Like Ken Clarke and the Euro, unfortunately on the wrong side of the argument on the most fundamental issue of his age. Perhaps he could seek election in Turkey, he certainly lusts after power enough.
It'll be Paul v Clinton and Paul will win, the American people despise the deep state and it's foreign policy machinations. Could see the very elderly Clinton not even winning the nomination.
Charles/Speedy Hillary is going to run, he forthcoming book tour kicking off the campaign, and beats her Democratic rivals by about 40 points and her Republican ones by about 5-10. Biden and O'Malley won't run when she announces, although Bernie Sanders may run as a token leftie, and has hinted he will caucus as a Democrat to do so. The presidency is hers for the taking, although I still think a Christie-Rubio ticket could run her close
No one can beat Hillary in 2016. As for the GOP: Christie is scandal ridden and unpopular, he might be impeached by then. Rubio is uncharismatic, he has good looks (but hair receding quickly) but he makes Ed Milliband look sophisticated plus although a latino the non-latino candidates get more latino votes than him in the opinion polls. Bush is another Bush (but with a brain), however because he is a Bush there is big resistance from the voters. Paul is high risk high return, he might win California with the right policy or lose Alabama with the wrong one, though presently he is the compromise candidate. Ryan is young, boring and damaged goods from last time, plus he is only a representative. Cruz has made public that he commisioned a large painting of himself being painted at the supreme court (Arthur Scargill of the GOP). Huckabee is the pastor candidate that actually believes in the bible (so very unpopular with rich people).
I would put equal odds on all of them getting the nomination and losing the election, however I only put one of them beating Hillary in 2020 if they don't get the nomination this time, Rand Paul, he is learning quickly and Hillary will have lost her novelty factor plus an economic recession by then.
[My wife and many of her friends no longer works. Their professional "middle class" jobs don't pay enough and offer enough flexibility to make them viable - in short its working to pay childcare costs and little else. So they don't work and become economically inactive.]
Not relevant.
[In her case the workplace's loss has been the voluntary sector's gain]
Voluntary secgtors gain = society's loss. Not through lack of labour; More labour is a good thing. However the Happy Worker Ethic is......Toxic
[Soon the majority of people in essential service or public sector jobs will be migrant Labour.]
Asian doctors and nurses. Oh my.
[So we have UKIP. They may very well be bonkers. But when the mainstream propagate insanity they have growing appeal..... ]
You are Labour. 50% of the population. I piss off about 75% of the pop by breathing. Choose a side.
FalseFlag/Speedy Clinton will easily beat Paul, in any case Paul is too outside the mainstream to get the GOP nomination, though Cruz at a pinch, could
A classic case of book learning not being matched by common sense. Even if he were correct (which he is not) his comments will simply alienate him further from the electorate who, even if they don't agree with UKIP, certainly do not like the idea of uncontrolled immigration. And whilst some of us who like our ancient history might revel in his use of such historical precedents, it will simply appear to the public that he is even more of an out of touch elitist than he was previously considered.
Politically a very foolish position to adopt (or rather to articulate).
ToryJim Well that is Theresa May's lead expanded a bit further, Boris is the Rudy Giuliani of UK politics, hugely charismatic, outside the establishment, really appeals to swing voters, but too ill disciplined and liberal on issues close to his party's (and in this case the nation's) heart to win
Julian Castro 2016 is already being groomed by the Dem elite, a moron who fills the purely symbolic role, didn't stop Obama mind, of Mayor of San Antonio, the City Manager is paid the big bucks and has the real power.
A classic case of book learning not being matched by common sense. Even if he were correct (which he is not) his comments will simply alienate him further from the electorate who, even if they don't agree with UKIP, certainly do not like the idea of uncontrolled immigration. And whilst some of us who like our ancient history might revel in his use of such historical precedents, it will simply appear to the public that he is even more of an out of touch elitist than he was previously considered.
Politically a very foolish position to adopt (or rather to articulate).
So what do you make of the fact that a majority of voters in the Euros voted for parties in favour of/allow immigration?
I have to say that Boris, though a Tory, does take the long term view.
A simple fact remains: With the population becoming elderly by the minute because of low replacement rates, who will pay the taxes to pay for this not-so-slowly demographic time bomb ?
All political parties know this: none dare say it !
A classic case of book learning not being matched by common sense. Even if he were correct (which he is not) his comments will simply alienate him further from the electorate who, even if they don't agree with UKIP, certainly do not like the idea of uncontrolled immigration. And whilst some of us who like our ancient history might revel in his use of such historical precedents, it will simply appear to the public that he is even more of an out of touch elitist than he was previously considered.
Politically a very foolish position to adopt (or rather to articulate).
A pro-immigration stance should stand him in good stead if he decides to stay on as Mayor of London though, I would have thought. It seems like a better fit for him anyway.
FalseFlag/Speedy Clinton will easily beat Paul, in any case Paul is too outside the mainstream to get the GOP nomination, though Cruz at a pinch, could
Hilary contrived to lose to Obama despite her years of prep and will very be very elderly in two years.
ToryJim Well that is Theresa May's lead expanded a bit further, Boris is the Rudy Giuliani of UK politics, hugely charismatic, outside the establishment, really appeal to swing voters, but too ill disciplined and liberal on issues close to his party's (and in this case the nation's) heart to win
I don't think the issue is close to the nation's heart. I think it's a case of a convenient thing to fix on because the truth is too disparate and complex to sum up in a pithy answer. I really think if you talk to people properly about these things you can cut across the simplistic answers.
I have to say that Boris, though a Tory, does take the long term view.
A simple fact remains: With the population becoming elderly by the minute because of low replacement rates, who will pay the taxes to pay for this not-so-slowly demographic time bomb ?
