Carnyx Tories in Edinburgh will be wealthy solicitors, accountants etc they will be highly educated and will have followed the polls closely, Edinburgh, unlike Glasgow, also voted clearly for the union, so tactical voting could make the difference there in some seats
Scrapheap and I haven't been watching this, or Sky's version for the last four weeks, honest.
I re-watched the 4.30-7.30am segment (the bit when i actually went to bed for a bit) the other week, and it was notable that it was after 6am before the exit poll forecast actually got updated. What on earth took so long I don't know, when the Tories were edging into majority territory from around 1am if not earlier.
It also meant that bizarrely they were still predicting 58 seats for the SNP well after the point this had ceased to be possible (once two, and then three, non-SNP MPs had been returned).
I disagree here - there is no comparison between a HMG and a strike ballot.
Asking for a minimum turnout to vote for an action to be legitimate seems entirely reasonable. Customers are held hostage by unions often on very low turnouts. If a union member can't be bothered to vote for action either way - it can't be that important.
Mr. Eagles, and that's the problem with a cosy consensus, and why UKIP/SNP are on the rise. Lots of people don't want aid that high but the big three (well, big two now) parties colluded over the matter.
Con, Lab, Lib Dems, SNP, Greens all in favour of increasing/ringfencing the Aid budget.
And where does overseas aid sit in the Ipsos Mori Issues Poll?
You're looking in the wrong place.
Ask yourself, why did so many Lib Dems switch to the Tories at this election, was it because David Cameron showed himself to be a true Liberal Conservative, things like supposing gay marriage and increasing the aid budget did it.
It is a contributory reason why Dave has 330 times as many MPs as UKIP
Too be honest, I couldn't care less what the Tories do. I'm just pointing out that your logic is flawed. Personally, I think wavering ex-Lib Dems may have been more swung by the fear of Labour being propped up by the SNP. And that is kind of what the Tories campaigned on, rather than funding the Ethiopian Spice Girls.
The Tories campaigned on a package of liberal (lower l) Conservativism (hard C). A package of both "brain" (balancing the books) and "heart" (gay marriage, ringfences).
A package is like a tower of Jenga blocks. Once piece may or may not be able to be removed without collapsing the entire tower, but do it indelicately or remove what seems like a trivial piece can result in the whole edifice crumbling.
Funnily enough, I found myself attacking the Tories from the left at the weekend. My friend was defending the Tories new strike laws as it was in the country's interest. But I think the Tories are making a mistake as it looks bad (the Tories winning a majority with 37% of the vote) and every time a union goes on strike it makes the public less sympathetic to their cause.
Today we learn that the DOJ and FBI are now investigating four Olympic bids - 1998, 2010, 2018 and 2022.
Yesterday we had the unedifying prospect of former FIFA vice president Jack Warner buying time on local TV in Trinidad and Tobago to explain that he is going to spill the beans on the whole FIFA shenanigans, including his dealings with Sepp Blatter. Indeed he is so keen to talk that he has hired expensive legal suits to fight extradition.
This week saw the unsealing of Blazer's 2013 testimony, which was heavily leaked last week to the NY Times, when the rests were made in Zurich and the US. The FBI wanted FIFA to know what it was up against.
Parts of Blazer's testimony were redacted, meaning there are details still being investigated.
The major problem with people who turn state's evidence is that their testimony is inherently tainted and unbelievable.
So the FBI goes through every line and detail, corroborating every aspect of the testimony, crossing every i and dotting every t. Any conflicts, dubious claims or something that cannot be corroborated, follow up interviews are scheduled to resolve these. Meetings - if in a hotel, who owns it, who was there and in whose name was the room booked? - add their names to the list for further investigation. If in a house or apartment - who owns / rents it, and who else was there. Add them to the list too. Payment info - from whom to whom. Add to the list.
Once the testimony has been corroborated, the forensic accountants arrive, and go through accounts to trace the progress of monies, whose accounts they go through and where they end up. Add their names to the list too.
So now the testimony has been corroborated, and the payment claims too. It is a bullet proof case. Only now will the US Attorney move towards indictment. Meanwhile the DOJ moves through the list, inexorably, leading to more indictments, and so on.
It's a long slow process, in the fight against the Mafia, it took decades. FIFA will not take that long.
PT How can UKIP's vote rising from 3% in 2010 to 15% in 2013 mean its protest vote went down? The Tory vote rose yes, from 37% to 38% ie 1%
UKIP are a fraction of the protest votes. The protest votes total went down, not up - they just swirled from Lib Dem to UKIP as the Lib Dems were in office.
That is a failure for the Others of which UKIP are a part and have just a single MP to show for it. It was a success for the Conservatives. If you look at the English-only figures this is even clearer.
EDIT: Though UKIP didn't get 15%, they got 12.6% - and the worst number of votes a third party in votes have achieved since 1970, with only one seat. That is a failure.
Scrapheap and I haven't been watching this, or Sky's version for the last four weeks, honest.
I re-watched the 4.30-7.30am segment (the bit when i actually went to bed for a bit) the other week, and it was notable that it was after 6am before the exit poll forecast actually got updated. What on earth took so long I don't know, when the Tories were edging into majority territory from around 1am if not earlier.
It also meant that bizarrely they were still predicting 58 seats for the SNP well after the point this had ceased to be possible (once two non-SNP MPs had been returned).
Mr. Eagles, and that's the problem with a cosy consensus, and why UKIP/SNP are on the rise. Lots of people don't want aid that high but the big three (well, big two now) parties colluded over the matter.
Con, Lab, Lib Dems, SNP, Greens all in favour of increasing/ringfencing the Aid budget.
And where does overseas aid sit in the Ipsos Mori Issues Poll?
You're looking in the wrong place.
Ask yourself, why did so many Lib Dems switch to the Tories at this election, was it because David Cameron showed himself to be a true Liberal Conservative, things like supporting gay marriage and increasing the aid budget did it.
It is a contributory reason why Dave has 330 times as many MPs as UKIP
And the one UKIP MP is a rebel - a good trick when there's only one of you.
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
Plato "I generally refrain from commenting on ANY Scottish posts as I can't be bothered with the piling on/cultist reaction from most SNPers.
It's frankly boring - however, it'd be a mistake for them to interpret my lack of response as accepting their position. I just can't be bothered with wasting pixels discussing issues that they're deaf to. We had it in spades before SIndy, now we've got the swaggering about in the HoC. Children fighting about who sits at the back of bus is spot on."
Casino "I agree with all of that 100%, Plato. That's exactly what I think"
Having just watched Stuart Hosie's (SNP Treasury Spokesman/Deputy Leader) effective speech critiquing Osborne's economic plans, I suggest those of you-a ridiculous number of PBers-really ought to do so as well. This follows on from excellent maiden speeches from a number of "children"
You might actually learn something rather than dismissing the SNP as wayward children. They are anything but, and more importantly, the people of Scotland agree with me on that issue in ever increasing numbers.
Unionist arrogance and ignorance will end the Union.
.
I agree with you. But we never got onto discussing the strengths and merits of SNP politicians I admire and respect.
Uniondivvie saw the criticism of one of his own, latched onto it and was so upset by it that he couldn't move off it.
You can't have a sensible discussion about politics unless you can critique it. That means engaging with reactions and criticisms, and contrasting it to alternatives, otherwise you limit yourself to being an echo chamber for plaudits.
