Qassändra

It depends what you define as a honeymoon period. I think she's moving past the point where people are giving her the benefit of the doubt for being new to a point where she's legitimately popular for the things she's saying and proposing.

Oh for crying out loud, let's not pretend that when it comes down to it DIVISION is the issue people are going to have with a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.

Oh as if she ever thought the same.

Come on now.

Non-Americans also have the benefit of not being exposed day-in-day-out to a media at a point with Hillary where they'll publish unproven rumours of scandal with the disclaimer "The allegations have yet to be confirmed, but this will only add to the general sense of untrustworthiness around Hillary Clinton", which is about as close as you can get to a get-out-of-jail-free card for libel as possible.

Endorsements being withdrawn en masse by the likes of John McCain. That bet for Hillary to top 360 electoral votes is looking pretty hot right now *.*

Mmm. Squealing so much in horror they proceeded to put those policies in their manifesto. When your definition of 'they retreated and caved in on the policy' seems to be 'they stopped mentioning it in every TV clip', does any Opposition policy exist at all after three months?

Traders sold the pound en masse because we voted to do something that is awful for our economic prospects and will almost certainly leave us trading on unfavourable terms with our biggest economic bloc partner. They didn't sell the pound as part of a considered adjustment that they'd been overestimating how strong the UK's economic fundamentals are on a day-to-day basis.

OMG IT IS

You're doing that thing where you go off into a rabbit hole of ludicrous caricature again. Mandelson as Business Secretary took inspiration from Germany all the time - why would he come out and say something commonplace in Germany would "destroy the economy"? Why would Chuka Umunna, who proposed it as Shadow Business Secretary, demand a u-turn on a policy he drove forward? Why would literally any Labour MP (all of whom have to be members of at least one trades union) claim the concept of workers having mere *representation* on a board would in any way stop business from working or destroy the economy? Also...why exactly do you think Ed Miliband would go through the emotional trauma of shattering a relationship with his brother, finally make it into government by taking the long way around and trying to be more left-wing than a straight-forward Blairite approach (which if he really wanted to he could have done easily from the start), and then do literally nothing left-wing in government? What exactly do you think he wanted to get there for?! Miliband's actions blocked Murdoch's purchase of BSkyB and led to the Leveson Charter - hardly sucking up.

Give me ALMA CARDZIC if we're talking NINETIES BOS

The 2015 manifesto: The reason it was barely mentioned is because neither are exactly the kind of policy that shifts many votes. Or really get much attention when it isn't someone from Labour saying it. I mean, I know you're fond of the meme that Ed Miliband was too terrified to do anything because of the press (despite being the only opposition leader until that point to directly attack Murdoch's interests), but in the event of a Labour government they probably would've done, y'know, maybe at least ONE OR TWO things to justify a Labour government, if only because if Ed Miliband really wanted an easy life as an Opposition leader he probably would've given the whole 'saying anything at all that pissed off the papers' thing a miss. I'm not really sure why you think they wouldn't have done the free measure of mandating workers on boards. The problem is you lose the best part of £66bn in tax revenues a year for the foreseeable. I presume you quite like the idea of a 60 percent top rate of tax? That would generate one twentieth that amount. Assuming there were no knock-on effects on the economy (which is a generous assumption, to say the least), it's the equivalent of raising everyone's taxes by 12p in the pound. Or closing two thirds of the UK's schools. Building a different economic model that gives you the same huge tax revenues from one world-leading sector is...easier said than done. It's like setting fire to your Ferrari and saying 'well, this will encourage me to build my own railway!'. You're starting from scratch with a massive building task to create a new sector that will definitely already have a few long-established world leaders. Just getting rid of one globally influential sector doesn't give you a headstart in making a new one. It just means a long time with less tax revenue (which also means less tax revenue to invest in any new sector development), waiting in the hope you eventually get a replacement. (Oh, and you're also attempting to do this during a period of huge economic turmoil after you've just left the Single Market, aren't getting loads of skilled labour in from immigration because you've just made a decision to reduce it to a minimum, etcetcetc)

One of my company's clients deals with big data for financial services firms. The second we lose financial services passporting across the Single Market...well, that 10% of UK tax revenues from the City was nice while it lasted.