All political parties know this: none dare say it !
Not net welfare recipient immigrants. People will work longer and there are these things called productivity gains. Great long term solution there Mr Ponzi. The dependency ratio has always been rising and we have coped fine so far.
A classic case of book learning not being matched by common sense. Even if he were correct (which he is not) his comments will simply alienate him further from the electorate who, even if they don't agree with UKIP, certainly do not like the idea of uncontrolled immigration. And whilst some of us who like our ancient history might revel in his use of such historical precedents, it will simply appear to the public that he is even more of an out of touch elitist than he was previously considered.
Politically a very foolish position to adopt (or rather to articulate).
So what do you make of the fact that a majority of voters in the Euros voted for parties in favour of/allow immigration?
They didn't. The vast majority of those voting in the Euros voted for parties that were already advocating tighter immigration controls. So your point is fundamentally wrong. Besides Boris is claiming that even trying to control immigration at current levels is wrong. You and I both know that that is not a vote winning message.
Yes. If you don't mind me asking, what is your specialty?
Must be a butcher, then. They're the only ones that use blow torches ;-)
But you up for a convo at some point on the potential to extend current treatment modalities in interventional radiology? Wondering what the NE view is on that topic.
An interesting exchange between Dr Sox and Gasman. Not knowing hospital jargon, we have to guess the meaning of "the Gas Board".
The obvious answer is an anaesthetist, but it could be the Ambulance Service. This would fit with Gasman's obvious knowledge of A&E destinations and transit times in the area (although local hospital consultants may have this level of knowledge anyway).
Dr. Sox's reply was also cryptic. Maybe hiding identity as he is local but it just as likely to be concealing his rank.
Dr. Sox is the quintessential gentleman.
Would be fascinating to get the real answers to this now public record of social interchange.
ToryJim The polls are pretty overwhelming, most voters do not want more immigration, even if what Boris says seems sensible, he could have at least advocated a points system like Australia, an open door policy leaves him vulnerable politically
Why do some people assume that a majority of the population vote against immigrants ?
They may say it, but how many actually vote in that way ?
UKIP, the avowedly anti-immigrant party got 27.5% in a low turnout election where most UKIP supporters turned out.
Boris is not stupid. He played his card after watching what the others are doing.
The Tories have made tighter immigration controls a fundamental part of their policy. The fact that they are useless at it is besides the point in terms of recognising that that is what people want. Even Labour recognise this and try to appear tough on immigration.
ON the day Tesco got its come uppance for arrogance and utterly crap customer service, I tried to ring my bank. On hold for twenty minutes plus TWICE. without any human response. Time to tell them to F off as well. Will they never learn?
No. It's pretty amazing how little effort a lot of companies put into customer service (or maybe it isn't a surprise). Just a minutely larger portion of monies would make such a difference. As I remarked to a friendly but entirely unhelpful lady from the energy company the other day, I'm not expecting a fantastic service from such people, because large companies in particular will rarely put in the resources to make it so, but I don't think I'm asking for a lot by requesting it not be totally crap service.
Honestly, I spent 40 minutes on hold for a solution to a problem which didn't work (this after giving them a chance on their automated 'call back in xx minutes' service for 20 minutes), 30 minutes again later that day with a promise in person to phone back in 5 minutes which didn't happen, and when I mentioned it the next day was told they had phoned me ('our records say we phoned') even though I was sat literaly 6 inches from the phone for 3 hours afterwards. Next day after another 25 minutes I then tried another solution of theirs which did not work as they dispatched me around various local shops to try things (it was to do with my new electric meter key) where I had to keep them on the line the whole time as they'd proven they couldn't get back to me. Finally, 2 days later, they solved the problem. Also, their landline contact number gave different automated options and I couldn't get through to anyone, so I had to use the different number for people calling mobile, whose options I could get through to a human being from. They assured me that this was not an intentional method of charging people who called up.
Sorry, thought this was 'customer rant ,com' for a second, had to vent.
A classic case of book learning not being matched by common sense. Even if he were correct (which he is not) his comments will simply alienate him further from the electorate who, even if they don't agree with UKIP, certainly do not like the idea of uncontrolled immigration. And whilst some of us who like our ancient history might revel in his use of such historical precedents, it will simply appear to the public that he is even more of an out of touch elitist than he was previously considered.
Politically a very foolish position to adopt (or rather to articulate).
A pro-immigration stance should stand him in good stead if he decides to stay on as Mayor of London though, I would have thought. It seems like a better fit for him anyway.
Oh I agree with you there but if he has aspirations anywhere beyond that city and that office then he is making a big mistake.
FalseFlag Reagan was 69 when he won in 1980. In 2008 the nation was thirsty for change and youth and charisma after Bush, Hillary was too establishment. In 2016 after 8 years of that youthful change voters will be ready for an older more experienced candidate, and no one on the GOP or Democratic side comes close to either of them
A classic case of book learning not being matched by common sense. Even if he were correct (which he is not) his comments will simply alienate him further from the electorate who, even if they don't agree with UKIP, certainly do not like the idea of uncontrolled immigration. And whilst some of us who like our ancient history might revel in his use of such historical precedents, it will simply appear to the public that he is even more of an out of touch elitist than he was previously considered.
Politically a very foolish position to adopt (or rather to articulate).
So what do you make of the fact that a majority of voters in the Euros voted for parties in favour of/allow immigration?
They didn't. The vast majority of those voting in the Euros voted for parties that were already advocating tighter immigration controls. So your point is fundamentally wrong. Besides Boris is claiming that even trying to control immigration at current levels is wrong. You and I both know that that is not a vote winning message.
Now if only you hadn't published leaflets that said...