That's fun for the true believers, but entirely unenlightening.
Great pen pix. I have to commend the Sunday Times for providing a lot of journalistic elbow grease to this scandal over here. They really were like terriers over it.
Today we learn that the DOJ and FBI are now investigating four Olympic bids - 1998, 2010, 2018 and 2022.
Yesterday we had the unedifying prospect of former FIFA vice president Jack Warner buying time on local TV in Trinidad and Tobago to explain that he is going to spill the beans on the whole FIFA shenanigans, including his dealings with Sepp Blatter. Indeed he is so keen to talk that he has hired expensive legal suits to fight extradition.
This week saw the unsealing of Blazer's 2013 testimony, which was heavily leaked last week to the NY Times, when the rests were made in Zurich and the US. The FBI wanted FIFA to know what it was up against.
Parts of Blazer's testimony were redacted, meaning there are details still being investigated.
The major problem with people who turn state's evidence is that their testimony is inherently tainted and unbelievable.
So the FBI goes through every line and detail, corroborating every aspect of the testimony, crossing every i and dotting every t. Any conflicts, dubious claims or something that cannot be corroborated, follow up interviews are scheduled to resolve these. Meetings - if in a hotel, who owns it, who was there and in whose name was the room booked? - add their names to the list for further investigation. If in a house or apartment - who owns / rents it, and who else was there. Add them to the list too. Payment info - from whom to whom. Add to the list.
Once the testimony has been corroborated, the forensic accountants arrive, and go through accounts to trace the progress of monies, whose accounts they go through and where they end up. Add their names to the list too.
So now the testimony has been corroborated, and the payment claims too. It is a bullet proof case. Only now will the US Attorney move towards indictment. Meanwhile the DOJ moves through the list, inexorably, leading to more indictments, and so on.
It's a long slow process, in the fight against the Mafia, it took decades. FIFA will not take that long.
Scrapheap and I haven't been watching this, or Sky's version for the last four weeks, honest.
I re-watched the 4.30-7.30am segment (the bit when i actually went to bed for a bit) the other week, and it was notable that it was after 6am before the exit poll forecast actually got updated. What on earth took so long I don't know, when the Tories were edging into majority territory from around 1am if not earlier.
It also meant that bizarrely they were still predicting 58 seats for the SNP well after the point this had ceased to be possible (once two non-SNP MPs had been returned).
Not sure it was denial - it was just crap coverage, hopelessly badly produced and missing actual results and declarations left right and centre in favour of protracted discussion and speculation.
Such a shame that the landmark broadcaster, with the biggest and most respected names in the business and in politics, and the one most people chose to watch, couldn't put a decent results programme together.
The problem with this is that we won't really know for 5 years if they have got this right as these kind of adjustments are very turnout dependent.
Scotland next year might give some idea but the position there is so atypical now I would be reluctant to extrapolate. I was speaking to someone in the Lib Dem camp today who pointed out that in several seats that they thought they had a chance in their vote held up quite well but they were simply swamped by the success that the SNP had in getting previous non voters out to vote. The increase in turnout in Scotland was remarkable and makes any read over of the new weightings impossible.
Exactly. Fitting the curve to the last election is no guarantee that it is fit for purpose for the next election.
The problem with this is that we won't really know for 5 years if they have got this right as these kind of adjustments are very turnout dependent.
Scotland next year might give some idea but the position there is so atypical now I would be reluctant to extrapolate. I was speaking to someone in the Lib Dem camp today who pointed out that in several seats that they thought they had a chance in their vote held up quite well but they were simply swamped by the success that the SNP had in getting previous non voters out to vote. The increase in turnout in Scotland was remarkable and makes any read over of the new weightings impossible.
Indeed - Viscount Thurso in Caithness for example - actually *increased* his number of votes (from 11,907 to 11,987 according to Wiki) - which given the context of the Lib Dem collapse is an astonishingly good result. His problem was that turnout was 72% vs 61%, and the Labour collapse to the SNP - which combined for the SNP to win reasonably comfortably with 15k odd to his 12k.
TSE The Tories did not get a mandate to ringfence overseas aid as none of their voters voted for them for that policy but for other reasons, if voters were asked whether they would support ringfencing overseas aid while slashing justice, transport, defence, the police, libraries, social care etc they would vote it down overwhelmingly. That is why Tory backbenchers may well try and change the budget to cut overseas aid to reduce the cuts to defence
TSE The Tories did not get a mandate to ringfence overseas aid as none of their voters voted for them for that policy but for other reasons, if voters were asked whether they would support ringfencing overseas aid while slashing justice, defence, the police, libraries, social care etc they would vote it down overwhelmingly
Scrapheap and I haven't been watching this, or Sky's version for the last four weeks, honest.
I re-watched the 4.30-7.30am segment (the bit when i actually went to bed for a bit) the other week, and it was notable that it was after 6am before the exit poll forecast actually got updated. What on earth took so long I don't know, when the Tories were edging into majority territory from around 1am if not earlier.
It also meant that bizarrely they were still predicting 58 seats for the SNP well after the point this had ceased to be possible (once two non-SNP MPs had been returned).
I agree that the BBC coverage was crap. But, to be fair, iIRC, while the ticker was still giving a Tory seat number from the exit poll, the pollster himself was already predicting a Tory majority.
"Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin insisted today building work on HS2 will start in 2017 – saying the General Election result was a “massive vote of confidence” for the controversial project.
He said both sections of the line – the first from London to Birmingham, before it branches west to Manchester and Leeds and east towards Sheffield – will be built."
Fuddy duddy old reactionaries, always dozing off before they can come up with a decent retort.
Sorry, your posts are just too boring to respond to. If you want to engage with any of the points I raised, rather than just picking up on one word you think you can use as a hook to reflect back any criticism onto me personally, whilst ignoring the rest, then please let me know. We could have an interesting discussion.
Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time.
Scrapheap and I haven't been watching this, or Sky's version for the last four weeks, honest.
I re-watched the 4.30-7.30am segment (the bit when i actually went to bed for a bit) the other week, and it was notable that it was after 6am before the exit poll forecast actually got updated. What on earth took so long I don't know, when the Tories were edging into majority territory from around 1am if not earlier.
It also meant that bizarrely they were still predicting 58 seats for the SNP well after the point this had ceased to be possible (once two non-SNP MPs had been returned).
I agree that the BBC coverage was crap. But, to be fair, iIRC, while the ticker was still giving a Tory seat number from the exit poll, the pollster himself was already predicting a Tory majority.
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
You are simply wrong on Bloomberg running as an Independent if he runs. And of course we disagree on Hillary's inevitability. If she is only leading by 3% in polls of all adults, she is not leading.
PT The Tory vote fell by 4% in Edinburgh South even as the Labour vote rose by almost 5%, the SNP vote rise came almost entirely from the collapsed LD vote, whether it made the difference or not there was Tory tactical voting in Edinburgh South end of
You keep talking percentages and we'll keep talking vote totals. The Conservatives lost 800 votes.
Scrapheap and I haven't been watching this, or Sky's version for the last four weeks, honest.
I re-watched the 4.30-7.30am segment (the bit when i actually went to bed for a bit) the other week, and it was notable that it was after 6am before the exit poll forecast actually got updated. What on earth took so long I don't know, when the Tories were edging into majority territory from around 1am if not earlier.
