Rayvin

A stimulus to the economy if nothing else. Also a statement to the rest of the world. The concern here is that it triggers an arms race. Presumably this is in aid of bolstering the US nuke totals?

The university normally sends out guidance on this with a company they recommend using. I wouldn't worry.

Be interesting to see that actually. He's on something like £300k/week isn't he? Hard to imagine him stepping down to around £100k/week (which I suspect is at the upper limits of what Everton could afford) but it'd be a refreshing statement if he did.

Hell of a paycut to go back to Everton...

Aye, Rooney being off to China in the summer effectively ends his chance.

If he continues this kind of form, Real Madrid will just come in and buy him away. Don't think we've too much to worry about in this day and age.

Based on quality maybe, but circulation is another matter...

Ahhh yes. That makes total sense actually. Fair enough.

who is he asking to do his well wishing there?

I agree 100% about this being ideological. Sorry to hear of the continuing frustration and difficulty. At least your partner has you to fight her corner.

Trust in the media has been on a consistently downward trend for years. They're in trouble. Trump is a liar but to be honest, I've seen the media shit stir and mislead so much over Trump and indeed before him that I'm not prepared to trust them either. I'm just going to do my own research wherever possible.

Which bit? The bit about them being on the ropes? Trust in them is at an all time low, people are getting news from other (less reliable) sources, and the US presidency has taken a strong line on them.

I just meant in terms of their ideologies. And also dwindling circulations. Have to say mind, I'm surprised the daily mail was kept out...

I think he wants the press to acquiesce rather than to ban them outright. Which isn't really better of course but I don't see how he could get anywhere near outright banning the press. He won't get them to acquiesce either. The media do appear to be on the ropes these days though.

What did the BBC do?

Nigel Farage is speaking at CPAC at the moment. Live on Youtube for anyone who fancies throwing up.

It does. But I'm not sure why we're so keen to avoid talking about all those new voters. They swung the thing. Cameron's gamble as you've set it out there actually would have worked had they not been involved. Corbyn's Labour along with the Lib Dems and Greens would have been enough to take it the right way. Either way, the upshot as Renton noted, is that Labour are paying the price for it.

Well in that case I agree with it more given how the Tories split went, but everyone appears to have accepted that this looks about right for them...? EDIT - (on your edit) as ever, I find myself frustrated that no one can prove anything to me. I just get told that I'm talking rubbish and that the reasons are self-evident. If comparing percentages isn't as comprehensive as I'd think, what metric would be?

I moved into the numbers because Alex compared Labour's performance to the SNP, which I don't think holds up as an argument in this case given how Scotland voted. I'll check out the podcast I guess...

I thought he was out for six matches??

He is anti-establishment but as I've covered before, Brexit became the anti-establishment 'movement'. Whether or not Corbyn could have been is now irrelevant, the chance was missed and Brexit was the thing people lashed out with.

My figures come from the BBC, from Lord Ashgate's polling... that's straight from the most 'reliable sources' surely. In what way are they questionable? Because it looks like they're just inconvenient. A small swing of 6% (for Labour) would have brought us equal. Is that a small swing? I don't think it is. And that's just equal. To be as 'convincing' as the out vote, it would have needed to be 13%. On Copeland we agree. He has to go and I'm sure he will soon. Then Labour can collapse into nothing with some grace. Just to put it concisely - My contention is that no other leader would have gotten Labour to a 75:25 pro Remain vote, based on the evidence across the other parties, that would have been needed to reverse this result. I don't even think they'd have managed 70:30. And further, that the 2.8 million people who 'turned' the result against Remain, were voting due to the political failures of those who had come before.

I also want to stress - I know Corbyn has to go, and that his movement simply hasn't worked. But to suggest that we're here on the cusp of leaving the EU because of him is just delusional - it ignores the whole reason we're in this mess, the whole reason Corbyn was even elected, and the whole reason that Trump was just elected in the US. This is not something specific to the UK. People are pissed, the centre has failed to provide answers or solutions, and is being torn apart. The harder we ignore this and bury our heads in the sand, the longer it's going to continue. Can I ask honestly - what do you think is going to happen when Corbyn goes? We elect a new leader and then what? We go back to the way things were? The centre left re-organises and suddenly is able to offer a compelling vision that it previously couldn't? I think you're counting on the hope that people get tired of resisting the status quo and just settle back down again and choose the least bad option.

A swing of that proportion would have taken Labour to 70% - or increased the proportion amongst the other parties to ridiculous levels. And on that, why aren't the other party leaders any less culpable? I would counter that your desperation to condemn him is ridiculous and as far as I can see, entirely unsubstantiated. Yes his performances were weak - but it doesn't appear that it made any difference. The numbers just don't add up, we were shot down not because the people who should have voted Remain didn't - but because the people who were severely pissed off with the system voted Leave. I can't fully explain where the 3.8m people voting UKIP came from, but it seems fair to suggest they're made up of both ex-Tories and ex-Labour. The 2.8m who had never voted before had been failed by the entire establishment. This is why I say that this was an anti-establishment movement. That 2.8m took us out of Europe. Why the fuck had they been left behind? Whose fault was that? In one year, what could any Labour party leader have done? Especially since they were all parroting austerity. I suspect the UKIP voters are anti-establishment too given what they were coming out with about experts and so on.