Next year the EU will allow 29 million Bulgarian and Romanians to come to the UK.
The Government have admitted there's nothing we can do about it, while we're in the EU.
(And Labour say they don't want to do anything anyway)
A classic case of book learning not being matched by common sense. Even if he were correct (which he is not) his comments will simply alienate him further from the electorate who, even if they don't agree with UKIP, certainly do not like the idea of uncontrolled immigration. And whilst some of us who like our ancient history might revel in his use of such historical precedents, it will simply appear to the public that he is even more of an out of touch elitist than he was previously considered.
Politically a very foolish position to adopt (or rather to articulate).
So what do you make of the fact that a majority of voters in the Euros voted for parties in favour of/allow immigration?
They didn't. The vast majority of those voting in the Euros voted for parties that were already advocating tighter immigration controls. So your point is fundamentally wrong. Besides Boris is claiming that even trying to control immigration at current levels is wrong. You and I both know that that is not a vote winning message.
Now if only you hadn't published leaflets that said...
Next year the EU will allow 29 million Bulgarian and Romanians to come to the UK.
The Government have admitted there's nothing we can do about it, while we're in the EU.
(And Labour say they don't want to do anything anyway)
Hence the argument for leaving the EU. Not sure I see what you are getting at TSE as you have just agreed with the position that the only way to really control immigration is to leave the EU. Are you a secret kipper?
ToryJim The polls are pretty overwhelming, most voters do not want more immigration, even if what Boris says seems sensible, he could have at least advocated a points system like Australia, an open door policy leaves him vulnerable politically
Leadership is about convincing people, changing their minds and winning the argument, not simply following them in whatever obsession/panic grips them at a given moment.
Hillary is clearly the most formidable non-incumbent Presidential candidate ever known in modern politics.
She has numerous advantages including having the primary sewn up so she is able to focus on the GE early, a completely fractured Republican field, a very distinct, independent brand from Obama despite serving in his administration and probably the best CV of any modern presidential candidate.
The only way I see Republicans beating her is by using the outsider vs insider, change vs experience argument. It's interesting Speedy that you don't mention Scott Walker. He could turn into the 2016 Tim Pawlenty and he might not even win re-election (though I think he will) but he has the potential to be a strong candidate. He would unite the party, has a record of winning in a blue state and is from the crucial swing region of the country.
The big problem for Republicans is how well Hillary would likely do with whites. The Republicans lost in 2012 despite winning whites by 20 pts. Hillary likely only loses whites by 10 pts and could do even better. In that scenario even with a fall off in black turnout and the GOP doing better with hispanics Hillary still wins.
The other worry for the GOP is that Hillary's vote is likely to be distributed better - the Obama vote was too concentrated in the big urban areas hurting the Dems in the House. If the GOP nominate a wacko (in the words of John McCain) like Ted Cruz then Hillary could win big (by up to 10 pts, a bigger win is unlikely given polarisation), potentially even take the House and end up with 55+ senate seats. It would be interesting if that scenario would be enough to break some of the GOP intransigence on co-operating at all with the Dems on anything.
Quickly on Rand Paul he is high risk, high reward. However, I think the risk is greater than the reward. Yes he may win over some young libertarians but that is a small demographic. He could also split the party with lots of hawkish pro-defence, establishment and Wall Street types backing Hillary.
Also on the Dem primary. I wouldn't be surprised if O'Malley ran against Clinton. He would know that he couldn't win and I don't think he would attack Clinton as he would be very pleased to get offered the VP slot. Regardless, the process would raise his national name recognition and profile and set him up for a run in 2020 or 2024 depending on whether Clinton won the general.
A classic case of book learning not being matched by common sense. Even if he were correct (which he is not) his comments will simply alienate him further from the electorate who, even if they don't agree with UKIP, certainly do not like the idea of uncontrolled immigration. And whilst some of us who like our ancient history might revel in his use of such historical precedents, it will simply appear to the public that he is even more of an out of touch elitist than he was previously considered.
Politically a very foolish position to adopt (or rather to articulate).
So what do you make of the fact that a majority of voters in the Euros voted for parties in favour of/allow immigration?
They didn't. The vast majority of those voting in the Euros voted for parties that were already advocating tighter immigration controls. So your point is fundamentally wrong. Besides Boris is claiming that even trying to control immigration at current levels is wrong. You and I both know that that is not a vote winning message.
Now if only you hadn't published leaflets that said...
Next year the EU will allow 29 million Bulgarian and Romanians to come to the UK.
The Government have admitted there's nothing we can do about it, while we're in the EU.
(And Labour say they don't want to do anything anyway)
Hence the argument for leaving the EU. Not sure I see what you are getting at TSE as you have just agreed with the position that the only way to really control immigration is to leave the EU. Are you a secret kipper?
The point is a majority that voted in the Euros voted for parties that admit they can do nothing or don't want to anything away about 29 million Bulgarians being allowed to come to the UK.
ToryJim The polls are pretty overwhelming, most voters do not want more immigration, even if what Boris says seems sensible, he could have at least advocated a points system like Australia, an open door policy leaves him vulnerable politically
Leadership is about convincing people, changing their minds and winning the argument, not simply following them in whatever obsession/panic grips them at a given moment.
I recall Guy Verhofstadt saying something similar once.
Most of the political leaders [in continental Europe] are simply following nationalist and populist rhetoric, and that is for me not a democracy. A democracy, in my opinion, is a political leader developing a vision and then trying to convince the public opinion to follow his vision, and not what is happening now.
