PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
These are good points, but there is still a higher potential ceiling on a generic populist party than a single-issue Eurosceptic party.
MiC with a new one 🚨New @Moreincommon_ voting intention finds a tie for third place and a Lib Dem campaign high. Labour lead by 15. 🔵CON 24 (+1) 🔴LAB 39 (-1) 🟠LIB DEM 13 (+2) 🟣REF UK 13 (-1) 🟢GRN 5 (-) 🟡SNP 3 (-) Dates: 26-28/6 N: 3,361 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
That's close to what I am expecting - a few more off Reform and a couple more to the Tories by polling day.
I would add that the Greens are more likely to be on 3% than 5% on the day too.
Ramsay says Greens back 'a world without borders' as a long term vision
Well obviously when all the land is underwater because of global warming then there won’t be borders. Like waterworld and lots of gurnards who look like Farage.
Yes, he could. But either (a) there has to be an actual health event that threatens his ability to continue; or (b) he has to choose not to continue. There is no mechanism to push him out, and the delegates at the convention are bound to him unless released.
(a) is perfectly possible. And he appears to be at that stage when things start to go down hill pretty fast. There's probably a 10-15% chance of that happening.
(b) requires his wife to say "Joe, it's time for a younger generation to take over", and for him to listen. I think that is a similarly low probability event.
So, sadly, I think that Biden is probably the nominee.
But let's imagine that (a) happened. In which case (especially if it's serious and he is unable to recommend someone), then all those delegates are now free to choose whoever they like at the convention. Essentially, the couple of thousands delegates are going to hear pitches from four or five candidates. And it'll be a mess. A glorious mess. But a mess. I don't know who would win (not Clinton!), but it could be anyone.
In the case of (b), it's a little different. Because in this scenario, he would essentially instruct his delegates to pick someone, and they probably would fall in line. Which requires a back room deal. Someone who is connected in the Democratic party, not Hillary Clinton, and is seen by Biden as a logical successor. And that's probably Harris. Yes, she'd probably lose to Trump. But she is the path of least resistance, and would - after all - become President in the far from unlikely event that Biden were to become incapacitated in office.
The bet to make, therefore, is on Harris as next President. She's the path of least resistance candidate, no matter how poor a candidate she would be,
Surely in (a) if it's serious enough to replace Biden without Biden getting involved, then it's serious enough that Harris is the incumbent.
And if Harris is the incumbent I can't see the Biden nominees looking past her.
So (a) Harris and (b) Harris.
The choice is Biden or Harris. I know HYUFD hates Harris and so do some others who'd never dream of voting for any Democrat anyway, but Harris seems like the logical choice to me.
I think Reform will quite significantly underperform their polling on the night.
Reports of the death of the Tory party are exaggerated. But they certainly need to be punished and brought down a peg or two hundred.
The worry would be that if they don't get the hammering of a lifetime there's little incentive to change the things badly wrong with the Conservative Party, and the media/policy ecosystem that surrounds it - which has also been disastrous for the country.
Anything above the 1997 result and they'll go "well we had a good run, and lost votes to Reform so it wasn't that bad, we'll be back in when the public turn on Labour". Then carry on being the performatively dumb, offensive circus they've become.
The Augean Stables need cleaning and large parts of the Tory Party and its hangers on need a lesson they never forget, that forces them to fundamentally rethink how they do things.
If they get the hammering of a lifetime and fall below the LDs on seats and Reform on votes as well as massively behind Labour on both they won't rethink anything because the Tories won't exist in 5-10 years time. They will be taken over by ReformUK and end up led by Nigel Farage
MiC with a new one 🚨New @Moreincommon_ voting intention finds a tie for third place and a Lib Dem campaign high. Labour lead by 15. 🔵CON 24 (+1) 🔴LAB 39 (-1) 🟠LIB DEM 13 (+2) 🟣REF UK 13 (-1) 🟢GRN 5 (-) 🟡SNP 3 (-) Dates: 26-28/6 N: 3,361 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
Interesting that with less than a week to go there's absolutely no sign of the pollsters herding...
That's bad news for Farage, surely? It increases the chance that Labour voters - unimpressed with their candidate - choose to vote tactically for the Conservatives.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I agree all of that - however I'm pretty aware that the RFM vote is likely to be distributed differently to BXP - he's mining the same vein but it'll be less BXP and much more UKIP in terms of being pensioners in the south and I don't expect them to set twitter twitching in Sunderland.
Over recent days modest semi-arbs have been available on ~15% upwards. I bet someone here is on it.
I have a cheeky fiver on 10-12% at about 20.
Betfair have ludicrously undercooked the odds of Reform falling short of their polling.
And we have nearly 2 years of evidence that that's precisely what happens in real elections.
I agree. I think there is a lot of sucker money on Reform, both seats and voteshare.
They have a low ceiling, as has been shown for previous Faragist parties. They are not reaching the low thirties, the minimum percentage needed to win under FPTP even against divided opposition.
MiC with a new one 🚨New @Moreincommon_ voting intention finds a tie for third place and a Lib Dem campaign high. Labour lead by 15. 🔵CON 24 (+1) 🔴LAB 39 (-1) 🟠LIB DEM 13 (+2) 🟣REF UK 13 (-1) 🟢GRN 5 (-) 🟡SNP 3 (-) Dates: 26-28/6 N: 3,361 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
That's close to what I am expecting - a few more off Reform and a couple more to the Tories by polling day.
Reform have an ugly stench around them now on racism, Putinism and Farage strops.
I can't see too many sensible British people going for them on the day, in reality.
My ex wife is weirdly keen on Reform. 27 years old. Ex Corbyn voter
Yes, he could. But either (a) there has to be an actual health event that threatens his ability to continue; or (b) he has to choose not to continue. There is no mechanism to push him out, and the delegates at the convention are bound to him unless released.
(a) is perfectly possible. And he appears to be at that stage when things start to go down hill pretty fast. There's probably a 10-15% chance of that happening.
(b) requires his wife to say "Joe, it's time for a younger generation to take over", and for him to listen. I think that is a similarly low probability event.
So, sadly, I think that Biden is probably the nominee.
But let's imagine that (a) happened. In which case (especially if it's serious and he is unable to recommend someone), then all those delegates are now free to choose whoever they like at the convention. Essentially, the couple of thousands delegates are going to hear pitches from four or five candidates. And it'll be a mess. A glorious mess. But a mess. I don't know who would win (not Clinton!), but it could be anyone.
In the case of (b), it's a little different. Because in this scenario, he would essentially instruct his delegates to pick someone, and they probably would fall in line. Which requires a back room deal. Someone who is connected in the Democratic party, not Hillary Clinton, and is seen by Biden as a logical successor. And that's probably Harris. Yes, she'd probably lose to Trump. But she is the path of least resistance, and would - after all - become President in the far from unlikely event that Biden were to become incapacitated in office.
The bet to make, therefore, is on Harris as next President. She's the path of least resistance candidate, no matter how poor a candidate she would be,
Surely in (a) if it's serious enough to replace Biden without Biden getting involved, then it's serious enough that Harris is the incumbent.
And if Harris is the incumbent I can't see the Biden nominees looking past her.
So (a) Harris and (b) Harris.
The choice is Biden or Harris. I know HYUFD hates Harris and so do some others who'd never dream of voting for any Democrat anyway, but Harris seems like the logical choice to me.
Harris is the logical choice to lead the Democrats to their worst defeat since Dukakis yes
That's bad news for Farage, surely? It increases the chance that Labour voters - unimpressed with their candidate - choose to vote tactically for the Conservatives.
Labour have also publicly signalled that they are pulling resources out of Clacton. They haven't done that in many seats that lack orange diamonds. Suggests they want Farage frozen out, which is smart.
Ramsay says Greens back 'a world without borders' as a long term vision
Well obviously when all the land is underwater because of global warming then there won’t be borders. Like waterworld and lots of gurnards who look like Farage.
Waterworld. Good film. Farage would be a good pirate!
Yes, he could. But either (a) there has to be an actual health event that threatens his ability to continue; or (b) he has to choose not to continue. There is no mechanism to push him out, and the delegates at the convention are bound to him unless released.
(a) is perfectly possible. And he appears to be at that stage when things start to go down hill pretty fast. There's probably a 10-15% chance of that happening.
(b) requires his wife to say "Joe, it's time for a younger generation to take over", and for him to listen. I think that is a similarly low probability event.
So, sadly, I think that Biden is probably the nominee.
But let's imagine that (a) happened. In which case (especially if it's serious and he is unable to recommend someone), then all those delegates are now free to choose whoever they like at the convention. Essentially, the couple of thousands delegates are going to hear pitches from four or five candidates. And it'll be a mess. A glorious mess. But a mess. I don't know who would win (not Clinton!), but it could be anyone.
In the case of (b), it's a little different. Because in this scenario, he would essentially instruct his delegates to pick someone, and they probably would fall in line. Which requires a back room deal. Someone who is connected in the Democratic party, not Hillary Clinton, and is seen by Biden as a logical successor. And that's probably Harris. Yes, she'd probably lose to Trump. But she is the path of least resistance, and would - after all - become President in the far from unlikely event that Biden were to become incapacitated in office.
The bet to make, therefore, is on Harris as next President. She's the path of least resistance candidate, no matter how poor a candidate she would be,
Surely in (a) if it's serious enough to replace Biden without Biden getting involved, then it's serious enough that Harris is the incumbent.
