NHS is the most important issue for just 8% of people.
So that is why UKIP won 100 MPs in May.
It is clear that me thinking that UKIP won only one is a delusional state along with Leicester City being top of the league. Too much sherry and mince pies perhaps.
What the hell is going on at universities. I am sure this is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Sorry, I'm clearly missing something, but I don't see anything of note here. Could you explain?
An increase in stupid self-absorbed young adults who feel the need to demand safe spaces and stifle free speech as soon as their feelings are hurt or they disagree with something someone has said. .
I'm surprised there isn't an organisation openly dedicated to enshrining the right not to be offended by anything in the law (leaving aside the ridiculousness of being able to know what everyone will find offensive, and the preposterousness of automatically banning even things that are likely to offend many)
What the hell is going on at universities. I am sure this is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Sorry, I'm clearly missing something, but I don't see anything of note here. Could you explain?
An increase in stupid self-absorbed young adults who feel the need to demand safe spaces and stifle free speech as soon as their feelings are hurt or they disagree with something someone has said. .
I'm surprised there isn't an organisation openly dedicated to enshrining the right not to be offended by anything in the law (leaving aside the ridiculousness of being able to know what everyone will find offensive, and the preposterousness of automatically banning even things that are likely to offend many)
Hmmm. Looking at ICM I see that phone polls have much better results for Labour than online ones, a reverse of the 2010-15 divide, when the Tories where doing much better with phone polls than online ones.
Even polls with the same pollster (Comres) have very different results with their phone surveys than the online ones, in fact the Comres phone poll is consistently along with ICM the best for Labour, while the Comres online poll is consistently the worse for Labour.
What the hell is going on at universities. I am sure this is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Sorry, I'm clearly missing something, but I don't see anything of note here. Could you explain?
An increase in stupid self-absorbed young adults who feel the need to demand safe spaces and stifle free speech as soon as their feelings are hurt or they disagree with something someone has said.
What the hell is going on at universities. I am sure this is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Sorry, I'm clearly missing something, but I don't see anything of note here. Could you explain?
An increase in stupid self-absorbed young adults who feel the need to demand safe spaces and stifle free speech as soon as their feelings are hurt or they disagree with something someone has said.
What the hell is going on at universities. I am sure this is a relatively recent phenomenon.
What exactly is the young women having a total and utter meltdown over? Something to do with a letter to do with Hallowen costumes?
The young lady wanted the university to decide what halloween costumes can/can't be worn. The professor disagreed and she completely lost it.
I think there are some very despicable and stupid people attending at universities, who use social media to fuel each others' rage about nothing much.
They have always been there. Perhaps they are worse now, but I think it is more that rather than an actual megaphone that most people just ignore and if difficult to get people to engage with, they have a virtual megaphone which at the moment the new shininess of twitter, facebook, etc, where if you can make up lies with some fancy infographics and grab people attention.
Senator Lindsey Graham became the latest casualty of the GOP nomination battle withdrawing from the race today, that is if you ever noticed he was in it
Osborne - gone too soon May - Can't be lucky for ever Hammond - really? Boris - no appeal outside London Nicky Morgan - don't make me laugh Sajeed Javid - next Chancellor - not really PM material Liz Truss - next PM - right age, right gender, right background, right policies
Jim Hacker - up through the middle? Brandon Lewis
Bunnco - Your Man On The Spot .... And nowadays on The Inside
Senator Lindsey Graham became the latest casualty of the GOP nomination battle withdrawing from the race today, that is if you ever noticed he was in it
I did, but I had thought he'd already dropped out. I hope he had fun while it lasted.
NHS is the most important issue for just 8% of people.
So that is why UKIP won 100 MPs in May.
It is clear that me thinking that UKIP won only one is a delusional state along with Leicester City being top of the league. Too much sherry and mince pies perhaps.
UKIP's prime aim is to leave the EU, not win in Westminster, surely?
There's a full house of prime issues there.
If Leave find the right messenger - and that certainly isn't Farage - we could well turn our backs on the EU.
For old times' sake Mike should invite tim back to do a guest slot, a review of the year. It could cover many of his favourite themes (Cameron is useless, George is clueless, the UK economy, Coulson, Miliband), and introduce us to his views on some of the new stuff (Corbyn, McDonnell, Livingstone, Seamas Milne, the future of the Labour Party....)
Don't forget hookers, blow, Latvian homophobes, Osborne crying, Cameron's horse and all the other recycled "greatest" hits....and for old timers, he can give us an update how fantasy farming is treating him ;-)
Poor lad, out there in the twitter wilderness, ranting away to his ~100 followers. Even the library teaboy, who is wrong on everything, has managed to build some sort of following.
Its a long long time to 2020 and judging the public's opinion of Osborn then is something of a lottery now.
OK. I would have said the opposite: that he's been in the public eye so long that views of him are quite fixed. Do you think opinion could change in his favour? Or that enough people simply haven't thought about him yet?
People have not thought of him. A whole range of events could intervene. These events could help or hinder just about everyone connected with any leadership ambitions. Many many people have only the sketchiest knowledge of political personalities.
So the public have a fixed, unshakeable view of Corbyn after 3 months which no intervening events could alter, yet they don't have a fixed, unshakeable view of Osborne after 5 years?
Who mentioned an opinion of Corbyn? He is actually leader of his part anyway. Would you have predicted that 4 years ago. The public's opinion of Corbyn as leader is not yet formed and who knows what it will be in 4 years. I mean who thought he would quote a brutal Albanian dictator or encourage Gorgeous George back to the party? Osborne may not be leader, but if not who? The fact remains that judging a decision in 4 years on opinions now is silly. There is a fact however. It is that people are reinventing their same old mistakes as before and letting prejudices overtake rationality. Far too many have learned nothing from 2015 and the 5 years before that.
NHS is the most important issue for just 8% of people.
So that is why UKIP won 100 MPs in May.
It is clear that me thinking that UKIP won only one is a delusional state along with Leicester City being top of the league. Too much sherry and mince pies perhaps.
UKIP's prime aim is to leave the EU, not win in Westminster, surely?
There's a full house of prime issues there.
If Leave find the right messenger - and that certainly isn't Farage - we could well turn our backs on the EU.
No think you are wrong. What has the EU got to do with terrorism and immigration from Pakistan?
Yet Osborne still led Corbyn by 24% to 21% with voters as a whole yesterday and throughout post-war history the Tories have only selected the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary to lead them suggesting the only viable alternative to Osborne is Hammond
Very small sample size of post-war in-government Tory leadership changes though. Eden, Macca, Hume, Major. However, you could throw in Brown and Callaghan who fit the same pattern.
Imo it doesn't suggest that being Home Secretary would be a disadvantage but it does suggest that it will be someone who holds one of the great offices.
Of course, we don't know what Boris will be doing after May (the month I mean, not the minister).
Osborne - gone too soon May - Can't be lucky for ever Hammond - really? Boris - no appeal outside London Nicky Morgan - don't make me laugh Sajeed Javid - next Chancellor - not really PM material Liz Truss - next PM - right age, right gender, right background, right policies
Jim Hacker - up through the middle? Brandon Lewis
Bunnco - Your Man On The Spot .... And nowadays on The Inside
Liz Truss? A woman of whom it was memorably said that her only qualification to be minister for agriculture was that she was once ploughed by a Field?
