The Conservatives are running a divided, controversial and incompetent government on an extremely narrow mandate. Labour are facing so many open goals on tax credits, Europe, welfare, schooling and devolution, that a halfway competent opposition would be nudging 50% in the polls, as Blair, Cameron and even Jenkins did. They would also make big nationwide gains in local elections.
Actually, none of them ever came close to 50% just a year after the General Election.
Even the most incompetent governments still get the benefit of the doubt from a significant chunk of people who gave them their vote just a year earlier -- in 1993, Labour won the local elections by "only" 8%, even in the wake of Black Wednesday. It is only when we get to two years into a government's term that people really lose their patience with them, no matter how many errors have been made before that. That is ALWAYS the way.
I do not hold much of a candle for Corbyn, and if he were to lose the popular vote in local elections by more than 5% (which I thought was a near-certainty a few weeks ago), he would be conclusively proven as a loser. On the other hand, if he manages to beat the Tories in the popular vote this year, he will be doing better than Ed Miliband did at this stage in the last parliament, and indeed better than half of Oppositions in recent years in the first year of an election cycle. You might not like it, but them's the facts!
No surprises the Lib Dems are continually trying to deny what direction the EU are moving in. This is the party that famously tried to deny the existence of plans to create an EU army...
The split in the Conservative Party is not between Leavers and "ardent pro-Europeans". It is between those who take the view that elevating the EU above all other issues is the route to electoral disaster and those who don't. The whole point of holding the referendum was a final attempt to close this split by passing the decision to the electorate and take it out of the equation for General Election politics (whilst spiking the argument that "the country didn't vote in 1973 for what we have today").
Euro-sceptics will not be expected to shut up after the referendum if Remain win. Not least because (contrary to the impression that Leavers like to create) many remain supporters are Euro-sceptics. For good or ill, Conservative Governments will continue to deal with Europe from a Euro-sceptical viewpoint. But they will not be expected to make a noise in such a way that works against party unity and wider electoral success.
I think Leavers recognise that many eventual Remain voters will be eurosceptics, and I count some of my friends amongst them.
I don't think elevating the EU automatically leads to electoral disaster - if it did GE2015 would have been lost by the Conservatives, and they'd be heavily behind in the polls now - but I do rate it as more important than party politics, because I put the aim of achieving independent self-governance of the country first.
But fostering party unity works both ways: you can see some of the vitriol, acid and bile that's thrown at the Leavers, by Remainers (typically leadership ultra-loyalists) *within* the party on this thread.
Which makes me point for me.
The EU was barely an issue at the General Election 2015. That was the whole point of promising, indeed legislating for, a referendum.
The split in the Conservative Party is not between Leavers and "ardent pro-Europeans". It is between those who take the view that elevating the EU above all other issues is the route to electoral disaster and those who don't. The whole point of holding the referendum was a final attempt to close this split by passing the decision to the electorate and take it out of the equation for General Election politics (whilst spiking the argument that "the country didn't vote in 1973 for what we have today").
Euro-sceptics will not be expected to shut up after the referendum if Remain win. Not least because (contrary to the impression that Leavers like to create) many remain supporters are Euro-sceptics. For good or ill, Conservative Governments will continue to deal with Europe from a Euro-sceptical viewpoint. But they will not be expected to make a noise in such a way that works against party unity and wider electoral success.
I think Leavers recognise that many eventual Remain voters will be eurosceptics, and I count some of my friends amongst them.
I don't think elevating the EU automatically leads to electoral disaster - if it did GE2015 would have been lost by the Conservatives, and they'd be heavily behind in the polls now - but I do rate it as more important than party politics, because I put the aim of achieving independent self-governance of the country first.
But fostering party unity works both ways: you can see some of the vitriol, acid and bile that's thrown at the Leavers, by Remainers (typically leadership ultra-loyalists) *within* the party on this thread.
Which makes me point for me.
The EU was barely an issue at the General Election 2015. That was the whole point of promising, indeed legislating for, a referendum.
It was a key part in winning over UKIP waverers, and a key point in contention about a 2nd LD-Conservative coalition.
I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.
Remainers in the Conservative Party will try and use the result to close down the EU debate for good, and put Leavers back in their box. And they will do it pompously, condescendingly and totally without tact - whilst sneering and insulting them - barely able to contain their glee.
It won't work. It will merely add fuel to the flames. The faction will firm up, and fester.
But Leave won't go away. Leavers are just too big a part of both the Party and the country. And the country clearly *wants* to Leave, it'll just be reluctantly scared into voting Remain, this time, because the Establishment holds all the cards, and is playing them utterly ruthlessly.
They should remember this.
How dare you presume to contradict what the country "wants" if it chooses to Remain.
You are also taking abject and arrant nonsense in what will follow within the party after such a result. Restoring unity will be paramount.
I'm sorry but you are verging on the deranged these last few days. Take some time away - a week or so - and revert to your sensible self.
Your colostomy bag seems to have become detached, and is, for some reason, now guttering effuent directly from your weird little mouth.
Quite - as I was saying before, comparing 2015 to 2019 would be absurdly flattering to Labour, because even if they came miles behind the Tories on votes in 2019, they would still probably make seat gains, just by virtue of being compared to the general election year of 2015.
No surprises the Lib Dems are continually trying to deny what direction the EU are moving in. This is the party that famously tried to deny the existence of plans to create an EU army...
Don't expect to be called anything other than mad, foaming, frothing or a nutter for pointing it out, though!
Surely this can't be the same Neal Katyal, who less than six years ago was arguing successfully on behalf of the United States in a brief before the SCOTUS in Flores-Villar v. United States 564 U.S. (2011) that:-
'As this Court has long held, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Although “[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, [a] person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty or by authority of Congress.” Id. at 702-703. There is no dispute in this case that petitioner was born outside the United States and is therefore not entitled—as a constitutional matter—to citizenship by virtue of his birth. Instead, he asserts a right to the “acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent,” which is “obviously” not governed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830 (1971); see Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 688."'
and
'Petitioner is incorrect. The fact that Congress has enacted a law under which some foreign born individuals acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by virtue of a parent’s citizenship does not mean that such individuals are not naturalized citizens for purposes of the Constitution. As explained above, when Congress enacts rules to govern acquisition of citizenship, it acts pursuant to its constitutional authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. See Miller, 523 U.S. at 434 n.11 (opinion of Stevens, J.) (“Though petitioner claims to be a citizen from birth, citizenship does not pass by descent. Thus she must still meet the statutory requirements set by Congress for citizenship.”); see also id. at 453 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) (“Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned.”)' http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_09_5801_Respondent.authcheckdam.pdf
PUT NOT YOUR FAITH IN SHYSTER LAWYERS AND JUDGES...
