit itself or the bad consequences of Brexit are the fault of Remainers – which is the conclusion of 99% of the articles he writes.
Well the referendum result absolutens don't win elections, governments lose them" and that is doubly so here.
You mean that the Conservatives were to blame for most of those. Indeed they were. And we are suffering the consequences now. If only they had had the courage to split the party over Europe forty years ago.....
No the Conservatives were not to blame for most of those. The Conservatives weren't in power for decades before. The Conservatives weren't the ones who ratified Lisbon without a referendum. Labour were.
But whether Labour or Conservatives what was consistent from 1973 to 2016 was an uninterrupted period of Remainers being in power.
EDIT: One might say that's still continuing now indeed.
I think that's unfair. People only started getting exercised about the EU when it was actually formed . The march from Maastricht to Lisbon via Amsterdam and Nice was certainly down to our Europhile governments, of both stripes.
Those pesky democratically-elected europhile governments.
I think that's unfair. People only started getting exercised about the EU when it was actually formed . The march from Maastricht to Lisbon via Amsterdam and Nice was certainly down to our Europhile governments, of both stripes.
Those pesky democratically-elected europhile governments.
It's funny how the fact that both main parties had the same manifesto commitment on Europe suddenly became a source of legitimacy in 2017.
What angers me about the Standard front page isn't the Corbyn story but the 3.2% rail fares increase which is outrageous given the crap service inflicted on many railway users.
Last time I looked inflation is nowhere near 3.2% and my salary isn't going up 3.2% next year so I'm out of pocket and my living standards are eroded once again.
No wonder so many people are fed up with the Conservative model of failure and are looking to embrace alternative models of failure.
Petrol seems to be going up by far more than 3.2% at the minute so rail users are the fortunate ones.
Rail users are effectively hugely subsidised by non rail users. Guess the user/ non user status of poster by contribution. Easy peasy.
Running a railway is a cost of running a successful economy. Would you charge hospital users on a pay-as-you-go basis? School users?
You generally don't choose to be born. You generally don't choose to be sick.
You do choose to use a railway. Why shouldn't you pay for it?
Why should those who work from home, or pay through the nose to drive, or cycle, or walk pay for the choice of others?
Not so. Many people don't have a choice – they have to use the railway.
No. People make choices - where to live, where to work. And for some, that will require them to use the railway. But it is as a result of their choices.
Brown is yesterday's man, well into his anecdotage.
If only he had held a refendum on the Lisbon Treaty we wouldn’t be here now with Brexit.
Thread Goodwined at 1412hrs. Leaving is Remainers' fault.
It is indeed. If Remainer politicians hadn't messed us around so much then there wouldn't have been ex-Remainers like myself switching to Leave to get Leave over 50%. Ditto if the Remain campaign hadn't been so relentlessly negative.
It generally is the losers fault they lost.
Double Goodwin.
I'mt?
Named after Matthew Goodwin – that Brexit itself or the bad consequences of Brexit are the fault of Remainers – which is the conclusion of 99% of the articles he writes.
Well the referendum result absolutens don't win elections, governments lose them" and that is doubly so here.
You mean that the Conservatives were to blame for most of those. Indeed they were. And we are suffering the consequences now. If only they had had the courage to split the party over Europe forty years ago.....
No the Conservatives were not to blame for most of those. The Conservatives weren't in power for decades before. The Conservatives weren't the ones who ratified Lisbon without a referendum. Labour were.
But whether Labour or Conservatives what was consistent from 1973 to 2016 was an uninterrupted period of Remainers being in power.
EDIT: One might say that's still continuing now indeed.
I think that's unfair. People only started getting exercised about the EU when it was actually formed . The march from Maastricht to Lisbon via Amsterdam and Nice was certainly down to our Europhile governments, of both stripes.
Those pesky democratically-elected europhile governments.
The problem is that governments aren't voted in on a policy by policy basis. That builds up tension in the populace if they think that they're being ignored. It happened with the EU, its happening with immigration and it's happening with the general economy as well.
Eventually if that pressure/tension isn't kept in check by pressure valves, it'll break the system apart, which is where we are now.
Brown is yesterday's man, well into his anecdotage.
If only he had held a refendum on the Lisbon Treaty we wouldn’t be here now with Brexit.
Thread Goodwined at 1412hrs. Leaving is Remainers' fault.
It is indeed. If Remainer politicians hadn't messed us around so much then there wouldn't have been ex-Remainers like myself switching to Leave to get Leave over 50%. Ditto if the Remain campaign hadn't been so relentlessly negative.
It generally is the losers fault they lost.
Double Goodwin.
I'm familiar with the phrase Godwin but this is a new one to me, what are you trying to say?
Are you trying to claim that when a government/establishment loses an election that its actions have no bearing with why it lost?
Remain had the full backing of the government, the civil service, the unions, most of the press, most of business, scientific leaders, universities, fear of uncertainty and others yet its nothing to do with Remainers why they lost?
Named after Matthew Goodwin – that Brexit itself or the bad consequences of Brexit are the fault of Remainers – which is the conclusion of 99% of the articles he writes.
Well the referendum result absolutely is the result of Remainers. Remainers called the election, chose the terms of the vote, ran government for decades before and f###ed it up so royally they lost. There's an old saying that "oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them" and that is doubly so here.
You mean that the Conservatives were to blame for most of those. Indeed they were. And we are suffering the consequences now. If only they had had the courage to split the party over Europe forty years ago.....
The issue grew when parties promised referendums on the EU before elections then didn't deliver when in government.
No. People make choices - where to live, where to work. And for some, that will require them to use the railway. But it is as a result of their choices.