And if Harris is the incumbent I can't see the Biden nominees looking past her.
So (a) Harris and (b) Harris.
The choice is Biden or Harris. I know HYUFD hates Harris and so do some others who'd never dream of voting for any Democrat anyway, but Harris seems like the logical choice to me.
Harris is the logical choice to lead the Democrats to their worst defeat since Dukakis yes
Actually, I don't think Harris would lead the Democrats to that kind of defeat because the US is so polarized right now, that anyone with a Blue Rosette gets 45% as does anyone with a Red Rosette.
No matter who the candidates are, 90% of states are going to go the same way as 2020.
MiC with a new one 🚨New @Moreincommon_ voting intention finds a tie for third place and a Lib Dem campaign high. Labour lead by 15. 🔵CON 24 (+1) 🔴LAB 39 (-1) 🟠LIB DEM 13 (+2) 🟣REF UK 13 (-1) 🟢GRN 5 (-) 🟡SNP 3 (-) Dates: 26-28/6 N: 3,361 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
That's close to what I am expecting - a few more off Reform and a couple more to the Tories by polling day.
Reform have an ugly stench around them now on racism, Putinism and Farage strops.
I can't see too many sensible British people going for them on the day, in reality.
My ex wife is weirdly keen on Reform. 27 years old. Ex Corbyn voter
Farage has passion and charisma and believes in something that is not what the establishment centrist blob believes, much like Corbyn, that is probably why
MiC with a new one 🚨New @Moreincommon_ voting intention finds a tie for third place and a Lib Dem campaign high. Labour lead by 15. 🔵CON 24 (+1) 🔴LAB 39 (-1) 🟠LIB DEM 13 (+2) 🟣REF UK 13 (-1) 🟢GRN 5 (-) 🟡SNP 3 (-) Dates: 26-28/6 N: 3,361 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
Interesting that with less than a week to go there's absolutely no sign of the pollsters herding...
Yougov/Ipsos are my pollster of choice for this election. There's so many more pollsters now that I think it's worth narrowing focus away from any (a) recently established firms, and (b) any that seems to have political polling make up a big part of their business. Add in the amount of time passed since the last big political event and some newer politics focused polling firms are likely to wake up with pants round ankles.
Yes, he could. But either (a) there has to be an actual health event that threatens his ability to continue; or (b) he has to choose not to continue. There is no mechanism to push him out, and the delegates at the convention are bound to him unless released.
(a) is perfectly possible. And he appears to be at that stage when things start to go down hill pretty fast. There's probably a 10-15% chance of that happening.
(b) requires his wife to say "Joe, it's time for a younger generation to take over", and for him to listen. I think that is a similarly low probability event.
So, sadly, I think that Biden is probably the nominee.
But let's imagine that (a) happened. In which case (especially if it's serious and he is unable to recommend someone), then all those delegates are now free to choose whoever they like at the convention. Essentially, the couple of thousands delegates are going to hear pitches from four or five candidates. And it'll be a mess. A glorious mess. But a mess. I don't know who would win (not Clinton!), but it could be anyone.
In the case of (b), it's a little different. Because in this scenario, he would essentially instruct his delegates to pick someone, and they probably would fall in line. Which requires a back room deal. Someone who is connected in the Democratic party, not Hillary Clinton, and is seen by Biden as a logical successor. And that's probably Harris. Yes, she'd probably lose to Trump. But she is the path of least resistance, and would - after all - become President in the far from unlikely event that Biden were to become incapacitated in office.
The bet to make, therefore, is on Harris as next President. She's the path of least resistance candidate, no matter how poor a candidate she would be,
Surely in (a) if it's serious enough to replace Biden without Biden getting involved, then it's serious enough that Harris is the incumbent.
And if Harris is the incumbent I can't see the Biden nominees looking past her.
So (a) Harris and (b) Harris.
The choice is Biden or Harris. I know HYUFD hates Harris and so do some others who'd never dream of voting for any Democrat anyway, but Harris seems like the logical choice to me.
Harris is the logical choice to lead the Democrats to their worst defeat since Dukakis yes
Actually, I don't think Harris would lead the Democrats to that kind of defeat because the US is so polarized right now, that anyone with a Blue Rosette gets 45% as does anyone with a Red Rosette.
No matter who the candidates are, 90% of states are going to go the same way as 2020.
True. Just down to a handful of swing states. Business as usual!
Yes, he could. But either (a) there has to be an actual health event that threatens his ability to continue; or (b) he has to choose not to continue. There is no mechanism to push him out, and the delegates at the convention are bound to him unless released.
(a) is perfectly possible. And he appears to be at that stage when things start to go down hill pretty fast. There's probably a 10-15% chance of that happening.
(b) requires his wife to say "Joe, it's time for a younger generation to take over", and for him to listen. I think that is a similarly low probability event.
So, sadly, I think that Biden is probably the nominee.
But let's imagine that (a) happened. In which case (especially if it's serious and he is unable to recommend someone), then all those delegates are now free to choose whoever they like at the convention. Essentially, the couple of thousands delegates are going to hear pitches from four or five candidates. And it'll be a mess. A glorious mess. But a mess. I don't know who would win (not Clinton!), but it could be anyone.
In the case of (b), it's a little different. Because in this scenario, he would essentially instruct his delegates to pick someone, and they probably would fall in line. Which requires a back room deal. Someone who is connected in the Democratic party, not Hillary Clinton, and is seen by Biden as a logical successor. And that's probably Harris. Yes, she'd probably lose to Trump. But she is the path of least resistance, and would - after all - become President in the far from unlikely event that Biden were to become incapacitated in office.
The bet to make, therefore, is on Harris as next President. She's the path of least resistance candidate, no matter how poor a candidate she would be,
Surely in (a) if it's serious enough to replace Biden without Biden getting involved, then it's serious enough that Harris is the incumbent.
And if Harris is the incumbent I can't see the Biden nominees looking past her.
So (a) Harris and (b) Harris.
The choice is Biden or Harris. I know HYUFD hates Harris and so do some others who'd never dream of voting for any Democrat anyway, but Harris seems like the logical choice to me.
Harris is the only choice they can realistically make at this stage, I agree. Unless she renounces the nomination. I have no idea how likely that is. She might be persuaded to do 6-7 months of the presidency but not run for a full term in favour of someone considered more popular I guess, but my gut feels that’s unlikely.
Yes, he could. But either (a) there has to be an actual health event that threatens his ability to continue; or (b) he has to choose not to continue. There is no mechanism to push him out, and the delegates at the convention are bound to him unless released.
(a) is perfectly possible. And he appears to be at that stage when things start to go down hill pretty fast. There's probably a 10-15% chance of that happening.
(b) requires his wife to say "Joe, it's time for a younger generation to take over", and for him to listen. I think that is a similarly low probability event.
So, sadly, I think that Biden is probably the nominee.
But let's imagine that (a) happened. In which case (especially if it's serious and he is unable to recommend someone), then all those delegates are now free to choose whoever they like at the convention. Essentially, the couple of thousands delegates are going to hear pitches from four or five candidates. And it'll be a mess. A glorious mess. But a mess. I don't know who would win (not Clinton!), but it could be anyone.
In the case of (b), it's a little different. Because in this scenario, he would essentially instruct his delegates to pick someone, and they probably would fall in line. Which requires a back room deal. Someone who is connected in the Democratic party, not Hillary Clinton, and is seen by Biden as a logical successor. And that's probably Harris. Yes, she'd probably lose to Trump. But she is the path of least resistance, and would - after all - become President in the far from unlikely event that Biden were to become incapacitated in office.
The bet to make, therefore, is on Harris as next President. She's the path of least resistance candidate, no matter how poor a candidate she would be,
Surely in (a) if it's serious enough to replace Biden without Biden getting involved, then it's serious enough that Harris is the incumbent.
And if Harris is the incumbent I can't see the Biden nominees looking past her.
So (a) Harris and (b) Harris.
The choice is Biden or Harris. I know HYUFD hates Harris and so do some others who'd never dream of voting for any Democrat anyway, but Harris seems like the logical choice to me.
You're right that Harris is an excellent position for (a).
Yes, he could. But either (a) there has to be an actual health event that threatens his ability to continue; or (b) he has to choose not to continue. There is no mechanism to push him out, and the delegates at the convention are bound to him unless released.
(a) is perfectly possible. And he appears to be at that stage when things start to go down hill pretty fast. There's probably a 10-15% chance of that happening.
(b) requires his wife to say "Joe, it's time for a younger generation to take over", and for him to listen. I think that is a similarly low probability event.
So, sadly, I think that Biden is probably the nominee.
But let's imagine that (a) happened. In which case (especially if it's serious and he is unable to recommend someone), then all those delegates are now free to choose whoever they like at the convention. Essentially, the couple of thousands delegates are going to hear pitches from four or five candidates. And it'll be a mess. A glorious mess. But a mess. I don't know who would win (not Clinton!), but it could be anyone.
In the case of (b), it's a little different. Because in this scenario, he would essentially instruct his delegates to pick someone, and they probably would fall in line. Which requires a back room deal. Someone who is connected in the Democratic party, not Hillary Clinton, and is seen by Biden as a logical successor. And that's probably Harris. Yes, she'd probably lose to Trump. But she is the path of least resistance, and would - after all - become President in the far from unlikely event that Biden were to become incapacitated in office.