I was amused by the crowing of some ignoramuses on a previous thread re Cruz's supposed pass on the eligibility question in a minor court in NJ.
After studiously ignoring all SCOTUS decisions which clearly state otherwise, not limited to:-
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898); Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971); Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
the judge there, Masin, ALJ, decides instead to lean heavily on a pro-Cruz puff-piece which appeared in the Harvard Law Review last year:-
"two former Solicitors General of the United States, Paul Clement and Neal Katyal, have agreed with this conclusion that a person born abroad to a United States citizen is a natural born citizen and eligible to hold the Office of President."
Sorry but that seems like a pretty transparent attempt at spinning the potential results and vote share comparisons.
I have an alternative expectation management theory (which FWIW I think is correct, as far as it goes). Oppositions usually have a fairly easy run early in a Parliament, as the government gets on with doing awkward stuff and the new leader has a honeymoon. Corbyn was attacked from day 1 as though the election was imminent, with everything from the serious to the trivial. The downside of that is that I'll be pleasantly surprised if Labour does really well in May, though I suspect turnout will be low all round. But the upside is that a lot of ammunition has been fired already. The "he shared a platform with Attila the Hun in 1986" stuff is starting to sound stale (as Goldsmith is about to find out after weeks of trying vs Khan), and the national anthem/shirt button meme is exhausted.
Quite - as I was saying before, comparing 2015 to 2019 would be absurdly flattering to Labour, because even if they came miles behind the Tories on votes in 2019, they would still probably make seat gains, just by virtue of being compared to the general election year of 2015.
Quite - as I was saying before, comparing 2015 to 2019 would be absurdly flattering to Labour, because even if they came miles behind the Tories on votes in 2019, they would still probably make seat gains, just by virtue of being compared to the general election year of 2015.
NEV 2011:
Labour: 37% Conservatives: 35% Lib Dems: 15%
Rallings & Thrasher recorded it as Conservatives 38%, Labour 37%, Lib Dems 16%.
I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.
Remainers in the Conservative Party will try and use the result to close down the EU debate for good, and put Leavers back in their box. And they will do it pompously, condescendingly and totally without tact - whilst sneering and insulting them - barely able to contain their glee.
It won't work. It will merely add fuel to the flames. The faction will firm up, and fester.
But Leave won't go away. Leavers are just too big a part of both the Party and the country. And the country clearly *wants* to Leave, it'll just be reluctantly scared into voting Remain, this time, because the Establishment holds all the cards, and is playing them utterly ruthlessly.
They should remember this.
How dare you presume to contradict what the country "wants" if it chooses to Remain.
You are also taking abject and arrant nonsense in what will follow within the party after such a result. Restoring unity will be paramount.
I'm sorry but you are verging on the deranged these last few days. Take some time away - a week or so - and revert to your sensible self.
Your colostomy bag seems to have become detached, and is, for some reason, now guttering effuent directly from your weird little mouth.
Stop.
It's just John being John.
By all accounts, he's quite a nice guy. I've only met him once, on my way out from a pb pub meet, where he was enthusiastic and polite about meeting me (I was almost flattered) but, from his posts on here, he does seem to have a habit of getting progressively worked up by an issue, a poster, or a poster's angle on an issue, but he himself posts relatively infrequently, and so holds it all back until he's fit to explode.
No surprises the Lib Dems are continually trying to deny what direction the EU are moving in. This is the party that famously tried to deny the existence of plans to create an EU army...
First step towards a army will be a border force and coast guard.
I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.
Remainers in the Conservative Party will try and use the result to close down the EU debate for good, and put Leavers back in their box. And they will do it pompously, condescendingly and totally without tact - whilst sneering and insulting them - barely able to contain their glee.
It won't work. It will merely add fuel to the flames. The faction will firm up, and fester.
But Leave won't go away. Leavers are just too big a part of both the Party and the country. And the country clearly *wants* to Leave, it'll just be reluctantly scared into voting Remain, this time, because the Establishment holds all the cards, and is playing them utterly ruthlessly.
They should remember this.
How dare you presume to contradict what the country "wants" if it chooses to Remain.
You are also taking abject and arrant nonsense in what will follow within the party after such a result. Restoring unity will be paramount.
I'm sorry but you are verging on the deranged these last few days. Take some time away - a week or so - and revert to your sensible self.
Your colostomy bag seems to have become detached, and is, for some reason, now guttering effuent directly from your weird little mouth.
Stop.
It's just John being John.
By all accounts, he's quite a nice guy. I've only met him once, on my way out from a pb pub meet, where he was enthusiastic and polite about meeting me (I was almost flattered) but, from his posts on here, he does seem to have a habit of getting progressively worked up by an issue, a poster, or a poster's angle on an issue, but he himself posts relatively infrequently, and so holds it all back until he's fit to explode.
I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.
Remainers in the Conservative Party will try and use the result to close down the EU debate for good, and put Leavers back in their box. And they will do it pompously, condescendingly and totally without tact - whilst sneering and insulting them - barely able to contain their glee.
It won't work. It will merely add fuel to the flames. The faction will firm up, and fester.
But Leave won't go away. Leavers are just too big a part of both the Party and the country. And the country clearly *wants* to Leave, it'll just be reluctantly scared into voting Remain, this time, because the Establishment holds all the cards, and is playing them utterly ruthlessly.
They should remember this.
How dare you presume to contradict what the country "wants" if it chooses to Remain.
You are also taking abject and arrant nonsense in what will follow within the party after such a result. Restoring unity will be paramount.
I'm sorry but you are verging on the deranged these last few days. Take some time away - a week or so - and revert to your sensible self.
Your colostomy bag seems to have become detached, and is, for some reason, now guttering effuent directly from your weird little mouth.
Stop.
It's just John being John.
By all accounts, he's quite a nice guy. I've only met him once, on my way out from a pb pub meet, where he was enthusiastic and polite about meeting me (I was almost flattered) but, from his posts on here, he does seem to have a habit of getting progressively worked up by an issue, a poster, or a poster's angle on an issue, but he himself posts relatively infrequently, and so holds it all back until he's fit to explode.
And then he bursts.
Even I have to smile at that one.
;-)
I will bid you a polite and respectful goodnight, Sir.
I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.
Remainers in the Conservative Party will try and use the result to close down the EU debate for good, and put Leavers back in their box. And they will do it pompously, condescendingly and totally without tact - whilst sneering and insulting them - barely able to contain their glee.
It won't work. It will merely add fuel to the flames. The faction will firm up, and fester.
But Leave won't go away. Leavers are just too big a part of both the Party and the country. And the country clearly *wants* to Leave, it'll just be reluctantly scared into voting Remain, this time, because the Establishment holds all the cards, and is playing them utterly ruthlessly.