What that list really shows is that there is no clear-cut candidate. If Osborne does not get it, it is likely to be somebody currently in the lower reaches of the Cabinet who takes a punt, or even a junior minister. Not forgetting that if Hammond or May resign, there is plenty of time for sudden promotions after the fashion of John Major. Assuming Cameron's resignation is three years away, Major's equivalent post at this stage was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Macmillan's was minister for Housing. Chamberlain nearly took the leadership as minister for Health.
If there is to be a 'stop Osborne' candidate, one will be found, but expect a clean skin, not somebody with a controversial past like Truss or Hunt.
@Dair Every time you say the word "loyalist" I always get a mental image of an Orange Order parade
They are British Nationalists as well, all Loyalists marching to the same drum.
I don't pretend that it is an unintended consequence of using the term.
Think of Scotland's future, and what does it portend? A loyalist boot grinding into a nationalist face ...... Forever.
More to the point, Dair loves Scotland so much he hates over 50% of its population and is waiting for its old people to die. His perspective augurs well for the kind of solidarity and cohesiveness we can expect should the oil price ever recover enough to make independence a realistic proposition once more.
He gets you wriggling around in the keep net very time, pretty much saying the same thing every time. Are we in double figures for you referring to Nicola singing GSTQ yet?
Not sure I agree. Neither tested in battle and Greening likely to be consumed by Heathrow debacle. Truss has advantage that she's not obviously preferred by either Cameron or Osborne and is currently 'enjoying' scars of the Rural Payments issues.....
But Truss will come into her own as focus moves to EU battle and she'll be on the Telly nightly negotiating with the EU bods. And playing to the gallery.
'justsayin
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot and often at the scene of the crime
Don't forget hookers, blow, Latvian homophobes, Osborne crying, Cameron's horse and all the other recycled "greatest" hits....and for old timers, he can give us an update how fantasy farming is treating him ;-)
Poor lad, out there in the twitter wilderness, ranting away to his ~100 followers. Even the library teaboy, who is wrong on everything, has managed to build some sort of following.
Its a long long time to 2020 and judging the public's opinion of Osborn then is something of a lottery now.
OK. I would have said the opposite: that he's been in the public eye so long that views of him are quite fixed. Do you think opinion could change in his favour? Or that enough people simply haven't thought about him yet?
People have not thought of him. A whole range of events could intervene. These events could help or hinder just about everyone connected with any leadership ambitions. Many many people have only the sketchiest knowledge of political personalities.
So the public have a fixed, unshakeable view of Corbyn after 3 months which no intervening events could alter, yet they don't have a fixed, unshakeable view of Osborne after 5 years?
Who mentioned an opinion of Corbyn? He is actually leader of his part anyway. Would you have predicted that 4 years ago. The public's opinion of Corbyn as leader is not yet formed and who knows what it will be in 4 years. I mean who thought he would quote a brutal Albanian dictator or encourage Gorgeous George back to the party? Osborne may not be leader, but if not who? The fact remains that judging a decision in 4 years on opinions now is silly. There is a fact however. It is that people are reinventing their same old mistakes as before and letting prejudices overtake rationality. Far too many have learned nothing from 2015 and the 5 years before that.
Hmm. But the public's view of Brown and Miliband after they had been in post six months was pretty much how it stayed? I thought there was pretty good evidence that the public's view tends to solidify after a few months and is hard to shift after that.
And, sure, things *could* change, but we have to bet (or not) on the information we have now.
Not sure I agree. Neither tested in battle and Greening likely to be consumed by Heathrow debacle. Truss has advantage that she's not obviously preferred by either Cameron or Osborne and is currently 'enjoying' scars of the Rural Payments issues.....
But Truss will come into her own as focus moves to EU battle and she'll be on the Telly nightly negotiating with the EU bods. And playing to the gallery.
'justsayin
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot and often at the scene of the crime
Your notion that ministers in government can get by by not developing scars is charming. Every contender will have scars. Who will be the final two contenders? It is pointless trying to speculate now who they will be. Meantime the govt gets on and governs and that will determine the outcome of 2020.
They never went away. Much of Afghanistan clearly prefers them, and that's a problem that you'd hoe would be solved in 14 years, but no.
Ghani did win a clear mandate in recent elections though and he and VP Abdullah are the best future for Afghanistan, the Taliban are back in their heartlands but they themselves are now having to fend off ISIS and divisions between radicals and those who want talks with the government
Senator Lindsey Graham became the latest casualty of the GOP nomination battle withdrawing from the race today, that is if you ever noticed he was in it
I did, but I had thought he'd already dropped out. I hope he had fun while it lasted.
Yes a fair few dollars poorer I expect he will likely now back Rubio
Yet Osborne still led Corbyn by 24% to 21% with voters as a whole yesterday and throughout post-war history the Tories have only selected the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary to lead them suggesting the only viable alternative to Osborne is Hammond
Very small sample size of post-war in-government Tory leadership changes though. Eden, Macca, Hume, Major. However, you could throw in Brown and Callaghan who fit the same pattern.
Imo it doesn't suggest that being Home Secretary would be a disadvantage but it does suggest that it will be someone who holds one of the great offices.
Of course, we don't know what Boris will be doing after May (the month I mean, not the minister).
In government yes parties tend to select senior Cabinet Ministers to lead them
I think you mean Mockingjay, but I agree, the Hunger Games trilogy is very good. I think it's a superb depiction of a highly intelligent, poorly educated, woman, who's suffered for years from PTSD, as well as a gripping adventure story. I think what's lacking in many similar stories is the depiction of the psycological damage that people suffer from war and torture (eg Johanna, who can hardly take a shower, because she was soaked in water and subject to electric shocks).
One trilogy I'm reading which I think you may like is the Farseer Trilogy by Robin Hobb.
You're right - Mockingjay. In principle the idea sounds dodgy, by making the participants in the Games victims, heroes and villains at the same time, while we follow them like the audience in the book. It could easily be quite prurient - but it's handled well. The books also have a subtle religious streak (the author is clearly evangelical) which they've dropped in the films, probably sensibly.
It was apparently hugely popular among young women,as it offers a heroine who isn't impossibly glamorous, sexy or confident but copes with everything that's thrown at her.
Not sure I agree. Neither tested in battle and Greening likely to be consumed by Heathrow debacle. Truss has advantage that she's not obviously preferred by either Cameron or Osborne and is currently 'enjoying' scars of the Rural Payments issues.....
But Truss will come into her own as focus moves to EU battle and she'll be on the Telly nightly negotiating with the EU bods. And playing to the gallery.
'justsayin
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot and often at the scene of the crime
Your notion that ministers in government can get by by not developing scars is charming. Every contender will have scars. Who will be the final two contenders? It is pointless trying to speculate now who they will be. Meantime the govt gets on and governs and that will determine the outcome of 2020.
Given that one will be Osborne, tbe other will be the anti-Osborne. Likely to be anti-EU, and quite possibly from the restive backbenches. My tip is Owen Paterson.
