It's Pot vs Kettle, innit? That a pair of senile, doddery old fuckers are the only choices for Leader Of The Free World tells us all we need to know about the current state of US politics and the nation in general. Whoever gets in, we'd better hope that their VP pick is sound, as I think America will be needing them before the next term is over.
Arguably the main way it could backfire on Biden is if it's *too* successful. Some real Trump senior moments - which would likely be spectacular given his nature would perhaps be the excuse sane Republicans needed to dump him in favour of Haley - if she can stay in the race long enough. Then Biden is smashed by a much more vigorous opponent.
Mind you, I suppose many (maybe even Biden himself if he's honest) who will be voting Democrat would take that rather than risk Trump Presidency 2.
I don't have a vote (being an Englishman in Hampstead) but fwiw I'd certainly take a Haley presidency right now in exchange for Trump not being on the ballot in November. I'd need about a millisecond to say Yes to that.
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Tory efforts at gerrymandering are getting farcical. First they try to stop people who actually live here and pay taxes from voting over entirely imaginary risks of fraud, and then they open the way to actual fraud so that people who might not have lived here or paid tax in decades get a vote. Utterly pathetic.
Personally I'd go the other way. Rather than extending the franchise to those who've lived abroad for more than 15 years, I'd limit it to those who live in this country at the time of the election. I don't quite get why those who have no direct stake in our affairs because they are permanently resident elsewhere should get to vote here, but maybe I'm missing something. Of course, they would be fully entitled to have their vote restored when/if they return to reside in the UK.
On topic, Biden ought to start a narrative now that Trump will skip the debates because he's not mentally up to it and doesn't want to be exposed as such; that Trump will give all sorts of spurious reasons as to why he won't do them - rigged media, a protest against 2020, whatever - but the real reason is that he can't handle them.
Obviously, there's risk in that but it almost certainly forces Trump to do them, at which point Biden has to (1) not screw up himself, and (2) has to catch Trump out. Both should be achievable - one trick might be to portray each ramble and rant as an inability to stick the point because he's forgotten what the point is.
Biden is a seasoned campaigner having won several difficult elections over the years, including against Trump in 2020. Whether he's finally past it I don't know, but he seems as good a bet as anyone in this strange election.
Biden has demonstrated you win against Trump by challenging him head on. I think on balance flagging up Trump's cognitive issues is a smart move on Biden's part because it challenges Trump and not because he's on particularly firm ground himself on the age thing.
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
That is an awful lot of votes. Particularly if they all vote Tory in marginal seats. I bet these beggars don't appear in the polling either.
Puts my South African urban myth into perspective.
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
Either stupid or dishonest, so fits the job requirement.
What actually happened:
Trump’s lead attorney Alina Habba asked for an adjournment after she and a juror may have been exposed to COVID — and the judge granted that request, over the objections of E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer. https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1749472225298620447
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
OK, so even an inveterate liar speaks the truth occasionally.
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
That is an awful lot of votes. Particularly if they all vote Tory in marginal seats. I bet these beggars don't appear in the polling either.
Puts my South African urban myth into perspective.
A root and branch of the voting process by the Labour government would be a very good thing. Of course implementing the Jenkins Report, binned by Blair on the initiative of Prescott would be highly desirable.
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Tory efforts at gerrymandering are getting farcical. First they try to stop people who actually live here and pay taxes from voting over entirely imaginary risks of fraud, and then they open the way to actual fraud so that people who might not have lived here or paid tax in decades get a vote. Utterly pathetic.
Personally I'd go the other way. Rather than extending the franchise to those who've lived abroad for more than 15 years, I'd limit it to those who live in this country at the time of the election. I don't quite get why those who have no direct stake in our affairs because they are permanently resident elsewhere should get to vote here, but maybe I'm missing something. Of course, they would be fully entitled to have their vote restored when/if they return to reside in the UK.
The Sindy Ref approach, I think, which I agree has much to commend it.
On topic. What concerns me is voters realising, the more of his mind Trump loses, the more electable he becomes. Vote for the Trump agenda, get actual technocrats delivering it free from the chaos and interference of last time.
“And who are you? Are you my home help?”
I don't think that follows. Trump losing more of his mind just makes him even more chaotic, not more biddable. His supreme confidence in himself and his judgement remains.
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
Either stupid or dishonest, so fits the job requirement.
What actually happened:
Trump’s lead attorney Alina Habba asked for an adjournment after she and a juror may have been exposed to COVID — and the judge granted that request, over the objections of E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer. https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1749472225298620447
I hope he does pick a fellow deplorable. My spirits would sink (and fears for my Short start to pick up) if eg Haley or similar were to sell out and hook up with him.
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
He was a good speaker when he put his mind to it, but politically, he sucked.
Either stupid or dishonest, so fits the job requirement.
What actually happened:
Trump’s lead attorney Alina Habba asked for an adjournment after she and a juror may have been exposed to COVID — and the judge granted that request, over the objections of E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer. https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1749472225298620447
I don't think that being stupid or dishonest is a straightforward match for the job requirement.
Being unswervingly loyal to the unquiet Don is the job requirement, including believing that he wins every election, that he never, ever committed fraud, that he's not round the twist and that he's not a traitor.
This does, of course, require the candidate to be both stupid and dishonest, but that's a detail.
Either stupid or dishonest, so fits the job requirement.
What actually happened:
Trump’s lead attorney Alina Habba asked for an adjournment after she and a juror may have been exposed to COVID — and the judge granted that request, over the objections of E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer. https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1749472225298620447
I hope he does pick a fellow deplorable. My spirits would sink (and fears for my Short start to pick up) if eg Haley or similar were to sell out and hook up with him.
The odd thing is she used to be what passes for a moderate in the GOP.
He's not going to pick Haley. She has committed the ultimate sin of presenting a serious challenge to him - and she's unlikely to be willing to humiliate herself sufficiently to atone for that.
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Tory efforts at gerrymandering are getting farcical. First they try to stop people who actually live here and pay taxes from voting over entirely imaginary risks of fraud, and then they open the way to actual fraud so that people who might not have lived here or paid tax in decades get a vote. Utterly pathetic.
Personally I'd go the other way. Rather than extending the franchise to those who've lived abroad for more than 15 years, I'd limit it to those who live in this country at the time of the election. I don't quite get why those who have no direct stake in our affairs because they are permanently resident elsewhere should get to vote here, but maybe I'm missing something. Of course, they would be fully entitled to have their vote restored when/if they return to reside in the UK.