I don't agree with all of his conclusions or aims, but his and your definitions of leadership has plenty of merit, though there are limits to how much against the flow our politicians are willing to go. Leadership is surely also about choosing battles wisely and the right moment to do so, as going against the public opinion too directly can antagonise them to you and prevent you from fomenting change, as people's minds are rarely changed in such a way as to do a 180, and must be led to a new position.
A classic case of book learning not being matched by common sense. Even if he were correct (which he is not) his comments will simply alienate him further from the electorate who, even if they don't agree with UKIP, certainly do not like the idea of uncontrolled immigration. And whilst some of us who like our ancient history might revel in his use of such historical precedents, it will simply appear to the public that he is even more of an out of touch elitist than he was previously considered.
Politically a very foolish position to adopt (or rather to articulate).
So what do you make of the fact that a majority of voters in the Euros voted for parties in favour of/allow immigration?
They didn't. The vast majority of those voting in the Euros voted for parties that were already advocating tighter immigration controls. So your point is fundamentally wrong. Besides Boris is claiming that even trying to control immigration at current levels is wrong. You and I both know that that is not a vote winning message.
Now if only you hadn't published leaflets that said...
Next year the EU will allow 29 million Bulgarian and Romanians to come to the UK.
The Government have admitted there's nothing we can do about it, while we're in the EU.
(And Labour say they don't want to do anything anyway)
Hence the argument for leaving the EU. Not sure I see what you are getting at TSE as you have just agreed with the position that the only way to really control immigration is to leave the EU. Are you a secret kipper?
The point is a majority that voted in the Euros voted for parties that admit they can do nothing or don't want to anything away about 29 million Bulgarians being allowed to come to the UK.
Nope they voted for parties that, apart from UKIP, have consistently lied about what they can do about immigration. Face it TSE, on this issue you are most definitely in the minority. Every time the question is asked about immigration people want more control. They may not want it to the extent that UKIP advocates but they sure as hell don't want what Boris is advocating.
@kle4 Oh I agree you can't always get too far ahead of opinion. Although there are times when you have to act as the grit in the oyster. Sometimes it is necessary to antagonise opinion. The other thing with Boris is he hasn't ever said anything much different, he has always been in a different place to the Tory party on immigration.
ToryJim In an ideal world yes, but you cannot ignore the strength of public opinion on this issue and arguing for more immigration flies in the face of it
I thought this was home and dry. Why are the Tories frit ?
They haven't had a major political win for quite some time, Labour stumbling a little and an improving economy which not all can feel the benefit of notwithstanding, and a narrow win over UKIP, while their first successful by-election defence in government for a long time would be great, it doesn't help add to the narrative that the Tories have a chance somehow in 2015.
In all fairness even a smashing win over UKIP and Labour would, on its own, not help add to that narrative much, they need the polls to shift back again for a sustained period, hopefully another Labour decline and a UKIP collapse, but by gods they will work to make it a big victory so that the prepared cliched lines to come from the win, if it happens, do not sound so hollow, like all those 'This shows how the country is against the government' stuff coming from Labour after wins in the Labour heartlands, as if that shows anything.
I don't buy Castro as a genuine VP contender. I suppose the calculus may change if Rubio is the GOP nominee but even then not sure Clinton will go for him. Reasons being:
1. The rule with VPs is first do no harm. This is especially true if you are the frontrunner. Clinton will not want a Palin problem. That VP pick actually made sense because McCain was going to lose and therefore it was worth taking a gamble. But why would Hillary?
2. Castro is completely untested in electoral politics on either national or statewide level. She would have no idea how he would cope under the intense scrutiny of a national campaign.
3. The huge age gap merely draws attention to the age issue and makes it more prominent. E.g. the media would run loads of articles about the gap and how at events he is more 'energetic' etc.
4. Because of Hillary's age the 'ready from day 1' issue is even more important (like it was for McCain in 2008).
One thing she does not need to worry about (unlike Bush and Obama) is foreign policy experience.
In terms of who she will go for if she is the nominee I think the outstanding candidate is Mark Warner. He is a former governor and current senator. He is very popular in the biggest swing state in the country. He is relatively centrist and he is a former businessman. He would be early sixties on election day. Together that ticket reads experienced, capable, dependable, solid, reliable, centrist, credible.
Other potentials would be:
- Jay Nixon. Another centrist governor from Missouri (although the delicious Clinton-Nixon ticket may count against him!)
- Tim Kaine. Similar attributes to Mark Warner.
- Martin O'Malley. If he runs and does well he could get the VP slot.
- Deval Patrick. Would help boost black turnout and clearly qualified.
Labour think the LibDems will lose a lot of seats. LibDems hope they won't lose lots of seats but quietly thinking k they probably will.
Labour wished most of the LD voters had been on their side. Most of the 2010 LD voters also wished they had been on Labour's side. Common ground right there.
I think reasonable to deem the 30 as a slight outlier - if so Con has been bang on 32 since the start of last week. Which is a fall of 1% or a touch higher - depending upon whether we deem the two 34s to be a touch on the high side.
So not a dramatic change but at the same time they do seem to have clearly dropped at least 1% and possibly as much as 1.5%.
Why? Possibly UKIP afterglow of Euro results? But UKIP is now back down to 13% which is in line with where they were in the Euros week so that doesn't appear to provide the explanation.
Kieran Agreed, the closest parallel is probably Bobby Kennedy in 1968 terms of name recognition and broad appeal, and the fact he had already served in the White House as Attorney General to his brother as Hillary was First Lady and Secretary of State. Even Vice presidents do not have the 'brand' name of the Clintons or Kennedys, the Bushes have that brand name too but it is presently toxic. In reality Hillary will probably be like the eventual winner of the 1968 election, Nixon who she resembles in both temperament, intellect and ruthlessness, and of course just as he narrowly lost to a charismatic outsider so did she, and she will be making her second try 8 years later too
So I'm glad we have a politician prepared to make the case for immigration and not pander to stereotypes.
