"Supporters of Brexit are more likely to vote in the forthcoming referendum which could give the Leave campaign a decisive edge in the final result, a new Telegraph poll suggests. Analysis of the survey by Sir Lynton Crosby shows that voters who want Britain to leave the European Union are more motivated than those who say they are in favour of staying in. "
Every time anyone sees the byline 'SIR Lynton Crosby' they'll be reminded of a political system so rotten and corrupt that knighthoods are given out for successful advertising campaigns so long as the campaign was for the advancement of the person giving out the kighthood
That's fine. Loads of people get Honours for things others don't think they should, if that gets people angry enough to force a change to one more based on non partisan merit, or get rid of it, OK, but since it is what oeople already expect, I'm not sure Lyntons was so egregious it will indeed make enough people angry.
Well if it doesn't make people angry it should. Wasn't the cash for honours scandal enough of a warning? No one suggested Blair pocketed any money for giving out honours but that honours were given for patronage
Crosby helped win an election. Big Deal.
It's not like he took us into war on the basis of a dossier of lies, and became filthy rich. Or resigned from government twice, but now pontificates on EU matters from a lofty position in private banking.
'There is no doubt in my mind, that a vote for remain is not a vote for the status quo, it is a vote to continue along to path to ever closer union.'
Of course it is.
And if anyone doubts that the current government would allow further significant transfers of power to the EU they need only look at the recent decision to opt back in to a series of justice and home affairs measures which have done precisely that - and which, you may note, were not subject to the so-called 'referendum lock'.
In the event of a LEAVE or REMAIN vote, I fancy Hammond to come through the middle of Gideon and Boris, as the compromise candidate and a safe pair of hands.
I wonder just how many of those for remain or leave are genuinely conflicted and will accept the will of the people without recourse to acrimony to the losing side. I am in the remain camp since Mark Carney’s evidence to the Treasury select committee but I do have moments of doubt, largely induced by my hatred of Brussels and the likes of the non elected Eurocrats like Junckers and Schulz. I may well change my mind and vote to leave if an honest case is put forward by leave accepting that we will have some contribution to make and that we will have to accept free movement of labour. However, irrespective of the final outcome I do not see David Cameron leaving the Government as he is the only politician remotely suitable to preside over a unity cabinet, post referendum. He is not in a contest with Boris or anyone else for Prime Minister as he is clearly standing down in the next few years. There are some who want David Cameron to go as they simply do not like him or more likely think it will aid their own political views, especially labour and lid dem supporters. I believe remain have not made a strong enough case at present but in my opinion the open debates and televised programmes due from April on will have a substantial impact on voters’ minds and in my case will confirm my decision one way or another.
A minor point, but worth noting that Morgan (lambasted yesterday here for generally being rubbish) is apparently pouring £80m into a campaign against violence faced by women, but ManKind (for male domestic abuse victims) is having to close its helpline because it couldn't raise £45,000.
I wonder just how many of those for remain or leave are genuinely conflicted and will accept the will of the people without recourse to acrimony to the losing side. I am in the remain camp since Mark Carney’s evidence to the Treasury select committee but I do have moments of doubt, largely induced by my hatred of Brussels and the likes of the non elected Eurocrats like Junckers and Schulz. I may well change my mind and vote to leave if an honest case is put forward by leave accepting that we will have some contribution to make and that we will have to accept free movement of labour. However, irrespective of the final outcome I do not see David Cameron leaving the Government as he is the only politician remotely suitable to preside over a unity cabinet, post referendum. He is not in a contest with Boris or anyone else for Prime Minister as he is clearly standing down in the next few years. There are some who want David Cameron to go as they simply do not like him or more likely think it will aid their own political views, especially labour and lid dem supporters. I believe remain have not made a strong enough case at present but in my opinion the open debates and televised programmes due from April on will have a substantial impact on voters’ minds and in my case will confirm my decision one way or another.
If you are in the remain camp because of what Mark Carney said then I suggest you actually listen more closely. Everything he said suggested that the EU has been good for us in the past, but he gave literally no guarantees that it would continue to be good for us in the future. Since the referendum is about the direction of our country for the next 20-30 years you shouldn't base your decision on what the EU has done in the past. Look at the EU for what it really is and the direction of travel. Our non-EU trade is growing at a long run average of 4% per year and our EU trade is shrinking at a long run average of 2% per year. Carney is a smart guy and the fact that he didn't say that our future within the EU will be as good as it has been is quite telling.
Interesting article. I'm still in the Remain camp but I've definitely noticed a softening of support for remain amongst people I thought were more clearly in that group. I don't think the findings that Leave backers are more committed is all that surprising. I said to my wife that the lower the turnout, the better Leave's chances and I stand by that.
The other interesting thing is the Independent front page. Powerful and thought provoking and quite sad, really, given that they are going to go.
In other news, I've left The Sun after 12 years and am unemployed. Boo.
But Cheltenham starts. Yay
And my second child is due today. Gulp.
Good to hear from you after so long! I guess you'll be a more regular visitor now that you aren't with the Sun.
A minor point, but worth noting that Morgan (lambasted yesterday here for generally being rubbish) is apparently pouring £80m into a campaign against violence faced by women, but ManKind (for male domestic abuse victims) is having to close its helpline because it couldn't raise £45,000.
I wonder just how many of those for remain or leave are genuinely conflicted and will accept the will of the people without recourse to acrimony to the losing side. I am in the remain camp since Mark Carney’s evidence to the Treasury select committee but I do have moments of doubt, largely induced by my hatred of Brussels and the likes of the non elected Eurocrats like Junckers and Schulz. I may well change my mind and vote to leave if an honest case is put forward by leave accepting that we will have some contribution to make and that we will have to accept free movement of labour. However, irrespective of the final outcome I do not see David Cameron leaving the Government as he is the only politician remotely suitable to preside over a unity cabinet, post referendum. He is not in a contest with Boris or anyone else for Prime Minister as he is clearly standing down in the next few years. There are some who want David Cameron to go as they simply do not like him or more likely think it will aid their own political views, especially labour and lid dem supporters. I believe remain have not made a strong enough case at present but in my opinion the open debates and televised programmes due from April on will have a substantial impact on voters’ minds and in my case will confirm my decision one way or another.
If you are in the remain camp because of what Mark Carney said then I suggest you actually listen more closely. Everything he said suggested that the EU has been good for us in the past, but he gave literally no guarantees that it would continue to be good for us in the future. Since the referendum is about the direction of our country for the next 20-30 years you shouldn't base your decision on what the EU has done in the past. Look at the EU for what it really is and the direction of travel. Our non-EU trade is growing at a long run average of 4% per year and our EU trade is shrinking at a long run average of 2% per year. Carney is a smart guy and the fact that he didn't say that our future within the EU will be as good as it has been is quite telling.