It depends whether electoral rights should follow taxation and consumption of public services (which would be the reverse US independence argument - "no representation without taxation") or should follow citizenship in its wider sense, which involves consumption of certain UK public goods like consular services - including whether you'll get the SAS coming to free you if taken hostage, passports, and the right to live and work in the country.
I am in two minds, but I don't have any particular objection. I think it's good to keep abreast of what the diaspora are thinking.
Tories seem to be taking another turn downwards and Labour making up a bit of the lost ground from the end of last year.
Odd really because the government haven't done anything particularly terrible since new year. They've bickered a bit over Rwanda, but that's nothing new.
Reform seem fairly stable now around the 9-11% range. I still expect them to decline a bit in the next 2 months
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
I don't think it will backfire, so much as not have the impact it could have. If the Dems had a candidate who was capable of muttering more than "I like ice cream", then it would be a more powerful attack line.
Ah, but consider this, Phoebus
We all know Trump has a rat like cunning and a weird gift for scheming politics. What if he’s been FAKING the senility for the last two years, in order to draw out this risky attack from the Dems
Now Donald can go on TV and prove he’s got all his marbles and is sharp as a razor inside the Great Pyramid of Cheops AND he can now slay Biden for being a demented old mongoose, and Biden is stuck
Ahahah. I have all my best ideas on the cross trainer
I'm not surprised your trainer is cross, I would be too.
Tories seem to be taking another turn downwards and Labour making up a bit of the lost ground from the end of last year.
Odd really because the government haven't done anything particularly terrible since new year. They've bickered a bit over Rwanda, but that's nothing new.
Reform seem fairly stable now around the 9-11% range. I still expect them to decline a bit in the next 2 months
It's Pot vs Kettle, innit? That a pair of senile, doddery old fuckers are the only choices for Leader Of The Free World tells us all we need to know about the current state of US politics and the nation in general. Whoever gets in, we'd better hope that their VP pick is sound, as I think America will be needing them before the next term is over.
Arguably the main way it could backfire on Biden is if it's *too* successful. Some real Trump senior moments - which would likely be spectacular given his nature would perhaps be the excuse sane Republicans needed to dump him in favour of Haley - if she can stay in the race long enough. Then Biden is smashed by a much more vigorous opponent.
Mind you, I suppose many (maybe even Biden himself if he's honest) who will be voting Democrat would take that rather than risk Trump Presidency 2.
This is still repeating the myth that there's some group of Republicans, independent of Trump and the primary voters, who really get to decide the nomination. There isn't.
Trump is already racking up primary delegates and the more he wins, the less anyone else can do about it.
It's Pot vs Kettle, innit? That a pair of senile, doddery old fuckers are the only choices for Leader Of The Free World tells us all we need to know about the current state of US politics and the nation in general. Whoever gets in, we'd better hope that their VP pick is sound, as I think America will be needing them before the next term is over.
Arguably the main way it could backfire on Biden is if it's *too* successful. Some real Trump senior moments - which would likely be spectacular given his nature would perhaps be the excuse sane Republicans needed to dump him in favour of Haley - if she can stay in the race long enough. Then Biden is smashed by a much more vigorous opponent.
Mind you, I suppose many (maybe even Biden himself if he's honest) who will be voting Democrat would take that rather than risk Trump Presidency 2.
This is still repeating the myth that there's some group of Republicans, independent of Trump and the primary voters, who really get to decide the nomination. There isn't.
Trump is already racking up primary delegates and the more he wins, the less anyone else can do about it.
It’s all too predictable. Surely something unexpected is to happen.
Tories seem to be taking another turn downwards and Labour making up a bit of the lost ground from the end of last year.
Odd really because the government haven't done anything particularly terrible since new year. They've bickered a bit over Rwanda, but that's nothing new.
Reform seem fairly stable now around the 9-11% range. I still expect them to decline a bit in the next 2 months
Depends on Farage.
And the news cycle I think. i.e. how heavily does immigration and Rwanda feature in the headlines. Of course if Farage becomes leader then he drives the news cycle and ensures it stays in the headlines.
Tories seem to be taking another turn downwards and Labour making up a bit of the lost ground from the end of last year.
Odd really because the government haven't done anything particularly terrible since new year. They've bickered a bit over Rwanda, but that's nothing new.
Reform seem fairly stable now around the 9-11% range. I still expect them to decline a bit in the next 2 months
Reform have all the voters who think immigration trumps all other issues - I don’t see the Tories getting that vote back
It's Pot vs Kettle, innit? That a pair of senile, doddery old fuckers are the only choices for Leader Of The Free World tells us all we need to know about the current state of US politics and the nation in general. Whoever gets in, we'd better hope that their VP pick is sound, as I think America will be needing them before the next term is over.
Arguably the main way it could backfire on Biden is if it's *too* successful. Some real Trump senior moments - which would likely be spectacular given his nature would perhaps be the excuse sane Republicans needed to dump him in favour of Haley - if she can stay in the race long enough. Then Biden is smashed by a much more vigorous opponent.
Mind you, I suppose many (maybe even Biden himself if he's honest) who will be voting Democrat would take that rather than risk Trump Presidency 2.
This is still repeating the myth that there's some group of Republicans, independent of Trump and the primary voters, who really get to decide the nomination. There isn't.
Trump is already racking up primary delegates and the more he wins, the less anyone else can do about it.
Yes, the time to decide to testify against him for practical purposes ran out last year.
Ugly, bitter partisan attacks on presidential candidates go back at least to the election of 1800: "Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character". https://twitter.com/curiouswavefn/status/1049136763367608320
Either stupid or dishonest, so fits the job requirement.
What actually happened:
Trump’s lead attorney Alina Habba asked for an adjournment after she and a juror may have been exposed to COVID — and the judge granted that request, over the objections of E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer. https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1749472225298620447
I hope he does pick a fellow deplorable. My spirits would sink (and fears for my Short start to pick up) if eg Haley or similar were to sell out and hook up with him.
The odd thing is she used to be what passes for a moderate in the GOP.
He's not going to pick Haley. She has committed the ultimate sin of presenting a serious challenge to him - and she's unlikely to be willing to humiliate herself sufficiently to atone for that.
I hope you're right and on balance I think you are. Although I'm a touch more confident about him not picking her than her refusing it if he did. People do seem to lose themselves sometimes in their desire for spotlight, status and power.
