No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe, depending on who leads the party then. If its a Cameroon who does it adopting a pained expression and holding his nose the right of the party is going to peel off.
If Leave win it will be a very brave government that completely ignored half the populations voting almost entirely about immigration. If they take the EEA/EFTA they will be slammed from the rooftops from both sides for high handedness and ignoring the voters, and it would be close to electoral suicide even with Corbyn.
The sanctimonious left would adopt the attitude that it absolutely wasn't what they wanted but the voters had spoked and the government was ignoring it (whilst quietly brushing under the carpet that they had been supporting it as well until recently).
I am sure the left would not only be sanctimonious but also ignorant of English grammar.
Quite why OGH allows us lefties to post on here I've no idea. Do you?
@elashton: Just had chat with Nigel in pub. Is he disappointed that Douglas didn't show up at venue? "Douglas who?"
On @DouglasCarswell, Farage goes on: "He can do what he likes. I don't care." Pointedly says that UKIP's MEPs are "up for the fight".
I'm wondering if Farage is suffering from a kind of buyers' remorse. The thing he's demanded for most of his life is finally here, yet it doesn't feel as good as he thought it would and he isn't getting any credit for it. And if Leave actually triumphs he'd have to get himself a proper job. For many, the campaign for Out will transpire to have been far more enjoyable than Out itself. Of course, regardless of the result, they've still got Cameron and Osborne to kick around, but after that...?
Farage is like the Viz character Spoilt Bastard - an ungrateful and vicious-tongued boy who manipulates his weak-willed party into satisfying his hollow and selfish desires, usually with serious health-threatening consequences for his party.
I think Farage expected to be leading the Leave campaign, with just a couple of cabinet ministers supporting Leave, and not overshadowing him. Now, it turns out that he's only the Fourth or Fifth most important figure in the campaign.
Which is an unexpectedly good turn of events for Leave.
I think Leave have had quite a lot of good fortune.
@elashton: Just had chat with Nigel in pub. Is he disappointed that Douglas didn't show up at venue? "Douglas who?"
On @DouglasCarswell, Farage goes on: "He can do what he likes. I don't care." Pointedly says that UKIP's MEPs are "up for the fight".
I'm wondering if Farage is suffering from a kind of buyers' remorse. The thing he's demanded for most of his life is finally here, yet it doesn't feel as good as he thought it would and he isn't getting any credit for it. And if Leave actually triumphs he'd have to get himself a proper job. For many, the campaign for Out will transpire to have been far more enjoyable than Out itself. Of course, regardless of the result, they've still got Cameron and Osborne to kick around, but after that...?
Farage is like the Viz character Spoilt Bastard - an ungrateful and vicious-tongued boy who manipulates his weak-willed party into satisfying his hollow and selfish desires, usually with serious health-threatening consequences for his party.
I think Farage expected to be leading the Leave campaign, with just a couple of cabinet ministers supporting Leave, and not overshadowing him. Now, it turns out that he's only the Fourth or Fifth most important figure in the campaign.
Which is an unexpectedly good turn of events for Leave.
Unexpected by who, exactly? Farage was always destined to have a role in the referendum as he is the Heineken politician - he reaches the parts others cannot - but only the terminally daft would have seen him as THE lead figure.
And you know who they want to be their nominee for that 3rd party: Rick Perry
Erick EricksonVerified account @EWErickson Feb 25 Rick Perry for President running as the first leader of the 21st century version of the Federalist Party. I like the sound of that.
Jeff B/DDHQ @EsotericCD 20h20 hours ago @themattjones@JohnEkdahl Sure, if there isn't a more appealing 3rd-party option (like a Rick Perry or Mitt, for example)
Looking at the collective wisdom of the donours supporting Rick Perry for an independent run and giving $150 million to Jeb Bush to burn, I have to say the reasons why the GOP has lost 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections is it's incompetent consultants and out of touch donours, republicans will be better off without them.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe, depending on who leads the party then. If its a Cameroon who does it adopting a pained expression and holding his nose the right of the party is going to peel off.
If Leave win it will be a very brave government that completely ignored half the populations voting almost entirely about immigration. If they take the EEA/EFTA they will be slammed from the rooftops from both sides for high handedness and ignoring the voters, and it would be close to electoral suicide even with Corbyn.
The sanctimonious left would adopt the attitude that it absolutely wasn't what they wanted but the voters had spoked and the government was ignoring it (whilst quietly brushing under the carpet that they had been supporting it as well until recently).
If Leave wins we will need a second referendum to decide on EEA I imagine. I think that would be won easily.
And you know who they want to be their nominee for that 3rd party: Rick Perry
Erick EricksonVerified account @EWErickson Feb 25 Rick Perry for President running as the first leader of the 21st century version of the Federalist Party. I like the sound of that.
Jeff B/DDHQ @EsotericCD 20h20 hours ago @themattjones@JohnEkdahl Sure, if there isn't a more appealing 3rd-party option (like a Rick Perry or Mitt, for example)
Looking at the collective wisdom of the donours supporting Rick Perry for an independent run and giving $150 million to Jeb Bush to burn, I have to say the reasons why the GOP has lost 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections is it's incompetent consultants and out of touch donours, republicans will be better off without them.
I think your analysis on point 2, Nick, is a load of crock. This is an issue that is only passionately discussed in the Tory party. To argue that there are divisions would lower the vote, when those divisions arise from passionately held positions, is counter-intuitive to say the least.
Well, I don't know (nor do you!) - we're looking at a poll and speculating. But while I think you're right with respect to party activists, if you're John Smith in Surrey, who always votes Tory but doesn't follow politics closely, it'd be understandable if you felt confused about what the party would like you to do, and somewhat inclined to sit it out.
Or it might be a faulty poll sample. Who knows.
By the way, as cease-fires go, this one seems to have started quite well:
I'm not a huge fan of either US or Russian policy in the region, but they seem to have got their act together rather effectively this time.
Thanks, Nick. I get you point about the differences between the PCP, the party activist and the party voters. After Corbyn and Labour, who couldn't?
For Syria, I am almost too depressed by events to concentrate on it. A ceasefire is good, but I think what it shows is that we are still suffering the negative consequences of Vietnam and Iraq. Failure in those ventures has hardened Western resistance to decisive actions. It's hard to argue that Russia's decisive action, no matter how inimical to Western interests, is what has driven the ceasefire.
Indecisive actions, as we have seen in Syria and Libya, can be just as damaging as over-involvement. The trick, as always, is to find the right course of action for each circumstance. And that will never be either blanket disengagement or automatic heavy engagement. Alas, we seem to have got it wrong consistently in the Middle East.
If Corbyn was advising one thing and McDonnell was advising the opposite, Labour voters would be similarly uncertain.
But what are they advising? I haven't seen McDonnell for weeks and Corbyn's lack of enthusiasm for the cause could scarcely be more obvious. In contrast, the king of hi-vis has been popping up everywhere.
They're not getting much coverage, because what they're saying is predictable and un-shocking. They're urging Remain for reasons of worker solidarity and protection of employment rights. For what it's worth, they seem to be broadly echoed by Labour voters in the polls as well. The question is whether Labour voters will turn out.
The only party that seems to want to embarrass itself in public is the tory party and so the media are more than happy to follow it around. It makes for good copy. Dumb leavers are happy to keep it stirred. If they carry on afterwards then Corbynites will be over the moon. And of course Farage is delighted to have such useful idiots around.
Oh give it a rest. I suppose the "dumb remainers" are any better ? There are two sides to this argument, supported broadly by half the population each. It is an issue which might affect the country for a decade or more, don't you think it needs a proper hearing ? Clearly not.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
The continuing discrepancy between phone and online polls is very worrying. Just what the polling industry doesn't need after the general election fiasco.
And you know who they want to be their nominee for that 3rd party: Rick Perry
Erick EricksonVerified account @EWErickson Feb 25 Rick Perry for President running as the first leader of the 21st century version of the Federalist Party. I like the sound of that.
Jeff B/DDHQ @EsotericCD 20h20 hours ago @themattjones@JohnEkdahl Sure, if there isn't a more appealing 3rd-party option (like a Rick Perry or Mitt, for example)
Looking at the collective wisdom of the donours supporting Rick Perry for an independent run and giving $150 million to Jeb Bush to burn, I have to say the reasons why the GOP has lost 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections is it's incompetent consultants and out of touch donours, republicans will be better off without them.