They should remember this.
How dare you presume to contradict what the country "wants" if it chooses to Remain.
You are also taking abject and arrant nonsense in what will follow within the party after such a result. Restoring unity will be paramount.
I'm sorry but you are verging on the deranged these last few days. Take some time away - a week or so - and revert to your sensible self.
Your colostomy bag seems to have become detached, and is, for some reason, now guttering effuent directly from your weird little mouth.
Sorry but that seems like a pretty transparent attempt at spinning the potential results and vote share comparisons.
I have an alternative expectation management theory (which FWIW I think is correct, as far as it goes). Oppositions usually have a fairly easy run early in a Parliament, as the government gets on with doing awkward stuff and the new leader has a honeymoon. Corbyn was attacked from day 1 as though the election was imminent, with everything from the serious to the trivial. The downside of that is that I'll be pleasantly surprised if Labour does really well in May, though I suspect turnout will be low all round. But the upside is that a lot of ammunition has been fired already. The "he shared a platform with Attila the Hun in 1986" stuff is starting to sound stale (as Goldsmith is about to find out after weeks of trying vs Khan), and the national anthem/shirt button meme is exhausted.
The split in the Conservative Party is not between Leavers and "ardent pro-Europeans". It is between those who take the view that elevating the EU above all other issues is the route to electoral disaster and those who don't. The whole point of holding the referendum was a final attempt to close this split by passing the decision to the electorate and take it out of the equation for General Election politics (whilst spiking the argument that "the country didn't vote in 1973 for what we have today").
Euro-sceptics will not be expected to shut up after the referendum if Remain win. Not least because (contrary to the impression that Leavers like to create) many remain supporters are Euro-sceptics. For good or ill, Conservative Governments will continue to deal with Europe from a Euro-sceptical viewpoint. But they will not be expected to make a noise in such a way that works against party unity and wider electoral success.
I think Leavers recognise that many eventual Remain voters will be eurosceptics, and I count some of my friends amongst them.
I don't think elevating the EU automatically leads to electoral disaster - if it did GE2015 would have been lost by the Conservatives, and they'd be heavily behind in the polls now - but I do rate it as more important than party politics, because I put the aim of achieving independent self-governance of the country first.
But fostering party unity works both ways: you can see some of the vitriol, acid and bile that's thrown at the Leavers, by Remainers (typically leadership ultra-loyalists) *within* the party on this thread.
Which makes me point for me.
The EU was barely an issue at the General Election 2015. That was the whole point of promising, indeed legislating for, a referendum.
It was a key part in winning over UKIP waverers, and a key point in contention about a 2nd LD-Conservative coalition.
The Conservatives were not standing on a Eurosceptic platform. The main party seeking to exploit dislike of the EU for electoral gain made no progress against them.
Furthermore electoral "success" means different things for parties aiming for government and those not in that position. It is why UKIP can be electorally successful on a platform that would deliver an electoral disaster for the Conservative party.
Quite - as I was saying before, comparing 2015 to 2019 would be absurdly flattering to Labour, because even if they came miles behind the Tories on votes in 2019, they would still probably make seat gains, just by virtue of being compared to the general election year of 2015.
NEV 2011:
Labour: 37% Conservatives: 35% Lib Dems: 15%
Rallings & Thrasher recorded it as Conservatives 38%, Labour 37%, Lib Dems 16%.
I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.
R
They should remember this.
How dare you presume to contradict what the country "wants" if it chooses to Remain.
You are also taking abject and arrant nonsense in what will follow within the party after such a result. Restoring unity will be paramount.
I'm sorry but you are verging on the deranged these last few days. Take some time away - a week or so - and revert to your sensible self.
Your colostomy bag seems to have become detached, and is, for some reason, now guttering effuent directly from your weird little mouth.
Stop.
It's just John being John.
By all accounts, he's quite a nice guy. I've only met him once, on my way out from a pb pub meet, where he was enthusiastic and polite about meeting me (I was almost flattered) but, from his posts on here, he does seem to have a habit of getting progressively worked up by an issue, a poster, or a poster's angle on an issue, but he himself posts relatively infrequently, and so holds it all back until he's fit to explode.
And then he bursts.
Yes, quite odd. Normally the most amiable of chaps, if a little inconspicuous, yet on this issue he can become quite notably enraged, like a Corbynista or a cybernat.
It's a timely reminder that there are frothers on both sides of the argument. Indeed, speaking as someone who genuinely expected the pb eurosceptics to be the Premier League Fruitloops, I am startled and amazed to see so many nornally same pb pro--EU Tories go postal over this issue. Nabavi abandons logic, Meeks perverts political science, Stark Dawning is now Stark Raving, and our very own, friendly old John O now spunks laughable bile like an ageing Hindoo demoness on meth.
Quite - as I was saying before, comparing 2015 to 2019 would be absurdly flattering to Labour, because even if they came miles behind the Tories on votes in 2019, they would still probably make seat gains, just by virtue of being compared to the general election year of 2015.
NEV 2011:
Labour: 37% Conservatives: 35% Lib Dems: 15%
Rallings & Thrasher recorded it as Conservatives 38%, Labour 37%, Lib Dems 16%.
A quite dismal set of results for Mr Miliband, Jezza should look to improve
IIRC one of the reasons Rallings and Thrasher say comparing 2016 to 2011 is a bad idea is because of the huge Lib Dem unwind, which flattered Labour in 2011.
I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.
R
They should remember this.
How dare you presume to contradict what the country "wants" if it chooses to Remain.
You are also taking abject and arrant nonsense in what will follow within the party after such a result. Restoring unity will be paramount.
I'm sorry but you are verging on the deranged these last few days. Take some time away - a week or so - and revert to your sensible self.
Your colostomy bag seems to have become detached, and is, for some reason, now guttering effuent directly from your weird little mouth.
Stop.
It's just John being John.
By all accounts, he's quite a nice guy. I've only met him once, on my way out from a pb pub meet, where he was enthusiastic and polite about meeting me (I was almost flattered) but, from his posts on here, he does seem to have a habit of getting progressively worked up by an issue, a poster, or a poster's angle on an issue, but he himself posts relatively infrequently, and so holds it all back until he's fit to explode.
And then he bursts.
Yes, quite odd. Normally the most amiable of chaps, if a little inconspicuous, yet on this issue he can become quite notably enraged, like a Corbynista or a cybernat.
It's a timely reminder that there are frothers on both sides of the argument. Indeed, speaking as someone who genuinely expected the pb eurosceptics to be the Premier League Fruitloops, I am startled and amazed to see so many nornally same pb pro--EU Tories go postal over this issue. Nabavi abandons logic, Meeks perverts political science, Stark Dawning is now Stark Raving, and our very own, friendly old John O now spunks laughable bile like an ageing Hindoo demoness on meth.
