In the general election maybe, but in their present mood the GOP base are not going to allow for a Rubio-Christie ticket. Indeed, Carson and Trump and Cruz combined have well over 50% of the GOP primary vote so even if one goes down another populist conservative will rise.
It should also be pointed out that going further back at this stage in 2000 Al Gore led the Democratic polls and George W Bush the GOP polls and in 1996 Bob Dole also led on the GOP side. It should also be noted that in 2008 Obama was second to Hillary at this stage and Romney was behind or ahead of Cain depending on what poll you looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2012_presidential_primaries In 2008 of course Giulani voters simply went to McCain
Meanwhile Carson is doing interviews about attacking his mother with a hammer and trying to stab another relative. Surely his ascendancy in the polls is over...
I'm from New Jersey. To misquote Mario Puzo, he's made more enemies in his home state than one governor can deal with in ten lifetimes. He wouldn't even win there.
Chris Christie is going nowhere, I don't see why Rubio would choose him and I can't see Christie serving under Rubio.
The idea that a Republican ticket needs "northern" balance doesn't make much sense. There aren't really votes up for grabs in the coastal North East region that Christie represents. The only geographic balance Rubio might need is to get someone from the industrial Midwest, to try to break into Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
More important would probably be gender balance, or even ethnic balance to reassure the white working class. He would also want someone who can show themselves to be disciplined and stay in someone else's shadow, which isn't Christie.
'If you haven’t seen it already . It really is impressive. I defy anyone to watch it and not look at him differently.'
Is there something missing there? Because otherwise this is a complete non sequitur.
On the whole, I agree - I think a Rubio/Christie ticket would be formidable. Just one point - I think either would beat Clinton quite easily even if it wasn't a joint ticket between the two. She wins against the others not because she is good, but because they are terrible.
Meanwhile Carson is doing interviews about attacking his mother with a hammer and trying to stab another relative. Surely his ascendancy in the polls is over...
The media outlets can't believe their luck. Normally they are trying to dig dirt on politicians, and then have said politician try and deny the dirty deed. In this case we have somebody across the media screaming I did try and stab somebody, I did....I did try and attack somebody with a hammer, I did, I am telling you I did.
Interesting article on an Oldham school attempting to promote integration, showing both progress and continuing hurdles - no visible axe to grind, just a thoughtful piece:
"Charlie Parker, who was chief executive of Oldham council from 2008 until 2013, told the writer David Goodhart that segregation was a sign of people feeling comfortable with their identities."
What a burk. Part of the big problem we've had with integration in this country is that people in positions of power don't want to tell ethnic minorities things they don't want to hear.
I think a policy of 'contact' is the right one, but not for the reasons the article says: that familiarity means people realise we're all alike. I've actually found it can go the other way. I've travelled all over the world, and in many cases it causes me to have a more positive opinion of a group, as in most African countries I've been to. But in other places, if there are genuinely concerning cultural differences, like in the Middle East, it makes me feel more alienated from the people that live in them. No, I think a policy of encouraging contact is the right one is because it will cause minority groups to become more like the dominant British culture, and to drop the more concerning misogyny, authoritarianism, conspiracy theories etc with time. What''s problematic is when you indulge these practices, such as the academy in question segregating boys and girls for play times.
Meanwhile Carson is doing interviews about attacking his mother with a hammer and trying to stab another relative. Surely his ascendancy in the polls is over...
The media outlets can't believe their luck. Normally they are trying to dig dirt on politicians, and then have said politician try and deny the dirty deed. In this case we have somebody across the media screaming I did try and stab somebody, I did....I did try and attack somebody with a hammer, I did, I am telling you I did.
Meanwhile Carson is doing interviews about attacking his mother with a hammer and trying to stab another relative. Surely his ascendancy in the polls is over...
The media outlets can't believe their luck. Normally they are trying to dig dirt on politicians, and then have said politician try and deny the dirty deed. In this case we have somebody across the media screaming I did try and stab somebody, I did....I did try and attack somebody with a hammer, I did, I am telling you I did.
Dr Carson's response to the "when did you stop beating your wife " question would be interesting.
'If you haven’t seen it already . It really is impressive. I defy anyone to watch it and not look at him differently.'
Is there something missing there? Because otherwise this is a complete non sequitur.
On the whole, I agree - I think a Rubio/Christie ticket would be formidable. Just one point - I think either would beat Clinton quite easily even if it wasn't a joint ticket between the two. She wins against the others not because she is good, but because they are terrible.
Yes, there was a formatting error and I've updated that section so it has the link
@keiranpedley: Just to be clear, I did try to attack my mum with a hammer- vote for me. So says US #POTUS2016 candidate Ben Carson https://t.co/TySpfFSJgu
Well, Comrade Corbyn has said he has full confidence in him - but in today's Alice In Wonderland that Labour inhabits - who knows if the football cliche is curtains or not.
I gather he can remain in his job, even if ejected from the Party. That such a scenario is plausible just shows how silly Labour has become.
The first job of the VP is to do no harm, Bridgegate is disqualifying, especially with the investigations still ongoing.
Indeed.
Rubio could pull off a historic ticket - minorities on top and bottom and male/female - by having either Nikki Haley or Susana Martinez as his VP candidate. If neither bring enough foreign and defence policy expertise, he could always recruit Condoleezza.
Meanwhile Carson is doing interviews about attacking his mother with a hammer and trying to stab another relative. Surely his ascendancy in the polls is over...
The media outlets can't believe their luck. Normally they are trying to dig dirt on politicians, and then have said politician try and deny the dirty deed. In this case we have somebody across the media screaming I did try and stab somebody, I did....I did try and attack somebody with a hammer, I did, I am telling you I did.
The anger/violence issue is key to his life story and appeal. Without it, there is no redemption.
As I've said many times, I do not believe that Carson (or Trump, or Fiorina) will get the nod. But equally, this is not the story that will kill Carson's candidacy.
OT The Morning Star leads on the Merchant Navy's exclusion from the Festival of Remembrance, and also covers the closure of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's pension scheme.
I am making sure I have Ted Cruz covered in my betting. If Donald Trump fades he looks best placed to collect the angry Republican vote. He would also be more formidable as a candidate than most of his rivals.
Meanwhile Carson is doing interviews about attacking his mother with a hammer and trying to stab another relative. Surely his ascendancy in the polls is over...
The media outlets can't believe their luck. Normally they are trying to dig dirt on politicians, and then have said politician try and deny the dirty deed. In this case we have somebody across the media screaming I did try and stab somebody, I did....I did try and attack somebody with a hammer, I did, I am telling you I did.
Dr Carson's response to the "when did you stop beating your wife " question would be interesting.
Carson has answered that question - or rather volunteered it - at age 14 following the 'stabbing incident' through finding God. Please try to keep up.
FPT, I did say it would be it 2:1 REMAIN in NI a few weeks ago and I even got the right direction...
Hardly a surprise, given a large part of the peace talks strategy was to use membership of the EU as a way of diminishing the importance of the whole issue of NI's status (either within the UK or united with the ROI). Thus those against the old status quo would favour the EU, and those for it would be against.
'If you haven’t seen it already . It really is impressive. I defy anyone to watch it and not look at him differently.'
Is there something missing there? Because otherwise this is a complete non sequitur.
On the whole, I agree - I think a Rubio/Christie ticket would be formidable. Just one point - I think either would beat Clinton quite easily even if it wasn't a joint ticket between the two. She wins against the others not because she is good, but because they are terrible.
Yes, there was a formatting error and I've updated that section so it has the link
Chris Christie is going nowhere, I don't see why Rubio would choose him and I can't see Christie serving under Rubio.
The idea that a Republican ticket needs "northern" balance doesn't make much sense. There aren't really votes up for grabs in the coastal North East region that Christie represents. The only geographic balance Rubio might need is to get someone from the industrial Midwest, to try to break into Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
More important would probably be gender balance, or even ethnic balance to reassure the white working class. He would also want someone who can show themselves to be disciplined and stay in someone else's shadow, which isn't Christie.
