all its surveys ask those who take part whether they are party members,
I think I spot a tiny, insignificant flaw there...
ConHome can only be judged on results and they have a better record than most pollsters recently having proved extremely accurate in the 2005 Tory leadership election, the last time Tory members were given a vote on the leasership
The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?
Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008
I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.
Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better
Hickenlooper?
I hope so. My best price on him is 280
Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.
It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.
Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.
Ferraro was OK.
Personally she was fine. Shame about all that trouble over her husband's tax affairs.
Yes, it’s impossible to imagine someone with questionable tax affairs gaining the approval of the US electorate...
Well, let's face it, last time they had a tough choice. They could vote for someone with a histor...
Or they could vote for Donald Trump...
Clinton was a piss poor candidate - as I said at the time - but, not even close.
I was perhaps being mischievous...
You, mischevious ? No way.
As you know, I am the soul of seriousness, and never make a bad pun as I never question those like Sunil and TSE who hold to the tragically misguided belief that The Last Jedi is a good film.
Off topic I enjoyed S1 of French political drama " Marseille ". From a British perspective it's difficult to believe local government can possibly matter and it's a bit pantomime at first. But it builds nicely and explores classic themes of the price of power and effects holding it can have on people as well as politican's families. The cast and acting is good with some good blindsiding plot twists. I found the dubbing awful and switched to subtitles.
Check out "Marseille" on Netflix www.netflix.com/title/80037278?source=android
Local government is really important and people simply don't take it seriously enough. That includes the people who run it, unfortunately.
Given turnout is going to be mega this breaks standard USA polling filters which are hugely aggressive at eliminating 'non' - voters.
I have no idea what way the polling error will fall but to might come to the conclusion that it will fall the Republican's way as a stamdard turnout model assumes depressed turnout amongst the presidential incumbent party.
I'm not convinced that this or any other leaflet will change a single mind. It's all about profile-raising and making supporters feel it's worth bothering to vote. It's also, like most human interactions, just a pleasant way to spend a morning in the sun. I now have the details of my ward in the May locals (http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/ward/4591/) - time to start canvassing...
Depends on the leaflet.
A leaflet espousing the benefits of McDonnell as chancellor? If you happen to inadvertently hand me one I'll chase you down the street, nail your ears to a plank, and set you adrift in the Thames. And that's if it's a bright and lovely day, and I'm in a good mood.
Hmm, I was arguing that leaflets don't change minds. You are therefore (in disagreeing) suggesting that you are currently a big fan of John McDonnell but if I gave you a leaflet on the subject you would change your mind?
I'm not sure I disagreed.
You can write down and think what you like. If you happen to advocate daftness of the first degree to me though I'll react accordingly. Obviously I won't actually harm you, or threaten to harm you. A dim regard will perhaps be the maximal censure.
Leaflets intend to change minds - that's why they're printed.
all its surveys ask those who take part whether they are party members,
I think I spot a tiny, insignificant flaw there...
ConHome can only be judged on results and they have a better record than most pollsters recently having proved extremely accurate in the 2005 Tory leadership election, the last time Tory members were given a vote on the leasership
Apart from the 2005 contest, there has only been one other Con leadership contest that has gone to the members (2001 where IDS beat Ken Clarke 60:40). Conhome was founded in 2005, so your faith in that survey as a divining rod is based on a single example, 13 years ago.
Given turnout is going to be mega this breaks standard USA polling filters which are hugely aggressive at eliminating 'non' - voters.
I have no idea what way the polling error will fall but to might come to the conclusion that it will fall the Republican's way as a stamdard turnout model assumes depressed turnout amongst the presidential incumbent party.
Ladbrokes is 3/2 for Republican House majority online. Unless he got a better quote it doesn't look great odds to me.
Though it does seem that the plebs are wanting one too
according to an analysis released by the People’s Vote campaign
From a Yougov poll, using the methodology that forecast a hung parliament in GE 2017.
IIRC YouGov's poll did not forecast a hung parliament: YouGov's MRP model did. Not the same thing.
You are correct, the MRP was the accurate one in 2017.
MRP was also the methodology for this Peoples Vote survey though!
To quote from the Guardian article:
"YouGov used a multi-level regression and post-stratification (MRP) technique, polling 26,000 people to build up a statistical model of key demographics, including age, gender, education, race and social class. The theory is that it becomes possible to produce a model for every constituency in the country"
Given turnout is going to be mega this breaks standard USA polling filters which are hugely aggressive at eliminating 'non' - voters.
I have no idea what way the polling error will fall but to might come to the conclusion that it will fall the Republican's way as a stamdard turnout model assumes depressed turnout amongst the presidential incumbent party.
Turnout is not going to be over 50% that is almost certain and non voters ie minorities and the young tend to be more Democratic so no reason a higher turnout will automatically benefit the GOP especially with an anti Trump protest vote
all its surveys ask those who take part whether they are party members,
I think I spot a tiny, insignificant flaw there...
ConHome can only be judged on results and they have a better record than most pollsters recently having proved extremely accurate in the 2005 Tory leadership election, the last time Tory members were given a vote on the leasership
Apart from the 2005 contest, there has only been one other Con leadership contest that has gone to the members (2001 where IDS beat Ken Clarke 60:40). Conhome was founded in 2005, so your faith in that survey as a divining rod is based on a single example, 13 years ago.
A 100% success rate, but n = 1.
Yes but still a 100% success rate so it cannot be ignored
Given turnout is going to be mega this breaks standard USA polling filters which are hugely aggressive at eliminating 'non' - voters.
I have no idea what way the polling error will fall but to might come to the conclusion that it will fall the Republican's way as a stamdard turnout model assumes depressed turnout amongst the presidential incumbent party.
Turnout is not going to be over 50% that is almost certain and non voters ie minorities and the young tend to be more Democratic so no reason a higher turnout will automatically benefit the GOP especially with an anti Trump protest vote
Given turnout is going to be mega this breaks standard USA polling filters which are hugely aggressive at eliminating 'non' - voters.