The ideal candidate for the GOP establishment would be very liberal on immigration, but ready to die in the ditch to champion tax cuts for the richest 1% and big business.
There could be no more toxic combination to the average voter.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe, depending on who leads the party then. If its a Cameroon who does it adopting a pained expression and holding his nose the right of the party is going to peel off.
If Leave win it will be a very brave government that completely ignored half the populations voting almost entirely about immigration. If they take the EEA/EFTA they will be slammed from the rooftops from both sides for high handedness and ignoring the voters, and it would be close to electoral suicide even with Corbyn.
The sanctimonious left would adopt the attitude that it absolutely wasn't what they wanted but the voters had spoked and the government was ignoring it (whilst quietly brushing under the carpet that they had been supporting it as well until recently).
I am sure the left would not only be sanctimonious but also ignorant of English grammar.
Quite why OGH allows us lefties to post on here I've no idea. Do you?
Your sanctimony is getting in the way of your comprehension skills.
A leave vote and the Tory leadership trying to finesse it into a EEA+Bells+Whistle approach that is indistinguishable from Remain would be a once in a lifetime opportunity to peel a large chunk of very angry voters away from the Tory party for a generation. Only if they were terminally stupid would they pass up that opportunity for the purity of opposition... oh wait!
If Corbyn was advising one thing and McDonnell was advising the opposite, Labour voters would be similarly uncertain.
But what are they advising? I haven't seen McDonnell for weeks and Corbyn's lack of enthusiasm for the cause could scarcely be more obvious. In contrast, the king of hi-vis has been popping up everywhere.
They're not getting much coverage, because what they're saying is predictable and un-shocking. They're urging Remain for reasons of worker solidarity and protection of employment rights. For what it's worth, they seem to be broadly echoed by Labour voters in the polls as well. The question is whether Labour voters will turn out.
The only party that seems to want to embarrass itself in public is the tory party and so the media are more than happy to follow it around. It makes for good copy. Dumb leavers are happy to keep it stirred. If they carry on afterwards then Corbynites will be over the moon. And of course Farage is delighted to have such useful idiots around.
Oh give it a rest. I suppose the "dumb remainers" are any better ? There are two sides to this argument, supported broadly by half the population each. It is an issue which might affect the country for a decade or more, don't you think it needs a proper hearing ? Clearly not.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Cameron going is priced in. It happens either way before the next GE.
The continuing discrepancy between phone and online polls is very worrying. Just what the polling industry doesn't need after the general election fiasco.
Or maybe precisely what it needs. If one method can be shown to work better.
But what a shame we seem to have lost the Gold Standard ICM Phone Poll.
Something I pointed out to someone yesterday, who said Trump was a joke and there's no way he could be president: he's completely OTT (and we mostly get to hear his various foreign pronouncements, which make him appear even more OTT), but without Trump's "distinctive" qualities, how could someone with his positions on e.g. abortion and healthcare have performed so well among the GOP base?
Absolutely. It is two things, primarily:
1. His independence from vested interests (other than his own) 2. His willingness not to be PC and say it as it is (or as Trump imagines it to be).
There is a presumption that much of what he says is performance, and that he'll actually be competent at the bits of government they care about - i.e. efficient delivery of a limited programme of domestic policies. There is also a suspicion that he is actually, for all his campaign rhetoric, centrist on most of the big defining issues (i.e. the issues that separate the US parties - abortion, healthcare, gun control, race, budget).
For the most part, insulting Johnny Foreigner adds to his appeal.
Tim, do you think is there any effect that States such as Michigan and Wisconsin, at the opposite end of the country, are more attracted to Trump's Mexican wall as a panacea to all America's woes? I am certainly thinking those two states in particular could have a big impact this time around.
Forget about Wisconsin, Scott Walker has made it very difficult for any republican to win that state, substitute it for Ohio.
Walker made it difficult how? By being so popular there to win election three times including a recall vote? Showing your ignorance there is think.
Wisconsin has sided with the Democrats in every presidential election since 88. If the Democrats winning it this year again it won't be because of Walker.
That's the reason why people lost money betting on Scott Walker :
"By being so popular there to win election three times including a recall vote"
"Gov. Scott Walker’s approval rating in Wisconsin, already tattered during his early foray into the presidential race, has hit a new low of 37 percent after his exit from the campaign, the latest Marquette Law School Poll has found."
Walker is currently and consistently the second most unpopular governor in america since his re-election, after Chris Christie.
The ideal candidate for the GOP establishment would be very liberal on immigration, but ready to die in the ditch to champion tax cuts for the richest 1% and big business.
There could be no more toxic combination to the average voter.
Seems that the Dems are only a few paces behind. Promising to defend workers rights, look after the poor man in the street, protect organised labour, create jobs.. then get elected and sign NAFTA, TTIP, TTP etc, and their voters have to watch their jobs move to Mexico and their salaries cut.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe, depending on who leads the party then. If its a Cameroon who does it adopting a pained expression and holding his nose the right of the party is going to peel off.
If Leave win it will be a very brave government that completely ignored half the populations voting almost entirely about immigration. If they take the EEA/EFTA they will be slammed from the rooftops from both sides for high handedness and ignoring the voters, and it would be close to electoral suicide even with Corbyn.
The sanctimonious left would adopt the attitude that it absolutely wasn't what they wanted but the voters had spoked and the government was ignoring it (whilst quietly brushing under the carpet that they had been supporting it as well until recently).
I am sure the left would not only be sanctimonious but also ignorant of English grammar.
Quite why OGH allows us lefties to post on here I've no idea. Do you?
Your sanctimony is getting in the way of your comprehension skills.
A leave vote and the Tory leadership trying to finesse it into a EEA+Bells+Whistle approach that is indistinguishable from Remain would be a once in a lifetime opportunity to peel a large chunk of very angry voters away from the Tory party for a generation. Only if they were terminally stupid would they pass up that opportunity for the purity of opposition... oh wait!
As I left the Labour Party in 1990 I don't see what that has to do with me,
And you know who they want to be their nominee for that 3rd party: Rick Perry
Erick EricksonVerified account @EWErickson Feb 25 Rick Perry for President running as the first leader of the 21st century version of the Federalist Party. I like the sound of that.
Jeff B/DDHQ @EsotericCD 20h20 hours ago @themattjones@JohnEkdahl Sure, if there isn't a more appealing 3rd-party option (like a Rick Perry or Mitt, for example)
Looking at the collective wisdom of the donours supporting Rick Perry for an independent run and giving $150 million to Jeb Bush to burn, I have to say the reasons why the GOP has lost 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections is it's incompetent consultants and out of touch donours, republicans will be better off without them.
The ideal candidate for the GOP establishment would be very liberal on immigration, but ready to die in the ditch to champion tax cuts for the richest 1% and big business.
There could be no more toxic combination to the average voter.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe, depending on who leads the party then. If its a Cameroon who does it adopting a pained expression and holding his nose the right of the party is going to peel off.
If Leave win it will be a very brave government that completely ignored half the populations voting almost entirely about immigration. If they take the EEA/EFTA they will be slammed from the rooftops from both sides for high handedness and ignoring the voters, and it would be close to electoral suicide even with Corbyn.
The sanctimonious left would adopt the attitude that it absolutely wasn't what they wanted but the voters had spoked and the government was ignoring it (whilst quietly brushing under the carpet that they had been supporting it as well until recently).
If Leave wins we will need a second referendum to decide on EEA I imagine. I think that would be won easily.
I agree. Declaring it a fait accomplis would be tantamount to electoral suicide, and definitely shatter the Conservative coalition.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe, depending on who leads the party then. If its a Cameroon who does it adopting a pained expression and holding his nose the right of the party is going to peel off.
If Leave win it will be a very brave government that completely ignored half the populations voting almost entirely about immigration. If they take the EEA/EFTA they will be slammed from the rooftops from both sides for high handedness and ignoring the voters, and it would be close to electoral suicide even with Corbyn.
The sanctimonious left would adopt the attitude that it absolutely wasn't what they wanted but the voters had spoked and the government was ignoring it (whilst quietly brushing under the carpet that they had been supporting it as well until recently).
I am sure the left would not only be sanctimonious but also ignorant of English grammar.
Quite why OGH allows us lefties to post on here I've no idea. Do you?
Your sanctimony is getting in the way of your comprehension skills.
A leave vote and the Tory leadership trying to finesse it into a EEA+Bells+Whistle approach that is indistinguishable from Remain would be a once in a lifetime opportunity to peel a large chunk of very angry voters away from the Tory party for a generation. Only if they were terminally stupid would they pass up that opportunity for the purity of opposition... oh wait!