No, my need to use public transport dictates where I live - not the other way around. Choice doesn't come into it for those of us who don't have cars.
On topic, I don't see how it's going to annoy anybody when it's just more of the same, and when the signs are that in traditional EU fashion minds are beginning to focus as deadlines approach and the grown-ups try to figure out how best to limit the damage.
The mother of all not going to be able to kick the can down the road any more issues.
Unless we, er, kick the can down the road extend Article 50.
Bloodbath for UKIP in the 2019 European elections if that happens.
Bloodbath in favour of UKIP I should think, if that happened.
Or is he relying on polls - almost all of which predicted a remain win by up to 10 per cent in one case on the day of the referendum.
The majority of polls before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave would win. I don't think that's a strong argument to dismiss the current polls, which also have the benefit of being able to weight against the 2016 result.
Or is he relying on polls - almost all of which predicted a remain win by up to 10 per cent in one case on the day of the referendum.
The majority of polls before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave would win. I don't think that's a strong argument to dismiss the current polls, which also have the benefit of being able to weight against the 2016 result.
Disappointingly selective of you William. The majority of the polls in the last week before the referendum had Remain winning, albeit by a small margin (apart from Populus, who I am delighted to say had Remain ahead by 10%, oh dear).
We're not having a referendum next weekend though. If you go back further to 2013, Leave had consistent big leads. Perhaps Euroscepticism was actually in long-term secular decline and that process was just interrupted by the migration crisis and referendum campaign.
That was in the wake of the Eurozone crisis of 2011/12.
Or is he relying on polls - almost all of which predicted a remain win by up to 10 per cent in one case on the day of the referendum.
The majority of polls before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave would win. I don't think that's a strong argument to dismiss the current polls, which also have the benefit of being able to weight against the 2016 result.
Disappointingly selective of you William. The majority of the polls in the last week before the referendum had Remain winning, albeit by a small margin (apart from Populus, who I am delighted to say had Remain ahead by 10%, oh dear).
We're not having a referendum next weekend though. If you go back further to 2013, Leave had consistent big leads. Perhaps Euroscepticism was actually in long-term secular decline and that process was just interrupted by the migration crisis and referendum campaign.
Let's be honest I doubt we'll see another referendum for a long, long time. If the people's vote campaign can only muster a smattering of interest on social media then clearly the public is very tired of the idea.
The first one certainly didn't come about because the public were clamouring for it...
The people's vote campaign has already shown the ability to mobilise hundreds of thousands of people to march against Brexit. No anti-EU campaign has ever come close to that.
Or is he relying on polls - almost all of which predicted a remain win by up to 10 per cent in one case on the day of the referendum.
The majority of polls before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave would win. I don't think that's a strong argument to dismiss the current polls, which also have the benefit of being able to weight against the 2016 result.
The problem is that governments aren't voted in on a policy by policy basis. That builds up tension in the populace if they think that they're being ignored. It happened with the EU, its happening with immigration and it's happening with the general economy as well.
Eventually if that pressure/tension isn't kept in check by pressure valves, it'll break the system apart, which is where we are now.
I agree that certain issues can get swept up in the general thrust of the drive to and then execution of government. Frankly, though, I don't think there was a huge issue with the EU. It was always a few right wing 18th Centuryites who had missed how the world has moved on in the intervening few hundred years.
Most people weren't touched by the EU one way or the other.
Well of course there was immigration, but as HYUFD keeps reminding us, that was our decision not to restrict it initially and our decision not to do anything about it subsequently. So not really an EU thing either.
I must say I was surpised at the way they handled the matter. Guardian’s article, though, doesn’t say who is doing the criticising, apart from the barrister for the other defendant, and, of course, the Guardian’s Legal Correpondent.
On topic, I don't see how it's going to annoy anybody when it's just more of the same, and when the signs are that in traditional EU fashion minds are beginning to focus as deadlines approach and the grown-ups try to figure out how best to limit the damage.
The mother of all not going to be able to kick the can down the road any more issues.
Unless we, er, kick the can down the road extend Article 50.
Bloodbath for UKIP in the 2019 European elections if that happens.
Bloodbath in favour of UKIP I should think, if that happened.
Show me where my working is wrong:
- The European elections would have more focus on them than ever before so turnout would be up as it would be the first chance for an explicitly EU related vote since the referendum. - UKIP are coming from a position of complete disarray. Even if Farage stepped back in as leader, they'd be doing extremely well to get 4 million votes again, especially given the prominence of Tories pushing a hard Brexit line. Given the higher turnout, even a good performance would see them go backwards in terms of seats - It's likely there would be some kind of explicit Remain ticket which would outpoll UKIP.
Or is he relying on polls - almost all of which predicted a remain win by up to 10 per cent in one case on the day of the referendum.
The majority of polls before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave would win. I don't think that's a strong argument to dismiss the current polls, which also have the benefit of being able to weight against the 2016 result.
I suspect this won't make a difference. Without watching the video, one suspects arch-Remainers will titter at the mockery of the heretics, arch-Leavers will think it's just ContinuityFear, and most people in between will never see it.
Mr. Root, the Newcastle rape gang sent down a while back got sod all coverage compared to the Westminster village journalists wetting themselves over the shock of Julia Hartley-Brewer's knee being touched 20 years ago.
And they wonder why trust in the media is declining.
Many of us Remainers wanted to cherry pick our favourite polls, I certainly thought online polls were voodoo. In reality the evidence was there for those with cool heads. It was a toss up, and in that case the value is on the longer odds.
I believed the polls enough to profit from the FTSE, having moved to a defensive position a month before, then bought back much of the stocks in the post Brexit dip. A nice little earner.