That sounds right to me. Rubio is clearly a strong candidate, both now and vs Clinton, but he's not really been tested yet as potential winner as Trump and now Carson are being tested. Is there any polling data on attitudes or second preferences of Trump/Carson backers towards the others? For instance, is there actual evidence that Carson backers would switch to Cruz?
Mr. T, not au fait with American politics but I thought Rice was out of the game now?
To my knowledge, she has never run for elected office, but has moved in and out of political appointments, academia and think tanks her whole career. She is only 60 (61 next week). Having been NSA and SoS, my guess is she'd answer the call.
"Communists ready to assume power in Portugal and topple conservative government Anti-euro Communist party say 'conditions are in place' to form historic triple Left coalition and bring down centre-right"
FPT, I did say it would be it 2:1 REMAIN in NI a few weeks ago and I even got the right direction...
Yes, after Scotland and London NI is likely to be the most pro Remain vote, although as the poll states Unionists will still vote Out, it is just the huge margin for In with Nationalists which will give Remain its lead
Well, Comrade Corbyn has said he has full confidence in him - but in today's Alice In Wonderland that Labour inhabits - who knows if the football cliche is curtains or not.
I gather he can remain in his job, even if ejected from the Party. That such a scenario is plausible just shows how silly Labour has become.
@keiranpedley: Just to be clear, I did try to attack my mum with a hammer- vote for me. So says US #POTUS2016 candidate Ben Carson https://t.co/TySpfFSJgu
Well, Comrade Corbyn has said he has full confidence in him - but in today's Alice In Wonderland that Labour inhabits - who knows if the football cliche is curtains or not.
I gather he can remain in his job, even if ejected from the Party. That such a scenario is plausible just shows how silly Labour has become.
@keiranpedley: Just to be clear, I did try to attack my mum with a hammer- vote for me. So says US #POTUS2016 candidate Ben Carson https://t.co/TySpfFSJgu
Chris Christie is going nowhere, I don't see why Rubio would choose him and I can't see Christie serving under Rubio.
The idea that a Republican ticket needs "northern" balance doesn't make much sense. There aren't really votes up for grabs in the coastal North East region that Christie represents. The only geographic balance Rubio might need is to get someone from the industrial Midwest, to try to break into Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
More important would probably be gender balance, or even ethnic balance to reassure the white working class. He would also want someone who can show themselves to be disciplined and stay in someone else's shadow, which isn't Christie.
That sounds right to me. Rubio is clearly a strong candidate, both now and vs Clinton, but he's not really been tested yet as potential winner as Trump and now Carson are being tested. Is there any polling data on attitudes or second preferences of Trump/Carson backers towards the others? For instance, is there actual evidence that Carson backers would switch to Cruz?
A PPP Iowa poll earlier this month had Carson voters second preferences going
Cruz 19% Trump 18% Rubio 14% Jeb 12% Undecided 10%
Well, Comrade Corbyn has said he has full confidence in him - but in today's Alice In Wonderland that Labour inhabits - who knows if the football cliche is curtains or not.
I gather he can remain in his job, even if ejected from the Party. That such a scenario is plausible just shows how silly Labour has become.
When will Corbyn's deputy commissar's fate be known?
David Gergen: Reagan to Clinton. He was still a Republican. Wasn't Bernard Ingham a member of the Labour Party ?
Did either of those publicly admit to fantasising about committing acts of violence upon their political colleagues? I don't think calling Biffen 'semi-detached' quite covers it!
@keiranpedley: Just to be clear, I did try to attack my mum with a hammer- vote for me. So says US #POTUS2016 candidate Ben Carson https://t.co/TySpfFSJgu
FPT, I did say it would be it 2:1 REMAIN in NI a few weeks ago and I even got the right direction...
Hardly a surprise, given a large part of the peace talks strategy was to use membership of the EU as a way of diminishing the importance of the whole issue of NI's status (either within the UK or united with the ROI). Thus those against the old status quo would favour the EU, and those for it would be against.
We sometimes hear about identity politics in British Muslim communities but in NI the very constitutional foundation of the political system is identity politics. So Nationalists (nowadays just a PC term for Catholics) plus Protestant farmers and Alliance voters equals a big majority for REMAIN, I think, even if it ends up less than 2:1. Ukip is on the march in Unionist politics but I think mostly because of alienation from the DUP rather than deep-seated hostility to Europe. Even Ukip has been becalmed now that the narrative is UUP revival, which to be fair was a remarkable story from May.
Chris Christie is going nowhere, I don't see why Rubio would choose him and I can't see Christie serving under Rubio.
The idea that a Republican ticket needs "northern" balance doesn't make much sense. There aren't really votes up for grabs in the coastal North East region that Christie represents. The only geographic balance Rubio might need is to get someone from the industrial Midwest, to try to break into Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
More important would probably be gender balance, or even ethnic balance to reassure the white working class. He would also want someone who can show themselves to be disciplined and stay in someone else's shadow, which isn't Christie.
That sounds right to me. Rubio is clearly a strong candidate, both now and vs Clinton, but he's not really been tested yet as potential winner as Trump and now Carson are being tested. Is there any polling data on attitudes or second preferences of Trump/Carson backers towards the others? For instance, is there actual evidence that Carson backers would switch to Cruz?
A PPP Iowa poll earlier this month had Carson voters second preferences going
Cruz 19% Trump 18% Rubio 14% Jeb 12% Undecided 10%
Well, Comrade Corbyn has said he has full confidence in him - but in today's Alice In Wonderland that Labour inhabits - who knows if the football cliche is curtains or not.
I gather he can remain in his job, even if ejected from the Party. That such a scenario is plausible just shows how silly Labour has become.
When will Corbyn's deputy commissar's fate be known?
David Gergen: Reagan to Clinton. He was still a Republican. Wasn't Bernard Ingham a member of the Labour Party ?
Did either of those publicly admit to fantasising about committing acts of violence upon their political colleagues? I don't think calling Biffen 'semi-detached' quite covers it!
WTF are you talking about ? My response was to this sentence. I was not moralising.
"I gather he can remain in his job, even if ejected from the Party. That such a scenario is plausible just shows how silly Labour has become."
@keiranpedley: Just to be clear, I did try to attack my mum with a hammer- vote for me. So says US #POTUS2016 candidate Ben Carson https://t.co/TySpfFSJgu
Well, Comrade Corbyn has said he has full confidence in him - but in today's Alice In Wonderland that Labour inhabits - who knows if the football cliche is curtains or not.
I gather he can remain in his job, even if ejected from the Party. That such a scenario is plausible just shows how silly Labour has become.
When will Corbyn's deputy commissar's fate be known?
David Gergen: Reagan to Clinton. He was still a Republican. Wasn't Bernard Ingham a member of the Labour Party ?
Did either of those publicly admit to fantasising about committing acts of violence upon their political colleagues? I don't think calling Biffen 'semi-detached' quite covers it!
WTF are you talking about ? My response was to this sentence. I was not moralising.
"I gather he can remain in his job, even if ejected from the Party. That such a scenario is plausible just shows how silly Labour has become."
Oh, I see. I thought it was a reference to his qualifications! My apologies. However, it is worth pointing out that those were both technically government officials, not paid by the party itself for partisan advice (although most people consider INgham in particular very partisan of course).
For a political party (at least in opposition) to appoint (retain) a political adviser who has been expelled from that party for serious misconduct would so far as I am aware be unprecedented. Certainly it would be crazy for Corbyn to even attempt to do it. It would show utter contempt for the Labour party's rules - and not least, would surely seriously annoy Hilary Benn.
Chris Christie is going nowhere, I don't see why Rubio would choose him and I can't see Christie serving under Rubio.
The idea that a Republican ticket needs "northern" balance doesn't make much sense. There aren't really votes up for grabs in the coastal North East region that Christie represents. The only geographic balance Rubio might need is to get someone from the industrial Midwest, to try to break into Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
More important would probably be gender balance, or even ethnic balance to reassure the white working class. He would also want someone who can show themselves to be disciplined and stay in someone else's shadow, which isn't Christie.