As I left the Labour Party in 1990 I don't see what that has to do with me,
I have no idea, you were the one who stuck his oar into my comment. If the cap fits, wear it.
And you know who they want to be their nominee for that 3rd party: Rick Perry
Erick EricksonVerified account @EWErickson Feb 25 Rick Perry for President running as the first leader of the 21st century version of the Federalist Party. I like the sound of that.
Jeff B/DDHQ @EsotericCD 20h20 hours ago @themattjones@JohnEkdahl Sure, if there isn't a more appealing 3rd-party option (like a Rick Perry or Mitt, for example)
Looking at the collective wisdom of the donours supporting Rick Perry for an independent run and giving $150 million to Jeb Bush to burn, I have to say the reasons why the GOP has lost 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections is it's incompetent consultants and out of touch donours, republicans will be better off without them.
Not sure how you get to 5 out of 6, even if you are already counting Hillary the victor in 2016. By my counting, the GOP has won 2 of 4, 2 of 6, 3 of 7, 5 of 9, 5 of 10, 7 of 12.
But Perry as the person to unite the party against Trump is hilarious - a twice spectacularly failed applicant for the job of nominee.
And you know who they want to be their nominee for that 3rd party: Rick Perry
Erick EricksonVerified account @EWErickson Feb 25 Rick Perry for President running as the first leader of the 21st century version of the Federalist Party. I like the sound of that.
Jeff B/DDHQ @EsotericCD 20h20 hours ago @themattjones@JohnEkdahl Sure, if there isn't a more appealing 3rd-party option (like a Rick Perry or Mitt, for example)
Looking at the collective wisdom of the donours supporting Rick Perry for an independent run and giving $150 million to Jeb Bush to burn, I have to say the reasons why the GOP has lost 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections is it's incompetent consultants and out of touch donours, republicans will be better off without them.
If Corbyn was advising one thing and McDonnell was advising the opposite, Labour voters would be similarly uncertain.
But what are they advising? I haven't seen McDonnell for weeks and Corbyn's lack of enthusiasm for the cause could scarcely be more obvious. In contrast, the king of hi-vis has been popping up everywhere.
They're not getting much coverage, because what they're saying is predictable and un-shocking. They're urging Remain for reasons of worker solidarity and protection of employment rights. For what it's worth, they seem to be broadly echoed by Labour voters in the polls as well. The question is whether Labour voters will turn out.
The only party that seems to want to embarrass itself in public is the tory party and so the media are more than happy to follow it around. It makes for good copy. Dumb leavers are happy to keep it stirred. If they carry on afterwards then Corbynites will be over the moon. And of course Farage is delighted to have such useful idiots around.
Oh give it a rest. I suppose the "dumb remainers" are any better ? There are two sides to this argument, supported broadly by half the population each. It is an issue which might affect the country for a decade or more, don't you think it needs a proper hearing ? Clearly not.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Corbyn will keep everyone who currently votes Conservative in place.
And you know who they want to be their nominee for that 3rd party: Rick Perry
Erick EricksonVerified account @EWErickson Feb 25 Rick Perry for President running as the first leader of the 21st century version of the Federalist Party. I like the sound of that.
Jeff B/DDHQ @EsotericCD 20h20 hours ago @themattjones@JohnEkdahl Sure, if there isn't a more appealing 3rd-party option (like a Rick Perry or Mitt, for example)
Looking at the collective wisdom of the donours supporting Rick Perry for an independent run and giving $150 million to Jeb Bush to burn, I have to say the reasons why the GOP has lost 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections is it's incompetent consultants and out of touch donours, republicans will be better off without them.
Not sure how you get to 5 out of 6, even if you are already counting Hillary the victor in 2016. By my counting, the GOP has won 2 of 4, 2 of 6, 3 of 7, 5 of 9, 5 of 10, 7 of 12.
But Perry as the person to unite the party against Trump is hilarious - a twice spectacularly failed applicant for the job of nominee.
1992, 1996, 2000 (Gore won the vote), 2008, 2012. That's 5 out of 6.
But that the GOP establishment thinking about Perry is a testament to their collective incompetence and out of touchness (and so was the Jeb Bush campaign). There is plenty of evidence that the GOP will be better off without its establishment.
If Corbyn was advising one thing and McDonnell was advising the opposite, Labour voters would be similarly uncertain.
...
...
The only party that seems to want to embarrass itself in public is the tory party and so the media are more than happy to follow it around. It makes for good copy. Dumb leavers are happy to keep it stirred. If they carry on afterwards then Corbynites will be over the moon. And of course Farage is delighted to have such useful idiots around.
Oh give it a rest. I suppose the "dumb remainers" are any better ? There are two sides to this argument, supported broadly by half the population each. It is an issue which might affect the country for a decade or more, don't you think it needs a proper hearing ? Clearly not.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Corbyn will keep everyone who currently votes Conservative in place.
Agreed. The standard view on here that I disagree with almost as vehemently as I did the '2010 LDs will mostly vote Labour' argument is that Cameron is the only reason the Tories have won the last 2 elections.
I'd suggest that weak Labour leader figures and superior campaigning efforts have far more to do with it.
And you know who they want to be their nominee for that 3rd party: Rick Perry
Erick EricksonVerified account @EWErickson Feb 25 Rick Perry for President running as the first leader of the 21st century version of the Federalist Party. I like the sound of that.
Jeff B/DDHQ @EsotericCD 20h20 hours ago @themattjones@JohnEkdahl Sure, if there isn't a more appealing 3rd-party option (like a Rick Perry or Mitt, for example)
Looking at the collective wisdom of the donours supporting Rick Perry for an independent run and giving $150 million to Jeb Bush to burn, I have to say the reasons why the GOP has lost 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections is it's incompetent consultants and out of touch donours, republicans will be better off without them.
Not sure how you get to 5 out of 6, even if you are already counting Hillary the victor in 2016. By my counting, the GOP has won 2 of 4, 2 of 6, 3 of 7, 5 of 9, 5 of 10, 7 of 12.
But Perry as the person to unite the party against Trump is hilarious - a twice spectacularly failed applicant for the job of nominee.
1992, 1996, 2000 (Gore won the vote), 2008, 2012. That's 5 out of 6.
But that the GOP establishment thinking about Perry is a testament to their collective incompetence and out of touchness (and so was the Jeb Bush campaign). There is plenty of evidence that the GOP will be better off without its establishment.
Losing the vote does not equal losing the election, as GWB proved.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe, depending on who leads the party then. If its a Cameroon who does it adopting a pained expression and holding his nose the right of the party is going to peel off.
If Leave win it will be a very brave government that completely ignored half the populations voting almost entirely about immigration. If they take the EEA/EFTA they will be slammed from the rooftops from both sides for high handedness and ignoring the voters, and it would be close to electoral suicide even with Corbyn.
The sanctimonious left would adopt the attitude that it absolutely wasn't what they wanted but the voters had spoked and the government was ignoring it (whilst quietly brushing under the carpet that they had been supporting it as well until recently).
I am sure the left would not only be sanctimonious but also ignorant of English grammar.
Quite why OGH allows us lefties to post on here I've no idea. Do you?
Your sanctimony is getting in the way of your comprehension skills.
A leave vote and the Tory leadership trying to finesse it into a EEA+Bells+Whistle approach that is indistinguishable from Remain would be a once in a lifetime opportunity to peel a large chunk of very angry voters away from the Tory party for a generation. Only if they were terminally stupid would they pass up that opportunity for the purity of opposition... oh wait!
As I left the Labour Party in 1990 I don't see what that has to do with me,
I have no idea, you were the one who stuck his oar into my comment. If the cap fits, wear it.
You should change your "nom de blog" fromIndigo to "Gawd Awlmighty". It would suit you better.
The only party that seems to want to embarrass itself in public is the tory party and so the media are more than happy to follow it around. It makes for good copy. Dumb leavers are happy to keep it stirred. If they carry on afterwards then Corbynites will be over the moon. And of course Farage is delighted to have such useful idiots around.
Oh give it a rest. I suppose the "dumb remainers" are any better ? There are two sides to this argument, supported broadly by half the population each. It is an issue which might affect the country for a decade or more, don't you think it needs a proper hearing ? Clearly not.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Corbyn will keep everyone who currently votes Conservative in place.
At the next GE maybe. You will know what the voters really think by how badly the Tories get slaughtered at the Euros and Locals between now and then.