I thought it was close to a toss-up (I expected Remain to edge it) but I took advantage of the absurd odds that were being offered on Leave to win.
Or is he relying on polls - almost all of which predicted a remain win by up to 10 per cent in one case on the day of the referendum.
The majority of polls before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave would win. I don't think that's a strong argument to dismiss the current polls, which also have the benefit of being able to weight against the 2016 result.
In the last week, ten out of 13 polls had Remain ahead. The two polls taken on the day by YouGov and MORI had Remain 4% and 8% ahead.
But it was the postals that gave it to Leave and most of those voted three weeks earlier
You would therefore expect the final polls to reflect the fact that some people had actually voted.
You might expect that, but it wasn't true.
Polls a couple of weeks prior with UK patterns of postal voting may well be a better pointer. Worth knowing as a political bettor IMO. Its like reading the next weeks Racing Post in advance.
On topic, I don't see how it's going to annoy anybody when it's just more of the same, and when the signs are that in traditional EU fashion minds are beginning to focus as deadlines approach and the grown-ups try to figure out how best to limit the damage.
The mother of all not going to be able to kick the can down the road any more issues.
Unless we, er, kick the can down the road extend Article 50.
Bloodbath for UKIP in the 2019 European elections if that happens.
Bloodbath in favour of UKIP I should think, if that happened.
Show me where my working is wrong:
- The European elections would have more focus on them than ever before so turnout would be up as it would be the first chance for an explicitly EU related vote since the referendum. - UKIP are coming from a position of complete disarray. Even if Farage stepped back in as leader, they'd be doing extremely well to get 4 million votes again, especially given the prominence of Tories pushing a hard Brexit line. Given the higher turnout, even a good performance would see them go backwards in terms of seats - It's likely there would be some kind of explicit Remain ticket which would outpoll UKIP.
If A.50 is extended, UKIP will accuse the government of betrayal and get the lion's share of the anti-EU vote. Their disarray doesn't matter in an election conducted under PR, which people treat as a free hit anyway.
On topic, I don't see how it's going to annoy anybody when it's just more of the same, and when the signs are that in traditional EU fashion minds are beginning to focus as deadlines approach and the grown-ups try to figure out how best to limit the damage.
The mother of all not going to be able to kick the can down the road any more issues.
Unless we, er, kick the can down the road extend Article 50.
Bloodbath for UKIP in the 2019 European elections if that happens.
Bloodbath in favour of UKIP I should think, if that happened.
Show me where my working is wrong:
- The European elections would have more focus on them than ever before so turnout would be up as it would be the first chance for an explicitly EU related vote since the referendum. - UKIP are coming from a position of complete disarray. Even if Farage stepped back in as leader, they'd be doing extremely well to get 4 million votes again, especially given the prominence of Tories pushing a hard Brexit line. Given the higher turnout, even a good performance would see them go backwards in terms of seats - It's likely there would be some kind of explicit Remain ticket which would outpoll UKIP.
If A.50 is extended, UKIP will accuse the government of betrayal and get the lion's share of the anti-EU vote. Their disarray doesn't matter in an election conducted under PR, which people treat as a free hit anyway.
And who will get the lion's share of the pro-EU vote?
So at least one more thinks along the lines of Woodcock then I guess (who for whatever flaws he may have - I don't know if the investigation he was under was warranted or not - I will respect for, prior to an election even, publicly admitting what others probably thought about Corbyn). But let's just say the word 'ousted' has negative connotations, and unless Corbyn goes willingly I cannot see him going, so any hint of ousting is surely out.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
Starmer would be interesting. Some on here have little good to say about his previous career, but he certainly has the right look and feel, and he seems to have managed to direct a little focus into Labour's Brexit strategy from time to time, away from positions that seem instinctive to Corbyn.
Mr. Topping, whilst personally not very taken with Starmer, he would present a much sterner challenge indeed, and would likely make Labour favourites for the next election (particularly if May remains).
On topic, I don't see how it's going to annoy anybody when it's just more of the same, and when the signs are that in traditional EU fashion minds are beginning to focus as deadlines approach and the grown-ups try to figure out how best to limit the damage.
The mother of all not going to be able to kick the can down the road any more issues.
Unless we, er, kick the can down the road extend Article 50.
Bloodbath for UKIP in the 2019 European elections if that happens.
Bloodbath in favour of UKIP I should think, if that happened.
Show me where my working is wrong:
- The European elections would have more focus on them than ever before so turnout would be up as it would be the first chance for an explicitly EU related vote since the referendum. - UKIP are coming from a position of complete disarray. Even if Farage stepped back in as leader, they'd be doing extremely well to get 4 million votes again, especially given the prominence of Tories pushing a hard Brexit line. Given the higher turnout, even a good performance would see them go backwards in terms of seats - It's likely there would be some kind of explicit Remain ticket which would outpoll UKIP.
If A.50 is extended, UKIP will accuse the government of betrayal and get the lion's share of the anti-EU vote. Their disarray doesn't matter in an election conducted under PR, which people treat as a free hit anyway.
And who will get the lion's share of the pro-EU vote?
I imagine Labour. I'd expect UKIP and Labour to finish 1st and 2nd, as in 2014.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
On topic, I don't see how it's going to annoy anybody when it's just more of the same, and when the signs are that in traditional EU fashion minds are beginning to focus as deadlines approach and the grown-ups try to figure out how best to limit the damage.
The mother of all not going to be able to kick the can down the road any more issues.
Unless we, er, kick the can down the road extend Article 50.
Bloodbath for UKIP in the 2019 European elections if that happens.
Bloodbath in favour of UKIP I should think, if that happened.