That sounds right to me. Rubio is clearly a strong candidate, both now and vs Clinton, but he's not really been tested yet as potential winner as Trump and now Carson are being tested. Is there any polling data on attitudes or second preferences of Trump/Carson backers towards the others? For instance, is there actual evidence that Carson backers would switch to Cruz?
A PPP Iowa poll earlier this month had Carson voters second preferences going
Cruz 19% Trump 18% Rubio 14% Jeb 12% Undecided 10%
Well, Comrade Corbyn has said he has full confidence in him - but in today's Alice In Wonderland that Labour inhabits - who knows if the football cliche is curtains or not.
I gather he can remain in his job, even if ejected from the Party. That such a scenario is plausible just shows how silly Labour has become.
When will Corbyn's deputy commissar's fate be known?
David Gergen: Reagan to Clinton. He was still a Republican. Wasn't Bernard Ingham a member of the Labour Party ?
Did either of those publicly admit to fantasising about committing acts of violence upon their political colleagues? I don't think calling Biffen 'semi-detached' quite covers it!
WTF are you talking about ? My response was to this sentence. I was not moralising.
"I gather he can remain in his job, even if ejected from the Party. That such a scenario is plausible just shows how silly Labour has become."
Oh, I see. I thought it was a reference to his qualifications! My apologies. However, it is worth pointing out that those were both technically government officials, not paid by the party itself for partisan advice (although most people consider INgham in particular very partisan of course).
For a political party (at least in opposition) to appoint (retain) a political adviser who has been expelled from that party for serious misconduct would so far as I am aware be unprecedented. Certainly it would be crazy for Corbyn to even attempt to do it. It would show utter contempt for the Labour party's rules - and not least, would surely seriously annoy Hilary Benn.
Does Hilary Benn have the backbone to stand up to Corbyn? He is only the uncle of the maligned PPC.
Does Hilary Benn have the backbone to stand up to Corbyn? He is only the uncle of the maligned PPC.
He doesn't have to 'stand up' to Corbyn. All he would have to do is resign. As for requiring backbone to face Corbyn, If I were in Hilary's shoes I'd be a good deal more afraid of what Lord Stansgate would say. Corbyn, let's face it, is a complete nonentity. Although he's abusive and dishonest, he's not scary (McDonnell or Watson would be a different matter). Stansgate, from all I know of him, is much more forceful.
Meanwhile Carson is doing interviews about attacking his mother with a hammer and trying to stab another relative. Surely his ascendancy in the polls is over...
The media outlets can't believe their luck. Normally they are trying to dig dirt on politicians, and then have said politician try and deny the dirty deed. In this case we have somebody across the media screaming I did try and stab somebody, I did....I did try and attack somebody with a hammer, I did, I am telling you I did.
Dr Carson's response to the "when did you stop beating your wife " question would be interesting.
Carson has answered that question - or rather volunteered it - at age 14 following the 'stabbing incident' through finding God. Please try to keep up.
Mom, hammer attacks, stabbings, apple pie and Jesus.
THank HYUFD - the charm of PB, just ask for info and it appears! Suggests that Carson's voters are not firmly in either establishment or anti-establishment camps, as we might expect - they're perhaps more motivated by simply liking Carson and maybe his religious beliefs.
We have about 5 weeks before attention switches to Christmas. After that, everyone will get much more serious.
Well, Comrade Corbyn has said he has full confidence in him - but in today's Alice In Wonderland that Labour inhabits - who knows if the football cliche is curtains or not.
I gather he can remain in his job, even if ejected from the Party. That such a scenario is plausible just shows how silly Labour has become.
When will Corbyn's deputy commissar's fate be known?
David Gergen: Reagan to Clinton. He was still a Republican. Wasn't Bernard Ingham a member of the Labour Party ?
Did either of those publicly admit to fantasising about committing acts of violence upon their political colleagues? I don't think calling Biffen 'semi-detached' quite covers it!
WTF are you talking about ? My response was to this sentence. I was not moralising.
"I gather he can remain in his job, even if ejected from the Party. That such a scenario is plausible just shows how silly Labour has become."
Oh, I see. I thought it was a reference to his qualifications! My apologies. However, it is worth pointing out that those were both technically government officials, not paid by the party itself for partisan advice (although most people consider INgham in particular very partisan of course).
For a political party (at least in opposition) to appoint (retain) a political adviser who has been expelled from that party for serious misconduct would so far as I am aware be unprecedented. Certainly it would be crazy for Corbyn to even attempt to do it. It would show utter contempt for the Labour party's rules - and not least, would surely seriously annoy Hilary Benn.
Does Hilary Benn have the backbone to stand up to Corbyn? He is only the uncle of the maligned PPC.
Benn will stay, as long as he remains Shadow Foreign Secretary he is in prime position to succeed Corbyn in 2017 if Labour's position has not significantly improved by then
OT The Morning Star leads on the Merchant Navy's exclusion from the Festival of Remembrance, and also covers the closure of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's pension scheme.
The Merchant Navy is the only service not to give a long service medal.
They were at the start of the war and throughout the war the service that kept the food, supplies and materials flowing into Gt Britain. They suffered the highest casualty loss in WW2 of any single service.
THank HYUFD - the charm of PB, just ask for info and it appears! Suggests that Carson's voters are not firmly in either establishment or anti-establishment camps, as we might expect - they're perhaps more motivated by simply liking Carson and maybe his religious beliefs.
We have about 5 weeks before attention switches to Christmas. After that, everyone will get much more serious.
Hope you found it useful, as you suggest a Carson exit would probably make little difference either way
OT The Morning Star leads on the Merchant Navy's exclusion from the Festival of Remembrance, and also covers the closure of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's pension scheme.
The Merchant Navy is the only service not to give a long service medal.
They were at the start of the war and throughout the war the service that kept the food, supplies and materials flowing into Gt Britain. They suffered the highest casualty loss in WW2 of any single service.
Lest we forget.....
Is that right, Mr. Moses? Did the merchant marine really have the worst a casualty rate? I had always though that taken across the whole war that dubious honour was held by Bomber Command. Have you got a source I can read up on?
Carson's book may have got 5 star reviews but that was when people believed everything in it was true. Now bits of it are turning out to be dubious. West Point, violent past, claiming to have protected white students in a riot, being rewarded for his honesty as a student, and on it goes. Wall Street Journal is known for its attention to accuracy and they have written a story which suggests that quite a lot of what he has claimed about his life cannot be verified. Some supporters will brush that off as smears or similar. But others will be seriously annoyed if they think they have been fooled by him having made up what they took to be truth.
Never mind the Biblical literalism etc (he is a creationist I believe, which would be scary in a President TBH), he clearly has ignored the much more salient and unarguable fact that the pyramids are solid objects with only small corridors and chambers in them, so you wouldn't exactly fit a lot of grain into them.
In any other country nobody would be taking him seriously as a contender for a presidential role. American politics. Go figure.
Never mind the Biblical literalism etc (he is a creationist I believe, which would be scary in a President TBH), he clearly has ignored the much more salient and unarguable fact that the pyramids are solid objects with only small corridors and chambers in them, so you wouldn't exactly fit a lot of grain into them.
In any other country nobody would be taking him seriously as a contender for a presidential role. American politics. Go figure.
All the leading candidates on both sides are bloody awful.
OT The Morning Star leads on the Merchant Navy's exclusion from the Festival of Remembrance, and also covers the closure of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's pension scheme.
The Merchant Navy is the only service not to give a long service medal.
They were at the start of the war and throughout the war the service that kept the food, supplies and materials flowing into Gt Britain. They suffered the highest casualty loss in WW2 of any single service.
Lest we forget.....
