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.
Ironically, there are now far left murmurings in favour of AV because in a coalition, they could get a small number of policies enacted.
A piece based on the Tory Party being the Nasty Party - because they used the words "swarm" and "bunch".
FFS. The Left are lost.
They are still in the denial phase. That's just a rant making themselves out to be the victims, with a good dose of false consciousness on the part of the electorate too.
If it takes them this long to work through the seven stages of grief then they are going to be in opposition for a very long time.
(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.
There is no common factor whatever.
Hillary Clinton set up her own email server and did not use government email AT ALL.
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.
David Frum endorsed Romney in 2012 on the basis that Romney wouldn't actually enact any of the policies he was espousing on the campaign trail and that electing Obama would make Congressional Republicans too angry to make rational decisions.
(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.
Not been following it too closely, but it seems to me the grave risk for Clinton is reformatting Top Secret and above emails with no security clearance at all on them. If that is proven, then depending on the timing, she either never gets on the ballot paper, or if elected, then she goes straight to Impeachment.
Her choice of Veep will be fascinating....for the next President market.
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:
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...
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.
Comments
If it takes them this long to work through the seven stages of grief then they are going to be in opposition for a very long time.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/beware-a-gop-calendar-front-loaded-with-states-friendly-to-trump-and-cruz/
It's a tough job, clearly. But not impossible if things go well for him.
I don't understand the current odds, though - far too short.
new york, new york
new thread, new thread
Hillary Clinton set up her own email server and did not use government email AT ALL.
Nobody else has ever done that.
Her choice of Veep will be fascinating....for the next President market.