Show me where my working is wrong:
- The European elections would have more focus on them than ever before so turnout would be up as it would be the first chance for an explicitly EU related vote since the referendum. - UKIP are coming from a position of complete disarray. Even if Farage stepped back in as leader, they'd be doing extremely well to get 4 million votes again, especially given the prominence of Tories pushing a hard Brexit line. Given the higher turnout, even a good performance would see them go backwards in terms of seats - It's likely there would be some kind of explicit Remain ticket which would outpoll UKIP.
If A.50 is extended, UKIP will accuse the government of betrayal and get the lion's share of the anti-EU vote. Their disarray doesn't matter in an election conducted under PR, which people treat as a free hit anyway.
And who will get the lion's share of the pro-EU vote?
I imagine Labour. I'd expect UKIP and Labour to finish 1st and 2nd, as in 2014.
You don't buy the idea that turnout would be up? What do you think UKIP's ceiling is? 2014-15 suggests 4 million.
On topic, I don't see how it's going to annoy anybody when it's just more of the same, and when the signs are that in traditional EU fashion minds are beginning to focus as deadlines approach and the grown-ups try to figure out how best to limit the damage.
The mother of all not going to be able to kick the can down the road any more issues.
Unless we, er, kick the can down the road extend Article 50.
Bloodbath for UKIP in the 2019 European elections if that happens.
Bloodbath in favour of UKIP I should think, if that happened.
Show me where my working is wrong:
- The European elections would have more focus on them than ever before so turnout would be up as it would be the first chance for an explicitly EU related vote since the referendum. - UKIP are coming from a position of complete disarray. Even if Farage stepped back in as leader, they'd be doing extremely well to get 4 million votes again, especially given the prominence of Tories pushing a hard Brexit line. Given the higher turnout, even a good performance would see them go backwards in terms of seats - It's likely there would be some kind of explicit Remain ticket which would outpoll UKIP.
If A.50 is extended, UKIP will accuse the government of betrayal and get the lion's share of the anti-EU vote. Their disarray doesn't matter in an election conducted under PR, which people treat as a free hit anyway.
And who will get the lion's share of the pro-EU vote?
I imagine Labour. I'd expect UKIP and Labour to finish 1st and 2nd, as in 2014.
We need a binomial tree. Certainly one branch would be: Labour with Corbyn/Labour without Corbyn.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
On topic, I don't see how it's going to annoy anybody when it's just more of the same, and when the signs are that in traditional EU fashion minds are beginning to focus as deadlines approach and the grown-ups try to figure out how best to limit the damage.
The mother of all not going to be able to kick the can down the road any more issues.
Unless we, er, kick the can down the road extend Article 50.
Bloodbath for UKIP in the 2019 European elections if that happens.
Bloodbath in favour of UKIP I should think, if that happened.
Show me where my working is wrong:
- The European elections would have more focus on them than ever before so turnout would be up as it would be the first chance for an explicitly EU related vote since the referendum. - UKIP are coming from a position of complete disarray. Even if Farage stepped back in as leader, they'd be doing extremely well to get 4 million votes again, especially given the prominence of Tories pushing a hard Brexit line. Given the higher turnout, even a good performance would see them go backwards in terms of seats - It's likely there would be some kind of explicit Remain ticket which would outpoll UKIP.
If A.50 is extended, UKIP will accuse the government of betrayal and get the lion's share of the anti-EU vote. Their disarray doesn't matter in an election conducted under PR, which people treat as a free hit anyway.
And who will get the lion's share of the pro-EU vote?
I imagine Labour. I'd expect UKIP and Labour to finish 1st and 2nd, as in 2014.
In 2014 UKIP was an unknown, before the Resign/Unresign, before the short leaderships, before the fisticuffs, before the scandals, before the gay donkey even.
On topic, I don't see how it's going to annoy anybody when it's just more of the same, and when the signs are that in traditional EU fashion minds are beginning to focus as deadlines approach and the grown-ups try to figure out how best to limit the damage.
The mother of all not going to be able to kick the can down the road any more issues.
Unless we, er, kick the can down the road extend Article 50.
Bloodbath for UKIP in the 2019 European elections if that happens.
Bloodbath in favour of UKIP I should think, if that happened.
Show me where my working is wrong:
- The European elections would have more focus on them than ever before so turnout would be up as it would be the first chance for an explicitly EU related vote since the referendum. - UKIP are coming from a position of complete disarray. Even if Farage stepped back in as leader, they'd be doing extremely well to get 4 million votes again, especially given the prominence of Tories pushing a hard Brexit line. Given the higher turnout, even a good performance would see them go backwards in terms of seats - It's likely there would be some kind of explicit Remain ticket which would outpoll UKIP.
If A.50 is extended, UKIP will accuse the government of betrayal and get the lion's share of the anti-EU vote. Their disarray doesn't matter in an election conducted under PR, which people treat as a free hit anyway.
And who will get the lion's share of the pro-EU vote?
I imagine Labour. I'd expect UKIP and Labour to finish 1st and 2nd, as in 2014.
You don't buy the idea that turnout would be up? What do you think UKIP's ceiling is? 2014-15 suggests 4 million.
Turnout might well be up, although still well below general election levels.
I don't think that 4 million would be UKIP's ceiling at such an election.
There are four sizeable parties chasing the pro-EU vote (Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Green) compared to two sizeable parties chasing the anti-EU vote (UKIP, Con).
On topic, I don't see how it's going to annoy anybody when it's just more of the same, and when the signs are that in traditional EU fashion minds are beginning to focus as deadlines approach and the grown-ups try to figure out how best to limit the damage.
The mother of all not going to be able to kick the can down the road any more issues.
Unless we, er, kick the can down the road extend Article 50.