Exactly. Plenty of small firms are operating on narrow profit margins. When you suddenly have to pay 8 percent extra to access the same market you relied on for your revenues before, that only ends in job losses or price increases - or bankruptcy, if you're now resoundingly outcompeted by another firm doing what you do cheaper from another Single Market country. The reason Theresa May is terrifying is because most other leaders would look at that and see what could be done instead to stay in the market but work to alleviate any negative side-effects of immigration. Theresa May has made clamping immigration down to a trickle (because let's be real - you don't make *that* much of an economic sacrifice just to get the option to control immigration) the ultimate aim here, regardless of the economic consequences. The upside is that we've got about two years' warning that this is her aim. I really don't want to be a siren voice here, but if anyone is genuinely not sure if they would be secure enough to withstand another recession on a par with the crash - or worse - I'd advise saving now to move to another country for the year or two of the storm after we leave.

Yes, there was an immediate economic shock and market crash. The main reason you didn't feel it was because the Bank of England immediately put in the largest wave of quantitative easing in British history and pumped £70bn into the economy. That we haven't had a sudden massive spike in inflation despite that massive stimulus to the economy is the giveaway of how much of an economic shock the vote to leave was. What you're saying is the equivalent of crashing the car and going "see, I told you that was fine!" because the airbags deployed. The part where we start driving again and notice the car isn't working quite like it was before isn't too far off. When retailers' hedging contracts (i.e. fixed agreements to buy foreign goods at a certain price for a 12 month period so they don't get hit by short-term price shocks and have the chance to anticipate any longer-term price changes) expire in January, we're in for a very nasty shock if the pound is still trading at 15% less than it was pre-referendum - as it has done consistently for the last few months. Well no, not quite. The argument for joining a common currency for the efficiency of avoiding currency conversion charges isn't an argument that there will be "extra charges" if you stay out of the currency - it's an argument that charges that are currently already paid to convert currency would no longer exist. It's also a pretty poor argument for changing currency if that's the only benefit you can point to, as it's a tiny benefit when compared with the far bigger economic effects of being in a monetary union but not a fiscal one, or entering monetary union with a lot of different nations on different economic cycles. Hence why it didn't really fly in the end. Additionally, the Venn diagram of people who think leaving the Single Market will have pretty calamitous economic effects and those who insisted our economy would be wrecked if we didn't join the euro is...very much not a circle. You'll notice Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were not in favour of joining the euro in the end and are similarly not in favour of us leaving the Single Market. Similarly, half of the Leave campaign spent the referendum arguing we could leave the EU but stay in the Single Market. They weren't doing that for their health. We're not talking about hypotheticals here - we know exactly how much extra WTO export tariffs will cost when trading with Single Market members if we leave. Having to pay extra for the exact same product you were buying before (which is now also at a price disadvantage to competitors in the Single Market) has big knock-on effects, to put it lightly. Nixon/China. Also, there's a reason they're calling her Mayliband. It isn't a 'more left-wing agenda' - it's one or two of the same policies (but not a mansion tax, nor a 50p top rate, nor a cap on energy prices...) mixed in with a platform of taking us out of a trade zone so we can reduce immigration to a trickle. Additional spending is also given tremendous leeway by the fact we've just had a big economic shock. It's no great mystery why they trust the Tories to turn on the spending taps at a time like this but not Labour - the Tories didn't spend the last six years looking like they were champing at the bit to start increasing spending massively, regardless of whether the economic climate was good or not.

Start the countdown for 'it's the fault of Remain voters for talking down the economy'.

It's quite difficult to cover up the price of someone's shopping basket going up by about 15% and the economic consequences of being subject to WTO tariffs, to say the least.

Let's see how happy everyone is having immigration policy as their number one issue once we're out of the Single Market, with all the extra charges that entails.

I don't know if it's reeeeeeeally fair to count an acting leader!

Thresholds encourage voters to stay at home by definition when set above a certain level, don't they?

Cities are liberalism incarnate, given their governing principle tends to be that they take all sorts.

I hate turnout thresholds. Anything that makes not voting more powerful than voting is a perversion of democracy.

It's an depth/breadth comparison. The whole reason secondary moderns were so unpopular towards the end of the grammar system was because so many were cut off and sent to substandard schools. It wasn't so much a case of not going to the best school in town as the ones who didn't get into the two or three good schools in town getting sent to actively poor schools. It's something that means plenty who don't get decent food on the table now will lose one of the main lifelines that allows them to ever get decent food on the table.

Modlitba however is a work of GOSSAMER BEAUTY and the spiritual mother of Beautiful Song. She should've kept to the medieval feel and come out dressed as a slutty Mary Queen of Scots *.*

You're going to hell.