I have no idea what way the polling error will fall but to might come to the conclusion that it will fall the Republican's way as a stamdard turnout model assumes depressed turnout amongst the presidential incumbent party.
Turnout is not going to be over 50% that is almost certain and non voters ie minorities and the young tend to be more Democratic so no reason a higher turnout will automatically benefit the GOP especially with an anti Trump protest vote
It doesn't have to be over 50% to be massively higher than normal mid term turnout.
There is also the possibility of unevenly distributed turnout increases where some states see massively boosted turnout skewing results.
I can see the same press release regurgitated by the media, but I can’t find the details of the poll on the YouGov or Peoples’ Vote websites.
How much would such a MLR poll of (it seems) 26000 people cost?
Assuming the Guardian is right, this is a very expensive poll, and it also is one that should be taken seriously.
But, there are no details that I can find.
I cannot find it on Yougov either, only the stuff on the newspapers.
It would be interesting to see the constituency level detail, but if the headline is correct and there is a majority for a People's Vote in EVERY Labour constituency, then we are in new territory. It would be interesting to see what the feelings are in current Tory held constituencies too.
Given turnout is going to be mega this breaks standard USA polling filters which are hugely aggressive at eliminating 'non' - voters.
I have no idea what way the polling error will fall but to might come to the conclusion that it will fall the Republican's way as a stamdard turnout model assumes depressed turnout amongst the presidential incumbent party.
Turnout is not going to be over 50% that is almost certain and non voters ie minorities and the young tend to be more Democratic so no reason a higher turnout will automatically benefit the GOP especially with an anti Trump protest vote
It doesn't have to be over 50% to be massively higher than normal mid term turnout.
There is also the possibility of unevenly distributed turnout increases where some states see massively boosted turnout skewing results.
As long as turnout is higher than 43.7% then I'll be happy having rather a big spread bet for an OAP
It's not happening, perhaps they should have thought a bit harder in the original vote.
That's a seriously condescending comment.
The problem with the notion of a vote on any A50 Treaty is what happens if you want to vote NO. Does a NO vote mean leaving without a treaty, going back for further negotiations or not leaving at all ?
For the "People's Vote" to happen, May would have to clarify the consequences of a No vote. It could mean a General Election perhaps but that isn't really the point as far as A50 is concerned. If May takes a No as a signal to leave without a treaty at least that's clear as it would be if she were to say she would seek to withdraw A50 or she would seek further negotiation.
The absence of that clarity makes a referendum impossible and indeed it seems increasingly likely the whole thing will be on a "take it or leave it" basis even for MPs and Peers.
How much would such a MLR poll of (it seems) 26000 people cost?
(MRP not MRL?)
Not much. Each person on the panel has a YouGov app on their phone/pc. The app asks a question, the person answers it, a computer program takes those answers and backforms probabilities for each socioeconomic group (that's the multilevel regression part) then another one fits those probabilies to the known distribution of those groups to the population in question (that's the poststratification part).
The whole point of the YouGov approach is that it's cheap and quick. The very expensive part is setting up a representative panel, but once that's done each question is very cheap. From memory, the cost of a single question is in the hundreds of pounds range, not thousands.
It's not happening, perhaps they should have thought a bit harder in the original vote.
That's a seriously condescending comment.
The problem with the notion of a vote on any A50 Treaty is what happens if you want to vote NO. Does a NO vote mean leaving without a treaty, going back for further negotiations or not leaving at all ?
For the "People's Vote" to happen, May would have to clarify the consequences of a No vote. It could mean a General Election perhaps but that isn't really the point as far as A50 is concerned. If May takes a No as a signal to leave without a treaty at least that's clear as it would be if she were to say she would seek to withdraw A50 or she would seek further negotiation.
The absence of that clarity makes a referendum impossible and indeed it seems increasingly likely the whole thing will be on a "take it or leave it" basis even for MPs and Peers.
I think that a Peoples Vote remains unlikely. Perhaps the significance of this is more to do with the electoral consequences for individual MPs where voters have developed cold feet over Brexit, Labour or Tory.
How much would such a MLR poll of (it seems) 26000 people cost?
(MRP not MRL?)
Not much. Each person on the panel has a YouGov app on their phone/pc. The app asks a question, the person answers it, a computer program takes those answers and backforms probabilities for each socioeconomic group (that's the multilevel regression part) then another one fits those probabilies to the known distribution of those groups to the population in question (that's the poststratification part).
The whole point of the YouGov approach is that it's cheap and quick. The very expensive part is setting up a representative panel, but once that's done each question is very cheap. From memory, the cost of a single question is in the hundreds of pounds range, not thousands.
I had a Yougov the other week with this question, and confirming demographics, but it wasn't via the Yougov app.
How much would such a MLR poll of (it seems) 26000 people cost?
(MRP not MRL?)
Not much. Each person on the panel has a YouGov app on their phone/pc. The app asks a question, the person answers it, a computer program takes those answers and backforms probabilities for each socioeconomic group (that's the multilevel regression part) then another one fits those probabilies to the known distribution of those groups to the population in question (that's the poststratification part).
The whole point of the YouGov approach is that it's cheap and quick. The very expensive part is setting up a representative panel, but once that's done each question is very cheap. From memory, the cost of a single question is in the hundreds of pounds range, not thousands.
I had a Yougov the other week with this question, and confirming demographics, but it wasn't via the Yougov app.
How much would such a MLR poll of (it seems) 26000 people cost?
(MRP not MRL?)
Not much. Each person on the panel has a YouGov app on their phone/pc. The app asks a question, the person answers it, a computer program takes those answers and backforms probabilities for each socioeconomic group (that's the multilevel regression part) then another one fits those probabilies to the known distribution of those groups to the population in question (that's the poststratification part).