Bloodbath for UKIP in the 2019 European elections if that happens.
Bloodbath in favour of UKIP I should think, if that happened.
Show me where my working is wrong:
- The European elections would have more focus on them than ever before so turnout would be up as it would be the first chance for an explicitly EU related vote since the referendum. - UKIP are coming from a position of complete disarray. Even if Farage stepped back in as leader, they'd be doing extremely well to get 4 million votes again, especially given the prominence of Tories pushing a hard Brexit line. Given the higher turnout, even a good performance would see them go backwards in terms of seats - It's likely there would be some kind of explicit Remain ticket which would outpoll UKIP.
If A.50 is extended, UKIP will accuse the government of betrayal and get the lion's share of the anti-EU vote. Their disarray doesn't matter in an election conducted under PR, which people treat as a free hit anyway.
And who will get the lion's share of the pro-EU vote?
I imagine Labour. I'd expect UKIP and Labour to finish 1st and 2nd, as in 2014.
In 2014 UKIP was an unknown, before the Resign/Unresign, before the short leaderships, before the fisticuffs, before the scandals, before the gay donkey even.
And that would matter in a general election, but not an EU election.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Edit: unless of course their nearest neighbours were down the drive and a mile and a half across the oilseed rape fields.
You're welcome to loathe people doing it; it's not something I'd do, one flag would be plenty. I just happen to think it's more bellendish to declare someone a bellend for putting flags on their own property and acting as though it is an imposition on anyone else. My gods, someone's eyes will be harmed, if only these damn visual orbs were capable of looking at something else!
Not liking it, thinking it is horrible, I see nothing untoward in that. Pretending it is inconsiderate of a person to do it, as was the charge? Personally I think that is unfair.
Quite why you make any assumption about the type of houses people live in if they said they'd be fine with a neighbour doing it (or at least it not being their business), I have no idea, but we can get into a four yorkshiremen sketch about the not grandness of our houses if you like.
Edit: And Thornberry didn't deserve to be sacked. Ed M acted too harshly.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
I've had a bit of think for a while in light of the investigation into Boris. I'm going to stay a member of the party and still actively campaign. I have cancelled my monthly standing order and I'm now down to just the £25 per year. This Conservative party no longer represents anything I'm in favour of.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
I've had a bit of think for a while in light of the investigation into Boris. I'm going to stay a member of the party and still actively campaign. I have cancelled my monthly standing order and I'm now down to just the £25 per year. This Conservative party no longer represents anything I'm in favour of.
What would it take for you to jettison it completely (you presumably have just received the same email as I have)?
What would you do with Starmer/EEA vs JRM/no deal going into the next GE?
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Edit: unless of course their nearest neighbours were down the drive and a mile and a half across the oilseed rape fields.
Yes, I'm looking forward to my next visit to deepest Sussex to see Richard N's cottage bedecked in a giant pair of Union Jack boxer shorts!
You're still backing moron Thornberry over the comments about England flags up in the week of a football match against Scotland?
She was too thick to realise the consequences, hence Ed sacked her.
I can only think of one reason that you might support such idiocy.
Either engage in the jollity and gaiety of the meme or kindly leave the stage. You take life far, far too seriously.
And you were the pillock calling England flags oppressive the other night.
What's wrong with you? Calm down man. I said having my next door neighbour covering his house in three giant England flags would be oppressive (as in overbearing). It would be.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Edit: unless of course their nearest neighbours were down the drive and a mile and a half across the oilseed rape fields.
Yes, I'm looking forward to my next visit to deepest Sussex to see Richard N's cottage bedecked in a giant pair of Union Jack boxer shorts!
You're still backing moron Thornberry over the comments about England flags up in the week of a football match against Scotland?
She was too thick to realise the consequences, hence Ed sacked her.
I can only think of one reason that you might support such idiocy.
The tweet didn't have any comments. Any comments are in your head. What could you possibly have been thinking when you saw the image?
I thought she tweeted something along the lines of "Image from Rochester" which I took to mean "Posted without comment" or "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
I've had a bit of think for a while in light of the investigation into Boris. I'm going to stay a member of the party and still actively campaign. I have cancelled my monthly standing order and I'm now down to just the £25 per year. This Conservative party no longer represents anything I'm in favour of.
Is it what Boris said, or the party's investigation into him that caused this?
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Edit: unless of course their nearest neighbours were down the drive and a mile and a half across the oilseed rape fields.
Our neighbour in Cumbria does have a flagpole at the top of which he has an England flag. It does not bother us in the slightest and is quite a useful way of checking how windy it is. But it is not draped over his house - he is far too houseproud for that, being a retired army officer - and is barely noticeable.
A bit of live and let live is needed. As our house is currently being rebuilt - and our front garden is therefore not up to Chesea Flower Show standards (more Steptoe than Monty Don) he is having to be the forbearing type ........
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Edit: unless of course their nearest neighbours were down the drive and a mile and a half across the oilseed rape fields.
Yes, I'm looking forward to my next visit to deepest Sussex to see Richard N's cottage bedecked in a giant pair of Union Jack boxer shorts!
You're still backing moron Thornberry over the comments about England flags up in the week of a football match against Scotland?
She was too thick to realise the consequences, hence Ed sacked her.
I can only think of one reason that you might support such idiocy.
The tweet didn't have any comments. Any comments are in your head. What could you possibly have been thinking when you saw the image?
I thought she tweeted something along the lines of "Image from Rochester" which I took to mean "Posted without comment" or "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
But maybe it was just a neutral phrase
What I inferred from it was "look at that utterly inconsiderate bellend who has covered his house in three gigantic England flags". What others infer from it is entirely a matter for them.