It also meant that bizarrely they were still predicting 58 seats for the SNP well after the point this had ceased to be possible (once two non-SNP MPs had been returned).
I agree that the BBC coverage was crap. But, to be fair, iIRC, while the ticker was still giving a Tory seat number from the exit poll, the pollster himself was already predicting a Tory majority.
Yes he was but the BBC couldn't bring themselves to change it until the evidence was overwhelming.. It must have been a very painful experience for the BBC.
PT Ukip's vote rose by 10%, the Tories had a good result in seat terms under FPTP, in vote terms their vote rose by 0.8%, UKIP are the first party other than the Tories, Labour or Liberals to enter the top 3 since 1918
Scrapheap and I haven't been watching this, or Sky's version for the last four weeks, honest.
I re-watched the 4.30-7.30am segment (the bit when i actually went to bed for a bit) the other week, and it was notable that it was after 6am before the exit poll forecast actually got updated. What on earth took so long I don't know, when the Tories were edging into majority territory from around 1am if not earlier.
It also meant that bizarrely they were still predicting 58 seats for the SNP well after the point this had ceased to be possible (once two non-SNP MPs had been returned).
Not sure it was denial - it was just crap coverage, hopelessly badly produced and missing actual results and declarations left right and centre in favour of protracted discussion and speculation.
Such a shame that the landmark broadcaster, with the biggest and most respected names in the business and in politics, and the one most people chose to watch, couldn't put a decent results programme together.
The BBC have always been shite compared to Sky News, the first election I watched properly was the 1997 election, and Sky News had the results before the BBC, always have done so in every election.
Scrapheap and I haven't been watching this, or Sky's version for the last four weeks, honest.
I re-watched the 4.30-7.30am segment (the bit when i actually went to bed for a bit) the other week, and it was notable that it was after 6am before the exit poll forecast actually got updated. What on earth took so long I don't know, when the Tories were edging into majority territory from around 1am if not earlier.
It also meant that bizarrely they were still predicting 58 seats for the SNP well after the point this had ceased to be possible (once two non-SNP MPs had been returned).
I agree that the BBC coverage was crap. But, to be fair, iIRC, while the ticker was still giving a Tory seat number from the exit poll, the pollster himself was already predicting a Tory majority.
Sky was not an option in DC! Stuck with the choice of the Beeb or Auntie.
TSE The Tories did not get a mandate to ringfence overseas aid as none of their voters voted for them for that policy but for other reasons, if voters were asked whether they would support ringfencing overseas aid while slashing justice, transport, defence, the police, libraries, social care etc they would vote it down overwhelmingly. That is why Tory backbenchers may well try and change the budget to cut overseas aid to reduce the cuts to defence
You seriously don't get this democracy lark.
The Tories proposed a manifesto. This contained a package of reforms and policies. The voters gave the Tories a majority, this means they have a mandate for the entire manifesto.
You can propose as many alternatives as you like, its irrelevant. There is a mandate for the whole manifesto.
TSE The Tories did not get a mandate to ringfence overseas aid as none of their voters voted for them for that policy but for other reasons, if voters were asked whether they would support ringfencing overseas aid while slashing justice, transport, defence, the police, libraries, social care etc they would vote it down overwhelmingly. That is why Tory backbenchers may well try and change the budget to cut overseas aid to reduce the cuts to defence
If only they had put the ring fence in the manifesto, and got a majority.
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
I don't think the Obama legacy is that bad, I think he'd been a pretty good president, its just a shame he wasted 2 years at the beginning trying to be accommodating to the GOP when they had no intention of cooperating on anything.
Compared to an FCO budget of about one billion. That is arse about tit. Even the Cabinet Office has a bigger budget than the FCO these days. No wonder the department is just a depressing shadow of its former self.
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
I don't think the Obama legacy is that bad, I think he'd been a pretty good president, its just a shame he wasted 2 years at the beginning trying to be accommodating to the GOP when they had no intention of cooperating on anything.
What you think of his presidency or legacy is irrelevant. It is what US likely voters think that counts. And while his numbers are up slightly from where they were at the mid-terms, it is telling that a CNN poll now has George Bush as being more popular than Obama:
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
I don't think the Obama legacy is that bad, I think he'd been a pretty good president, its just a shame he wasted 2 years at the beginning trying to be accommodating to the GOP when they had no intention of cooperating on anything.
I think you are being a bit of a revisionist. The GOP offered to help on Obamacare if they would accept input. Obama memorably replied "Elections have consequences, and we won." and said that the Democrats would go it alone.
The reason Obamacare took so long to pass was that not enough Democrats would support it - hence all the tawdry deals that Obama did with various Democrats to get it through - The Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu), the Cornhusker kick back etc.
On the economy - it contracted last quarter. The number of unemployed who have stopped looking for work is at an all time high.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
There was a great deal of denial going on with the BBC. It was everywhere. And now they're in mourning.
You were almost left with the feeling that, once the exit poll came in, everybody at the BBC just wanted to go home.
Ironically, the one person at the BBC who did get to go home early (Nick Robinson) was the one who (as an ex-Tory) seemed the most enthused and excited about what was about to happen!
I agree that the BBC coverage was crap. But, to be fair, iIRC, while the ticker was still giving a Tory seat number from the exit poll, the pollster himself was already predicting a Tory majority.
Indeed he was, which made it all the more bizarre that the thing never got updated. Dimbleby kept assuring us that as results came in they would update the forecast, but they never did. And neither did Sky nor ITV to my recollection, and presumably as a joint enterprise for the three broadcasters, it wasn't for any one of them to update it, it needed Curtice and Thrasher to do it. That suggests to me that Curtice and Thrasher simply never pressed "send" on their revised prediction, or simply never made one as the night drew on - which seems bizarre.
Fuddy duddy old reactionaries, always dozing off before they can come up with a decent retort.
Sorry, your posts are just too boring to respond to. If you want to engage with any of the points I raised, rather than just picking up on one word you think you can use as a hook to reflect back any criticism onto me personally, whilst ignoring the rest, then please let me know. We could have an interesting discussion.
Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time.
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
I don't think the Obama legacy is that bad, I think he'd been a pretty good president, its just a shame he wasted 2 years at the beginning trying to be accommodating to the GOP when they had no intention of cooperating on anything.
I think you are being a bit of a revisionist. The GOP offered to help on Obamacare if they would accept input. Obama memorably replied "Elections have consequences, and we won." and said that the Democrats would go it alone.
The reason Obamacare took so long to pass was that not enough Democrats would support it - hence all the tawdry deals that Obama did with various Democrats to get it through - The Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu), the Cornhusker kick back etc.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
I think "elections have consequences" is Obama's equivalent of Byrne's no money note. It galvanized the GOP into unified opposition to him when the party was in fact in total disarray and ready to be picked off by a more savvy politician in the White House. A huge own goal.
The problem with this is that we won't really know for 5 years if they have got this right as these kind of adjustments are very turnout dependent.
Scotland next year might give some idea but the position there is so atypical now I would be reluctant to extrapolate. I was speaking to someone in the Lib Dem camp today who pointed out that in several seats that they thought they had a chance in their vote held up quite well but they were simply swamped by the success that the SNP had in getting previous non voters out to vote. The increase in turnout in Scotland was remarkable and makes any read over of the new weightings impossible.