Osborne - gone too soon May - Can't be lucky for ever Hammond - really? Boris - no appeal outside London Nicky Morgan - don't make me laugh Sajeed Javid - next Chancellor - not really PM material Liz Truss - next PM - right age, right gender, right background, right policies
Jim Hacker - up through the middle? Brandon Lewis
Bunnco - Your Man On The Spot .... And nowadays on The Inside
Sorry, my friend, you are wrong about Boris having no appeal outside London. Especially if it comes down to Osborne v Boris.
There are a handful of politicians who get to be known in the media by a single name - Harold, Ted, Maggie, Tony, Ken, Boris. It's a great stepping stone to becoming Prime Minister....
Richard, just watched Trombo. It has Academy Awards all over it. It is very well written. It is sassy, fuuny, well acted. But none of that matters. What matters is that is all those things AND about the Blacklisting of Hollywood writers as Communists - with writers forced to write under assumed names (and win Oscars and not be able to collect them). Academy voters love two types of films. Ones where wrongs are righted. And ones about Hollywood. Trombo manages the magic of tying both together....
Osborne - gone too soon May - Can't be lucky for ever Hammond - really? Boris - no appeal outside London Nicky Morgan - don't make me laugh Sajeed Javid - next Chancellor - not really PM material Liz Truss - next PM - right age, right gender, right background, right policies
Jim Hacker - up through the middle? Brandon Lewis
Bunnco - Your Man On The Spot .... And nowadays on The Inside
Sorry, my friend, you are wrong about Boris having no appeal outside London. Especially if it comes down to Osborne v Boris.
There are a handful of politicians who get to be known in the media by a single name - Harold, Ted, Maggie, Tony, Ken, Boris. It's a great stepping stone to becoming Prime Minister....
Indeed, Boris is a figure on the national stage and the most favourably viewed Tory by a large margin.
Its a long long time to 2020 and judging the public's opinion of Osborn then is something of a lottery now.
OK. I would have said the opposite: that he's been in the public eye so long that views of him are quite fixed. Do you think opinion could change in his favour? Or that enough people simply haven't thought about him yet?
People have not thought of him. A whole range of events could intervene. These events could help or hinder just about everyone connected with any leadership ambitions. Many many people have only the sketchiest knowledge of political personalities.
So the public have a fixed, unshakeable view of Corbyn after 3 months which no intervening events could alter, yet they don't have a fixed, unshakeable view of Osborne after 5 years?
Who mentioned an opinion of Corbyn? He is actually leader of his part anyway. Would you have predicted that 4 years ago. The public's opinion of Corbyn as leader is not yet formed and who knows what it will be in 4 years. I mean who thought he would quote a brutal Albanian dictator or encourage Gorgeous George back to the party? Osborne may not be leader, but if not who? The fact remains that judging a decision in 4 years on opinions now is silly. There is a fact however. It is that people are reinventing their same old mistakes as before and letting prejudices overtake rationality. Far too many have learned nothing from 2015 and the 5 years before that.
Hmm. But the public's view of Brown and Miliband after they had been in post six months was pretty much how it stayed? I thought there was pretty good evidence that the public's view tends to solidify after a few months and is hard to shift after that.
And, sure, things *could* change, but we have to bet (or not) on the information we have now.
The public's opinion of Brown may have firmed up after the great crash I suppose. It seems to me people are betting on the basis of the regular unflattering photos chosen by OGH. This at least puts him into the good company of most Fleet Street editors who want to form an opinion of their subject. I would not bet based on current prejudices. However (as I think I pointed out at the time) the opportunity to get good odds was before the 2015 election when the polls were dithering, because if the Tories won then the man who would have 'wot won it' would have been Osborne.
A billion barrel field is a rare discovery these days. And it would supply world demand for less than a fortnight.
I remember the last oil price slide. And the Economist talking on the cover of $5 oil. My opinion on the matter at the time was given to the International Energy Agency in Paris. Simultaneously translated into 7 languages. And it was a helluva lot more accurate than the Economist.
(You know those nightmares where you have to give a speech to everyone in school? On a topic you know nothing about? And you are stark-bollock naked? This was worse... I was not in the habit of giving my opinion to the IEA, but one of my colleagues was. He got embroiled in a take-over and sent me to give his speech in his place. There was a section on future oil price projections.
I read his speech I was giving on his behalf. On the plane to Paris. When it came to the section on future oil prices it had two words.
Dramatic new Ifop poll in France has Hollande knocking out Sarkozy in the first round of the next presidential election to go into a run-off with Marine Le Pen.
I think you mean Mockingjay, but I agree, the Hunger Games trilogy is very good. I think it's a superb depiction of a highly intelligent, poorly educated, woman, who's suffered for years from PTSD, as well as a gripping adventure story. I think what's lacking in many similar stories is the depiction of the psycological damage that people suffer from war and torture (eg Johanna, who can hardly take a shower, because she was soaked in water and subject to electric shocks).
One trilogy I'm reading which I think you may like is the Farseer Trilogy by Robin Hobb.
You're right - Mockingjay. In principle the idea sounds dodgy, by making the participants in the Games victims, heroes and villains at the same time, while we follow them like the audience in the book. It could easily be quite prurient - but it's handled well. The books also have a subtle religious streak (the author is clearly evangelical) which they've dropped in the films, probably sensibly.
It was apparently hugely popular among young women,as it offers a heroine who isn't impossibly glamorous, sexy or confident but copes with everything that's thrown at her.
My (27 year old) girlfriend recently turned me on to The Hunger Games. She loves them. I agree they are excellent.
But I don't think it is because J Law is unglamorous, at least in the movie. She is exceptionally beautiful.
Beautiful yes. Glamour is an artificial unattractive construct.
Dramatic new Ifop poll in France has Hollande knocking out Sarkozy in the first round of the next presidential election to go into a run-off with Marine Le Pen.
Not sure I agree. Neither tested in battle and Greening likely to be consumed by Heathrow debacle. Truss has advantage that she's not obviously preferred by either Cameron or Osborne and is currently 'enjoying' scars of the Rural Payments issues.....
But Truss will come into her own as focus moves to EU battle and she'll be on the Telly nightly negotiating with the EU bods. And playing to the gallery.
'justsayin
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot and often at the scene of the crime
Your notion that ministers in government can get by by not developing scars is charming. Every contender will have scars. Who will be the final two contenders? It is pointless trying to speculate now who they will be. Meantime the govt gets on and governs and that will determine the outcome of 2020.
Given that one will be Osborne, tbe other will be the anti-Osborne. Likely to be anti-EU, and quite possibly from the restive backbenches. My tip is Owen Paterson.
And just who would get sufficient votes of these 'restive' backbenches that they would recommend them to the selectorate? Would they go for anyone not considered widely supported by the CLP? Why would the final candidate (other than Osborne) be anti EU? Why would it be a candidate that would likely be of some minority interest to the wider GE voter and not someone with a half decent track record in power. Why should the Tory parliamentary party offer and the Tory members accept a thinking man's Nigel Farage?