What's wrong with you? Calm down man. I said having my next door neighbour covering his house in three giant England flags would be oppressive (as in overbearing). It would be.
You're the one continuing to defend Colonel Thorberry's idiocy.
England flags go up around England matches. If it's too much for you, that's your problem not your neighbour's.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Edit: unless of course their nearest neighbours were down the drive and a mile and a half across the oilseed rape fields.
Yes, I'm looking forward to my next visit to deepest Sussex to see Richard N's cottage bedecked in a giant pair of Union Jack boxer shorts!
You're still backing moron Thornberry over the comments about England flags up in the week of a football match against Scotland?
She was too thick to realise the consequences, hence Ed sacked her.
I can only think of one reason that you might support such idiocy.
The tweet didn't have any comments. Any comments are in your head. What could you possibly have been thinking when you saw the image?
I thought she tweeted something along the lines of "Image from Rochester" which I took to mean "Posted without comment" or "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
But maybe it was just a neutral phrase
What I inferred from it was "look at that utterly inconsiderate bellend who has covered his house in three gigantic England flags". What others infer from it is entirely a matter for them.
If you inferred correctly, that's probably why she was called out for it. Hasn't done her any harm anyway it seems.
I've had a bit of think for a while in light of the investigation into Boris. I'm going to stay a member of the party and still actively campaign. I have cancelled my monthly standing order and I'm now down to just the £25 per year. This Conservative party no longer represents anything I'm in favour of.
It looks as if the Tory Lord Sheikh who was jumping all over Boris’s remarks for lslamophobia may himself be in trouble for his attendance at the same Tunis Conference as one Mr J Corbyn attended. Not for wreath laying but because of the various comments made on the platform by various speakers, though not him.
Brexit is like a disaster in which thousands of people drowned? Ha. Ha. Ha.
I think Remainers are strongly misjudging the dynamics of a second vote. Politicians don’t get to decide on what grounds the electorate makes its decision. Theresa May found that out in 2017 when she tried to call an election solely on Brexit, but plenty of people voted on public sector wage caps and police failings.
It would be the perfect scenario to run an anti-establishment people vs politicians campaign. The merits or failings of European integration would barely feature.
What's wrong with you? Calm down man. I said having my next door neighbour covering his house in three giant England flags would be oppressive (as in overbearing). It would be.
You're the one continuing to defend Colonel Thorberry's idiocy.
England flags go up around England matches. If it's too much for you, that's your problem not your neighbour's.
"Around England matches"? This bellend has had them on his house for nearly five months – since the 2014 World Cup, which was held in early summer.
–-– The owner of the Strood house, Dan Ware, 36, a father of four who works in the motor trade, said the flags had been on his house since the World Cup. –––
What angers me about the Standard front page isn't the Corbyn story but the 3.2% rail fares increase which is outrageous given the crap service inflicted on many railway users.
Last time I looked inflation is nowhere near 3.2% and my salary isn't going up 3.2% next year so I'm out of pocket and my living standards are eroded once again.
No wonder so many people are fed up with the Conservative model of failure and are looking to embrace alternative models of failure.
Petrol seems to be going up by far more than 3.2% at the minute so rail users are the fortunate ones.
Rail users are effectively hugely subsidised by non rail users. Guess the user/ non user status of poster by contribution. Easy peasy.
Running a railway is a cost of running a successful economy. Would you charge hospital users on a pay-as-you-go basis? School users?
You generally don't choose to be born. You generally don't choose to be sick.
You do choose to use a railway. Why shouldn't you pay for it?
Why should those who work from home, or pay through the nose to drive, or cycle, or walk pay for the choice of others?
Not so. Many people don't have a choice – they have to use the railway.
Not so. Everyone has a choice. Whether it be not making the journey, going by car, taxi, bike or walking there are alternatives for everyone. They may not be nice alternatives but they are there. That's why numbers on the railways have varied so dramatically... years ago under BR less people every year chose to use the railways. Now more people choose to.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Edit: unless of course their nearest neighbours were down the drive and a mile and a half across the oilseed rape fields.
Yes, I'm looking forward to my next visit to deepest Sussex to see Richard N's cottage bedecked in a giant pair of Union Jack boxer shorts!
You're still backing moron Thornberry over the comments about England flags up in the week of a football match against Scotland?
She was too thick to realise the consequences, hence Ed sacked her.
I can only think of one reason that you might support such idiocy.
The tweet didn't have any comments. Any comments are in your head. What could you possibly have been thinking when you saw the image?
I thought she tweeted something along the lines of "Image from Rochester" which I took to mean "Posted without comment" or "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
But maybe it was just a neutral phrase
Good article in the Graun. It was politically naive but says as much about the accusers as about her.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Edit: unless of course their nearest neighbours were down the drive and a mile and a half across the oilseed rape fields.
Our neighbour in Cumbria does have a flagpole at the top of which he has an England flag. It does not bother us in the slightest and is quite a useful way of checking how windy it is. But it is not draped over his house - he is far too houseproud for that, being a retired army officer - and is barely noticeable.
A bit of live and let live is needed. As our house is currently being rebuilt - and our front garden is therefore not up to Chesea Flower Show standards (more Steptoe than Monty Don) he is having to be the forbearing type ........
I wonder how his neighbours would feel if he draped his house in three giant flags for a period of five months.
I've had a bit of think for a while in light of the investigation into Boris. I'm going to stay a member of the party and still actively campaign. I have cancelled my monthly standing order and I'm now down to just the £25 per year. This Conservative party no longer represents anything I'm in favour of.
What would it take for you to jettison it completely (you presumably have just received the same email as I have)?