Interesting polling. Four out of six have it tight, and two have substantial Remain leads. Hopefully the fact there's two with similar large leads will mean less herding.
Agreed. The standard view on here that I disagree with almost as vehemently as I did the '2010 LDs will mostly vote Labour' argument is that Cameron is the only reason the Tories have won the last 2 elections.
I'd suggest that weak Labour leader figures and superior campaigning efforts have far more to do with it.
John Redwood could win 2020 against Corbo.
I agree.
Plus the overriding issue that Labour still haven't come out with a remotely plausible program of government for what a centre-left party stands for when there is no more money to spray around. Being a "robin hood" party requires some rich to take the money from, to give to the poor, and aside from a very small, very rich group of effectively untouchable international squillionaires, everyone else is skint.
And you know who they want to be their nominee for that 3rd party: Rick Perry
Erick EricksonVerified account @EWErickson Feb 25 Rick Perry for President running as the first leader of the 21st century version of the Federalist Party. I like the sound of that.
Jeff B/DDHQ @EsotericCD 20h20 hours ago @themattjones@JohnEkdahl Sure, if there isn't a more appealing 3rd-party option (like a Rick Perry or Mitt, for example)
Looking at the collective wisdom of the donours supporting Rick Perry for an independent run and giving $150 million to Jeb Bush to burn, I have to say the reasons why the GOP has lost 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections is it's incompetent consultants and out of touch donours, republicans will be better off without them.
Not sure how you get to 5 out of 6, even if you are already counting Hillary the victor in 2016. By my counting, the GOP has won 2 of 4, 2 of 6, 3 of 7, 5 of 9, 5 of 10, 7 of 12.
But Perry as the person to unite the party against Trump is hilarious - a twice spectacularly failed applicant for the job of nominee.
1992, 1996, 2000 (Gore won the vote), 2008, 2012. That's 5 out of 6.
But that the GOP establishment thinking about Perry is a testament to their collective incompetence and out of touchness (and so was the Jeb Bush campaign). There is plenty of evidence that the GOP will be better off without its establishment.
Losing the vote does not equal losing the election, as GWB proved.
Having the supreme court appoint you as president doesn't equal winning the election either. Especially now that the GOP has lost it's majority on the court it can not use it again.
If Corbyn was advising one thing and McDonnell was advising the opposite, Labour voters would be similarly uncertain.
...
...
The only party that seems to want to embarrass itself in public is the tory party and so the media are more than happy to follow it around. It makes for good copy. Dumb leavers are happy to keep it stirred. If they carry on afterwards then Corbynites will be over the moon. And of course Farage is delighted to have such useful idiots around.
Oh give it a rest. I suppose the "dumb remainers" are any better ? There are two sides to this argument, supported broadly by half the population each. It is an issue which might affect the country for a decade or more, don't you think it needs a proper hearing ? Clearly not.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Corbyn will keep everyone who currently votes Conservative in place.
Agreed. The standard view on here that I disagree with almost as vehemently as I did the '2010 LDs will mostly vote Labour' argument is that Cameron is the only reason the Tories have won the last 2 elections.
I'd suggest that weak Labour leader figures and superior campaigning efforts have far more to do with it.
John Redwood could win 2020 against Corbo.
The Tories could disinter the corpse of Jimmy Savile and make it their leader, and they'd still beat Corbyn.
And you know who they want to be their nominee for that 3rd party: Rick Perry
Erick EricksonVerified account @EWErickson Feb 25 Rick Perry for President running as the first leader of the 21st century version of the Federalist Party. I like the sound of that.
Jeff B/DDHQ @EsotericCD 20h20 hours ago @themattjones@JohnEkdahl Sure, if there isn't a more appealing 3rd-party option (like a Rick Perry or Mitt, for example)
Looking at the collective wisdom of the donours supporting Rick Perry for an independent run and giving $150 million to Jeb Bush to burn, I have to say the reasons why the GOP has lost 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections is it's incompetent consultants and out of touch donours, republicans will be better off without them.
Not sure how you get to 5 out of 6, even if you are already counting Hillary the victor in 2016. By my counting, the GOP has won 2 of 4, 2 of 6, 3 of 7, 5 of 9, 5 of 10, 7 of 12.
But Perry as the person to unite the party against Trump is hilarious - a twice spectacularly failed applicant for the job of nominee.
1992, 1996, 2000 (Gore won the vote), 2008, 2012. That's 5 out of 6.
But that the GOP establishment thinking about Perry is a testament to their collective incompetence and out of touchness (and so was the Jeb Bush campaign). There is plenty of evidence that the GOP will be better off without its establishment.
Gore won the popular vote but not the election. You said elections and hence are incorrect.
The Comres fieldwork was performed between 11/2-14/2.
AB's oversampled by 50%, Scottish sample size more than double the reality, Lib and Lab both oversampled.
I look at this and think "why do they get these samples so wrong?" I can only assume they have a very limited budget and make do with what responses they get.
Agreed. The standard view on here that I disagree with almost as vehemently as I did the '2010 LDs will mostly vote Labour' argument is that Cameron is the only reason the Tories have won the last 2 elections.
I'd suggest that weak Labour leader figures and superior campaigning efforts have far more to do with it.
John Redwood could win 2020 against Corbo.
I agree.
Plus the overriding issue that Labour still haven't come out with a remotely plausible program of government for what a centre-left party stands for when there is no more money to spray around. Being a "robin hood" party requires some rich to take the money from, to give to the poor, and aside from a very small, very rich group of effectively untouchable international squillionaires, everyone else is skint.
I'm not sure they're capable of coming up with such a programme now.
The majority of sensible SDP types are either in hiding, have left the party, miraculously converted to Corbynism or lost their seats to centrist Tories.
Combined with the demographic changes which make e.g. counties like Dorset a Tory fortress, the path to power for anyone other than the Tories or a Tory-led coalition isn't plausible at the moment.
"I took down my Confederate flag (which you cannot buy on e-bay any more) and peeled the NRA sticker off the front door. I disconnected my home alarm system and quit the candy-ass Neighborhood Watch.
"I bought two Pakistani flags and put one at each corner of the front yard. Then I purchased the black flag of ISIS (which you can buy on e-bay) and put it in the center of the yard.
"Now the local police, sheriff, FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, Secret Service and other agencies are all watching the house 24/7. I've never felt safer and I'm saving $69.95 a month."
The Comres fieldwork was performed between 11/2-14/2.
AB's oversampled by 50%, Scottish sample size more than double the reality, Lib and Lab both oversampled.
I look at this and think "why do they get these samples so wrong?" I can only assume they have a very limited budget and make do with what responses they get.
Wasn't that, in essence, the finding of the GE polling post mortem. They call the randomized list and accept the sample who pick up the phone.
I guess that the oversampling is a guide to those with more time on their hands.
The only party that seems to want to embarrass itself in public is the tory party and so the media are more than happy to follow it around. It makes for good copy. Dumb leavers are happy to keep it stirred. If they carry on afterwards then Corbynites will be over the moon. And of course Farage is delighted to have such useful idiots around.
Oh give it a rest. I suppose the "dumb remainers" are any better ? There are two sides to this argument, supported broadly by half the population each. It is an issue which might affect the country for a decade or more, don't you think it needs a proper hearing ? Clearly not.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Corbyn will keep everyone who currently votes Conservative in place.
At the next GE maybe. You will know what the voters really think by how badly the Tories get slaughtered at the Euros and Locals between now and then.
I would anticipate Con gains this year of several hundred councillors, though probably offset by a headline loss in London.
The only party that seems to want to embarrass itself in public is the tory party and so the media are more than happy to follow it around. It makes for good copy. Dumb leavers are happy to keep it stirred. If they carry on afterwards then Corbynites will be over the moon. And of course Farage is delighted to have such useful idiots around.
Oh give it a rest. I suppose the "dumb remainers" are any better ? There are two sides to this argument, supported broadly by half the population each. It is an issue which might affect the country for a decade or more, don't you think it needs a proper hearing ? Clearly not.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Corbyn will keep everyone who currently votes Conservative in place.
At the next GE maybe. You will know what the voters really think by how badly the Tories get slaughtered at the Euros and Locals between now and then.
I would anticipate Con gains this year of several hundred councillors, though probably offset by a headline loss in London.
My thoughts exactly - though I'm still on the fence about London. Just not sure Sadiq gets more people voting for him than he/Labour leadership gets voting against....