I accept your argument but there is absolutely no guarantee that by leaving we will be in any better position in years to come and I believe that is the dilemma in this whole debate
I wonder just how many of those for remain or leave are genuinely conflicted and will accept the will of the people without recourse to acrimony to the losing side.
On here and among the political commentariat? Not as many as the public at large.
I was a reluctant remain for a long time, and can admit that as I have a spine like jelly a part of me is worried about the uncertainties of Leave and a guilty part would not mind being able to vote the way I want, Leave, and not suffer any potential consequences as a result, and part of the reason I admit it is to shore up my resolve to vote Leave. But for acrimony it's not a problem for me - the worse acrimony appears to be an internal Tory battle of which the EU is the largest element but not the entirety of it (for some at least, there are die hard Cameroons angry with him over this), and at the end of the day I think no matter the tactics of either side, there are enough voices being heard putting out the proper arguments that if we vote Remain the only people to 'blame' are the public themselves, and that's not a position I would want to be in, being angry at the public as a whole.
However, irrespective of the final outcome I do not see David Cameron leaving the Government as he is the only politician remotely suitable to preside over a unity cabinet, post referendum. He is not in a contest with Boris or anyone else for Prime Minister as he is clearly standing down in the next few years. There are some who want David Cameron to go as they simply do not like him or more likely think it will aid their own political views, especially labour and lid dem supporters. .
On this though I don't know that I can agree - Cameron might be the most suitable to reside over a unity Cabinet, but if the campaign gets any more poisonous, a unity cabinet might not be an option. That he is not personally standing again is immaterial, as he is crucial to the contest of those who will be PM after him, and when that will be, so that some people as you say want him to go simply as they do not like him or think it will aid their politics is pretty relevant when combined with the demands that will occur for him to go if Leave wins from more than the usual suspects. It's too much to withstand, I think.
Though as hilarious as it is, I do wonder when some form of reform will come to sort out the Lords. I'm not opposed at all to an appointed or mostly appointed chamber, but even by British standards it's a bit of a constitutional mess, it appears.
Naturally. If three candidates get one vote each, lots will be drawn to eliminate one of them. If that elimination doesn't produce a valid second preference, they presumably draw lots again to decide the winner.
A minor point, but worth noting that Morgan (lambasted yesterday here for generally being rubbish) is apparently pouring £80m into a campaign against violence faced by women, but ManKind (for male domestic abuse victims) is having to close its helpline because it couldn't raise £45,000.
Hopefully that'll help lily-livered decision-makers grow a backbone and keep the Orient Express ball.
I've had a bee in my bonnet about this issue for years. Miliband's sh*tness in having a minister for violence against women and girls, but not one for men and boys, was the main reason I loved the fact he lost.
Domestic violence by men and women often have exactly the same cause, and should not be treated differently because the victims are male, female, straight, gay, black or white.
And perhaps make sure the Northern Powerhouse represents something more than vapour.
I actually thought some form of HS3 was a near necessity to get the best out of a completed HS2, (by which I mean HS2 once it has struck North once up the east coast to Glasgow) even before plans were announced . HS3 at that point turns HS2 from an Any <-> London railway into an Any <-> Any railway (Manchester->Nottingham, Liverpool->Glasgow via Newcastle anyone?).
In fact, the bit of HS2 that begins to look a bit dodgy at that point HS3 is plumbed in is the Manchester -> Birmingham section - for a hit of perhaps 15 minutes on Manchester to Birmingham and points south journey times (and, yes, I know, slower to London, aaargh!!!) - you could scrap that section and go a decent way to actually funding this Pennine tunnel towards Liverpool into reality at full HS spec.
There are some pretty tantalising glimpses of what the Pennine tunnel thinking is already in discussion docs so far, from the connection into HS2 around Thorpe Hesley just north of Sheffield, possible synergies by building motorway and rail as a single construction project, to the slightly odd possibility of the through route to Liverpool going via Manchester Airport with central Manchester as a branch (shown on some schematics, but I could just be reading too much into that).
But you'd still be able to get from Manchester and Liverpool to anywhere pretty damn quickly, even if not in the straightest ever line.
On topic: Sound advice from Alastair. For that matter, doing the day job to the best of your ability is sound advice for most situations, and especially for politicians. It's why Theresa May is very much in the running for next leader.
Mr. Jessop, yeah, it really pisses me off too. Tend not to tweet about politics (a 140 character medium is ill-suited to it, I think), but had to RT that link.
Incidentally, what's the name of the government/charity PR campaign about how coercion in relationships is wrong? It seems every instance appears to be assuming a male perpetrator and female victim.
I wonder just how many of those for remain or leave are genuinely conflicted and will accept the will of the people without recourse to acrimony to the losing side.
On here and among the political commentariat? Not as many as the public at large.
I was a reluctant remain for a long time, and can admit that as I have a spine like jelly a part of me is worried about the uncertainties of Leave and a guilty part would not mind being able to vote the way I want, Leave, and not suffer any potential consequences as a result, and part of the reason I admit it is to shore up my resolve to vote Leave. But for acrimony it's not a problem for me - the worse acrimony appears to be an internal Tory battle of which the EU is the largest element but not the entirety of it (for some at least, there are die hard Cameroons angry with him over this), and at the end of the day I think no matter the tactics of either side, there are enough voices being heard putting out the proper arguments that if we vote Remain the only people to 'blame' are the public themselves, and that's not a position I would want to be in, being angry at the public as a whole.
However, irrespective of the final outcome I do not see David Cameron leaving the Government as he is the only politician remotely suitable to preside over a unity cabinet, post referendum. He is not in a contest with Boris or anyone else for Prime Minister as he is clearly standing down in the next few years. There are some who want David Cameron to go as they simply do not like him or more likely think it will aid their own political views, especially labour and lid dem supporters. .
On this though I don't know that I can agree - Cameron might be the most suitable to reside over a unity Cabinet, but if the campaign gets any more poisonous, a unity cabinet might not be an option. That he is not personally standing again is immaterial, as he is crucial to the contest of those who will be PM after him, and when that will be, so that some people as you say want him to go simply as they do not like him or think it will aid their politics is pretty relevant when combined with the demands that will occur for him to go if Leave wins from more than the usual suspects. It's too much to withstand, I think.