Tories seem to be taking another turn downwards and Labour making up a bit of the lost ground from the end of last year.
Odd really because the government haven't done anything particularly terrible since new year. They've bickered a bit over Rwanda, but that's nothing new.
Reform seem fairly stable now around the 9-11% range. I still expect them to decline a bit in the next 2 months
Depends on Farage.
Don’t think so - these are people picking Reform as a right wing - not the Tories party.
I suspect Farage returning would bring Reform up to 15% and knock the Tories to very close to if not below 20%..
Either stupid or dishonest, so fits the job requirement.
What actually happened:
Trump’s lead attorney Alina Habba asked for an adjournment after she and a juror may have been exposed to COVID — and the judge granted that request, over the objections of E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer. https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1749472225298620447
I hope he does pick a fellow deplorable. My spirits would sink (and fears for my Short start to pick up) if eg Haley or similar were to sell out and hook up with him.
The odd thing is she used to be what passes for a moderate in the GOP.
He's not going to pick Haley. She has committed the ultimate sin of presenting a serious challenge to him - and she's unlikely to be willing to humiliate herself sufficiently to atone for that.
I hope you're right and on balance I think you are. Although I'm a touch more confident about him not picking her than her refusing it if he did. People do seem to lose themselves sometimes in their desire for spotlight, status and power.
They do - but Haley probably calculates that she has more of a chance of making the Oval office if she is knocked out of this cycle's race as the one Republican who didn't kowtow to Trump.
And who knows, she might even have principles she isn't prepared to abandon.
It's Pot vs Kettle, innit? That a pair of senile, doddery old fuckers are the only choices for Leader Of The Free World tells us all we need to know about the current state of US politics and the nation in general. Whoever gets in, we'd better hope that their VP pick is sound, as I think America will be needing them before the next term is over.
Arguably the main way it could backfire on Biden is if it's *too* successful. Some real Trump senior moments - which would likely be spectacular given his nature would perhaps be the excuse sane Republicans needed to dump him in favour of Haley - if she can stay in the race long enough. Then Biden is smashed by a much more vigorous opponent.
Mind you, I suppose many (maybe even Biden himself if he's honest) who will be voting Democrat would take that rather than risk Trump Presidency 2.
This is still repeating the myth that there's some group of Republicans, independent of Trump and the primary voters, who really get to decide the nomination. There isn't.
Trump is already racking up primary delegates and the more he wins, the less anyone else can do about it.
The hope (verging on forlorn now) is that a critical mass of primary voters not signed up to the cult desert him before he has the nomination wrapped up.
Good Lord. Last week he was promising to stop the floods. Sir Keir getting high on his own supply now
Keir Starmer suggests the govt is to blame for the damage caused by Storm Isha, citing it as an example of ‘sticking plaster politics’. Labour, he says, would ‘get ahead of’ future storms
Ugly, bitter partisan attacks on presidential candidates go back at least to the election of 1800: "Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character". https://twitter.com/curiouswavefn/status/1049136763367608320
It's part of the cut and thrust of democratic politics. We'd all like it to be civilised and insult-free but that isn't human nature and as someone on the wrong end of an electoral thrashing could say with a degree of dignity and equanimity "politics is a rough trade".
It's Pot vs Kettle, innit? That a pair of senile, doddery old fuckers are the only choices for Leader Of The Free World tells us all we need to know about the current state of US politics and the nation in general. Whoever gets in, we'd better hope that their VP pick is sound, as I think America will be needing them before the next term is over.
Arguably the main way it could backfire on Biden is if it's *too* successful. Some real Trump senior moments - which would likely be spectacular given his nature would perhaps be the excuse sane Republicans needed to dump him in favour of Haley - if she can stay in the race long enough. Then Biden is smashed by a much more vigorous opponent.
Mind you, I suppose many (maybe even Biden himself if he's honest) who will be voting Democrat would take that rather than risk Trump Presidency 2.
This is still repeating the myth that there's some group of Republicans, independent of Trump and the primary voters, who really get to decide the nomination. There isn't.
Trump is already racking up primary delegates and the more he wins, the less anyone else can do about it.
The hope (verging on forlorn now) is that a critical mass of primary voters not signed up to the cult desert him before he has the nomination wrapped up.
Here's how you abase yourself before Trump.
Elise Stefanik, whose name Trump forgot how to pronounce last night, insists Trump’s episodes of confusion are actually on purpose. She says he meant to falsely say Nikki Haley was Speaker of the House on January 6:
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Tory efforts at gerrymandering are getting farcical. First they try to stop people who actually live here and pay taxes from voting over entirely imaginary risks of fraud, and then they open the way to actual fraud so that people who might not have lived here or paid tax in decades get a vote. Utterly pathetic.
Personally I'd go the other way. Rather than extending the franchise to those who've lived abroad for more than 15 years, I'd limit it to those who live in this country at the time of the election. I don't quite get why those who have no direct stake in our affairs because they are permanently resident elsewhere should get to vote here, but maybe I'm missing something. Of course, they would be fully entitled to have their vote restored when/if they return to reside in the UK.
It depends whether electoral rights should follow taxation and consumption of public services (which would be the reverse US independence argument - "no representation without taxation") or should follow citizenship in its wider sense, which involves consumption of certain UK public goods like consular services - including whether you'll get the SAS coming to free you if taken hostage, passports, and the right to live and work in the country.
I am in two minds, but I don't have any particular objection. I think it's good to keep abreast of what the diaspora are thinking.
My grandparents retired to Mallorca and had a rather predictable group of British "expat" friends. Diaspora thinking mostly consisted of "Britain's gone to the dogs, barely recognise the place anymore", trumped only by "it's not too early for a drink".
Either stupid or dishonest, so fits the job requirement.
What actually happened:
Trump’s lead attorney Alina Habba asked for an adjournment after she and a juror may have been exposed to COVID — and the judge granted that request, over the objections of E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer. https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1749472225298620447
I don't think that being stupid or dishonest is a straightforward match for the job requirement.
Being unswervingly loyal to the unquiet Don is the job requirement, including believing that he wins every election, that he never, ever committed fraud, that he's not round the twist and that he's not a traitor.
This does, of course, require the candidate to be both stupid and dishonest, but that's a detail.
Yes it's the mobster cum cult leader cum dictator model. Same as Putin, Kim, Capone, Corleone, Caligula, Stalin, Manson, Mugabe, Maxwell and all the rest of them. Old as the hills, and so concerning that the USA and its politics and constitution could succumb. I still think they won't but boy it's looking precarious. What a very tense year we have ahead of us.