If Corbyn was advising one thing and McDonnell was advising the opposite, Labour voters would be similarly uncertain.
But what are they advising? I haven't seen McDonnell for weeks and Corbyn's lack of enthusiasm for the cause could scarcely be more obvious. In contrast, the king of hi-vis has been popping up everywhere.
They're not getting much coverage, because what they're saying is predictable and un-shocking. They're urging Remain for reasons of worker solidarity and protection of employment rights. For what it's worth, they seem to be broadly echoed by Labour voters in the polls as well. The question is whether Labour voters will turn out.
The only party that seems to want to embarrass itself in public is the tory party and so the media are more than happy to follow it around. It makes for good copy. Dumb leavers are happy to keep it stirred. If they carry on afterwards then Corbynites will be over the moon. And of course Farage is delighted to have such useful idiots around.
Oh give it a rest. I suppose the "dumb remainers" are any better ? There are two sides to this argument, supported broadly by half the population each. It is an issue which might affect the country for a decade or more, don't you think it needs a proper hearing ? Clearly not.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Cameron going is priced in. It happens either way before the next GE.
Are the electorate so nuanced? Most 'men in the street' are clueless about the EU issue.
The only party that seems to want to embarrass itself in public is the tory party and so the media are more than happy to follow it around. It makes for good copy. Dumb leavers are happy to keep it stirred. If they carry on afterwards then Corbynites will be over the moon. And of course Farage is delighted to have such useful idiots around.
Oh give it a rest. I suppose the "dumb remainers" are any better ? There are two sides to this argument, supported broadly by half the population each. It is an issue which might affect the country for a decade or more, don't you think it needs a proper hearing ? Clearly not.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Corbyn will keep everyone who currently votes Conservative in place.
At the next GE maybe. You will know what the voters really think by how badly the Tories get slaughtered at the Euros and Locals between now and then.
I would anticipate Con gains this year of several hundred councillors, though probably offset by a headline loss in London.
I think Labour would lose 200 councillors, but the Tories are looking vulnerable lately in council by-elections from the LD, so the net gain for the Tories could be small.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Cameron going is priced in. It happens either way before the next GE.
Are the electorate so nuanced? Most 'men in the street' are clueless about the EU issue.
Clueless about the subtleties of the arguments as you understand them, Mr. Path, quite possibly. Clueless as to the things that concern them, maybe not quite so much. That said I don't think the man on the Clapham Omnibus has yet directed his attention to the issue yet and will not until somewhere around early/mid May.
If Corbyn was advising one thing and McDonnell was advising the opposite, Labour voters would be similarly uncertain.
But what are they advising? I haven't seen McDonnell for weeks and Corbyn's lack of enthusiasm for the cause could scarcely be more obvious. In contrast, the king of hi-vis has been popping up everywhere.
They're not getting much coverage, because what they're saying is predictable and un-shocking. They're urging Remain for reasons of worker solidarity and protection of employment rights. For what it's worth, they seem to be broadly echoed by Labour voters in the polls as well. The question is whether Labour voters will turn out.
The only party that seems to want to embarrass itself in public is the tory party and so the media are more than happy to follow it around. It makes for good copy. Dumb leavers are happy to keep it stirred. If they carry on afterwards then Corbynites will be over the moon. And of course Farage is delighted to have such useful idiots around.
Oh give it a rest. I suppose the "dumb remainers" are any better ? There are two sides to this argument, supported broadly by half the population each. It is an issue which might affect the country for a decade or more, don't you think it needs a proper hearing ? Clearly not.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Corbyn will keep everyone who currently votes Conservative in place.
The Conservatives should plan for him going - what the enemy could do, not what you want them to do.
I think your analysis on point 2, Nick, is a load of crock. This is an issue that is only passionately discussed in the Tory party. To argue that there are divisions would lower the vote, when those divisions arise from passionately held positions, is counter-intuitive to say the least.
Well, I don't know (nor do you!) - we're looking at a poll and speculating. But while I think you're right with respect to party activists, if you're John Smith in Surrey, who always votes Tory but doesn't follow politics closely, it'd be understandable if you felt confused about what the party would like you to do, and somewhat inclined to sit it out. ...
Well I can only talk about the people who have always voted Conservative that I know in darkest Sussex and I can assure you that none of them are confused at all. They know exactly what the Party wants them to do and they will not be doing it.
Not so. Imho.people will vote but more for stay for fear of the unknown
I think your analysis on point 2, Nick, is a load of crock. This is an issue that is only passionately discussed in the Tory party. To argue that there are divisions would lower the vote, when those divisions arise from passionately held positions, is counter-intuitive to say the least.
Well, I don't know (nor do you!) - we're looking at a poll and speculating. But while I think you're right with respect to party activists, if you're John Smith in Surrey, who always votes Tory but doesn't follow politics closely, it'd be understandable if you felt confused about what the party would like you to do, and somewhat inclined to sit it out. ...
Well I can only talk about the people who have always voted Conservative that I know in darkest Sussex and I can assure you that none of them are confused at all. They know exactly what the Party wants them to do and they will not be doing it.
Not so. Imho.people will vote but more for stay for fear of the unknown
If Corbyn was advising one thing and McDonnell was advising the opposite, Labour voters would be similarly uncertain.
...
...
The only party that seems to want to embarrass itself in public is the tory party and so the media are more than happy to follow it around. It makes for good copy. Dumb leavers are happy to keep it stirred. If they carry on afterwards then Corbynites will be over the moon. And of course Farage is delighted to have such useful idiots around.
Oh give it a rest. I suppose the "dumb remainers" are any better ? There are two sides to this argument, supported broadly by half the population each. It is an issue which might affect the country for a decade or more, don't you think it needs a proper hearing ? Clearly not.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Corbyn will keep everyone who currently votes Conservative in place.
The Conservatives should plan for him going - what the enemy could do, not what you want them to do.
As of today the most positive alternative to Corbo would be Ed Miliband - and we know how that one plays out...
I know you think me complacent, but I've yet to see a decent reason not to be given the shambles of the Labour party post Brown...
The Survation 15 point lead quoted above was based on the following data.
The 18-34s has its unweighted number increased from 121 to 236. The Over 55s has its unweighted number decreased from to 592 to 371. (Page 4)
Does this ratio look right for these different voting patterns? Should Survation be using narrower age ranges to pick up “certainty to vote” anomalies at the extremes of the age range and weighting accordingly?
If it's any help, based on turnout scores for the 2015 election and the demographic sizing, these should be the ratios between age bands:
This is all, of course, assuming similar differential turnout rates as at the General Election. As an aside, I'm expecting turnout for the referendum to be in the 55-60% band, which might imply slightly higher figures for the older segments in relation to the younger.
The Survation 15 point lead quoted above was based on the following data.
The 18-34s has its unweighted number increased from 121 to 236. The Over 55s has its unweighted number decreased from to 592 to 371. (Page 4)
Does this ratio look right for these different voting patterns? Should Survation be using narrower age ranges to pick up “certainty to vote” anomalies at the extremes of the age range and weighting accordingly?
If it's any help, based on turnout scores for the 2015 election and the demographic sizing, these should be the ratios between age bands:
This is all, of course, assuming similar differential turnout rates as at the General Election. As an aside, I'm expecting turnout for the referendum to be in the 55-60% band, which might imply slightly higher figures for the older segments in relation to the younger.
I think around 60% is a good forecast for turnout in the referendum.
After reading Rob Smithson's post this morning with Bloomberg taking California and New York, I had this insane idea which I'm sure has to be fatally flawed somewhere along the way, but it leads to such an amusing end-state:
It's a Trump/Kasich ticket against a Clinton/Sanders one, with a Bloomberg third-party challenge. The Democrats retake control of the Senate, but don't make enough ground in the House of Representatives to beat the Republican lead in States controlled.
However, the Presidential Election runs as a near-repeat of the last one; the only three States with different outcome being Ohio (flipped into the Republican column thanks to Kasich on the ticket), New York and California (going for Bloomberg as predicted by Rob).
Oh give it a rest. I suppose the "dumb remainers" are any better ? There are two sides to this argument, supported broadly by half the population each. It is an issue which might affect the country for a decade or more, don't you think it needs a proper hearing ? Clearly not.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Corbyn will keep everyone who currently votes Conservative in place.
At the next GE maybe. You will know what the voters really think by how badly the Tories get slaughtered at the Euros and Locals between now and then.
I would anticipate Con gains this year of several hundred councillors, though probably offset by a headline loss in London.
