Markit/CIPS UK Manufacturing PMI UK manufacturing growth accelerates at start of 2016 to 52.9, against market expectations of around 51.4. Excellent news although the share prices remain depressed this morning.
Manufacturing PMIs were generally good around Europe and in Japan, with China, Russia and France struggling:
Spain 55.5 Sweden 55.5 Ireland 54.3 Italy 53.2 UK 52.9 Germany 52.3 Japan 52.3 France 50.0 Russia 49.8 China 48.4
I would say the Germans are struggling as well given the record monetary stimulus from the ECB and how depressed the Euro is vs GBP and USD.
The ECB is playing a beggar-thy-neighbour strategy to jump start EU growth, but only Spain and Ireland are really pushing forwards with it
I think the collapse in the price of oil is benefiting Europe too. Worth remembering that almost all Euopean countries are big energy importers.
Very true, and yet France is still barely treading water.
Markit/CIPS UK Manufacturing PMI UK manufacturing growth accelerates at start of 2016 to 52.9, against market expectations of around 51.4. Excellent news although the share prices remain depressed this morning.
Manufacturing PMIs were generally good around Europe and in Japan, with China, Russia and France struggling:
Spain 55.5 Sweden 55.5 Ireland 54.3 Italy 53.2 UK 52.9 Germany 52.3 Japan 52.3 France 50.0 Russia 49.8 China 48.4
I would say the Germans are struggling as well given the record monetary stimulus from the ECB and how depressed the Euro is vs GBP and USD.
The ECB is playing a beggar-thy-neighbour strategy to jump start EU growth, but only Spain and Ireland are really pushing forwards with it
I think the collapse in the price of oil is benefiting Europe too. Worth remembering that almost all Euopean countries are big energy importers.
Very true, and yet France is still barely treading water.
Absolutely, and whatever you think of the Euro, Spain has taken dramatic steps to open up its economy, and Italy is (belatedly) following it. France is the great unreformed European economy, and will be where the Euro lives or dies.
Markit/CIPS UK Manufacturing PMI UK manufacturing growth accelerates at start of 2016 to 52.9, against market expectations of around 51.4. Excellent news although the share prices remain depressed this morning.
Manufacturing PMIs were generally good around Europe and in Japan, with China, Russia and France struggling:
Spain 55.5 Sweden 55.5 Ireland 54.3 Italy 53.2 UK 52.9 Germany 52.3 Japan 52.3 France 50.0 Russia 49.8 China 48.4
I would say the Germans are struggling as well given the record monetary stimulus from the ECB and how depressed the Euro is vs GBP and USD.
The ECB is playing a beggar-thy-neighbour strategy to jump start EU growth, but only Spain and Ireland are really pushing forwards with it
I think the collapse in the price of oil is benefiting Europe too. Worth remembering that almost all Euopean countries are big energy importers.
Very true, and yet France is still barely treading water.
Absolutely, and whatever you think of the Euro, Spain has taken dramatic steps to open up its economy, and Italy is (belatedly) following it. France is the great unreformed European economy, and will be where the Euro lives or dies.
Yes of course, worse still is that the harder Hollande or whoever replaces him push for reform the more it will push people towards MLP who wants more protectionism and to increase public sector spending further.
The poll Plato posted suggests that Rubio is definitely worth a punt, both in Iowa and nationally (if he wins Iowa his odds will change dramatically). Not a huge punt as it's only one poll, but still.
rcs's analysis of what we should do on refugees is really accurate IMO, and pretty much what I've been arguing for over a year. We should make peaceful countries in the region an irresistible cash offer to operate decent migrant camps with some prospect of actually making a living there while things are (we hope) sorted out. It would be a very sensible investment.
Thoughtful piece by Tatchell on the balance between tolerating free speech and tolerating bigotry, which I think many here will agree with (still not sure what I think myself):
That's good to hear, as it was a very peculiar decision to bring a case.
AIUI, and as was argued in NI at the time, it was not clear how it was even possible that anyone had been discriminated against at all, since discrimination is against people because of their sexual orientation and it was not clear that the shop knew that their customer was a person, or if so what their orientation was.
Another of those, like the Google Tax Flap, where some campaigners wanted the law to say something different to that which it actually does.
The judge found as a fact that the cake shop owners assumed the customer was gay from the request. It seems an entirely reasonable finding on the face of it.
Thank-you for that. I find the Judge's ruling a little entrepreneurial.
The poll Plato posted suggests that Rubio is definitely worth a punt, both in Iowa and nationally (if he wins Iowa his odds will change dramatically). Not a huge punt as it's only one poll, but still.
rcs's analysis of what we should do on refugees is really accurate IMO, and pretty much what I've been arguing for over a year. We should make peaceful countries in the region an irresistible cash offer to operate decent migrant camps with some prospect of actually making a living there while things are (we hope) sorted out. It would be a very sensible investment.
Thoughtful piece by Tatchell on the balance between tolerating free speech and tolerating bigotry, which I think many here will agree with (still not sure what I think myself):
That's good to hear, as it was a very peculiar decision to bring a case.
AIUI, and as was argued in NI at the time, it was not clear how it was even possible that anyone had been discriminated against at all, since discrimination is against people because of their sexual orientation and it was not clear that the shop knew that their customer was a person, or if so what their orientation was.
Another of those, like the Google Tax Flap, where some campaigners wanted the law to say something different to that which it actually does.
The judge found as a fact that the cake shop owners assumed the customer was gay from the request. It seems an entirely reasonable finding on the face of it.
As I understand it, the plaintiff was a regular customer at the bakery before the cake incident. So the Ashers weren't refusing to serve him because he was gay, but rather because they didn't want to produce a cake promoting a message with which they profoundly disagreed.
Or maybe the seven dwarves all end up on around 8%, and Trump saunters to the nomination with Cruz in his wake.
This might happen in Iowa but I don't think you ever get a lot of similar candidates remaining viable (ie funded) for a long time; Sooner or later one of them emerges as the one with the longest chain and the rest of them get orphaned.
Drinking and adultery are not proclivities restricted solely to powerful men, it happens rather a lot in every town and village. - As for Clegg, relations with 30 women before settling down is nothing for a healthy, good looking chap.
A very interesting article about some political focus groups organised by the Irish Times. Well worth a read even if you're not particularly interested in Irish politics - many of the themes would apply here or in the US:
'The PMIs are generally considered the best "forward looking" economic activity indicator.'
The PMI headline numbers are a coincident indicator of output, not a forward-looking one (except in the sense that GDP comes out later due to publication lags). Sub-indices may have forward-looking elements.
Drinking and adultery are not proclivities restricted solely to powerful men, it happens rather a lot in every town and village. - As for Clegg, relations with 30 women before settling down is nothing for a healthy, good looking chap.
We're finally here. Votes will be cast and there will be a result. The caucuses begin at 7pm central. The networks are saying that results will start about 10pm Central (11pm Eastern, 4am GMT).
Primary elections are run by states. Caucuses are run by the political parties. That means the rules are different for Democrats and Republicans in a caucus.
For Democrats you turn up, listen to people expound the virtues of the various candidates and then you literally go to a corner to support a specific candidate - this corner for Hillary, this one for Bernie etc. They quite literally vote with their feet, and a head count shows the result. There is nothing secret about how you vote.
There is a wrinkle for Democrats. Hillary leads Bernie by 3%. O'Malley stands at 3%. When they count heads, a candidate has to get 15% to be 'viable'. If they don't, then those who support the non-viable candidate can either support another candidate or drop out. That adds a level of unpredictability.
For Republicans it's a bit different. They turn up, listen to people talk about the various candidates, and then fill out a ballot form in a secret ballot. There is no viability rule in Republican caucuses.