I think you demonstrate the difficulties we all have with this decision and the only redeeming feature as far as I can see is that 23rd June is not far away and there will be 4 years for the Conservative party to resolve it's issues and get on governing the country. At 72 years I finally joined the Conservative party last week.
I wonder just how many of those for remain or leave are genuinely conflicted and will accept the will of the people without recourse to acrimony to the losing side. I am in the remain camp since Mark Carney’s evidence to the Treasury select committee but I do have moments of doubt, largely induced by my hatred of Brussels and the likes of the non elected Eurocrats like Junckers and Schulz. I may well change my mind and vote to leave if an honest case is put forward by leave accepting that we will have some contribution to make and that we will have to accept free movement of labour. However, irrespective of the final outcome I do not see David Cameron leaving the Government as he is the only politician remotely suitable to preside over a unity cabinet, post referendum. He is not in a contest with Boris or anyone else for Prime Minister as he is clearly standing down in the next few years. There are some who want David Cameron to go as they simply do not like him or more likely think it will aid their own political views, especially labour and lid dem supporters. I believe remain have not made a strong enough case at present but in my opinion the open debates and televised programmes due from April on will have a substantial impact on voters’ minds and in my case will confirm my decision one way or another.
If you are in the remain camp because of what Mark Carney said then I suggest you actually listen more closely. Everything he said suggested that the EU has been good for us in the past, but he gave literally no guarantees that it would continue to be good for us in the future. Since the referendum is about the direction of our country for the next 20-30 years you shouldn't base your decision on what the EU has done in the past. Look at the EU for what it really is and the direction of travel. Our non-EU trade is growing at a long run average of 4% per year and our EU trade is shrinking at a long run average of 2% per year. Carney is a smart guy and the fact that he didn't say that our future within the EU will be as good as it has been is quite telling.
I accept your argument but there is absolutely no guarantee that by leaving we will be in any better position in years to come and I believe that is the dilemma in this whole debate
I think the point is that if we remain, there isn't even a chance of being in a better position over the next 20-30 years. There is certainty, that certainty is a path of stagnation by being attached to the slowest growing inhabited continent on the planet. I'll take the opportunity of uncertainty over the stagnation of certainty any day.
Mr. Jessop, yeah, it really pisses me off too. Tend not to tweet about politics (a 140 character medium is ill-suited to it, I think), but had to RT that link.
Incidentally, what's the name of the government/charity PR campaign about how coercion in relationships is wrong? It seems every instance appears to be assuming a male perpetrator and female victim.
I'll just add that I've been on gov.uk, and sadly it looks as if the government have gone backwards in this regard from their position a few years ago,
Naturally. If three candidates get one vote each, lots will be drawn to eliminate one of them. If that elimination doesn't produce a valid second preference, they presumably draw lots again to decide the winner.
Allah bless the UK constitution and her wonderful quirks.
I'd guess we still have a Minister for Women. We definitely have a Labour MP who thinks the idea of discussing men's issues (like a massively higher suicide rate than women) is laughable.
We are still looking for someone to make a positive case for Remain, Alistair was asked but hasn't done so, why don't you have a go?
Because as I've said passim, I'm probably going to vote leave.
My reasoning is simple: I see leaving as inevitable in the medium- or long- term unless we join the Euro, which is something I don't want to do. If the EU had made genuine moves towards a two-speed EU, where members outside the EZ were treated fairly, I would vote remain.
But I can't see Cameron's renegotiation has got that (and I didn't expect it to), and the general mood music from the EU is against it. I don't want to head where they're heading.
So if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly, and I'll vote leave. But that doesn't stop me from criticising leave when they make crummy arguments, which is sadly all too frequent.
The deal specified no ever closer union and there was an explicit and mutual ez/non-ez non-discriminatory clause.
What else would you have had them include?
Stronger guarantees. Leaving aside the wording of these clauses in the deal (in which I agree and disagree with some of what Mr Tyndall (I think) said), the EU has a track record of ignoring or working around such deals (and even referenda) if they get in the way of greater integration.
Juncker even admitted this during the negotiating, when he said there is the flexibility within the EU to have countries to move forward to ever closer union at different speeds...
There is no doubt in my mind, that a vote for remain is not a vote for the status quo, it is a vote to continue along to path to ever closer union.
Increased cross border trade and the internet are breaking down the boundaries between countries. Even the growth in the use of the English language by previously non-english speaking countries is contributing to globalisation. Market forces are causing prices, tax rates and laws to converge.
However, some of the EU countries like France are protectionist and resisting globalisation to the detriment of the EU. There is a judgement to be made as to whether the benefits of harmonisation of trade within the EU are greater than the harm of the EU resisting globalisation.
Interesting article. I'm still in the Remain camp but I've definitely noticed a softening of support for remain amongst people I thought were more clearly in that group. I don't think the findings that Leave backers are more committed is all that surprising. I said to my wife that the lower the turnout, the better Leave's chances and I stand by that.
The other interesting thing is the Independent front page. Powerful and thought provoking and quite sad, really, given that they are going to go.
In other news, I've left The Sun after 12 years and am unemployed. Boo.
But Cheltenham starts. Yay
And my second child is due today. Gulp.
Seconded.
Thirded. And welcome back to more active posting - always one of the interesting posters. Get the new Fletcherling into it too! Modern children learn to use the internet before they learn to write...
I accept your argument but there is absolutely no guarantee that by leaving we will be in any better position in years to come and I believe that is the dilemma in this whole debate
I think the point is that if we remain, there isn't even a chance of being in a better position over the next 20-30 years. There is certainty, that certainty is a path of stagnation by being attached to the slowest growing inhabited continent on the planet. I'll take the opportunity of uncertainty over the stagnation of certainty any day.
I do not believe the EU will survive in it's present form even in the short term as the migration crisis acts as the catalyst for various realignments, the move to the right in many EU countries will be felt by the political classes, and German and French elections in 2017 will be unpredictability . Whether we are in or out we will be affected by the 'chaos'
And perhaps make sure the Northern Powerhouse represents something more than vapour.
I actually thought some form of HS3 was a near necessity to get the best out of a completed HS2, (by which I mean HS2 once it has struck North once up the east coast to Glasgow) even before plans were announced . HS3 at that point turns HS2 from an Any <-> London railway into an Any <-> Any railway (Manchester->Nottingham, Liverpool->Glasgow via Newcastle anyone?).
In fact, the bit of HS2 that begins to look a bit dodgy at that point HS3 is plumbed in is the Manchester -> Birmingham section - for a hit of perhaps 15 minutes on Manchester to Birmingham and points south journey times (and, yes, I know, slower to London, aaargh!!!) - you could scrap that section and go a decent way to actually funding this Pennine tunnel towards Liverpool into reality at full HS spec.