I think you mean Mockingjay, but I agree, the Hunger Games trilogy is very good. I think it's a superb depiction of a highly intelligent, poorly educated, woman, who's suffered for years from PTSD, as well as a gripping adventure story. I think what's lacking in many similar stories is the depiction of the psycological damage that people suffer from war and torture (eg Johanna, who can hardly take a shower, because she was soaked in water and subject to electric shocks).
One trilogy I'm reading which I think you may like is the Farseer Trilogy by Robin Hobb.
You're right - Mockingjay. In principle the idea sounds dodgy, by making the participants in the Games victims, heroes and villains at the same time, while we follow them like the audience in the book. It could easily be quite prurient - but it's handled well. The books also have a subtle religious streak (the author is clearly evangelical) which they've dropped in the films, probably sensibly.
It was apparently hugely popular among young women,as it offers a heroine who isn't impossibly glamorous, sexy or confident but copes with everything that's thrown at her.
My (27 year old) girlfriend recently turned me on to The Hunger Games. She loves them. I agree they are excellent.
But I don't think it is because J Law is unglamorous, at least in the movie. She is exceptionally beautiful.
Beautiful yes. Glamour is an artificial unattractive construct.
Saw the last Hunger James, finally, tonight and found it very watchable if a little dragged out
Dramatic new Ifop poll in France has Hollande knocking out Sarkozy in the first round of the next presidential election to go into a run-off with Marine Le Pen.
Too early to say, both Hollande and Sarkozy have been tested unpopular failures as presidents. However if Hollande goes to the second round then Le Pen becomes president, the last poll had her beating Hollande 52-48 in the second round.
Not sure I agree. Neither tested in battle and Greening likely to be consumed by Heathrow debacle. Truss has advantage that she's not obviously preferred by either Cameron or Osborne and is currently 'enjoying' scars of the Rural Payments issues.....
But Truss will come into her own as focus moves to EU battle and she'll be on the Telly nightly negotiating with the EU bods. And playing to the gallery.
'justsayin
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot and often at the scene of the crime
Your notion that ministers in government can get by by not developing scars is charming. Every contender will have scars. Who will be the final two contenders? It is pointless trying to speculate now who they will be. Meantime the govt gets on and governs and that will determine the outcome of 2020.
Given that one will be Osborne, tbe other will be the anti-Osborne. Likely to be anti-EU, and quite possibly from the restive backbenches. My tip is Owen Paterson.
If it's Paterson, I'd even consider voting for Jihadi Jez in the run off
Dramatic new Ifop poll in France has Hollande knocking out Sarkozy in the first round of the next presidential election to go into a run-off with Marine Le Pen.
Well there is no UMP anymore, Sarkozy got control of it and renamed it the Republican party after it's US namesake, so I doubt that Sarkozy would nominate someone else but himself.
Dramatic new Ifop poll in France has Hollande knocking out Sarkozy in the first round of the next presidential election to go into a run-off with Marine Le Pen.
Hollande would win but he does not deserve it ! He is too militaristic.
It could be very tight, there were two polls in April on such a run-off, one had Hollande beating Le Pen 52%-48% the other had Le Pen leading Hollande 52%-48%, if Hollande is her opponent Le Pen certainly has an outside chance, not impossible we could have Presidents Trump and Le Pen by the end of 2017, 2/3 of the western powers on the UN Security Council! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
Dramatic new Ifop poll in France has Hollande knocking out Sarkozy in the first round of the next presidential election to go into a run-off with Marine Le Pen.
Too early to say, both Hollande and Sarkozy have been tested unpopular failures as presidents. However if Hollande goes to the second round then Le Pen becomes president, the last poll had her beating Hollande 52-48 in the second round.
Hollande has clearly got a bounce post the Paris attacks but it could be tight
Dramatic new Ifop poll in France has Hollande knocking out Sarkozy in the first round of the next presidential election to go into a run-off with Marine Le Pen.
Well there is no UMP anymore, Sarkozy got control of it and renamed it the Republican party after it's US namesake, so I doubt that Sarkozy would nominate someone else but himself.
It is the UMP/LR I believe, there will be a primary but Sarkozy will undoubtedly win it as you suggest though with at least Fillon and maybe Juppe likely to run independently in round 1 that makes a Hollande v Le Pen run-off even more likely
Dramatic new Ifop poll in France has Hollande knocking out Sarkozy in the first round of the next presidential election to go into a run-off with Marine Le Pen.
Hollande would win but he does not deserve it ! He is too militaristic.
It could be very tight, there were two polls in April on such a run-off, one had Hollande beating Le Pen 52%-48% the other had Le Pen leading Hollande 52%-48%, if Hollande is her opponent Le Pen certainly has an outside chance, not impossible we could have Presidents Trump and Le Pen by the end of 2017, 2/3 of the western powers on the UN Security Council! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
Well it will need a combination of a third party run by the establishment GOP that will cut more votes from Hillary than Trump as the polls show, and Hollande beating Sarkozy to face Le Pen in the second round. The exclusion of the FN works as long as the center-right not the left is the second party in France, if it's not then it will get squeezed by both sides in a LD scenario like the C's.
There was talk that Le Pen and Sarkozy would team up if she faced Hollande in the second round, Le Pen would take the presidency and Sarkozy the PM's office. Since the parliamentary elections take place soon after the presidential ones, but the FN unlike the Republicans has limited prospects of a majority in parliament.
An independent run in case Trump is the nominee might hand the presidency to Trump.
So Hillary still wins even if a 'third party independent' and that 'third party independent' was not even named as Bloomberg, it could even be Sanders! Polls showed Anderson voters almost as likely to pick Reagan as their second choice as Carter so he made no difference in 1980 to the winner
Not sure I agree. Neither tested in battle and Greening likely to be consumed by Heathrow debacle. Truss has advantage that she's not obviously preferred by either Cameron or Osborne and is currently 'enjoying' scars of the Rural Payments issues.....
But Truss will come into her own as focus moves to EU battle and she'll be on the Telly nightly negotiating with the EU bods. And playing to the gallery.
'justsayin
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot and often at the scene of the crime
Your notion that ministers in government can get by by not developing scars is charming. Every contender will have scars. Who will be the final two contenders? It is pointless trying to speculate now who they will be. Meantime the govt gets on and governs and that will determine the outcome of 2020.
Given that one will be Osborne, tbe other will be the anti-Osborne. Likely to be anti-EU, and quite possibly from the restive backbenches. My tip is Owen Paterson.
And just who would get sufficient votes of these 'restive' backbenches that they would recommend them to the selectorate? Would they go for anyone not considered widely supported by the CLP? Why would the final candidate (other than Osborne) be anti EU? Why would it be a candidate that would likely be of some minority interest to the wider GE voter and not someone with a half decent track record in power. Why should the Tory parliamentary party offer and the Tory members accept a thinking man's Nigel Farage?
Because Tory backbenchers love banging on about europe, and Owen Paterson hates the Cameroons. Never doubt the self destructive tendencies of political parties!
A billion barrel field is a rare discovery these days. And it would supply world demand for less than a fortnight.
I remember the last oil price slide. And the Economist talking on the cover of $5 oil. My opinion on the matter at the time was given to the International Energy Agency in Paris. Simultaneously translated into 7 languages. And it was a helluva lot more accurate than the Economist.