The 7-10 ties in with Mr IOS who popped up a couple of weeks before the election boasting about Labour's fantastic campaign etc. In terms of Scotland he indicated the big guns and resources were being deployed to save the likes of Murphy, Alexander, Curran and I guess the supposed ultra safe Glasgow seats.
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
I don't think the Obama legacy is that bad, I think he'd been a pretty good president, its just a shame he wasted 2 years at the beginning trying to be accommodating to the GOP when they had no intention of cooperating on anything.
I think you are being a bit of a revisionist. The GOP offered to help on Obamacare if they would accept input. Obama memorably replied "Elections have consequences, and we won." and said that the Democrats would go it alone.
The reason Obamacare took so long to pass was that not enough Democrats would support it - hence all the tawdry deals that Obama did with various Democrats to get it through - The Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu), the Cornhusker kick back etc.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
I think "elections have consequences" is Obama's equivalent of Byrne's no money note. It galvanized the GOP into unified opposition to him when the party was in fact in total disarray and ready to be picked off by a more savvy politician in the White House. A huge own goal.
I agree completely. He's had several more since too.
Early on he set up the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (aka Simpson Bowles) to find ways of reducing the deficit, yet when it reported he simply shelved it and did nothing. Then we knew he was a major tax and spend guy. And boy is he.
I stopped listening to Obama speeches after enduring a session filmed at Facebook's HQ. It lasted something like 90mins and he verbiaged through it all - IIRC he *answered* 5 questions.
He talks and talks and says almost nothing along the way. An empty suit after an early promising start. He reminds me a lot of EdM to be honest in terms of content.
I won't remember him at all when he's gone bar being black and very smiley.
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
I don't think the Obama legacy is that bad, I think he'd been a pretty good president, its just a shame he wasted 2 years at the beginning trying to be accommodating to the GOP when they had no intention of cooperating on anything.
I think you are being a bit of a revisionist. The GOP offered to help on Obamacare if they would accept input. Obama memorably replied "Elections have consequences, and we won." and said that the Democrats would go it alone.
The reason Obamacare took so long to pass was that not enough Democrats would support it - hence all the tawdry deals that Obama did with various Democrats to get it through - The Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu), the Cornhusker kick back etc.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
I think "elections have consequences" is Obama's equivalent of Byrne's no money note. It galvanized the GOP into unified opposition to him when the party was in fact in total disarray and ready to be picked off by a more savvy politician in the White House. A huge own goal.
I agree completely. He's had several more since too.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
come now, he's done countless other extra-judicial executions too!
TimT After he has left office Obama's ratings may rise a little like Dubya's, but apart from Carter and Nixon the US has had the worst post WW2 presidents back to back
I stopped listening to Obama speeches after enduring a session filmed at Facebook's HQ. It lasted something like 90mins and he verbiaged through it all - IIRC he *answered* 5 questions.
He talks and talks and says almost nothing along the way. An empty suit after an early promising start. He reminds me a lot of EdM to be honest in terms of content.
I won't remember him at all when he's gone bar being black and very smiley.
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
I don't think the Obama legacy is that bad, I think he'd been a pretty good president, its just a shame he wasted 2 years at the beginning trying to be accommodating to the GOP when they had no intention of cooperating on anything.
I think you are being a bit of a revisionist. The GOP offered to help on Obamacare if they would accept input. Obama memorably replied "Elections have consequences, and we won." and said that the Democrats would go it alone.
The reason Obamacare took so long to pass was that not enough Democrats would support it - hence all the tawdry deals that Obama did with various Democrats to get it through - The Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu), the Cornhusker kick back etc.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
I think "elections have consequences" is Obama's equivalent of Byrne's no money note. It galvanized the GOP into unified opposition to him when the party was in fact in total disarray and ready to be picked off by a more savvy politician in the White House. A huge own goal.
I agree completely. He's had several more since too.
The trick with Obama is to ignore what he says completely - he was Liar Of The Year remember - and just look at his actions.
Ryanair features quite a lot ... "1. Paris Vatry Airport - 131 miles from Paris
Despite having the French capital in its name, this airport is actually 131 miles from the heart of the city.
It takes an estimated two hours nine minutes to drive there, despite Ryanair once marketing it as an ideal gateway to the French capital and Disneyland Paris."
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
come now, he's done countless other extra-judicial executions too!
Indeed so. Part of his legacy will be that he ignored Congress and the electorate and did what he wanted anyway.
PT/TSE Depends how you define democracy, if we had a more direct democracy system like Switzerland a plebiscite on ringfencing overseas aid would be thrown out, but backbenchers on the Tory side may oppose it anyway as they know the government lacks public support for it
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
I don't think the Obama legacy is that bad, I think he'd been a pretty good president, its just a shame he wasted 2 years at the beginning trying to be accommodating to the GOP when they had no intention of cooperating on anything.
I think you are being a bit of a revisionist. The GOP offered to help on Obamacare if they would accept input. Obama memorably replied "Elections have consequences, and we won." and said that the Democrats would go it alone.
The reason Obamacare took so long to pass was that not enough Democrats would support it - hence all the tawdry deals that Obama did with various Democrats to get it through - The Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu), the Cornhusker kick back etc.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
I think "elections have consequences" is Obama's equivalent of Byrne's no money note. It galvanized the GOP into unified opposition to him when the party was in fact in total disarray and ready to be picked off by a more savvy politician in the White House. A huge own goal.
I agree completely. He's had several more since too.
Early on he set up the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (aka Simpson Bowles) to find ways of reducing the deficit, yet when it reported he simply shelved it and did nothing. Then we knew he was a major tax and spend guy. And boy is he.
IIRC correctly, he used the most appalling logic ever to shelve that report - that to act on it would impinge on his re-electability. This from a man who vowed not to run for a second term if he did not deserve it. It may have made some sense if he had taken up the report once he had secured a second term, but he has not. It proved to me once and for all that he is not a leader.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
come now, he's done countless other extra-judicial executions too!
Indeed so. Part of his legacy will be that he ignored Congress and the electorate and did what he wanted anyway.
Ryanair features quite a lot ... "1. Paris Vatry Airport - 131 miles from Paris
Despite having the French capital in its name, this airport is actually 131 miles from the heart of the city.
It takes an estimated two hours nine minutes to drive there, despite Ryanair once marketing it as an ideal gateway to the French capital and Disneyland Paris."
- and my home town airline, Delta, is trialling pre-loading passengers hand baggage to speed boarding.
TimT After he has left office Obama's ratings may rise a little like Dubya's, but apart from Carter and Nixon the US has had the worst post WW2 presidents back to back
For once, we agree. Both Bush and Obama failed to live up to their potential, something they share with both Clintons. The only difference is that Bill is charismatic (as is Bush) and lucky enough to be President during the internet boom.
There was a great deal of denial going on with the BBC. It was everywhere. And now they're in mourning.
You were almost left with the feeling that, once the exit poll came in, everybody at the BBC just wanted to go home.
Ironically, the one person at the BBC who did get to go home early (Nick Robinson) was the one who (as an ex-Tory) seemed the most enthused and excited about what was about to happen!
I agree that the BBC coverage was crap. But, to be fair, iIRC, while the ticker was still giving a Tory seat number from the exit poll, the pollster himself was already predicting a Tory majority.