Well there was an Atlantic Star and Arctic Convoys medal. Plus other theatre medals. Merchant seamen suffered severely in the war at various stages, although thanks to breaking the Enigma codes the entire American & Canadian army was transferred across the Atlantic without a single loss. Their losses were some 30,000 dead (I think WW1 losses were about 15,000) . It is a bit miserable I know to put various groups in a list but Bomber Command lost 55,500 dead out of a force of 125,000.
Thanks Keiran for an interesting piece. I don't understand why Christie hasn't done better, other than the dodgy issue of the bridge in NJ and, of course, his lack of raving tea party nonsense.
It seems incredible to believe that the GOP primary wont get serious at some point, rather than the current clown-fest, but that point seems to get put back every month.
Never mind the Biblical literalism etc (he is a creationist I believe, which would be scary in a President TBH), he clearly has ignored the much more salient and unarguable fact that the pyramids are solid objects with only small corridors and chambers in them, so you wouldn't exactly fit a lot of grain into them.
In any other country nobody would be taking him seriously as a contender for a presidential role. American politics. Go figure.
Before we get self-righteous about it, I'm sure other countries could say the same about Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and British politics. Carson hasn't actually achieved anything but be in the running, and he won't get selected. Our nutcases are the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The first job of the VP is to do no harm, Bridgegate is disqualifying, especially with the investigations still ongoing.
Indeed.
Rubio could pull off a historic ticket - minorities on top and bottom and male/female - by having either Nikki Haley or Susana Martinez as his VP candidate. If neither bring enough foreign and defence policy expertise, he could always recruit Condoleezza.
Condoleeza Rice has always been talked about as a potential ticket member but she has always seemed completely uninterested in electoral politics. I can't help but feel people suggest her more based on hope than reality.
OT The Morning Star leads on the Merchant Navy's exclusion from the Festival of Remembrance, and also covers the closure of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's pension scheme.
The Merchant Navy is the only service not to give a long service medal.
They were at the start of the war and throughout the war the service that kept the food, supplies and materials flowing into Gt Britain. They suffered the highest casualty loss in WW2 of any single service.
Lest we forget.....
Is that right, Mr. Moses? Did the merchant marine really have the worst a casualty rate? I had always though that taken across the whole war that dubious honour was held by Bomber Command. Have you got a source I can read up on?
Casualty rates in bomber command were around 51%, according to Messenger's book on Harris. However, the overall casualty rate for the RAF as a whole was much lower - only around 23,000 non-BC men (and women)! lost their lives in combat during the war, compared to 47,000 in Bomber Command. I can't however find the numbers who served from anything akin to a reliable source, so I don't know what the casualty rate was. On the assumption (which may be a reckless one) that the other services (Fighter, Transport and Coastal) were about 50% larger than BC when added together, I would guess at around 250,000 total, therefore a casualty rate of around 28%. However, as that includes casualties on the ground, which would increase the numbers of combatants, I may be inflating the figure somewhat.
The casualty rate in the merchant navy was confirmed as a minimum of 32,000 of 145,000, still a staggering 22%, which Mark Arnold-Forster noted 'was comparable to the casualty rate suffered by those forces assigned to particularly desperate missions'. (source: Mark Arnold-Forster, The World At War, London 2001, p. 67). To put it in context, the numbers actually killed at St Nazaire were around 27% of the total, although that does not include numbers taken prisoner. Arnold-Forster compared them to the Chindits, fighting behind enemy lines in Burma.
It is generally accepted among historians that the merchant navy did indeed suffer the worst casualty rate of British forces. However, I have very seldom seen detailed statistical analysis to back that up. What I can say, for definite, is that those on the Arctic Convoys suffered far worse than even Bomber Command and barely better than the poor souls who were slung at Dieppe for no apparent reason and 75% of which failed to return, which is why it was and remains scandalous that for so many years they did not have a dedicated campaign medal.
OT The Morning Star leads on the Merchant Navy's exclusion from the Festival of Remembrance, and also covers the closure of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's pension scheme.
The Merchant Navy is the only service not to give a long service medal.
They were at the start of the war and throughout the war the service that kept the food, supplies and materials flowing into Gt Britain. They suffered the highest casualty loss in WW2 of any single service.
Lest we forget.....
Is that right, Mr. Moses? Did the merchant marine really have the worst a casualty rate? I had always though that taken across the whole war that dubious honour was held by Bomber Command. Have you got a source I can read up on?
Purnell history published in the 70's". My father purchased the whole series. The total figure estimated the. to be in the region of 50,000. By the time the war ended . Around 30,000 died a result of U Boat activities alone. Many more died as a result of surface raiders and other other reasons" Included in the figures are those from the commonwealth of course.
Bomber command certainly took a huge loss close to 45, 000. I suppose it is debatable which took the worse loss. The point is here none should be sidelined. Their service throughout enabled the war to be continued and then taken to the enemy.
Certainly the Battle of Britain pilots saved the day as well. It should be remembered that the planes needed fuel and this was brought in by the merchant navy at considerable loss. A small footnote that is rarely if ever mentioned.
@keiranpedley: Just to be clear, I did try to attack my mum with a hammer- vote for me. So says US #POTUS2016 candidate Ben Carson https://t.co/TySpfFSJgu
OT The Morning Star leads on the Merchant Navy's exclusion from the Festival of Remembrance, and also covers the closure of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's pension scheme.
The Merchant Navy is the only service not to give a long service medal.
They were at the start of the war and throughout the war the service that kept the food, supplies and materials flowing into Gt Britain. They suffered the highest casualty loss in WW2 of any single service.
Lest we forget.....
Is that right, Mr. Moses? Did the merchant marine really have the worst a casualty rate? I had always though that taken across the whole war that dubious honour was held by Bomber Command. Have you got a source I can read up on?
Purnell history published in the 70's". My father purchased the whole series. The total figure estimated the. to be in the region of 50,000. By the time the war ended . Around 30,000 died a result of U Boat activities alone. Many more died as a result of surface raiders and other other reasons" Included in the figures are those from the commonwealth of course.
Bomber command certainly took a huge loss close to 45, 000. I suppose it is debatable which took the worse loss. The point is here none should be sidelined. Their service throughout enabled the war to be continued and then taken to the enemy.
Certainly the Battle of Britain pilots saved the day as well. It should be remembered that the planes needed fuel and this was brought in by the merchant navy at considerable loss. A small footnote that is rarely if ever mentioned.
A very valid point, Mr Moses. And it is also worth remembering that the tanker crews suffered by far the worst casualties of the merchant navy, because not only were they the most tempting targets for the Germans, but their cargo had a very unpleasant habit of setting the sea on fire and making it impossible for the crews to escape.
OT The Morning Star leads on the Merchant Navy's exclusion from the Festival of Remembrance, and also covers the closure of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's pension scheme.
The Merchant Navy is the only service not to give a long service medal.
They were at the start of the war and throughout the war the service that kept the food, supplies and materials flowing into Gt Britain. They suffered the highest casualty loss in WW2 of any single service.
Lest we forget.....
Is that right, Mr. Moses? Did the merchant marine really have the worst a casualty rate? I had always though that taken across the whole war that dubious honour was held by Bomber Command. Have you got a source I can read up on?
Purnell history published in the 70's". My father purchased the whole series. The total figure estimated the. to be in the region of 50,000. By the time the war ended . Around 30,000 died a result of U Boat activities alone. Many more died as a result of surface raiders and other other reasons" Included in the figures are those from the commonwealth of course.
Bomber command certainly took a huge loss close to 45, 000. I suppose it is debatable which took the worse loss. The point is here none should be sidelined. Their service throughout enabled the war to be continued and then taken to the enemy.
Certainly the Battle of Britain pilots saved the day as well. It should be remembered that the planes needed fuel and this was brought in by the merchant navy at considerable loss. A small footnote that is rarely if ever mentioned.
Officially Bomber Command lost 55,573 men killed. There is a memorial with the figure on the side of the Nat West Bank in Newark. Until the BC memorial was unveiled in London it was the only official memorial to Bomber Command in Britain.