(You know those nightmares where you have to give a speech to everyone in school? On a topic you know nothing about? And you are stark-bollock naked? This was worse... I was not in the habit of giving my opinion to the IEA, but one of my colleagues was. He got embroiled in a take-over and sent me to give his speech in his place. There was a section on future oil price projections.
I read his speech I was giving on his behalf. On the plane to Paris. When it came to the section on future oil prices it had two words.
"SAY SOMETHING"....... )
Although we currently use oil as fuel in one form or another, it is hugely versatile with myriad other uses. There is a natural floor price. I don't know what it is but I suspect we're not far above it. I'm sure the oil companies are genned up and they're still buying.
For all that Tim used to cross the line on here (and let's face it, he could be pretty nasty) he's without doubt one of the sharpest posters that PB has ever had, and the site is poorer for his continued absence.
The whole thing with the Oxford statue. If the college had just stood firm and issued a sensible, logical and well thought out response to why it is a bonkers suggestion, all this would have gone away. Students are forever moaning about something or other. Yes it would have got a few articles in the Guardian, but nobody really cares outside of a very small niche.
By basically giving in, they have now made a bigger story out of this and also hostage to fortune in regards to anything else from the past that somebody today doesn't agree with their morals. And lets be honest, Oxford and Cambridge is full of trappings of wealth granted to it, where by if you go looking hard enough, I am sure a huge percentage of people would have had activities or views that are no longer deemed acceptable.
I posted this on a previous thread bit it seems appropriate here:-
This has come in part from the mistaken belief that being a victim grants you some sort of moral status, some sort of moral halo or special immunity. A victim is just a word to describe a person who has suffered a crime or injury. It has no moral meaning. But somehow we have moved to a position in society where our feelings of compassion for someone who has suffered have resulted in us imbuing the person who has suffered into someone whose status qua victim - and, therefore, his/her views etc - are special, to be given special attention, to be beyond criticism, to be sanctified in some way.
Victims can be bad people; bad people can be and are victims.
Little wonder that people want to be classified as "victims" when it grants them this sort of secular holiness and they can make demands, no matter how unreasonable, which people feel unable to refuse because, poor things, it would make them feel even worse.
It's beyond pathetic: why would you want to be a victim, for God's sake? What a pathetic ambition. It's like wanting to be ill, just for the fuss. It's childish and narcissistic. It's what happens when we confuse sentimentality with true compassion, when we confuse self-esteem (the cry of the adolescent) with self-respect (the mark of an adult), when we confuse false sentiment and incontinent emotional outpouring with a proper moral sense of what it means to injure others, the difference between real repentance and remorse and how to cope with life's inevitable injuries and disappointments.
What's more most of the people claiming this are not victims in any sense of the word. They have suffered no injury. But they look for something which will allow them to claim "offence" precisely because no-one will challenge them. And the answer to people claiming "offence" in this way is "Grow up." Or "Oh dear. Never mind. You'll get over It."
Its a long long time to 2020 and judging the public's opinion of Osborn then is something of a lottery now.
OK. I would have said the opposite: that he's been in the public eye so long that views of him are quite fixed. Do you think opinion could change in his favour? Or that enough people simply haven't thought about him yet?
People have not thought of him. A whole range of events could intervene. These events could help or hinder just about everyone connected with any leadership ambitions. Many many people have only the sketchiest knowledge of political personalities.
So the public have a fixed, unshakeable view of Corbyn after 3 months which no intervening events could alter, yet they don't have a fixed, unshakeable view of Osborne after 5 years?
Who mentioned an opinion of Corbyn? He is actually leader of his part anyway. Would you have predicted that 4 years ago. The public's opinion of Corbyn as leader is not yet formed and who knows what it will be in 4 years. I mean who thought he would quote a brutal Albanian dictator or encourage Gorgeous George back to the party? Osborne may not be leader, but if not who? The fact remains that judging a decision in 4 years on opinions now is silly. There is a fact however. It is that people are reinventing their same old mistakes as before and letting prejudices overtake rationality. Far too many have learned nothing from 2015 and the 5 years before that.
Hmm. But the public's view of Brown and Miliband after they had been in post six months was pretty much how it stayed? I thought there was pretty good evidence that the public's view tends to solidify after a few months and is hard to shift after that.
And, sure, things *could* change, but we have to bet (or not) on the information we have now.
The public's opinion of Brown may have firmed up after the great crash I suppose. It seems to me people are betting on the basis of the regular unflattering photos chosen by OGH. This at least puts him into the good company of most Fleet Street editors who want to form an opinion of their subject. I would not bet based on current prejudices. However (as I think I pointed out at the time) the opportunity to get good odds was before the 2015 election when the polls were dithering, because if the Tories won then the man who would have 'wot won it' would have been Osborne.
Well, I actually quite like Osborne but I don't want to let that positive prejudice affect my bank balance
Dramatic new Ifop poll in France has Hollande knocking out Sarkozy in the first round of the next presidential election to go into a run-off with Marine Le Pen.
Hollande would win but he does not deserve it ! He is too militaristic.
It could be very tight, there were two polls in April on such a run-off, one had Hollande beating Le Pen 52%-48% the other had Le Pen leading Hollande 52%-48%, if Hollande is her opponent Le Pen certainly has an outside chance, not impossible we could have Presidents Trump and Le Pen by the end of 2017, 2/3 of the western powers on the UN Security Council! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
Well it will need a combination of a third party run by the establishment GOP that will cut more votes from Hillary than Trump as the polls show, and Hollande beating Sarkozy to face Le Pen in the second round. The exclusion of the FN works as long as the center-right not the left is the second party in France, if it's not then it will get squeezed by both sides in a LD scenario like the C's.
There was talk that Le Pen and Sarkozy would team up if she faced Hollande in the second round, Le Pen would take the presidency and Sarkozy the PM's office. Since the parliamentary elections take place soon after the presidential ones, but the FN unlike the Republicans has limited prospects of a majority in parliament.
The polls do not show anything like 'a third party GOP establishment bid will cut more votes from Hillary than Trump' in fact the very poll you cite has Hillary winning a landslide in a 3 way battle with Trump and a GOP establishment candidate eg against Rubio 'the senator would grab 27% support to Trump's 24%, with Clinton breaking out at 41%.' http://uk.businessinsider.com/poll-donald-trump-independent-bid-republican-pledge-2015-12?r=US&IR=T
However if Trump does win the GOP nomination clearly he will have an outside chance. There has been no talk of any deal ever between Sarkozy and Le Pen and Sarkozy's party would not even countenance it, certainly not the likes of Juppe who outpolls Sarkozy in the country as a whole though I would agree a Hollande run-off gives Le Pen a better chance
Not sure I agree. Neither tested in battle and Greening likely to be consumed by Heathrow debacle. Truss has advantage that she's not obviously preferred by either Cameron or Osborne and is currently 'enjoying' scars of the Rural Payments issues.....
But Truss will come into her own as focus moves to EU battle and she'll be on the Telly nightly negotiating with the EU bods. And playing to the gallery.