One other fact of note. Over the weekend it was announced that Bernie Sanders has had more campaign contributors than any other candidate in history. The average contribution to the Sanders campaign is $27.
The poll Plato posted suggests that Rubio is definitely worth a punt, both in Iowa and nationally (if he wins Iowa his odds will change dramatically). Not a huge punt as it's only one poll, but still.
rcs's analysis of what we should do on refugees is really accurate IMO, and pretty much what I've been arguing for over a year. We should make peaceful countries in the region an irresistible cash offer to operate decent migrant camps with some prospect of actually making a living there while things are (we hope) sorted out. It would be a very sensible investment.
Thoughtful piece by Tatchell on the balance between tolerating free speech and tolerating bigotry, which I think many here will agree with (still not sure what I think myself):
That's good to hear, as it was a very peculiar decision to bring a case.
AIUI, and as was argued in NI at the time, it was not clear how it was even possible that anyone had been discriminated against at all, since discrimination is against people because of their sexual orientation and it was not clear that the shop knew that their customer was a person, or if so what their orientation was.
Another of those, like the Google Tax Flap, where some campaigners wanted the law to say something different to that which it actually does.
The judge found as a fact that the cake shop owners assumed the customer was gay from the request. It seems an entirely reasonable finding on the face of it.
Thank-you for that. I find the Judge's ruling a little entrepreneurial.
Paragraph 39 deals with this finding of fact and why the judge made it.
Paragraph 12 is among the most Northern Irish paragraphs ever written.
Thank-you for that. Interesting read, and it will be interesting to see how the Appeal goes.
I'm not at all convinced by the Judge's reasoning, and in a city the size of Belfast it is not as if there is any shortage of bakeries so no material harm can have been suffered.
Paragraph 39 deals with this finding of fact and why the judge made it.
Paragraph 12 is among the most Northern Irish paragraphs ever written.
Lol, para 12 is amazing. One might imagine an ISIS court weighing up the use of references to Scripture in similar fashion.
As someone co-responsible for some the relevant legislation, what we were trying to do was prevent a rash of statements/notices/policies that would have an intimidatory effect on gay people and people from ethnic minorities, in the way that "No blacks or Irish" signs in B&Bs used to poison the atmosphere. We were not seeking to force people to think differently. I don't think anyone had considered which side of the line the making of cakes with statements on them would fall.
@MaxPB, I wish we got regular French opinion polls. It's a source of enormous annoyance that they come out so infrequently.
Yes, very frustrating.
German polls otoh, are very interesting at the moment.
The latest poll, not from INSA (who seem much better for AfD and worse for CDU than others), would produce quite an interesting result:
CDU/CSU - 34 SPD - 24 Green - 9 FDP - 5 Left - 10 AfD - 12
Obviously the grand coalition would continue, but one does wonder whether Merkel's pronouncement today that migrants would be sent home once Syria is fixed is related to AfD's surge and the CDU being down over 7 points from the result.
If she doesn't change the open door policy to migrants before the next election then I think AfD could go as high as 15 points and the CDU as low as 30 points (based on nothing but my own intuition before someone gets upset). A grand coalition with just 50-55% vote share would not be viable IMO, but then neither would anything else if the result was something like this:
CDU/CSU - 30 SPD - 21 Green - 10 FDP - 6 Left - 12 AfD -15
So there would have to be a three party coalition with the CDU/CSU, SPD and either the FDP or more likely, the Greens, but the CDU going into power with such a left wing coalition will mean AfD would continue to eat into their vote share.
One very poor decision could have very large consequences for the long term landscape of German politics. In 2 or 3 cycles AfD could reach their maximum potential of 18-20 points and become a permanent feature of the Bundestag leaving the CDU without an easy or natural partner they can form a coalition with other than on the left.
The poll Plato posted suggests that Rubio is definitely worth a punt, both in Iowa and nationally (if he wins Iowa his odds will change dramatically). Not a huge punt as it's only one poll, but still.
rcs's analysis of what we should do on refugees is really accurate IMO, and pretty much what I've been arguing for over a year. We should make peaceful countries in the region an irresistible cash offer to operate decent migrant camps with some prospect of actually making a living there while things are (we hope) sorted out. It would be a very sensible investment.
Thoughtful piece by Tatchell on the balance between tolerating free speech and tolerating bigotry, which I think many here will agree with (still not sure what I think myself):
That's good to hear, as it was a very peculiar decision to bring a case.
AIUI, and as was argued in NI at the time, it was not clear how it was even possible that anyone had been discriminated against at all, since discrimination is against people because of their sexual orientation and it was not clear that the shop knew that their customer was a person, or if so what their orientation was.
Another of those, like the Google Tax Flap, where some campaigners wanted the law to say something different to that which it actually does.
The judge found as a fact that the cake shop owners assumed the customer was gay from the request. It seems an entirely reasonable finding on the face of it.
Thank-you for that. I find the Judge's ruling a little entrepreneurial.
Paragraph 39 deals with this finding of fact and why the judge made it.
Paragraph 12 is among the most Northern Irish paragraphs ever written.
Thank-you for that. Interesting read, and it will be interesting to see how the Appeal goes.
I'm not at all convinced by the Judge's reasoning, and in a city the size of Belfast it is not as if there is any shortage of bakeries so no material harm can have been suffered.
I don't think the judge's reasoning holds water and expect a different rationale on appeal whichever side wins.
Paragraph 39 deals with this finding of fact and why the judge made it.
Paragraph 12 is among the most Northern Irish paragraphs ever written.
Lol, para 12 is amazing. One might imagine an ISIS court weighing up the use of references to Scripture in similar fashion.
As someone co-responsible for some the relevant legislation, what we were trying to do was prevent a rash of statements/notices/policies that would have an intimidatory effect on gay people and people from ethnic minorities, in the way that "No blacks or Irish" signs in B&Bs used to poison the atmosphere. We were not seeking to force people to think differently. I don't think anyone had considered which side of the line the making of cakes with statements on them would fall.
Alot of our law is like a game of chinese whispers.
Europe says people have a right to family life. Parliament says people in Britain have a right to family life. Judges decide that a Sudanese boy in Calais has a right to full benefits because his 2nd uncle happened to make it across in a lorry is applying a "right to family life"
Interesting - if you buy into @Danny565 theory that Mr & Mrs Guardian are over-represented at Yougov then it is terrible news for Remain.
But it is Yougov, bet on it at your peril.
Although I’m an OAP I’m in favour of Remain. One thing that supports my position is that my children and my adult grandchildren are in favour of Remain. Should my generation poison the future of their children for some memory of past glories. Or does age bring wisdom. TBH I’m not sure that it does.
Interesting - if you buy into @Danny565 theory that Mr & Mrs Guardian are over-represented at Yougov then it is terrible news for Remain.
But it is Yougov, bet on it at your peril.
Although I’m an OAP I’m in favour of Remain. One thing that supports my position is that my children and my adult grandchildren are in favour of Remain. Should my generation poison the future of their children for some memory of past glories. Or does age bring wisdom. TBH I’m not sure that it does.
The only good thing I can work out about Europe is actually the much maligned €. Since we're not in that I'll be voting to leave currently.
Interesting - if you buy into @Danny565 theory that Mr & Mrs Guardian are over-represented at Yougov then it is terrible news for Remain.
But it is Yougov, bet on it at your peril.
Although I’m an OAP I’m in favour of Remain. One thing that supports my position is that my children and my adult grandchildren are in favour of Remain. Should my generation poison the future of their children for some memory of past glories. Or does age bring wisdom. TBH I’m not sure that it does.
All the older people I know are in favour of Remain, although I'm aware that contradicts the polling evidence.