Casualty rates in bomber command were around 51%, according to Messenger's book on Harris. However, the overall casualty rate for the RAF as a whole was much lower - only around 23,000 non-BC men (and women)! lost their lives in combat during the war, compared to 47,000 in Bomber Command. I can't however find the numbers who served from anything akin to a reliable source, so I don't know what the casualty rate was. On the assumption (which may be a reckless one) that the other services (Fighter, Transport and Coastal) were about 50% larger than BC when added together, I would guess at around 250,000 total, therefore a casualty rate of around 28%. However, as that includes casualties on the ground, which would increase the numbers of combatants, I may be inflating the figure somewhat.
The casualty rate in the merchant navy was confirmed as a minimum of 32,000 of 145,000, still a staggering 22%, which Mark Arnold-Forster noted 'was comparable to the casualty rate suffered by those forces assigned to particularly desperate missions'. (source: Mark Arnold-Forster, The World At War, London 2001, p. 67). To put it in context, the numbers actually killed at St Nazaire were around 27% of the total, although that does not include numbers taken prisoner. Arnold-Forster compared them to the Chindits, fighting behind enemy lines in Burma.
It is generally accepted among historians that the merchant navy did indeed suffer the worst casualty rate of British forces. However, I have very seldom seen detailed statistical analysis to back that up. What I can say, for definite, is that those on the Arctic Convoys suffered far worse than even Bomber Command and barely better than the poor souls who were slung at Dieppe for no apparent reason and 75% of which failed to return, which is why it was and remains scandalous that for so many years they did not have a dedicated campaign medal.
Just before my Grandmother died last year at the age of 93 she received my Grandfather's Arctic Star. It meant a great deal to her tat his service on the Murmansk runs had been recognised.
OT The Morning Star leads on the Merchant Navy's exclusion from the Festival of Remembrance, and also covers the closure of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's pension scheme.
The Merchant Navy is the only service not to give a long service medal.
They were at the start of the war and throughout the war the service that kept the food, supplies and materials flowing into Gt Britain. They suffered the highest casualty loss in WW2 of any single service.
Lest we forget.....
Is that right, Mr. Moses? Did the merchant marine really have the worst a casualty rate? I had always though that taken across the whole war that dubious honour was held by Bomber Command. Have you got a source I can read up on?
Purnell history published in the 70's". My father purchased the whole series. The total figure estimated the. to be in the region of 50,000. By the time the war ended . Around 30,000 died a result of U Boat activities alone. Many more died as a result of surface raiders and other other reasons" Included in the figures are those from the commonwealth of course.
Bomber command certainly took a huge loss close to 45, 000. I suppose it is debatable which took the worse loss. The point is here none should be sidelined. Their service throughout enabled the war to be continued and then taken to the enemy.
Certainly the Battle of Britain pilots saved the day as well. It should be remembered that the planes needed fuel and this was brought in by the merchant navy at considerable loss. A small footnote that is rarely if ever mentioned.
A very valid point, Mr Moses. And it is also worth remembering that the tanker crews suffered by far the worst casualties of the merchant navy, because not only were they the most tempting targets for the Germans, but their cargo had a very unpleasant habit of setting the sea on fire and making it impossible for the crews to escape.
Quite so. There really was little chance when these were torpedoed. It's just so sad that these guys and the rest of those in the merchant service never really achieved the same sort of recognition as many other services. All were highly valued but sometimes more could have been done. I believe it took many years to have the red ensign hung at the cenotaph. It is now of course. The Merchant Navy memorial at Tower Hill is worth a visit if you happen to be passing by.
Cue a 98-year argument on whether it was the 'October' or 'November' revolution.
Unhelpfully from my point of view, OCR calls it 'November' and AQA 'October.'
Gregorian calendar (ie. wot we've been using since 1752) says 7th November. 25th October "old style" (ie. Julian Calendar) which Russia was using at the time.
Just before my Grandmother died last year at the age of 93 she received my Grandfather's Arctic Star. It meant a great deal to her tat his service on the Murmansk runs had been recognised.
I'm glad to hear that. Like I said, it was is a scandal the contribution to the war effort of people like your grandfather, or my old friend Alec Spencer, under horrendous conditions and against what must have seemed near-hopeless odds, was not properly recognised in the 1940s when they made it.
Just before my Grandmother died last year at the age of 93 she received my Grandfather's Arctic Star. It meant a great deal to her tat his service on the Murmansk runs had been recognised.
I'm glad to hear that. Like I said, it was a scandal the contribution of people like your grandfather, or my old friend Alec Spencer, under horrendous conditions and against what must have seemed near-hopeless odds, to the war effort was not properly recognised in the 1940s when they made it.
Yes quite agree with that. Arctic Convoys were terrible and as far as I can see the Russians never gave proper appreciation.
Casualty rates in bomber command were around 51%, according to Messenger's book on Harris. However, the overall casualty rate for the RAF as a whole was much lower - only around 23,000 non-BC men (and women)! lost their lives in combat during the war, compared to 47,000 in Bomber Command. I can't however find the numbers who served from anything akin to a reliable source, so I don't know what the casualty rate was. On the assumption (which may be a reckless one) that the other services (Fighter, Transport and Coastal) were about 50% larger than BC when added together, I would guess at around 250,000 total, therefore a casualty rate of around 28%. However, as that includes casualties on the ground, which would increase the numbers of combatants, I may be inflating the figure somewhat.
The casualty rate in the merchant navy was confirmed as a minimum of 32,000 of 145,000, still a staggering 22%, which Mark Arnold-Forster noted 'was comparable to the casualty rate suffered by those forces assigned to particularly desperate missions'. (source: Mark Arnold-Forster, The World At War, London 2001, p. 67). To put it in context, the numbers actually killed at St Nazaire were around 27% of the total, although that does not include numbers taken prisoner. Arnold-Forster compared them to the Chindits, fighting behind enemy lines in Burma.
It is generally accepted among historians that the merchant navy did indeed suffer the worst casualty rate of British forces. However, I have very seldom seen detailed statistical analysis to back that up. What I can say, for definite, is that those on the Arctic Convoys suffered far worse than even Bomber Command and barely better than the poor souls who were slung at Dieppe for no apparent reason and 75% of which failed to return, which is why it was and remains scandalous that for so many years they did not have a dedicated campaign medal.
Just before my Grandmother died last year at the age of 93 she received my Grandfather's Arctic Star. It meant a great deal to her tat his service on the Murmansk runs had been recognised.
That's a lovely story. Glad she lived to see him officially recognised for his service.
I see from the last thread that the idea of a left wing pact for 2020 (similar to the Con/UKIP pact calls before the election) has surfaced. While a pact might help Lab, I don't see what is in it for the Greens as they are trying to take seats from Lab in the main.
The other thing this suggested pact would do is bring in the holy grail of the left - voting reform.
I thought it might be interesting to work out what the result of the last election would have been under PR if all votes were cast the same. Most PR systems have a threshold of 3-5%.
I have used the standard UK regions and applied a threshold of 3% to each. I have assumed Wales would get the same number of seats as under FPTP. The results I got were as follows:
SW - C26,L10,U8,LD8,G3 SE - C43,L16,U13,LD8,G4 London - C26,L32,U6,LD6,G3 Eastern - C29,L13,U9,LD5,G2 E Mids - C21,L15,U7,LD3 W Mids - C25,L20,U9,LD3,G2 Yorks - C18,L21,U9,LD4,G2 NW - C24,L34,U10,LD5,G2 NE - C7,L14,U5,LD2,G1 Wales - C11,L15,U6,LD3,PC5 Scotland - C9, L15, LD5, SNP30 NI - DUP5,SF5,UUP3, SDLP3, AP2
That would give a UK total as follows:
Con 239 (-91) Lab 205 (-27) UKIP 82 (+81) LD 52 (+44) SNP 30 (-26) Green 19 (+18) Plaid 5 (+2) DUP 5 (-3) SF 5(+1) UUP (3+1) SDLP 3 (nc) Alliance 2(+2)
So Cons would be the biggest losers but Lab and SNP would also lose out. The big winners would be UKIP and the LDs.