There are some pretty tantalising glimpses of what the Pennine tunnel thinking is already in discussion docs so far, from the connection into HS2 around Thorpe Hesley just north of Sheffield, possible synergies by building motorway and rail as a single construction project, to the slightly odd possibility of the through route to Liverpool going via Manchester Airport with central Manchester as a branch (shown on some schematics, but I could just be reading too much into that).
But you'd still be able to get from Manchester and Liverpool to anywhere pretty damn quickly, even if not in the straightest ever line.
I might be misunderstanding you, but surely HS2 will not be going north of Manchester / Leeds (aside from link lines to ECML / WCML), although classic-compatible trains will be running from further north and onto HS2.
That's interesting thanks. Are any of the discusssion docs you refer to public available?
There was a wonderful Smith and Jones sketch with the pair using union bloc votes. After much huffing and puffing, it was 4m for tea and 3m for coffee.
I wonder just how many of those for remain or leave are genuinely conflicted and will accept the will of the people without recourse to acrimony to the losing side.
On here and among the political commentariat? Not as many as the public at large.
I was a reluctant remain for a long time, and can admit that as I have a spine like jelly a part of me is worried about the uncertainties of Leave and a guilty part would not mind being able to vote the way I want, Leave, and not suffer any potential consequences as a result, and part of the reason I admit it is to shore up my resolve to vote Leave. But for acrimony it's not a problem for me - the worse acrimony appears to be an internal Tory battle of which the EU is the largest element but not the entirety of it (for some at least, there are die hard Cameroons angry with him over this), and at the end of the day I think no matter the tactics of either side, there are enough voices being heard putting out the proper arguments that if we vote Remain the only people to 'blame' are the public themselves, and that's not a position I would want to be in, being angry at the public as a whole.
However, irrespective of the final outcome I do not see David Cameron leaving the Government as he is the only politician remotely suitable to preside over a unity cabinet, post referendum. He is not in a contest with Boris or anyone else for Prime Minister as he is clearly standing down in the next few years. There are some who want David Cameron to go as they simply do not like him or more likely think it will aid their own political views, especially labour and lid dem supporters. .
On this though I don't know that I can agree - Cameron might be the most suitable to reside over a unity Cabinet, but if the campaign gets any more poisonous, a unity cabinet might not be an option. That he is not personally standing again is immaterial, as he is crucial to the contest of those who will be PM after him, and when that will be, so that some people as you say want him to go simply as they do not like him or think it will aid their politics is pretty relevant when combined with the demands that will occur for him to go if Leave wins from more than the usual suspects. It's too much to withstand, I think.
I think you demonstrate the difficulties we all have with this decision and the only redeeming feature as far as I can see is that 23rd June is not far away and there will be 4 years for the Conservative party to resolve it's issues and get on governing the country. At 72 years I finally joined the Conservative party last week.
Mr. Observer, Charles is a 'trendy' royal. His desire to be Defender of Faith rather than the Faith, let alone his numerous utterances, are proof of that.
Cameron's part of the metropolitan consensus in certain areas. Global warming and overseas aid are the most obvious examples.
Who cares whether it's leftist or rightist, who cares whether it's a metropolitan consensus, AGW is a scientific consensus. It's stupid to ignore that. If Prince Charles supports the scientific consensus then he's right on that. However he also supports homeopathy which has no basis in science and he's absolutely wrong on that.
Quite. I don't know why the debate is so politicised - why do the greens need to be so far left on everything after all. Or so they presented - but it doesn't need to be. I know people do dispute the science, but a lot of the opposition us expressed in emotional and political terms, so that seems the most fundamental aspect for many it would seem.
It's largely a British thing - the Greens in other countries are often much less left-wing. That's why a Green leader has just been elected in Baden-Wuerttemburg, which is the industrial heartland, full of manufacturers and their employees - they see the Greens there as safe pairs of hands. The French have two Green parties, a centrist and a leftist one, and that reappears at European Parliament level too. There are conservative greens around too, who see preserving the countryside and environment as a natural part of a general approach of keeping good things and being wary of sudden change - Stanley Johnson (Boris's dad) is a good example (and incidentally a keen Remain supporter). Conversely there are left-wingers who are very scornful of environmentalism - "bourgeois preoccupation, never mind the bloody trees, what about the workers"?
Why Britain's Greens are especially left wing I'm not sure - perhaps just an accident that a small party can be dominated by the most dynamic element, and that happens in this case to be left-wing.
A minor point, but worth noting that Morgan (lambasted yesterday here for generally being rubbish) is apparently pouring £80m into a campaign against violence faced by women, but ManKind (for male domestic abuse victims) is having to close its helpline because it couldn't raise £45,000.
Hopefully that'll help lily-livered decision-makers grow a backbone and keep the Orient Express ball.
Conor Cruise O'Brien came up with the excellent phrase "the wrong sort of dead" to describe victims of the IRA. That is, they were a kind of lesser dead, in the circles he moved in.
You've identified "the wrong sort of victims" of domestic violence. They're inconvenient. They don't fit into the narrative that the government is promoting.
In my experience most of the mutual funds want to leave the EEA to escape EU regulations. The only parts of the City that need facing down are the big banks.
And perhaps make sure the Northern Powerhouse represents something more than vapour.
I actually thought some form of HS3 was a near necessity to get the best out of a completed HS2, (by which I mean HS2 once it has struck North once up the east coast to Glasgow) even before plans were announced . HS3 at that point turns HS2 from an Any <-> London railway into an Any <-> Any railway (Manchester->Nottingham, Liverpool->Glasgow via Newcastle anyone?).
In fact, the bit of HS2 that begins to look a bit dodgy at that point HS3 is plumbed in is the Manchester -> Birmingham section - for a hit of perhaps 15 minutes on Manchester to Birmingham and points south journey times (and, yes, I know, slower to London, aaargh!!!) - you could scrap that section and go a decent way to actually funding this Pennine tunnel towards Liverpool into reality at full HS spec.
There are some pretty tantalising glimpses of what the Pennine tunnel thinking is already in discussion docs so far, from the connection into HS2 around Thorpe Hesley just north of Sheffield, possible synergies by building motorway and rail as a single construction project, to the slightly odd possibility of the through route to Liverpool going via Manchester Airport with central Manchester as a branch (shown on some schematics, but I could just be reading too much into that).
But you'd still be able to get from Manchester and Liverpool to anywhere pretty damn quickly, even if not in the straightest ever line.