I think Labour would lose 200 councillors, but the Tories are looking vulnerable lately in council by-elections from the LD, so the net gain for the Tories could be small.
The elections are being held against those of 2012, when Labour gained 800+ seats and Con lost 400+ with a Lab national lead of 7% and a LD national share of 16%. I don't think either opposition party will do that well in May.
"At a meeting of Republican governors the next morning, Paul R. LePage of Maine called for action. Seated at a long boardroom table at the Willard Hotel, he erupted in frustration over the state of the 2016 race, saying Mr. Trump’s nomination would deeply wound the Republican Party. Mr. LePage urged the governors to draft an open letter “to the people,” disavowing Mr. Trump and his divisive brand of politics."
"On Friday, a few hours after Mr. Christie endorsed him, Mr. Trump collected support from a second governor, who in a radio interview said Mr. Trump could be “one of the greatest presidents.”
That governor was Paul LePage."
That says it all.
Anyway the transformation from a conservative to a nationalist party will be painful but more successful electorally for the GOP. They have to get to terms that even their own voters like to have healthcare, basic services and a government to manage them and protect them, they can't go on blasting about Reagan and abolishing all taxes and government including schools and hospitals.
If only they all read the libertarians on here
Ah so we can add Libertarianism to the long list of subjects you know sweet FA about. Not surprising given your general level of ignorance.
You can do better than that. I shall try to give the L-word a capital letter next time.
It won't make you appear any less ignorant you know.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Corbyn will keep everyone who currently votes Conservative in place.
The Conservatives should plan for him going - what the enemy could do, not what you want them to do.
As of today the most positive alternative to Corbo would be Ed Miliband - and we know how that one plays out...
I know you think me complacent, but I've yet to see a decent reason not to be given the shambles of the Labour party post Brown...
Well, every complacent person thinks their complacency is reasonable
I agree, of course, that Labour is a shambles but I think it could pull itself together, somewhat, with a new leader. We don't really know how popular a left-Labour platform would be with a more prepossessing leader.
No thanks I think I'll continue. There is no real difference in staying in or leaving and joining EEA like Norway. The dumb leavers in the tory party - like Gove and Boris who ought to know better - want to parade this lack of difference as a nice way to show the tories as split after years of hard work cornering the centre ground. Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
I think that there are obvious differences between EEA/EFTA membership and EU membership as Richard Tyndall and others have explained ad nauseam.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
Maybe. On the other hand there's a section of voters the Conservatives stand to lose when Cameron goes. I can't see any of the plausible Leave replacements keeping them (it's not certain any replacement could).
Corbyn will keep everyone who currently votes Conservative in place.
The Conservatives should plan for him going - what the enemy could do, not what you want them to do.
As of today the most positive alternative to Corbo would be Ed Miliband - and we know how that one plays out...
I know you think me complacent, but I've yet to see a decent reason not to be given the shambles of the Labour party post Brown...
Well, every complacent person thinks their complacency is reasonable
I agree, of course, that Labour is a shambles but I think it could pull itself together, somewhat, with a new leader. We don't really know how popular a left-Labour platform would be with a more prepossessing leader.
We saw the impact of not accepting the guilt for the last Labour govt increasing the structural deficit in 2015 - a collective gasp from QT and audiences at home when Miliband said 'No I don't' think we spent too much. I feel that is a clue to how voters in general would react to a left Labour platform.
After reading Rob Smithson's post this morning with Bloomberg taking California and New York, I had this insane idea which I'm sure has to be fatally flawed somewhere along the way, but it leads to such an amusing end-state:
It's a Trump/Kasich ticket against a Clinton/Sanders one, with a Bloomberg third-party challenge. The Democrats retake control of the Senate, but don't make enough ground in the House of Representatives to beat the Republican lead in States controlled.
However, the Presidential Election runs as a near-repeat of the last one; the only three States with different outcome being Ohio (flipped into the Republican column thanks to Kasich on the ticket), New York and California (going for Bloomberg as predicted by Rob).
After reading Rob Smithson's post this morning with Bloomberg taking California and New York, I had this insane idea which I'm sure has to be fatally flawed somewhere along the way, but it leads to such an amusing end-state:
It's a Trump/Kasich ticket against a Clinton/Sanders one, with a Bloomberg third-party challenge. The Democrats retake control of the Senate, but don't make enough ground in the House of Representatives to beat the Republican lead in States controlled.
However, the Presidential Election runs as a near-repeat of the last one; the only three States with different outcome being Ohio (flipped into the Republican column thanks to Kasich on the ticket), New York and California (going for Bloomberg as predicted by Rob).
After reading Rob Smithson's post this morning with Bloomberg taking California and New York, I had this insane idea which I'm sure has to be fatally flawed somewhere along the way, but it leads to such an amusing end-state:
It's a Trump/Kasich ticket against a Clinton/Sanders one, with a Bloomberg third-party challenge. The Democrats retake control of the Senate, but don't make enough ground in the House of Representatives to beat the Republican lead in States controlled.
However, the Presidential Election runs as a near-repeat of the last one; the only three States with different outcome being Ohio (flipped into the Republican column thanks to Kasich on the ticket), New York and California (going for Bloomberg as predicted by Rob).
After reading Rob Smithson's post this morning with Bloomberg taking California and New York, I had this insane idea which I'm sure has to be fatally flawed somewhere along the way, but it leads to such an amusing end-state:
It's a Trump/Kasich ticket against a Clinton/Sanders one, with a Bloomberg third-party challenge. The Democrats retake control of the Senate, but don't make enough ground in the House of Representatives to beat the Republican lead in States controlled.
However, the Presidential Election runs as a near-repeat of the last one; the only three States with different outcome being Ohio (flipped into the Republican column thanks to Kasich on the ticket), New York and California (going for Bloomberg as predicted by Rob).
After reading Rob Smithson's post this morning with Bloomberg taking California and New York, I had this insane idea which I'm sure has to be fatally flawed somewhere along the way, but it leads to such an amusing end-state:
It's a Trump/Kasich ticket against a Clinton/Sanders one, with a Bloomberg third-party challenge. The Democrats retake control of the Senate, but don't make enough ground in the House of Representatives to beat the Republican lead in States controlled.
However, the Presidential Election runs as a near-repeat of the last one; the only three States with different outcome being Ohio (flipped into the Republican column thanks to Kasich on the ticket), New York and California (going for Bloomberg as predicted by Rob).
The Comres fieldwork was performed between 11/2-14/2.
AB's oversampled by 50%, Scottish sample size more than double the reality, Lib and Lab both oversampled.
I look at this and think "why do they get these samples so wrong?" I can only assume they have a very limited budget and make do with what responses they get.
Cost, sponsors' deadlines and the sponsor only really wants the poll as a discussion piece, not as a genuine piece of research.
The Canary is a new Left-wing website created to break stories that the lying Tory mainstream media is too scared to publish. I first encountered it when it ran the following headline. “Corbyn Wins 18 Elections By a Landslide... the Media’s Silence is Deafening.”
Just wondering...if lets for instance say there was a school that had been found to be incredibly racist, with members of teaching and admin staff having links to Britain First and BNP and one of the teacher had been proved to have said "whites are the only true race, not like those ignorant blacks and asians"...and had been found to be engaging in chat rooms related to similar racist things etc etc etc, think he would have got a ban? Personally, I would bloody hope so.
Just wondering...if lets for instance say there was a school that had been found to be incredibly racist, with members of teaching and admin staff having links to Britain First and BNP and one of the teacher had been proved to have said "whites are the only true race, not like those blacks and asians"...think he would have got a ban?
Wouldn't have needed to go that far, just replace "Christians" with "Muslims" and the police would have been on the doorstep before you could say "pc gone mad".
The Canary is a new Left-wing website created to break stories that the lying Tory mainstream media is too scared to publish. I first encountered it when it ran the following headline. “Corbyn Wins 18 Elections By a Landslide... the Media’s Silence is Deafening.”
After reading Rob Smithson's post this morning with Bloomberg taking California and New York, I had this insane idea which I'm sure has to be fatally flawed somewhere along the way, but it leads to such an amusing end-state:
It's a Trump/Kasich ticket against a Clinton/Sanders one, with a Bloomberg third-party challenge. The Democrats retake control of the Senate, but don't make enough ground in the House of Representatives to beat the Republican lead in States controlled.