Paragraph 39 deals with this finding of fact and why the judge made it.
Paragraph 12 is among the most Northern Irish paragraphs ever written.
Lol, para 12 is amazing. One might imagine an ISIS court weighing up the use of references to Scripture in similar fashion.
As someone co-responsible for some the relevant legislation, what we were trying to do was prevent a rash of statements/notices/policies that would have an intimidatory effect on gay people and people from ethnic minorities, in the way that "No blacks or Irish" signs in B&Bs used to poison the atmosphere. We were not seeking to force people to think differently. I don't think anyone had considered which side of the line the making of cakes with statements on them would fall.
Alot of our law is like a game of chinese whispers.
Europe says people have a right to family life. Parliament says people in Britain have a right to family life. Judges decide that a Sudanese boy in Calais has a right to full benefits because his 2nd uncle happened to make it across in a lorry is applying a "right to family life"
Not judges, chairs of Immigration Tribunals with minimal legal training, if any.
People with their level of experience shouldn't be developing binding precedent on human rights. This needs a SC ruling soonest.
Paragraph 39 deals with this finding of fact and why the judge made it.
Paragraph 12 is among the most Northern Irish paragraphs ever written.
Lol, para 12 is amazing. One might imagine an ISIS court weighing up the use of references to Scripture in similar fashion.
As someone co-responsible for some the relevant legislation, what we were trying to do was prevent a rash of statements/notices/policies that would have an intimidatory effect on gay people and people from ethnic minorities, in the way that "No blacks or Irish" signs in B&Bs used to poison the atmosphere. We were not seeking to force people to think differently. I don't think anyone had considered which side of the line the making of cakes with statements on them would fall.
The Law of Unintended Consequences, eh Nick!
Thanks for the link to the article BTW. An interesting article by Tatchell.
The difficulty with what you were trying to achieve - which I support - is that the debate around it too often morphed into calling those who disagreed "bigots" and an implication that there was only one right-thinking and acceptable opinion about the subject. If you don't accept that people can - legitimately - have a different point of view than you, if you try and put them beyond the pale of acceptable opinions, then it is not really a surprise that you end up in a situation where people are - or feel that they are - being forced into thinking only in one way and differently from what they actually think.
The cake situation could have been resolved without the need for resort to law with a bit of common sense and without parties needing to prove a point. The law is a blunt instrument when it comes to regulating social mores, one reason why it should be used with a touch more discretion - by parties and lawmakers alike.
Afternoon all, O/T Has anyone given any thought on who may win #CBB which finishes this weekend? I've had a fiver on Scotty T since early doors, but starting to think that Tiffany is looking very strong. Or Steph may be in with a shout if the public react badly to all the boos she gets on eviction nights.
We're finally here. Votes will be cast and there will be a result. The caucuses begin at 7pm central. The networks are saying that results will start about 10pm Central (11pm Eastern, 4am GMT).
Primary elections are run by states. Caucuses are run by the political parties. That means the rules are different for Democrats and Republicans in a caucus.
For Democrats you turn up, listen to people expound the virtues of the various candidates and then you literally go to a corner to support a specific candidate - this corner for Hillary, this one for Bernie etc. They quite literally vote with their feet, and a head count shows the result. There is nothing secret about how you vote.
There is a wrinkle for Democrats. Hillary leads Bernie by 3%. O'Malley stands at 3%. When they count heads, a candidate has to get 15% to be 'viable'. If they don't, then those who support the non-viable candidate can either support another candidate or drop out. That adds a level of unpredictability.
For Republicans it's a bit different. They turn up, listen to people talk about the various candidates, and then fill out a ballot form in a secret ballot. There is no viability rule in Republican caucuses.
One other fact of note. Over the weekend it was announced that Bernie Sanders has had more campaign contributors than any other candidate in history. The average contribution to the Sanders campaign is $27.
Sanders may be about to hit brute reality though:
“Hands down, Clinton has the best operation,” one Iowa Democrat said. “It doesn't matter who I speak to – whether it's in a big county or small, on the western side of the state or eastern – they all say the same thing: They see no evidence of Sanders organizing. They have a lot of people, but none of them are trained or prepared for what will happen on Monday.
In July 2015 the CDU were on 43 points and AfD on 3 points. The most recent poll has the CDU on 34(-9) points and AfD on 12(+9)
Everyone else is within the MoE.
Yes, I've been cautious on German polling as INSA seemed to differ from everyone else, but the trend seems pretty clear. I'd say that there is also a small trend to the non-governing parties doing better: they are all MOE but they're all up.
Paragraph 39 deals with this finding of fact and why the judge made it.
Paragraph 12 is among the most Northern Irish paragraphs ever written.
Lol, para 12 is amazing. One might imagine an ISIS court weighing up the use of references to Scripture in similar fashion.
As someone co-responsible for some the relevant legislation, what we were trying to do was prevent a rash of statements/notices/policies that would have an intimidatory effect on gay people and people from ethnic minorities, in the way that "No blacks or Irish" signs in B&Bs used to poison the atmosphere. We were not seeking to force people to think differently. I don't think anyone had considered which side of the line the making of cakes with statements on them would fall.
It would seem that the law of unintended consequences is immutable, so there will always be cases that come along that seem totally bizarre, whether the direction of travel is to liberalise, or to enforce equality in law, or to reduce the legislative burden.
Fundamentally, all business people should be somewhat accustomed to having to structure themselves and their offerings in a certain way, driven primarily by the law or the tax system. I would suggest there are still plenty of ways that a Christian business can be set up to avoid the issue in this case, whether it is a wholesale ban on political sloganeering on cakes or a B&B describing their service as a room with 2 beds to be arranged at the owner's entire discretion (and everyone equally - married, single, brothers alike have to take lucky dip on the arrangement provided).
Where thousands of accountants will advise on how to structure for the tax system, I am surprised never to have heard of a niche Christian business compliance advisers telling interested businesses how to set themselves up without moral conflict.
Thanks for the link to the article BTW. An interesting article by Tatchell.
The difficulty with what you were trying to achieve - which I support - is that the debate around it too often morphed into calling those who disagreed "bigots" and an implication that there was only one right-thinking and acceptable opinion about the subject. If you don't accept that people can - legitimately - have a different point of view than you, if you try and put them beyond the pale of acceptable opinions, then it is not really a surprise that you end up in a situation where people are - or feel that they are - being forced into thinking only in one way and differently from what they actually think.
The cake situation could have been resolved without the need for resort to law with a bit of common sense and without parties needing to prove a point. The law is a blunt instrument when it comes to regulating social mores, one reason why it should be used with a touch more discretion - by parties and lawmakers alike.
Agreed. I think with the benefit of hindsight that what's needed is essentially something akin to the not shouting fire in a crowded theatre - the scale of impact of the action should be relevant. I'm not worried if someone expresses opinions that I think bigoted when talking to friends or a small circle - as I've mentioned, I've met voters who said they liked Adolf Hitler and his views and policies towards minorities, but I've not reported them to the police for stirring up hatred, since they were just talking to me. Similarly, baking or not baking a cake seems to me unlikely to have sufficient impact to be worth attracting the interest of the courts. Putting up signs, making speeches, etc., should have a lower threshold, as should deliberate provocation - Mosley's march through the East End is the classic example.
The problem about that is that it encourages people to feel that quiet, informal discirimination is OK, so long as they don't put up a notice about it. That doesn't seem quite right either. So I'm not too sure, actually.
Final Iowa GOP poll from Emerson College: Trump 27% (-6 ) Cruz 26 (+3) Rubio 22 (+8)
Tight three-horse race that will be won on turnout.
On those numbers, bet on Rubio?