I might be misunderstanding you, but surely HS2 will not be going north of Manchester / Leeds (aside from link lines to ECML / WCML), although classic-compatible trains will be running from further north and onto HS2.
That's interesting thanks. Are any of the discusssion docs you refer to public available?
Yeah, there have been a few reports from the joint northern councils, and indeed there are HS2 discussion docs mooting the eventual route North via stops in Teesside (probably a parkway), Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow. I don't have any to hand and I'm posting from memory, but I'll try and dig out some links later on if you're interested.
Mr. Observer, Charles is a 'trendy' royal. His desire to be Defender of Faith rather than the Faith, let alone his numerous utterances, are proof of that.
Cameron's part of the metropolitan consensus in certain areas. Global warming and overseas aid are the most obvious examples.
Who cares whether it's leftist or rightist, who cares whether it's a metropolitan consensus, AGW is a scientific consensus. It's stupid to ignore that. If Prince Charles supports the scientific consensus then he's right on that. However he also supports homeopathy which has no basis in science and he's absolutely wrong on that.
Quite. I don't know why the debate is so politicised - why do the greens need to be so far left on everything after all. Or so they presented - but it doesn't need to be. I know people do dispute the science, but a lot of the opposition us expressed in emotional and political terms, so that seems the most fundamental aspect for many it would seem.
It's largely a British thing - the Greens in other countries are often much less left-wing. That's why a Green leader has just been elected in Baden-Wuerttemburg, which is the industrial heartland, full of manufacturers and their employees - they see the Greens there as safe pairs of hands. The French have two Green parties, a centrist and a leftist one, and that reappears at European Parliament level too. There are conservative greens around too, who see preserving the countryside and environment as a natural part of a general approach of keeping good things and being wary of sudden change - Stanley Johnson (Boris's dad) is a good example (and incidentally a keen Remain supporter). Conversely there are left-wingers who are very scornful of environmentalism - "bourgeois preoccupation, never mind the bloody trees, what about the workers"?
Why Britain's Greens are especially left wing I'm not sure - perhaps just an accident that a small party can be dominated by the most dynamic element, and that happens in this case to be left-wing.
Interesting. I do wonder how a Green party here would do if they were not so overwhelmingly left wing. I suppose it wouldn't make that much difference, dominated by the big three (now two) as we are, you'd still get the big two full of very Green members among the non-greens.
It was always going to be either Trump or Cruz, but Cruz is probably a bit too right wing to win in November.
President Donald Trump knows how to make America great: deal with strength or get crushed every time.
He's impressed me in the debates by going so completely off book. South Carolina was the pinnacle I think...
Defending planned parenthood, attacking Dubya over 9-11 and Iraq, not being worried about kipping what many see was a critical debate (Short term perhaps harmful, long term has worked out fine). He's a politician dealing in conviction, not the minutiae of game theory that alot of others (See Ed Miliband here) do - particularly in debates do.
The other thing I note is that he is leading the narrative ~ the other candidates all remarkably are talking about a wall now, and alot of his positions are not just politically convienient (Abortion might be the big exception to win the GOP primary) but are perhaps what he genuinely believes.
Some of his more 'left wing' (Trade, women's health, healthcare) stances vs GOP norm are the most interesting for me.
By ignoring all the minutiae of game theory x, y, z he's actually ending up in a very strong position.
"He's breaking all the rules" is a cliche, but it is true in this case.
A minor point, but worth noting that Morgan (lambasted yesterday here for generally being rubbish) is apparently pouring £80m into a campaign against violence faced by women, but ManKind (for male domestic abuse victims) is having to close its helpline because it couldn't raise £45,000.
Hopefully that'll help lily-livered decision-makers grow a backbone and keep the Orient Express ball.
Conor Cruise O'Brien came up with the excellent phrase "the wrong sort of dead" to describe victims of the IRA. That is, they were a kind of lesser dead, in the circles he moved in.
You've identified "the wrong sort of victims" of domestic violence. They're inconvenient. They don't fit into the narrative that the government is promoting.
Such dismissive attitudes were semi-official, towards young WWC girls in care, in Rotherham.
Looking at the photo, I think GO needs to do something about his "power stance" - hasn't quite got it right.
I would like to see a woman Chancellor, if only to get rid of some of the macho games that have become a feature under Brown/Balls and GO.
I won't be able to watch Jeremy Corbyn's budget reply, but it will be interesting to see if he sounds like he has read his notes before he enters the chamber!
It was always going to be either Trump or Cruz, but Cruz is probably a bit too right wing to win in November.
President Donald Trump knows how to make America great: deal with strength or get crushed every time.
He's impressed me in the debates by going so completely off book. South Carolina was the pinnacle I think...
Defending planned parenthood, attacking Dubya over 9-11 and Iraq, not being worried about kipping what many see was a critical debate (Short term perhaps harmful, long term has worked out fine). He's a politician dealing in conviction, not the minutiae of game theory that alot of others (See Ed Miliband here) do - particularly in debates do.
The other thing I note is that he is leading the narrative ~ the other candidates all remarkably are talking about a wall now, and alot of his positions are not just politically convienient (Abortion might be the big exception to win the GOP primary) but are perhaps what he genuinely believes.
Some of his more 'left wing' (Trade, women's health, healthcare) stances vs GOP norm are the most interesting for me.
By ignoring all the minutiae of game theory x, y, z he's actually ending up in a very strong position.
"He's breaking all the rules" is a cliche, but it is true in this case.
Mr. Observer, Charles is a 'trendy' royal. His desire to be Defender of Faith rather than the Faith, let alone his numerous utterances, are proof of that.
Cameron's part of the metropolitan consensus in certain areas. Global warming and overseas aid are the most obvious examples.
Who cares whether it's leftist or rightist, who cares whether it's a metropolitan consensus, AGW is a scientific consensus. It's stupid to ignore that. If Prince Charles supports the scientific consensus then he's right on that. However he also supports homeopathy which has no basis in science and he's absolutely wrong on that.
Quite. I don't know why the debate is so politicised - why do the greens need to be so far left on everything after all. Or so they presented - but it doesn't need to be. I know people do dispute the science, but a lot of the opposition us expressed in emotional and political terms, so that seems the most fundamental aspect for many it would seem.
Because the so-called Greens are Marxists in green clothing, giving green concerns a bad name. Caring about the environment is a perfectly responsible Conservative thing to do, As a leader with a scientific background Thatcher led the world in tackling CFCs for instance as well as being both one of the first Climate Change alarmists and one of the first skeptics too.
Tonight is very interesting for the general with 3 purple states (OH, FL, NC) in play - I've stuck some Hillary targets up in my profile as analysis is all very easy to manipulate after the event with such and such was going to get so and so in x, y, z.