It's Pot vs Kettle, innit? That a pair of senile, doddery old fuckers are the only choices for Leader Of The Free World tells us all we need to know about the current state of US politics and the nation in general. Whoever gets in, we'd better hope that their VP pick is sound, as I think America will be needing them before the next term is over.
Arguably the main way it could backfire on Biden is if it's *too* successful. Some real Trump senior moments - which would likely be spectacular given his nature would perhaps be the excuse sane Republicans needed to dump him in favour of Haley - if she can stay in the race long enough. Then Biden is smashed by a much more vigorous opponent.
Mind you, I suppose many (maybe even Biden himself if he's honest) who will be voting Democrat would take that rather than risk Trump Presidency 2.
This is still repeating the myth that there's some group of Republicans, independent of Trump and the primary voters, who really get to decide the nomination. There isn't.
Trump is already racking up primary delegates and the more he wins, the less anyone else can do about it.
The hope (verging on forlorn now) is that a critical mass of primary voters not signed up to the cult desert him before he has the nomination wrapped up.
Here's how you abase yourself before Trump.
Elise Stefanik, whose name Trump forgot how to pronounce last night, insists Trump’s episodes of confusion are actually on purpose. She says he meant to falsely say Nikki Haley was Speaker of the House on January 6:
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
You were applauding so loud you didn't hear the bit where he said people who vote for David Cameron were people who got turned down by vacuum cleaners.
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
You were applauding so loud you didn't hear the bit where he said people who vote for David Cameron were people who got turned down by vacuum cleaners.
Well, that's not surprising. David Cameron didn't suck, he blew it.
Chunk of hard right leavers switch from Con to Reform. Chunk of soft right one nationers switch from Lab to Con. Net impact, swing from Lab to Reform. Simplifying a bit obviously but that's my snap conclusion.
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
You were applauding so loud you didn't hear the bit where he said people who vote for David Cameron were people who got turned down by vacuum cleaners.
It's Pot vs Kettle, innit? That a pair of senile, doddery old fuckers are the only choices for Leader Of The Free World tells us all we need to know about the current state of US politics and the nation in general. Whoever gets in, we'd better hope that their VP pick is sound, as I think America will be needing them before the next term is over.
Arguably the main way it could backfire on Biden is if it's *too* successful. Some real Trump senior moments - which would likely be spectacular given his nature would perhaps be the excuse sane Republicans needed to dump him in favour of Haley - if she can stay in the race long enough. Then Biden is smashed by a much more vigorous opponent.
Mind you, I suppose many (maybe even Biden himself if he's honest) who will be voting Democrat would take that rather than risk Trump Presidency 2.
This is still repeating the myth that there's some group of Republicans, independent of Trump and the primary voters, who really get to decide the nomination. There isn't.
Trump is already racking up primary delegates and the more he wins, the less anyone else can do about it.
It’s all too predictable. Surely something unexpected is to happen.
Yes I think it's reasonable to expect the unexpected in this WH24 race.
Good Lord. Last week he was promising to stop the floods. Sir Keir getting high on his own supply now
Keir Starmer suggests the govt is to blame for the damage caused by Storm Isha, citing it as an example of ‘sticking plaster politics’. Labour, he says, would ‘get ahead of’ future storms
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
You were applauding so loud you didn't hear the bit where he said people who vote for David Cameron were people who got turned down by vacuum cleaners.
Nope, he was very pro Dave in that speech.
Just watched it and in fact he said “people who are thinking of defecting to UKIP” so I can be excused
It's Pot vs Kettle, innit? That a pair of senile, doddery old fuckers are the only choices for Leader Of The Free World tells us all we need to know about the current state of US politics and the nation in general. Whoever gets in, we'd better hope that their VP pick is sound, as I think America will be needing them before the next term is over.
Not exactly.
One of them still appears capable of running a reasonably competent administration. The other still able to hold large crowds spellbound.
Two very different phenomena.
Can you imagine Biden sending thugs to attack the Capitol? No, Biden may be a few years older than Trump but he believes in democracy, he won't suggest injecting bleach to beat covid. He's sane unlike Trump.
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
You were applauding so loud you didn't hear the bit where he said people who vote for David Cameron were people who got turned down by vacuum cleaners.
Nope, he was very pro Dave in that speech.
Just watched it and in fact he said “people who are thinking of defecting to UKIP” so I can be excused
Nope, that was the public version at conference, I heard the after dinner speech version as I mentioned above which was before the public version.
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
You were applauding so loud you didn't hear the bit where he said people who vote for David Cameron were people who got turned down by vacuum cleaners.
Nope, he was very pro Dave in that speech.
Just watched it and in fact he said “people who are thinking of defecting to UKIP” so I can be excused
Nope, that was the public version at conference, I heard the after dinner speech version as I mentioned above which was before the public version.
He thinks you have sex with vacuum cleaners.
How did he know? Get him back as PM immediately, the man’s a genius
The way I see this year is the Tories had up to 10 months to turn around the polls meaningfully (e.g. to sub 10% leads) to have a chance of a respectable performance.
The first month of the year it looks like they'll have see gone backwards.
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
Labour lead widens to seventeen points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 28% (-) Lab 45% (+1) Lib Dem 9% (-1) Other 17% (-1) Fieldwork: 19th - 22nd January 2024 Sample: 2,176 GB adults (Changes from 12th-15th January 2024) Image
As terrible as the Conservatives were in 1992-7, they seem utterly competent titans when compared to this Conservative government.
Anti-Europe hysteria has repeatedly destroyed the Conservative Party over the last thirty years. It becomes the one thing that matters, and too many Conservative MPs put purity over views on Europe above everything else. Including competent government.
They deserve to be out of power for a long, long time.
Labour lead widens to seventeen points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 28% (-) Lab 45% (+1) Lib Dem 9% (-1) Other 17% (-1) Fieldwork: 19th - 22nd January 2024 Sample: 2,176 GB adults (Changes from 12th-15th January 2024) Image
The poll I linked to was 2019 Conservatives only, todays R&W has Labour extending their lead
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
You were applauding so loud you didn't hear the bit where he said people who vote for David Cameron were people who got turned down by vacuum cleaners.
Nope, he was very pro Dave in that speech.