The bet to make, therefore, is on Harris as next President. She's the path of least resistance candidate, no matter how poor a candidate she would be,
Surely in (a) if it's serious enough to replace Biden without Biden getting involved, then it's serious enough that Harris is the incumbent.
And if Harris is the incumbent I can't see the Biden nominees looking past her.
So (a) Harris and (b) Harris.
The choice is Biden or Harris. I know HYUFD hates Harris and so do some others who'd never dream of voting for any Democrat anyway, but Harris seems like the logical choice to me.
Harris is the logical choice to lead the Democrats to their worst defeat since Dukakis yes
Actually, I don't think Harris would lead the Democrats to that kind of defeat because the US is so polarized right now, that anyone with a Blue Rosette gets 45% as does anyone with a Red Rosette.
No matter who the candidates are, 90% of states are going to go the same way as 2020.
Even 45% would only be the same as the 45.6% Dukakis got in 1988, only Clinton in 1992 has got lower than that for the Democrats in the last 35 years (and that was only as Perot got 19% as an independent)
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
MiC with a new one 🚨New @Moreincommon_ voting intention finds a tie for third place and a Lib Dem campaign high. Labour lead by 15. 🔵CON 24 (+1) 🔴LAB 39 (-1) 🟠LIB DEM 13 (+2) 🟣REF UK 13 (-1) 🟢GRN 5 (-) 🟡SNP 3 (-) Dates: 26-28/6 N: 3,361 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
That's close to what I am expecting - a few more off Reform and a couple more to the Tories by polling day.
Reform have an ugly stench around them now on racism, Putinism and Farage strops.
I can't see too many sensible British people going for them on the day, in reality.
I quite like Techne. They rarely show sharp movements and they have a lot of experience polling multiple parties in Itlay. Even if their model was wrong (and it may not be) their limited polling movements always made sense. YouGov are the Kings of MRP until proven otherwise. Ipsos (ex-MORI) have a grand tradition. Norstat (ex-Panelbase) are very good in Scotland. However, on past election performance Opinium, Survation and Verian (ex-Kantar) are well clear of the pack.
That's bad news for Farage, surely? It increases the chance that Labour voters - unimpressed with their candidate - choose to vote tactically for the Conservatives.
Labour have also publicly signalled that they are pulling resources out of Clacton. They haven't done that in many seats that lack orange diamonds. Suggests they want Farage frozen out, which is smart.
Maybe some of them got a kicking got a kicking in Weatherspoons.
Yes, he could. But either (a) there has to be an actual health event that threatens his ability to continue; or (b) he has to choose not to continue. There is no mechanism to push him out, and the delegates at the convention are bound to him unless released.
(a) is perfectly possible. And he appears to be at that stage when things start to go down hill pretty fast. There's probably a 10-15% chance of that happening.
(b) requires his wife to say "Joe, it's time for a younger generation to take over", and for him to listen. I think that is a similarly low probability event.
So, sadly, I think that Biden is probably the nominee.
But let's imagine that (a) happened. In which case (especially if it's serious and he is unable to recommend someone), then all those delegates are now free to choose whoever they like at the convention. Essentially, the couple of thousands delegates are going to hear pitches from four or five candidates. And it'll be a mess. A glorious mess. But a mess. I don't know who would win (not Clinton!), but it could be anyone.
In the case of (b), it's a little different. Because in this scenario, he would essentially instruct his delegates to pick someone, and they probably would fall in line. Which requires a back room deal. Someone who is connected in the Democratic party, not Hillary Clinton, and is seen by Biden as a logical successor. And that's probably Harris. Yes, she'd probably lose to Trump. But she is the path of least resistance, and would - after all - become President in the far from unlikely event that Biden were to become incapacitated in office.
The bet to make, therefore, is on Harris as next President. She's the path of least resistance candidate, no matter how poor a candidate she would be,
To be a candidate surely you have to be convincing in your health that you can at least do 4 years . Is anyone seriously suggesting Biden in another 4 years will be coherent enough to be President? It is most odd that he has become the Democratic candidate
Well, I'm not sure Biden can manage four months, let alone four years.
But it's the power of incumbency. There was no mechanism for removing Biden without challenging him in the Primaries. And it was incredibly unpopular with Democratic voters to go after a sitting President.
Biden should have announced he was stepping down last October, and let the Democrats have a proper Primary. But he didn't, and now they are in a serious pickle.
Personally, I think they only option they have - should they want to get rid of Biden - is Harris. And while she's pretty shit, she's also compis mentis. And compis mentis and shit beats senile, especially when the senility gets worse by the day.
(Note also, if Biden keels over, then Harris takes over as President. That means she essentially inherits the nomination. She's a clear buy for next President.)
The question is, who benefits from the President being cognitively challenged and having to have someone else be a secret Prime Minister doing all the work and decisions behind the scenes?
Never attribute to malice that which might be otherwise explained by incompetence.
True, but whilst we should probably accept that circumstances not design have led us here (how would they force Biden to have dementia) it is very valid to ask who is the real President and why isn't he standing for election as such. It's like voting a 12 year old into office. Who are you actually voting for, and how do you hold them to account?
The world is an ad-hocracy.
At any moment in time, millions of people take the path of least resistance, what is easiest, what gets them into least trouble right now.
And that's true in the White House and Number 10 and pretty much everywhere else.
It was true under Trump, and it's true under Biden, and it'll be true under whoever is next.
Obama isn't pulling the strings of people in the White House, because that doesn't benefit person A right now in their desire to get through today in one piece.
Biden is the nominee, senile as he is, for exactly that reason. It's because it's the path of least resistance not to try and get rid of the nominee.
I accept all that. Nevertheless, the fact is, that if the President is medically-unfit,
MiC with a new one 🚨New @Moreincommon_ voting intention finds a tie for third place and a Lib Dem campaign high. Labour lead by 15. 🔵CON 24 (+1) 🔴LAB 39 (-1) 🟠LIB DEM 13 (+2) 🟣REF UK 13 (-1) 🟢GRN 5 (-) 🟡SNP 3 (-) Dates: 26-28/6 N: 3,361 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
That's close to what I am expecting - a few more off Reform and a couple more to the Tories by polling day.
Reform have an ugly stench around them now on racism, Putinism and Farage strops.
I can't see too many sensible British people going for them on the day, in reality.
That's bordering on delusion. Poor you.
He's totally right.
The difference is you welcome Putinism and excuse racism, and don't understand why the rest of us deplore it.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993. Polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Controversial opinion (1): Farage's first answer on QT is an under-reported fact of right-wing politics and deserves credit. (He said that he has done more than anyone else in UK politics to drive out the far right). There was a market for Nick Griffin's BNP a decade or so ago; largely those voters are now Reform voters. Reform, for all it's faults, is no BNP. I doubt there was any intention on Farage's part, but I think he's right.
Controversial opinion (2): Biden's performance at the debate last night wasn't as bad as the media is making out. Take out the stumble over Medicaid and (the first half, which is all I've got through so far) wasn't that different from his State of the Union address. The Medicaid stumble was bad, yes, but I got the impression from commenters that it was a disaster start to finish. It wasn't. I still think he very much should not be the Dem nominee as he has lost the narrative entirely, and will be far from capable in 4 years time, but last night was not quite the ongoing car crash I expected (perhaps I had just had my expectations set firmly by commentary!)
I think Reform will quite significantly underperform their polling on the night.
Reports of the death of the Tory party are exaggerated. But they certainly need to be punished and brought down a peg or two hundred.
The worry would be that if they don't get the hammering of a lifetime there's little incentive to change the things badly wrong with the Conservative Party, and the media/policy ecosystem that surrounds it - which has also been disastrous for the country.
Anything above the 1997 result and they'll go "well we had a good run, and lost votes to Reform so it wasn't that bad, we'll be back in when the public turn on Labour". Then carry on being the performatively dumb, offensive circus they've become.
The Augean Stables need cleaning and large parts of the Tory Party and its hangers on need a lesson they never forget, that forces them to fundamentally rethink how they do things.
If they get the hammering of a lifetime and fall below the LDs on seats and Reform on votes as well as massively behind Labour on both they won't rethink anything because the Tories won't exist in 5-10 years time. They will be taken over by ReformUK and end up led by Nigel Farage
That would still be a preferable outcome to a result that allows them to stick their heads in the sand. Fairly clear some Tory MPs wouldn't take a Reform takeover lying down. Something would have to emerge on the moderate right too.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Ramsay says Greens back 'a world without borders' as a long term vision
Well obviously when all the land is underwater because of global warming then there won’t be borders. Like waterworld and lots of gurnards who look like Farage.
Waterworld. Good film. Farage would be a good pirate!
Given the controversy over some Reform candidates I’d be dubious of telephone polling as they’re more like to include respondents not willing to choose Reform to an interviewer .
I’d think the online polls would be better at the Reform vote share .
The Tories just upped the ante in a new political election broadcast
Labour could be in power for "the rest of your life"🤷♂️... "unlimited power"... "dangerous" super-majority... could be 100+ left-wing MPs "working" for Angela Rayner
Is it mandated that you have to read "unlimited power" in a Palpatine voice?
Labour will have merely one term as any fool can see...they will utterly fail to make anyones life better then you will get a populist governement probably under farage and I predict that while I can't stand the guy or what he stands for....labour, lib dems, cons are a giant waste of space right now for fixing anything. So are reform who won't fix anything but like brexit when nothing works try something different
Given the controversy over some Reform candidates I’d be dubious of telephone polling as they’re more like to include respondents not willing to choose Reform to an interviewer .
