"No" only ahead in the over 65's, in DE SE group, and in kipper voters. Scotland much the same as rUK.
Nonetheless good value at 4 in Betfair, it is sure to get tighter as the euro-ref gets closer.
The massive lead for "Yes" with the youngsters may be decisive if Corbynmania gets them engaged in politics and off the sofa.
Though Corbyn could back No
Corbyn said a short-while ago he'd be backing Yes.
Can you imagine any rabid left winger not wanting a big taste of the EU gravy train? The EU is mothers milk to left wing socialists. And a big dollop of syrup for most of the other political elite.
No, Corbyn, and a Corbyn dominated Labour party will want to get his/it's snout deep into the EU trough.
Funnily enough, historically the Left - notably Bennites were anti-EU and the Right pro-EU. Although I think Corbyn is unique among the Left these days. Most lefties after Greek Tragedy Part 3 HATE the EU. Owen Jones is a pretty good example of that.
Powell was anti-EU, as was Foot and Benn. It was the centrists, Heath, Jenkins, Heseltine etc who were most pro EU
Interesting. The more things change, the more they stay the same!
I was right that Trump won the debate, and right to include Carson as one of the winners, Cruz probably got a bump from "God spoke to me".
That line means that Cruz is either a very cynical liar (overwhelmingly the most likely option) or suffers from schizophrenia. It's weird that either would be considered a vote winner.
"No" only ahead in the over 65's, in DE SE group, and in kipper voters. Scotland much the same as rUK.
Nonetheless good value at 4 in Betfair, it is sure to get tighter as the euro-ref gets closer.
The massive lead for "Yes" with the youngsters may be decisive if Corbynmania gets them engaged in politics and off the sofa.
Though Corbyn could back No
Corbyn said a short-while ago he'd be backing Yes.
Can you imagine any rabid left winger not wanting a big taste of the EU gravy train? The EU is mothers milk to left wing socialists. And a big dollop of syrup for most of the other political elite.
No, Corbyn, and a Corbyn dominated Labour party will want to get his/it's snout deep into the EU trough.
Funnily enough, historically the Left - notably Bennites were anti-EU and the Right pro-EU. Although I think Corbyn is unique among the Left these days. Most lefties after Greek Tragedy Part 3 HATE the EU. Owen Jones is a pretty good example of that.
Powell was anti-EU, as was Foot and Benn. It was the centrists, Heath, Jenkins, Heseltine etc who were most pro EU
Interesting. The more things change, the more they stay the same!
Interesting documentary about Britains entry into the EU
I was right that Trump won the debate, and right to include Carson as one of the winners, Cruz probably got a bump from "God spoke to me". Also I was right that the "establishment" 4 (Bush, Walker, Rubio, Kasich) bombed due to excess boredom.
Trump will probably remain the frontrunner at least till Christmas.
Indeed, he is presently leading polls in Iowa and NH too
I was looking at the state-wide polls yesterday, Trump is usually leading all of them with a 30%+ vote share and more than double the share of his closest rival, including in all the 4 early caucus and primary states of Iowa, N.H, S.Carolina and Nevada.
If Trump retains that support and wins those 4 then he's the nominee based solely on momentum, in fact no republican presidential candidate has ever failed to get the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire, and no republican candidate has ever got it without winning in at least one of the two.
"No" only ahead in the over 65's, in DE SE group, and in kipper voters. Scotland much the same as rUK.
Nonetheless good value at 4 in Betfair, it is sure to get tighter as the euro-ref gets closer.
The massive lead for "Yes" with the youngsters may be decisive if Corbynmania gets them engaged in politics and off the sofa.
Though Corbyn could back No
Corbyn said a short-while ago he'd be backing Yes.
Can you imagine any rabid left winger not wanting a big taste of the EU gravy train? The EU is mothers milk to left wing socialists. And a big dollop of syrup for most of the other political elite.
No, Corbyn, and a Corbyn dominated Labour party will want to get his/it's snout deep into the EU trough.
Funnily enough, historically the Left - notably Bennites were anti-EU and the Right pro-EU. Although I think Corbyn is unique among the Left these days. Most lefties after Greek Tragedy Part 3 HATE the EU. Owen Jones is a pretty good example of that.
Powell was anti-EU, as was Foot and Benn. It was the centrists, Heath, Jenkins, Heseltine etc who were most pro EU
Interesting. The more things change, the more they stay the same!
Interesting documentary about Britains entry into the EU
Any PBers heard of the Trump controversy r.e his Megyn Kelly comments?
You can't make this up. Nor can I seriously believe there are people out there who actively LIKE this man.
You wonder if he actually does this stuff on purpose, an American version of Nigel Farage.
Trump actually makes Farage look moderate. Not even Farage would say:
“You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”
The worst Farage has said is his breastfeeding comments.
There are some who thought that Kelly was acting on behalf of the GOP establishment to get Trump out. But I think that this kind of stuff will make him even more popular with the GOP base. FGS, his poll ratings rose after his McCain comments!
My analogy is more that it seems there is a significant percentage of Americans who are sick of what they see as the "establishment" figures, e.g the Clinton's and the Bush's of this world. Farage polling I believe was built on a similar premise, anybody but those current ex-Oxbridge, ex-SPADs, never had a proper job, never really say what they think tw@ts.
If Trump's actual numbers go the same way as Farage is not is another question.
At this rate it could end up Trump v Sanders, not Bush v Clinton!
I don't see how Sanders gets it, but again he is the only one campaigning (like Corbyn).
But it was very unlikely that it would have been Bush from the start, for one his biggest weakness is being a Bush, second he makes his brother look like Einstein, and third the Romney block of 25% of voters is split towards 3-4 different candidates so Bush will only get a slice of that.
In a race so badly split with 17 candidates of all colours and tastes the one who gets more than 20-25% wins, that's how Romney did it in 2012 and that so far is Trump's strategy.
Sanders is already closing in on Hillary in New Hampshire and if he wins there he could win the nomination. Jeb is much brighter than his brother, he graduated magna cum laude, but I agree at the moment it is all Trump. Jeb will have to win New Hampshire to get his candidacy back on track (Iowa will go for a more conservative candidate)
It doesn't seem to be the consensus, but I thought Rand Paul came out of the debate pretty well. I admired him for rolling his eyes when Christie went on about hugging the families of 9/11 victims.
I was right that Trump won the debate, and right to include Carson as one of the winners, Cruz probably got a bump from "God spoke to me".
That line means that Cruz is either a very cynical liar (overwhelmingly the most likely option) or suffers from schizophrenia. It's weird that either would be considered a vote winner.
We are talking about republican voters. Their motto is "God, Guns and Guts".
"No" only ahead in the over 65's, in DE SE group, and in kipper voters. Scotland much the same as rUK.
Nonetheless good value at 4 in Betfair, it is sure to get tighter as the euro-ref gets closer.
The massive lead for "Yes" with the youngsters may be decisive if Corbynmania gets them engaged in politics and off the sofa.
Though Corbyn could back No
Corbyn said a short-while ago he'd be backing Yes.
Can you imagine any rabid left winger not wanting a big taste of the EU gravy train? The EU is mothers milk to left wing socialists. And a big dollop of syrup for most of the other political elite.
No, Corbyn, and a Corbyn dominated Labour party will want to get his/it's snout deep into the EU trough.
Funnily enough, historically the Left - notably Bennites were anti-EU and the Right pro-EU. Although I think Corbyn is unique among the Left these days. Most lefties after Greek Tragedy Part 3 HATE the EU. Owen Jones is a pretty good example of that.
Powell was anti-EU, as was Foot and Benn. It was the centrists, Heath, Jenkins, Heseltine etc who were most pro EU
Not to forget the anti- Common Market entry Welsh firebrand Neil Kinnock.
Who has won the lottery several time over with the Kinnock family's EU payroll
"No" only ahead in the over 65's, in DE SE group, and in kipper voters. Scotland much the same as rUK.
Nonetheless good value at 4 in Betfair, it is sure to get tighter as the euro-ref gets closer.
The massive lead for "Yes" with the youngsters may be decisive if Corbynmania gets them engaged in politics and off the sofa.
Though Corbyn could back No
Corbyn said a short-while ago he'd be backing Yes.
Can you imagine any rabid left winger not wanting a big taste of the EU gravy train? The EU is mothers milk to left wing socialists. And a big dollop of syrup for most of the other political elite.