Contrary to the wishes of the left, no left alliance would be possible. The only realistic deal would be Con+UKIP+NI unionists
Never mind the Biblical literalism etc (he is a creationist I believe, which would be scary in a President TBH), he clearly has ignored the much more salient and unarguable fact that the pyramids are solid objects with only small corridors and chambers in them, so you wouldn't exactly fit a lot of grain into them.
In any other country nobody would be taking him seriously as a contender for a presidential role. American politics. Go figure.
All the leading candidates on both sides are bloody awful.
The thing is, someone has to win. One of these muppets currently standing will be sworn in as POTUS in 15 months' time!!
Casualty rates in bomber command were around 51%, according to Messenger's book on Harris. However, the overall casualty rate for the RAF as a whole was much lower - only around 23,000 non-BC men (and women)! lost their lives in combat during the war, compared to 47,000 in Bomber Command. I can't however find the numbers who served from anything akin to a reliable source, so I don't know what the casualty rate was. On the assumption (which may be a reckless one) that the other services (Fighter, Transport and Coastal) were about 50% larger than BC when added together, I would guess at around 250,000 total, therefore a casualty rate of around 28%. However, as that includes casualties on the ground, which would increase the numbers of combatants, I may be inflating the figure somewhat.
The casualty rate in the merchant navy was confirmed as a minimum of 32,000 of 145,000, still a staggering 22%, which Mark Arnold-Forster noted 'was comparable to the casualty rate suffered by those forces assigned to particularly desperate missions'. (source: Mark Arnold-Forster, The World At War, London 2001, p. 67). To put it in context, the numbers actually killed at St Nazaire were around 27% of the total, although that does not include numbers taken prisoner. Arnold-Forster compared them to the Chindits, fighting behind enemy lines in Burma.
It is generally accepted among historians that the merchant navy did indeed suffer the worst casualty rate of British forces. However, I have very seldom seen detailed statistical analysis to back that up. What I can say, for definite, is that those on the Arctic Convoys suffered far worse than even Bomber Command and barely better than the poor souls who were slung at Dieppe for no apparent reason and 75% of which failed to return, which is why it was and remains scandalous that for so many years they did not have a dedicated campaign medal.
Just before my Grandmother died last year at the age of 93 she received my Grandfather's Arctic Star. It meant a great deal to her tat his service on the Murmansk runs had been recognised.
Very sad to hear that MrT but excellent this medal was presented in time. The arctic convoys were by far the most dangerous" if you were sunk there was no real chance of survival. By the time "the bone collectors vessels" got to you it was too late. Many simply died of shock as they hit the water or gasping drowned within seconds. Truly brave men one and all.
I see from the last thread that the idea of a left wing pact for 2020 (similar to the Con/UKIP pact calls before the election) has surfaced. While a pact might help Lab, I don't see what is in it for the Greens as they are trying to take seats from Lab in the main.
The other thing this suggested pact would do is bring in the holy grail of the left - voting reform.
I thought it might be interesting to work out what the result of the last election would have been under PR if all votes were cast the same. Most PR systems have a threshold of 3-5%.
I have used the standard UK regions and applied a threshold of 3% to each. I have assumed Wales would get the same number of seats as under FPTP. The results I got were as follows:
SW - C26,L10,U8,LD8,G3 SE - C43,L16,U13,LD8,G4 London - C26,L32,U6,LD6,G3 Eastern - C29,L13,U9,LD5,G2 E Mids - C21,L15,U7,LD3 W Mids - C25,L20,U9,LD3,G2 Yorks - C18,L21,U9,LD4,G2 NW - C24,L34,U10,LD5,G2 NE - C7,L14,U5,LD2,G1 Wales - C11,L15,U6,LD3,PC5 Scotland - C9, L15, LD5, SNP30 NI - DUP5,SF5,UUP3, SDLP3, AP2
That would give a UK total as follows:
Con 239 (-91) Lab 205 (-27) UKIP 82 (+81) LD 52 (+44) SNP 30 (-26) Green 19 (+18) Plaid 5 (+2) DUP 5 (-3) SF 5(+1) UUP (3+1) SDLP 3 (nc) Alliance 2(+2)
So Cons would be the biggest losers but Lab and SNP would also lose out. The big winners would be UKIP and the LDs.
Contrary to the wishes of the left, no left alliance would be possible. The only realistic deal would be Con+UKIP+NI unionists
As far as the Dieppe losses were concerned the Canadians lost 950 killed with an overall total of some 3,400 killed wounded and captured out of 6,100 who landed. This number of killed is very high, but we should be careful about equating casualties and people not coming back with assuming they are all killed. There were a number of reasons for the Dieppe raid but what it did put in motion was the idea of the temporary Mulberry harbours since it showed that a port could not be captured direct. In the event a large number of supplies were landed straight over the beach after D Day.
At various times in WW2 an individual event resulted in high losses -- HMS Hood sinking for instance. And Renown, Repulse. Lets not forget hundreds of Americans drowned practising for D Day.
Cue a 98-year argument on whether it was the 'October' or 'November' revolution.
Unhelpfully from my point of view, OCR calls it 'November' and AQA 'October.'
Gregorian calendar (ie. wot we've been using since 1752) says 7th November. 25th October "old style" (ie. Julian Calendar) which Russia was using at the time.
That is why the confusion!
If you want real confusion, try to write a Julian Day to local date converter that takes into account all the regions that swapped from Julian to Gregorian calenders in different years. A task made harder by other issues, such as the year the ordinal date became January 1st and territorial changes.
Fortunately most people bar historians ignore local dates, and historians have little use for Julian Day Numbers!
ISTR NASA cheats by having no dates before ?1600? or so.
@krishgm: #c4news Ken Livingstone tells us Andrew Fisher was joking, and he doesn't really think @SimonDanczuk and Frank Field should be purged
With all these "jokes" going around the Labour Party, they should put repackage them into a DVD like all the other left wing millionaire comics do for Christmas.
OK, Keiran Pedley should never write an article on PB ever again, especially on the US election.
The Christie thing is ludicrous, the man who is HATED (with capital letters) because of a very very long list of things he did in N.Jersey where he is governor there for 6 years.
Where do I start?
He supported Obama in 2012 (republicans hate him for that). He's a moderate (conservatives hate him for that). He's incompetent on economic and financial matters as he drove N.Jersey to the brink of bankruptcy and raided pensions (everyone and especially pensioners hate him for that).
The result of all this is that he is one of the most unpopular republicans in america and even his state hates him:
Casualty rates in bomber command were around 51%, according to Messenger's book on Harris. However, the overall casualty rate for the RAF as a whole was much lower - only around 23,000 non-BC men (and women)! lost their lives in combat during the war, compared to 47,000 in Bomber Command. I can't however find the numbers who served from anything akin to a reliable source, so I don't know what the casualty rate was. On the assumption (which may be a reckless one) that the other services (Fighter, Transport and Coastal) were about 50% larger than BC when added together, I would guess at around 250,000 total, therefore a casualty rate of around 28%. However, as that includes casualties on the ground, which would increase the numbers of combatants, I may be inflating the figure somewhat.
The casualty rate in the merchant navy was confirmed as a minimum of 32,000 of 145,000, still a staggering 22%, which Mark Arnold-Forster noted 'was comparable to the casualty rate suffered by those forces assigned to particularly desperate missions'. (source: Mark Arnold-Forster, The World At War, London 2001, p. 67). To put it in context, the numbers actually killed at St Nazaire were around 27% of the total, although that does not include numbers taken prisoner. Arnold-Forster compared them to the Chindits, fighting behind enemy lines in Burma.
It is generally accepted among historians that the merchant navy did indeed suffer the worst casualty rate of British forces. However, I have very seldom seen detailed statistical analysis to back that up. What I can say, for definite, is that those on the Arctic Convoys suffered far worse than even Bomber Command and barely better than the poor souls who were slung at Dieppe for no apparent reason and 75% of which failed to return, which is why it was and remains scandalous that for so many years they did not have a dedicated campaign medal.