The whole point of the YouGov approach is that it's cheap and quick. The very expensive part is setting up a representative panel, but once that's done each question is very cheap. From memory, the cost of a single question is in the hundreds of pounds range, not thousands.
I had a Yougov the other week with this question, and confirming demographics, but it wasn't via the Yougov app.
Fair dos. How were you contacted?
By email. It may have been on the App too at some point as I do their daily 3 questions.
How much would such a MLR poll of (it seems) 26000 people cost?
(MRP not MRL?)
Not much. Each person on the panel has a YouGov app on their phone/pc. The app asks a question, the person answers it, a computer program takes those answers and backforms probabilities for each socioeconomic group (that's the multilevel regression part) then another one fits those probabilies to the known distribution of those groups to the population in question (that's the poststratification part).
The whole point of the YouGov approach is that it's cheap and quick. The very expensive part is setting up a representative panel, but once that's done each question is very cheap. From memory, the cost of a single question is in the hundreds of pounds range, not thousands.
I had a Yougov the other week with this question, and confirming demographics, but it wasn't via the Yougov app.
Fair dos. How were you contacted?
By email. It may have been on the App too at some point as I do their daily 3 questions.
Given turnout is going to be mega this breaks standard USA polling filters which are hugely aggressive at eliminating 'non' - voters.
I have no idea what way the polling error will fall but to might come to the conclusion that it will fall the Republican's way as a stamdard turnout model assumes depressed turnout amongst the presidential incumbent party.
Turnout is not going to be over 50% that is almost certain and non voters ie minorities and the young tend to be more Democratic so no reason a higher turnout will automatically benefit the GOP especially with an anti Trump protest vote
It doesn't have to be over 50% to be massively higher than normal mid term turnout.
There is also the possibility of unevenly distributed turnout increases where some states see massively boosted turnout skewing results.
As long as turnout is higher than 43.7% then I'll be happy having rather a big spread bet for an OAP
The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?
Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008
I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.
Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better
Hickenlooper?
I hope so. My best price on him is 280
Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.
It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.
Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.
Ferraro was OK.
Personally she was fine. Shame about all that trouble over her husband's tax affairs.
Yes, it’s impossible to imagine someone with questionable tax affairs gaining the approval of the US electorate...
or workable ideas and with limited experience of public affairs that was persistently overstated plus a daughter who was and remains a loose cannon.
Or they could vote for Donald Trump...
Clinton was a piss poor candidate - as I said at the time - but, not even close.
I was perhaps being mischievous...
You, mischevious ? No way.
As you know, I am the soul of seriousness, and never make a bad pun as I never question those like Sunil and TSE who hold to the tragically misguided belief that The Last Jedi is a good film.
The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?
Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008
I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.
I should imagine a brief spur of polling will quickly convince her to give up the idea
Who was the last defeated candidate to run again? Nixon in 1968? Or was there another one who didn't make it through the primaries?
Edit - if we're talking about candidates who failed to be nominated a first time then H. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan and Bob Dole have to added to that list, I suppose.
Al Gore also ran in 1988 and got the nomination in 2000 and Joe Biden also ran that year and again in 2008 and John Edwards in 2004 and 2008.
On the GOP side McCain ran in 2000 and got the nomination in 2008, Romney ran in 2008 and got the nomination in 2012 and Buchanan ran in 1992 and 1996
Thank you. So lots of runners up in the primaries (we could also mention Eugene McCarthy who would have been Dem candidate in 68 but for a stitch-up and was the candidate in 72). But what about people who were the actual nominees running again? I can come up with Nixon, Stevenson, Dewey, then I have to go back to Grover Cleveland. Am I missing anyone obvious? I'm discounting Thedore Roosevelt as he didn't actually run in 1908 (I think it overwhelmingly likely he would have been the nominee and won if he had).
I am also discounting minor party candidates like Gary Johnson or Eugene Debs.
McGovern ran at the convention in 1968 but got the nomination in 1972, McCarthy won the most primaries in 1968 but Humphrey beat him at the convention. McCarthy ran in 1972 but did poorly in the primaries and in 1976 he ran as an independent but got less than 1%.
You are right on nominees running again, though Gore considered it in 2004 and Romney in 2016 neither ran again.
Perot ran twice as the Reform Party candidate in 1992 and 1996
The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?
Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008
I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.
Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better
Hickenlooper?
I hope so. My best price on him is 280
Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.
It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.
Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.
Ferraro was OK.
Personally she was fine. Shame about all that trouble over her husband's tax affairs.
Yes, it’s impossible to imagine someone with questionable tax affairs gaining the approval of the US electorate...
or workable ideas and with limited experience of public affairs that was persistently overstated plus a daughter who was and remains a loose cannon.
Or they could vote for Donald Trump...
Clinton was a piss poor candidate - as I said at the time - but, not even close.
I was perhaps being mischievous...
You, mischevious ? No way.
As you know, I am the soul of seriousness, and never make a bad pun as I never question those like Sunil and TSE who hold to the tragically misguided belief that The Last Jedi is a good film.
- "You always were scum!" - "Rebel scum!"
I am so disappointed in you. It was "You were always scum!"
The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?
Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008
I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.
Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better
Hickenlooper?
I hope so. My best price on him is 280
Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.
It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.
Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.
Ferraro was OK.
Personally she was fine. Shame about all that trouble over her husband's tax affairs.
Yes, it’s impossible to imagine someone with questionable tax affairs gaining the approval of the US electorate...
or workable ideas and with limited experience of public affairs that was persistently overstated plus a daughter who was and remains a loose cannon.
Or they could vote for Donald Trump...
Clinton was a piss poor candidate - as I said at the time - but, not even close.
I was perhaps being mischievous...
You, mischevious ? No way.
As you know, I am the soul of seriousness, and never make a bad pun as I never question those like Sunil and TSE who hold to the tragically misguided belief that The Last Jedi is a good film.
- "You always were scum!" - "Rebel scum!"