No, Corbyn, and a Corbyn dominated Labour party will want to get his/it's snout deep into the EU trough.
Funnily enough, historically the Left - notably Bennites were anti-EU and the Right pro-EU. Although I think Corbyn is unique among the Left these days. Most lefties after Greek Tragedy Part 3 HATE the EU. Owen Jones is a pretty good example of that.
Powell was anti-EU, as was Foot and Benn. It was the centrists, Heath, Jenkins, Heseltine etc who were most pro EU
Interesting. The more things change, the more they stay the same!
Indeed, Cameron, Osborne, Clegg, Farron, Blair, Kendall will all be campaigning for Yes, Farage, Bill Cash, John Redwood, Dennis Skinner, maybe Corbyn for No
I think you can rule out Burnham and Cooper if they lose this leadership election. They will have been tried and found wanting.
So decision (1) is: will Andy or Yvette win? If so, they (d.v.) will be the leader at the next election.
If Corbyn wins then decision (2) is will he go? Personally, I think this is unlikely. If not, then he will be the leader at the next election.
If Corbyn goes, then decision (3) is will he go early? If he goes early, then decision (4) is does he go as a result of a plot? If Yes, then it feels the only person who could front such a plot is David Miliband - but he needs to get into Parliament, which may not be as easy as it sounds.
If decision (3) is yes and (4) is no: then bet on the next generation. Here I have no real view, but would assume that the winner of the deputy leadership would be well placed. I assume this would be Watson. Other candidates could be Creasy, Jarvis, and I like Kinnock as an outside bet. I think Umunna's time has passed.
If decision (4) is no [i.e. Corbyn goes late] then realistically it has to be someone acceptable to all parties, probably from the older generation. D. Miliband is possible, but see the issue above. Johnson doesn't seem to want it. Presumably the best placed as a stand in would be the winning of the deputy leadership campaign - probably Watson, possibly Creasy.
So odds:
(1) Burham: 37% probability of winning (3/1). Why not just bet on him winning? (1) Cooper: 24% probability of winning (4/1). A little better value here, but money tied up
(2) Corbyn: 38% probability of winning. Essentially a little risk premium for the chance of a coup or enforced retirement, but offset by money being tied up for 4.5 years. Meh
(3) Corbyn wins (38%) so odds saying that [prob of coup * DM as winner] = 33%. Really?
(4) Corbyn wins (38%) * odds of coup (say 25%) gives you probability of a contest being 9.5%. So you need 10/1 odds just to get you to a contest. That means Jarvis is already not value and most of the rest are already priced at 2/1 - 4/1, which doesn't seem generous
Overall it doesn't look like much of a market to play in.
Possibly Kinnock as a fun bet. Possibly Watson for cynics.
I was right that Trump won the debate, and right to include Carson as one of the winners, Cruz probably got a bump from "God spoke to me". Also I was right that the "establishment" 4 (Bush, Walker, Rubio, Kasich) bombed due to excess boredom.
Trump will probably remain the frontrunner at least till Christmas.
Indeed, he is presently leading polls in Iowa and NH too
I was looking at the state-wide polls yesterday, Trump is usually leading all of them with a 30%+ vote share and more than double the share of his closest rival, including in all the 4 early caucus and primary states of Iowa, N.H, S.Carolina and Nevada.
If Trump retains that support and wins those 4 then he's the nominee based solely on momentum, in fact no republican presidential candidate has ever failed to get the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire, and no republican candidate has ever got it without winning in at least one of the two.
Indeed, though you have to go back to Bush Snr in 1992 to find a GOP candidate in a competitive primary who won both Iowa and NH. Trump will certainly win Nevada, the other 3 are where he could come unstuck
It doesn't seem to be the consensus, but I thought Rand Paul came out of the debate pretty well. I admired him for rolling his eyes when Christie went on about hugging the families of 9/11 victims.
He beaten Christie in their fight, however he did the mistake of going against Trump, which although it got him brownie points from Fox News in their post-debate analysis, Trump's "you are not having a good night" line to Paul stuck.
Look back at my comments that early morning. I watched the whole debate live and commented live on it here on PB, just to give a live impression of what was going on.
Any PBers heard of the Trump controversy r.e his Megyn Kelly comments?
You can't make this up. Nor can I seriously believe there are people out there who actively LIKE this man.
You wonder if he actually does this stuff on purpose, an American version of Nigel Farage.
Trump actually makes Farage look moderate. Not even Farage would say:
“You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”
The worst Farage has said is his breastfeeding comments.
There are some who thought that Kelly was acting on behalf of the GOP establishment to get Trump out. But I think that this kind of stuff will make him even more popular with the GOP base. FGS, his poll ratings rose after his McCain comments!
My analogy is more that it seems there is a significant percentage of Americans who are sick of what they see as the "establishment" figures, e.g the Clinton's and the Bush's of this world. Farage polling I believe was built on a similar premise, anybody but those current ex-Oxbridge, ex-SPADs, never had a proper job, never really say what they think tw@ts.
If Trump's actual numbers go the same way as Farage is not is another question.
At this rate it could end up Trump v Sanders, not Bush v Clinton!
I don't see how Sanders gets it, but again he is the only one campaigning (like Corbyn).
But it was very unlikely that it would have been Bush from the start, for one his biggest weakness is being a Bush, second he makes his brother look like Einstein, and third the Romney block of 25% of voters is split towards 3-4 different candidates so Bush will only get a slice of that.
In a race so badly split with 17 candidates of all colours and tastes the one who gets more than 20-25% wins, that's how Romney did it in 2012 and that so far is Trump's strategy.
There won't be 17 candidates all the way through. As the primaries progress most of the candidates will find the funding dries up and support will coalesce around a small number of candidates.
I think you can rule out Burnham and Cooper if they lose this leadership election. They will have been tried and found wanting.
So decision (1) is: will Andy or Yvette win? If so, they (d.v.) will be the leader at the next election.
If Corbyn wins then decision (2) is will he go? Personally, I think this is unlikely. If not, then he will be the leader at the next election.
If Corbyn goes, then decision (3) is will he go early? If he goes early, then decision (4) is does he go as a result of a plot? If Yes, then it feels the only person who could front such a plot is David Miliband - but he needs to get into Parliament, which may not be as easy as it sounds.
If decision (3) is yes and (4) is no: then bet on the next generation. Here I have no real view, but would assume that the winner of the deputy leadership would be well placed. I assume this would be Watson. Other candidates could be Creasy, Jarvis, and I like Kinnock as an outside bet. I think Umunna's time has passed.
If decision (4) is no [i.e. Corbyn goes late] then realistically it has to be someone acceptable to all parties, probably from the older generation. D. Miliband is possible, but see the issue above. Johnson doesn't seem to want it. Presumably the best placed as a stand in would be the winning of the deputy leadership campaign - probably Watson, possibly Creasy.
So odds:
(1) Burham: 37% probability of winning (3/1). Why not just bet on him winning? (1) Cooper: 24% probability of winning (4/1). A little better value here, but money tied up
(2) Corbyn: 38% probability of winning. Essentially a little risk premium for the chance of a coup or enforced retirement, but offset by money being tied up for 4.5 years. Meh
(3) Corbyn wins (38%) so odds saying that [prob of coup * DM as winner] = 33%. Really?
(4) Corbyn wins (38%) * odds of coup (say 25%) gives you probability of a contest being 9.5%. So you need 10/1 odds just to get you to a contest. That means Jarvis is already not value and most of the rest are already priced at 2/1 - 4/1, which doesn't seem generous
Overall it doesn't look like much of a market to play in.
Possibly Kinnock as a fun bet. Possibly Watson for cynics.
If Burnham or Cooper win I agree they will lead Labour in 2020. If Corbyn wins and is polling OK and well in Scotland he will lead Labour in 2020. If Corbyn is polling poorly and doing less than brilliantly in local elections he is likely to face an IDS-style coup, probably to be replaced by Dan Jarvis (or David Miliband if he returns to Parliament). Because of Labour rules though he would need to be doing pretty badly for the coup to gain enough support to succeed. Anthony Seldon on Any Questions on Friday night said Umunna could replace Corbyn in 3 years time, but as you say I think that unlikely given the reason that kept him out this time is likely to still be around
Millions of African migrants pose a threat to the standard of living and social structure of the UK and the rest of Europe. Under EU laws migrants can be pretty confident that they will never be returned to their home countries, and it will not be sustainable if Europe has to absorb millions of African migrants.