However, the Presidential Election runs as a near-repeat of the last one; the only three States with different outcome being Ohio (flipped into the Republican column thanks to Kasich on the ticket), New York and California (going for Bloomberg as predicted by Rob).
I agree, of course, that Labour is a shambles but I think it could pull itself together, somewhat, with a new leader. We don't really know how popular a left-Labour platform would be with a more prepossessing leader.
In general the far left is in good shape over most of the west - Jeremy and Bernie are familiar examples of people on the left of their spectrum getting further than expected, but the Irish election also includes a marked shift from Labour to parties further left. If we had PR in Britain, we'd instantly have a social democrat and a socialist party (as well as at least two ex-Tory parties), and I'm not sure the social democrat one would be larger. The view that capitalism doesn't work well is quite widespread, and the social democrat answer "let's tweak it a bit, then" doesn't really inspire.
In fact, a what-if thread on how PR politics would work out might be a fun exercise on a slow news day. I suspect we'd end up with a Cameroon-social democrat coalition, like Germany.
Just wondering...if lets for instance say there was a school that had been found to be incredibly racist, with members of teaching and admin staff having links to Britain First and BNP and one of the teacher had been proved to have said "whites are the only true race, not like those blacks and asians"...think he would have got a ban?
Wouldn't have needed to go that far, just replace "Christians" with "Muslims" and the police would have been on the doorstep before you could say "pc gone mad".
PC Gone Mad is a most unfortunate name for a member of the constabulary.
Just wondering...if lets for instance say there was a school that had been found to be incredibly racist, with members of teaching and admin staff having links to Britain First and BNP and one of the teacher had been proved to have said "whites are the only true race, not like those blacks and asians"...think he would have got a ban?
Wouldn't have needed to go that far, just replace "Christians" with "Muslims" and the police would have been on the doorstep before you could say "pc gone mad".
PC Gone Mad is a most unfortunate name for a member of the constabulary.
The Returning Officer is deciding by STV which colour ballot box should be used for each ward and then the correct shade before moving on to determine which fingers on which hand are to be used to count the ballots.
Trump is speaking in Bentonville AR, and discussing foreign trade. He is standing in front of his plane Hair Force One. He asks the crowd if they like the plane - US made Boeing 757.
Except for the large RR logo on the engine cowling.
After reading Rob Smithson's post this morning with Bloomberg taking California and New York, I had this insane idea which I'm sure has to be fatally flawed somewhere along the way, but it leads to such an amusing end-state:
It's a Trump/Kasich ticket against a Clinton/Sanders one, with a Bloomberg third-party challenge. The Democrats retake control of the Senate, but don't make enough ground in the House of Representatives to beat the Republican lead in States controlled.
However, the Presidential Election runs as a near-repeat of the last one; the only three States with different outcome being Ohio (flipped into the Republican column thanks to Kasich on the ticket), New York and California (going for Bloomberg as predicted by Rob).
I agree, of course, that Labour is a shambles but I think it could pull itself together, somewhat, with a new leader. We don't really know how popular a left-Labour platform would be with a more prepossessing leader.
In general the far left is in good shape over most of the west - Jeremy and Bernie are familiar examples of people on the left of their spectrum getting further than expected, but the Irish election also includes a marked shift from Labour to parties further left. If we had PR in Britain, we'd instantly have a social democrat and a socialist party (as well as at least two ex-Tory parties), and I'm not sure the social democrat one would be larger. The view that capitalism doesn't work well is quite widespread, and the social democrat answer "let's tweak it a bit, then" doesn't really inspire.
In fact, a what-if thread on how PR politics would work out might be a fun exercise on a slow news day. I suspect we'd end up with a Cameroon-social democrat coalition, like Germany.
How it might work out is that Jeremy Corbyn would be as far away from being Prime Minister as he is now.
In the space of five months Jezza is likely to preside over huge Labour losses in Scotland, Wales and England, and will watch - powerless and irrelevant - as voters decide whether to leave the EU.
Today as Sadiq Khan campaigned to be mayor of London, Jeremy Corby - the leader of the Labour party - thought the most productive thing he could do would be to march and speak against Labour party policy.
And you think he is fantastic.
It would be laughable if this comfortable, consequence-free posturing was not letting down millions of people who need a credible alternative to this self-indulgent, increasingly useless and unopposed Tory government.
I agree, of course, that Labour is a shambles but I think it could pull itself together, somewhat, with a new leader. We don't really know how popular a left-Labour platform would be with a more prepossessing leader.
In general the far left is in good shape over most of the west - Jeremy and Bernie are familiar examples of people on the left of their spectrum getting further than expected, but the Irish election also includes a marked shift from Labour to parties further left. If we had PR in Britain, we'd instantly have a social democrat and a socialist party (as well as at least two ex-Tory parties), and I'm not sure the social democrat one would be larger. The view that capitalism doesn't work well is quite widespread, and the social democrat answer "let's tweak it a bit, then" doesn't really inspire.
In fact, a what-if thread on how PR politics would work out might be a fun exercise on a slow news day. I suspect we'd end up with a Cameroon-social democrat coalition, like Germany.
Probably a Conservative government with supply and confidence from UKIP.
Sounds mad, but 1088-1 is acceptable odds to cover it in my eyes.
" “The plan is for Romney to file for the New Jersey, New York and California primaries in an all-out ditch effort to stop Donald Trump and you heard it here on Infowars.com.” "
Last poll with Romney in was January of last year, he always had an average of 20, that's the same as Rubio today.
A guy who barely defeated Rick Santorum and is a proven loser will have an impossible task against any average candidate, and Trump is stronger than your average candidate. Also N.Y and N.J are Trump's best states, don't know about California Cruz lead there in the last polls a few months ago.
Once again the GOP establishment comes off as incompetent and out of touch, they float all kinds of ideas (like Rick Perry) that are obvious that will fail.
However from a betting point of view, if desperate shots like Jeb and Rubio hanged on the betting markets for so long why not an equally long shot like Romney ? Bring forward the "Trees are the right height" speeches:
I agree, of course, that Labour is a shambles but I think it could pull itself together, somewhat, with a new leader. We don't really know how popular a left-Labour platform would be with a more prepossessing leader.
In general the far left is in good shape over most of the west - Jeremy and Bernie are familiar examples of people on the left of their spectrum getting further than expected, but the Irish election also includes a marked shift from Labour to parties further left. If we had PR in Britain, we'd instantly have a social democrat and a socialist party (as well as at least two ex-Tory parties), and I'm not sure the social democrat one would be larger. The view that capitalism doesn't work well is quite widespread, and the social democrat answer "let's tweak it a bit, then" doesn't really inspire.
In fact, a what-if thread on how PR politics would work out might be a fun exercise on a slow news day. I suspect we'd end up with a Cameroon-social democrat coalition, like Germany.
Probably a Conservative government with supply and confidence from UKIP.
Although if we voted for Brexit, UKIP would not look like it does today. It would lose some of its left wing Brexit supporters, as well as all of its libertarian ones.
I agree, of course, that Labour is a shambles but I think it could pull itself together, somewhat, with a new leader. We don't really know how popular a left-Labour platform would be with a more prepossessing leader.
In general the far left is in good shape over most of the west - Jeremy and Bernie are familiar examples of people on the left of their spectrum getting further than expected, but the Irish election also includes a marked shift from Labour to parties further left. If we had PR in Britain, we'd instantly have a social democrat and a socialist party (as well as at least two ex-Tory parties), and I'm not sure the social democrat one would be larger. The view that capitalism doesn't work well is quite widespread, and the social democrat answer "let's tweak it a bit, then" doesn't really inspire.
In fact, a what-if thread on how PR politics would work out might be a fun exercise on a slow news day. I suspect we'd end up with a Cameroon-social democrat coalition, like Germany.
Probably a Conservative government with supply and confidence from UKIP.
Comments
Quite why OGH allows us lefties to post on here I've no idea. Do you?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/doors-gop-consulting-independent-219859
And you know who they want to be their nominee for that 3rd party: Rick Perry
Erick EricksonVerified account @EWErickson Feb 25
Rick Perry for President running as the first leader of the 21st century version of the Federalist Party. I like the sound of that.
Jeff B/DDHQ @EsotericCD 20h20 hours ago
@themattjones @JohnEkdahl Sure, if there isn't a more appealing 3rd-party option (like a Rick Perry or Mitt, for example)
http://theresurgent.com/rick-perry-for-president/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/rick-perry-2016-219815?cmpid=sf#ixzz41FQTGyQT
Ooops.