Curious.
You're staggering back to Remain, aren't you?
Pretty much in the bag, i'd say. Only danger is if the polls start stretching out for Remain again.
At the 2012 local elections Labour were 9% ahead. If they're now 5% behind that's a 7% swing to the Tories.
No sign of that in the local byelections which have not gone well for the Tories of late. On your figures Yougov's 3% Labour lead would imply a 3% swing to the Tories since 2012 - but a 2% swing to Labour from 2011 which was the same point in the 2010 Parliament.
Hang on a minute, this year's local elections are to be compared with 2012 not 2011 because the local elections are on a 4 year cycle in most cases.
I am of aware of the 4 year cycle and that these seats were last fought in 2012. However, a like for like comparison in terms of party vote shares one year into the Parliament requires us to look at how the results differ from 2011 - when the Tories led by 1%.
I thought Labour led by 2% in contested seats in 2011. Or are you referring to polling?
No - I am referring to the NEV calculation for the 2011 local elections. Pretty sure that gave the Tories a 1% lead!
Indeed, he looks to have been a bit relaxed about access to government papers and took an unauthorised photo of his Cabinet colleagues at Chequers as well as reportedly insulting his constituents from the great county of Essex where I presently reside
"John Whittingdale, the culture secretary, is planning a fresh raid on the BBC, ordering it to sell its £500m stake in 10 television channels including Dave, Drama and Gold, and to hand about half the proceeds to the Treasury.
He also wants to restrict the corporation further by requiring it to hand over £100m of its annual budget for children’s programmes and local news to outside suppliers, which would be given slots on the corporation’s networks."
At the 2012 local elections Labour were 9% ahead. If they're now 5% behind that's a 7% swing to the Tories.
No sign of that in the local byelections which have not gone well for the Tories of late. On your figures Yougov's 3% Labour lead would imply a 3% swing to the Tories since 2012 - but a 2% swing to Labour from 2011 which was the same point in the 2010 Parliament.
Hang on a minute, this year's local elections are to be compared with 2012 not 2011 because the local elections are on a 4 year cycle in most cases.
I am of aware of the 4 year cycle and that these seats were last fought in 2012. However, a like for like comparison in terms of party vote shares one year into the Parliament requires us to look at how the results differ from 2011 - when the Tories led by 1%.
Sorry but that seems like a pretty transparent attempt at spinning the potential results and vote share comparisons.
Indeed, he looks to have been a bit relaxed about access to government papers and took an unauthorised photo of his Cabinet colleagues at Chequers as well as reportedly insulting his constituents from the great county of Essex where I presently reside
Still, this dead cat has got Cameron's tax affairs off the front pages.
Quite - as I was saying before, comparing 2015 to 2019 would be absurdly flattering to Labour, because even if they came miles behind the Tories on votes in 2019, they would still probably make seat gains, just by virtue of being compared to the general election year of 2015.
NEV 2011:
Labour: 37% Conservatives: 35% Lib Dems: 15%
Rallings & Thrasher recorded it as Conservatives 38%, Labour 37%, Lib Dems 16%.
A quite dismal set of results for Mr Miliband, Jezza should look to improve
IIRC one of the reasons Rallings and Thrasher say comparing 2016 to 2011 is a bad idea is because of the huge Lib Dem unwind, which flattered Labour in 2011.
If 2011 flattered Labour, then if anything that would surely mean Labour improving in 2016 vs the Tories as compared to 2011 is even more impressive, no?
(I personally wouldn't say 2011 flattered Labour especially, since although they got a bounty from the Lib Dems then, they also didn't have the advantage of UKIP to take votes off the Tories -- it's swings and roundabouts.)
At the 2012 local elections Labour were 9% ahead. If they're now 5% behind that's a 7% swing to the Tories.
No sign of that in the local byelections which have not gone well for the Tories of late. On your figures Yougov's 3% Labour lead would imply a 3% swing to the Tories since 2012 - but a 2% swing to Labour from 2011 which was the same point in the 2010 Parliament.
Hang on a minute, this year's local elections are to be compared with 2012 not 2011 because the local elections are on a 4 year cycle in most cases.
I am of aware of the 4 year cycle and that these seats were last fought in 2012. However, a like for like comparison in terms of party vote shares one year into the Parliament requires us to look at how the results differ from 2011 - when the Tories led by 1%.
Sorry but that seems like a pretty transparent attempt at spinning the potential results and vote share comparisons.
Stop it, Justin and Danny know better than Michael Thrasher and Colin Rallings.
You appear to misunderstand the point that is being made! May 2016 will be one year into the 2015 Parliament. May 2011 was one year into the 2010 Parliament. I am sure you are with me so far! In May 2011 the Tories led Labour in the Local elections by 1%. Ergo if in 2016 Local elections Labour ends up level pegging with the Tories - or even enjoys a lead - then Labour will have done better v the Tories than in 2011. Perfectly logical and obvious. I part company with Danny somewhat in his apparent belief that the result of Local elections in year 1 of a Parliament provides a clear indication of the likely result of the following General Election. History never repeats itself in quite that way - all that can be said is that Labour will have performed better - or worse - than at the same stage of the last Parliament .
Indeed, he looks to have been a bit relaxed about access to government papers and took an unauthorised photo of his Cabinet colleagues at Chequers as well as reportedly insulting his constituents from the great county of Essex where I presently reside
Still, this dead cat has got Cameron's tax affairs off the front pages.
For which he will probably be rewarded with a long catnap on the backbenches!
John Whittingdale putting the 'sex' into Essex. I suggest he might get his bottom spanked for his actions, oh wait.
Mr Eagles. You'll appreciate this. Today, I drove past a nearby High School's playing fields - Seneca Valley High in Germantown, MD. Their football (US) team is called none other than "The Screamin' Eagles"
No surprises the Lib Dems are continually trying to deny what direction the EU are moving in. This is the party that famously tried to deny the existence of plans to create an EU army...
I think the phrase
State of the Energy Union
and this sentence
"The country factsheets give a snapshot of where each Member State stands today on many aspects of the five dimensions of the Energy Union."
summarise why I despise the EU, in all its aspects. It's like a bunch of Finnish 9 year olds trying to be America, and abjectly, utterly failing. They can't even use English properly, let alone use it interestingly. The entire charade is an embarrassment of mediocrity.
And what's worse: EUROPE SHOULD BE INFINITELY BETTER
FFS this is Europe. The true home of civilisation and democracy, the cradle of Rome, Athens, and England, the home of Magna Carta and the Renaissance, the industrial revolution and the Enlightenment, the home of Michlangelo, Da Vinci, Newton, Descartes and Plato.