'justsayin
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot and often at the scene of the crime
Your notion that ministers in government can get by by not developing scars is charming. Every contender will have scars. Who will be the final two contenders? It is pointless trying to speculate now who they will be. Meantime the govt gets on and governs and that will determine the outcome of 2020.
Given that one will be Osborne, tbe other will be the anti-Osborne. Likely to be anti-EU, and quite possibly from the restive backbenches. My tip is Owen Paterson.
And just who would get sufficient votes of these 'restive' backbenches that they would recommend them to the selectorate? Would they go for anyone not considered widely supported by the CLP? Why would the final candidate (other than Osborne) be anti EU? Why would it be a candidate that would likely be of some minority interest to the wider GE voter and not someone with a half decent track record in power. Why should the Tory parliamentary party offer and the Tory members accept a thinking man's Nigel Farage?
Because Tory backbenchers love banging on about europe, and Owen Paterson hates the Cameroons. Never doubt the self destructive tendencies of political parties!
Well you should know. I do not doubt the stupidity of some Tory backbenchers, but how many of them would put a minority interest right winger on the final ballot? How many selectorate votes would he get? How many times do stupid right wing shadow ministers and ministers have to get themselves sacked - because of their own clear stupidity mind - before the penny drops? Let's be clear, this is driving me to destraction. I would like to embrace a clear right of centre Tory who could articulate him/herself coherently and be attractive to the wider electorate.
Frontier Economics, the company chaired by Lord O’Donnell, has been tasked with examining whether the perk – under which any household with an occupant aged over 75 can avoid the £145.50 fee – should be tightened. One option under consideration is restricting the benefit to households that are solely comprised of pensioners.
The BBC is considering mounting a marketing campaign to encourage the over-75s – who are the biggest consumers of BBC content – to pay voluntarily.
My (27 year old) girlfriend recently turned me on to The Hunger Games. She loves them. I agree they are excellent.
But I don't think it is because J Law is unglamorous, at least in the movie. She is exceptionally beautiful.
I was thinking of glamorous in the catwalk sense which the average teenager can't relate or aspire it. I agree Lawrence is beautiful in a brooding sort of way.
Fans of the series could also try the Divergent series, which is nominally aimed at the same market and has a recognisably similar scenario:
Not sure I agree. Neither tested in battle and Greening likely to be consumed by Heathrow debacle. Truss has advantage that she's not obviously preferred by either Cameron or Osborne and is currently 'enjoying' scars of the Rural Payments issues.....
But Truss will come into her own as focus moves to EU battle and she'll be on the Telly nightly negotiating with the EU bods. And playing to the gallery.
'justsayin
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot and often at the scene of the crime
Your notion that ministers in government can get by by not developing scars is charming. Every contender will have scars. Who will be the final two contenders? It is pointless trying to speculate now who they will be. Meantime the govt gets on and governs and that will determine the outcome of 2020.
Given that one will be Osborne, tbe other will be the anti-Osborne. Likely to be anti-EU, and quite possibly from the restive backbenches. My tip is Owen Paterson.
And just who would get sufficient votes of these 'restive' backbenches that they would recommend them to the selectorate? Would they go for anyone not considered widely supported by the CLP? Why would the final candidate (other than Osborne) be anti EU? Why would it be a candidate that would likely be of some minority interest to the wider GE voter and not someone with a half decent track record in power. Why should the Tory parliamentary party offer and the Tory members accept a thinking man's Nigel Farage?
Because Tory backbenchers love banging on about europe, and Owen Paterson hates the Cameroons. Never doubt the self destructive tendencies of political parties!
There is nothing wrong with pointing out the EU's problems.
It is particularly interesting to see Europhiles incresingly describing rightful criticism of the EU as "banging on about" and referring to it as Europe.
An independent run in case Trump is the nominee might hand the presidency to Trump.
So Hillary still wins even if a 'third party independent' and that 'third party independent' was not even named as Bloomberg, it could even be Sanders! Polls showed Anderson voters almost as likely to pick Reagan as their second choice as Carter so he made no difference in 1980 to the winner
Not really, in the exit polls Reagan won exactly the same as Ford in all categories, but he won that time in 1980 unlike Ford in 76 because Anderson got all the disaffected democrats from Carter who could never vote for Reagan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980
Anderson's biggest impact was with poor liberal voters who would have voted for Carter. Bloomberg would do the same thing.
The Bolivian government has admitted violent crime is rising and that the security forces are ill-equipped to deal with it, evidence that the presence of transnational crime and increasing drug trafficking is taking its toll.
Crime rates have risen in recent years, said the minister, and police were understaffed and under equipped.
One of the world's top three cocaine-producing nations, the trafficking of drugs has seen increasing involvement of international criminal actors, particularly Brazil's powerful prison gangs. It is estimated 80 percent of Bolivian cocaine ends up in Brazil, and a significant amount of Peruvian cocaine also travels through the country, with the eastern city of Santa Cruz now a regional hub for drug traffickers. Coca base seizures doubled between 2006 and 2011, while seizures of cocaine hydrochloride more than quadrupled.
Don't be silly. Quite apart from the fact that the first I'd heard of that story was five minutes ago, in what conceivable world could Lord Feldman, or anyone else for that matter, 'direct' donors to back anything?
My (27 year old) girlfriend recently turned me on to The Hunger Games. She loves them. I agree they are excellent.
But I don't think it is because J Law is unglamorous, at least in the movie. She is exceptionally beautiful.
I was thinking of glamorous in the catwalk sense which the average teenager can't relate or aspire it. I agree Lawrence is beautiful in a brooding sort of way.
Fans of the series could also try the Divergent series, which is nominally aimed at the same market and has a recognisably similar scenario:
It's readable but not as good IMO - some nice plot twists, but essentially unsubtle.
On the subject of analysing such works, there's a podcast I listen to called FightTheFuture which assesses young adult dystopias, not so much the plots themselves (although they get a rundown), but the plausibility, scariness, hopefullness and so on of the worlds described. I'd heard of things like Divergent and the Hunger Games, but they also do ones not turned into movies, or just more obscure.
Not sure I agree. Neither tested in battle and Greening likely to be consumed by Heathrow debacle. Truss has advantage that she's not obviously preferred by either Cameron or Osborne and is currently 'enjoying' scars of the Rural Payments issues.....
But Truss will come into her own as focus moves to EU battle and she'll be on the Telly nightly negotiating with the EU bods. And playing to the gallery.
'justsayin
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot and often at the scene of the crime
Your notion that ministers in government can get by by not developing scars is charming. Every contender will have scars. Who will be the final two contenders? It is pointless trying to speculate now who they will be. Meantime the govt gets on and governs and that will determine the outcome of 2020.
Given that one will be Osborne, tbe other will be the anti-Osborne. Likely to be anti-EU, and quite possibly from the restive backbenches. My tip is Owen Paterson.
And just who would get sufficient votes of these 'restive' backbenches that they would recommend them to the selectorate? Would they go for anyone not considered widely supported by the CLP? Why would the final candidate (other than Osborne) be anti EU? Why would it be a candidate that would likely be of some minority interest to the wider GE voter and not someone with a half decent track record in power. Why should the Tory parliamentary party offer and the Tory members accept a thinking man's Nigel Farage?