Indeed he was, which made it all the more bizarre that the thing never got updated. Dimbleby kept assuring us that as results came in they would update the forecast, but they never did. And neither did Sky nor ITV to my recollection, and presumably as a joint enterprise for the three broadcasters, it wasn't for any one of them to update it, it needed Curtice and Thrasher to do it. That suggests to me that Curtice and Thrasher simply never pressed "send" on their revised prediction, or simply never made one as the night drew on - which seems bizarre.
Thrasher talked about what he thought as the night went on, although there was no big graphic showing an update, but he did talk in specifics about how results where better than even exit polls were showing or that exit polls predicted such and such and result was actually..and want this meant.
I think the problem is for the likes of Thrasher, is it seems like they are expected to be constantly crunching numbers and doing the pieces to camera every few minutes.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
come now, he's done countless other extra-judicial executions too!
Indeed so. Part of his legacy will be that he ignored Congress and the electorate and did what he wanted anyway.
his reputation might be worse than blair's eventually.
did you fellows see the London review of books account of Bin Laden's death?
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
I don't think the Obama legacy is that bad, I think he'd been a pretty good president, its just a shame he wasted 2 years at the beginning trying to be accommodating to the GOP when they had no intention of cooperating on anything.
I think you are being a bit of a revisionist. The GOP offered to help on Obamacare if they would accept input. Obama memorably replied "Elections have consequences, and we won." and said that the Democrats would go it alone.
The reason Obamacare took so long to pass was that not enough Democrats would support it - hence all the tawdry deals that Obama did with various Democrats to get it through - The Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu), the Cornhusker kick back etc.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
I think "elections have consequences" is Obama's equivalent of Byrne's no money note. It galvanized the GOP into unified opposition to him when the party was in fact in total disarray and ready to be picked off by a more savvy politician in the White House. A huge own goal.
I agree completely. He's had several more since too.
Early on he set up the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (aka Simpson Bowles) to find ways of reducing the deficit, yet when it reported he simply shelved it and did nothing. Then we knew he was a major tax and spend guy. And boy is he.
IIRC correctly, he used the most appalling logic ever to shelve that report - that to act on it would impinge on his re-electability. This from a man who vowed not to run for a second term if he did not deserve it. It may have made some sense if he had taken up the report once he had secured a second term, but he has not. It proved to me once and for all that he is not a leader.
Thanks for the identity theft tips, including the recommendation of Noddle by an anonymous lurker - it seems pretty good (assuming that's not also a fraud site!), and provides an instant overview of accounts. They don't have the one that was fraudulently opened, but maybe that's because I've blocked it.
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
I don't think the Obama legacy is that bad, I think he'd been a pretty good president, its just a shame he wasted 2 years at the beginning trying to be accommodating to the GOP when they had no intention of cooperating on anything.
I think you are being a bit of a revisionist. The GOP offered to help on Obamacare if they would accept input. Obama memorably replied "Elections have consequences, and we won." and said that the Democrats would go it alone.
The reason Obamacare took so long to pass was that not enough Democrats would support it - hence all the tawdry deals that Obama did with various Democrats to get it through - The Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu), the Cornhusker kick back etc.
On the economy - it contracted last quarter. The number of unemployed who have stopped looking for work is at an all time high.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Check out the meeting GOP leaders had on the day of Obama's inauguration...
They decided to oppose pretty much everything he wanted to do to deny him any legislative achievements. Obama's healthcare plan was basically a re-hash of an early 90's heritage foundation plan, hardly socialism.
So the GOP never wanted to offer help, from the very beginning they set out to sabotage Obama's presidency.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
come now, he's done countless other extra-judicial executions too!
Indeed so. Part of his legacy will be that he ignored Congress and the electorate and did what he wanted anyway.
his reputation might be worse than blair's eventually.
did you fellows see the London review of books account of Bin Laden's death?
It made a big splash this side of the Pond initially, but was immediately trashed by all the good and great. Then silently slid below the surface leaving nary a ripple.
Ryanair features quite a lot ... "1. Paris Vatry Airport - 131 miles from Paris
Despite having the French capital in its name, this airport is actually 131 miles from the heart of the city.
It takes an estimated two hours nine minutes to drive there, despite Ryanair once marketing it as an ideal gateway to the French capital and Disneyland Paris."
TimT After he has left office Obama's ratings may rise a little like Dubya's, but apart from Carter and Nixon the US has had the worst post WW2 presidents back to back
For once, we agree. Both Bush and Obama failed to live up to their potential, something they share with both Clintons. The only difference is that Bill is charismatic (as is Bush) and lucky enough to be President during the internet boom.
Polls over the last couple of days say that voters view Jeb Bush as going back to the past, but Hillary Clinton as being the future.
It made a big splash this side of the Pond initially, but was immediately trashed by all the good and great. Then silently slid below the surface leaving nary a ripple.
trashed believably or just trashed? what did you make of it? sounded plausible to me
TimT After he has left office Obama's ratings may rise a little like Dubya's, but apart from Carter and Nixon the US has had the worst post WW2 presidents back to back
Rise a little? Dubya left with -30 approval rating, Obama currently has -7. according to the linked poll.
Which I notice is by ORC of the famous post-debate poll that featured no minorities, no Northerners, no young people and no poor.
Mr. Eagles, and that's the problem with a cosy consensus, and why UKIP/SNP are on the rise. Lots of people don't want aid that high but the big three (well, big two now) parties colluded over the matter.
Con, Lab, Lib Dems, SNP, Greens all in favour of increasing/ringfencing the Aid budget.
And where does overseas aid sit in the Ipsos Mori Issues Poll?
You're looking in the wrong place.
Ask yourself, why did so many Lib Dems switch to the Tories at this election, was it because David Cameron showed himself to be a true Liberal Conservative, things like supposing gay marriage and increasing the aid budget did it.
It is a contributory reason why Dave has 330 times as many MPs as UKIP
Too be honest, I couldn't care less what the Tories do. I'm just pointing out that your logic is flawed. Personally, I think wavering ex-Lib Dems may have been more swung by the fear of Labour being propped up by the SNP. And that is kind of what the Tories campaigned on, rather than funding the Ethiopian Spice Girls.
The Tories campaigned on a package of liberal (lower l) Conservativism (hard C). A package of both "brain" (balancing the books) and "heart" (gay marriage, ringfences).
A package is like a tower of Jenga blocks. Once piece may or may not be able to be removed without collapsing the entire tower, but do it indelicately or remove what seems like a trivial piece can result in the whole edifice crumbling.
Funnily enough, I found myself attacking the Tories from the left at the weekend. My friend was defending the Tories new strike laws as it was in the country's interest. But I think the Tories are making a mistake as it looks bad (the Tories winning a majority with 37% of the vote) and every time a union goes on strike it makes the public less sympathetic to their cause.
It's not comparable at all.
Everyone gets a vote in the election. Not so in strike ballots. The ones the tories are hoping to make less likely are those affecting the public as 3rd parties with no say in their days being ruined.
If an election took place where the government was decided by only a small percentage of the electorate, and the govt then went on to disrupt the lives of millions who were not able to participate, you would have a point.
I accept that the move is likely to annoy some people and that yours is the argument they will use, but that is not the same thing. And "the public" is too sweeping - they won't all be less sympathetic.
I re-watched the 4.30-7.30am segment (the bit when i actually went to bed for a bit) the other week, and it was notable that it was after 6am before the exit poll forecast actually got updated. What on earth took so long I don't know, when the Tories were edging into majority territory from around 1am if not earlier.