EUROPE. And we are reduced to "the country factsheets".
It's bollocks. LEAVE.
And - more importantly - we're under siege from thousands of terrorists flooding in every day with impunity.
The EU response, at best, would be to delegate the question to a sub-committee charged with reporting back by 2025, ensuring that all diversity, weights and measurements, and health and safety aspects were thoroughly explored before reaching any firm conclusion...
Quite - as I was saying before, comparing 2015 to 2019 would be absurdly flattering to Labour, because even if they came miles behind the Tories on votes in 2019, they would still probably make seat gains, just by virtue of being compared to the general election year of 2015.
NEV 2011:
Labour: 37% Conservatives: 35% Lib Dems: 15%
Rallings & Thrasher recorded it as Conservatives 38%, Labour 37%, Lib Dems 16%.
A quite dismal set of results for Mr Miliband, Jezza should look to improve
IIRC one of the reasons Rallings and Thrasher say comparing 2016 to 2011 is a bad idea is because of the huge Lib Dem unwind, which flattered Labour in 2011.
If 2011 flattered Labour, then if anything that would surely mean Labour improving in 2016 vs the Tories as compared to 2011 is even more impressive, no?
(I personally wouldn't say 2011 flattered Labour especially, since although they got a bounty from the Lib Dems then, they also didn't have the advantage of UKIP to take votes off the Tories -- it's swings and roundabouts.)
Is there a word or phrase to describe a situation where you discover you've been mistaken about a fact for many years? For example, if you thought your favourite song was sung by a particular person and then 10 years later you find out it was actually sung by someone else.
Is there a word or phrase to describe a situation where you discover you've been mistaken about a fact for many years? For example, if you thought your favourite song was sung by a particular person and then 10 years later you find out it was actually sung by someone else.
Is there a word or phrase to describe a situation where you discover you've been mistaken about a fact for many years? For example, if you thought your favourite song was sung by a particular person and then 10 years later you find out it was actually sung by someone else.
They reckon I should go up to 4mg to get the systolic below 140.
I suspect giving up coffee and switching from wine to vodka & lowcal mixers has had as much beneficial effect as the tablets.
I hate pillpushers...
It took them a while to sort out my BP meds - different tabs & modifications of doses - it's now 120/60 and I feel the better for it. My father died of heart failure after years of undiagnosed hypertension- it's worth sorting out.
They reckon I should go up to 4mg to get the systolic below 140.
I suspect giving up coffee and switching from wine to vodka & lowcal mixers has had as much beneficial effect as the tablets.
I hate pillpushers...
It took them a while to sort out my BP meds - different tabs & modifications of doses - it's now 120/60 and I feel the better for it. My father died of heart failure after years of undiagnosed hypertension- it's worth sorting out.
I told the quack [hand on heart] that there'd never been a heart attack in 200 years in any branch of our family.
Instead of sending me to the Smithsonian, or suchlike, to investigate my wonderful, unique genetic inheritance, he pushed me some pills...
No surprises the Lib Dems are continually trying to deny what direction the EU are moving in. This is the party that famously tried to deny the existence of plans to create an EU army...
I think the phrase
State of the Energy Union
and this sentence
"The country factsheets give a snapshot of where each Member State stands today on many aspects of the five dimensions of the Energy Union."
summarise why I despise the EU, in all its aspects. It's like a bunch of Finnish 9 year olds trying to be America, and abjectly, utterly failing. They can't even use English properly, let alone use it interestingly. The entire charade is an embarrassment of mediocrity.
And what's worse: EUROPE SHOULD BE INFINITELY BETTER
FFS this is Europe. The true home of civilisation and democracy, the cradle of Rome, Athens, and England, the home of Magna Carta and the Renaissance, the industrial revolution and the Enlightenment, the home of Michlangelo, Da Vinci, Newton, Descartes and Plato.
EUROPE. And we are reduced to "the country factsheets".
It's bollocks. LEAVE.
I'm struggling to see your point here. The challenge of changing the way we generate our energy so as not to destroy our environment is possibly the greatest challenge facing humanity today. It's akin to a second industrial revolution. Why would you criticise the EU for attempting to do their bit to meet this challenge?
Is there a word or phrase to describe a situation where you discover you've been mistaken about a fact for many years? For example, if you thought your favourite song was sung by a particular person and then 10 years later you find out it was actually sung by someone else.
I tried to find out but found something interesting instead. Read this:
It's about why people hold on to beliefs even when they know them to be false
It feeds in to a theory i have about the best way of ensuring a REMAIN vote. So far the REMAIN message has been fact-based...which is utterly useless, because people discard inconvenient facts with great ease.
Is there a word or phrase to describe a situation where you discover you've been mistaken about a fact for many years? For example, if you thought your favourite song was sung by a particular person and then 10 years later you find out it was actually sung by someone else.
I tried to find out but found something interesting instead. Read this:
It's about why people hold on to beliefs even when they know them to be false
It feeds in to a theory i have about the best way of ensuring a REMAIN vote. So far the REMAIN message has been fact-based...which is utterly useless, because people discard inconvenient facts with great ease.
People held on to the belief that flies had eight legs for a thousand years or more, just because Aristotle had said so, when simple counting could have proved otherwise...
Likewise the Earth being the centre of the Universe, for 1500 years after the Greeks had calculated otherwise...
Or that there were 48 chromosomes, rather than 46.
And those are just factual matters.
Of course, on questions of history, any bollocks goes...
Is there a word or phrase to describe a situation where you discover you've been mistaken about a fact for many years? For example, if you thought your favourite song was sung by a particular person and then 10 years later you find out it was actually sung by someone else.
I tried to find out but found something interesting instead. Read this:
It's about why people hold on to beliefs even when they know them to be false
It feeds in to a theory i have about the best way of ensuring a REMAIN vote. So far the REMAIN message has been fact-based...which is utterly useless, because people discard inconvenient facts with great ease.
People held on to the belief that flies had eight legs for a thousand years or more, just because Aristotle had said so, when simple counting could have proved otherwise...
Likewise the Earth being the centre of the Universe, for 1500 years after the Greeks had calculated otherwise...
Or that there were 48 chromosomes, rather than 46.
And those are just factual matters.
Of course, on questions of history, any bollocks goes...
Can you give any links supporting your claims here?
Is there a word or phrase to describe a situation where you discover you've been mistaken about a fact for many years? For example, if you thought your favourite song was sung by a particular person and then 10 years later you find out it was actually sung by someone else.
I tried to find out but found something interesting instead. Read this:
It's about why people hold on to beliefs even when they know them to be false
It feeds in to a theory i have about the best way of ensuring a REMAIN vote. So far the REMAIN message has been fact-based...which is utterly useless, because people discard inconvenient facts with great ease.