Because Tory backbenchers love banging on about europe, and Owen Paterson hates the Cameroons. Never doubt the self destructive tendencies of political parties!
I don't think a non-entity will get that far and Paterson is that. From his time as a minister the only thing he's remembered for is saying "The badgers have moved the goalposts." Not every ex-minister is a Heseltine.
An independent run in case Trump is the nominee might hand the presidency to Trump.
So Hillary still wins even if a 'third party independent' and that 'third party independent' was not even named as Bloomberg, it could even be Sanders! Polls showed Anderson voters almost as likely to pick Reagan as their second choice as Carter so he made no difference in 1980 to the winner
Not really, in the exit polls Reagan won exactly the same as Ford in all categories, but he won that time in 1980 unlike Ford in 76 because Anderson got all the disaffected democrats from Carter who could never vote for Reagan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980
Bloomberg would do the same thing.
Yes really, 37 per cent of Anderson voters said they would have backed Reagan so he made little difference and Reagan would have comfortably won anyway had he not been in the race (in any case those Reagan Democrats had no problem backing Reagan by a landslide in 1984). Voters who voted for Obama in 2012 are not going to vote for Bloomberg over Hillary in 2016, in fact Bloomberg would be equally likely to pick up Romney voters who cannot vote for Trump! http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/
Don't be silly. Quite apart from the fact that the first I'd heard of that story was five minutes ago, in what conceivable world could Lord Feldman, or anyone else for that matter, 'direct' donors to back anything?
He could call them and say "give money to this guy". Pretty simple really.
The whole thing with the Oxford statue. If the college had just stood firm and issued a sensible, logical and well thought out response to why it is a bonkers suggestion, all this would have gone away. Students are forever moaning about something or other. Yes it would have got a few articles in the Guardian, but nobody really cares outside of a very small niche.
By basically giving in, they have now madtable.
I posted this on a previous thread bit it seems appropriate here:-
This has come in part from the mistaken belief that being a victim grants you some sort of moral status, some sort of moral halo or special immunity. A victim is just a word to describe a person who has suffered a crime or injury. It has no moral meaning. But somehow we have moved to a position in society where our feelings of compassion for someone who has suffered have resulted in us imbuing the person who has suffered into someone whose status qua victim - and, therefore, his/her views etc - are special, to be given special attention, to be beyond criticism, to be sanctified in some way.
Victims can be bad people; bad people can be and are victims.
Little wonder that people want to be classified as "victims" when it grants them this sort of secular holiness and they can make demands, no matter how unreasonable, which people feel unable to refuse because, poor things, it would make them feel even worse.
It's beyond pathetic: why would you want to be a victim, for God's sake? What a pathetic ambition. It's like wanting to be ill, just for the fuss. It's childish and narcissistic. It's what happens when we confuse sentimentality with true compassion, when we confuse self-esteem (the cry of the adolescent) with self-respect (the mark of an adult), when we confuse false sentiment and incontinent emotional outpouring with a proper moral sense of what it means to injure others, the difference between real repentance and remorse and how to cope with life's inevitable injuries and disappointments.
What's more most of the people claiming this are not victims in any sense of the word. They have suffered no injury. But they look for something which will allow them to claim "offence" precisely because no-one will challenge them. And the answer to people claiming "offence" in this way is "Grow up." Or "Oh dear. Never mind. You'll get over It."
Have you ever considered releasing a book of essays on various philosophical and moral questions? I won't say it would sell well, as I don't think such things ever sell well, but it'd be very readable I suspect.
Frontier Economics, the company chaired by Lord O’Donnell, has been tasked with examining whether the perk – under which any household with an occupant aged over 75 can avoid the £145.50 fee – should be tightened. One option under consideration is restricting the benefit to households that are solely comprised of pensioners.
The BBC is considering mounting a marketing campaign to encourage the over-75s – who are the biggest consumers of BBC content – to pay voluntarily.
Comments
It is clear that me thinking that UKIP won only one is a delusional state along with Leicester City being top of the league. Too much sherry and mince pies perhaps.
Looking at ICM I see that phone polls have much better results for Labour than online ones, a reverse of the 2010-15 divide, when the Tories where doing much better with phone polls than online ones.
Even polls with the same pollster (Comres) have very different results with their phone surveys than the online ones, in fact the Comres phone poll is consistently along with ICM the best for Labour, while the Comres online poll is consistently the worse for Labour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35153795
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35153499
May - Can't be lucky for ever
Hammond - really?
Boris - no appeal outside London
Nicky Morgan - don't make me laugh
Sajeed Javid - next Chancellor - not really PM material
Liz Truss - next PM - right age, right gender, right background, right policies
Jim Hacker - up through the middle? Brandon Lewis
Bunnco - Your Man On The Spot .... And nowadays on The Inside
There's a full house of prime issues there.
If Leave find the right messenger - and that certainly isn't Farage - we could well turn our backs on the EU.
He is actually leader of his part anyway. Would you have predicted that 4 years ago.
The public's opinion of Corbyn as leader is not yet formed and who knows what it will be in 4 years. I mean who thought he would quote a brutal Albanian dictator or encourage Gorgeous George back to the party?
Osborne may not be leader, but if not who? The fact remains that judging a decision in 4 years on opinions now is silly. There is a fact however. It is that people are reinventing their same old mistakes as before and letting prejudices overtake rationality. Far too many have learned nothing from 2015 and the 5 years before that.
*They are a 'problem' internally for Afghanistan, but so are alot of other militias/organisations in many countries.
** There is alot of crossover, but the Taliban and Al Qaeda aren't strictly the same org.
Welcome back, Mr. Bunnco. However, you're clearly wrong. Patel or Greening are surely the next PM.
Edited extra bit: is*, not are.
Imo it doesn't suggest that being Home Secretary would be a disadvantage but it does suggest that it will be someone who holds one of the great offices.
Of course, we don't know what Boris will be doing after May (the month I mean, not the minister).
What that list really shows is that there is no clear-cut candidate. If Osborne does not get it, it is likely to be somebody currently in the lower reaches of the Cabinet who takes a punt, or even a junior minister. Not forgetting that if Hammond or May resign, there is plenty of time for sudden promotions after the fashion of John Major. Assuming Cameron's resignation is three years away, Major's equivalent post at this stage was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Macmillan's was minister for Housing. Chamberlain nearly took the leadership as minister for Health.
If there is to be a 'stop Osborne' candidate, one will be found, but expect a clean skin, not somebody with a controversial past like Truss or Hunt.
But Truss will come into her own as focus moves to EU battle and she'll be on the Telly nightly negotiating with the EU bods. And playing to the gallery.
'justsayin
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot and often at the scene of the crime
More seriously, quite a few have suggested Truss. She doesn't have, to memory, the immediate drawbacks of most other candidates.
And, sure, things *could* change, but we have to bet (or not) on the information we have now.
It is pointless trying to speculate now who they will be.
Meantime the govt gets on and governs and that will determine the outcome of 2020.
It was apparently hugely popular among young women,as it offers a heroine who isn't impossibly glamorous, sexy or confident but copes with everything that's thrown at her.