Just before my Grandmother died last year at the age of 93 she received my Grandfather's Arctic Star. It meant a great deal to her tat his service on the Murmansk runs had been recognised.
My father in law (89) has just received an award from the Russian government, for serving on Arctic convoys.
... They suffered the highest casualty loss in WW2 of any single service.
Lest we forget.....
Fully agree with the sentiment.
HMS Ulysees left a huge impression on me as a teenager. But I thought bomber command suffered the worst. 55% mortality rate for aircrew and only 27% surviving a full tour.
OK, Keiran Pedley should never write an article on PB ever again, especially on the US election.
The Christie thing is ludicrous, the man who is HATED (with capital letters) because of a very very long list of things he did in N.Jersey where he is governor there for 6 years.
Where do I start?
He supported Obama in 2012 (republicans hate him for that). He's a moderate (conservatives hate him for that). He's incompetent on economic and financial matters as he drove N.Jersey to the brink of bankruptcy and raided pensions (everyone and especially pensioners hate him for that).
The result of all this is that he is one of the most unpopular republicans in america and even his state hates him:
The first job of the VP is to do no harm, Bridgegate is disqualifying, especially with the investigations still ongoing.
Indeed.
Rubio could pull off a historic ticket - minorities on top and bottom and male/female - by having either Nikki Haley or Susana Martinez as his VP candidate. If neither bring enough foreign and defence policy expertise, he could always recruit Condoleezza.
Condoleeza Rice has always been talked about as a potential ticket member but she has always seemed completely uninterested in electoral politics. I can't help but feel people suggest her more based on hope than reality.
Yeah, but the Veep slot is different, as it is really not directly elected in its own right.
OK, Keiran Pedley should never write an article on PB ever again, especially on the US election.
The Christie thing is ludicrous, the man who is HATED (with capital letters) because of a very very long list of things he did in N.Jersey where he is governor there for 6 years.
Where do I start?
He supported Obama in 2012 (republicans hate him for that). He's a moderate (conservatives hate him for that). He's incompetent on economic and financial matters as he drove N.Jersey to the brink of bankruptcy and raided pensions (everyone and especially pensioners hate him for that).
The result of all this is that he is one of the most unpopular republicans in america and even his state hates him:
Only a complete fool would think that Chris Christie ever had a chance, because his record absolutely sucks.
I will boycott Keiran's articles from now on.
Goodnight.
Speedy. Tend to agree with you on this one. No benefit to Rubio from Christie on his ticket.
Christie has indeed made enemies. But there are only three really natural politicians in the GOP field - Rubio, Christie and Huckabee. So, while Christie always has, as you've said, been a very long shot, with Walker and Bush out of the running, all it takes is for Rubio to falter badly and the Establishment will have to choose between Kasich and Christie. Can't rule him out completely.
OK, Keiran Pedley should never write an article on PB ever again, especially on the US election.
The Christie thing is ludicrous, the man who is HATED (with capital letters) because of a very very long list of things he did in N.Jersey where he is governor there for 6 years.
Where do I start?
He supported Obama in 2012 (republicans hate him for that). He's a moderate (conservatives hate him for that). He's very corrupt (everyone hates him for that). He's incompetent on economic and financial matters as he drove N.Jersey to the brink of bankruptcy and raided pensions (everyone and especially pensioners hate him for that).
The result of all this is that he is one of the most unpopular republicans in america and even his state hates him:
Only a complete fool would think that Chris Christie ever had a chance, because his record absolutely sucks.
I will boycott Keiran's articles from now on.
Goodnight.
If Rubio gets it Kasich would be a much better VP choice
My dream ticket is the other way around - Kasich/Rubio. But I think Rubio/Kasich is more likely. However, if Rubio gets the nod, I think he will want to chose a woman as his Veep.
The conversion from Julian to Gregorian calendar is why our tax year starts on 6 April.
It's a bit more complex than that; if the country hadn't changed to the Gregorian calender the tax year would still start on the 26th March. This is because accountants are slack barsterwards who've never been bothered to change the 'year end/start' dates. The shift to the Gregorian calender just shifted it forwards ten or so days into April.
The first job of the VP is to do no harm, Bridgegate is disqualifying, especially with the investigations still ongoing.
Indeed.
Rubio could pull off a historic ticket - minorities on top and bottom and male/female - by having either Nikki Haley or Susana Martinez as his VP candidate. If neither bring enough foreign and defence policy expertise, he could always recruit Condoleezza.
Condoleeza Rice has always been talked about as a potential ticket member but she has always seemed completely uninterested in electoral politics. I can't help but feel people suggest her more based on hope than reality.
Yeah, but the Veep slot is different, as it is really not directly elected in its own right.
It's the worst of all worlds for someone who doesn't like electoral politics. You have to do all the events, messaging sessions, debates etc, are completely in the limelight, but don't get any of the power at the end of the day (unless the president wants to give it to you, in which case you would get it anyway).
Comments
It should also be pointed out that going further back at this stage in 2000 Al Gore led the Democratic polls and George W Bush the GOP polls and in 1996 Bob Dole also led on the GOP side. It should also be noted that in 2008 Obama was second to Hillary at this stage and Romney was behind or ahead of Cain depending on what poll you looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2012_presidential_primaries
In 2008 of course Giulani voters simply went to McCain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3PofPbm9fQ
The idea that a Republican ticket needs "northern" balance doesn't make much sense. There aren't really votes up for grabs in the coastal North East region that Christie represents. The only geographic balance Rubio might need is to get someone from the industrial Midwest, to try to break into Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
More important would probably be gender balance, or even ethnic balance to reassure the white working class. He would also want someone who can show themselves to be disciplined and stay in someone else's shadow, which isn't Christie.
On the whole, I agree - I think a Rubio/Christie ticket would be formidable. Just one point - I think either would beat Clinton quite easily even if it wasn't a joint ticket between the two. She wins against the others not because she is good, but because they are terrible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34756063
What numpty broadcaster has decided to buy this sack of shit show !!!
What a burk. Part of the big problem we've had with integration in this country is that people in positions of power don't want to tell ethnic minorities things they don't want to hear.
I think a policy of 'contact' is the right one, but not for the reasons the article says: that familiarity means people realise we're all alike. I've actually found it can go the other way. I've travelled all over the world, and in many cases it causes me to have a more positive opinion of a group, as in most African countries I've been to. But in other places, if there are genuinely concerning cultural differences, like in the Middle East, it makes me feel more alienated from the people that live in them. No, I think a policy of encouraging contact is the right one is because it will cause minority groups to become more like the dominant British culture, and to drop the more concerning misogyny, authoritarianism, conspiracy theories etc with time. What''s problematic is when you indulge these practices, such as the academy in question segregating boys and girls for play times.
On the whole, I agree - I think a Rubio/Christie ticket would be formidable. Just one point - I think either would beat Clinton quite easily even if it wasn't a joint ticket between the two. She wins against the others not because she is good, but because they are terrible.
Yes, there was a formatting error and I've updated that section so it has the link
When will Corbyn's deputy commissar's fate be known?
I gather he can remain in his job, even if ejected from the Party. That such a scenario is plausible just shows how silly Labour has become.
Rubio could pull off a historic ticket - minorities on top and bottom and male/female - by having either Nikki Haley or Susana Martinez as his VP candidate. If neither bring enough foreign and defence policy expertise, he could always recruit Condoleezza.
As I've said many times, I do not believe that Carson (or Trump, or Fiorina) will get the nod. But equally, this is not the story that will kill Carson's candidacy.
I am making sure I have Ted Cruz covered in my betting. If Donald Trump fades he looks best placed to collect the angry Republican vote. He would also be more formidable as a candidate than most of his rivals.
Carson has answered that question - or rather volunteered it - at age 14 following the 'stabbing incident' through finding God. Please try to keep up.