I am so disappointed in you. It was "You were always scum!"
The £1m the Superdry guy gave the People's Vote campaign is going on polling. I was sceptical but they are using it generate free media, the press likes the novelty of poll results, and in that sense it's working. But crucially they are polling in a way that allows they to generate credible data at Seat level. Despite being a campaign for a referendum People's Vote know this isn't a regerendum campaign. Rhey are seeking to influence MPs who feel bound by a previous referendum result. Hence the focus on producing data showing seat level changes. I think I was probably wrong to be sceptical. Given the very time limited nature of this campaign it may well be a good way to blow the £1m.
Off topic just watched Ep1 of the final season of House of Cards. I'm pleased to see it's getting the high qyality send off it deserves. Fantastic stuff.
It's all a machine, partner. Live free, don't join.
Says a man who in his two previous posts consciously aped a puppet.
Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong.
Surely, 'Every word of what you just said was wrong?'
That was to Kylo at the end of the film. On the island, Luke says to Rey "Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong" when she says "It's a power that Jedi have that lets them control people and... make things float.".
It's all a machine, partner. Live free, don't join.
Says a man who in his two previous posts consciously aped a puppet.
Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong.
Surely, 'Every word of what you just said was wrong?'
That was to Kylo at the end of the film. On the island, Luke says to Rey "Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong" when she says "It's a power that Jedi have that lets them control people and... make things float.".
So you're comparing me to Rey and therefore admitting I've been right all along?
I was assuming you had cast me as Kylo Ren, but don't let me stop you...
It's all a machine, partner. Live free, don't join.
Says a man who in his two previous posts consciously aped a puppet.
Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong.
Surely, 'Every word of what you just said was wrong?'
That was to Kylo at the end of the film. On the island, Luke says to Rey "Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong" when she says "It's a power that Jedi have that lets them control people and... make things float.".
So you're comparing me to Rey and therefore admitting I've been right all along?
I was assuming you had cast me as Kylo Ren, but don't let me stop you...
"Skywalker, still looking to the horizon. Never here, now, hmm? The need in front of your nose."
The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?
Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008
I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.
I should imagine a brief spur of polling will quickly convince her to give up the idea
Who was the last defeated candidate to run again? Nixon in 1968? Or was there another one who didn't make it through the primaries?
Edit - if we're talking about candidates who failed to be nominated a first time then H. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan and Bob Dole have to added to that list, I suppose.
Al Gore also ran in 1988 and got the nomination in 2000 and Joe Biden also ran that year and again in 2008 and John Edwards in 2004 and 2008.
On the GOP side McCain ran in 2000 and got the nomination in 2008, Romney ran in 2008 and got the nomination in 2012 and Buchanan ran in 1992 and 1996
Thank you. So lots of runners up in the primaries (we could also mention Eugene McCarthy who would have been Dem candidate in 68 but for a stitch-up and was the candidate in 72). But what about people who were the actual nominees running again? I can come up with Nixon, Stevenson, Dewey, then I have to go back to Grover Cleveland. Am I missing anyone obvious? I'm discounting Thedore Roosevelt as he didn't actually run in 1908 (I think it overwhelmingly likely he would have been the nominee and won if he had).
I am also discounting minor party candidates like Gary Johnson or Eugene Debs.
McGovern ran at the convention in 1968 but got the nomination in 1972, McCarthy won the most primaries in 1968 but Humphrey beat him at the convention. McCarthy ran in 1972 but did poorly in the primaries and in 1976 he ran as an independent but got less than 1%.
You are right on nominees running again, though Gore considered it in 2004 and Romney in 2016 neither ran again.
Perot ran twice as the Reform Party candidate in 1992 and 1996
McCarthy also endorsed Reagan in 1980!
Ted Kennedy May have voted for Reagan in 1980 too, a lot of liberal Democrats were fed up with Carter by then
It's all a machine, partner. Live free, don't join.
Says a man who in his two previous posts consciously aped a puppet.
Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong.
Surely, 'Every word of what you just said was wrong?'
That was to Kylo at the end of the film. On the island, Luke says to Rey "Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong" when she says "It's a power that Jedi have that lets them control people and... make things float.".
So you're comparing me to Rey and therefore admitting I've been right all along?
I was assuming you had cast me as Kylo Ren, but don't let me stop you...
"Skywalker, still looking to the horizon. Never here, now, hmm? The need in front of your nose."
Rey and Luke, rolled into one?
Wow!! I'm almost as flattered as I am surprised...
It's all a machine, partner. Live free, don't join.
Says a man who in his two previous posts consciously aped a puppet.
Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong.
Surely, 'Every word of what you just said was wrong?'
That was to Kylo at the end of the film. On the island, Luke says to Rey "Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong" when she says "It's a power that Jedi have that lets them control people and... make things float.".
So you're comparing me to Rey and therefore admitting I've been right all along?
I was assuming you had cast me as Kylo Ren, but don't let me stop you...
"Skywalker, still looking to the horizon. Never here, now, hmm? The need in front of your nose."
Rey and Luke, rolled into one?
Wow!! I'm almost as flattered as I am surprised...
"Boring conversation, anyway! Luke, we're gonna have company!"
It's all a machine, partner. Live free, don't join.
Says a man who in his two previous posts consciously aped a puppet.
Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong.
Surely, 'Every word of what you just said was wrong?'
That was to Kylo at the end of the film. On the island, Luke says to Rey "Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong" when she says "It's a power that Jedi have that lets them control people and... make things float.".
So you're comparing me to Rey and therefore admitting I've been right all along?
I was assuming you had cast me as Kylo Ren, but don't let me stop you...
"Skywalker, still looking to the horizon. Never here, now, hmm? The need in front of your nose."
Rey and Luke, rolled into one?
Wow!! I'm almost as flattered as I am surprised...
"Boring conversation, anyway! Luke, we're gonna have company!"