If that is an accurate poll then it should be clear to anyone able to read between the lines that Rubio is going to be the nominee
A strong third is a contradiction in terms. If Rubio fails to win Iowa he has to win NH. If Trump wins both he is nominee. Tonight also partly depends on turnout, Overtime politics overnight had Trump leading Rubio by 20% amongst potential caucus goers but 3% amongst certain caucus goers however Rubio was still third in both cases
You have zero political instincts and nous ; Trump may win the first 3 states and then still lose ....Rubio doesn't ''have '' to win Iowa and NH ...you are just a prisoner od statistics without the ability to read between the lines ...this is a very unusual election and you can expect an unusual outcome
Fact 1 No candidate since 1976 on either side has lost Iowa and New Hampshire and become their party's nominee other than Bill Clinton in 1992 and he won South Carolina
Fact 2 No candidate on either side since 1976 has won Iowa and New Hampshire and failed to become their party's nominee
So if Rubio fails to win any of those three states he will not be nominee
We're finally here. Votes will be cast and there will be a result. The caucuses begin at 7pm central. The networks are saying that results will start about 10pm Central (11pm Eastern, 4am GMT).
Primary elections are run by states. Caucuses are run by the political parties. That means the rules are different for Democrats and Republicans in a caucus.
For Democrats you turn up, listen to people expound the virtues of the various candidates and then you literally go to a corner to support a specific candidate - this corner for Hillary, this one for Bernie etc. They quite literally vote with their feet, and a head count shows the result. There is nothing secret about how you vote.
There is a wrinkle for Democrats. Hillary leads Bernie by 3%. O'Malley stands at 3%. When they count heads, a candidate has to get 15% to be 'viable'. If they don't, then those who support the non-viable candidate can either support another candidate or drop out. That adds a level of unpredictability.
For Republicans it's a bit different. They turn up, listen to people talk about the various candidates, and then fill out a ballot form in a secret ballot. There is no viability rule in Republican caucuses.
One other fact of note. Over the weekend it was announced that Bernie Sanders has had more campaign contributors than any other candidate in history. The average contribution to the Sanders campaign is $27.
I've kept away from betting on Clinton. I think she is pretty likely to be POTUS, but a nagging doubt keeps me away. I am on Biden just in case.
Your nagging doubt may yet be right. Network national security correspondents and members of various House committees are saying on background that the FBI is ready to move on an email indictment, and almost ready on the public corruption track. They are double and triple checking - given who it is they would be indicting - because there is no room for any doubt whatsoever, particularly on the public corruption track which is harder to prove. On emails they have her cold.
The FBI has to recommend the establishment of a grand jury, DOJ has to go with it. The question is would the WH nix it. If they did it would be a political firestorm.
But it has to be said - this is all on background (the FBI is tighter than a drum about ongoing investigations) and might not happen. We simply don't know. But the fact that the FBI investigation is still expanding is not good news for Hillary. You don't expand FBI investigations because of a lack of evidence.
On the Sunday shows Hillary says it's just the Republicans beating up on her. Her donors are worried.
A few of the saner GOP candidates need to fall on their swords for the good of their party. Rubio looks to be the best of the non-mad, non-obnoxious offerings, so the likes of Bush and Christie need to endorse him, and do so soon.
Meanwhile for the Dems, I'm still in the 'Draft Biden' camp.
Only on here could a candidate that supports a no fly zone in Syria, cancelling the Iran nuclear deal and actually increasing immigration be described as sane or non-mad/non-obnoxious.
I've noticed the GOP Establishment, no not the old Establishment of Northeastern WASPs like Nelson Rockefeller, but the professional and ideological class: the lobbyists, donors, consultants and party bureaucrats, and the elected officials they support, whose primary objective is to get Republicans into office, with little concern for ideology, are moving to Trump.
Three Reasons. 1) Electability: As I noted, above all, the GOP Establishment is invested in having a Republican president. While most of the Establishment believes the Hispanic vote nonsense, they do see that Trump is bringing in previously disaffected white working class voters. As Senator Orrin Hatch noted: “For us to win, we have to appeal the moderates and independents. We can’t just act like that only one point of view is the only way to go. That’s where Ted is going to have some trouble.” Trump, in contrast is doing well among moderate GOP voters and working class voters. Hatch said “I’ve come around a little bit on Trump.” He said. “I’m not so sure we’d lose if he’s our nominee because he’s appealing to people who a lot of the Republican candidates have not appealed to in the past.”
2) Someone the GOP Establishment can work with. Bob Dole said: “He’s got the right personality and he’s kind of a deal-maker.” Craig Shirley, quoted in U.S. News & World Report, said: “Ultimately, the Washington establishment deep down—although they find Trump tacky or distasteful—they think that they ultimately can work with him.”
3) Party Infrastructure. Lobbyist Richard Hohlt told the New York Times’ Martin, “Do they all love Trump? No. But there’s a feeling that he is not going to layer over the party or install his own person. Whereas Cruz will have his own people there.” They get to keep their jobs.
Of course the shrill neocon voices in the media won't change but the GOP is beginning to rally round Trump.
The Bushes can't stand Trump, others may come around
We're finally here. Votes will be cast and there will be a result. The caucuses begin at 7pm central. The networks are saying that results will start about 10pm Central (11pm Eastern, 4am GMT).
Primary elections are run by states. Caucuses are run by the political parties. That means the rules are different for Democrats and Republicans in a caucus.
For Democrats you turn up, listen to people expound the virtues of the various candidates and then you literally go to a corner to support a specific candidate - this corner for Hillary, this one for Bernie etc. They quite literally vote with their feet, and a head count shows the result. There is nothing secret about how you vote.
There is a wrinkle for Democrats. Hillary leads Bernie by 3%. O'Malley stands at 3%. When they count heads, a candidate has to get 15% to be 'viable'. If they don't, then those who support the non-viable candidate can either support another candidate or drop out. That adds a level of unpredictability.
I've kept away from betting on Clinton. I think she is pretty likely to be POTUS, but a nagging doubt keeps me away. I am on Biden just in case.
Your nagging doubt may yet be right. Network national security correspondents and members of various House committees are saying on background that the FBI is ready to move on an email indictment, and almost ready on the public corruption track. They are double and triple checking - given who it is they would be indicting - because there is no room for any doubt whatsoever, particularly on the public corruption track which is harder to prove. On emails they have her cold.
The FBI has to recommend the establishment of a grand jury, DOJ has to go with it. The question is would the WH nix it. If they did it would be a political firestorm.
But it has to be said - this is all on background (the FBI is tighter than a drum about ongoing investigations) and might not happen. We simply don't know. But the fact that the FBI investigation is still expanding is not good news for Hillary.
On the Sunday shows Hillary says it's just the Republicans beating up on her. Her donors are worried.
Merkel says immigrants must go home after the war.
Is this the most monumental "closing of a stable door after the horse as bolted" ever recorded in history?
.
Not quite. In the short-term they are claiming asylum so, notwithstanding the logistical challenge of sending 1 million+ accepted refugees back to a country when the time comes, 'sending back afterwards' is absolutely a statement of the legal position of someone who has been granted asylum.
More interestingly, the fear being expressed in the UK recently has been that all the refugees in Germany will eventually get EU passports and that very many will come here. I've always had some scepticism how much and how soon that might affect UK immigration, even if many do get passports. But the implication in Merkel wanting to send them back must surely be that they will remain under asylum, not be granted EU citizenship, and will therefore have no entitlement of free movement to the UK.
''Putting up signs, making speeches, etc., should have a lower threshold, as should deliberate provocation - Mosley's march through the East End is the classic example.''
The KKK are able to do all of the above in the US and they are getting precisely nowhere. For me, true free speech is much safer than limited free speech because you know what people are really thinking, and perhaps more importantly, how many are thinking it.