It also meant that bizarrely they were still predicting 58 seats for the SNP well after the point this had ceased to be possible (once two, and then three, non-SNP MPs had been returned).
I was mostly watching Sky, they took a long time to update to majority territory too. I think they were waiting for the exit pollsters to produce an official new forecast rather than updating on the fly.
But this slackness should be encouraged as it was phenomenally profitable on Betfair.
I re-watched the 4.30-7.30am segment (the bit when i actually went to bed for a bit) the other week, and it was notable that it was after 6am before the exit poll forecast actually got updated. What on earth took so long I don't know, when the Tories were edging into majority territory from around 1am if not earlier.
It also meant that bizarrely they were still predicting 58 seats for the SNP well after the point this had ceased to be possible (once two, and then three, non-SNP MPs had been returned).
I was mostly watching Sky, they took a long time to update to majority territory too. I think they were waiting for the exit pollsters to produce an official new forecast rather than updating on the fly.
But this slackness should be encouraged as it was phenomenally profitable on Betfair.
It made a big splash this side of the Pond initially, but was immediately trashed by all the good and great. Then silently slid below the surface leaving nary a ripple.
trashed believably or just trashed? what did you make of it? sounded plausible to me
I don't have a personal opinion on this one, I am not close enough to any real sources. However, I know several of the journalists still digging the Benghazi story. I don't know any following up on this one. That might provide a partial answer to your question.
Ryanair features quite a lot ... "1. Paris Vatry Airport - 131 miles from Paris
Despite having the French capital in its name, this airport is actually 131 miles from the heart of the city.
It takes an estimated two hours nine minutes to drive there, despite Ryanair once marketing it as an ideal gateway to the French capital and Disneyland Paris."
TimT After he has left office Obama's ratings may rise a little like Dubya's, but apart from Carter and Nixon the US has had the worst post WW2 presidents back to back
For once, we agree. Both Bush and Obama failed to live up to their potential, something they share with both Clintons. The only difference is that Bill is charismatic (as is Bush) and lucky enough to be President during the internet boom.
Polls over the last couple of days say that voters view Jeb Bush as going back to the past, but Hillary Clinton as being the future.
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
I don't think the Obama legacy is that bad, I think he'd been a pretty good president, its just a shame he wasted 2 years at the beginning trying to be accommodating to the GOP when they had no intention of cooperating on anything.
I think you are being a bit of a revisionist. The GOP offered to help on Obamacare if they would accept input. Obama memorably replied "Elections have consequences, and we won." and said that the Democrats would go it alone.
The reason Obamacare took so long to pass was that not enough Democrats would support it - hence all the tawdry deals that Obama did with various Democrats to get it through - The Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu), the Cornhusker kick back etc.
On the economy - it contracted last quarter. The number of unemployed who have stopped looking for work is at an all time high.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Check out the meeting GOP leaders had on the day of Obama's inauguration...
They decided to oppose pretty much everything he wanted to do to deny him any legislative achievements. Obama's healthcare plan was basically a re-hash of an early 90's heritage foundation plan, hardly socialism.
So the GOP never wanted to offer help, from the very beginning they set out to sabotage Obama's presidency.
This is NOT Check out the meeting GOP leaders had on the day of Obama's inauguration
1) this book was published almost 4 years after the fact
2) he only got involved in this in 2011.
3) It came out in April 2012, just when the mid terms were heating up.
TimT In the Clinton years the economy boomed and the nation was at peace and the finances in good order, it was the best period for the US since the IKE years, apart from Monica Clinton was a good president
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
I don't think the Obama legacy is that bad, I think he'd been a pretty good president, its just a shame he wasted 2 years at the beginning trying to be accommodating to the GOP when they had no intention of cooperating on anything.
I think you are being a bit of a revisionist. The GOP offered to help on Obamacare if they would accept input. Obama memorably replied "Elections have consequences, and we won." and said that the Democrats would go it alone.
The reason Obamacare took so long to pass was that not enough Democrats would support it - hence all the tawdry deals that Obama did with various Democrats to get it through - The Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu), the Cornhusker kick back etc.
On the economy - it contracted last quarter. The number of unemployed who have stopped looking for work is at an all time high.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Check out the meeting GOP leaders had on the day of Obama's inauguration...
They decided to oppose pretty much everything he wanted to do to deny him any legislative achievements. Obama's healthcare plan was basically a re-hash of an early 90's heritage foundation plan, hardly socialism.
So the GOP never wanted to offer help, from the very beginning they set out to sabotage Obama's presidency.
This is NOT Check out the meeting GOP leaders had on the day of Obama's inauguration
1) this book was published almost 4 years after the fact
2) he only got involved in this in 2011.
3) It came out in April 2012, just when the mid terms were heating up.
Obama and Clinton both tried to do the Nice approach to the GOP initially and they both got b*gger all in return. You are incredibly naive if you think that approach would have worked.
TimT In the Clinton years the economy boomed and the nation was at peace and the finances in good order, it was the best period for the US since the IKE years, apart from Monica Clinton was a good president
Don't forget he became a centrist and thus was able to get things done.
All he did for Monica was splash out on that dress
It made a big splash this side of the Pond initially, but was immediately trashed by all the good and great. Then silently slid below the surface leaving nary a ripple.
trashed believably or just trashed? what did you make of it? sounded plausible to me
I don't have a personal opinion on this one, I am not close enough to any real sources. However, I know several of the journalists still digging the Benghazi story. I don't know any following up on this one. That might provide a partial answer to your question.
TimT Bloomerg would do worse than Hillary outside of the North East, as a Republican until recently he would only run as an independent anyway. Paul actually does better against Hillary than Jeb Bush in some polls, it is still hers to lose, though it will be close, any other Democrat would be defeated after 8 years of Obama
snip
I think you are being a bit of a revisionist. The GOP offered to help on Obamacare if they would accept input. Obama memorably replied "Elections have consequences, and we won." and said that the Democrats would go it alone.
The reason Obamacare took so long to pass was that not enough Democrats would support it - hence all the tawdry deals that Obama did with various Democrats to get it through - The Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu), the Cornhusker kick back etc.
On the economy - it contracted last quarter. The number of unemployed who have stopped looking for work is at an all time high.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Check out the meeting GOP leaders had on the day of Obama's inauguration...
They decided to oppose pretty much everything he wanted to do to deny him any legislative achievements. Obama's healthcare plan was basically a re-hash of an early 90's heritage foundation plan, hardly socialism.
So the GOP never wanted to offer help, from the very beginning they set out to sabotage Obama's presidency.
This is NOT Check out the meeting GOP leaders had on the day of Obama's inauguration
1) this book was published almost 4 years after the fact
2) he only got involved in this in 2011.
3) It came out in April 2012, just when the mid terms were heating up.
Obama and Clinton both tried to do the Nice approach to the GOP initially and they both got b*gger all in return. You are incredibly naive if you think that approach would have worked.
Obama never tried to be nice to the GOP. Clinton at first was a but of a lefty but after digesting subsequent election results and reading the tea leaves tilted to the center.
Would I be right in assuming you don't live in the USA?
TimT In the Clinton years the economy boomed and the nation was at peace and the finances in good order, it was the best period for the US since the IKE years, apart from Monica Clinton was a good president
Don't forget he became a centrist and thus was able to get things done.