Just watched it and in fact he said “people who are thinking of defecting to UKIP” so I can be excused
Nope, that was the public version at conference, I heard the after dinner speech version as I mentioned above which was before the public version.
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
Its Erdogan's approach to corrupting the election. I'd imagine UK emigrants currently unable to vote skew retired and thus Conservative.
Whether those leaving the UK are favourable to the Cons who knows. The new-old voters will not have experienced the last thirteen years of Conservative governance.
Edit: There are quite a few oldies in the emigrant pop 'One in three emigrants from GB left the country less than ten years ago. At the other extreme, 35% of GB emigrants moved abroad prior to 1986 (more than 25 years ago).'
As terrible as the Conservatives were in 1992-7, they seem utterly competent titans when compared to this Conservative government.
Anti-Europe hysteria has repeatedly destroyed the Conservative Party over the last thirty years. It becomes the one thing that matters, and too many Conservative MPs put purity over views on Europe above everything else. Including competent government.
They deserve to be out of power for a long, long time.
They are heading for a devastating defeat and deservedly so, not least when Johnson endorsed Trump yesterday
It could easily backfire badly, as others have already noted
Risky
Perhaps.
But Trump does seem to at least caught up Biden on the mental capacity question. Some of Trump's speeches are outright weird.
As I posted earlier, Biden has some moments of absolute clarity. Trump is a gibbering idiot without respite, and it's not new.
Hands up if anyone remembers Trump explaining that the intravenous administration of Domestos into the bloodstream was a cure for COVID 19.
Exacerbated by the fact Trump never has to argue anything out properly. He's used to having his inane ramblings greeted with either deference or applause. This means his ability to debate, to analyse, to reason, has not developed as it normally would, and now he's pushing 80 it's too late for this to change.
It is a fate that befell Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Too many simpering sycophants fawning at his every nonsensical inverted pyramid of piffle.
That's not really true though. Prime Ministers have to come to the Commons each week (mostly) for PMQs. They make statements on conferences and policy. They lead set-piece debates. They have to answer interjections and unexpected, and hostile, point-making and questions, and do so in a way that isn't obviously absurd, otherwise their own side loses confidence.
Presidencies are very different to that, and the Trump presidency in particular.
I see your point, but I disagree. Johnson had no capacity for thoughtful discourse at PMQs. Losing the argument meant a knee jerk response such as Starmer-Savile. The claim is Johnson is campaign genius, see EURef and GE 2019. Both were predicated on lies, nonsense and hiding in fridges. See also Peppa pig.
Boris (fairly deliberately) missed out on a lot of that in his way up, though. Hardly any time as a minister answering Commons questions, and pretty poor against the not-exactly A Team bowling in the London Assembly.
And his reputation as a sparkling speaker rather depended on his audience being half-cut on the sparkling stuff already.
Have to admit I cheered and clapped like a seal to a Boris Johnson after dinner speech in 2014.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
You were applauding so loud you didn't hear the bit where he said people who vote for David Cameron were people who got turned down by vacuum cleaners.
Nope, he was very pro Dave in that speech.
Just watched it and in fact he said “people who are thinking of defecting to UKIP” so I can be excused
Nope, that was the public version at conference, I heard the after dinner speech version as I mentioned above which was before the public version.
The way I see this year is the Tories had up to 10 months to turn around the polls meaningfully (e.g. to sub 10% leads) to have a chance of a respectable performance.
The first month of the year it looks like they'll have see gone backwards.
The clock is ticking down...
The belief 'polls would automatically narrow' was always slightly odd given there were good reasons governments outperformed mid-term polls that do not necessarily imply. Namely, that governments tended to get their unpopular stuff and have their teething problems early in a term, then ensure there were some goodies by the election.
Sunak hasn't been able to, for reasons both out of control and of the Tories' making. Hence the oddness of his messaging. You're supposed to have done the 'tough decisions' and so can do the giveaways by now. But veers between trying to sound like he is, and attempts to throw Tories red meat.
Labour is unlikely to match its biggest leads, as there's something self-correcting there in that if people believe the Tories are getting thumped some loyalists come back, and others shrug a bit.
Either stupid or dishonest, so fits the job requirement.
What actually happened:
Trump’s lead attorney Alina Habba asked for an adjournment after she and a juror may have been exposed to COVID — and the judge granted that request, over the objections of E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer. https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1749472225298620447
I hope he does pick a fellow deplorable. My spirits would sink (and fears for my Short start to pick up) if eg Haley or similar were to sell out and hook up with him.
The odd thing is she used to be what passes for a moderate in the GOP.
He's not going to pick Haley. She has committed the ultimate sin of presenting a serious challenge to him - and she's unlikely to be willing to humiliate herself sufficiently to atone for that.
I hope you're right and on balance I think you are. Although I'm a touch more confident about him not picking her than her refusing it if he did. People do seem to lose themselves sometimes in their desire for spotlight, status and power.
They do - but Haley probably calculates that she has more of a chance of making the Oval office if she is knocked out of this cycle's race as the one Republican who didn't kowtow to Trump.
And who knows, she might even have principles she isn't prepared to abandon.
She does.
(If you don’t like them she has others)
Seriously, for a moment, she does.
She used Trump to get foreign experience and then quit when things started to get crazy/wicked.. That’s her original sin and why he won’t forgive her.
Ugly, bitter partisan attacks on presidential candidates go back at least to the election of 1800: "Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character". https://twitter.com/curiouswavefn/status/1049136763367608320
Sounds like the 1800 equivalent of describing someone as a self-confessed player of the pink oboe?
The way I see this year is the Tories had up to 10 months to turn around the polls meaningfully (e.g. to sub 10% leads) to have a chance of a respectable performance.
The first month of the year it looks like they'll have see gone backwards.
The clock is ticking down...
The belief 'polls would automatically narrow' was always slightly odd given there were good reasons governments outperformed mid-term polls that do not necessarily imply. Namely, that governments tended to get their unpopular stuff and have their teething problems early in a term, then ensure there were some goodies by the election.
Sunak hasn't been able to, for reasons both out of control and of the Tories' making. Hence the oddness of his messaging. You're supposed to have done the 'tough decisions' and so can do the giveaways by now. But veers between trying to sound like he is, and attempts to throw Tories red meat.
Labour is unlikely to match its biggest leads, as there's something self-correcting there in that if people believe the Tories are getting thumped some loyalists come back, and others shrug a bit.
You articulate a point I've been struggling to get across here for a while.