There will always be a threat to the security of the Channel Tunnel as long as there are still large numbers of desperate migrants who are maurauding in Calais.
You could have given us the name of the Tory minister who said it.
I see (fpt) that Lucky Guy and Roger think I am being wilfully ignorant in describing countries like Iran and organisations like Hamas as "illiberal, anti-democratic, anti-Western and sponsors of terrorism".
Incidentally I include Saudi Arabia in that description. It may be - from the West's perspective - the least worst option - but the kowtowing which Western governments (including our own) do to it is pretty nauseating, if understandable from a realpolitik perspective.
I also understand the differences between Sunni and Shia and the many civil wars going on within Islam and within and between Middle Eastern countries, which make any sort of outside intervention or, indeed, understanding so problematic.
Still, I'd be interested in knowing exactly how the above description is wrong when applied to countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and organisations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and, indeed, IS?
I was right that Trump won the debate, and right to include Carson as one of the winners, Cruz probably got a bump from "God spoke to me". Also I was right that the "establishment" 4 (Bush, Walker, Rubio, Kasich) bombed due to excess boredom.
Trump will probably remain the frontrunner at least till Christmas.
Indeed, he is presently leading polls in Iowa and NH too
I was looking at the state-wide polls yesterday, Trump is usually leading all of them with a 30%+ vote share and more than double the share of his closest rival, including in all the 4 early caucus and primary states of Iowa, N.H, S.Carolina and Nevada.
If Trump retains that support and wins those 4 then he's the nominee based solely on momentum, in fact no republican presidential candidate has ever failed to get the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire, and no republican candidate has ever got it without winning in at least one of the two.
Indeed, though you have to go back to Bush Snr in 1992 to find a GOP candidate in a competitive primary who won both Iowa and NH. Trump will certainly win Nevada, the other 3 are where he could come unstuck
I made a an excel out of it years ago.
In both Iowa and New Hampshire since the modern primaries in 1972, 9 out of 15 victors of those states has won the nomination in both the Republican and Democratic races.
No Republican candidate has ever got the nomination without winning at least one of them. Only in the Democratic primaries has one got the nomination without winning at least one of those 2 (1972, 1992). And only one has become President without winning at least one of those 2 (Clinton).
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
Ministerial Direction is to protect the civil servants from being blamed when they have clearly recommended contrary action.
The government as a whole acts with the authority of the Crown, and so long as it is not a breach of its Supply limitations, it can pretty much do what it likes.
The composition of government is purely at the discretion of Her Majesty's Prime Minister.
Hence resignation is, and always has been, a political decision, not one driven by law or constitution.
Those much maligned public servants were, on this occasion, rather shrewder than the foolish Ministers or the PM.
I'd also be interested to know the basis on which the IR forgave NI payments which KC owed. The employees whose NI was not paid must, surely, have lost out?
Any PBers heard of the Trump controversy r.e his Megyn Kelly comments?
You can't make this up. Nor can I seriously believe there are people out there who actively LIKE this man.
Synopsis from the OC on the debate messages:
Cruz: I speak the truth Trump: I can grow the economy, no excuses Bush: I have experience and heart Rubio: I can explain this, I have answers Kasich: Unite everybody Carson: I have a brain Walker: I have a wife, kids and a Harley Huckabee: I am so Ardent Rand and Christie: Bookends
Ministerial Direction is to protect the civil servants from being blamed when they have clearly recommended contrary action.
The government as a whole acts with the authority of the Crown, and so long as it is not a breach of its Supply limitations, it can pretty much do what it likes.
I'm not sure this is an accurate summary. It is a settled constitutional principle that monies can only be paid out of the Consolidated Fund pursuant to the express words of an Act of Parliament (Auckland Harbour Board v The King [1924] AC 318 (PC)). Statutory authority for grants by the Cabinet Office to charities is contained in the schedule to the annual Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act. However, the decision to make such a grant must comply with basic principles of public law. In particular, if the Cabinet Office reached a decision that no reasonable person could have taken, the grant would be a nullity. In judging whether or not the decision was irrational, a ministerial direction to the civil service would be a most material consideration. If the grant was irrational, the monies would remain beneficially owned by the Crown, which could follow them into the hands of the recipient.
Any PBers heard of the Trump controversy r.e his Megyn Kelly comments?
You can't make this up. Nor can I seriously believe there are people out there who actively LIKE this man.
You wonder if he actually does this stuff on purpose, an American version of Nigel Farage.
Trump actually makes Farage look moderate. Not even Farage would say:
“You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”
The worst Farage has said is his breastfeeding comments.
There are some who thought that Kelly was acting on behalf of the GOP establishment to get Trump out. But I think that this kind of stuff will make him even more popular with the GOP base. FGS, his poll ratings rose after his McCain comments!
My analogy is more that it seems there is a significant percentage of Americans who are sick of what they see as the "establishment" figures, e.g the Clinton's and the Bush's of this world. Farage polling I believe was built on a similar premise, anybody but those current ex-Oxbridge, ex-SPADs, never had a proper job, never really say what they think tw@ts.
If Trump's actual numbers go the same way as Farage is not is another question.
At this rate it could end up Trump v Sanders, not Bush v Clinton!
I don't see how Sanders gets it, but again he is the only one campaigning (like Corbyn).
But it was very unlikely that it would have been Bush from the start, for one his biggest weakness is being a Bush, second he makes his brother look like Einstein, and third the Romney block of 25% of voters is split towards 3-4 different candidates so Bush will only get a slice of that.
In a race so badly split with 17 candidates of all colours and tastes the one who gets more than 20-25% wins, that's how Romney did it in 2012 and that so far is Trump's strategy.
There won't be 17 candidates all the way through. As the primaries progress most of the candidates will find the funding dries up and support will coalesce around a small number of candidates.
Wrong. All of them will stay until Iowa because of all the free TV air time from interviews and debates, they won't go bellow 10 candidates before New Hampshire. Also the establishment 4 have billionaire patrons who will not cut off funding to their pets.
On top of that there is the 2012 example were even when the field finally was down to 3 candidates, Romney still managed to beat them simply because of momentum, it was too late.
I was right that Trump won the debate, and right to include Carson as one of the winners, Cruz probably got a bump from "God spoke to me". Also I was right that the "establishment" 4 (Bush, Walker, Rubio, Kasich) bombed due to excess boredom.
Trump will probably remain the frontrunner at least till Christmas.
Indeed, he is presently leading polls in Iowa and NH too
I was looking at the state-wide polls yesterday, Trump is usually leading all of them with a 30%+ vote share and more than double the share of his closest rival, including in all the 4 early caucus and primary states of Iowa, N.H, S.Carolina and Nevada.
If Trump retains that support and wins those 4 then he's the nominee based solely on momentum, in fact no republican presidential candidate has ever failed to get the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire, and no republican candidate has ever got it without winning in at least one of the two.
Indeed, though you have to go back to Bush Snr in 1992 to find a GOP candidate in a competitive primary who won both Iowa and NH. Trump will certainly win Nevada, the other 3 are where he could come unstuck
I made a an excel out of it years ago.
In both Iowa and New Hampshire since the modern primaries in 1972, 9 out of 15 victors of those states has won the nomination in both the Republican and Democratic races.
No Republican candidate has ever got the nomination without winning at least one of them. Only in the Democratic primaries has one got the nomination without winning at least one of those 2 (1972, 1992). And only one has become President without winning at least one of those 2 (Clinton).
Clinton of course got a strong second in New Hampshire in 1992 after the Gennifer Flowers allegations which saw him labelled the 'Comeback Kid', so New Hampshire was almost a win for him
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
She doesn't have a state though.
Was trounced when she was the GOP nominee for CA Senator.
Interestingly, Socal didn't warm to her, and given that's the GOP heartland in CA, that didn't help.
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Ministerial Direction is to protect the civil servants from being blamed when they have clearly recommended contrary action.
The government as a whole acts with the authority of the Crown, and so long as it is not a breach of its Supply limitations, it can pretty much do what it likes.
The composition of government is purely at the discretion of Her Majesty's Prime Minister.