Hardly a surprise, given a large part of the peace talks strategy was to use membership of the EU as a way of diminishing the importance of the whole issue of NI's status (either within the UK or united with the ROI). Thus those against the old status quo would favour the EU, and those for it would be against.
Thanks TSE.
Anti-euro Communist party say 'conditions are in place' to form historic triple Left coalition and bring down centre-right"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11980629/Communists-ready-to-assume-power-in-Portugal-and-topple-conservative-government.html
Cruz 19%
Trump 18%
Rubio 14%
Jeb 12%
Undecided 10%
In NH Carson voters split
Rubio 23%
Fiorina 17%
Trump 15%
Nationally they split
Fiorina 24%
Trump 17%
Rubio 15%
Cruz 12%
https://twitter.com/LPDonovan?lang=en-gb
"I gather he can remain in his job, even if ejected from the Party. That such a scenario is plausible just shows how silly Labour has become."
For a political party (at least in opposition) to appoint (retain) a political adviser who has been expelled from that party for serious misconduct would so far as I am aware be unprecedented. Certainly it would be crazy for Corbyn to even attempt to do it. It would show utter contempt for the Labour party's rules - and not least, would surely seriously annoy Hilary Benn.
We have about 5 weeks before attention switches to Christmas. After that, everyone will get much more serious.
They were at the start of the war and throughout the war the service that kept the food, supplies and materials flowing into Gt Britain. They suffered the highest casualty loss in WW2 of any single service.
Lest we forget.....
Wall Stret Journal story is here http://www.wsj.com/articles/ben-carsons-past-faces-deeper-questions-1446861864
Looking forward to those impartial BBC reports from now on.
Never mind the Biblical literalism etc (he is a creationist I believe, which would be scary in a President TBH), he clearly has ignored the much more salient and unarguable fact that the pyramids are solid objects with only small corridors and chambers in them, so you wouldn't exactly fit a lot of grain into them.
In any other country nobody would be taking him seriously as a contender for a presidential role. American politics. Go figure.
Merchant seamen suffered severely in the war at various stages, although thanks to breaking the Enigma codes the entire American & Canadian army was transferred across the Atlantic without a single loss.
Their losses were some 30,000 dead (I think WW1 losses were about 15,000) . It is a bit miserable I know to put various groups in a list but Bomber Command lost 55,500 dead out of a force of 125,000.
It seems incredible to believe that the GOP primary wont get serious at some point, rather than the current clown-fest, but that point seems to get put back every month.
The casualty rate in the merchant navy was confirmed as a minimum of 32,000 of 145,000, still a staggering 22%, which Mark Arnold-Forster noted 'was comparable to the casualty rate suffered by those forces assigned to particularly desperate missions'. (source: Mark Arnold-Forster, The World At War, London 2001, p. 67). To put it in context, the numbers actually killed at St Nazaire were around 27% of the total, although that does not include numbers taken prisoner. Arnold-Forster compared them to the Chindits, fighting behind enemy lines in Burma.
It is generally accepted among historians that the merchant navy did indeed suffer the worst casualty rate of British forces. However, I have very seldom seen detailed statistical analysis to back that up. What I can say, for definite, is that those on the Arctic Convoys suffered far worse than even Bomber Command and barely better than the poor souls who were slung at Dieppe for no apparent reason and 75% of which failed to return, which is why it was and remains scandalous that for so many years they did not have a dedicated campaign medal.
Incidentally, you may find this interesting:
http://www.rafinfo.org.uk/BCWW2Losses/
Bomber command certainly took a huge loss close to 45, 000. I suppose it is debatable which took the worse loss. The point is here none should be sidelined. Their service throughout enabled the war to be continued and then taken to the enemy.
Certainly the Battle of Britain pilots saved the day as well. It should be remembered that the planes needed fuel and this was brought in by the merchant navy at considerable loss. A small footnote that is rarely if ever mentioned.
Events exactly 98 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution
Unhelpfully from my point of view, OCR calls it 'November' and AQA 'October.'
25th October "old style" (ie. Julian Calendar).
I believe it took many years to have the red ensign hung at the cenotaph. It is now of course. The Merchant Navy memorial at Tower Hill is worth a visit if you happen to be passing by.
wasis a scandal the contribution to the war effort of people like your grandfather, or my old friend Alec Spencer, under horrendous conditions and against what must have seemed near-hopeless odds, was not properly recognised in the 1940s when they made it.I stand corrected on the bomber command number.
The other thing this suggested pact would do is bring in the holy grail of the left - voting reform.
I thought it might be interesting to work out what the result of the last election would have been under PR if all votes were cast the same. Most PR systems have a threshold of 3-5%.
I have used the standard UK regions and applied a threshold of 3% to each. I have assumed Wales would get the same number of seats as under FPTP. The results I got were as follows:
SW - C26,L10,U8,LD8,G3
SE - C43,L16,U13,LD8,G4
London - C26,L32,U6,LD6,G3
Eastern - C29,L13,U9,LD5,G2
E Mids - C21,L15,U7,LD3
W Mids - C25,L20,U9,LD3,G2
Yorks - C18,L21,U9,LD4,G2
NW - C24,L34,U10,LD5,G2
NE - C7,L14,U5,LD2,G1
Wales - C11,L15,U6,LD3,PC5
Scotland - C9, L15, LD5, SNP30
NI - DUP5,SF5,UUP3, SDLP3, AP2
That would give a UK total as follows:
Con 239 (-91)
Lab 205 (-27)
UKIP 82 (+81)
LD 52 (+44)
SNP 30 (-26)
Green 19 (+18)
Plaid 5 (+2)
DUP 5 (-3)
SF 5(+1)
UUP (3+1)
SDLP 3 (nc)
Alliance 2(+2)
So Cons would be the biggest losers but Lab and SNP would also lose out. The big winners would be UKIP and the LDs.
Contrary to the wishes of the left, no left alliance would be possible. The only realistic deal would be Con+UKIP+NI unionists
This number of killed is very high, but we should be careful about equating casualties and people not coming back with assuming they are all killed.
There were a number of reasons for the Dieppe raid but what it did put in motion was the idea of the temporary Mulberry harbours since it showed that a port could not be captured direct. In the event a large number of supplies were landed straight over the beach after D Day.
At various times in WW2 an individual event resulted in high losses -- HMS Hood sinking for instance. And Renown, Repulse.
Lets not forget hundreds of Americans drowned practising for D Day.
Fortunately most people bar historians ignore local dates, and historians have little use for Julian Day Numbers!
ISTR NASA cheats by having no dates before ?1600? or so.
The Christie thing is ludicrous, the man who is HATED (with capital letters) because of a very very long list of things he did in N.Jersey where he is governor there for 6 years.
Where do I start?
He supported Obama in 2012 (republicans hate him for that).
He's a moderate (conservatives hate him for that).
He's incompetent on economic and financial matters as he drove N.Jersey to the brink of bankruptcy and raided pensions (everyone and especially pensioners hate him for that).
The result of all this is that he is one of the most unpopular republicans in america and even his state hates him:
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/christies_nj_favorable_ratings_hover_at_historic_l.html#incart_river
Only a complete fool would think that Chris Christie ever had a chance, because his record absolutely sucks.
I will boycott Keiran's articles from now on.
Goodnight.
And, that's a horrendous casualty rate.
HMS Ulysees left a huge impression on me as a teenager. But I thought bomber command suffered the worst. 55% mortality rate for aircrew and only 27% surviving a full tour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command#Casualties
https://twitter.com/Lord_Sugar/status/663053217811558400
Christie has indeed made enemies. But there are only three really natural politicians in the GOP field - Rubio, Christie and Huckabee. So, while Christie always has, as you've said, been a very long shot, with Walker and Bush out of the running, all it takes is for Rubio to falter badly and the Establishment will have to choose between Kasich and Christie. Can't rule him out completely.
Trust accountants to be stuck in the past...
http://www.ebs.ltd.uk/news/why-does-the-uk-tax-year-end-on-5th-april/