All he did for Monica was splash out on that dress
How did the GOP repay Clinton's 'move to the centre?', they tried to impeach him for having an affair! The GOP is driven by the instinct to totally annihilate their opponents regardless of the impact it has on the country. That's why you constantly get government shutdowns, credit downgrades ect.
George W Bush was able to get a War and a Tax Cut authorised with the help of a lot of Democrats. Are you seriously suggesting the GOP would assist Obama on anything like this? Take a look at immigration reform, stalled in the house because the GOP feels it must deny Obama any achievement it can, regardless of the economic cost.
Inauguration was 20 January, the 'elections have consequences' statement was to Kantor on 23 january. Even if you believe that Obama tried to play nice, it lasted all of 3 days. Hardly a good faith effort.
Alistair Indeed, most presidents rise in esteem after leaving office, even Nixon, but the key figure is the approval rating when they leave office
Gallup's approval rating tracker currently has Obama -2 net, GWB at same point was -30 Clinton was +24, I can't find Bush Snr's Net figure but his Approval rate at the start of June 1993 was 37% which is 10 points lower than Obama now so must assume he was solidly negative.
TimT In the Clinton years the economy boomed and the nation was at peace and the finances in good order, it was the best period for the US since the IKE years, apart from Monica Clinton was a good president
Don't forget he became a centrist and thus was able to get things done.
All he did for Monica was splash out on that dress
How did the GOP repay Clinton's 'move to the centre?', they tried to impeach him for having an affair! The GOP is driven by the instinct to totally annihilate their opponents regardless of the impact it has on the country. That's why you constantly get government shutdowns, credit downgrades ect.
George W Bush was able to get a War and a Tax Cut authorised with the help of a lot of Democrats. Are you seriously suggesting the GOP would assist Obama on anything like this? Take a look at immigration reform, stalled in the house because the GOP feels it must deny Obama any achievement it can, regardless of the economic cost.
But with the election of a Republican Senate to join the Republican House we are now seeing bipartisanship on a level that simply could not exist when Harry Reid controlled the Senate. And this is the Bipartisan Policy Center saying this, not the GOP:
TimT In the Clinton years the economy boomed and the nation was at peace and the finances in good order, it was the best period for the US since the IKE years, apart from Monica Clinton was a good president
Don't forget he became a centrist and thus was able to get things done.
All he did for Monica was splash out on that dress
How did the GOP repay Clinton's 'move to the centre?', they tried to impeach him for having an affair! The GOP is driven by the instinct to totally annihilate their opponents regardless of the impact it has on the country. That's why you constantly get government shutdowns, credit downgrades ect.
George W Bush was able to get a War and a Tax Cut authorised with the help of a lot of Democrats. Are you seriously suggesting the GOP would assist Obama on anything like this? Take a look at immigration reform, stalled in the house because the GOP feels it must deny Obama any achievement it can, regardless of the economic cost.
If you want to stick to the facts, that's fine, but that last post is simply blind hyper partisan nonsense.
Clinton was NOT impeached for 'having an affair'. He was impeached by the House on 2 charges, one each of perjury and obstruction of justice.Two other articles, a second perjury charge, and a charge of abuse of power, failed in the House. He was acquitted on both charges in the Senate.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
come now, he's done countless other extra-judicial executions too!
Indeed so. Part of his legacy will be that he ignored Congress and the electorate and did what he wanted anyway.
his reputation might be worse than blair's eventually.
did you fellows see the London review of books account of Bin Laden's death?
No, but if its more horrible in that one I'll give it a go.
TimT In the Clinton years the economy boomed and the nation was at peace and the finances in good order, it was the best period for the US since the IKE years, apart from Monica Clinton was a good president
Don't forget he became a centrist and thus was able to get things done.
All he did for Monica was splash out on that dress
How did the GOP repay Clinton's 'move to the centre?', they tried to impeach him for having an affair! The GOP is driven by the instinct to totally annihilate their opponents regardless of the impact it has on the country. That's why you constantly get government shutdowns, credit downgrades ect.
George W Bush was able to get a War and a Tax Cut authorised with the help of a lot of Democrats. Are you seriously suggesting the GOP would assist Obama on anything like this? Take a look at immigration reform, stalled in the house because the GOP feels it must deny Obama any achievement it can, regardless of the economic cost.
But with the election of a Republican Senate to join the Republican House we are now seeing bipartisanship on a level that simply could not exist when Harry Reid controlled the Senate. And this is the Bipartisan Policy Center saying this, not the GOP:
Yes I live outside the USA, why does this matter? Am I not allowed to comment on US politics?
Of course you are allowed to comment. Just as the English can comment on Scottish, Irish or Yemeni politics. However, living in a country certainly gives you an intuitive feel for public sentiment that those not living there cannot have. I have been in the States long enough now that I have lost that intuition for the English and Yemeni publics, probably never had it for the Scots or Irish, and so I tend to be more of a listener and questioner rather than predictor for those areas.
Comments
It also meant that bizarrely they were still predicting 58 seats for the SNP well after the point this had ceased to be possible (once two, and then three, non-SNP MPs had been returned).
Asking for a minimum turnout to vote for an action to be legitimate seems entirely reasonable. Customers are held hostage by unions often on very low turnouts. If a union member can't be bothered to vote for action either way - it can't be that important.
Yesterday we had the unedifying prospect of former FIFA vice president Jack Warner buying time on local TV in Trinidad and Tobago to explain that he is going to spill the beans on the whole FIFA shenanigans, including his dealings with Sepp Blatter. Indeed he is so keen to talk that he has hired expensive legal suits to fight extradition.
This week saw the unsealing of Blazer's 2013 testimony, which was heavily leaked last week to the NY Times, when the rests were made in Zurich and the US. The FBI wanted FIFA to know what it was up against.
Parts of Blazer's testimony were redacted, meaning there are details still being investigated.
The major problem with people who turn state's evidence is that their testimony is inherently tainted and unbelievable.
So the FBI goes through every line and detail, corroborating every aspect of the testimony, crossing every i and dotting every t. Any conflicts, dubious claims or something that cannot be corroborated, follow up interviews are scheduled to resolve these. Meetings - if in a hotel, who owns it, who was there and in whose name was the room booked? - add their names to the list for further investigation. If in a house or apartment - who owns / rents it, and who else was there. Add them to the list too. Payment info - from whom to whom. Add to the list.
Once the testimony has been corroborated, the forensic accountants arrive, and go through accounts to trace the progress of monies, whose accounts they go through and where they end up. Add their names to the list too.
So now the testimony has been corroborated, and the payment claims too. It is a bullet proof case. Only now will the US Attorney move towards indictment. Meanwhile the DOJ moves through the list, inexorably, leading to more indictments, and so on.
It's a long slow process, in the fight against the Mafia, it took decades. FIFA will not take that long.
Tory share: 36.9% (up 0.8%)
Labour share: 30.4% (up 1.4%)
Others share: 32.7% (down 2.2%)
That is a failure for the Others of which UKIP are a part and have just a single MP to show for it. It was a success for the Conservatives. If you look at the English-only figures this is even clearer.
EDIT: Though UKIP didn't get 15%, they got 12.6% - and the worst number of votes a third party in votes have achieved since 1970, with only one seat. That is a failure.
Uniondivvie saw the criticism of one of his own, latched onto it and was so upset by it that he couldn't move off it.