There won't be a 2nd vote. It's over now. You can feel it in the air. A deal is coming.
These people should put away their placards and start campaigning for a REJOIN vote in the transition period or beyond. That is their only hope.
I don't think they could win. However I can easily see a Labour government or an unnerved Tory government taking us back into the SM and CU.
A deal may be coming, but is it getting through the Commons? Obstacles to a second vote notwithstanding, so long as a transition deal getting agreed looks problematic the second vote supporters will continue to push.
It will actually be interesting to see how the energy of that campaign is diverted in the event a deal is agreed.
The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?
Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008
I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.
I should imagine a brief spur of polling will quickly convince her to give up the idea
Who was the last defeated candidate to run again? Nixon in 1968? Or was there another one who didn't make it through the primaries?
Edit - if we're talking about candidates who failed to be nominated a first time then H. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan and Bob Dole have to added to that list, I suppose.
Al Gore also ran in 1988 and got the nomination in 2000 and Joe Biden also ran that year and again in 2008 and John Edwards in 2004 and 2008.
On the GOP side McCain ran in 2000 and got the nomination in 2008, Romney ran in 2008 and got the nomination in 2012 and Buchanan ran in 1992 and 1996
Thank you. So lots of runners up in the primaries (we could also mention Eugene McCarthy who would have been Dem candidate in 68 but for a stitch-up and was the candidate in 72). But what about people who were the actual nominees running again? I can come up with Nixon, Stevenson, Dewey, then I have to go back to Grover Cleveland. Am I missing anyone obvious? I'm discounting Thedore Roosevelt as he didn't actually run in 1908 (I think it overwhelmingly likely he would have been the nominee and won if he had).
I am also discounting minor party candidates like Gary Johnson or Eugene Debs.
nomination in 1972, McCarthy won the most primaries in 1968 but Humphrey beat him at the convention. McCarthy ran in 1972 but did poorly in the primaries and in 1976 he ran as an independent but got less than 1%.
You are right on nominees running again, though Gore considered it in 2004 and Romney in 2016 neither ran again.
Perot ran twice as the Reform Party candidate in 1992 and 1996
McCarthy also endorsed Reagan in 1980!
Ted Kennedy May have voted for Reagan in 1980 too, a lot of liberal Democrats were fed up with Carter by then
Trotsky didn't learn from his enemies, he just killed them.
Well, except for Stalin, obviously, which was a careless oversight. Indeed if he could have Picked one enemy he should have killed, Iced have said Stalin would be it.
The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?
I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.
I should imagine a brief spur of polling will quickly convince her to give up the idea
Who was the last defeated candidate to run again? Nixon in 1968? Or was there another one who didn't make it through the primaries?
Edit - if we're talking about candidates who failed to be nominated a first time then H. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan and Bob Dole have to added to that list, I suppose.
Al Gore also ran in 1988 and got the nomination in 2000 and Joe Biden also ran that year and again in 2008 and John Edwards in 2004 and 2008.
On the GOP side McCain ran in 2000 and got the nomination in 2008, Romney ran in 2008 and got the nomination in 2012 and Buchanan ran in 1992 and 1996
Thank you. So lots of runners up in the primaries (we could also mention Eugene McCarthy who would have been Dem candidate in 68 but for a stitch-up and was the candidate in 72). But what about people who were the actual nominees running again? I can come up with Nixon, Stevenson, Dewey, then I have to go back to Grover Cleveland. Am I missing anyone obvious? I'm discounting Thedore Roosevelt as he didn't actually run in 1908 (I think it overwhelmingly likely he would have been the nominee and won if he had).
I am also discounting minor party candidates like Gary Johnson or Eugene Debs.
nomination in 1972, McCarthy won the most primaries in 1968 but Humphrey beat him at the convention. McCarthy ran in 1972 but did poorly in the primaries and in 1976 he ran as an independent but got less than 1%.
You are right on nominees running again, though Gore considered it in 2004 and Romney in 2016 neither ran again.
Perot ran twice as the Reform Party candidate in 1992 and 1996
McCarthy also endorsed Reagan in 1980!
Ted Kennedy May have voted for Reagan in 1980 too, a lot of liberal Democrats were fed up with Carter by then
I was fed up of Callaghan in 1979
Np way I was voting Thatcher though
Indeed it was a bizarre decision by McCarthy. In UK politics there would be no way he would have been taken seriously thereafter by people on the liberal left.
The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?
Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008
I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.
I should imagine a brief spur of polling will quickly convince her to give up the idea
Who was the last defeated candidate to run again? Nixon in 1968? Or was there another one who didn't make it through the primaries?
Edit - if we're talking about candidates who failed to be nominated a first time then H. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan and Bob Dole have to added to that list, I suppose.
Al Gore also ran in 1988 and got the nomination in 2000 and Joe Biden also ran that year and again in 2008 and John Edwards in 2004 and 2008.
On the GOP side McCain ran in 2000 and got the nomination in 2008, Romney ran in 2008 and got the nomination in 2012 and Buchanan ran in 1992 and 1996
Thank you. So lots of runners up in the primaries (we could also mention Eugene I am also discounting minor party candidates like Gary Johnson or Eugene Debs.
nomination in 1972, McCarthy won the most primaries in 1968 but Humphrey beat him at the convention. McCarthy ran in 1972 but did poorly in the primaries and in 1976 he ran as an independent but got less than 1%.
You are right on nominees running again, though Gore considered it in 2004 and Romney in 2016 neither ran again.
Perot ran twice as the Reform Party candidate in 1992 and 1996
McCarthy also endorsed Reagan in 1980!
Ted Kennedy May have voted for Reagan in 1980 too, a lot of liberal Democrats were fed up with Carter by then
There won't be a 2nd vote. It's over now. You can feel it in the air. A deal is coming.
These people should put away their placards and start campaigning for a REJOIN vote in the transition period or beyond. That is their only hope.