Looking at the collective wisdom of the donours supporting Rick Perry for an independent run and giving $150 million to Jeb Bush to burn, I have to say the reasons why the GOP has lost 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections is it's incompetent consultants and out of touch donours, republicans will be better off without them.
For Syria, I am almost too depressed by events to concentrate on it. A ceasefire is good, but I think what it shows is that we are still suffering the negative consequences of Vietnam and Iraq. Failure in those ventures has hardened Western resistance to decisive actions. It's hard to argue that Russia's decisive action, no matter how inimical to Western interests, is what has driven the ceasefire.
Indecisive actions, as we have seen in Syria and Libya, can be just as damaging as over-involvement. The trick, as always, is to find the right course of action for each circumstance. And that will never be either blanket disengagement or automatic heavy engagement. Alas, we seem to have got it wrong consistently in the Middle East.
There could be no more toxic combination to the average voter.
A leave vote and the Tory leadership trying to finesse it into a EEA+Bells+Whistle approach that is indistinguishable from Remain would be a once in a lifetime opportunity to peel a large chunk of very angry voters away from the Tory party for a generation. Only if they were terminally stupid would they pass up that opportunity for the purity of opposition... oh wait!
But what a shame we seem to have lost the Gold Standard ICM Phone Poll.
"By being so popular there to win election three times including a recall vote"
While ignoring what happened afterwards.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-s-approval-in-wisconsin-hits-new-low-after/article_b7b8fb9a-9236-53d1-990b-bc46543b1ce4.html
"Gov. Scott Walker’s approval rating in Wisconsin, already tattered during his early foray into the presidential race, has hit a new low of 37 percent after his exit from the campaign, the latest Marquette Law School Poll has found."
Walker is currently and consistently the second most unpopular governor in america since his re-election, after Chris Christie.
Who is ignorant now Mr.Thompson?
AB's oversampled by 50%, Scottish sample size more than double the reality, Lib and Lab both oversampled.
But Perry as the person to unite the party against Trump is hilarious - a twice spectacularly failed applicant for the job of nominee.
http://www.rte.ie/player/gb/live/8/
and 4 out of 9.
That's 5 out of 6.
But that the GOP establishment thinking about Perry is a testament to their collective incompetence and out of touchness (and so was the Jeb Bush campaign). There is plenty of evidence that the GOP will be better off without its establishment.
I'd suggest that weak Labour leader figures and superior campaigning efforts have far more to do with it.
John Redwood could win 2020 against Corbo.
Interesting polling. Four out of six have it tight, and two have substantial Remain leads. Hopefully the fact there's two with similar large leads will mean less herding.
Plus the overriding issue that Labour still haven't come out with a remotely plausible program of government for what a centre-left party stands for when there is no more money to spray around. Being a "robin hood" party requires some rich to take the money from, to give to the poor, and aside from a very small, very rich group of effectively untouchable international squillionaires, everyone else is skint.
Especially now that the GOP has lost it's majority on the court it can not use it again.
The majority of sensible SDP types are either in hiding, have left the party, miraculously converted to Corbynism or lost their seats to centrist Tories.
Combined with the demographic changes which make e.g. counties like Dorset a Tory fortress, the path to power for anyone other than the Tories or a Tory-led coalition isn't plausible at the moment.
"I took down my Confederate flag (which you cannot buy on e-bay any more) and peeled the NRA sticker off the front door. I disconnected my home alarm system and quit the candy-ass Neighborhood Watch.
"I bought two Pakistani flags and put one at each corner of the front yard. Then I purchased the black flag of ISIS (which you can buy on e-bay) and put it in the center of the yard.
"Now the local police, sheriff, FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, Secret Service and other agencies are all watching the house 24/7. I've never felt safer and I'm saving $69.95 a month."
I guess that the oversampling is a guide to those with more time on their hands.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35677549
The voters obviously didn't get the message...
Are the electorate so nuanced? Most 'men in the street' are clueless about the EU issue.
Clueless about the subtleties of the arguments as you understand them, Mr. Path, quite possibly. Clueless as to the things that concern them, maybe not quite so much. That said I don't think the man on the Clapham Omnibus has yet directed his attention to the issue yet and will not until somewhere around early/mid May.
I know you think me complacent, but I've yet to see a decent reason not to be given the shambles of the Labour party post Brown...
Survation:
18-34: 1.00
35-54: 1.65
55+: 2.05
YouGov
18-24: 1.00
25-49: 5.65
50-64: 3.75
65+ 3.70
ICM
18-34: 1.00
35-44: 0.75
45-64: 1.75
65+: 1.25
Comres and Mori:
18-24: 1.00
25-34: 2.00
35-44: 2.30
45-54: 2.70
55-64: 2.40
65+: 3.70
This is all, of course, assuming similar differential turnout rates as at the General Election.
As an aside, I'm expecting turnout for the referendum to be in the 55-60% band, which might imply slightly higher figures for the older segments in relation to the younger.
on the theme rather than an exception to it.
It's a Trump/Kasich ticket against a Clinton/Sanders one, with a Bloomberg third-party challenge.
The Democrats retake control of the Senate, but don't make enough ground in the House of Representatives to beat the Republican lead in States controlled.
However, the Presidential Election runs as a near-repeat of the last one; the only three States with different outcome being Ohio (flipped into the Republican column thanks to Kasich on the ticket), New York and California (going for Bloomberg as predicted by Rob).
Result: Clinton/Sanders 230, Trump/Kasich 224, Bloomber/whoever 84.
The now-Democrat controlled Senate chooses the VP. The entire Congress chooses the President.
We end up with a Trump/Sanders outcome...
http://electionsireland.org/results/general/32dail.cfm
Tip: after clicking on a constituency, to see the results click on the right green arrow.
I agree, of course, that Labour is a shambles but I think it could pull itself together, somewhat, with a new leader. We don't really know how popular a left-Labour platform would be with a more prepossessing leader.
We could make him the Oracle of PB, though.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/12176057/BBC-Broadcasters-enjoy-Survivors-Lunch.html
Cough ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12175084/Great-news-for-Corbynistas...-its-the-maddest-Left-wing-website-in-the-world.html [The Canary]
"we have the true religion, not like those ignorant Christians and ignorant Jews"
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-35666546
Just wondering...if lets for instance say there was a school that had been found to be incredibly racist, with members of teaching and admin staff having links to Britain First and BNP and one of the teacher had been proved to have said "whites are the only true race, not like those ignorant blacks and asians"...and had been found to be engaging in chat rooms related to similar racist things etc etc etc, think he would have got a ban? Personally, I would bloody hope so.
In fact, a what-if thread on how PR politics would work out might be a fun exercise on a slow news day. I suspect we'd end up with a Cameroon-social democrat coalition, like Germany.
23 of 158 TDs in total have been elected so far.
"The Canary is boldly taking on the combined forces of the Tories, the media, and reality…!"
Hilarious stuff – how the Daily Mash would look like, if Harriet Harman was the editor.
The Returning Officer is deciding by STV which colour ballot box should be used for each ward and then the correct shade before moving on to determine which fingers on which hand are to be used to count the ballots.
Counting is due to begin in 2025 .... at a pinch.
Except for the large RR logo on the engine cowling.
Sounds mad, but 1088-1 is acceptable odds to cover it in my eyes.
In the space of five months Jezza is likely to preside over huge Labour losses in Scotland, Wales and England, and will watch - powerless and irrelevant - as voters decide whether to leave the EU.
Today as Sadiq Khan campaigned to be mayor of London, Jeremy Corby - the leader of the Labour party - thought the most productive thing he could do would be to march and speak against Labour party policy.
And you think he is fantastic.
It would be laughable if this comfortable, consequence-free posturing was not letting down millions of people who need a credible alternative to this self-indulgent, increasingly useless and unopposed Tory government.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination2-5255.html
Last poll with Romney in was January of last year, he always had an average of 20, that's the same as Rubio today.
A guy who barely defeated Rick Santorum and is a proven loser will have an impossible task against any average candidate, and Trump is stronger than your average candidate.
Also N.Y and N.J are Trump's best states, don't know about California Cruz lead there in the last polls a few months ago.
Once again the GOP establishment comes off as incompetent and out of touch, they float all kinds of ideas (like Rick Perry) that are obvious that will fail.
However from a betting point of view, if desperate shots like Jeb and Rubio hanged on the betting markets for so long why not an equally long shot like Romney ?
Bring forward the "Trees are the right height" speeches:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZbA5RM97DI