You can't have a sensible discussion about politics unless you can critique it. That means engaging with reactions and criticisms, and contrasting it to alternatives, otherwise you limit yourself to being an echo chamber for plaudits.
That's fun for the true believers, but entirely unenlightening.
Such a shame that the landmark broadcaster, with the biggest and most respected names in the business and in politics, and the one most people chose to watch, couldn't put a decent results programme together.
He said both sections of the line – the first from London to Birmingham, before it branches west to Manchester and Leeds and east towards Sheffield – will be built."
http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/13217496.Building_work_on_HS2__will_begin_in_2017___says_Transport_Secretary/
Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time.
Overall, I'd give Sky a solid 7.5, maybe an 8 - I felt it became tired out by about 5am. Did anyone watch ITV?
Eight hundred.
That is not a lot of votes.
You were almost left with the feeling that, once the exit poll came in, everybody at the BBC just wanted to go home.
The Tories proposed a manifesto. This contained a package of reforms and policies. The voters gave the Tories a majority, this means they have a mandate for the entire manifesto.
You can propose as many alternatives as you like, its irrelevant. There is a mandate for the whole manifesto.
http://www.ukan.org.uk/aid-quantity/uk-aid-budget/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11349411/Civil-Servants-spent-extra-1billion-in-eight-weeks-to-hit-aid-target.html
Oh wait they did!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Danish_general_election,_2015
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/politics/obama-approval-rating-cnn-poll/
The reason Obamacare took so long to pass was that not enough Democrats would support it - hence all the tawdry deals that Obama did with various Democrats to get it through - The Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu), the Cornhusker kick back etc.
On the economy - it contracted last quarter. The number of unemployed who have stopped looking for work is at an all time high.
Ask any presidential historian - and here have been more than a few on recently - what Obama's achievements have been, and beyond 'he got bin Laden' there's not much.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Indeed he was, which made it all the more bizarre that the thing never got updated. Dimbleby kept assuring us that as results came in they would update the forecast, but they never did. And neither did Sky nor ITV to my recollection, and presumably as a joint enterprise for the three broadcasters, it wasn't for any one of them to update it, it needed Curtice and Thrasher to do it. That suggests to me that Curtice and Thrasher simply never pressed "send" on their revised prediction, or simply never made one as the night drew on - which seems bizarre.
Ribbing = Yestapo, WaffenYesYes
Slur, insult = reactionary
Once I get my head round the complete reactionary vocabulary, I'll get back to you.
Feel free not respond, I'm sure this is just as boring as all the other posts you did respond to.
Early on he set up the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (aka Simpson Bowles) to find ways of reducing the deficit, yet when it reported he simply shelved it and did nothing. Then we knew he was a major tax and spend guy. And boy is he.
He talks and talks and says almost nothing along the way. An empty suit after an early promising start. He reminds me a lot of EdM to be honest in terms of content.
I won't remember him at all when he's gone bar being black and very smiley.
Ryanair features quite a lot ... "1. Paris Vatry Airport - 131 miles from Paris
Despite having the French capital in its name, this airport is actually 131 miles from the heart of the city.
It takes an estimated two hours nine minutes to drive there, despite Ryanair once marketing it as an ideal gateway to the French capital and Disneyland Paris."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3107212/Is-end-mad-scramble-overhead-bin-Delta-Air-Lines-pre-load-passengers-hand-luggage-speed-boarding.html
On the other hand, Michelle has been a very memorable first lady. I'll never forget the face on it when Obama was selfying with the Danish PM.
Indeed he was, which made it all the more bizarre that the thing never got updated. Dimbleby kept assuring us that as results came in they would update the forecast, but they never did. And neither did Sky nor ITV to my recollection, and presumably as a joint enterprise for the three broadcasters, it wasn't for any one of them to update it, it needed Curtice and Thrasher to do it. That suggests to me that Curtice and Thrasher simply never pressed "send" on their revised prediction, or simply never made one as the night drew on - which seems bizarre.
Thrasher talked about what he thought as the night went on, although there was no big graphic showing an update, but he did talk in specifics about how results where better than even exit polls were showing or that exit polls predicted such and such and result was actually..and want this meant.
I think the problem is for the likes of Thrasher, is it seems like they are expected to be constantly crunching numbers and doing the pieces to camera every few minutes.
did you fellows see the London review of books account of Bin Laden's death?
It's all good experience!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/26/democrats-gop-plot-obstruct-obama
They decided to oppose pretty much everything he wanted to do to deny him any legislative achievements. Obama's healthcare plan was basically a re-hash of an early 90's heritage foundation plan, hardly socialism.
So the GOP never wanted to offer help, from the very beginning they set out to sabotage Obama's presidency.
Still trying to get my head around that one.
Which I notice is by ORC of the famous post-debate poll that featured no minorities, no Northerners, no young people and no poor.
Everyone gets a vote in the election. Not so in strike ballots. The ones the tories are hoping to make less likely are those affecting the public as 3rd parties with no say in their days being ruined.
If an election took place where the government was decided by only a small percentage of the electorate, and the govt then went on to disrupt the lives of millions who were not able to participate, you would have a point.
I accept that the move is likely to annoy some people and that yours is the argument they will use, but that is not the same thing. And "the public" is too sweeping - they won't all be less sympathetic.
We created the regional juries concept and the scoreboard!
But this slackness should be encouraged as it was phenomenally profitable on Betfair.
Frankfurt Hahn is even worse - 126km...
1) this book was published almost 4 years after the fact
2) he only got involved in this in 2011.
3) It came out in April 2012, just when the mid terms were heating up.
Surely you're not that naive.
Here's a review from the WSJ
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303592404577360833838004406
Obama and Clinton both tried to do the Nice approach to the GOP initially and they both got b*gger all in return. You are incredibly naive if you think that approach would have worked.
All he did for Monica was splash out on that dress
Would I be right in assuming you don't live in the USA?
http://www.cityam.com/217194/leaked-greece-proposals-show-tsipras-wants-primary-budget-surplus-target-be-slashed-below-one?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
George W Bush was able to get a War and a Tax Cut authorised with the help of a lot of Democrats. Are you seriously suggesting the GOP would assist Obama on anything like this? Take a look at immigration reform, stalled in the house because the GOP feels it must deny Obama any achievement it can, regardless of the economic cost.
Inauguration was 20 January, the 'elections have consequences' statement was to Kantor on 23 january. Even if you believe that Obama tried to play nice, it lasted all of 3 days. Hardly a good faith effort.
Yes I live outside the USA, why does this matter? Am I not allowed to comment on US politics?
Have to admire their chutzpah.
Clinton was +24, I can't find Bush Snr's Net figure but his Approval rate at the start of June 1993 was 37% which is 10 points lower than Obama now so must assume he was solidly negative.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/04/21/its-not-your-imagination-congress-really-is-working-more
Its like watching doting parents endlessly indulging a petulant child.
Clinton was NOT impeached for 'having an affair'. He was impeached by the House on 2 charges, one each of perjury and obstruction of justice.Two other articles, a second perjury charge, and a charge of abuse of power, failed in the House. He was acquitted on both charges in the Senate.
And with that I'm off to lunch.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/jun/04/cameron-writing-to-ipsa-demanding-rethink-over-mps-10-pay-rise-politics-live
I particularly enjoyed the Alice-in-Wonderland comment by Sadiq Khan (15:19)