I’d think the online polls would be better at the Reform vote share .
A breakdown of which is which and their Reform % would be useful.
Yes, he could. But either (a) there has to be an actual health event that threatens his ability to continue; or (b) he has to choose not to continue. There is no mechanism to push him out, and the delegates at the convention are bound to him unless released.
(a) is perfectly possible. And he appears to be at that stage when things start to go down hill pretty fast. There's probably a 10-15% chance of that happening.
(b) requires his wife to say "Joe, it's time for a younger generation to take over", and for him to listen. I think that is a similarly low probability event.
So, sadly, I think that Biden is probably the nominee.
But let's imagine that (a) happened. In which case (especially if it's serious and he is unable to recommend someone), then all those delegates are now free to choose whoever they like at the convention. Essentially, the couple of thousands delegates are going to hear pitches from four or five candidates. And it'll be a mess. A glorious mess. But a mess. I don't know who would win (not Clinton!), but it could be anyone.
In the case of (b), it's a little different. Because in this scenario, he would essentially instruct his delegates to pick someone, and they probably would fall in line. Which requires a back room deal. Someone who is connected in the Democratic party, not Hillary Clinton, and is seen by Biden as a logical successor. And that's probably Harris. Yes, she'd probably lose to Trump. But she is the path of least resistance, and would - after all - become President in the far from unlikely event that Biden were to become incapacitated in office.
The bet to make, therefore, is on Harris as next President. She's the path of least resistance candidate, no matter how poor a candidate she would be,
To be a candidate surely you have to be convincing in your health that you can at least do 4 years . Is anyone seriously suggesting Biden in another 4 years will be coherent enough to be President? It is most odd that he has become the Democratic candidate
Well, I'm not sure Biden can manage four months, let alone four years.
But it's the power of incumbency. There was no mechanism for removing Biden without challenging him in the Primaries. And it was incredibly unpopular with Democratic voters to go after a sitting President.
Biden should have announced he was stepping down last October, and let the Democrats have a proper Primary. But he didn't, and now they are in a serious pickle.
Personally, I think they only option they have - should they want to get rid of Biden - is Harris. And while she's pretty shit, she's also compis mentis. And compis mentis and shit beats senile, especially when the senility gets worse by the day.
(Note also, if Biden keels over, then Harris takes over as President. That means she essentially inherits the nomination. She's a clear buy for next President.)
The question is, who benefits from the President being cognitively challenged and having to have someone else be a secret Prime Minister doing all the work and decisions behind the scenes?
Never attribute to malice that which might be otherwise explained by incompetence.
True, but whilst we should probably accept that circumstances not design have led us here (how would they force Biden to have dementia) it is very valid to ask who is the real President and why isn't he standing for election as such. It's like voting a 12 year old into office. Who are you actually voting for, and how do you hold them to account?
The world is an ad-hocracy.
At any moment in time, millions of people take the path of least resistance, what is easiest, what gets them into least trouble right now.
And that's true in the White House and Number 10 and pretty much everywhere else.
It was true under Trump, and it's true under Biden, and it'll be true under whoever is next.
Obama isn't pulling the strings of people in the White House, because that doesn't benefit person A right now in their desire to get through today in one piece.
Biden is the nominee, senile as he is, for exactly that reason. It's because it's the path of least resistance not to try and get rid of the nominee.
I accept all that. Nevertheless, the fact is, that if the President is medically-unfit, someone else must be making important decisions, potentially be responsible for conducting military campaigns etc. etc. etc. That person should be elected democratically, otherwise it isn't a democracy.
The Tories just upped the ante in a new political election broadcast
Labour could be in power for "the rest of your life"🤷♂️... "unlimited power"... "dangerous" super-majority... could be 100+ left-wing MPs "working" for Angela Rayner
Is it mandated that you have to read "unlimited power" in a Palpatine voice?
Labour will have merely one term as any fool can see...they will utterly fail to make anyones life better then you will get a populist governement probably under farage and I predict that while I can't stand the guy or what he stands for....labour, lib dems, cons are a giant waste of space right now for fixing anything. So are reform who won't fix anything but like brexit when nothing works try something different
Yes, he could. But either (a) there has to be an actual health event that threatens his ability to continue; or (b) he has to choose not to continue. There is no mechanism to push him out, and the delegates at the convention are bound to him unless released.
(a) is perfectly possible. And he appears to be at that stage when things start to go down hill pretty fast. There's probably a 10-15% chance of that happening.
(b) requires his wife to say "Joe, it's time for a younger generation to take over", and for him to listen. I think that is a similarly low probability event.
So, sadly, I think that Biden is probably the nominee.
But let's imagine that (a) happened. In which case (especially if it's serious and he is unable to recommend someone), then all those delegates are now free to choose whoever they like at the convention. Essentially, the couple of thousands delegates are going to hear pitches from four or five candidates. And it'll be a mess. A glorious mess. But a mess. I don't know who would win (not Clinton!), but it could be anyone.
In the case of (b), it's a little different. Because in this scenario, he would essentially instruct his delegates to pick someone, and they probably would fall in line. Which requires a back room deal. Someone who is connected in the Democratic party, not Hillary Clinton, and is seen by Biden as a logical successor. And that's probably Harris. Yes, she'd probably lose to Trump. But she is the path of least resistance, and would - after all - become President in the far from unlikely event that Biden were to become incapacitated in office.
The bet to make, therefore, is on Harris as next President. She's the path of least resistance candidate, no matter how poor a candidate she would be,
To be a candidate surely you have to be convincing in your health that you can at least do 4 years . Is anyone seriously suggesting Biden in another 4 years will be coherent enough to be President? It is most odd that he has become the Democratic candidate
Well, I'm not sure Biden can manage four months, let alone four years.
But it's the power of incumbency. There was no mechanism for removing Biden without challenging him in the Primaries. And it was incredibly unpopular with Democratic voters to go after a sitting President.
Biden should have announced he was stepping down last October, and let the Democrats have a proper Primary. But he didn't, and now they are in a serious pickle.
Personally, I think they only option they have - should they want to get rid of Biden - is Harris. And while she's pretty shit, she's also compis mentis. And compis mentis and shit beats senile, especially when the senility gets worse by the day.
(Note also, if Biden keels over, then Harris takes over as President. That means she essentially inherits the nomination. She's a clear buy for next President.)
The question is, who benefits from the President being cognitively challenged and having to have someone else be a secret Prime Minister doing all the work and decisions behind the scenes?
Never attribute to malice that which might be otherwise explained by incompetence.
True, but whilst we should probably accept that circumstances not design have led us here (how would they force Biden to have dementia) it is very valid to ask who is the real President and why isn't he standing for election as such. It's like voting a 12 year old into office. Who are you actually voting for, and how do you hold them to account?
The world is an ad-hocracy.
At any moment in time, millions of people take the path of least resistance, what is easiest, what gets them into least trouble right now.
And that's true in the White House and Number 10 and pretty much everywhere else.
It was true under Trump, and it's true under Biden, and it'll be true under whoever is next.
Obama isn't pulling the strings of people in the White House, because that doesn't benefit person A right now in their desire to get through today in one piece.
Biden is the nominee, senile as he is, for exactly that reason. It's because it's the path of least resistance not to try and get rid of the nominee.
I accept all that. Nevertheless, the fact is, that if the President is medically-unfit, someone else must be making important decisions, potentially be responsible for conducting military campaigns etc. etc. etc. That person should be elected democratically, otherwise it isn't a democracy.
Every position paper by a staffer contains a recommendation. All that happens is that those recommendations aren't being properly scrutinized.
Not nice being called racist names by one of Faragists outriders but I'm finding it difficult to be too outraged when Sunak was responsible for Rwanda and employing Braverman and Patel as successive Home Secretaries. If you live close to the edge you encourage these sort of people.
“…but…”
You are a fuckend of the first order. A disgraceful so-called progressive. There are no “buts” when it comes to racism. Knob.
Also a defender or polanski so a mysogynist and an excuser or paedophilia if its "talent" committing it
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
No Reform were populist right on taxes and spending and socially conservative, they were miles away from Cameroon Conservatives who were closer to the old Progressive Conservatives or on social issues even the Canadian Liberals.
Just Reform added opposition to rule from Ottowa as Reform developed out of UKIP opposing rule from Brussels
The Tories just upped the ante in a new political election broadcast
Labour could be in power for "the rest of your life"🤷♂️... "unlimited power"... "dangerous" super-majority... could be 100+ left-wing MPs "working" for Angela Rayner
Controversial opinion (1): Farage's first answer on QT is an under-reported fact of right-wing politics and deserves credit. (He said that he has done more than anyone else in UK politics to drive out the far right). There was a market for Nick Griffin's BNP a decade or so ago; largely those voters are now Reform voters. Reform, for all it's faults, is no BNP. I doubt there was any intention on Farage's part, but I think he's right.
Controversial opinion (2): Biden's performance at the debate last night wasn't as bad as the media is making out. Take out the stumble over Medicaid and (the first half, which is all I've got through so far) wasn't that different from his State of the Union address. The Medicaid stumble was bad, yes, but I got the impression from commenters that it was a disaster start to finish. It wasn't. I still think he very much should not be the Dem nominee as he has lost the narrative entirely, and will be far from capable in 4 years time, but last night was not quite the ongoing car crash I expected (perhaps I had just had my expectations set firmly by commentary!)