Hence resignation is, and always has been, a political decision, not one driven by law or constitution.
Those much maligned public servants were, on this occasion, rather shrewder than the foolish Ministers or the PM.
I'd also be interested to know the basis on which the IR forgave NI payments which KC owed. The employees whose NI was not paid must, surely, have lost out?
I had a similar experience with an employer. As long as you can show P60's etc with the deductions made, NI will credit you with the payments.
Ministerial Direction is to protect the civil servants from being blamed when they have clearly recommended contrary action.
The government as a whole acts with the authority of the Crown, and so long as it is not a breach of its Supply limitations, it can pretty much do what it likes.
I'm not sure this is an accurate summary. It is a settled constitutional principle that monies can only be paid out of the Consolidated Fund pursuant to the express words of an Act of Parliament (Auckland Harbour Board v The King [1924] AC 318 (PC)). Statutory authority for grants by the Cabinet Office to charities is contained in the schedule to the annual Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act. However, the decision to make such a grant must comply with basic principles of public law. In particular, if the Cabinet Office reached a decision that no reasonable person could have taken, the grant would be a nullity. In judging whether or not the decision was irrational, a ministerial direction to the civil service would be a most material consideration. If the grant was irrational, the monies would remain beneficially owned by the Crown, which could follow them into the hands of the recipient.
I originally included in compliance with the law as a limitation on the freedom of the Crown, but felt that went without saying.
"No" only ahead in the over 65's, in DE SE group, and in kipper voters. Scotland much the same as rUK.
Nonetheless good value at 4 in Betfair, it is sure to get tighter as the euro-ref gets closer.
The massive lead for "Yes" with the youngsters may be decisive if Corbynmania gets them engaged in politics and off the sofa.
Though Corbyn could back No
Corbyn said a short-while ago he'd be backing Yes.
He has also said he does not back the EU in its current form and wants reform
The reform that Corbyn wants is more social intervention, more control of financial institutions and not so much emphasis on trade. I cannot see this being compatible with the Tory reformers.
Labour will come down on the side of In, whether or not Corbyn is leader. There are very few on the left who are anti-EU. Thinking otherwise is just wishful thinking by the BOOers.
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Why Rubio? He needs to complement the presidential candidate and I'm not sure that he does that for anyone except Cruz, Fiorina, Walker or Christie, and don't see any of them as front runner
- Doesn't get on with Trump o - Cruz; possibly - Carson; not going to win - Fiorina, Walker or Christie: possibly - Bush: overlapping, not complementary - Kasich: who's he? - Huckabee: too southern a ticket - Rand: isn't going to win
I could see Bush/Walker or Bush/Fiorina as viable tickets though:
Ministerial Direction is to protect the civil servants from being blamed when they have clearly recommended contrary action.
The government as a whole acts with the authority of the Crown, and so long as it is not a breach of its Supply limitations, it can pretty much do what it likes.
I'm not sure this is an accurate summary. It is a settled constitutional principle that monies can only be paid out of the Consolidated Fund pursuant to the express words of an Act of Parliament (Auckland Harbour Board v The King [1924] AC 318 (PC)). Statutory authority for grants by the Cabinet Office to charities is contained in the schedule to the annual Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act. However, the decision to make such a grant must comply with basic principles of public law. In particular, if the Cabinet Office reached a decision that no reasonable person could have taken, the grant would be a nullity. In judging whether or not the decision was irrational, a ministerial direction to the civil service would be a most material consideration. If the grant was irrational, the monies would remain beneficially owned by the Crown, which could follow them into the hands of the recipient.
I originally included in compliance with the law as a limitation on the freedom of the Crown, but felt that went without saying.
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
She doesn't have a state though.
Was trounced when she was the GOP nominee for CA Senator.
Interestingly, Socal didn't warm to her, and given that's the GOP heartland in CA, that didn't help.
It didn't help that she drove HP to the bin as it's CEO. Also she had one of the worst ads ever seen:
I think that's absolutely right. The Left thinks the EU has behaved incredibly badly in demanding Greece repays its debts.
Much more so than the Calais migrant crisis, this is likely to have a significant impact on the EU referendum.
I think so too - it could, perhaps allow Cameron to portray a pro-EU position as centrist, and moderate in contrast to the hard Left and the hard Right having a NO position. Another consequence it could have is polarising the YES side of the debate. By having completely different ideas as to what kind of EU they want (Cameron's Tories vs centre left), the YES side could be more divided than the NO side.
For the record, I think the Left's response to the Greek crisis has been beyond delusional and is illustrative of the place it's at right now.
The hard left's response to the Greek crisis is the one place it is talking sense when it says there is an unnecessary level of austerity. The centre left response has been the one that's incoherent.
I think that's absolutely right. The Left thinks the EU has behaved incredibly badly in demanding Greece repays its debts.
Much more so than the Calais migrant crisis, this is likely to have a significant impact on the EU referendum.
I think so too - it could, perhaps allow Cameron to portray a pro-EU position as centrist, and moderate in contrast to the hard Left and the hard Right having a NO position. Another consequence it could have is polarising the YES side of the debate. By having completely different ideas as to what kind of EU they want (Cameron's Tories vs centre left), the YES side could be more divided than the NO side.
For the record, I think the Left's response to the Greek crisis has been beyond delusional and is illustrative of the place it's at right now.
The hard left's response to the Greek crisis is the one place it is talking sense when it says there is an unnecessary level of austerity. The centre left response has been the one that's incoherent.
I agree that austerity isn't going to solve Greece's woes - coming out of the Euro will. The trouble is, is that the hard left are not advocating that. They believe that Greece should be bailed out continuously, with no conditions attached to any bailout agreement - and that attempts to attach such conditions amounts to a 'coup'. Furthermore, as @rcs1000 noted the hard left also believe the expectation that Greece should pay her debts to be unreasonable. Schuable actually wanted a Grexit, and thought it would be the best thing for Greece, but the hard left vilified him.
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Fiorina would be a good VP pick. She can talk the talk but as her business record shows, at the top she's ultimately found out, and found out very very badly. Of course, she has ovaries so will find those count against her with the GOP base.
"No" only ahead in the over 65's, in DE SE group, and in kipper voters. Scotland much the same as rUK.
Nonetheless good value at 4 in Betfair, it is sure to get tighter as the euro-ref gets closer.
The massive lead for "Yes" with the youngsters may be decisive if Corbynmania gets them engaged in politics and off the sofa.
Though Corbyn could back No
Corbyn said a short-while ago he'd be backing Yes.
He has also said he does not back the EU in its current form and wants reform
The reform that Corbyn wants is more social intervention, more control of financial institutions and not so much emphasis on trade. I cannot see this being compatible with the Tory reformers.
Labour will come down on the side of In, whether or not Corbyn is leader. There are very few on the left who are anti-EU. Thinking otherwise is just wishful thinking by the BOOers.
On the whole yes, though Hoey, Field and Skinner provide exceptions to the rule
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Why Rubio? He needs to complement the presidential candidate and I'm not sure that he does that for anyone except Cruz, Fiorina, Walker or Christie, and don't see any of them as front runner
- Doesn't get on with Trump o - Cruz; possibly - Carson; not going to win - Fiorina, Walker or Christie: possibly - Bush: overlapping, not complementary - Kasich: who's he? - Huckabee: too southern a ticket - Rand: isn't going to win
I could see Bush/Walker or Bush/Fiorina as viable tickets though:
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Fiorina would be a good VP pick. She can talk the talk but as her business record shows, at the top she's ultimately found out, and found out very very badly. Of course, she has ovaries so will find those count against her with the GOP base.
Indeed, a Trump-Fiorina ticket would be the ultimate corporate ticket, a billionaire and a Fortune 20 CEO, though neither have exactly had a consistent record of business excellence
The only disappointing part is that they weren't jumping.
As for Will Hutton, I assume that he has compromising photos of any number of people because his accuracy:inaccuracy ratio is weighted heavily towards the latter.
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Why Rubio? He needs to complement the presidential candidate and I'm not sure that he does that for anyone except Cruz, Fiorina, Walker or Christie, and don't see any of them as front runner
- Doesn't get on with Trump o - Cruz; possibly - Carson; not going to win - Fiorina, Walker or Christie: possibly - Bush: overlapping, not complementary - Kasich: who's he? - Huckabee: too southern a ticket - Rand: isn't going to win
I could see Bush/Walker or Bush/Fiorina as viable tickets though:
I think that's absolutely right. The Left thinks the EU has behaved incredibly badly in demanding Greece repays its debts.