I'm not often outright stunned, but I remained shocked at how far out people are with their predictions on those. How can they be so far out? I wouldn't expect most people to be the sorts of boring farts like many of us here who might have looked up such percentages, but it's not even close most of the time (in fairness, I would have been almost as far out on the single parents guess)
An example of work doesn't pay. My wife and many of her friends no longer works. Their professional "middle class" jobs don't pay enough and offer enough flexibility to make them viable - in short its working to pay childcare costs and little else. So they don't work and become economically inactive. .
And the response of Labour (in league with the LibDems) to this?
Scuppering Liz Truss's eminently sensible proposals to amend regulations to make childcare more efficient, as it is in many other advanced European economies.
@foxinsoxuk I think we can conclude from the by-election campaign from the Tory view that organisationally the party isn't in bad shape. To be able to get several hundred activists together fired up for a party in govt is good. Labour is unlikely to have more than the odd slight localised ground advantage next year. Labour ought to be waking up to the fact that next year is going to be a hell of a fight.
So I'm glad we have a politician prepared to make the case for immigration and not pander to stereotypes.
And the policy of telling people they are deluded has been oh so successful in the past.
I am afraid that your agreement with what Boris is saying has clouded your judgement on whether it was politically wise or not.
See the other day, I did a thread on why people voted UKIP, and one of the reasons was UKIP say what they think, and a few Kippers on here said that's what they like about UKIP.
So when Boris does that, it's not politically wise.
UKIP source: "I can say without any fear this is rubbish. This is absolutely abhorrent behaviour by a tabloid on polling day."
How funny. Nigel's having a lovely time in the Med, whilst the Haus Frau is up until midnight, 'answering his emails'. Something's going to snap, and Mr Farage is going to have a problem.
So I'm glad we have a politician prepared to make the case for immigration and not pander to stereotypes.
I'm not often outright stunned, but I remained shocked at how far out people are with their predictions on those. How can they be so far out? I wouldn't expect most people to be the sorts of boring farts like many of us here who might have looked up such percentages, but it's not even close most of the time (in fairness, I would have been almost as far out on the single parents guess)
So I'm glad we have a politician prepared to make the case for immigration and not pander to stereotypes.
I'm not often outright stunned, but I remained shocked at how far out people are with their predictions on those. How can they be so far out? I wouldn't expect most people to be the sorts of boring farts like many of us here who might have looked up such percentages, but it's not even close most of the time (in fairness, I would have been almost as far out on the single parents guess)
Indeed. The thing the GOP must be worried about is that Clinton is at 48+ with at least single, and sometimes, double digit leads over the GOP field when Obama is in the low 40s. It shows she can win even if Obama isn't popular. That probably isn't true for any other Democrat who would be unable to craft a distinct identity.
One problem she will have though in the super PAC era is that while the Republican primary will hamper the candidates themselves I expect a big GOP outside group effort to run negative ads against her. However, I think these will be pretty ineffective just as they were in 2012. Advertising can make a huge difference in down ballot races where voters don't know the candidates. But there are very few people who don't know and have an opinion about Clinton so negative ads just won't be that effective.
Finally, there is the whole 3rd term argument for saying she probably doesn't win. I don't think that stands up to scrutiny because although 3rd terms are very rare the elections have usually been very close. And of course in any case there is a tiny sample size.
2008. Out party wins by 7pts. 2000. In party wins the popular vote but loses the EC. 1988. In party wins. 1976. Out party wins by 2pts. 1968. Out party wins by 1pt. 1960. Out party wins by 0.1pts with serious voting irregularities.
So in other words while the In party is 1 for 6 going for second terms, it has only lost by 2pts once in that period and that was after Katrina, Iraq and a huge financial collapse.
So I'm glad we have a politician prepared to make the case for immigration and not pander to stereotypes.
I'm not often outright stunned, but I remained shocked at how far out people are with their predictions on those. How can they be so far out? I wouldn't expect most people to be the sorts of boring farts like many of us here who might have looked up such percentages, but it's not even close most of the time (in fairness, I would have been almost as far out on the single parents guess)
Perceptions matter more than facts.
Yes, but it's how that perception that is so divorced from reality has come about that amazes me. Not as much on the ethnic mix prediction, but the religion one certainly, but even with the ethnic ones I don't get how it is so far out, even with immigration hysteria, particularly as the 'fear' in the last decade has been more about eastern europeans in large numbers more than any other groups.
UKIP source: "I can say without any fear this is rubbish. This is absolutely abhorrent behaviour by a tabloid on polling day."
How funny. Nigel's having a lovely time in the Med, whilst the Haus Frau is up until midnight, 'answering his emails'. Something's going to snap, and Mr Farage is going to have a problem.
Bob Worcester's "look at the share, not the lead" mantra didn't really work out in 2005 and 2010. Labour won a majority with 36% in 2005 and the Tories fell well short in 2010 with 37%.
I don't often agree with nationalists about how everything anyone says somehow apparently helps the Yes campaign, but that seems ill advised from Darling.
So I'm glad we have a politician prepared to make the case for immigration and not pander to stereotypes.
I'm not often outright stunned, but I remained shocked at how far out people are with their predictions on those. How can they be so far out? I wouldn't expect most people to be the sorts of boring farts like many of us here who might have looked up such percentages, but it's not even close most of the time (in fairness, I would have been almost as far out on the single parents guess)
Ipsos Mori did a visualisation (they're by far the best pollsters at those) but I can't find it now.
Some of these reflect only that the public are answering different questions from those formally asked. 22% is not far off the correct answer for "economically inactive" rather than "unemployed".