My HRC %s (Bernie is the rest to 100%) are an attempt to avoid that and get objective tests on the three purple states in particular and also perhaps the rest of the great lakes area seeing as we know Michigan and Minnesota already.
Trump is tougher to work out, as there is nominally a 4 person game going on still. But Hillary is easy enough.
It was always going to be either Trump or Cruz, but Cruz is probably a bit too right wing to win in November.
President Donald Trump knows how to make America great: deal with strength or get crushed every time.
He's impressed me in the debates by going so completely off book. South Carolina was the pinnacle I think...
Defending planned parenthood, attacking Dubya over 9-11 and Iraq, not being worried about kipping what many see was a critical debate (Short term perhaps harmful, long term has worked out fine). He's a politician dealing in conviction, not the minutiae of game theory that alot of others (See Ed Miliband here) do - particularly in debates do.
The other thing I note is that he is leading the narrative ~ the other candidates all remarkably are talking about a wall now, and alot of his positions are not just politically convienient (Abortion might be the big exception to win the GOP primary) but are perhaps what he genuinely believes.
Some of his more 'left wing' (Trade, women's health, healthcare) stances vs GOP norm are the most interesting for me.
By ignoring all the minutiae of game theory x, y, z he's actually ending up in a very strong position.
"He's breaking all the rules" is a cliche, but it is true in this case.
It is. He's complex. Remains to be seen if he'll win, though.
Also, Rubio (your favourite) has impressed me more recently. Very good interview posted on thread last night where I thought he sounded measured and sensible and far less robotic, more human, than usual.
If Republicans fail in November I don't rule him out for 2020
In my experience most of the mutual funds want to leave the EEA to escape EU regulations. The only parts of the City that need facing down are the big banks.
Mr. Observer, Charles is a 'trendy' royal. His desire to be Defender of Faith rather than the Faith, let alone his numerous utterances, are proof of that.
Cameron's part of the metropolitan consensus in certain areas. Global warming and overseas aid are the most obvious examples.
Who cares whether it's leftist or rightist, who cares whether it's a metropolitan consensus, AGW is a scientific consensus. It's stupid to ignore that. If Prince Charles supports the scientific consensus then he's right on that. However he also supports homeopathy which has no basis in science and he's absolutely wrong on that.
Quite. I don't know why the debate is so politicised - why do the greens need to be so far left on everything after all. Or so they presented - but it doesn't need to be. I know people do dispute the science, but a lot of the opposition us expressed in emotional and political terms, so that seems the most fundamental aspect for many it would seem.
It's largely a British thing - the Greens in other countries are often much less left-wing. That's why a Green leader has just been elected in Baden-Wuerttemburg, which is the industrial heartland, full of manufacturers and their employees - they see the Greens there as safe pairs of hands. The French have two Green parties, a centrist and a leftist one, and that reappears at European Parliament level too. There are conservative greens around too, who see preserving the countryside and environment as a natural part of a general approach of keeping good things and being wary of sudden change - Stanley Johnson (Boris's dad) is a good example (and incidentally a keen Remain supporter). Conversely there are left-wingers who are very scornful of environmentalism - "bourgeois preoccupation, never mind the bloody trees, what about the workers"?
Why Britain's Greens are especially left wing I'm not sure - perhaps just an accident that a small party can be dominated by the most dynamic element, and that happens in this case to be left-wing.
For a long time, Greens rejected the whole left-right spectrum and argued a plague on all your houses. Vote Green, not Grey was an early slogan I believe.
These days social justice issues seem to be at the fore. This may be in part because voters are just not that interested in environmental issues, particularly in a time of economic problems.
It is. He's complex. Remains to be seen if he'll win, though.
Also, Rubio (your favourite) has impressed me more recently. Very good interview posted on thread last night where I thought he sounded measured and sensible and far less robotic, more human, than usual.
I think Rubio is done now, after covering him at ~ 17s (Hah !). My main annoyance with him has been that I like hassle free winners in political betting and his backers have caused trouble on Betfair way beyond his normal price.
Of course it's provided some magnificent opportunities to take advantage of, but it's been irritating and a bit worrying at times.
In my experience most of the mutual funds want to leave the EEA to escape EU regulations. The only parts of the City that need facing down are the big banks.
It is. He's complex. Remains to be seen if he'll win, though.
Also, Rubio (your favourite) has impressed me more recently. Very good interview posted on thread last night where I thought he sounded measured and sensible and far less robotic, more human, than usual.
I think Rubio is done now, after covering him at ~ 17s (Hah !). My main annoyance with him has been that I like hassle free winners in political betting and his backers have caused trouble on Betfair way beyond his normal price.
Of course it's provided some magnificent opportunities to take advantage of, but it's been irritating and a bit worrying at times.
If only I had the courage of my convictions !
To be honest, I just want someone to win now.
I'm bored of the whole race and just want my winnings paid out ;-)
And perhaps make sure the Northern Powerhouse represents something more than vapour.
I actually thought some form of HS3 was a near necessity to get the best out of a completed HS2, (by which I mean HS2 once it has struck North once up the east coast to Glasgow) even before plans were announced . HS3 at that point turns HS2 from an Any <-> London railway into an Any <-> Any railway (Manchester->Nottingham, Liverpool->Glasgow via Newcastle anyone?).
In fact, the bit of HS2 that begins to look a bit dodgy at that point HS3 is plumbed in is the Manchester -> Birmingham section - for a hit of perhaps 15 minutes on Manchester to Birmingham and points south journey times (and, yes, I know, slower to London, aaargh!!!) - you could scrap that section and go a decent way to actually funding this Pennine tunnel towards Liverpool into reality at full HS spec.
There are some pretty tantalising glimpses of what the Pennine tunnel thinking is already in discussion docs so far, from the connection into HS2 around Thorpe Hesley just north of Sheffield, possible synergies by building motorway and rail as a single construction project, to the slightly odd possibility of the through route to Liverpool going via Manchester Airport with central Manchester as a branch (shown on some schematics, but I could just be reading too much into that).
But you'd still be able to get from Manchester and Liverpool to anywhere pretty damn quickly, even if not in the straightest ever line.
I might be misunderstanding you, but surely HS2 will not be going north of Manchester / Leeds (aside from link lines to ECML / WCML), although classic-compatible trains will be running from further north and onto HS2.
That's interesting thanks. Are any of the discusssion docs you refer to public available?