Much more so than the Calais migrant crisis, this is likely to have a significant impact on the EU referendum.
I think so too - it could, perhaps allow Cameron to portray a pro-EU position as centrist, and moderate in contrast to the hard Left and the hard Right having a NO position. Another consequence it could have is polarising the YES side of the debate. By having completely different ideas as to what kind of EU they want (Cameron's Tories vs centre left), the YES side could be more divided than the NO side.
For the record, I think the Left's response to the Greek crisis has been beyond delusional and is illustrative of the place it's at right now.
The hard left's response to the Greek crisis is the one place it is talking sense when it says there is an unnecessary level of austerity. The centre left response has been the one that's incoherent.
I agree that austerity isn't going to solve Greece's woes - coming out of the Euro will. The trouble is, is that the hard left are not advocating that. They believe that Greece should be bailed out continuously, with no conditions attached to any bailout agreement - and that attempts to attach such conditions amounts to a 'coup'. Furthermore, as @rcs1000 noted the hard left also believe the expectation that Greece should pay her debts to be unreasonable. Schuable actually wanted a Grexit, and thought it would be the best thing for Greece, but the hard left vilified him.
Britain is largely a spectator in the Greek austerity crisis, whether in or out of the EU. It is an issue for the EZ and for the Greeks themselves. It is not going to budge many opinions here, as the EUref polling shows very little movement even at the peak of the crisis. There is very likely to be debt relief in time, but first the Syrizia government needs to hold up its end of the deal.
Interesting market. With this length of time until payout I'm interested in the big odds that might contain a decent chunk of value. I'm working on the assumption that Corbyn will have to win for this market to be most likely to be activated for a wider field. If Corbyn wins then it'll either suggest that there's an appetite for a someone broadly on the left, but if Corbyn stands down or is deposed then it'll have to be someone not as far left as him. A while back the Independent on Sunday wrote this:
'There is also speculation that Mr Corbyn views himself as a stop-gap leader, who would stay in post for two or three years, until a slightly softer left figure rises to prominence. A senior party source suggested that 35-year-old Lisa Nandy, deputy party chairman John Trickett, and former National Union of Mineworkers president Ian Lavery could be ready for a leadership tilt by 2018.'
I think we can rule out Ian Lavery (a miner is not going to play well) and Jon Trickett is more of a backroom player. But Lisa Nandy is quite plausible. She could arguably prosper from either a Burnham or a Corbyn victory and enter the Shadow Cabinet (she nominated Burnham). It is interesting that her name was mentioned in this piece I imagine was informed by people quite close to Corbyn. If she became say Education Secretary under Corbyn she could perform well.
The other person that stands out at big odds and is worth a few quid is Stella Creasy. If she becomes Deputy (not impossible) then she'll be in a high profile position and will embody contrast to Corbyn and could run for it. She'd have to run a better campaign than to date for deputy but not impossible. You can imagine the press getting behind her.
Those two are worth a few quid and of the two I think Nandy is the better value.
It didn't help that she drove HP to the bin as it's CEO. Also she had one of the worst ads ever seen:
I don't know!
I quite liked the staffer in the sheep outfit crawling through the field...
That is one awful negative attack ad!
Looking at US politics reminds me how European we are. I could imagine Merkel, Tsipras, Hollande or even Wilders as British politicians, but Trump and the seven dwarves? They seem like aliens from planet Zog.
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Fiorina would be a good VP pick. She can talk the talk but as her business record shows, at the top she's ultimately found out, and found out very very badly. Of course, she has ovaries so will find those count against her with the GOP base.
It didn't help that she drove HP to the bin as it's CEO. Also she had one of the worst ads ever seen:
I don't know!
I quite liked the staffer in the sheep outfit crawling through the field...
That is one awful negative attack ad!
Looking at US politics reminds me how European we are. I could imagine Merkel, Tsipras, Hollande or even Wilders as British politicians, but Trump and the seven dwarves? They seem like aliens from planet Zog.
Ministerial Direction is to protect the civil servants from being blamed when they have clearly recommended contrary action.
The government as a whole acts with the authority of the Crown, and so long as it is not a breach of its Supply limitations, it can pretty much do what it likes.
The composition of government is purely at the discretion of Her Majesty's Prime Minister.
Hence resignation is, and always has been, a political decision, not one driven by law or constitution.
Those much maligned public servants were, on this occasion, rather shrewder than the foolish Ministers or the PM.
I'd also be interested to know the basis on which the IR forgave NI payments which KC owed. The employees whose NI was not paid must, surely, have lost out?
I had a similar experience with an employer. As long as you can show P60's etc with the deductions made, NI will credit you with the payments.
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Why Rubio? He needs to complement the presidential candidate and I'm not sure that he does that for anyone except Cruz, Fiorina, Walker or Christie, and don't see any of them as front runner
- Doesn't get on with Trump o - Cruz; possibly - Carson; not going to win - Fiorina, Walker or Christie: possibly - Bush: overlapping, not complementary - Kasich: who's he? - Huckabee: too southern a ticket - Rand: isn't going to win
I could see Bush/Walker or Bush/Fiorina as viable tickets though:
He is a Hispanic though which is key (even if a Cuban)
And Bush is married to one, and has a half Hispanic kid.
He is not Hispanic himself though, one of his 'kids', George P, has just been elected Texas Land Commissioner and is seen as a future president himself
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Fiorina would be a good VP pick. She can talk the talk but as her business record shows, at the top she's ultimately found out, and found out very very badly. Of course, she has ovaries so will find those count against her with the GOP base.
She was boss of HP when the dot com bubble burst and by a factor of about ten is by far the best communicator.
"No" only ahead in the over 65's, in DE SE group, and in kipper voters. Scotland much the same as rUK.
Nonetheless good value at 4 in Betfair, it is sure to get tighter as the euro-ref gets closer.
The massive lead for "Yes" with the youngsters may be decisive if Corbynmania gets them engaged in politics and off the sofa.
Though Corbyn could back No
Corbyn said a short-while ago he'd be backing Yes.
Can you imagine any rabid left winger not wanting a big taste of the EU gravy train? The EU is mothers milk to left wing socialists. And a big dollop of syrup for most of the other political elite.
No, Corbyn, and a Corbyn dominated Labour party will want to get his/it's snout deep into the EU trough.
Funnily enough, historically the Left - notably Bennites were anti-EU and the Right pro-EU. Although I think Corbyn is unique among the Left these days. Most lefties after Greek Tragedy Part 3 HATE the EU. Owen Jones is a pretty good example of that.
Powell was anti-EU, as was Foot and Benn. It was the centrists, Heath, Jenkins, Heseltine etc who were most pro EU
Interesting. The more things change, the more they stay the same!
Interesting documentary about Britains entry into the EU
Peter Hitchens?!!! Still thanks for the link. I'll watch it now!
When hitchens was 21 he was well to the left of you
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Why Rubio? He needs to complement the presidential candidate and I'm not sure that he does that for anyone except Cruz, Fiorina, Walker or Christie, and don't see any of them as front runner
- Doesn't get on with Trump o - Cruz; possibly - Carson; not going to win - Fiorina, Walker or Christie: possibly - Bush: overlapping, not complementary - Kasich: who's he? - Huckabee: too southern a ticket - Rand: isn't going to win
I could see Bush/Walker or Bush/Fiorina as viable tickets though:
He is a Hispanic though which is key (even if a Cuban)
And Bush is married to one, and has a half Hispanic kid.
He is not Hispanic himself though, one of his 'kids', George P, has just been elected Texas Land Commissioner and is seen as a future president himself
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Why Rubio? He needs to complement the presidential candidate and I'm not sure that he does that for anyone except Cruz, Fiorina, Walker or Christie, and don't see any of them as front runner
- Doesn't get on with Trump o - Cruz; possibly - Carson; not going to win - Fiorina, Walker or Christie: possibly - Bush: overlapping, not complementary - Kasich: who's he? - Huckabee: too southern a ticket - Rand: isn't going to win
I could see Bush/Walker or Bush/Fiorina as viable tickets though:
He is a Hispanic though which is key (even if a Cuban)
And Bush is married to one, and has a half Hispanic kid.