People held on to the belief that flies had eight legs for a thousand years or more, just because Aristotle had said so, when simple counting could have proved otherwise...
Likewise the Earth being the centre of the Universe, for 1500 years after the Greeks had calculated otherwise...
Or that there were 48 chromosomes, rather than 46.
And those are just factual matters.
Of course, on questions of history, any bollocks goes...
Can you give any links supporting your claims here?
Here's an article on the chromosome one. Interesting read:
I'm struggling to see your point here. The challenge of changing the way we generate our energy so as not to destroy our environment is possibly the greatest challenge facing humanity today. It's akin to a second industrial revolution. Why would you criticise the EU for attempting to do their bit to meet this challenge?
He's not. He's criticising them for using bad prose to do so. He's an author and travel writer. He is subject to reviewers who judge his prose and (because it is career-important to him) he has become sensitive to bad prose in others. It's a survival skill for him, Unfortunately, this skill leads him to believe that bad prose is wrong in all circumstances, whereas there are some cases where dull, repetitive prose is positively mandated (have a look at inflight or in-train emergency instructions sometime).
I have a similar problem, with my pedantry gene screaming at phrases like "very unique" or "of all time" or "at this time", or the redundant use of the word "situation" ("this is an emergency situation" means exactly the same as "this is an emergency"). Or the parroting of a shibboleth without acknowledging its origin - e.g. "clear and present danger" originates from a test to see whether certain rights violations are valid and was used as the title of a book by Tom Clancy and subsequent film with Harrison Ford. A more recent example from last week's Euro documentary from Nick Robinson which repeatedly used the phrase "full-hearted consent" without acknowledging it originated from a May 1970 speech from Ted Heath and was used as the title of a book by Philip Goodhart, one of the two definitive accounts of the 1975 referendum.
Is there a word or phrase to describe a situation where you discover you've been mistaken about a fact for many years? For example, if you thought your favourite song was sung by a particular person and then 10 years later you find out it was actually sung by someone else.
I tried to find out but found something interesting instead. Read this:
It's about why people hold on to beliefs even when they know them to be false
It feeds in to a theory i have about the best way of ensuring a REMAIN vote. So far the REMAIN message has been fact-based...which is utterly useless, because people discard inconvenient facts with great ease.
People held on to the belief that flies had eight legs for a thousand years or more, just because Aristotle had said so, when simple counting could have proved otherwise...
Likewise the Earth being the centre of the Universe, for 1500 years after the Greeks had calculated otherwise...
Or that there were 48 chromosomes, rather than 46.
And those are just factual matters.
Of course, on questions of history, any bollocks goes...
Can you give any links supporting your claims here?
Here's an article on the chromosome one. Interesting read:
That hardly supports your argument. According to your links, it was difficult to determine the number of chromosomes back in the 1920s, and 48 was the best estimate at the time. It was only when better microscopes came along that it could be definitively fixed at 46. Nobody insisted on the number being 48 once it could be shown that 46 was the correct number.
Is there a word or phrase to describe a situation where you discover you've been mistaken about a fact for many years? For example, if you thought your favourite song was sung by a particular person and then 10 years later you find out it was actually sung by someone else.
I tried to find out but found something interesting instead. Read this:
It's about why people hold on to beliefs even when they know them to be false
It feeds in to a theory i have about the best way of ensuring a REMAIN vote. So far the REMAIN message has been fact-based...which is utterly useless, because people discard inconvenient facts with great ease.
People held on to the belief that flies had eight legs for a thousand years or more, just because Aristotle had said so, when simple counting could have proved otherwise...
Likewise the Earth being the centre of the Universe, for 1500 years after the Greeks had calculated otherwise...
Or that there were 48 chromosomes, rather than 46.
And those are just factual matters.
Of course, on questions of history, any bollocks goes...
Can you give any links supporting your claims here?
Here's an article on the chromosome one. Interesting read:
That hardly supports your argument. According to your links, it was difficult to determine the number of chromosomes back in the 1920s, and 48 was the best estimate at the time. It was only when better microscopes came along that it could be definitively fixed at 46. Nobody insisted on the number being 48 once it could be shown that 46 was the correct number.
My argument? The article clearly stated the scientist guessed at 48, and that became the adopted number, exactly as RodCrosby described.
I'm struggling to see your point here. The challenge of changing the way we generate our energy so as not to destroy our environment is possibly the greatest challenge facing humanity today. It's akin to a second industrial revolution. Why would you criticise the EU for attempting to do their bit to meet this challenge?
He's not. He's criticising them for using bad prose to do so. He's an author and travel writer. He is subject to reviewers who judge his prose and (because it is career-important to him) he has become sensitive to bad prose in others. It's a survival skill for him, Unfortunately, this skill leads him to believe that bad prose is wrong in all circumstances, whereas there are some cases where dull, repetitive prose is positively mandated (have a look at inflight or in-train emergency instructions sometime).
I have a similar problem, with my pedantry gene screaming at phrases like "very unique" or "of all time" or "at this time", or the redundant use of the word "situation" ("this is an emergency situation" means exactly the same as "this is an emergency"). Or the parroting of a shibboleth without acknowledging its origin - e.g. "clear and present danger" originates from a test to see whether certain rights violations are valid and was used as the title of a book by Tom Clancy and subsequent film with Harrison Ford. A more recent example from last week's Euro documentary from Nick Robinson which repeatedly used the phrase "full-hearted consent" without acknowledging it originated from a May 1970 speech from Ted Heath and was used as the title of a book by Philip Goodhart, one of the two definitive accounts of the 1975 referendum.
You wouldn't expect the writers of EU documents to use exciting prose. For one thing, the documents, like legal documents, have to be precise, so there's no room for nuance or ambiguity. For another thing, English for international consumption is not that same as English for domestic use. It intentionally avoids words and expressions that may be considered confusing for non-native speakers, which does of course tend it give it a rather turgid feel to us.
Is there a word or phrase to describe a situation where you discover you've been mistaken about a fact for many years? For example, if you thought your favourite song was sung by a particular person and then 10 years later you find out it was actually sung by someone else.
I tried to find out but found something interesting instead. Read this:
It's about why people hold on to beliefs even when they know them to be false
It feeds in to a theory i have about the best way of ensuring a REMAIN vote. So far the REMAIN message has been fact-based...which is utterly useless, because people discard inconvenient facts with great ease.
People held on to the belief that flies had eight legs for a thousand years or more, just because Aristotle had said so, when simple counting could have proved otherwise...
Likewise the Earth being the centre of the Universe, for 1500 years after the Greeks had calculated otherwise...
Or that there were 48 chromosomes, rather than 46.
And those are just factual matters.
Of course, on questions of history, any bollocks goes...