There should be little doubt that Ukip 2015 absorbed the BNP 2010 vote. Many of their very largest swings were in areas which had previously had BNP votes in the 3-6k range. But I wouldn't overegg the good-un argument or assume that it was unintentional - in the 2015 debates, he asserted that African immigrants were spreading AIDS throughout Britain. The recent campaign has further clarified that he wants to keep the racists onside at arm's length. He says he doesn't want to associate with them. But he doesn't kick them out either.
I think Reform will quite significantly underperform their polling on the night.
Reports of the death of the Tory party are exaggerated. But they certainly need to be punished and brought down a peg or two hundred.
The worry would be that if they don't get the hammering of a lifetime there's little incentive to change the things badly wrong with the Conservative Party, and the media/policy ecosystem that surrounds it - which has also been disastrous for the country.
Anything above the 1997 result and they'll go "well we had a good run, and lost votes to Reform so it wasn't that bad, we'll be back in when the public turn on Labour". Then carry on being the performatively dumb, offensive circus they've become.
The Augean Stables need cleaning and large parts of the Tory Party and its hangers on need a lesson they never forget, that forces them to fundamentally rethink how they do things.
If they get the hammering of a lifetime and fall below the LDs on seats and Reform on votes as well as massively behind Labour on both they won't rethink anything because the Tories won't exist in 5-10 years time. They will be taken over by ReformUK and end up led by Nigel Farage
That would still be a preferable outcome to a result that allows them to stick their heads in the sand. Fairly clear some Tory MPs wouldn't take a Reform takeover lying down. Something would have to emerge on the moderate right too.
Not necessarily, as Canada showed a few wet Tories might go Liberal but most Tories would join Reform under FPTP and form a new Conservative party
Thoughts and prayers for all those Tories who want to leave the ECHR but hate Labour's attack on private schools.
FWIW - I think Lord Pannick is wrong.
Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Labour leader risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law over his party’s flagship policy, one of Britain’s top constitutional and human rights lawyers has warned.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.
He told The Telegraph: “It would be strongly arguable that for a new government to impose VAT on independent schools would breach the right to education.
Say Biden resigns and Harris becomes President. The Vice Presidency is vacant. Harris is allowed to nominate her replacement, but Congress blocks it (the GOP playing silly b*gets in the House).
Who presides over the electoral vote count in January if no Vice President is seated at that time?
Yes, he could. But either (a) there has to be an actual health event that threatens his ability to continue; or (b) he has to choose not to continue. There is no mechanism to push him out, and the delegates at the convention are bound to him unless released.
(a) is perfectly possible. And he appears to be at that stage when things start to go down hill pretty fast. There's probably a 10-15% chance of that happening.
(b) requires his wife to say "Joe, it's time for a younger generation to take over", and for him to listen. I think that is a similarly low probability event.
So, sadly, I think that Biden is probably the nominee.
But let's imagine that (a) happened. In which case (especially if it's serious and he is unable to recommend someone), then all those delegates are now free to choose whoever they like at the convention. Essentially, the couple of thousands delegates are going to hear pitches from four or five candidates. And it'll be a mess. A glorious mess. But a mess. I don't know who would win (not Clinton!), but it could be anyone.
In the case of (b), it's a little different. Because in this scenario, he would essentially instruct his delegates to pick someone, and they probably would fall in line. Which requires a back room deal. Someone who is connected in the Democratic party, not Hillary Clinton, and is seen by Biden as a logical successor. And that's probably Harris. Yes, she'd probably lose to Trump. But she is the path of least resistance, and would - after all - become President in the far from unlikely event that Biden were to become incapacitated in office.
The bet to make, therefore, is on Harris as next President. She's the path of least resistance candidate, no matter how poor a candidate she would be,
Surely in (a) if it's serious enough to replace Biden without Biden getting involved, then it's serious enough that Harris is the incumbent.
And if Harris is the incumbent I can't see the Biden nominees looking past her.
So (a) Harris and (b) Harris.
The choice is Biden or Harris. I know HYUFD hates Harris and so do some others who'd never dream of voting for any Democrat anyway, but Harris seems like the logical choice to me.
Harris is the logical choice to lead the Democrats to their worst defeat since Dukakis yes
Actually, I don't think Harris would lead the Democrats to that kind of defeat because the US is so polarized right now, that anyone with a Blue Rosette gets 45% as does anyone with a Red Rosette.
No matter who the candidates are, 90% of states are going to go the same way as 2020.
True. Just down to a handful of swing states. Business as usual!
The States in play (IMHO) this year are
Nevada Georgia Wisconsin Michigan Arizona Pennsylvania North Carolina
I think Trump hold North Carolina, while flipping Nevada and Arizona fairly comfortably. I think Georgia and Michigan will be close, but probable Trump pickups. While Pennsylvania and Wisconsin remain in the Blue Camp.
That gives 278 to the Republicans, against 260 for the Democrats.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
No Reform were populist right on taxes and spending and socially conservative, they were miles away from Cameroon Conservatives who were closer to the old Progressive Conservatives or on social issues even the Canadian Liberals.
Just Reform added opposition to rule from Ottowa as Reform developed out of UKIP opposing rule from Brussels
I think Reform will quite significantly underperform their polling on the night.
Reports of the death of the Tory party are exaggerated. But they certainly need to be punished and brought down a peg or two hundred.
The worry would be that if they don't get the hammering of a lifetime there's little incentive to change the things badly wrong with the Conservative Party, and the media/policy ecosystem that surrounds it - which has also been disastrous for the country.
Anything above the 1997 result and they'll go "well we had a good run, and lost votes to Reform so it wasn't that bad, we'll be back in when the public turn on Labour". Then carry on being the performatively dumb, offensive circus they've become.
The Augean Stables need cleaning and large parts of the Tory Party and its hangers on need a lesson they never forget, that forces them to fundamentally rethink how they do things.
If they get the hammering of a lifetime and fall below the LDs on seats and Reform on votes as well as massively behind Labour on both they won't rethink anything because the Tories won't exist in 5-10 years time. They will be taken over by ReformUK and end up led by Nigel Farage
That would still be a preferable outcome to a result that allows them to stick their heads in the sand. Fairly clear some Tory MPs wouldn't take a Reform takeover lying down. Something would have to emerge on the moderate right too.
Not necessarily, as Canada showed a few wet Tories might go Liberal but most Tories would join Reform under FPTP and form a new Conservative party
Except as I've already shown you, Reform (CA) was never the National Front. They were Cameroon Conservatives.
MiC with a new one 🚨New @Moreincommon_ voting intention finds a tie for third place and a Lib Dem campaign high. Labour lead by 15. 🔵CON 24 (+1) 🔴LAB 39 (-1) 🟠LIB DEM 13 (+2) 🟣REF UK 13 (-1) 🟢GRN 5 (-) 🟡SNP 3 (-) Dates: 26-28/6 N: 3,361 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
That's close to what I am expecting - a few more off Reform and a couple more to the Tories by polling day.
Reform have an ugly stench around them now on racism, Putinism and Farage strops.
I can't see too many sensible British people going for them on the day, in reality.
My ex wife is weirdly keen on Reform. 27 years old. Ex Corbyn voter
TBF, she was keen on you too, so perhaps something of an outlier for that demographic ?
On topic - one thing all the MRPs agree on is that an unusual number of seats will be decided by small or very small margins. That means GOTV is going to be absolutely crucial in determining spread bets on seat totals. Can Lab get their people to the polls? Does Reform have a GOTV effort and does it need it? Will the LibDem juggernaut roll over demoralised Con stragglers? Will the Green strategy pay off? Can the once-mighty Con electoral machine stave off total disaster?
Still six bedtimes when Sir Ed can dream of being LOTO!
It’s a great point and I would expect the Lib Dem’s to be the ones to benefit the most. They have been pouring resources into a very targeted number of seats and will, I am sure, repeat that next Thursday. Both Labour and the Tories have been campaigning across a larger group of targets and I suspect will find it more difficult to target. But reform are likely to struggle the most. They seem to have almost no ground operation and very little data. It is one of the reasons I am not convinced by some of their seat estimates.
For Reform, surely 3 is tops? (Farage, Anderson, Tice who have name recognition and presumably some kind of ground operation with people shipped in to help.) They won't win anything else.
Say Biden resigns and Harris becomes President. The Vice Presidency is vacant. Harris is allowed to nominate her replacement, but Congress blocks it (the GOP playing silly b*gets in the House).
Who presides over the electoral vote count in January if no Vice President is seated at that time?
The Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, I think.
It was in an article about the January 6th insurrection and what would have happened if the Trumpers had executed Mike Pence.
The Tories just upped the ante in a new political election broadcast
Labour could be in power for "the rest of your life"🤷♂️... "unlimited power"... "dangerous" super-majority... could be 100+ left-wing MPs "working" for Angela Rayner
Is it mandated that you have to read "unlimited power" in a Palpatine voice?
Labour will have merely one term as any fool can see...they will utterly fail to make anyones life better then you will get a populist governement probably under farage and I predict that while I can't stand the guy or what he stands for....labour, lib dems, cons are a giant waste of space right now for fixing anything. So are reform who won't fix anything but like brexit when nothing works try something different
As the person who, I believe, first predicted on politicalbetting.com a Labour landslide … actually I’ll break off right there because I didn’t predict it, I insisted on it to widespread derision … you are wrong.
This is desperate wishful thinking by tories in denial. It’s a bereavement process.
Labour will have at least 2 terms, probably 3, and the electorate will give them a lot of goodwill in the early years.