He is not Hispanic himself though, one of his 'kids', George P, has just been elected Texas Land Commissioner and is seen as a future president himself
It didn't help that she drove HP to the bin as it's CEO. Also she had one of the worst ads ever seen:
I don't know!
I quite liked the staffer in the sheep outfit crawling through the field...
That is one awful negative attack ad!
Looking at US politics reminds me how European we are. I could imagine Merkel, Tsipras, Hollande or even Wilders as British politicians, but Trump and the seven dwarves? They seem like aliens from planet Zog.
Trump could easily be in UKIP
I don't think even the kippers would have him. They are very politically correct nowadays!
Good line from Camilla Long about 'Corbynmania' - 'It is true the queue for the rally is enormous, but it is also roughly the same size as the bread queues will be, should Corbyn actually become our first far-left prime minister.' http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/focus/article1591228.ece
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Why Rubio? He needs to complement the presidential candidate and I'm not sure that he does that for anyone except Cruz, Fiorina, Walker or Christie, and don't see any of them as front runner
- Doesn't get on with Trump o - Cruz; possibly - Carson; not going to win - Fiorina, Walker or Christie: possibly - Bush: overlapping, not complementary - Kasich: who's he? - Huckabee: too southern a ticket - Rand: isn't going to win
I could see Bush/Walker or Bush/Fiorina as viable tickets though:
He is a Hispanic though which is key (even if a Cuban)
And Bush is married to one, and has a half Hispanic kid.
He is not Hispanic himself though, one of his 'kids', George P, has just been elected Texas Land Commissioner and is seen as a future president himself
Though a Cuban could rap up Florida and if Hillary picks a Hispanic like one of the Castro brothers Rubio would counter that
Jeesh. I hope British identity politics doesn't develop into this sort of tokenism. The Republicans seem worse than Miliband asking if a fellow can deliver the Sikh vote!
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Why Rubio? He needs to complement the presidential candidate and I'm not sure that he does that for anyone except Cruz, Fiorina, Walker or Christie, and don't see any of them as front runner
- Doesn't get on with Trump o - Cruz; possibly - Carson; not going to win - Fiorina, Walker or Christie: possibly - Bush: overlapping, not complementary - Kasich: who's he? - Huckabee: too southern a ticket - Rand: isn't going to win
I could see Bush/Walker or Bush/Fiorina as viable tickets though:
He is a Hispanic though which is key (even if a Cuban)
And Bush is married to one, and has a half Hispanic kid.
He is not Hispanic himself though, one of his 'kids', George P, has just been elected Texas Land Commissioner and is seen as a future president himself www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiMAgsVYRCo
This is the generally assumed main reason he has been reluctant to run himself - he sees his son as a realistic candidate and was more prepared to help him rather than get in his way by running himself. He is the only half credible Republican, as the debates are proving. There seem few signs of the Republican base even remotely being capable of finding a credible candidate. Probably George P will not be harmed if JEB puts on a rational show but loses the nomination. If JEB were to win it, but fail to beat Hillary then it might be different.
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Fiorina would be a good VP pick. She can talk the talk but as her business record shows, at the top she's ultimately found out, and found out very very badly. Of course, she has ovaries so will find those count against her with the GOP base.
She was boss of HP when the dot com bubble burst and by a factor of about ten is by far the best communicator.
She was at HP for 5 years after the crash. There was no material change.
It didn't help that she drove HP to the bin as it's CEO. Also she had one of the worst ads ever seen:
I don't know!
I quite liked the staffer in the sheep outfit crawling through the field...
That is one awful negative attack ad!
Looking at US politics reminds me how European we are. I could imagine Merkel, Tsipras, Hollande or even Wilders as British politicians, but Trump and the seven dwarves? They seem like aliens from planet Zog.
Trump could easily be in UKIP
Everything is bigger in America remember. Even their nutjobs. And their comb overs.
It didn't help that she drove HP to the bin as it's CEO. Also she had one of the worst ads ever seen:
I don't know!
I quite liked the staffer in the sheep outfit crawling through the field...
That is one awful negative attack ad!
Looking at US politics reminds me how European we are. I could imagine Merkel, Tsipras, Hollande or even Wilders as British politicians, but Trump and the seven dwarves? They seem like aliens from planet Zog.
Trump could easily be in UKIP
I don't think even the kippers would have him. They are very politically correct nowadays!
Farage, Roger Helmer and Louise Bours are many things, but PC is not one of them
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Why Rubio? He needs to complement the presidential candidate and I'm not sure that he does that for anyone except Cruz, Fiorina, Walker or Christie, and don't see any of them as front runner
- Doesn't get on with Trump o - Cruz; possibly - Carson; not going to win - Fiorina, Walker or Christie: possibly - Bush: overlapping, not complementary - Kasich: who's he? - Huckabee: too southern a ticket - Rand: isn't going to win
I could see Bush/Walker or Bush/Fiorina as viable tickets though:
He is a Hispanic though which is key (even if a Cuban)
And Bush is married to one, and has a half Hispanic kid.
He is not Hispanic himself though, one of his 'kids', George P, has just been elected Texas Land Commissioner and is seen as a future president himself
Though a Cuban could rap up Florida and if Hillary picks a Hispanic like one of the Castro brothers Rubio would counter that
Jeesh. I hope British identity politics doesn't develop into this sort of tokenism. The Republicans seem worse than Miliband asking if a fellow can deliver the Sikh vote!
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Why Rubio? He needs to complement the presidential candidate and I'm not sure that he does that for anyone except Cruz, Fiorina, Walker or Christie, and don't see any of them as front runner
- Doesn't get on with Trump o - Cruz; possibly - Carson; not going to win - Fiorina, Walker or Christie: possibly - Bush: overlapping, not complementary - Kasich: who's he? - Huckabee: too southern a ticket - Rand: isn't going to win
I could see Bush/Walker or Bush/Fiorina as viable tickets though:
He is a Hispanic though which is key (even if a Cuban)
And Bush is married to one, and has a half Hispanic kid.
He is not Hispanic himself though, one of his 'kids', George P, has just been elected Texas Land Commissioner and is seen as a future president himself www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiMAgsVYRCo
This is the generally assumed main reason he has been reluctant to run himself - he sees his son as a realistic candidate and was more prepared to help him rather than get in his way by running himself. He is the only half credible Republican, as the debates are proving. There seem few signs of the Republican base even remotely being capable of finding a credible candidate. Probably George P will not be harmed if JEB puts on a rational show but loses the nomination. If JEB were to win it, but fail to beat Hillary then it might be different.
Even if Jeb loses to Hillary as long as he runs her close, which is likely, that would be better for George P than his failing to win the nomination, which could destroy the Bush brand
It didn't help that she drove HP to the bin as it's CEO. Also she had one of the worst ads ever seen:
I don't know!
I quite liked the staffer in the sheep outfit crawling through the field...
That is one awful negative attack ad!
Looking at US politics reminds me how European we are. I could imagine Merkel, Tsipras, Hollande or even Wilders as British politicians, but Trump and the seven dwarves? They seem like aliens from planet Zog.
Trump could easily be in UKIP
Everything is bigger in America remember. Even their nutjobs. And their comb overs.
It didn't help that she drove HP to the bin as it's CEO. Also she had one of the worst ads ever seen:
I don't know!
I quite liked the staffer in the sheep outfit crawling through the field...
That is one awful negative attack ad!
Looking at US politics reminds me how European we are. I could imagine Merkel, Tsipras, Hollande or even Wilders as British politicians, but Trump and the seven dwarves? They seem like aliens from planet Zog.
Trump could easily be in UKIP
Everything is bigger in America remember. Even their nutjobs. And their comb overs.
Indeed, they have the Clintons, Kennedys and Bushes, we have the Milibands, Cooper-Balls and Gummers, they have Trump, we have Farage, they have Sanders, we have Corbyn, they have Obama, we have Umunna (who couldn't even get past first base)
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Fiorina would be a good VP pick. She can talk the talk but as her business record shows, at the top she's ultimately found out, and found out very very badly. Of course, she has ovaries so will find those count against her with the GOP base.
She was boss of HP when the dot com bubble burst and by a factor of about ten is by far the best communicator.