Yeah, there have been a few reports from the joint northern councils, and indeed there are HS2 discussion docs mooting the eventual route North via stops in Teesside (probably a parkway), Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow. I don't have any to hand and I'm posting from memory, but I'll try and dig out some links later on if you're interested.
Yes, I would be interested thanks. It's one of the areas I've been trying (and failing) to keep an eye on.
It is. He's complex. Remains to be seen if he'll win, though.
Also, Rubio (your favourite) has impressed me more recently. Very good interview posted on thread last night where I thought he sounded measured and sensible and far less robotic, more human, than usual.
I think Rubio is done now, after covering him at ~ 17s (Hah !). My main annoyance with him has been that I like hassle free winners in political betting and his backers have caused trouble on Betfair way beyond his normal price.
Of course it's provided some magnificent opportunities to take advantage of, but it's been irritating and a bit worrying at times.
If only I had the courage of my convictions !
To be honest, I just want someone to win now.
I'm bored of the whole race and just want my winnings paid out ;-)
Cruz would win me the most (slightly), but Trump was my most recent bet to get him into 4 figures (just) for the nomination.
Which leads to a psychological flaw - I'd subconsciously rather win less with Trump than with Cruz right now as Cruz was higher and Trump lower. Which is a nonsense.
If Trump wins Ohio, I might try and reback Cruz for £50 or something tbh.
It was always going to be either Trump or Cruz, but Cruz is probably a bit too right wing to win in November.
President Donald Trump knows how to make America great: deal with strength or get crushed every time.
He's impressed me in the debates by going so completely off book. South Carolina was the pinnacle I think...
Defending planned parenthood, attacking Dubya over 9-11 and Iraq, not being worried about kipping what many see was a critical debate (Short term perhaps harmful, long term has worked out fine). He's a politician dealing in conviction, not the minutiae of game theory that alot of others (See Ed Miliband here) do - particularly in debates do.
The other thing I note is that he is leading the narrative ~ the other candidates all remarkably are talking about a wall now, and alot of his positions are not just politically convienient (Abortion might be the big exception to win the GOP primary) but are perhaps what he genuinely believes.
Some of his more 'left wing' (Trade, women's health, healthcare) stances vs GOP norm are the most interesting for me.
By ignoring all the minutiae of game theory x, y, z he's actually ending up in a very strong position.
"He's breaking all the rules" is a cliche, but it is true in this case.
It is. He's complex. Remains to be seen if he'll win, though.
Also, Rubio (your favourite) has impressed me more recently. Very good interview posted on thread last night where I thought he sounded measured and sensible and far less robotic, more human, than usual.
If Republicans fail in November I don't rule him out for 2020
(Although he did also look tired and stressed)
I didn't see that interview but I agree that he has good prospects for 2020 if Hillary wins. In the short term, though, he needs to lose with dignity, ie bow out gracefully if he loses in his home state.
Kristian Niemietz As you'd expect, there's a German word for that: Verschlimmbesserung; ≈ a fake "improvement" that really just makes everything worse.
Comments
It's not like he took us into war on the basis of a dossier of lies, and became filthy rich. Or resigned from government twice, but now pontificates on EU matters from a lofty position in private banking.
Of course it is.
And if anyone doubts that the current government would allow further significant transfers of power to the EU they need only look at the recent decision to opt back in to a series of justice and home affairs measures which have done precisely that - and which, you may note, were not subject to the so-called 'referendum lock'.
Most people wouldn't have the faintest idea who he is.
Interesting long run graphic on leave/remain polling.
Enthusiasm for Remain rises at the thought of referendum and renegotiation. Then it dips as the result becomes known.
https://t.co/vwZG5WOwgO
Lynton Crosby helped Cameron win an election and was awarded a Knighthood
Spencer Livermore helped Miliband lose an election and was awarded a Peerage (£300/day)
Yet only one of them upsets you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/18/newsid_4165000/4165719.stm
(Ignore the 'three people dead' bit: only the bomber died.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/publications-records/House-of-Lords-Publications/By-elections/Lords-notice-hereditary-peers-by-election-Feb-2016-Avebury.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/why-female-violence-against-men-is-societys-last-great-taboo/
A minor point, but worth noting that Morgan (lambasted yesterday here for generally being rubbish) is apparently pouring £80m into a campaign against violence faced by women, but ManKind (for male domestic abuse victims) is having to close its helpline because it couldn't raise £45,000.
Edited extra bit: also, the wanker wanting to ban the 'racist' Orient Express refuses to condemn ISIS, because that would be Islamophobic.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2794183/national-union-students-refuses-condemn-isis-fears-islamophobic.html
Hopefully that'll help lily-livered decision-makers grow a backbone and keep the Orient Express ball.
The NIC say that HS3 needs accelerating and the M62 needs improving.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35807472
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-speed-north-a-national-infrastructure-commission-report
I was a reluctant remain for a long time, and can admit that as I have a spine like jelly a part of me is worried about the uncertainties of Leave and a guilty part would not mind being able to vote the way I want, Leave, and not suffer any potential consequences as a result, and part of the reason I admit it is to shore up my resolve to vote Leave. But for acrimony it's not a problem for me - the worse acrimony appears to be an internal Tory battle of which the EU is the largest element but not the entirety of it (for some at least, there are die hard Cameroons angry with him over this), and at the end of the day I think no matter the tactics of either side, there are enough voices being heard putting out the proper arguments that if we vote Remain the only people to 'blame' are the public themselves, and that's not a position I would want to be in, being angry at the public as a whole. On this though I don't know that I can agree - Cameron might be the most suitable to reside over a unity Cabinet, but if the campaign gets any more poisonous, a unity cabinet might not be an option. That he is not personally standing again is immaterial, as he is crucial to the contest of those who will be PM after him, and when that will be, so that some people as you say want him to go simply as they do not like him or think it will aid their politics is pretty relevant when combined with the demands that will occur for him to go if Leave wins from more than the usual suspects. It's too much to withstand, I think.
Though as hilarious as it is, I do wonder when some form of reform will come to sort out the Lords. I'm not opposed at all to an appointed or mostly appointed chamber, but even by British standards it's a bit of a constitutional mess, it appears.
Domestic violence by men and women often have exactly the same cause, and should not be treated differently because the victims are male, female, straight, gay, black or white.
I actually thought some form of HS3 was a near necessity to get the best out of a completed HS2, (by which I mean HS2 once it has struck North once up the east coast to Glasgow) even before plans were announced . HS3 at that point turns HS2 from an Any <-> London railway into an Any <-> Any railway (Manchester->Nottingham, Liverpool->Glasgow via Newcastle anyone?).