Whilst it is true that historically we have normally seen swingback in previous elections, there is no Iron Law that makes it happen. In fact given the peculiar circumstances in which we approach the next GE (surely now nailed on for the autumn) there is as much likelihood of swingmore as swingback.
You really cannot say at this stage which is the more probable.
The way I see this year is the Tories had up to 10 months to turn around the polls meaningfully (e.g. to sub 10% leads) to have a chance of a respectable performance.
The first month of the year it looks like they'll have see gone backwards.
The clock is ticking down...
The belief 'polls would automatically narrow' was always slightly odd given there were good reasons governments outperformed mid-term polls that do not necessarily imply. Namely, that governments tended to get their unpopular stuff and have their teething problems early in a term, then ensure there were some goodies by the election.
Sunak hasn't been able to, for reasons both out of control and of the Tories' making. Hence the oddness of his messaging. You're supposed to have done the 'tough decisions' and so can do the giveaways by now. But veers between trying to sound like he is, and attempts to throw Tories red meat.
Labour is unlikely to match its biggest leads, as there's something self-correcting there in that if people believe the Tories are getting thumped some loyalists come back, and others shrug a bit.
You articulate a point I've been struggling to get across here for a while.
Whilst it is true that historically we have normally seen swingback in previous elections, there is no Iron Law that makes it happen. In fact given the peculiar circumstances in which we approach the next GE (surely now nailed on for the autumn) there is as much likelihood of swingmore as swingback.
You really cannot say at this stage which is the more probable.
I think part of swingback is that inevitably the opposition get exposed to a lot more scrutiny in the run up to the election, especially when it looks nailed on that they will win. At the moment Starmer and labour are content to say ‘we are not the Tories’ and that’s enough, but it won’t be forever. Add in the solitary moment in the voting booth when voters who have loudly proclaimed that this time they will vote for X, but actually at the last minute stick with Y.
I’m still struck by the contrast of the polls, which have seen huge and pretty static labour leads for a year and the available money on Betfair for a labour majority. Clearly punters think swingback is coming.
If Boris hadn't been deposed, what do you think would have been different? Different policies, different vibes, or both?
I think mainly different vibes. Sunak seems to be trying to be Boris-lite, and not convincing anyone.
In my view the main thing is that 2019 voters were invested in Boris in a way that they aren’t in Sunak. There was someone/thing to swing back to, whereas now they don’t feel attached at all. The few polls that have been taken of 2019 Tories show he is far more popular than his successors, even when Rishi wasn’t particularly unpopular, and the ‘personality’ polls, which I think give a good tip as to who will win voters round in a campaign, had him streets ahead (48-15) of Sir Keir even in the bad times, whereas Sunak was losing 26-25 a year ago, and no doubt would be losing by more now
In hindsight the Tories should have appointed a caretaker leader whilst Boris was on trial, giving him room to come back. He could always have fought the by election though
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
If you read Pippa Crear's article it all smells a bit whiffy. 2.2m extra predominantly Tory voters placed in marginal seats by CCHQ could turn the election on its head.
The Conservatives could be way down in percentage points but smashing the seats won out of the park.
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
If you read Pippa Crear's article it all smells a bit whiffy. 2.2m extra predominantly Tory voters placed in marginal seats by CCHQ could turn the election on its head.
The Conservatives could be way down in percentage points but smashing the seats won out of the park.
Trebles all 'round!
It's more than a bit whiffy but they have to get people to register and then vote Tory
Reality is - this scheme needs to be binned when Labour gets in and replaced with if you aren't in the country you don't get a say...
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
If you read Pippa Crear's article it all smells a bit whiffy. 2.2m extra predominantly Tory voters placed in marginal seats by CCHQ could turn the election on its head.
The Conservatives could be way down in percentage points but smashing the seats won out of the park.
Trebles all 'round!
I’m shocked, shocked I say, that you have drawn that conclusion.
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
If you read Pippa Crear's article it all smells a bit whiffy. 2.2m extra predominantly Tory voters placed in marginal seats by CCHQ could turn the election on its head.
The Conservatives could be way down in percentage points but smashing the seats won out of the park.
Trebles all 'round!
You exaggerate, MP.
It might just about save Sir Christopher Chope, but it won't help many others to survive.
The way I see this year is the Tories had up to 10 months to turn around the polls meaningfully (e.g. to sub 10% leads) to have a chance of a respectable performance.
The first month of the year it looks like they'll have see gone backwards.
The clock is ticking down...
The belief 'polls would automatically narrow' was always slightly odd given there were good reasons governments outperformed mid-term polls that do not necessarily imply. Namely, that governments tended to get their unpopular stuff and have their teething problems early in a term, then ensure there were some goodies by the election.
Sunak hasn't been able to, for reasons both out of control and of the Tories' making. Hence the oddness of his messaging. You're supposed to have done the 'tough decisions' and so can do the giveaways by now. But veers between trying to sound like he is, and attempts to throw Tories red meat.
Labour is unlikely to match its biggest leads, as there's something self-correcting there in that if people believe the Tories are getting thumped some loyalists come back, and others shrug a bit.
You articulate a point I've been struggling to get across here for a while.
Whilst it is true that historically we have normally seen swingback in previous elections, there is no Iron Law that makes it happen. In fact given the peculiar circumstances in which we approach the next GE (surely now nailed on for the autumn) there is as much likelihood of swingmore as swingback.
You really cannot say at this stage which is the more probable.
Agree. Just to add that Starmer's perception with voters is critical. At the moment it's pretty 'meh' - he's not very popular, yet Labour is still streets ahead. But there is a chance that he continues to improve and, during a GE campaign, breaks free from the shackles he's placed on himself, smiles a bit, and improves his ratings significantly. I wouldn't rule it out. (And, incidentally, although it shouldn't be so, Mrs Vicky Starmer could be deployed as a very effective campaign weapon).
It’s hard to believe that less than a year ago DeSantis was regarded as the best Republican prospect to defeat Trump. But that was before he gave a masterclass in how not to run a presidential campaign.
I’m still struck by the contrast of the polls, which have seen huge and pretty static labour leads for a year and the available money on Betfair for a labour majority. Clearly punters think swingback is coming.
Punters don't really have more info on the future than anyone else. But the odd on a Labour majority of 1.27 suggest that they're pretty confident of that result. Note that the market "How many seats will the Tories lose?" has the maximum 201+ as the clear favourite.