I very much doubt whether those assessing the figure for "fraudulently claiming benefits" were thinking about a precise legal test but more whether the claimants should be getting the money in the first place.
So I'm glad we have a politician prepared to make the case for immigration and not pander to stereotypes.
I'm not often outright stunned, but I remained shocked at how far out people are with their predictions on those. How can they be so far out? I wouldn't expect most people to be the sorts of boring farts like many of us here who might have looked up such percentages, but it's not even close most of the time (in fairness, I would have been almost as far out on the single parents guess)
Perceptions matter more than facts.
Yes, but it's how that perception that is so divorced from reality has come about that amazes me. Not as much on the ethnic mix prediction, but the religion one certainly, but even with the ethnic ones I don't get how it is so far out, even with immigration hysteria, particularly as the 'fear' in the last decade has been more about eastern europeans in large numbers more than any other groups.
Look at the media.
When was the last time you saw a tabloid front page story that was say positive about immigrants, single mothers, the EU or Muslims?
Now, I'm sure we won't have to go back far to find negative front pages about the above?
I'm not sure what this byelection tells us about the Tory machine nationwide. Take Eastleigh. The Lib Dems threw everything they had at that byelection because they knew it was absolutely vital that they won. It is the same for the Tories in Newark. But the Lib Dems still did very badly in the elections this year and it is clear that their campaigning capability and organisation has decayed significantly in certain parts of the country. A nationwide election will show up those weaknesses in local organisation in a way that a byelection won't.
I agree that the next election is going to be a huge fight though!
So I'm glad we have a politician prepared to make the case for immigration and not pander to stereotypes.
I'm not often outright stunned, but I remained shocked at how far out people are with their predictions on those. How can they be so far out? I wouldn't expect most people to be the sorts of boring farts like many of us here who might have looked up such percentages, but it's not even close most of the time (in fairness, I would have been almost as far out on the single parents guess)
Perceptions matter more than facts.
The facts in the form of government stats show the economy is in recovery. The perception in the form of the money people actually have and how they spend it or not show that the economy isn't in recovery.
Funnily enough lecturing people that although they aren't better off they actually are tends to make them angry.....
Comments
It'll be Paul v Clinton and Paul will win, the American people despise the deep state and it's foreign policy machinations. Could see the very elderly Clinton not even winning the nomination.
As for the GOP:
Christie is scandal ridden and unpopular, he might be impeached by then.
Rubio is uncharismatic, he has good looks (but hair receding quickly) but he makes Ed Milliband look sophisticated plus although a latino the non-latino candidates get more latino votes than him in the opinion polls.
Bush is another Bush (but with a brain), however because he is a Bush there is big resistance from the voters.
Paul is high risk high return, he might win California with the right policy or lose Alabama with the wrong one, though presently he is the compromise candidate.
Ryan is young, boring and damaged goods from last time, plus he is only a representative.
Cruz has made public that he commisioned a large painting of himself being painted at the supreme court (Arthur Scargill of the GOP).
Huckabee is the pastor candidate that actually believes in the bible (so very unpopular with rich people).
I would put equal odds on all of them getting the nomination and losing the election, however I only put one of them beating Hillary in 2020 if they don't get the nomination this time, Rand Paul, he is learning quickly and Hillary will have lost her novelty factor plus an economic recession by then.
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up one to five points: CON 32%, LAB 37%, LD 7%, UKIP 13%
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up one to five points: CON 32%, LAB 37%, LD 7%, UKIP 13%
Con 40% Lab 30% LDs 15% Small parties 15%!
Not relevant.
[In her case the workplace's loss has been the voluntary sector's gain]
Voluntary secgtors gain = society's loss. Not through lack of labour; More labour is a good thing. However the Happy Worker Ethic is......Toxic
[Soon the majority of people in essential service or public sector jobs will be migrant Labour.]
Asian doctors and nurses. Oh my.
[So we have UKIP. They may very well be bonkers. But when the mainstream propagate insanity they have growing appeal..... ]
You are Labour. 50% of the population. I piss off about 75% of the pop by breathing. Choose a side.
Don't forget Rubio is a Cuban American. They don't attract as much support from other Latinos as you might expect
Politically a very foolish position to adopt (or rather to articulate).
A simple fact remains: With the population becoming elderly by the minute because of low replacement rates, who will pay the taxes to pay for this not-so-slowly demographic time bomb ?
All political parties know this: none dare say it !
Meanwhile NEC decided this week for an AWS in Salford & Eccles
Nick Sutton @suttonnick 10s
Thursday's Daily Mirror front page - "Off to bed at 3:42 am...so did UKIP alone, Nigel?" #tomorrowspaperstoday
pic.twitter.com/0OxKRox12Q
She has been added to the Harem.
They may say it, but how many actually vote in that way ?
UKIP, the avowedly anti-immigrant party got 27.5% in a low turnout election where most UKIP supporters turned out.
Boris is not stupid. He played his card after watching what the others are doing.
Probably just a researcher paid for out of EP allowances.
Nothing wrong with that.
Life's better under UKIP
While I understand the curiosity, does it matter if I am a cardiologist or a psychiatrist to my political or betting posts?
But Charles is on the money, interventional radiologists are bent on world domination. The future belongs to them.
It does seem as if my Newark bet is a sound one at 15\8 on the Tories, and perhaps less so on 3\1 on the lib dems keeping their deposit.
So like TSE your conclusion is fatally flawed.