Can you give any links supporting your claims here?
Here's an article on the chromosome one. Interesting read:
That hardly supports your argument. According to your links, it was difficult to determine the number of chromosomes back in the 1920s, and 48 was the best estimate at the time. It was only when better microscopes came along that it could be definitively fixed at 46. Nobody insisted on the number being 48 once it could be shown that 46 was the correct number.
My argument? The article clearly stated the scientist guessed at 48, and that became the adopted number, exactly as RodCrosby described.
Sorry, RodCrosby's argument. He was replying to viewcode's comment about people holding on to beliefs even when they know them to be false and offering these as examples. However, he gives no evidence that anyone continued to insist that humans have 48 chromosomes once it could be definitively established that the number is 46. So this is actually not an example of people holding on to beliefs even when they know them to be false.
I'm struggling to see your point here. The challenge of changing the way we generate our energy so as not to destroy our environment is possibly the greatest challenge facing humanity today. It's akin to a second industrial revolution. Why would you criticise the EU for attempting to do their bit to meet this challenge?
He's not. He's criticising them for using bad prose to do so. He's an author and travel writer. He is subject to reviewers who judge his prose and (because it is career-important to him) he has become sensitive to bad prose in others. It's a survival skill for him, Unfortunately, this skill leads him to believe that bad prose is wrong in all circumstances, whereas there are some cases where dull, repetitive prose is positively mandated (have a look at inflight or in-train emergency instructions sometime).
I have a similar problem, with my pedantry gene screaming at phrases like "very unique" or "of all time" or "at this time", or the redundant use of the word "situation" ("this is an emergency situation" means exactly the same as "this is an emergency"). Or the parroting of a shibboleth without acknowledging its origin - e.g. "clear and present danger" originates from a test to see whether certain rights violations are valid and was used as the title of a book by Tom Clancy and subsequent film with Harrison Ford. A more recent example from last week's Euro documentary from Nick Robinson which repeatedly used the phrase "full-hearted consent" without acknowledging it originated from a May 1970 speech from Ted Heath and was used as the title of a book by Philip Goodhart, one of the two definitive accounts of the 1975 referendum.
You wouldn't expect the writers of EU documents to use exciting prose. For one thing, the documents, like legal documents, have to be precise, so there's no room for nuance or ambiguity. For another thing, English for international consumption is not that same as English for domestic use. It intentionally avoids words and expressions that may be considered confusing for non-native speakers, which does of course tend it give it a rather turgid feel to us.
Oh god, tell me about it. Some years ago I spent time reading some of the treaties and they are eat-your-own-knuckles boring. Seriously dull.
They reckon I should go up to 4mg to get the systolic below 140.
I suspect giving up coffee and switching from wine to vodka & lowcal mixers has had as much beneficial effect as the tablets.
I hate pillpushers...
It took them a while to sort out my BP meds - different tabs & modifications of doses - it's now 120/60 and I feel the better for it. My father died of heart failure after years of undiagnosed hypertension- it's worth sorting out.
I told the quack [hand on heart] that there'd never been a heart attack in 200 years in any branch of our family.
Instead of sending me to the Smithsonian, or suchlike, to investigate my wonderful, unique genetic inheritance, he pushed me some pills...
Given there's (a lot) more to hypertension than heart attacks (strokes, dementia, kidney failure), I'm not entirely surprised.....
.....And If my experience is anything to go by, he may also have offered you advice about your weight.......
As one of my more robust (and mercifully still with us) colleagues once observed after a company medical 'Huh! Same thing every year. Eat less, weigh less, drink less' F*ck em!'
What type of public figure threatens to leave Britain if it votes one way or another in something or other? The question is obviously rhetorical. We all know what that type is. It’s just that we don’t use the word in the Guardian unless it’s in reported speech.
I'm struggling to see your point here. The challenge of changing the way we generate our energy so as not to destroy our environment is possibly the greatest challenge facing humanity today. It's akin to a second industrial revolution. Why would you criticise the EU for attempting to do their bit to meet this challenge?
He's not. He's criticising them for using bad prose to do so. He's an author and travel writer. He is subject to reviewers who judge his prose and (because it is career-important to him) he has become sensitive to bad prose in others. It's a survival skill for him, Unfortunately, this skill leads him to believe that bad prose is wrong in all circumstances, whereas there are some cases where dull, repetitive prose is positively mandated (have a look at inflight or in-train emergency instructions sometime).
I have a similar problem, with my pedantry gene screaming at phrases like "very unique" or "of all time" or "at this time", or the redundant use of the word "situation" ("this is an emergency situation" means exactly the same as "this is an emergency"). Or the parroting of a shibboleth without acknowledging its origin - e.g. "clear and present danger" originates from a test to see whether certain rights violations are valid and was used as the title of a book by Tom Clancy and subsequent film with Harrison Ford. A more recent example from last week's Euro documentary from Nick Robinson which repeatedly used the phrase "full-hearted consent" without acknowledging it originated from a May 1970 speech from Ted Heath and was used as the title of a book by Philip Goodhart, one of the two definitive accounts of the 1975 referendum.
You wouldn't expect the writers of EU documents to use exciting prose. For one thing, the documents, like legal documents, have to be precise, so there's no room for nuance or ambiguity. For another thing, English for international consumption is not that same as English for domestic use. It intentionally avoids words and expressions that may be considered confusing for non-native speakers, which does of course tend it give it a rather turgid feel to us.
Oh god, tell me about it. Some years ago I spent time reading some of the treaties and they are eat-your-own-knuckles boring. Seriously dull.
Some years ago, I spent some years negotiating those sorts of treaties. Now you're talking about seriously boring.
Comments
"Britain faces 'economic rupture' if we leave EU, says Government"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/16/britain-faces-economic-rupture-if-we-leave-eu-says-government/
Even the most incompetent governments still get the benefit of the doubt from a significant chunk of people who gave them their vote just a year earlier -- in 1993, Labour won the local elections by "only" 8%, even in the wake of Black Wednesday. It is only when we get to two years into a government's term that people really lose their patience with them, no matter how many errors have been made before that. That is ALWAYS the way.
I do not hold much of a candle for Corbyn, and if he were to lose the popular vote in local elections by more than 5% (which I thought was a near-certainty a few weeks ago), he would be conclusively proven as a loser. On the other hand, if he manages to beat the Tories in the popular vote this year, he will be doing better than Ed Miliband did at this stage in the last parliament, and indeed better than half of Oppositions in recent years in the first year of an election cycle. You might not like it, but them's the facts!
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-6106_en.htm
No surprises the Lib Dems are continually trying to deny what direction the EU are moving in. This is the party that famously tried to deny the existence of plans to create an EU army...