I’m still struck by the contrast of the polls, which have seen huge and pretty static labour leads for a year and the available money on Betfair for a labour majority. Clearly punters think swingback is coming.
Punters don't really have more info on the future than anyone else. But the odd on a Labour majority of 1.27 suggest that they're pretty confident of that result. Note that the market "How many seats will the Tories lose?" has the maximum 201+ as the clear favourite.
Thing is Nick I think that’s a guaranteed 27% return on your investment in under a year, and yet people are not flocking to it.
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
If you read Pippa Crear's article it all smells a bit whiffy. 2.2m extra predominantly Tory voters placed in marginal seats by CCHQ could turn the election on its head.
The Conservatives could be way down in percentage points but smashing the seats won out of the park.
Trebles all 'round!
You exaggerate, MP.
It might just about save Sir Christopher Chope, but it won't help many others to survive.
2.2m could do much damage if utilised expeditiously.
The way I see this year is the Tories had up to 10 months to turn around the polls meaningfully (e.g. to sub 10% leads) to have a chance of a respectable performance.
The first month of the year it looks like they'll have see gone backwards.
The clock is ticking down...
The belief 'polls would automatically narrow' was always slightly odd given there were good reasons governments outperformed mid-term polls that do not necessarily imply. Namely, that governments tended to get their unpopular stuff and have their teething problems early in a term, then ensure there were some goodies by the election.
Sunak hasn't been able to, for reasons both out of control and of the Tories' making. Hence the oddness of his messaging. You're supposed to have done the 'tough decisions' and so can do the giveaways by now. But veers between trying to sound like he is, and attempts to throw Tories red meat.
Labour is unlikely to match its biggest leads, as there's something self-correcting there in that if people believe the Tories are getting thumped some loyalists come back, and others shrug a bit.
You articulate a point I've been struggling to get across here for a while.
Whilst it is true that historically we have normally seen swingback in previous elections, there is no Iron Law that makes it happen. In fact given the peculiar circumstances in which we approach the next GE (surely now nailed on for the autumn) there is as much likelihood of swingmore as swingback.
You really cannot say at this stage which is the more probable.
I think part of swingback is that inevitably the opposition get exposed to a lot more scrutiny in the run up to the election, especially when it looks nailed on that they will win. At the moment Starmer and labour are content to say ‘we are not the Tories’ and that’s enough, but it won’t be forever. Add in the solitary moment in the voting booth when voters who have loudly proclaimed that this time they will vote for X, but actually at the last minute stick with Y.
I’m still struck by the contrast of the polls, which have seen huge and pretty static labour leads for a year and the available money on Betfair for a labour majority. Clearly punters think swingback is coming.
There’s nothing to swingback to. The party they voted for has gone. It’s like The Doors without Jim Morrison, or Oasis without the Gallagher’s
The only thing I can think of is that Sir Keir’s Wallyness might push some voters back, but they’d more likely go to Reform, particularly if Farage is leader
The way I see this year is the Tories had up to 10 months to turn around the polls meaningfully (e.g. to sub 10% leads) to have a chance of a respectable performance.
The first month of the year it looks like they'll have see gone backwards.
The clock is ticking down...
The belief 'polls would automatically narrow' was always slightly odd given there were good reasons governments outperformed mid-term polls that do not necessarily imply. Namely, that governments tended to get their unpopular stuff and have their teething problems early in a term, then ensure there were some goodies by the election.
Sunak hasn't been able to, for reasons both out of control and of the Tories' making. Hence the oddness of his messaging. You're supposed to have done the 'tough decisions' and so can do the giveaways by now. But veers between trying to sound like he is, and attempts to throw Tories red meat.
Labour is unlikely to match its biggest leads, as there's something self-correcting there in that if people believe the Tories are getting thumped some loyalists come back, and others shrug a bit.
You articulate a point I've been struggling to get across here for a while.
Whilst it is true that historically we have normally seen swingback in previous elections, there is no Iron Law that makes it happen. In fact given the peculiar circumstances in which we approach the next GE (surely now nailed on for the autumn) there is as much likelihood of swingmore as swingback.
You really cannot say at this stage which is the more probable.
I think part of swingback is that inevitably the opposition get exposed to a lot more scrutiny in the run up to the election, especially when it looks nailed on that they will win. At the moment Starmer and labour are content to say ‘we are not the Tories’ and that’s enough, but it won’t be forever. Add in the solitary moment in the voting booth when voters who have loudly proclaimed that this time they will vote for X, but actually at the last minute stick with Y.
I’m still struck by the contrast of the polls, which have seen huge and pretty static labour leads for a year and the available money on Betfair for a labour majority. Clearly punters think swingback is coming.
There’s nothing to swingback to. The party they voted for has gone. It’s like The Doors without Jim Morrison, or Oasis without Liam Gallagher
The only thing I can think of is that Sir Keir’s Wallyness might push some voters back, but there’d more likely go to Reform, particularly if Farage is leader
In which case put all the cash you can spare on a labour majority to get a 27% return in under a year…
Comments
Of course, they would be fully entitled to have their vote restored when/if they return to reside in the UK.
Biden has demonstrated you win against Trump by challenging him head on. I think on balance flagging up Trump's cognitive issues is a smart move on Biden's part because it challenges Trump and not because he's on particularly firm ground himself on the age thing.
Puts my South African urban myth into perspective.
He said people who voted UKIP were people who had sex with vacuum cleaners.
This is blatant election interference!
Joe Biden and his Democrat cronies are the true threats to democracy!
TRUMP 2024!
https://twitter.com/EliseStefanik/status/1749454981617394015
Either stupid or dishonest, so fits the job requirement.
What actually happened:
Trump’s lead attorney Alina Habba asked for an adjournment after she and a juror may have been exposed to COVID — and the judge granted that request, over the objections of E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer.
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1749472225298620447
Of course implementing the Jenkins Report, binned by Blair on the initiative of Prescott would be highly desirable.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
Lowest Conservative % since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster Voting Intention (21 Jan):
Labour 45% (+1)
Conservative 22% (-3)
Reform UK 12% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 11% (+1)
Green 6% (+1)
SNP 2% (-1)
Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 14 Jan
https://x.com/redfieldwilton/status/1749477021477200364?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
Being unswervingly loyal to the unquiet Don is the job requirement, including believing that he wins every election, that he never, ever committed fraud, that he's not round the twist and that he's not a traitor.
This does, of course, require the candidate to be both stupid and dishonest, but that's a detail.