Your nagging doubt may yet be right. Network national security correspondents and members of various House committees are saying on background that the FBI is ready to move on an email indictment, and almost ready on the public corruption track. They are double and triple checking - given who it is they would be indicting - because there is no room for any doubt whatsoever, particularly on the public corruption track which is harder to prove. On emails they have her cold.
The FBI has to recommend the establishment of a grand jury, DOJ has to go with it. The question is would the WH nix it. If they did it would be a political firestorm.
But it has to be said - this is all on background (the FBI is tighter than a drum about ongoing investigations) and might not happen. We simply don't know. But the fact that the FBI investigation is still expanding is not good news for Hillary. You don't expand FBI investigations because of a lack of evidence.
On the Sunday shows Hillary says it's just the Republicans beating up on her. Her donors are worried.
What is the difference between this private mail server scandal and the George Bush equivalent of a few years ago? I've seen a lot of comment from ex-soldiers saying they'd have been buried for not handling classified information with due reverence, but not much beyond that. At what point does the FBI need to perform or get off the pot? Presumably they can't wait till the inauguration.
Mr. Flightpath, then Ashdown was a fool. Why would a PM with a landslide alter the voting system?
The promise was made before the election, when Blair expected only a slim majority, if one at all.
Correct. I'm glad there is someone around with an understanding of history. Labour and the LDs conspired with each other to smear the tories, and to give each other a free run in their best constituencies. The libdems basically gave Blair their seal of approval. Blair promised a commission on PR, led by Jenkins. It recommended a change to some sort of PR and Blair with a casual effrontery that was breathtaking threw it into a bin located in the long grass. Total humiliation for Ashdown - don't know how he kept his job for as long as he did after that.
I don't - he has no more idea than the rest of us. A propos of nothing, and just to be mischievous, like Ted Cruz he is Canadian born, from my old home town of Toronto.
We're finally here. Votes will be cast and there will be a result. The caucuses begin at 7pm central. The networks are saying that results will start about 10pm Central (11pm Eastern, 4am GMT).
Primary elections are run by states. Caucuses are run by the political parties. That means the rules are different for Democrats and Republicans in a caucus.
For Democrats you turn up, listen to people expound the virtues of the various candidates and then you literally go to a corner to support a specific candidate - this corner for Hillary, this one for Bernie etc. They quite literally vote with their feet, and a head count shows the result. There is nothing secret about how you vote.
There is a wrinkle for Democrats. Hillary leads Bernie by 3%. O'Malley stands at 3%. When they count heads, a candidate has to get 15% to be 'viable'. If they don't, then those who support the non-viable candidate can either support another candidate or drop out. That adds a level of unpredictability.
I've kept away from betting on Clinton. I think she is pretty likely to be POTUS, but a nagging doubt keeps me away. I am on Biden just in case.
Your nagging doubt may yet be right. Network national security correspondents and members of various House committees are saying on background that the FBI is ready to move on an email indictment, and almost ready on the public corruption track. They are double and triple checking - given who it is they would be indicting - because there is no room for any doubt whatsoever, particularly on the public corruption track which is harder to prove. On emails they have her cold.
The FBI has to recommend the establishment of a grand jury, DOJ has to go with it. The question is would the WH nix it. If they did it would be a political firestorm.
But it has to be said - this is all on background (the FBI is tighter than a drum about ongoing investigations) and might not happen. We simply don't know. But the fact that the FBI investigation is still expanding is not good news for Hillary.
On the Sunday shows Hillary says it's just the Republicans beating up on her. Her donors are worried.
Final Iowa GOP poll from Emerson College: Trump 27% (-6 ) Cruz 26 (+3) Rubio 22 (+8)
Tight three-horse race that will be won on turnout.
On those numbers, bet on Rubio?
If that is an accurate poll then it should be clear to anyone able to read between the lines that Rubio is going to be the nominee
A strong third is a contradiction in terms. If Rubio fails to win Iowa he has to win NH. If Trump wins both he is nominee. Tonight also partly depends on turnout, Overtime politics overnight had Trump leading Rubio by 20% amongst potential caucus goers but 3% amongst certain caucus goers however Rubio was still third in both cases
You have zero political instincts and nous ; Trump may win the first 3 states and then still lose ....Rubio doesn't ''have '' to win Iowa and NH ...you are just a prisoner od statistics without the ability to read between the lines ...this is a very unusual election and you can expect an unusual outcome
Fact 1 No candidate since 1976 on either side has lost Iowa and New Hampshire and become their party's nominee other than Bill Clinton in 1992 and he won South Carolina
Fact 2 No candidate on either side since 1976 has won Iowa and New Hampshire and failed to become their party's nominee
So if Rubio fails to win any of those three states he will not be nominee
Trends have a nasty habit of being disrupted by future events....
Remember, Andy Burnham was the best man for the Labour leadership job...
Your nagging doubt may yet be right. Network national security correspondents and members of various House committees are saying on background that the FBI is ready to move on an email indictment, and almost ready on the public corruption track. They are double and triple checking - given who it is they would be indicting - because there is no room for any doubt whatsoever, particularly on the public corruption track which is harder to prove. On emails they have her cold.
The FBI has to recommend the establishment of a grand jury, DOJ has to go with it. The question is would the WH nix it. If they did it would be a political firestorm.
But it has to be said - this is all on background (the FBI is tighter than a drum about ongoing investigations) and might not happen. We simply don't know. But the fact that the FBI investigation is still expanding is not good news for Hillary. You don't expand FBI investigations because of a lack of evidence.
On the Sunday shows Hillary says it's just the Republicans beating up on her. Her donors are worried.
What is the difference between this private mail server scandal and the George Bush equivalent of a few years ago? I've seen a lot of comment from ex-soldiers saying they'd have been buried for not handling classified information with due reverence, but not much beyond that. At what point does the FBI need to perform or get off the pot? Presumably they can't wait till the inauguration.
Final Iowa GOP poll from Emerson College: Trump 27% (-6 ) Cruz 26 (+3) Rubio 22 (+8)
Tight three-horse race that will be won on turnout.
On those numbers, bet on Rubio?
If that is an accurate poll then it should be clear to anyone able to read between the lines that Rubio is going to be the nominee
A strong third is a contradiction in terms. If Rubio fails to win Iowa he has to win NH. If Trump wins both he is nominee. Tonight also partly depends on turnout, Overtime politics overnight had Trump leading Rubio by 20% amongst potential caucus goers but 3% amongst certain caucus goers however Rubio was still third in both cases
You have zero political instincts and nous ; Trump may win the first 3 states and then still lose ....Rubio doesn't ''have '' to win Iowa and NH ...you are just a prisoner od statistics without the ability to read between the lines ...this is a very unusual election and you can expect an unusual outcome
Fact 1 No candidate since 1976 on either side has lost Iowa and New Hampshire and become their party's nominee other than Bill Clinton in 1992 and he won South Carolina
Fact 2 No candidate on either side since 1976 has won Iowa and New Hampshire and failed to become their party's nominee
So if Rubio fails to win any of those three states he will not be nominee
So, that's -what- eight datapoints for the Republicans?
Nate Silver Rubio has gained about 4 points in our polling average in the past week. So, momentum claims are somewhat justified. https://t.co/zGqum6tubw
Your nagging doubt may yet be right. Network national security correspondents and members of various House committees are saying on background that the FBI is ready to move on an email indictment, and almost ready on the public corruption track. They are double and triple checking - given who it is they would be indicting - because there is no room for any doubt whatsoever, particularly on the public corruption track which is harder to prove. On emails they have her cold.