You older tory folk have a choice. You can continue to tell yourselves things in this echo chamber. Or you can get real, address why you lost the British people for a generation, and start fixing your party. The country will need you back but you won’t find it out on the far right.
We’re a moderate nation and we’re going to stay that way.
Yes, he could. But either (a) there has to be an actual health event that threatens his ability to continue; or (b) he has to choose not to continue. There is no mechanism to push him out, and the delegates at the convention are bound to him unless released.
(a) is perfectly possible. And he appears to be at that stage when things start to go down hill pretty fast. There's probably a 10-15% chance of that happening.
(b) requires his wife to say "Joe, it's time for a younger generation to take over", and for him to listen. I think that is a similarly low probability event.
So, sadly, I think that Biden is probably the nominee.
But let's imagine that (a) happened. In which case (especially if it's serious and he is unable to recommend someone), then all those delegates are now free to choose whoever they like at the convention. Essentially, the couple of thousands delegates are going to hear pitches from four or five candidates. And it'll be a mess. A glorious mess. But a mess. I don't know who would win (not Clinton!), but it could be anyone.
In the case of (b), it's a little different. Because in this scenario, he would essentially instruct his delegates to pick someone, and they probably would fall in line. Which requires a back room deal. Someone who is connected in the Democratic party, not Hillary Clinton, and is seen by Biden as a logical successor. And that's probably Harris. Yes, she'd probably lose to Trump. But she is the path of least resistance, and would - after all - become President in the far from unlikely event that Biden were to become incapacitated in office.
The bet to make, therefore, is on Harris as next President. She's the path of least resistance candidate, no matter how poor a candidate she would be,
Surely in (a) if it's serious enough to replace Biden without Biden getting involved, then it's serious enough that Harris is the incumbent.
And if Harris is the incumbent I can't see the Biden nominees looking past her.
So (a) Harris and (b) Harris.
The choice is Biden or Harris. I know HYUFD hates Harris and so do some others who'd never dream of voting for any Democrat anyway, but Harris seems like the logical choice to me.
Harris is the logical choice to lead the Democrats to their worst defeat since Dukakis yes
Actually, I don't think Harris would lead the Democrats to that kind of defeat because the US is so polarized right now, that anyone with a Blue Rosette gets 45% as does anyone with a Red Rosette.
No matter who the candidates are, 90% of states are going to go the same way as 2020.
True. Just down to a handful of swing states. Business as usual!
The States in play (IMHO) this year are
Nevada Georgia Wisconsin Michigan Arizona Pennsylvania North Carolina
I think Trump hold North Carolina, while flipping Nevada and Arizona fairly comfortably. I think Georgia and Michigan will be close, but probable Trump pickups. While Pennsylvania and Wisconsin remain in the Blue Camp.
That gives 278 to the Republicans, against 260 for the Democrats.
Thoughts and prayers for all those Tories who want to leave the ECHR but hate Labour's attack on private schools.
FWIW - I think Lord Pannick is wrong.
Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Labour leader risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law over his party’s flagship policy, one of Britain’s top constitutional and human rights lawyers has warned.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.
He told The Telegraph: “It would be strongly arguable that for a new government to impose VAT on independent schools would breach the right to education.
Say Biden resigns and Harris becomes President. The Vice Presidency is vacant. Harris is allowed to nominate her replacement, but Congress blocks it (the GOP playing silly b*gets in the House).
Who presides over the electoral vote count in January if no Vice President is seated at that time?
I don't think it's that easy to prevent the appointment of a VP. The Dems have 48 Senators, plus Angus King and Bernie Sanders. Plus Sistema is an independent, who is on good enough terms with the Democrats that she kept all her committee assignments.
Will Sistema really vote *against* the appointment of VP? I don't buy it. She might sit it out. But sitting it out is enough.
Thoughts and prayers for all those Tories who want to leave the ECHR but hate Labour's attack on private schools.
FWIW - I think Lord Pannick is wrong.
Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Labour leader risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law over his party’s flagship policy, one of Britain’s top constitutional and human rights lawyers has warned.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.
He told The Telegraph: “It would be strongly arguable that for a new government to impose VAT on independent schools would breach the right to education.
I agree with you that I think he's wrong. Strikes me as, if I may describe it this... Peak lawyer brain. Now Pannick is an excellent silk, employed by iirc Man City and Bozza recently. But the connection he's made there is one only a lawyer would ever conceivably dream up. Legislation A + Act in fact B = 465.765
Thoughts and prayers for all those Tories who want to leave the ECHR but hate Labour's attack on private schools.
FWIW - I think Lord Pannick is wrong.
Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Labour leader risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law over his party’s flagship policy, one of Britain’s top constitutional and human rights lawyers has warned.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.
He told The Telegraph: “It would be strongly arguable that for a new government to impose VAT on independent schools would breach the right to education.
Say Biden resigns and Harris becomes President. The Vice Presidency is vacant. Harris is allowed to nominate her replacement, but Congress blocks it (the GOP playing silly b*gets in the House).
Who presides over the electoral vote count in January if no Vice President is seated at that time?
I don't think it's that easy to prevent the appointment of a VP. The Dems have 48 Senators, plus Angus King and Bernie Sanders. Plus Sistema is an independent, who is on good enough terms with the Democrats that she kept all her committee assignments.
Will Sistema really vote *against* the appointment of VP? I don't buy it. She might sit it out. But sitting it out is enough.
Both the House and the Senate have to confirm the new VP.
Thoughts and prayers for all those Tories who want to leave the ECHR but hate Labour's attack on private schools.
FWIW - I think Lord Pannick is wrong.
Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Labour leader risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law over his party’s flagship policy, one of Britain’s top constitutional and human rights lawyers has warned.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.
He told The Telegraph: “It would be strongly arguable that for a new government to impose VAT on independent schools would breach the right to education.
How long before Farage accuses the BBC of a stitch up .
He must do that. It is standard practice whether they stitch him up or not. Perhaps he will take them to European court of human rights. He is well liked over there.
Thoughts and prayers for all those Tories who want to leave the ECHR but hate Labour's attack on private schools.
FWIW - I think Lord Pannick is wrong.
Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Labour leader risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law over his party’s flagship policy, one of Britain’s top constitutional and human rights lawyers has warned.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.
He told The Telegraph: “It would be strongly arguable that for a new government to impose VAT on independent schools would breach the right to education.
Thoughts and prayers for all those Tories who want to leave the ECHR but hate Labour's attack on private schools.
FWIW - I think Lord Pannick is wrong.
Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Labour leader risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law over his party’s flagship policy, one of Britain’s top constitutional and human rights lawyers has warned.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.
He told The Telegraph: “It would be strongly arguable that for a new government to impose VAT on independent schools would breach the right to education.
I’m surprised Pannick has this view . The child can go to a state school . The Labour policy isn’t stopping the child’s education.
Dan Neidle has pointed out that it all depends on what instructions he has given.
FWIW the bigger concern private schools should have is around the tax point. Currently schools are taking in millions in fees in advance hoping to dodge VAT (one client took in almost a million a day in the week after the GE). Many schools are screwing this up & making their FIA obvious tax dodges that won't work. Even the ones that aren't may be in trouble though - for Neidle's view is that the tax point is the start of the year and that parents are buying x years of education, rather than 1 education. As such the tax point would fall at the start of the school year the year of education starts in - if the courts take a similar view then schools will still have to pay VAT on the fees, which means they're effectively selling the education for 90% (schools on average will reclaim half the VAT they have to charge in fees) of normal price (even before the FIA discount).
Say Biden resigns and Harris becomes President. The Vice Presidency is vacant. Harris is allowed to nominate her replacement, but Congress blocks it (the GOP playing silly b*gets in the House).
Who presides over the electoral vote count in January if no Vice President is seated at that time?
Harris as she would remain VP as well as taking office as President until a replacement is chosen
Anybody who claims the a tide of political opinion in the medium or distant future going inevitably this way or that is talking out of their arse. There are no tides, there is no whig history or a bastard cousin thereof.
Anybody who wishcasts their own views as inevitable under the flimsy disguise of regret is trying to demoralise political opponents into inaction or anticipatory obedience: fight back against that shit.
Anybody who has to claim they are "extreme good at this" is trying to convince themselves as much as anyone else.
Of course, such news is unwelcome to those who spend their lives writing stories, but real life isn't a story. It's not an arc you plot out and tell. It's a bunch of stuff that happens. You can think you spot a trend and then it all goes to shit because events, dear boy.
The future isn't written. If you believe it is, you have to undo the whole of not just philosophy but physics too.
And even if it was, only someone who literally thought himself a god could possibly predict it.
Once more, when people talk about something years off in politics being "inevitable", they are lying to you.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
Yes, he could. But either (a) there has to be an actual health event that threatens his ability to continue; or (b) he has to choose not to continue. There is no mechanism to push him out, and the delegates at the convention are bound to him unless released.
(a) is perfectly possible. And he appears to be at that stage when things start to go down hill pretty fast. There's probably a 10-15% chance of that happening.
(b) requires his wife to say "Joe, it's time for a younger generation to take over", and for him to listen. I think that is a similarly low probability event.
So, sadly, I think that Biden is probably the nominee.
But let's imagine that (a) happened. In which case (especially if it's serious and he is unable to recommend someone), then all those delegates are now free to choose whoever they like at the convention. Essentially, the couple of thousands delegates are going to hear pitches from four or five candidates. And it'll be a mess. A glorious mess. But a mess. I don't know who would win (not Clinton!), but it could be anyone.