I don't think they could win. However I can easily see a Labour government or an unnerved Tory government taking us back into the SM and CU.
I could see a future PM Chuka Umunna taking us back into the SM certainly and maybe the CU too. The Tories will never take us back into the EU, the SM or CU, the Tory membership will never back a leader who stands for that. At most the Tories might accept the SM after a Labour PM takes us back in but they will not do it themselves.
However if Remainers want to keep us in the full EU they have to so before the end of March next year and Brexit day otherwise rejoining after leaving may require joining the Euro and Schengen and I cannot see British voters ever agreeing to that
It's all a machine, partner. Live free, don't join.
Says a man who in his two previous posts consciously aped a puppet.
Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong.
Surely, 'Every word of what you just said was wrong?'
That was to Kylo at the end of the film. On the island, Luke says to Rey "Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong" when she says "It's a power that Jedi have that lets them control people and... make things float.".
So you're comparing me to Rey and therefore admitting I've been right all along?
I was assuming you had cast me as Kylo Ren, but don't let me stop you...
"Skywalker, still looking to the horizon. Never here, now, hmm? The need in front of your nose."
Rey and Luke, rolled into one?
Wow!! I'm almost as flattered as I am surprised...
"Boring conversation, anyway! Luke, we're gonna have company!"
There won't be a 2nd vote. It's over now. You can feel it in the air. A deal is coming.
These people should put away their placards and start campaigning for a REJOIN vote in the transition period or beyond. That is their only hope.
I don't think they could win. However I can easily see a Labour government or an unnerved Tory government taking us back into the SM and CU.
I could see a future PM Chuka Umunna taking us back into the SM certainly and maybe the CU too. The Tories will never take us back into the EU, the SM or CU, the Tory membership will never back a leader who stands for that. At most the Tories might accept the SM after a Labour PM takes us back in but they will not do it themselves.
However if they want to keep us into the full EU they have to so before the end of March next year and Brexit day otherwise rejpining after leaving may require joining the Euro and Schengen and I cannot see British voters ever agreeing to that
Why do you think a country can be in the SM and not the EU? You must be a big cake or cherry eater.
Trotsky didn't learn from his enemies, he just killed them.
Well, except for Stalin, obviously, which was a careless oversight. Indeed if he could have Picked one enemy he should have killed, Iced have said Stalin would be it.
Good point.
(point. point. Geddit? Oh, they laughed at the Glasgow Empire... )
There won't be a 2nd vote. It's over now. You can feel it in the air. A deal is coming.
These people should put away their placards and start campaigning for a REJOIN vote in the transition period or beyond. That is their only hope.
I don't think they could win. However I can easily see a Labour government or an unnerved Tory government taking us back into the SM and CU.
I could see a future PM Chuka Umunna taking us back into the SM certainly and maybe the CU too. The Tories will never take us back into the EU, the SM or CU, the Tory membership will never back a leader who stands for that. At most the Tories might accept the SM after a Labour PM takes us back in but they will not do it themselves.
However if Remainers want to keep us in the full EU they have to so before the end of March next year and Brexit day otherwise rejoining after leaving may require joining the Euro and Schengen and I cannot see British voters ever agreeing to that
Future PM Chuka Umunna...I think I may have spotted a flaw in there.
It is only seriously Tory because the LDs committed suicide there, plus the national demise of the LDs. Waverley has been controlled by the LDs several times as has Guildford and when the Guildford parliamentary seat was won by the LDs it was a joint campaign with SW Surrey and SW Surrey was the number 1 target and Guildford number 2 and they only just missed winning both. Then the infighting started in SW Surrey / Waverley.
I didn't know that - that's interesting. What were they arguing about? At present the Tories have a completely dominant majority, and "that's unhealthy even for the Tories" is a productive line on the doorstep (just as it was for the Tories in ultra-Labour Nottingham). I think the argument for PR at local level is overwhelming - effectively one-party boroughs are a Really Bad Idea.
Apparently the borough is named after Waverley Abbey, near Farnham, the earliest Cistercian monastery in Britain. I suspect Recidivist is right that the name was designed to avoid picking one town as the core - the three towns have very little to do with each other.
as far as time for PR at local level.
Not at national level. Not these days. Just opens the door to radical Right.
There won't be a 2nd vote. It's over now. You can feel it in the air. A deal is coming.
These people should put away their placards and start campaigning for a REJOIN vote in the transition period or beyond. That is their only hope.
I don't think they could win. However I can easily see a Labour government or an unnerved Tory government taking us back into the SM and CU.
I could see a future PM Chuka Umunna taking us back into the SM certainly and maybe the CU too. The Tories will never take us back into the EU, the SM or CU, the Tory membership will never back a leader who stands for that. At most the Tories might accept the SM after a Labour PM takes us back in but they will not do it themselves.
However if they want to keep us into the full EU they have to so before the end of March next year and Brexit day otherwise rejpining after leaving may require joining the Euro and Schengen and I cannot see British voters ever agreeing to that
Why do you think a country can be in the SM and not the EU? You must be a big cake or cherry eater.
As Norway and Iceland and Liechtenstein and effectively Switzerland too have proven it
There won't be a 2nd vote. It's over now. You can feel it in the air. A deal is coming.
These people should put away their placards and start campaigning for a REJOIN vote in the transition period or beyond. That is their only hope.
I don't think they could win. However I can easily see a Labour government or an unnerved Tory government taking us back into the SM and CU.
I could see a future PM Chuka Umunna taking us back into the SM certainly and maybe the CU too. The Tories will never take us back into the EU, the SM or CU, the Tory membership will never back a leader who stands for that. At most the Tories might accept the SM after a Labour PM takes us back in but they will not do it themselves.
However if they want to keep us into the full EU they have to so before the end of March next year and Brexit day otherwise rejpining after leaving may require joining the Euro and Schengen and I cannot see British voters ever agreeing to that
Why do you think a country can be in the SM and not the EU? You must be a big cake or cherry eater.