Honestly, I spent 40 minutes on hold for a solution to a problem which didn't work (this after giving them a chance on their automated 'call back in xx minutes' service for 20 minutes), 30 minutes again later that day with a promise in person to phone back in 5 minutes which didn't happen, and when I mentioned it the next day was told they had phoned me ('our records say we phoned') even though I was sat literaly 6 inches from the phone for 3 hours afterwards. Next day after another 25 minutes I then tried another solution of theirs which did not work as they dispatched me around various local shops to try things (it was to do with my new electric meter key) where I had to keep them on the line the whole time as they'd proven they couldn't get back to me. Finally, 2 days later, they solved the problem. Also, their landline contact number gave different automated options and I couldn't get through to anyone, so I had to use the different number for people calling mobile, whose options I could get through to a human being from. They assured me that this was not an intentional method of charging people who called up.
Sorry, thought this was 'customer rant ,com' for a second, had to vent.
Boris represents London.
London is not racist.
Therefore London is racist.
Unfortunately - (Race Card! I am mixed race) I Am being serious.
Next year the EU will allow 29 million Bulgarian and Romanians to come to the UK.
The Government have admitted there's nothing we can do about it, while we're in the EU.
(And Labour say they don't want to do anything anyway)
Ian Katz @iankatz1000
Also tonight…@bbclaurak reveals senior Labour and Lib Dem figures have met to discuss common ground ahead of possible coalition negotiations
I thought this was home and dry. Why are the Tories frit ?
Hillary is clearly the most formidable non-incumbent Presidential candidate ever known in modern politics.
She has numerous advantages including having the primary sewn up so she is able to focus on the GE early, a completely fractured Republican field, a very distinct, independent brand from Obama despite serving in his administration and probably the best CV of any modern presidential candidate.
The only way I see Republicans beating her is by using the outsider vs insider, change vs experience argument. It's interesting Speedy that you don't mention Scott Walker. He could turn into the 2016 Tim Pawlenty and he might not even win re-election (though I think he will) but he has the potential to be a strong candidate. He would unite the party, has a record of winning in a blue state and is from the crucial swing region of the country.
The big problem for Republicans is how well Hillary would likely do with whites. The Republicans lost in 2012 despite winning whites by 20 pts. Hillary likely only loses whites by 10 pts and could do even better. In that scenario even with a fall off in black turnout and the GOP doing better with hispanics Hillary still wins.
The other worry for the GOP is that Hillary's vote is likely to be distributed better - the Obama vote was too concentrated in the big urban areas hurting the Dems in the House. If the GOP nominate a wacko (in the words of John McCain) like Ted Cruz then Hillary could win big (by up to 10 pts, a bigger win is unlikely given polarisation), potentially even take the House and end up with 55+ senate seats. It would be interesting if that scenario would be enough to break some of the GOP intransigence on co-operating at all with the Dems on anything.
Quickly on Rand Paul he is high risk, high reward. However, I think the risk is greater than the reward. Yes he may win over some young libertarians but that is a small demographic. He could also split the party with lots of hawkish pro-defence, establishment and Wall Street types backing Hillary.
Also on the Dem primary. I wouldn't be surprised if O'Malley ran against Clinton. He would know that he couldn't win and I don't think he would attack Clinton as he would be very pleased to get offered the VP slot. Regardless, the process would raise his national name recognition and profile and set him up for a run in 2020 or 2024 depending on whether Clinton won the general.
1 - London states it is not racist.
2 - Only people immersed in the culture can could make that point.
THEREFORE-
1 - London is Genuinely not racist
And
2 - I am mixed race and can see through such bull.
I played the race card. Therefore you must give up.
Remember Bradford West!
Most of the political leaders [in continental Europe] are simply following nationalist and populist rhetoric, and that is for me not a democracy. A democracy, in my opinion, is a political leader developing a vision and then trying to convince the public opinion to follow his vision, and not what is happening now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9754591.stm
I don't agree with all of his conclusions or aims, but his and your definitions of leadership has plenty of merit, though there are limits to how much against the flow our politicians are willing to go. Leadership is surely also about choosing battles wisely and the right moment to do so, as going against the public opinion too directly can antagonise them to you and prevent you from fomenting change, as people's minds are rarely changed in such a way as to do a 180, and must be led to a new position.
Labour think the LibDems will lose a lot of seats. LibDems hope they won't lose lots of seats but quietly thinking k they probably will.
Oh I agree you can't always get too far ahead of opinion. Although there are times when you have to act as the grit in the oyster. Sometimes it is necessary to antagonise opinion. The other thing with Boris is he hasn't ever said anything much different, he has always been in a different place to the Tory party on immigration.
I am not saying people are correct in their beliefs even if they happen to match mine. That is not the debate we are having here at the moment.
Simply that your claims that advocating uncontrolled immigration is a vote winner are clearly wrong
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/25/what-we-believe-about-immigration/
In all fairness even a smashing win over UKIP and Labour would, on its own, not help add to that narrative much, they need the polls to shift back again for a sustained period, hopefully another Labour decline and a UKIP collapse, but by gods they will work to make it a big victory so that the prepared cliched lines to come from the win, if it happens, do not sound so hollow, like all those 'This shows how the country is against the government' stuff coming from Labour after wins in the Labour heartlands, as if that shows anything.
Poor yellow coaltionistas like me have to cry in half-filled glasses everynight.
ROLL ON 6AM
I don't buy Castro as a genuine VP contender. I suppose the calculus may change if Rubio is the GOP nominee but even then not sure Clinton will go for him. Reasons being:
1. The rule with VPs is first do no harm. This is especially true if you are the frontrunner. Clinton will not want a Palin problem. That VP pick actually made sense because McCain was going to lose and therefore it was worth taking a gamble. But why would Hillary?
2. Castro is completely untested in electoral politics on either national or statewide level. She would have no idea how he would cope under the intense scrutiny of a national campaign.