In the case of (b), it's a little different. Because in this scenario, he would essentially instruct his delegates to pick someone, and they probably would fall in line. Which requires a back room deal. Someone who is connected in the Democratic party, not Hillary Clinton, and is seen by Biden as a logical successor. And that's probably Harris. Yes, she'd probably lose to Trump. But she is the path of least resistance, and would - after all - become President in the far from unlikely event that Biden were to become incapacitated in office.
The bet to make, therefore, is on Harris as next President. She's the path of least resistance candidate, no matter how poor a candidate she would be,
To be a candidate surely you have to be convincing in your health that you can at least do 4 years . Is anyone seriously suggesting Biden in another 4 years will be coherent enough to be President? It is most odd that he has become the Democratic candidate
Well, I'm not sure Biden can manage four months, let alone four years.
But it's the power of incumbency. There was no mechanism for removing Biden without challenging him in the Primaries. And it was incredibly unpopular with Democratic voters to go after a sitting President.
Biden should have announced he was stepping down last October, and let the Democrats have a proper Primary. But he didn't, and now they are in a serious pickle.
Personally, I think they only option they have - should they want to get rid of Biden - is Harris. And while she's pretty shit, she's also compis mentis. And compis mentis and shit beats senile, especially when the senility gets worse by the day.
(Note also, if Biden keels over, then Harris takes over as President. That means she essentially inherits the nomination. She's a clear buy for next President.)
The question is, who benefits from the President being cognitively challenged and having to have someone else be a secret Prime Minister doing all the work and decisions behind the scenes?
Never attribute to malice that which might be otherwise explained by incompetence.
True, but whilst we should probably accept that circumstances not design have led us here (how would they force Biden to have dementia) it is very valid to ask who is the real President and why isn't he standing for election as such. It's like voting a 12 year old into office. Who are you actually voting for, and how do you hold them to account?
The world is an ad-hocracy.
At any moment in time, millions of people take the path of least resistance, what is easiest, what gets them into least trouble right now.
And that's true in the White House and Number 10 and pretty much everywhere else.
It was true under Trump, and it's true under Biden, and it'll be true under whoever is next.
Obama isn't pulling the strings of people in the White House, because that doesn't benefit person A right now in their desire to get through today in one piece.
Biden is the nominee, senile as he is, for exactly that reason. It's because it's the path of least resistance not to try and get rid of the nominee.
I accept all that. Nevertheless, the fact is, that if the President is medically-unfit,
MiC with a new one 🚨New @Moreincommon_ voting intention finds a tie for third place and a Lib Dem campaign high. Labour lead by 15. 🔵CON 24 (+1) 🔴LAB 39 (-1) 🟠LIB DEM 13 (+2) 🟣REF UK 13 (-1) 🟢GRN 5 (-) 🟡SNP 3 (-) Dates: 26-28/6 N: 3,361 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
That's close to what I am expecting - a few more off Reform and a couple more to the Tories by polling day.
Reform have an ugly stench around them now on racism, Putinism and Farage strops.
I can't see too many sensible British people going for them on the day, in reality.
That's bordering on delusion. Poor you.
He's totally right.
The difference is you welcome Putinism and excuse racism, and don't understand why the rest of us deplore it.
Both myself and Casino were commenting on Reform's electoral prospects. That has absolutely nothing to do with 'embracing Putinism' or 'excusing racism', neither of which I've done by the way.
A married accountant is being sued for £1.1 million by his former bosses for allegedly spending tens of thousands of pounds of company money on escorts.
Father-of-two Mohammed Asif Khan, 45, is accused of “stealing” about £1.1 million of company money while working for North of England Coachworks, the North East’s biggest vehicle bodyshop.
The company says “self-styled director of finance” Mr Khan splashed out about £160,000 on payments to escorts – including £56,000 to £1,000-an-hour call girl and porn star Gemma Massey.
But while the married father admitted his “shame” after using company money to pay prostitutes, he insisted he did nothing wrong as his bosses knew how he was spending the money and were happy with the arrangement.
”I was ashamed of the things that happened – for my wife,” he told the High Court, but added: “The company didn’t care what I spent that money on.”
Controversial opinion (1): Farage's first answer on QT is an under-reported fact of right-wing politics and deserves credit. (He said that he has done more than anyone else in UK politics to drive out the far right). There was a market for Nick Griffin's BNP a decade or so ago; largely those voters are now Reform voters. Reform, for all it's faults, is no BNP. I doubt there was any intention on Farage's part, but I think he's right.
Controversial opinion (2): Biden's performance at the debate last night wasn't as bad as the media is making out. Take out the stumble over Medicaid and (the first half, which is all I've got through so far) wasn't that different from his State of the Union address. The Medicaid stumble was bad, yes, but I got the impression from commenters that it was a disaster start to finish. It wasn't. I still think he very much should not be the Dem nominee as he has lost the narrative entirely, and will be far from capable in 4 years time, but last night was not quite the ongoing car crash I expected (perhaps I had just had my expectations set firmly by commentary!)
If Farage has done a good job in suppressing the BNP, the job of the next Tory leader will be to suppress Reform. No way back without doing that first.
Anybody who claims the a tide of political opinion in the medium or distant future going inevitably this way or that is talking out of their arse. There are no tides, there is no whig history or a bastard cousin thereof.
Anybody who wishcasts their own views as inevitable under the flimsy disguise of regret is trying to demoralise political opponents into inaction or anticipatory obedience: fight back against that shit.
Anybody who has to claim they are "extreme good at this" is trying to convince themselves as much as anyone else.
Of course, such news is unwelcome to those who spend their lives writing stories, but real life isn't a story. It's not an arc you plot out and tell. It's a bunch of stuff that happens. You can think you spot a trend and then it all goes to shit because events, dear boy.
The future isn't written. If you believe it is, you have to undo the whole of not just philosophy but physics too.
And even if it was, only someone who literally thought himself a god could possibly predict it.
Once more, when people talk about something years off in politics being "inevitable", they are lying to you.
Thoughts and prayers for all those Tories who want to leave the ECHR but hate Labour's attack on private schools.
FWIW - I think Lord Pannick is wrong.
Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Labour leader risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law over his party’s flagship policy, one of Britain’s top constitutional and human rights lawyers has warned.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.
He told The Telegraph: “It would be strongly arguable that for a new government to impose VAT on independent schools would breach the right to education.
Thoughts and prayers for all those Tories who want to leave the ECHR but hate Labour's attack on private schools.
FWIW - I think Lord Pannick is wrong.
Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Labour leader risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law over his party’s flagship policy, one of Britain’s top constitutional and human rights lawyers has warned.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.
He told The Telegraph: “It would be strongly arguable that for a new government to impose VAT on independent schools would breach the right to education.
I agree with you that I think he's wrong. Strikes me as, if I may describe it this... Peak lawyer brain. Now Pannick is an excellent silk, employed by iirc Man City and Bozza recently. But the connection he's made there is one only a lawyer would ever conceivably dream up. Legislation A + Act in fact B = 465.765
The interesting point is that it is not just his opinion but one that has apparently been held by a whole series of senior legal figures going back to the 80s. According to the article it was one advanced by Law Lords back in the 80s and 90s against Labour plans to either abolish or change the tax status of private schools. Now I have no idea if they are right but it seems that this is a principle that has been well established amongst the legal fraternity going back over 4 decades rather than something just dreamt up by Lord Pannick.
I know there’s a lot else going on, but meanwhile in the Excited States the wheels are coming off the gender abattoir, as inevitably they ended up in the courts. Discovery is a wonderful thing…
Thread: (WPATH = World Professional Association for Transgender Health)
This summarizes the Alabama Attorney General's assessment of @WPATH, based on a trove of subpoenaed internal communications that have been unsealed this week, plus more yet to be unsealed: "In short, neither the Court nor Alabama need treat WPATH as anything other than the activist interest group it has shown itself to be. The Constitution allows States to reject WPATH’s model of “care” and protect vulnerable minors from life-altering transitioning “treatments.” The Court should grant Defendants summary judgment."
I think Reform will quite significantly underperform their polling on the night.
Reports of the death of the Tory party are exaggerated. But they certainly need to be punished and brought down a peg or two hundred.
The worry would be that if they don't get the hammering of a lifetime there's little incentive to change the things badly wrong with the Conservative Party, and the media/policy ecosystem that surrounds it - which has also been disastrous for the country.
Anything above the 1997 result and they'll go "well we had a good run, and lost votes to Reform so it wasn't that bad, we'll be back in when the public turn on Labour". Then carry on being the performatively dumb, offensive circus they've become.
The Augean Stables need cleaning and large parts of the Tory Party and its hangers on need a lesson they never forget, that forces them to fundamentally rethink how they do things.
If they get the hammering of a lifetime and fall below the LDs on seats and Reform on votes as well as massively behind Labour on both they won't rethink anything because the Tories won't exist in 5-10 years time. They will be taken over by ReformUK and end up led by Nigel Farage
That would still be a preferable outcome to a result that allows them to stick their heads in the sand. Fairly clear some Tory MPs wouldn't take a Reform takeover lying down. Something would have to emerge on the moderate right too.
Not necessarily, as Canada showed a few wet Tories might go Liberal but most Tories would join Reform under FPTP and form a new Conservative party
Except as I've already shown you, Reform (CA) was never the National Front. They were Cameroon Conservatives.