He's not going to pick Haley. She has committed the ultimate sin of presenting a serious challenge to him - and she's unlikely to be willing to humiliate herself sufficiently to atone for that.
I am in two minds, but I don't have any particular objection. I think it's good to keep abreast of what the diaspora are thinking.
Odd really because the government haven't done anything particularly terrible since new year. They've bickered a bit over Rwanda, but that's nothing new.
Reform seem fairly stable now around the 9-11% range. I still expect them to decline a bit in the next 2 months
Trump is already racking up primary delegates and the more he wins, the less anyone else can do about it.
Today I went into my browser (Bing) settings and switched "Chat response on result page" to Off.
Much happier now.
https://twitter.com/curiouswavefn/status/1049136763367608320
I suspect Farage returning would bring Reform up to 15% and knock the Tories to very close to if not below 20%..
And who knows, she might even have principles she isn't prepared to abandon.
Keir Starmer suggests the govt is to blame for the damage caused by Storm Isha, citing it as an example of ‘sticking plaster politics’. Labour, he says, would ‘get ahead of’ future storms
https://x.com/jasongroves1/status/1749380908090626555?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Elise Stefanik, whose name Trump forgot how to pronounce last night, insists Trump’s episodes of confusion are actually on purpose. She says he meant to falsely say Nikki Haley was Speaker of the House on January 6:
“Trump has not lost his step!”
https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1749470544385171547
That would imply he once had it.
Lab: 45 (-9)
Con: 22 (+1)
Reform: 12 (+8)
LD: 11 (-)
Green: 6 (+3)
SNP: 2 (-2)
Others: 2 (-)
Lab 44%
SNP 28%
No, Biden may be a few years older than Trump but he believes in democracy, he won't suggest injecting bleach to beat covid. He's sane unlike Trump.
He thinks you have sex with vacuum cleaners.
The first month of the year it looks like they'll have see gone backwards.
The clock is ticking down...
Means that Labour's lead is (perhaps fleetingly) larger than at the same point in 1997
https://twitter.com/OwenWntr/status/1748403385160654890
I need to update my Tory majority by 20 seats.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1749427066703913326?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
Second lowest Conservative % with Sunak as PM.
Previous low of 46% recorded on day he became PM.
Westminster VI, 2019 Conservatives (21 Jan):
Conservative 47% (-3)
Labour 19% (+5)
Reform UK 18% (+3)
Other 5% (+1)
Don't Know 13% (-4)
Changes +/- 14 Jan
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
https://x.com/redfieldwilton/status/1749478340354806215?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://x.com/flvoicenews/status/1749444016418988429
Labour lead widens to seventeen points in the latest results from Deltapoll.
Con 28% (-)
Lab 45% (+1)
Lib Dem 9% (-1)
Other 17% (-1)
Fieldwork: 19th - 22nd January 2024
Sample: 2,176 GB adults
(Changes from 12th-15th January 2024)
Image
Anti-Europe hysteria has repeatedly destroyed the Conservative Party over the last thirty years. It becomes the one thing that matters, and too many Conservative MPs put purity over views on Europe above everything else. Including competent government.
They deserve to be out of power for a long, long time.
This report: https://www.oecd.org/education/emigrants_report_final_feb_2015.pdf
claims the average age of an emigrant was 42. 42+15 = 57 So crudely this policy is improving the Conservative's demographic problems by pumping up the older age groups.
Whether those leaving the UK are favourable to the Cons who knows. The new-old voters will not have experienced the last thirteen years of Conservative governance.
Edit: There are quite a few oldies in the emigrant pop
'One in three emigrants from GB left the country less than ten years ago. At the
other extreme, 35% of GB emigrants moved abroad prior to 1986 (more than 25
years ago).'
NEW: EU diplomats are grumbling about the UK’s ‘delay’ in naming a date to host the European Political Community meeting this Spring
Why this delay? They believe UK govt hasn’t ruled out snap election…
https://x.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1749508528149090791?s=20
Sunak hasn't been able to, for reasons both out of control and of the Tories' making. Hence the oddness of his messaging. You're supposed to have done the 'tough decisions' and so can do the giveaways by now. But veers between trying to sound like he is, and attempts to throw Tories red meat.
Labour is unlikely to match its biggest leads, as there's something self-correcting there in that if people believe the Tories are getting thumped some loyalists come back, and others shrug a bit.
If Boris hadn't been deposed, what do you think would have been different? Different policies, different vibes, or both?
(If you don’t like them she has others)
Seriously, for a moment, she does.
She used Trump to get foreign experience and then quit when things started to get crazy/wicked.. That’s her original sin and why he won’t forgive her.
Go Nikki!
Whilst it is true that historically we have normally seen swingback in previous elections, there is no Iron Law that makes it happen. In fact given the peculiar circumstances in which we approach the next GE (surely now nailed on for the autumn) there is as much likelihood of swingmore as swingback.
You really cannot say at this stage which is the more probable.
Add in the solitary moment in the voting booth when voters who have loudly proclaimed that this time they will vote for X, but actually at the last minute stick with Y.
I’m still struck by the contrast of the polls, which have seen huge and pretty static labour leads for a year and the available money on Betfair for a labour majority. Clearly punters think swingback is coming.
In my view the main thing is that 2019 voters were invested in Boris in a way that they aren’t
in Sunak. There was someone/thing to swing
back to, whereas now they don’t feel attached at all. The few polls that have been taken of 2019 Tories show he is far more popular than his successors, even when Rishi wasn’t particularly unpopular, and the ‘personality’ polls, which I think give a good tip as to who will win voters round in a campaign, had him streets ahead (48-15) of Sir Keir even in the bad times, whereas Sunak was losing 26-25 a year ago, and no doubt would be losing by more now
In hindsight the Tories should have appointed a caretaker leader whilst Boris was on trial, giving him room to come back. He could always have fought the by election though
The Conservatives could be way down in percentage points but smashing the seats won out of the park.
Trebles all 'round!
Reality is - this scheme needs to be binned when Labour gets in and replaced with if you aren't in the country you don't get a say...
It might just about save Sir Christopher Chope, but it won't help many others to survive.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12992543/Humiliated-Ron-DeSantis-Donald-Trump-Nikki-Haley-ANDREW-NEIL.html
The only thing I can think of is that Sir Keir’s Wallyness might push some voters back, but they’d more likely go to Reform, particularly if Farage is leader