3. The huge age gap merely draws attention to the age issue and makes it more prominent. E.g. the media would run loads of articles about the gap and how at events he is more 'energetic' etc.
4. Because of Hillary's age the 'ready from day 1' issue is even more important (like it was for McCain in 2008).
One thing she does not need to worry about (unlike Bush and Obama) is foreign policy experience.
In terms of who she will go for if she is the nominee I think the outstanding candidate is Mark Warner. He is a former governor and current senator. He is very popular in the biggest swing state in the country. He is relatively centrist and he is a former businessman. He would be early sixties on election day. Together that ticket reads experienced, capable, dependable, solid, reliable, centrist, credible.
Other potentials would be:
- Jay Nixon. Another centrist governor from Missouri (although the delicious Clinton-Nixon ticket may count against him!)
- Tim Kaine. Similar attributes to Mark Warner.
- Martin O'Malley. If he runs and does well he could get the VP slot.
- Deval Patrick. Would help boost black turnout and clearly qualified.
They have been imported into the constituency to rub UKIP's nose in it.
It is an old Blairite strategy.
Chris Mason @ChrisMasonBBC
UKIP source: "I can say without any fear this is rubbish. This is absolutely abhorrent behaviour by a tabloid on polling day."
So, YouGov Con share:
Week of Euros: 33, 33, 33, 34, 34
Last week: 32, 32, 31, 33
This week: 30, 32, 32
I think reasonable to deem the 30 as a slight outlier - if so Con has been bang on 32 since the start of last week. Which is a fall of 1% or a touch higher - depending upon whether we deem the two 34s to be a touch on the high side.
So not a dramatic change but at the same time they do seem to have clearly dropped at least 1% and possibly as much as 1.5%.
Why? Possibly UKIP afterglow of Euro results? But UKIP is now back down to 13% which is in line with where they were in the Euros week so that doesn't appear to provide the explanation.
As per this Ipsos-Mori poll
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/perilsofperception-perceptiongaps-130710050745-phpapp02/95/slide-6-638.jpg?cb=1373492810
and
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/perilsofperception-perceptiongaps-130710050745-phpapp02/95/slide-7-638.jpg?cb=1373492810
and in general
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/perilsofperception-perceptiongaps-130710050745-phpapp02/95/slide-3-638.jpg?cb=1373492810
So I'm glad we have a politician prepared to make the case for immigration and not pander to stereotypes.
I am afraid that your agreement with what Boris is saying has clouded your judgement on whether it was politically wise or not.
Scuppering Liz Truss's eminently sensible proposals to amend regulations to make childcare more efficient, as it is in many other advanced European economies.
I think we can conclude from the by-election campaign from the Tory view that organisationally the party isn't in bad shape. To be able to get several hundred activists together fired up for a party in govt is good. Labour is unlikely to have more than the odd slight localised ground advantage next year. Labour ought to be waking up to the fact that next year is going to be a hell of a fight.
So when Boris does that, it's not politically wise.
Got you.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/04/scottish-independence-alex-salmond-kim-jong-il-alistair-darling
Mirror scoop front page
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3188/Perceptions-are-not-reality.aspx
Ipsos Mori did a visualisation (they're by far the best pollsters at those) but I can't find it now.
According to the Times they were raving till 6!!
Hyperbole
http://postimg.org/gallery/6wobbxqe/98a5a535/
Indeed. The thing the GOP must be worried about is that Clinton is at 48+ with at least single, and sometimes, double digit leads over the GOP field when Obama is in the low 40s. It shows she can win even if Obama isn't popular. That probably isn't true for any other Democrat who would be unable to craft a distinct identity.
One problem she will have though in the super PAC era is that while the Republican primary will hamper the candidates themselves I expect a big GOP outside group effort to run negative ads against her. However, I think these will be pretty ineffective just as they were in 2012. Advertising can make a huge difference in down ballot races where voters don't know the candidates. But there are very few people who don't know and have an opinion about Clinton so negative ads just won't be that effective.
Finally, there is the whole 3rd term argument for saying she probably doesn't win. I don't think that stands up to scrutiny because although 3rd terms are very rare the elections have usually been very close. And of course in any case there is a tiny sample size.
2008. Out party wins by 7pts.
2000. In party wins the popular vote but loses the EC.
1988. In party wins.
1976. Out party wins by 2pts.
1968. Out party wins by 1pt.
1960. Out party wins by 0.1pts with serious voting irregularities.
So in other words while the In party is 1 for 6 going for second terms, it has only lost by 2pts once in that period and that was after Katrina, Iraq and a huge financial collapse.
Those sad bastards are as sad as us!!!
Does she drink 7 up?
He's done well. Definitely.
But No want More!!!
60% you Yessnp civic itdiots.
That's what we're aiming for.
You have been warned.
I very much doubt whether those assessing the figure for "fraudulently claiming benefits" were thinking about a precise legal test but more whether the claimants should be getting the money in the first place.
When was the last time you saw a tabloid front page story that was say positive about immigrants, single mothers, the EU or Muslims?
Now, I'm sure we won't have to go back far to find negative front pages about the above?
I'm not sure what this byelection tells us about the Tory machine nationwide. Take Eastleigh. The Lib Dems threw everything they had at that byelection because they knew it was absolutely vital that they won. It is the same for the Tories in Newark. But the Lib Dems still did very badly in the elections this year and it is clear that their campaigning capability and organisation has decayed significantly in certain parts of the country. A nationwide election will show up those weaknesses in local organisation in a way that a byelection won't.
I agree that the next election is going to be a huge fight though!
Funnily enough lecturing people that although they aren't better off they actually are tends to make them angry.....