She was at HP for 5 years after the crash. There was no material change.
Her 'success' at HP is well illustrated by the fact that she let a disgruntled former employee register her own name as a domain. http://carlyfiorina.org/ Silicon Valley would quite happily vote for almost anyone else.
Her 'success' at HP is well illustrated by the fact that she let a disgruntled former employee register her own name as a domain. http://carlyfiorina.org/ Silicon Valley would quite happily vote for almost anyone else.
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Fiorina would be a good VP pick. She can talk the talk but as her business record shows, at the top she's ultimately found out, and found out very very badly. Of course, she has ovaries so will find those count against her with the GOP base.
She was boss of HP when the dot com bubble burst and by a factor of about ten is by far the best communicator.
She was at HP for 5 years after the crash. There was no material change.
Her 'success' at HP is well illustrated by the fact that she let a disgruntled former employee register her own name as a domain. http://carlyfiorina.org/ Silicon Valley would quite happily vote for almost anyone else.
Can't help but agree: Fiorina was a disaster at Lucent (which went tits up shortly after she left), and then a disaster at HP. After that, she got spanked in her attempt to become a Senator, failing even in Republican friendly Southern California.
This does of course make her a good match for Trump. Both of them are more style than substance. Neither is a truly successful business person, manager or innovator.
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Fiorina would be a good VP pick. She can talk the talk but as her business record shows, at the top she's ultimately found out, and found out very very badly. Of course, she has ovaries so will find those count against her with the GOP base.
She was boss of HP when the dot com bubble burst and by a factor of about ten is by far the best communicator.
She was at HP for 5 years after the crash. There was no material change.
Her 'success' at HP is well illustrated by the fact that she let a disgruntled former employee register her own name as a domain. http://carlyfiorina.org/ Silicon Valley would quite happily vote for almost anyone else.
That's true. She was incompetent as a CEO, she only became famous because she was only one of a few CEO's that were female.
Fiorina like Palin is only being promoted in politics because she is a woman, not because she is a competent woman. Same goes for Rubio, simply because he's hispanic doesn't mean he's competent in his job.
It's a big mistake to judge people simply by the colour of their skin or their gender.
Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
Fiorina would be a good VP pick. She can talk the talk but as her business record shows, at the top she's ultimately found out, and found out very very badly. Of course, she has ovaries so will find those count against her with the GOP base.
She was boss of HP when the dot com bubble burst and by a factor of about ten is by far the best communicator.
She was at HP for 5 years after the crash. There was no material change.
Her 'success' at HP is well illustrated by the fact that she let a disgruntled former employee register her own name as a domain. http://carlyfiorina.org/ Silicon Valley would quite happily vote for almost anyone else.
Can't help but agree: Fiorina was a disaster at Lucent (which went tits up shortly after she left), and then a disaster at HP. After that, she got spanked in her attempt to become a Senator, failing even in Republican friendly Southern California.
This does of course make her a good match for Trump. Both of them are more style than substance. Neither is a truly successful business person, manager or innovator.
You may say that her record might be like Trump, but she lacks the flare, the celebrity and the attitude that makes Trump immune to this criticism. Look at the video bellow :
On the subject of Greece and austerity - I find it interesting that the debate rarely touches on the actual situation.
- Before joining the Euro, Greek government debt was considered very risky. So borrowing was expensive and limited. So when Greece went bust every now and again, it was for manageable sums. - On joining the Euro, the Greek governments of left and right proceeded to buy votes and inflate the economy with borrowed money - A tiny minority of Greeks objected to this - and were reviled by the left, in particular - When 2008 happened, the river of cheap money dried up. Borrowing more and even servicing the debt became impossible. - At this point, the Greek government was financing normal expenditure with annual borrowing to the tune of 10% of GDP. - The EU stepped in, halved the debt and refinanced it at a tiny rate of interest and very delayed repayment.
So where did the austerity come from? the repayments on the refinanced debt weren't fatal - less than 3% of GDP. When the borrowing tap was turned off, the economy shrank back to its pre spending binge size. To reflate the economy, which is what the left wants, Greece requires a money river. What Syrezia really wanted was enough debt cancellation to restart international borrowing. Which would require cancelling most of it!
The hardline EU stance was based on decades of dealing with Greek governments that promise reform - but want the money first. When asked about the reform, they have all banged the patriotic drum. Hence the extremely hard core EU stuff about putting the reforms through parliament in days.
Re the above list/odds Charles points out ---- ''I think you can rule out Burnham and Cooper if they lose this leadership election. They will have been tried and found wanting. So decision (1) is: will Andy or Yvette win? If so, they (d.v.) will be the leader at the next election. If Corbyn wins then decision (2) is will he go? Personally, I think this is unlikely. If not, then he will be the leader at the next election. and so forth etc...''
Yes, all very sound. But why should a plot require David Miliband to play the role of the returning prince from across the ocean? Such a plot would require Watson to be involved and therefore someone he was in tune with. Why would a stop gap candidate have to be from the next generation - they are as bad as the current lot for starters. Why is Dan Jarvis, who has done absolutely nothing to justify any political office - although he does have a conveniently blokey name, be so prominent? The obvious stop gap candidate that could laugh and tap dance his way through the election with bare faced aplomb is Alan Johnson. Why mark him down so low?? He would only have to play the role for 12 months.
Good line from Camilla Long about 'Corbynmania' - 'It is true the queue for the rally is enormous, but it is also roughly the same size as the bread queues will be, should Corbyn actually become our first far-left prime minister.' http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/focus/article1591228.ece
It is also true that the number of food banks has increased exponentially under Cameron
Why would anyone bet on next labour leader with Ladbrokes Burnham 13/8 Corbyn 8/5 Cooper 3/1 when they can get on them to be labour leader in 2020 Burnham 9/4 Corbyn 4/1 Cooper 4/1? Of course one might win the labour leadership and then not be the leader in 2020 but with Burnham or Cooper highly unlikely barring bad health or scandal and with Corbyn I suspect he would be very reluctant to hand over to anyone less left wing than himself.As we have seen in the past the parliamentary labour party are such a spineless bunch how many of them are going to try to push him that Corbyn respects personally ?
Been listening to a perambulation round how offensive Trump is on the Beeb paper review, without once detailing the remarks that were allegedly offensive.
A culture of "protecting you from that which might cause you to be upset, diddums".
Been listening to a perambulation round how offensive Trump is on the Beeb paper review, without once detailing the remarks that were allegedly offensive.
A culture of "protecting you from that which might cause you to be upset, diddums".
Gah.
Yes, that's a pet peeve of mine as well. How am I supposed to lnow how offended I'm supposed to be if I never get told what was said? Just take people's word for it?
At least in this case the media felt able to reproduce his words in print, which is not always the case, then it gets really silly -"some stuff was said which was potentially offensive to some people, but we won't explain it so you don't get all faint on us"
Comments
http://youtu.be/CY_BgnZdwko
If Trump retains that support and wins those 4 then he's the nominee based solely on momentum, in fact no republican presidential candidate has ever failed to get the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire, and no republican candidate has ever got it without winning in at least one of the two.
Their motto is "God, Guns and Guts".
So decision (1) is: will Andy or Yvette win? If so, they (d.v.) will be the leader at the next election.
If Corbyn wins then decision (2) is will he go? Personally, I think this is unlikely. If not, then he will be the leader at the next election.
If Corbyn goes, then decision (3) is will he go early? If he goes early, then decision (4) is does he go as a result of a plot? If Yes, then it feels the only person who could front such a plot is David Miliband - but he needs to get into Parliament, which may not be as easy as it sounds.
If decision (3) is yes and (4) is no: then bet on the next generation. Here I have no real view, but would assume that the winner of the deputy leadership would be well placed. I assume this would be Watson. Other candidates could be Creasy, Jarvis, and I like Kinnock as an outside bet. I think Umunna's time has passed.
If decision (4) is no [i.e. Corbyn goes late] then realistically it has to be someone acceptable to all parties, probably from the older generation. D. Miliband is possible, but see the issue above. Johnson doesn't seem to want it. Presumably the best placed as a stand in would be the winning of the deputy leadership campaign - probably Watson, possibly Creasy.
So odds:
(1) Burham: 37% probability of winning (3/1). Why not just bet on him winning?