They were NOT if they were Cameroon Conservatives they would have still voted for the wet Progressive Conservatives or the Canadian Liberals. The Canadian Reform party were ideologically small state and socially conservative, far closer to Farage than Cameron.
Indeed Canadian Reform grew as much from opposition to the Goods and Services Tax imposed by the Progressive Conservative government as via opposition to rule from Ottawa (though the 2 were interlinked)
MiC with a new one 🚨New @Moreincommon_ voting intention finds a tie for third place and a Lib Dem campaign high. Labour lead by 15. 🔵CON 24 (+1) 🔴LAB 39 (-1) 🟠LIB DEM 13 (+2) 🟣REF UK 13 (-1) 🟢GRN 5 (-) 🟡SNP 3 (-) Dates: 26-28/6 N: 3,361 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
That's close to what I am expecting - a few more off Reform and a couple more to the Tories by polling day.
Reform have an ugly stench around them now on racism, Putinism and Farage strops.
I can't see too many sensible British people going for them on the day, in reality.
My ex wife is weirdly keen on Reform. 27 years old. Ex Corbyn voter
Say Biden resigns and Harris becomes President. The Vice Presidency is vacant. Harris is allowed to nominate her replacement, but Congress blocks it (the GOP playing silly b*gets in the House).
Who presides over the electoral vote count in January if no Vice President is seated at that time?
Harris as she would remain VP as well as taking office as President until a replacement is chosen
I don't think that's right. I believe the responsibilities of VP (of which there are few but officiating over electoral vote count is one) would pass to Mike Johnson as Speaker.
However, I doubt they'd refuse to confirm any reasonable choice. The House GOP is increasingly extreme but there are enough who'd either confirm or abstain.
I know there’s a lot else going on, but meanwhile in the Excited States the wheels are coming off the gender abattoir, as inevitably they ended up in the courts. Discovery is a wonderful thing…
Thread: (WPATH = World Professional Association for Transgender Health)
This summarizes the Alabama Attorney General's assessment of @WPATH, based on a trove of subpoenaed internal communications that have been unsealed this week, plus more yet to be unsealed: "In short, neither the Court nor Alabama need treat WPATH as anything other than the activist interest group it has shown itself to be. The Constitution allows States to reject WPATH’s model of “care” and protect vulnerable minors from life-altering transitioning “treatments.” The Court should grant Defendants summary judgment."
Comments
And if Harris is the incumbent I can't see the Biden nominees looking past her.
So (a) Harris and (b) Harris.
The choice is Biden or Harris. I know HYUFD hates Harris and so do some others who'd never dream of voting for any Democrat anyway, but Harris seems like the logical choice to me.
They have a low ceiling, as has been shown for previous Faragist parties. They are not reaching the low thirties, the minimum percentage needed to win under FPTP even against divided opposition.
No matter who the candidates are, 90% of states are going to go the same way as 2020.
Pile on the 40s (!) available on Betfair.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
The difference is you welcome Putinism and excuse racism, and don't understand why the rest of us deplore it.
'No surrender, no surrender, no surrender to the PLP'.
Its cutting through folks - its cutting through!
🔴 LAB 44% (-30)
🟢 GRN 29% (+28)
🔵 CON 7% (-1)
🟠 LD 7% (-5)
Via
@YouGov
, 11-20 June (+/- vs GE19 data from British Election Study)
Controversial opinion (2): Biden's performance at the debate last night wasn't as bad as the media is making out. Take out the stumble over Medicaid and (the first half, which is all I've got through so far) wasn't that different from his State of the Union address. The Medicaid stumble was bad, yes, but I got the impression from commenters that it was a disaster start to finish. It wasn't. I still think he very much should not be the Dem nominee as he has lost the narrative entirely, and will be far from capable in 4 years time, but last night was not quite the ongoing car crash I expected (perhaps I had just had my expectations set firmly by commentary!)
Told you I was a minority amongst minorities.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/05/12/solarpunk/
I’d think the online polls would be better at the Reform vote share .
https://election.pressassociation.com/general-election/general-election-2024/
How are ethnic minority groups in the UK intending to vote?
Black Britons
1. Lab: 72%
2. Con: 11%
3. Reform UK: 7%
Pakistani/Bangladeshi Britons
1. Lab: 44%
2. Green: 29%
=3. Con / LD: 7% each
Indian Britons
1. Lab: 40%
2. Con: 32%
3. Green: 12%
Britons of mixed ethnicity
1. Lab: 59%
2. Green: 18%
3. Con: 9%
Britons of other ethnicities
1. Lab: 48%
2. Reform: 13%
=3. Green / LD: 11 each
yougov.co.uk/politics/artic…
Just Reform added opposition to rule from Ottowa as Reform developed out of UKIP opposing rule from Brussels
FWIW - I think Lord Pannick is wrong.
Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Labour leader risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law over his party’s flagship policy, one of Britain’s top constitutional and human rights lawyers has warned.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.
He told The Telegraph: “It would be strongly arguable that for a new government to impose VAT on independent schools would breach the right to education.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-private-school-tax-raid-likely-illegal/
Say Biden resigns and Harris becomes President. The Vice Presidency is vacant. Harris is allowed to nominate her replacement, but Congress blocks it (the GOP playing silly b*gets in the House).
Who presides over the electoral vote count in January if no Vice President is seated at that time?
Nevada
Georgia
Wisconsin
Michigan
Arizona
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
I think Trump hold North Carolina, while flipping Nevada and Arizona fairly comfortably. I think Georgia and Michigan will be close, but probable Trump pickups. While Pennsylvania and Wisconsin remain in the Blue Camp.
That gives 278 to the Republicans, against 260 for the Democrats.
It was in an article about the January 6th insurrection and what would have happened if the Trumpers had executed Mike Pence.
This is desperate wishful thinking by tories in denial. It’s a bereavement process.
Labour will have at least 2 terms, probably 3, and the electorate will give them a lot of goodwill in the early years.
You older tory folk have a choice. You can continue to tell yourselves things in this echo chamber. Or you can get real, address why you lost the British people for a generation, and start fixing your party. The country will need you back but you won’t find it out on the far right.
We’re a moderate nation and we’re going to stay that way.
Thanks.
xx
Will Sistema really vote *against* the appointment of VP? I don't buy it. She might sit it out. But sitting it out is enough.
Legislation A + Act in fact B = 465.765
The Telegraph says Lord Pannick thinks the ECHR stops Labour putting VAT on private school fees.
He's wrong, and I think almost every tax lawyer will agree with me.
Thread:
https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1806732398224142524
Are any other educational materials or facilities subject to VAT?
I don't believe educational books are, I believe they're exempt?
If all educational stuff is exempt except one thing, then there's a case to be argued.
FWIW the bigger concern private schools should have is around the tax point. Currently schools are taking in millions in fees in advance hoping to dodge VAT (one client took in almost a million a day in the week after the GE). Many schools are screwing this up & making their FIA obvious tax dodges that won't work. Even the ones that aren't may be in trouble though - for Neidle's view is that the tax point is the start of the year and that parents are buying x years of education, rather than 1 education. As such the tax point would fall at the start of the school year the year of education starts in - if the courts take a similar view then schools will still have to pay VAT on the fees, which means they're effectively selling the education for 90% (schools on average will reclaim half the VAT they have to charge in fees) of normal price (even before the FIA discount).
The future isn't written. If you believe it is, you have to undo the whole of not just philosophy but physics too.
And even if it was, only someone who literally thought himself a god could possibly predict it.
Once more, when people talk about something years off in politics being "inevitable", they are lying to you.
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion.
People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform.
Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
IN ANOTHER FECKING COUNTRY!!!
Ridiculous.
Father-of-two Mohammed Asif Khan, 45, is accused of “stealing” about £1.1 million of company money while working for North of England Coachworks, the North East’s biggest vehicle bodyshop.
The company says “self-styled director of finance” Mr Khan splashed out about £160,000 on payments to escorts – including £56,000 to £1,000-an-hour call girl and porn star Gemma Massey.
But while the married father admitted his “shame” after using company money to pay prostitutes, he insisted he did nothing wrong as his bosses knew how he was spending the money and were happy with the arrangement.
”I was ashamed of the things that happened – for my wife,” he told the High Court, but added: “The company didn’t care what I spent that money on.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/28/accountant-sued-spending-company-cash-prostitutes/
Luckily we have the ECHR to adjudicate on cases like this.
Thread: (WPATH = World Professional Association for Transgender Health)
This summarizes the Alabama Attorney General's assessment of @WPATH, based on a trove of subpoenaed internal communications that have been unsealed this week, plus more yet to be unsealed: "In short, neither the Court nor Alabama need treat WPATH as anything other than the activist interest group it has shown itself to be. The Constitution allows States to reject WPATH’s model of “care” and protect vulnerable minors from life-altering transitioning “treatments.” The Court should grant Defendants summary judgment."
https://x.com/benryanwriter/status/1806753486102724986
Indeed Canadian Reform grew as much from opposition to the Goods and Services Tax imposed by the Progressive Conservative government as via opposition to rule from Ottawa (though the 2 were interlinked)
I don't agree with him and I'm sure that almost everyone will hate my conclusion, but conclude I do!
We need more Farages, but we need them with other, more agreeable. views.
However, I doubt they'd refuse to confirm any reasonable choice. The House GOP is increasingly extreme but there are enough who'd either confirm or abstain.