What would you do with Starmer/EEA vs JRM/no deal going into the next GE?
I don't want Labour anywhere near the levers of power so I'd have to stick with JRM. Labour will destroy this country one way or another.
Brexit is like a disaster in which thousands of people drowned? Ha. Ha. Ha.
I think Remainers are strongly misjudging the dynamics of a second vote. Politicians don’t get to decide on what grounds the electorate makes its decision. Theresa May found that out in 2017 when she tried to call an election solely on Brexit, but plenty of people voted on public sector wage caps and police failings.
It would be the perfect scenario to run an anti-establishment people vs politicians campaign. The merits or failings of European integration would barely feature.
How exactly when the choices would be the turd way or Remain? You'll have people like Gove earnestly telling people that it's about the freedom to win freedom, while he's drowned out by people saying "what's the point?", "it's a betrayal!" and the public will vote Remain just to bring an end to the whole shitshow.
I've had a bit of think for a while in light of the investigation into Boris. I'm going to stay a member of the party and still actively campaign. I have cancelled my monthly standing order and I'm now down to just the £25 per year. This Conservative party no longer represents anything I'm in favour of.
Is it what Boris said, or the party's investigation into him that caused this?
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Edit: unless of course their nearest neighbours were down the drive and a mile and a half across the oilseed rape fields.
Yes, I'm looking forward to my next visit to deepest Sussex to see Richard N's cottage bedecked in a giant pair of Union Jack boxer shorts!
You're still backing moron Thornberry over the comments about England flags up in the week of a football match against Scotland?
She was too thick to realise the consequences, hence Ed sacked her.
I can only think of one reason that you might support such idiocy.
The tweet didn't have any comments. Any comments are in your head. What could you possibly have been thinking when you saw the image?
I thought she tweeted something along the lines of "Image from Rochester" which I took to mean "Posted without comment" or "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
But maybe it was just a neutral phrase
What I inferred from it was "look at that utterly inconsiderate bellend who has covered his house in three gigantic England flags". What others infer from it is entirely a matter for them.
If you inferred correctly, that's probably why she was called out for it. Hasn't done her any harm anyway it seems.
The snowflakes of the right will whine and moan about anything.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Edit: unless of course their nearest neighbours were down the drive and a mile and a half across the oilseed rape fields.
Yes, I'm looking forward to my next visit to deepest Sussex to see Richard N's cottage bedecked in a giant pair of Union Jack boxer shorts!
You're still backing moron Thornberry over the comments about England flags up in the week of a football match against Scotland?
She was too thick to realise the consequences, hence Ed sacked her.
I can only think of one reason that you might support such idiocy.
The tweet didn't have any comments. Any comments are in your head. What could you possibly have been thinking when you saw the image?
I thought she tweeted something along the lines of "Image from Rochester" which I took to mean "Posted without comment" or "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
But maybe it was just a neutral phrase
Good article in the Graun. It was politically naive but says as much about the accusers as about her.
I should add that the medieval church two doors away at the end of my street flies the St George's Cross daily from its rather handsome tower. It looks quite magnificent blowing about in the breeze.
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Edit: unless of course their nearest neighbours were down the drive and a mile and a half across the oilseed rape fields.
Yes, I'm looking forward to my next visit to deepest Sussex to see Richard N's cottage bedecked in a giant pair of Union Jack boxer shorts!
You're still backing moron Thornberry over the comments about England flags up in the week of a football match against Scotland?
She was too thick to realise the consequences, hence Ed sacked her.
I can only think of one reason that you might support such idiocy.
The tweet didn't have any comments. Any comments are in your head. What could you possibly have been thinking when you saw the image?
"Image from Rochester..."
Why was she fired?
You tell me. You were the one talking about the "comments about England flags". Why do the words "image from Rochester" signify a moron?
Having claimed it had no comments, head comments if you will, and then had that clearly and concisely shown to be wrong, may I ask what you're still doing here?
Mr. P, it'd be fantastic for UK politics if Corbyn could be ousted and Labour's rules not Bolshevised, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If he and his clique is ousted and, say, La Thornberry takes over. Or Starmer. Or... Or....
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
But but but, Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of some bellend's house covered in England flags half a decade ago!!!
haha yes I loved that exchange when all those PB-ers who I'm sure live in perfectly charming houses positively welcomed their neighbours festooning their houses in flags (of any kind). I'd bloody loathe it whatever the reason.
Edit: unless of course their nearest neighbours were down the drive and a mile and a half across the oilseed rape fields.
Yes, I'm looking forward to my next visit to deepest Sussex to see Richard N's cottage bedecked in a giant pair of Union Jack boxer shorts!
You're still backing moron Thornberry over the comments about England flags up in the week of a football match against Scotland?
She was too thick to realise the consequences, hence Ed sacked her.
I can only think of one reason that you might support such idiocy.
The tweet didn't have any comments. Any comments are in your head. What could you possibly have been thinking when you saw the image?
I thought she tweeted something along the lines of "Image from Rochester" which I took to mean "Posted without comment" or "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
But maybe it was just a neutral phrase
Good article in the Graun. It was politically naive but says as much about the accusers as about her.
What do you think she meant by it?
"Jesus what an inconsiderate cock, draping three giant England flags over his house for three months."
What's wrong with you? Calm down man. I said having my next door neighbour covering his house in three giant England flags would be oppressive (as in overbearing). It would be.
You're the one continuing to defend Colonel Thorberry's idiocy.
England flags go up around England matches. If it's too much for you, that's your problem not your neighbour's.
"Around England matches"? This bellend has had them on his house for nearly five months – since the 2014 World Cup, which was held in early summer.