'Please keep up with developments. See here for a recent press release from the European Commission on the energy union I mentioned:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-6106_en.htm<'
Oh that's just one of those scare stories, like the one about the EU bringing in a common currency
https://twitter.com/DanHannanMEP/status/657962462717870080
https://twitter.com/DanHannanMEP/status/705728147552116737
The EU was barely an issue at the General Election 2015. That was the whole point of promising, indeed legislating for, a referendum.
2011 - 2016
2012 - 2017
2013 - 2018
2014 - 2019
2015 - 2020
Which looks sensible enough
If we go
2012 - 2016
then we go:
2013 - 2017
2014 - 2018
2015 - 2019 ?!
"Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems"
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
'As this Court has long held, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Although “[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, [a] person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty or by authority of Congress.” Id. at 702-703. There is no dispute in this case that petitioner was born outside the United States and is therefore not entitled—as a constitutional matter—to citizenship by virtue of his birth. Instead, he asserts a right to the “acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent,” which is “obviously” not governed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830 (1971); see Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 688."'
and
'Petitioner is incorrect. The fact that Congress has enacted a law under which some foreign born individuals acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by virtue of a parent’s citizenship does not mean that such individuals are not naturalized citizens for purposes of the Constitution. As explained above, when Congress enacts rules to govern acquisition of citizenship, it acts pursuant to its constitutional authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. See Miller, 523 U.S. at 434 n.11 (opinion of Stevens, J.) (“Though petitioner claims to be a citizen from birth, citizenship does not pass by descent. Thus she must still meet the statutory requirements set by Congress for citizenship.”); see also id. at 453 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) (“Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned.”)'
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_09_5801_Respondent.authcheckdam.pdf
I was amused by the crowing of some ignoramuses on a previous thread re Cruz's supposed pass on the eligibility question in a minor court in NJ.
After studiously ignoring all SCOTUS decisions which clearly state otherwise, not limited to:-
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875);
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898);
Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961);
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971);
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
the judge there, Masin, ALJ, decides instead to lean heavily on a pro-Cruz puff-piece which appeared in the Harvard Law Review last year:-
"two former Solicitors General of the United States, Paul Clement and Neal Katyal, have agreed with this conclusion that a person born abroad to a United States citizen is a natural born citizen and eligible to hold the Office of President."
Labour: 37%
Conservatives: 35%
Lib Dems: 15%
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/RP11-43
By all accounts, he's quite a nice guy. I've only met him once, on my way out from a pb pub meet, where he was enthusiastic and polite about meeting me (I was almost flattered) but, from his posts on here, he does seem to have a habit of getting progressively worked up by an issue, a poster, or a poster's angle on an issue, but he himself posts relatively infrequently, and so holds it all back until he's fit to explode.
And then he bursts.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-eu-agrees-to-set-up-new-border-and-coast-guard-force-a6923896.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/650141/EU-coastline-Brussels-super-coastguard-UK-migrant-crisis
I will bid you a polite and respectful goodnight, Sir.
Furthermore electoral "success" means different things for parties aiming for government and those not in that position. It is why UKIP can be electorally successful on a platform that would deliver an electoral disaster for the Conservative party.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3543703/How-Page-3-model-claims-Whittingdale-showed-highly-sensitive-documents-one-half-Boobie-Twins-sister-starred-TV-Hotel-Erotica.html
"John Whittingdale, the culture secretary, is planning a fresh raid on the BBC, ordering it to sell its £500m stake in 10 television channels including Dave, Drama and Gold, and to hand about half the proceeds to the Treasury.
He also wants to restrict the corporation further by requiring it to hand over £100m of its annual budget for children’s programmes and local news to outside suppliers, which would be given slots on the corporation’s networks."
(I personally wouldn't say 2011 flattered Labour especially, since although they got a bounty from the Lib Dems then, they also didn't have the advantage of UKIP to take votes off the Tories -- it's swings and roundabouts.)
I part company with Danny somewhat in his apparent belief that the result of Local elections in year 1 of a Parliament provides a clear indication of the likely result of the following General Election. History never repeats itself in quite that way - all that can be said is that Labour will have performed better - or worse - than at the same stage of the last Parliament .
Sunday Mirror.
Yep, gone by Monday ;-)
The EU response, at best, would be to delegate the question to a sub-committee charged with reporting back by 2025, ensuring that all diversity, weights and measurements, and health and safety aspects were thoroughly explored before reaching any firm conclusion...
Is there a word or phrase to describe a situation where you discover you've been mistaken about a fact for many years? For example, if you thought your favourite song was sung by a particular person and then 10 years later you find out it was actually sung by someone else.
148/91 after 9 weeks of daily 2mg Perindopril.
They reckon I should go up to 4mg to get the systolic below 140.
I suspect giving up coffee and switching from wine to vodka & lowcal mixers has had as much beneficial effect as the tablets.
I hate pillpushers...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14432710.__30_billion__The_cost_of_Labour_s_toxic_PFI_legacy_to_Scotland/
That'll really help Keiza.....
Instead of sending me to the Smithsonian, or suchlike, to investigate my wonderful, unique genetic inheritance, he pushed me some pills...
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right
It's about why people hold on to beliefs even when they know them to be false
It feeds in to a theory i have about the best way of ensuring a REMAIN vote. So far the REMAIN message has been fact-based...which is utterly useless, because people discard inconvenient facts with great ease.
Likewise the Earth being the centre of the Universe, for 1500 years after the Greeks had calculated otherwise...
Or that there were 48 chromosomes, rather than 46.
And those are just factual matters.
Of course, on questions of history, any bollocks goes...
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/chromosomes/features/2012/blogging_the_human_genome_/blogging_the_human_genome_why_do_we_have_two_fewer_chromosomes_than_our_closest_primate_relatives_.html
I have a similar problem, with my pedantry gene screaming at phrases like "very unique" or "of all time" or "at this time", or the redundant use of the word "situation" ("this is an emergency situation" means exactly the same as "this is an emergency"). Or the parroting of a shibboleth without acknowledging its origin - e.g. "clear and present danger" originates from a test to see whether certain rights violations are valid and was used as the title of a book by Tom Clancy and subsequent film with Harrison Ford. A more recent example from last week's Euro documentary from Nick Robinson which repeatedly used the phrase "full-hearted consent" without acknowledging it originated from a May 1970 speech from Ted Heath and was used as the title of a book by Philip Goodhart, one of the two definitive accounts of the 1975 referendum.
.....And If my experience is anything to go by, he may also have offered you advice about your weight.......
As one of my more robust (and mercifully still with us) colleagues once observed after a company medical 'Huh! Same thing every year. Eat less, weigh less, drink less' F*ck em!'
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/15/jim-davidson-quit-britain-ken-livingstone-emigration