In fact, the bit of HS2 that begins to look a bit dodgy at that point HS3 is plumbed in is the Manchester -> Birmingham section - for a hit of perhaps 15 minutes on Manchester to Birmingham and points south journey times (and, yes, I know, slower to London, aaargh!!!) - you could scrap that section and go a decent way to actually funding this Pennine tunnel towards Liverpool into reality at full HS spec.
There are some pretty tantalising glimpses of what the Pennine tunnel thinking is already in discussion docs so far, from the connection into HS2 around Thorpe Hesley just north of Sheffield, possible synergies by building motorway and rail as a single construction project, to the slightly odd possibility of the through route to Liverpool going via Manchester Airport with central Manchester as a branch (shown on some schematics, but I could just be reading too much into that).
But you'd still be able to get from Manchester and Liverpool to anywhere pretty damn quickly, even if not in the straightest ever line.
Manchester: population 60,000; electoral role - three.
Incidentally, what's the name of the government/charity PR campaign about how coercion in relationships is wrong? It seems every instance appears to be assuming a male perpetrator and female victim.
Donald Trump is now supported by a majority of Republican primary voters nationwide – https://t.co/fCtQPrTT8n https://t.co/pNmKpGiB4X
First, they come into Syria... and thats bad
Secondly, they fight in Syria.... and thats bad
Thirdly, they leave Syria.... and thats bad
What are they up too? The big question of today thats tearing the hair out of MI6 and the Pentagon.
Then there's Trump OMG!
I'd guess we still have a Minister for Women. We definitely have a Labour MP who thinks the idea of discussing men's issues (like a massively higher suicide rate than women) is laughable.
However, some of the EU countries like France are protectionist and resisting globalisation to the detriment of the EU. There is a judgement to be made as to whether the benefits of harmonisation of trade within the EU are greater than the harm of the EU resisting globalisation.
Mullins has already pissed me off by skipping (imo) the best horse for the gold cup in the Ryanair (And losing me £10 which is by the by).
But money is money and the 11-4 on Min for the Supreme Novices looks like a good price for the best horse in the race.
I think the point is that if we remain, there isn't even a chance of being in a better position over the next 20-30 years. There is certainty, that certainty is a path of stagnation by being attached to the slowest growing inhabited continent on the planet. I'll take the opportunity of uncertainty over the stagnation of certainty any day.
I do not believe the EU will survive in it's present form even in the short term as the migration crisis acts as the catalyst for various realignments, the move to the right in many EU countries will be felt by the political classes, and German and French elections in 2017 will be unpredictability . Whether we are in or out we will be affected by the 'chaos'
That's interesting thanks. Are any of the discusssion docs you refer to public available?
Job nearly done.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/whats-happened-to-all-the-new-labour-party-members-corbyn?utm_source=vicetwitteruk
I think non-Corbyn MPs may well take the risk and force a leadership election this summer.
Why Britain's Greens are especially left wing I'm not sure - perhaps just an accident that a small party can be dominated by the most dynamic element, and that happens in this case to be left-wing.
You've identified "the wrong sort of victims" of domestic violence. They're inconvenient. They don't fit into the narrative that the government is promoting.
The complete opposite is true, I believe:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e90885d8-d3db-11e5-829b-8564e7528e54.html#axzz42y5SnqTW
The exceptions tend to be the smaller hedge funds.
Defending planned parenthood, attacking Dubya over 9-11 and Iraq, not being worried about kipping what many see was a critical debate (Short term perhaps harmful, long term has worked out fine). He's a politician dealing in conviction, not the minutiae of game theory that alot of others (See Ed Miliband here) do - particularly in debates do.
The other thing I note is that he is leading the narrative ~ the other candidates all remarkably are talking about a wall now, and alot of his positions are not just politically convienient (Abortion might be the big exception to win the GOP primary) but are perhaps what he genuinely believes.
Some of his more 'left wing' (Trade, women's health, healthcare) stances vs GOP norm are the most interesting for me.
By ignoring all the minutiae of game theory x, y, z he's actually ending up in a very strong position.
"He's breaking all the rules" is a cliche, but it is true in this case.
I would like to see a woman Chancellor, if only to get rid of some of the macho games that have become a feature under Brown/Balls and GO.
I won't be able to watch Jeremy Corbyn's budget reply, but it will be interesting to see if he sounds like he has read his notes before he enters the chamber!
He's also got oodles of energy to match the bombast. I'd prefer him to win vs Hillary - she's almost everything I detest in a politician.
My HRC %s (Bernie is the rest to 100%) are an attempt to avoid that and get objective tests on the three purple states in particular and also perhaps the rest of the great lakes area seeing as we know Michigan and Minnesota already.
Trump is tougher to work out, as there is nominally a 4 person game going on still. But Hillary is easy enough.
Also, Rubio (your favourite) has impressed me more recently. Very good interview posted on thread last night where I thought he sounded measured and sensible and far less robotic, more human, than usual.
If Republicans fail in November I don't rule him out for 2020
(Although he did also look tired and stressed)
Lady Bucket, sticking with Blackadder, it's the 'here are my genitals; please kick them' stance.
https://t.co/2wcVc564N2 https://t.co/sTl208fuCo
These days social justice issues seem to be at the fore. This may be in part because voters are just not that interested in environmental issues, particularly in a time of economic problems.
Of course it's provided some magnificent opportunities to take advantage of, but it's been irritating and a bit worrying at times.
If only I had the courage of my convictions !
13.30: Mister Miyagi
14:10 Game Changer
14:50: Un Temps Pour Tout silkUn Temps Pour Tou
15:30: Sempre Medici
16:10: Bitofapuzzle
16:50: Waldorf Salad
17:30: Five In A Row
I'm bored of the whole race and just want my winnings paid out ;-)
Only horses I do are at the National.
Proposals for reform of Dublin procedure - ticking timebomb for UK referendum - delayed until April 6.
They've got all those farmers to subsidise with wine nobody drinks.
Wax on, wax off.
As a proud Englishman, I don't want to be left with the flipping Welsh.
Which leads to a psychological flaw - I'd subconsciously rather win less with Trump than with Cruz right now as Cruz was higher and Trump lower. Which is a nonsense.
If Trump wins Ohio, I might try and reback Cruz for £50 or something tbh.
NEW: Donald Trump wins Northern Mariana Islands Republican caucuses, according to N. Mariana Islands GOP, snagging nine pledged delegates.
If the answer is nothing, then you are clearly not the target market for the comments.
(That is not a dig, btw).
Kristian Niemietz
As you'd expect, there's a German word for that: Verschlimmbesserung; ≈ a fake "improvement" that really just makes everything worse.