–-– The owner of the Strood house, Dan Ware, 36, a father of four who works in the motor trade, said the flags had been on his house since the World Cup. –––
She posted the picture in the week of an England match. That was the idiocy.
I've had a bit of think for a while in light of the investigation into Boris. I'm going to stay a member of the party and still actively campaign. I have cancelled my monthly standing order and I'm now down to just the £25 per year. This Conservative party no longer represents anything I'm in favour of.
What would it take for you to jettison it completely (you presumably have just received the same email as I have)?
What would you do with Starmer/EEA vs JRM/no deal going into the next GE?
I don't want Labour anywhere near the levers of power so I'd have to stick with JRM. Labour will destroy this country one way or another.
Interesting. I mean there's an argument (not one that I necessarily agree with) that says, what with the EU referendum, that the Cons really have destroyed the country. I mean look at us all. Everything is split down the line on Brexit terms and I don't think I can remember it this bad, whatever previous political factions.
Comments
There's an old saying that "oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them" and that is doubly so here.
You do choose to use a railway. Why shouldn't you pay for it?
Why should those who work from home, or pay through the nose to drive, or cycle, or walk pay for the choice of others?
If we had no postal voting in 2017,then the trend to Labour would have meant PM Jezza.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/745935877101228032
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/23/the-final-polling-chart/
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1029713083432882176
But whether Labour or Conservatives what was consistent from 1973 to 2016 was an uninterrupted period of Remainers being in power.
EDIT: One might say that's still continuing now indeed.
I believed the polls enough to profit from the FTSE, having moved to a defensive position a month before, then bought back much of the stocks in the post Brexit dip. A nice little earner.
Personally I think thats the most likely, He'll just support 'his' people/side/brothers without thinking about it.
I don't necessarily have to agree with my governments do I? Or, at least, not until Chairman Corbyn is elected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45193514
Eventually if that pressure/tension isn't kept in check by pressure valves, it'll break the system apart, which is where we are now.
Pedantry rules!
Most people weren't touched by the EU one way or the other.
Well of course there was immigration, but as HYUFD keeps reminding us, that was our decision not to restrict it initially and our decision not to do anything about it subsequently. So not really an EU thing either.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/aug/15/cps-defends-handling-of-case-against-cricketer-ben-stokes
I must say I was surpised at the way they handled the matter. Guardian’s article, though, doesn’t say who is doing the criticising, apart from the barrister for the other defendant, and, of course, the Guardian’s Legal Correpondent.
- The European elections would have more focus on them than ever before so turnout would be up as it would be the first chance for an explicitly EU related vote since the referendum.
- UKIP are coming from a position of complete disarray. Even if Farage stepped back in as leader, they'd be doing extremely well to get 4 million votes again, especially given the prominence of Tories pushing a hard Brexit line. Given the higher turnout, even a good performance would see them go backwards in terms of seats
- It's likely there would be some kind of explicit Remain ticket which would outpoll UKIP.
I suspect this won't make a difference. Without watching the video, one suspects arch-Remainers will titter at the mockery of the heretics, arch-Leavers will think it's just ContinuityFear, and most people in between will never see it.
Mr. Root, the Newcastle rape gang sent down a while back got sod all coverage compared to the Westminster village journalists wetting themselves over the shock of Julia Hartley-Brewer's knee being touched 20 years ago.
And they wonder why trust in the media is declining.
Polls a couple of weeks prior with UK patterns of postal voting may well be a better pointer. Worth knowing as a political bettor IMO. Its like reading the next weeks Racing Post in advance.
Then Cons are in serious sh&t.
Even though it is probably not illegal.
Edit: unless of course their nearest neighbours were down the drive and a mile and a half across the oilseed rape fields.
Lots of people took photographs. The photographs were taken to commemorate all of the houses in the street.
OK, enough of this crap.
I don't think that 4 million would be UKIP's ceiling at such an election.
There are four sizeable parties chasing the pro-EU vote (Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Green) compared to two sizeable parties chasing the anti-EU vote (UKIP, Con).
She was too thick to realise the consequences, hence Ed sacked her.
I can only think of one reason that you might support such idiocy.
Not liking it, thinking it is horrible, I see nothing untoward in that. Pretending it is inconsiderate of a person to do it, as was the charge? Personally I think that is unfair.
Quite why you make any assumption about the type of houses people live in if they said they'd be fine with a neighbour doing it (or at least it not being their business), I have no idea, but we can get into a four yorkshiremen sketch about the not grandness of our houses if you like.
Edit: And Thornberry didn't deserve to be sacked. Ed M acted too harshly.
Why was she fired?
What would you do with Starmer/EEA vs JRM/no deal going into the next GE?
But maybe it was just a neutral phrase
A bit of live and let live is needed. As our house is currently being rebuilt - and our front garden is therefore not up to Chesea Flower Show standards (more Steptoe than Monty Don) he is having to be the forbearing type ........
England flags go up around England matches. If it's too much for you, that's your problem not your neighbour's.
Perhaps he didn’t participate either......
I think Remainers are strongly misjudging the dynamics of a second vote. Politicians don’t get to decide on what grounds the electorate makes its decision. Theresa May found that out in 2017 when she tried to call an election solely on Brexit, but plenty of people voted on public sector wage caps and police failings.
It would be the perfect scenario to run an anti-establishment people vs politicians campaign. The merits or failings of European integration would barely feature.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11244687/Labour-front-bencher-Emily-Thornberry-sacked-over-prejudiced-flag-tweet.html
–-– The owner of the Strood house, Dan Ware, 36, a father of four who works in the motor trade, said the flags had been on his house since the World Cup. –––
Covered absolutely from the roof all the way down to the ground with England flags?
Yep, she was right.