The FBI has to recommend the establishment of a grand jury, DOJ has to go with it. The question is would the WH nix it. If they did it would be a political firestorm.
But it has to be said - this is all on background (the FBI is tighter than a drum about ongoing investigations) and might not happen. We simply don't know. But the fact that the FBI investigation is still expanding is not good news for Hillary. You don't expand FBI investigations because of a lack of evidence.
On the Sunday shows Hillary says it's just the Republicans beating up on her. Her donors are worried.
What is the difference between this private mail server scandal and the George Bush equivalent of a few years ago? I've seen a lot of comment from ex-soldiers saying they'd have been buried for not handling classified information with due reverence, but not much beyond that. At what point does the FBI need to perform or get off the pot? Presumably they can't wait till the inauguration.
Final Iowa GOP poll from Emerson College: Trump 27% (-6 ) Cruz 26 (+3) Rubio 22 (+8)
Tight three-horse race that will be won on turnout.
On those numbers, bet on Rubio?
If that is an accurate poll then it should be clear to anyone able to read between the lines that Rubio is going to be the nominee
A strong third is a contradiction in terms. If Rubio fails to win Iowa he has to win NH. If Trump wins both he is nominee. Tonight also partly depends on turnout, Overtime politics overnight had Trump leading Rubio by 20% amongst potential caucus goers but 3% amongst certain caucus goers however Rubio was still third in both cases
You have zero political instincts and nous ; Trump may win the first 3 states and then still lose ....Rubio doesn't ''have '' to win Iowa and NH ...you are just a prisoner od statistics without the ability to read between the lines ...this is a very unusual election and you can expect an unusual outcome
Fact 1 No candidate since 1976 on either side has lost Iowa and New Hampshire and become their party's nominee other than Bill Clinton in 1992 and he won South Carolina
Fact 2 No candidate on either side since 1976 has won Iowa and New Hampshire and failed to become their party's nominee
So if Rubio fails to win any of those three states he will not be nominee
So, that's -what- eight datapoints for the Republicans?
1980, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012
Not many, is it?
Actually, seven datapoints as Bush was unchallenged in 2004.
BBC Politics Some UKIP branches plan to rebel if candidates from outside Wales are imposed on them for the assembly election... https://t.co/fa9JlpAZAu
Fact 1 No candidate since 1976 on either side has lost Iowa and New Hampshire and become their party's nominee other than Bill Clinton in 1992 and he won South Carolina
Fact 2 No candidate on either side since 1976 has won Iowa and New Hampshire and failed to become their party's nominee
So if Rubio fails to win any of those three states he will not be nominee
Wanna bet? I'll take 20/1 that Rubio loses in all three states and yet is the nominee.
Your nagging doubt may yet be right. Network national security correspondents and members of various House committees are saying on background that the FBI is ready to move on an email indictment, and almost ready on the public corruption track. They are double and triple checking - given who it is they would be indicting - because there is no room for any doubt whatsoever, particularly on the public corruption track which is harder to prove. On emails they have her cold.
The FBI has to recommend the establishment of a grand jury, DOJ has to go with it. The question is would the WH nix it. If they did it would be a political firestorm.
But it has to be said - this is all on background (the FBI is tighter than a drum about ongoing investigations) and might not happen. We simply don't know. But the fact that the FBI investigation is still expanding is not good news for Hillary. You don't expand FBI investigations because of a lack of evidence.
On the Sunday shows Hillary says it's just the Republicans beating up on her. Her donors are worried.
What is the difference between this private mail server scandal and the George Bush equivalent of a few years ago? I've seen a lot of comment from ex-soldiers saying they'd have been buried for not handling classified information with due reverence, but not much beyond that. At what point does the FBI need to perform or get off the pot? Presumably they can't wait till the inauguration.
The FBI has two opposing pressures - to get this finished before the primary season is too far advanced, and not to be seen to be taking short cuts just to fit into the political calendar.
Thanks for pointing out the Bush scandal. I don't know enough about that. Of course, two wrongs do not make a right, and if there is a case against those in the Bush Administration who may have broken laws, then that case should also be pursued.
The difficulty of pursuing the toughest case against Hillary is proving that she knew the material to be classified. Being incompetent in the handling of classified material is deemed less serious than deliberately mishandling such material.
Some of her aides will be in for it though, as they would have been the ones repackaging classified information into unmarked communications and non-papers (even if that was at Hillary's instruction - but there is not smoking gun for that yet).
BBC Politics Some UKIP branches plan to rebel if candidates from outside Wales are imposed on them for the assembly election... https://t.co/fa9JlpAZAu
Many if not most government officials who mostly used government email accounts have sent emails from their private email accounts while in office. That's just life.
What makes Hillary Clinton so different is that she set up her own email server and did not use government email at all while in office. That is unprecedented and was done to avoid future FOIA requests. She got away with it until the Benghazi committee discovered it. It appears to be backfiring spectacularly.
Your nagging doubt may yet be right. Network national security correspondents and members of various House committees are saying on background that the FBI is ready to move on an email indictment, and almost ready on the public corruption track. They are double and triple checking - given who it is they would be indicting - because there is no room for any doubt whatsoever, particularly on the public corruption track which is harder to prove. On emails they have her cold.
The FBI has to recommend the establishment of a grand jury, DOJ has to go with it. The question is would the WH nix it. If they did it would be a political firestorm.
But it has to be said - this is all on background (the FBI is tighter than a drum about ongoing investigations) and might not happen. We simply don't know. But the fact that the FBI investigation is still expanding is not good news for Hillary. You don't expand FBI investigations because of a lack of evidence.
On the Sunday shows Hillary says it's just the Republicans beating up on her. Her donors are worried.
What is the difference between this private mail server scandal and the George Bush equivalent of a few years ago? I've seen a lot of comment from ex-soldiers saying they'd have been buried for not handling classified information with due reverence, but not much beyond that. At what point does the FBI need to perform or get off the pot? Presumably they can't wait till the inauguration.
(It is not just America -- we had our own small scale equivalent at Education under the coalition.)
Neither of those is remotely comparable to the Clinton allegations, which relate to (amongst other emails) allegedly highly sensitive classified information, not just to documents subject to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.
BBC Politics Some UKIP branches plan to rebel if candidates from outside Wales are imposed on them for the assembly election... https://t.co/fa9JlpAZAu
Not necessarily a bad thing for the party, it may raise their profile a bit.
Mr. Flightpath, then Ashdown was a fool. Why would a PM with a landslide alter the voting system?
The promise was made before the election, when Blair expected only a slim majority, if one at all.
Correct. I'm glad there is someone around with an understanding of history. Labour and the LDs conspired with each other to smear the tories, and to give each other a free run in their best constituencies. The libdems basically gave Blair their seal of approval. Blair promised a commission on PR, led by Jenkins. It recommended a change to some sort of PR and Blair with a casual effrontery that was breathtaking threw it into a bin located in the long grass. Total humiliation for Ashdown - don't know how he kept his job for as long as he did after that.
Don't forget Prescott's role. He told Tony that the party would not stand for PR and, if I remember rightly, said he would resign over the matter.
I will assume 55% Cruz support, 80% Kasich, 65% Huck, 70% Carson, 80% Bush, 75% Paul and 65% others *all* goes to Rubio (very generously) and the balance of support to Trump (because some will)
In a two horse race, Trump still wins 51.9% to 48.1%.
Yes, I know it's not that simple, but it does show just how much of a mountain Rubio has to overcome.
Mr. Flightpath, then Ashdown was a fool. Why would a PM with a landslide alter the voting system?
The promise was made before the election, when Blair expected only a slim majority, if one at all.