As Norway and Iceland and effectively Switzerland and Liechtenstein too have proven it
Trotsky didn't learn from his enemies, he just killed them.
Well, except for Stalin, obviously, which was a careless oversight. Indeed if he could have Picked one enemy he should have killed, Iced have said Stalin would be it.
Good point.
(point. point. Geddit? Oh, they laughed at the Glasgow Empire... )
DUBLIN (Reuters) - Brexit has undermined the Good Friday Agreement which ended thirty years of violence in Northern Ireland, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said on Saturday.
Is he hinting at something that's not yet in the public domain?
There won't be a 2nd vote. It's over now. You can feel it in the air. A deal is coming.
These people should put away their placards and start campaigning for a REJOIN vote in the transition period or beyond. That is their only hope.
I don't think they could win. However I can easily see a Labour government or an unnerved Tory government taking us back into the SM and CU.
I could see a future PM Chuka Umunna taking us back into the SM certainly and maybe the CU too. The Tories will never take us back into the EU, the SM or CU, the Tory membership will never back a leader who stands for that. At most the Tories might accept the SM after a Labour PM takes us back in but they will not do it themselves.
However if Remainers want to keep us in the full EU they have to so before the end of March next year and Brexit day otherwise rejoining after leaving may require joining the Euro and Schengen and I cannot see British voters ever agreeing to that
Future PM Chuka Umunna...I think I may have spotted a flaw in there.
In a decade very possible, especially if the Tories win a majority at the next general election or a PM Corbyn trails badly in the polls by then and Umunna leads a new centrist party
He was in spirit. It's all part of my 20000 word dissertation 'From Snoke to Stalin: Bolshevism and nihilism in The Last Jedi'
Ah yes. I believe I read the review in Social Text. I particularly like the way you drew a parallel between the exile of Trotsky and of Kenobi. Although I did not know Mexico has two suns...
There won't be a 2nd vote. It's over now. You can feel it in the air. A deal is coming.
These people should put away their placards and start campaigning for a REJOIN vote in the transition period or beyond. That is their only hope.
I don't think they could win. However I can easily see a Labour government or an unnerved Tory government taking us back into the SM and CU.
I could see a future PM Chuka Umunna taking us back into the SM certainly and maybe the CU too. The Tories will never take us back into the EU, the SM or CU, the Tory membership will never back a leader who stands for that. At most the Tories might accept the SM after a Labour PM takes us back in but they will not do it themselves.
However if they want to keep us into the full EU they have to so before the end of March next year and Brexit day otherwise rejpining after leaving may require joining the Euro and Schengen and I cannot see British voters ever agreeing to that
Why do you think a country can be in the SM and not the EU? You must be a big cake or cherry eater.
As Norway and Iceland and effectively Switzerland and Liechtenstein too have proven it
Partial members.
Norway and Iceland and Liechtenstein are full members of the Single Market and European Economic Area through EFTA, Switzerland linked to the single market via bilateral agreements
There won't be a 2nd vote. It's over now. You can feel it in the air. A deal is coming.
These people should put away their placards and start campaigning for a REJOIN vote in the transition period or beyond. That is their only hope.
I don't think they could win. However I can easily see a Labour government or an unnerved Tory government taking us back into the SM and CU.
I could see a future PM Chuka Umunna taking us back into the SM certainly and maybe the CU too. The Tories will never take us back into the EU, the SM or CU, the Tory membership will never back a leader who stands for that. At most the Tories might accept the SM after a Labour PM takes us back in but they will not do it themselves.
However if they want to keep us into the full EU they have to so before the end of March next year and Brexit day otherwise rejpining after leaving may require joining the Euro and Schengen and I cannot see British voters ever agreeing to that
Why do you think a country can be in the SM and not the EU? You must be a big cake or cherry eater.
As Norway and Iceland and effectively Switzerland and Liechtenstein too have proven it
Partial members.
Norway and Iceland and Liechtenstein are full members of the Single Market and European Economic Area through EFTA, Switzerland linked to the single market via bilateral agreements
Why do they not have people making the regs of the single market then? Why is Norway not in the CFP and the CAP? Why are the not in the VAT regime?
DUBLIN (Reuters) - Brexit has undermined the Good Friday Agreement which ended thirty years of violence in Northern Ireland, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said on Saturday.
Is he hinting at something that's not yet in the public domain?
There won't be a 2nd vote. It's over now. You can feel it in the air. A deal is coming.
These people should put away their placards and start campaigning for a REJOIN vote in the transition period or beyond. That is their only hope.
I don't think they could win. However I can easily see a Labour government or an unnerved Tory government taking us back into the SM and CU.
I could see a future PM Chuka Umunna taking us back into the SM certainly and maybe the CU too. The Tories will never take us back into the EU, the SM or CU, the Tory membership will never back a leader who stands for that. At most the Tories might accept the SM after a Labour PM takes us back in but they will not do it themselves.
However if they want to keep us into the full EU they have to so before the end of March next year and Brexit day otherwise rejpining after leaving may require joining the Euro and Schengen and I cannot see British voters ever agreeing to that
Why do you think a country can be in the SM and not the EU? You must be a big cake or cherry eater.
As Norway and Iceland and effectively Switzerland and Liechtenstein too have proven it
Partial members.
Norway and Iceland and Liechtenstein are full members of the Single Market and European Economic Area through EFTA, Switzerland linked to the single market via bilateral agreements
Why do they not have people making the regs of the single market then? Why is Norway not in the CFP and the CAP? Why are the not in the VAT regime?
They do not directly make the regulations no but then Norway does not apply 25% of EU law and of course Norway stays out of the CFP which is why Cornish, Grimsby and Scottish fishermen would still be fine with being in the single market but not the full EU.