(1) Cooper: 24% probability of winning (4/1). A little better value here, but money tied up
(2) Corbyn: 38% probability of winning. Essentially a little risk premium for the chance of a coup or enforced retirement, but offset by money being tied up for 4.5 years. Meh
(3) Corbyn wins (38%) so odds saying that [prob of coup * DM as winner] = 33%. Really?
(4) Corbyn wins (38%) * odds of coup (say 25%) gives you probability of a contest being 9.5%. So you need 10/1 odds just to get you to a contest. That means Jarvis is already not value and most of the rest are already priced at 2/1 - 4/1, which doesn't seem generous
Overall it doesn't look like much of a market to play in.
Possibly Kinnock as a fun bet. Possibly Watson for cynics.
Look back at my comments that early morning.
I watched the whole debate live and commented live on it here on PB, just to give a live impression of what was going on.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/09/student-debt-kick-in-teeth-for-poor-families
Incidentally I include Saudi Arabia in that description. It may be - from the West's perspective - the least worst option - but the kowtowing which Western governments (including our own) do to it is pretty nauseating, if understandable from a realpolitik perspective.
I also understand the differences between Sunni and Shia and the many civil wars going on within Islam and within and between Middle Eastern countries, which make any sort of outside intervention or, indeed, understanding so problematic.
Still, I'd be interested in knowing exactly how the above description is wrong when applied to countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and organisations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and, indeed, IS?
In both Iowa and New Hampshire since the modern primaries in 1972, 9 out of 15 victors of those states has won the nomination in both the Republican and Democratic races.
No Republican candidate has ever got the nomination without winning at least one of them.
Only in the Democratic primaries has one got the nomination without winning at least one of those 2 (1972, 1992).
And only one has become President without winning at least one of those 2 (Clinton).
The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.
Those much maligned public servants were, on this occasion, rather shrewder than the foolish Ministers or the PM.
I'd also be interested to know the basis on which the IR forgave NI payments which KC owed. The employees whose NI was not paid must, surely, have lost out?
Cruz: I speak the truth
Trump: I can grow the economy, no excuses
Bush: I have experience and heart
Rubio: I can explain this, I have answers
Kasich: Unite everybody
Carson: I have a brain
Walker: I have a wife, kids and a Harley
Huckabee: I am so Ardent
Rand and Christie: Bookends
But Socal loathes Trump with a passion.
All of them will stay until Iowa because of all the free TV air time from interviews and debates, they won't go bellow 10 candidates before New Hampshire.
Also the establishment 4 have billionaire patrons who will not cut off funding to their pets.
On top of that there is the 2012 example were even when the field finally was down to 3 candidates, Romney still managed to beat them simply because of momentum, it was too late.
Was trounced when she was the GOP nominee for CA Senator.
Interestingly, Socal didn't warm to her, and given that's the GOP heartland in CA, that didn't help.
As long as you can show P60's etc with the deductions made, NI will credit you with the payments.
But you said it anyway
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Education/article1591327.ece
Labour will come down on the side of In, whether or not Corbyn is leader. There are very few on the left who are anti-EU. Thinking otherwise is just wishful thinking by the BOOers.
http://frontloading.blogspot.gr/p/2016-presidential-primary-calendar.html
So, January next year.
Mr. Foxinsox, I largely agree, although some on the left did seem surprisingly anti-EU when Tsipras was being 'crucified'.
- Doesn't get on with Trump o
- Cruz; possibly
- Carson; not going to win
- Fiorina, Walker or Christie: possibly
- Bush: overlapping, not complementary
- Kasich: who's he?
- Huckabee: too southern a ticket
- Rand: isn't going to win
I could see Bush/Walker or Bush/Fiorina as viable tickets though:
Florida/Hispanic/establishment/core vote
Florida/Hispanic/establishment/tech money/women
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
Also she had one of the worst ads ever seen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKWlOxhSIKk
I quite liked the staffer in the sheep outfit crawling through the field...
As for Will Hutton, I assume that he has compromising photos of any number of people because his accuracy:inaccuracy ratio is weighted heavily towards the latter.
'There is also speculation that Mr Corbyn views himself as a stop-gap leader, who would stay in post for two or three years, until a slightly softer left figure rises to prominence. A senior party source suggested that 35-year-old Lisa Nandy, deputy party chairman John Trickett, and former National Union of Mineworkers president Ian Lavery could be ready for a leadership tilt by 2018.'
I think we can rule out Ian Lavery (a miner is not going to play well) and Jon Trickett is more of a backroom player. But Lisa Nandy is quite plausible. She could arguably prosper from either a Burnham or a Corbyn victory and enter the Shadow Cabinet (she nominated Burnham). It is interesting that her name was mentioned in this piece I imagine was informed by people quite close to Corbyn. If she became say Education Secretary under Corbyn she could perform well.
The other person that stands out at big odds and is worth a few quid is Stella Creasy. If she becomes Deputy (not impossible) then she'll be in a high profile position and will embody contrast to Corbyn and could run for it. She'd have to run a better campaign than to date for deputy but not impossible. You can imagine the press getting behind her.
Those two are worth a few quid and of the two I think Nandy is the better value.
Looking at US politics reminds me how European we are. I could imagine Merkel, Tsipras, Hollande or even Wilders as British politicians, but Trump and the seven dwarves? They seem like aliens from planet Zog.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiMAgsVYRCo
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/focus/article1591228.ece
And their comb overs.
Silicon Valley would quite happily vote for almost anyone else.
Edit: HP shares rose 10% on the day she was pushed out!
http://www.forbes.com/2005/02/09/cx_sr_0208carly.html
This does of course make her a good match for Trump. Both of them are more style than substance. Neither is a truly successful business person, manager or innovator.
She was incompetent as a CEO, she only became famous because she was only one of a few CEO's that were female.
Fiorina like Palin is only being promoted in politics because she is a woman, not because she is a competent woman. Same goes for Rubio, simply because he's hispanic doesn't mean he's competent in his job.
It's a big mistake to judge people simply by the colour of their skin or their gender.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1q9VLJYEWY
- Before joining the Euro, Greek government debt was considered very risky. So borrowing was expensive and limited. So when Greece went bust every now and again, it was for manageable sums.
- On joining the Euro, the Greek governments of left and right proceeded to buy votes and inflate the economy with borrowed money
- A tiny minority of Greeks objected to this - and were reviled by the left, in particular
- When 2008 happened, the river of cheap money dried up. Borrowing more and even servicing the debt became impossible.
- At this point, the Greek government was financing normal expenditure with annual borrowing to the tune of 10% of GDP.
- The EU stepped in, halved the debt and refinanced it at a tiny rate of interest and very delayed repayment.
So where did the austerity come from? the repayments on the refinanced debt weren't fatal - less than 3% of GDP. When the borrowing tap was turned off, the economy shrank back to its pre spending binge size. To reflate the economy, which is what the left wants, Greece requires a money river. What Syrezia really wanted was enough debt cancellation to restart international borrowing. Which would require cancelling most of it!
The hardline EU stance was based on decades of dealing with Greek governments that promise reform - but want the money first. When asked about the reform, they have all banged the patriotic drum. Hence the extremely hard core EU stuff about putting the reforms through parliament in days.
Charles points out ---- ''I think you can rule out Burnham and Cooper if they lose this leadership election. They will have been tried and found wanting.
So decision (1) is: will Andy or Yvette win? If so, they (d.v.) will be the leader at the next election.
If Corbyn wins then decision (2) is will he go? Personally, I think this is unlikely. If not, then he will be the leader at the next election.
and so forth etc...''
Yes, all very sound.
But why should a plot require David Miliband to play the role of the returning prince from across the ocean?
Such a plot would require Watson to be involved and therefore someone he was in tune with.
Why would a stop gap candidate have to be from the next generation - they are as bad as the current lot for starters. Why is Dan Jarvis, who has done absolutely nothing to justify any political office - although he does have a conveniently blokey name, be so prominent?
The obvious stop gap candidate that could laugh and tap dance his way through the election with bare faced aplomb is Alan Johnson. Why mark him down so low?? He would only have to play the role for 12 months.
A culture of "protecting you from that which might cause you to be upset, diddums".
Gah.
At least in this case the media felt able to reproduce his words in print, which is not always the case, then it gets really silly -"some stuff was said which was potentially offensive to some people, but we won't explain it so you don't get all faint on us"