Correct. I'm glad there is someone around with an understanding of history. Labour and the LDs conspired with each other to smear the tories, and to give each other a free run in their best constituencies. The libdems basically gave Blair their seal of approval. Blair promised a commission on PR, led by Jenkins. It recommended a change to some sort of PR and Blair with a casual effrontery that was breathtaking threw it into a bin located in the long grass. Total humiliation for Ashdown - don't know how he kept his job for as long as he did after that.
Don't forget Prescott's role. He told Tony that the party would not stand for PR and, if I remember rightly, said he would resign over the matter.
That’s right. I also don’t recall Lab & LD’s pulling punches against each other.
Mr. Flightpath, then Ashdown was a fool. Why would a PM with a landslide alter the voting system?
The promise was made before the election, when Blair expected only a slim majority, if one at all.
Correct. I'm glad there is someone around with an understanding of history. Labour and the LDs conspired with each other to smear the tories, and to give each other a free run in their best constituencies. The libdems basically gave Blair their seal of approval. Blair promised a commission on PR, led by Jenkins. It recommended a change to some sort of PR and Blair with a casual effrontery that was breathtaking threw it into a bin located in the long grass. Total humiliation for Ashdown - don't know how he kept his job for as long as he did after that.
Don't forget Prescott's role. He told Tony that the party would not stand for PR and, if I remember rightly, said he would resign over the matter.
That’s right. I also don’t recall Lab & LD’s pulling punches against each other.
Me neither. Although it is all so long ago. When there was an electable Labour party :-)
Mr. Flightpath, then Ashdown was a fool. Why would a PM with a landslide alter the voting system?
The promise was made before the election, when Blair expected only a slim majority, if one at all.
Correct. I'm glad there is someone around with an understanding of history. Labour and the LDs conspired with each other to smear the tories, and to give each other a free run in their best constituencies. The libdems basically gave Blair their seal of approval. Blair promised a commission on PR, led by Jenkins. It recommended a change to some sort of PR and Blair with a casual effrontery that was breathtaking threw it into a bin located in the long grass. Total humiliation for Ashdown - don't know how he kept his job for as long as he did after that.
Don't forget Prescott's role. He told Tony that the party would not stand for PR and, if I remember rightly, said he would resign over the matter.
That’s right. I also don’t recall Lab & LD’s pulling punches against each other.
Me neither. Although it is all so long ago. When there was an electable Labour party :-)
EU deal: looks like things may have moved on from temporary cessation of tax credits for EU migrants main and the sticking point is the non-eurozone country protection now.
From the sounds of it France is the problem and want it to just be a toothless talking shop:
(It is not just America -- we had our own small scale equivalent at Education under the coalition.)
Neither of those is remotely comparable to the Clinton allegations, which relate to (amongst other emails) allegedly highly sensitive classified information, not just to documents subject to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.
The common factor is bypassing official government mail servers.
Martin Boon Political interest and party membership weights (moderate strength) have negligible impact on headline VI, it seems. So that's torn it.
"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars Opinion Polls. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I actually caught it! You know, I just... do things."
(It is not just America -- we had our own small scale equivalent at Education under the coalition.)
Neither of those is remotely comparable to the Clinton allegations, which relate to (amongst other emails) allegedly highly sensitive classified information, not just to documents subject to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.
The common factor is bypassing official government mail servers.
Of course, but there's a big difference between doing that for ordinary government business and doing it for top-secret intelligence info. If it were just the former, it would be awkward for Hillary, but probably not fatal. If the latter....
Comments
http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Cases and Settlements/2015/Lee-v-Ashers_Judgement.pdf
Paragraph 39 deals with this finding of fact and why the judge made it.
Paragraph 12 is among the most Northern Irish paragraphs ever written.
Mark Steyn talks about Merkel, Germany and the EU:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xAjo16Z2M8
http://www.irishtimes.com/election-2016/what-irish-voters-really-think-1.2515570
The PMI headline numbers are a coincident indicator of output, not a forward-looking one (except in the sense that GDP comes out later due to publication lags). Sub-indices may have forward-looking elements.
We're finally here. Votes will be cast and there will be a result. The caucuses begin at 7pm central. The networks are saying that results will start about 10pm Central (11pm Eastern, 4am GMT).
Primary elections are run by states. Caucuses are run by the political parties. That means the rules are different for Democrats and Republicans in a caucus.
For Democrats you turn up, listen to people expound the virtues of the various candidates and then you literally go to a corner to support a specific candidate - this corner for Hillary, this one for Bernie etc. They quite literally vote with their feet, and a head count shows the result. There is nothing secret about how you vote.
There is a wrinkle for Democrats. Hillary leads Bernie by 3%. O'Malley stands at 3%. When they count heads, a candidate has to get 15% to be 'viable'. If they don't, then those who support the non-viable candidate can either support another candidate or drop out. That adds a level of unpredictability.
For Republicans it's a bit different. They turn up, listen to people talk about the various candidates, and then fill out a ballot form in a secret ballot. There is no viability rule in Republican caucuses.
One other fact of note. Over the weekend it was announced that Bernie Sanders has had more campaign contributors than any other candidate in history. The average contribution to the Sanders campaign is $27.
Remain 38%
Leave 42%
Sample size: 2,438
Date: 29 Jan 2016
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/28/4-point-lead-leave-eu-referendum-and-support-danis/
I'm not at all convinced by the Judge's reasoning, and in a city the size of Belfast it is not as if there is any shortage of bakeries so no material harm can have been suffered.
But it is Yougov, bet on it at your peril.
5 online polls since 1st Jan 2016, averages:
Remain 40.8%
Leave 41.4%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016
As someone co-responsible for some the relevant legislation, what we were trying to do was prevent a rash of statements/notices/policies that would have an intimidatory effect on gay people and people from ethnic minorities, in the way that "No blacks or Irish" signs in B&Bs used to poison the atmosphere. We were not seeking to force people to think differently. I don't think anyone had considered which side of the line the making of cakes with statements on them would fall.
German polls otoh, are very interesting at the moment.
The latest poll, not from INSA (who seem much better for AfD and worse for CDU than others), would produce quite an interesting result:
CDU/CSU - 34
SPD - 24
Green - 9
FDP - 5
Left - 10
AfD - 12
Obviously the grand coalition would continue, but one does wonder whether Merkel's pronouncement today that migrants would be sent home once Syria is fixed is related to AfD's surge and the CDU being down over 7 points from the result.
If she doesn't change the open door policy to migrants before the next election then I think AfD could go as high as 15 points and the CDU as low as 30 points (based on nothing but my own intuition before someone gets upset). A grand coalition with just 50-55% vote share would not be viable IMO, but then neither would anything else if the result was something like this:
CDU/CSU - 30
SPD - 21
Green - 10
FDP - 6
Left - 12
AfD -15
So there would have to be a three party coalition with the CDU/CSU, SPD and either the FDP or more likely, the Greens, but the CDU going into power with such a left wing coalition will mean AfD would continue to eat into their vote share.
One very poor decision could have very large consequences for the long term landscape of German politics. In 2 or 3 cycles AfD could reach their maximum potential of 18-20 points and become a permanent feature of the Bundestag leaving the CDU without an easy or natural partner they can form a coalition with other than on the left.
Europe says people have a right to family life.
Parliament says people in Britain have a right to family life.
Judges decide that a Sudanese boy in Calais has a right to full benefits because his 2nd uncle happened to make it across in a lorry is applying a "right to family life"
I can hear Katie Boyle doing her best French Eurovision song contest performance -
Anglo Saxons - nul points
Should my generation poison the future of their children for some memory of past glories. Or does age bring wisdom.