This:
http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-donald-trump-independent-bid-republican-pledge-2015-12
Hillary 46
Trump 43
Hillary 40
Trump 39
Third party independent 11
Plus this:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/donald-trump-2016-third-party-bid-213449
Might equal this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Anderson
An independent run in case Trump is the nominee might hand the presidency to Trump.
You may also like Abendau's Heir by Jo Zebedee, a dark sci-fi. It's got the most delightfully harrowing scene I've read this year.
There are a handful of politicians who get to be known in the media by a single name - Harold, Ted, Maggie, Tony, Ken, Boris. It's a great stepping stone to becoming Prime Minister....
Enjoy the tonic that you will be able to afford from the royalty on my copy. Make sure it goes into a good gin, Adnams First Rate Gin is good.
Gonna be nominations up the yazoo....
https://twitter.com/Stefing/status/678998988771733504
It seems to me people are betting on the basis of the regular unflattering photos chosen by OGH. This at least puts him into the good company of most Fleet Street editors who want to form an opinion of their subject.
I would not bet based on current prejudices. However (as I think I pointed out at the time) the opportunity to get good odds was before the 2015 election when the polls were dithering, because if the Tories won then the man who would have 'wot won it' would have been Osborne.
A billion barrel field is a rare discovery these days. And it would supply world demand for less than a fortnight.
I remember the last oil price slide. And the Economist talking on the cover of $5 oil. My opinion on the matter at the time was given to the International Energy Agency in Paris. Simultaneously translated into 7 languages. And it was a helluva lot more accurate than the Economist.
(You know those nightmares where you have to give a speech to everyone in school? On a topic you know nothing about? And you are stark-bollock naked? This was worse... I was not in the habit of giving my opinion to the IEA, but one of my colleagues was. He got embroiled in a take-over and sent me to give his speech in his place. There was a section on future oil price projections.
I read his speech I was giving on his behalf. On the plane to Paris. When it came to the section on future oil prices it had two words.
"SAY SOMETHING"....... )
Le Pen 27%
Hollande 22%
Sarkozy 21%
Juppe would come top if he was UMP nominee, though Hollande would also knock-out Fillon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
It will probably cut a few points off the Tories in Telford in 2020 if she is still the candidate.
Why would the final candidate (other than Osborne) be anti EU? Why would it be a candidate that would likely be of some minority interest to the wider GE voter and not someone with a half decent track record in power.
Why should the Tory parliamentary party offer and the Tory members accept a thinking man's Nigel Farage?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/35126635
Rotten...
However if Hollande goes to the second round then Le Pen becomes president, the last poll had her beating Hollande 52-48 in the second round.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
The exclusion of the FN works as long as the center-right not the left is the second party in France, if it's not then it will get squeezed by both sides in a LD scenario like the C's.
There was talk that Le Pen and Sarkozy would team up if she faced Hollande in the second round, Le Pen would take the presidency and Sarkozy the PM's office.
Since the parliamentary elections take place soon after the presidential ones, but the FN unlike the Republicans has limited prospects of a majority in parliament.
:-)
This has come in part from the mistaken belief that being a victim grants you some sort of moral status, some sort of moral halo or special immunity. A victim is just a word to describe a person who has suffered a crime or injury. It has no moral meaning. But somehow we have moved to a position in society where our feelings of compassion for someone who has suffered have resulted in us imbuing the person who has suffered into someone whose status qua victim - and, therefore, his/her views etc - are special, to be given special attention, to be beyond criticism, to be sanctified in some way.
Victims can be bad people; bad people can be and are victims.
Little wonder that people want to be classified as "victims" when it grants them this sort of secular holiness and they can make demands, no matter how unreasonable, which people feel unable to refuse because, poor things, it would make them feel even worse.
It's beyond pathetic: why would you want to be a victim, for God's sake? What a pathetic ambition. It's like wanting to be ill, just for the fuss. It's childish and narcissistic. It's what happens when we confuse sentimentality with true compassion, when we confuse self-esteem (the cry of the adolescent) with self-respect (the mark of an adult), when we confuse false sentiment and incontinent emotional outpouring with a proper moral sense of what it means to injure others, the difference between real repentance and remorse and how to cope with life's inevitable injuries and disappointments.
What's more most of the people claiming this are not victims in any sense of the word. They have suffered no injury. But they look for something which will allow them to claim "offence" precisely because no-one will challenge them. And the answer to people claiming "offence" in this way is "Grow up." Or "Oh dear. Never mind. You'll get over It."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/poll-donald-trump-independent-bid-republican-pledge-2015-12?r=US&IR=T
However if Trump does win the GOP nomination clearly he will have an outside chance. There has been no talk of any deal ever between Sarkozy and Le Pen and Sarkozy's party would not even countenance it, certainly not the likes of Juppe who outpolls Sarkozy in the country as a whole though I would agree a Hollande run-off gives Le Pen a better chance
I do not doubt the stupidity of some Tory backbenchers, but how many of them would put a minority interest right winger on the final ballot? How many selectorate votes would he get?
How many times do stupid right wing shadow ministers and ministers have to get themselves sacked - because of their own clear stupidity mind - before the penny drops?
Let's be clear, this is driving me to destraction. I would like to embrace a clear right of centre Tory who could articulate him/herself coherently and be attractive to the wider electorate.
The BBC is considering mounting a marketing campaign to encourage the over-75s – who are the biggest consumers of BBC content – to pay voluntarily.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/12062658/BBC-considering-closing-loophole-that-gives-families-with-elderly-relatives-free-TV-licence.html
Couldn't make it up...BBC going to spend a tonne of money to work out what is blindingly obvious..
Fans of the series could also try the Divergent series, which is nominally aimed at the same market and has a recognisably similar scenario:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_trilogy
It's readable but not as good IMO - some nice plot twists, but essentially unsubtle.
It is particularly interesting to see Europhiles incresingly describing rightful criticism of the EU as "banging on about" and referring to it as Europe.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12062953/Tory-chairman-Lord-Feldman-admits-directing-donors-to-pro-EU-campaign-MP-claims.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980
Anderson's biggest impact was with poor liberal voters who would have voted for Carter.
Bloomberg would do the same thing.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/political-monitor-december-2015-tables-us-election.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12063037/Jeremy-Corbyn-says-he-would-pick-Bolivia-if-he-had-to-live-outside-Britain.html
Off you pop Jezza...
The Bolivian government has admitted violent crime is rising and that the security forces are ill-equipped to deal with it, evidence that the presence of transnational crime and increasing drug trafficking is taking its toll.
Crime rates have risen in recent years, said the minister, and police were understaffed and under equipped.
One of the world's top three cocaine-producing nations, the trafficking of drugs has seen increasing involvement of international criminal actors, particularly Brazil's powerful prison gangs. It is estimated 80 percent of Bolivian cocaine ends up in Brazil, and a significant amount of Peruvian cocaine also travels through the country, with the eastern city of Santa Cruz now a regional hub for drug traffickers. Coca base seizures doubled between 2006 and 2011, while seizures of cocaine hydrochloride more than quadrupled.
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/violent-crime-rising-in-bolivia-government
http://loadingreadyrun.com/lrrcasts/archive/ftf/date/desc/_
http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/
Pretty simple really.
Goodnight.