Asia Bibi blasphemy case: Husband pleads for asylum
Asia Bibi's husband, Ashiq Masih, said they were in great danger in Pakistan. On Saturday, her lawyer, Saif Mulook, fled Pakistan, saying he feared for his life.
Asia Bibi blasphemy case: Husband pleads for asylum
Asia Bibi's husband, Ashiq Masih, said they were in great danger in Pakistan. On Saturday, her lawyer, Saif Mulook, fled Pakistan, saying he feared for his life.
Asia Bibi blasphemy case: Husband pleads for asylum
Asia Bibi's husband, Ashiq Masih, said they were in great danger in Pakistan. On Saturday, her lawyer, Saif Mulook, fled Pakistan, saying he feared for his life.
Comments
Given turnout is going to be mega this breaks standard USA polling filters which are hugely aggressive at eliminating 'non' - voters.
I have no idea what way the polling error will fall but to might come to the conclusion that it will fall the Republican's way as a stamdard turnout model assumes depressed turnout amongst the presidential incumbent party.
@EuropeElects
1h1 hour ago
Germany, Forsa poll:
CDU/CSU-EPP: 27% (+1)
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 24% (+3)
AfD-EFDD: 13% (-1)
SPD-S&D: 13% (-1)
LINKE-LEFT: 9% (-1)
FDP-ALDE: 9%
Field work: 29/10/18 – 2/11/18
Sample size: 2,502"
You can write down and think what you like. If you happen to advocate daftness of the first degree to me though I'll react accordingly. Obviously I won't actually harm you, or threaten to harm you. A dim regard will perhaps be the maximal censure.
Leaflets intend to change minds - that's why they're printed.
A 100% success rate, but n = 1.
MRP was also the methodology for this Peoples Vote survey though!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/11/02/recep-tayyip-erdogan-saudi-arabia-still-has-many-questions-to-answer-about-jamal-khashoggis-killing/?noredirect=on&__twitter_impression=true
"YouGov used a multi-level regression and post-stratification (MRP) technique, polling 26,000 people to build up a statistical model of key demographics, including age, gender, education, race and social class. The theory is that it becomes possible to produce a model for every constituency in the country"
https://twitter.com/Labour4EU/status/1058637257144483840?s=19
I can see the same press release regurgitated by the media, but I can’t find the details of the poll on the YouGov or Peoples’ Vote websites.
How much would such a MLR poll of (it seems) 26000 people cost?
Assuming the Guardian is right, this is a very expensive poll, and it also is one that should be taken seriously.
But, there are no details that I can find.
There is also the possibility of unevenly distributed turnout increases where some states see massively boosted turnout skewing results.
It would be interesting to see the constituency level detail, but if the headline is correct and there is a majority for a People's Vote in EVERY Labour constituency, then we are in new territory. It would be interesting to see what the feelings are in current Tory held constituencies too.
The problem with the notion of a vote on any A50 Treaty is what happens if you want to vote NO. Does a NO vote mean leaving without a treaty, going back for further negotiations or not leaving at all ?
For the "People's Vote" to happen, May would have to clarify the consequences of a No vote. It could mean a General Election perhaps but that isn't really the point as far as A50 is concerned. If May takes a No as a signal to leave without a treaty at least that's clear as it would be if she were to say she would seek to withdraw A50 or she would seek further negotiation.
The absence of that clarity makes a referendum impossible and indeed it seems increasingly likely the whole thing will be on a "take it or leave it" basis even for MPs and Peers.
(MRP not MRL?)
Not much. Each person on the panel has a YouGov app on their phone/pc. The app asks a question, the person answers it, a computer program takes those answers and backforms probabilities for each socioeconomic group (that's the multilevel regression part) then another one fits those probabilies to the known distribution of those groups to the population in question (that's the poststratification part).
The whole point of the YouGov approach is that it's cheap and quick. The very expensive part is setting up a representative panel, but once that's done each question is very cheap. From memory, the cost of a single question is in the hundreds of pounds range, not thousands.
If there was then national polling would be currently showing something like 35% Leave to 65% Remain.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/katie-muth-progressive-pennsylvania-senate-race-democrats.html
This too will be an interesting pointer for 2020.
- "Rebel scum!"
"The greatest teacher, failure is!"
Off topic just watched Ep1 of the final season of House of Cards. I'm pleased to see it's getting the high qyality send off it deserves. Fantastic stuff.
I was assuming you had cast me as Kylo Ren, but don't let me stop you...
Wow!! I'm almost as flattered as I am surprised...
It will actually be interesting to see how the energy of that campaign is diverted in the event a deal is agreed.
Pause.
Honestly...
Np way I was voting Thatcher though
Well, except for Stalin, obviously, which was a careless oversight. Indeed if he could have Picked one enemy he should have killed, Iced have said Stalin would be it.
However if Remainers want to keep us in the full EU they have to so before the end of March next year and Brexit day otherwise rejoining after leaving may require joining the Euro and Schengen and I cannot see British voters ever agreeing to that
You must be a big cake or cherry eater.
(point. point. Geddit? Oh, they laughed at the Glasgow Empire...
Good night.
Is he hinting at something that's not yet in the public domain?
Why is Norway not in the CFP and the CAP?
Why are the not in the VAT regime?
(The clip is of the anime "Girls und Panzer" overdubbed with quotes from "Company of Heroes". The effect is...weird)
https://tinyurl.com/ybxnl2s6
HS2 could be dramatically scaled back amid public opposition to the scheme, the Transport Secretary has admitted.
Chris Grayling said that the second phase of the line, which would connect Birmingham to Leeds, was "not in the bag".
Asia Bibi blasphemy case: Husband pleads for asylum
Asia Bibi's husband, Ashiq Masih, said they were in great danger in Pakistan.
On Saturday, her lawyer, Saif Mulook, fled Pakistan, saying he feared for his life.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-46085577
IMO, if you can release a whole bunch of PR to the press, you can & should make the data & analysis available at the same time.