TBH I’m not sure that it does.
i.e
'our MPs don't understand the consequences of their actions'
That makes us all feel a lot better Nick
In July 2015 the CDU were on 43 points and AfD on 3 points. The most recent poll has the CDU on 34(-9) points and AfD on 12(+9)
Everyone else is within the MoE.
People with their level of experience shouldn't be developing binding precedent on human rights. This needs a SC ruling soonest.
Quite right - these tribunals should be abolished.
Any chance of the PM agreeing to that?
It asks supporters of the top GOP three - Trump, Cruz and Rubio - is their mind made up, or could they be persuaded to change their mind?
Trump - 71% made up, 29% could be persuaded to change
Cruz - 61%, 38%
Rubio - 47%, 53%
It will be an interesting evening.
Thanks for the link to the article BTW. An interesting article by Tatchell.
The difficulty with what you were trying to achieve - which I support - is that the debate around it too often morphed into calling those who disagreed "bigots" and an implication that there was only one right-thinking and acceptable opinion about the subject. If you don't accept that people can - legitimately - have a different point of view than you, if you try and put them beyond the pale of acceptable opinions, then it is not really a surprise that you end up in a situation where people are - or feel that they are - being forced into thinking only in one way and differently from what they actually think.
The cake situation could have been resolved without the need for resort to law with a bit of common sense and without parties needing to prove a point. The law is a blunt instrument when it comes to regulating social mores, one reason why it should be used with a touch more discretion - by parties and lawmakers alike.
Is this the most monumental "closing of a stable door after the horse as bolted" ever recorded in history?
.
If I'm an only child, parents dead, no girlfriend, partner or spouse -
how does this affect my 'right'.
O/T Has anyone given any thought on who may win #CBB which finishes this weekend?
I've had a fiver on Scotty T since early doors, but starting to think that Tiffany is looking very strong.
Or Steph may be in with a shout if the public react badly to all the boos she gets on eviction nights.
“Hands down, Clinton has the best operation,” one Iowa Democrat said. “It doesn't matter who I speak to – whether it's in a big county or small, on the western side of the state or eastern – they all say the same thing: They see no evidence of Sanders organizing. They have a lot of people, but none of them are trained or prepared for what will happen on Monday.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/insiders-trump-and-clinton-will-carry-iowa-218492#ixzz3yvBjH1o7
I've kept away from betting on Clinton. I think she is pretty likely to be POTUS, but a nagging doubt keeps me away. I am on Biden just in case.
http://labourlist.org/2016/02/the-worst-has-happened-the-nasty-party-brand-is-now-an-asset/
Fundamentally, all business people should be somewhat accustomed to having to structure themselves and their offerings in a certain way, driven primarily by the law or the tax system. I would suggest there are still plenty of ways that a Christian business can be set up to avoid the issue in this case, whether it is a wholesale ban on political sloganeering on cakes or a B&B describing their service as a room with 2 beds to be arranged at the owner's entire discretion (and everyone equally - married, single, brothers alike have to take lucky dip on the arrangement provided).
Where thousands of accountants will advise on how to structure for the tax system, I am surprised never to have heard of a niche Christian business compliance advisers telling interested businesses how to set themselves up without moral conflict.
The problem about that is that it encourages people to feel that quiet, informal discirimination is OK, so long as they don't put up a notice about it. That doesn't seem quite right either. So I'm not too sure, actually.
Alternative abscond during the appeal process and form a long-standing and stable relationship with a local girl.
Fact 2 No candidate on either side since 1976 has won Iowa and New Hampshire and failed to become their party's nominee
So if Rubio fails to win any of those three states he will not be nominee
The FBI has to recommend the establishment of a grand jury, DOJ has to go with it. The question is would the WH nix it. If they did it would be a political firestorm.
But it has to be said - this is all on background (the FBI is tighter than a drum about ongoing investigations) and might not happen. We simply don't know. But the fact that the FBI investigation is still expanding is not good news for Hillary. You don't expand FBI investigations because of a lack of evidence.
On the Sunday shows Hillary says it's just the Republicans beating up on her. Her donors are worried.
Finally his big drift may have begun.
Numbers of the day: #Trump spent nearly $11m on himself – and $325,699.88 on those red hats https://t.co/fwx2Bks1u4 https://t.co/sQZczKBfiw
Probability of possible outcomes #UKGE2020 Electoral Calculus
CON MAJ 77%
LAB MAJ less than 1%
https://t.co/V9qLfFoc2o
More interestingly, the fear being expressed in the UK recently has been that all the refugees in Germany will eventually get EU passports and that very many will come here. I've always had some scepticism how much and how soon that might affect UK immigration, even if many do get passports. But the implication in Merkel wanting to send them back must surely be that they will remain under asylum, not be granted EU citizenship, and will therefore have no entitlement of free movement to the UK.
The KKK are able to do all of the above in the US and they are getting precisely nowhere. For me, true free speech is much safer than limited free speech because you know what people are really thinking, and perhaps more importantly, how many are thinking it.
Labour and the LDs conspired with each other to smear the tories, and to give each other a free run in their best constituencies. The libdems basically gave Blair their seal of approval. Blair promised a commission on PR, led by Jenkins. It recommended a change to some sort of PR and Blair with a casual effrontery that was breathtaking threw it into a bin located in the long grass.
Total humiliation for Ashdown - don't know how he kept his job for as long as he did after that.
Remember, Andy Burnham was the best man for the Labour leadership job...
As to prosecution for handling classified info, check David Patraius.
The FBI will not be rushed and will take whatever time they need to build a case. But yes, the calendar is a factor in this case.
1980, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012
Not many, is it?
Rubio has gained about 4 points in our polling average in the past week. So, momentum claims are somewhat justified. https://t.co/zGqum6tubw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
(It is not just America -- we had our own small scale equivalent at Education under the coalition.)
Some UKIP branches plan to rebel if candidates from outside Wales are imposed on them for the assembly election... https://t.co/fa9JlpAZAu
Quinnipiac and Selzer look the better two to me.
Thanks for pointing out the Bush scandal. I don't know enough about that. Of course, two wrongs do not make a right, and if there is a case against those in the Bush Administration who may have broken laws, then that case should also be pursued.
The difficulty of pursuing the toughest case against Hillary is proving that she knew the material to be classified. Being incompetent in the handling of classified material is deemed less serious than deliberately mishandling such material.
Some of her aides will be in for it though, as they would have been the ones repackaging classified information into unmarked communications and non-papers (even if that was at Hillary's instruction - but there is not smoking gun for that yet).
What makes Hillary Clinton so different is that she set up her own email server and did not use government email at all while in office. That is unprecedented and was done to avoid future FOIA requests. She got away with it until the Benghazi committee discovered it. It appears to be backfiring spectacularly.
Many Republicans say Trump would be good/great president despite not being religious https://t.co/SRzVo2Spcy https://t.co/acGtVduDF9
Let's be a bit mean with Trump and assume the average ratings:
Trump - 35%
Cruz - 19%
Rubio - 15%
Kasich - 5%
Huckabee - 3%
Carson - 6%
Bush - 7%
Paul - 4%
Others - 6%
I will assume 55% Cruz support, 80% Kasich, 65% Huck, 70% Carson, 80% Bush, 75% Paul and 65% others *all* goes to Rubio (very generously) and the balance of support to Trump (because some will)
In a two horse race, Trump still wins 51.9% to 48.1%.
Yes, I know it's not that simple, but it does show just how much of a mountain Rubio has to overcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMRrNY0pxfM
Political interest and party membership weights (moderate strength) have negligible impact on headline VI, it seems. So that's torn it.
From the sounds of it France is the problem and want it to just be a toothless talking shop:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35456633
carsOpinion Polls. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I actually caught it! You know, I just... do things."FFS. The Left are lost.
This is interesting, for many reasons.