Fairly or not, it now seems like a very good job they did.
I have yet to read the thread comments - maybe my questions have been answered already:
Just suppose the (relevant) elections were re-run because the Conservatives were deemed to have won unfairly. Sure they might lose their majority, but equally they might increase it. Would that be 'fair'?
Or they lose their majority & who becomes PM? Mr Corbyn or Mr Miliband?
Where's the best place to go to bet on final Premier League positions?
Not sure what you're looking for exactly SO, but take a look at the miscellany of markets available at the foot of this page from oddschecker.com and maybe you'll be lucky:
Watching the dynamics between Cameron and Corbyn at PMQ's is interesting- it clearly has become a bullying/victim relationship where Cameron is the bully- he shouts, he abuses, he harasses, he taunts, he demeans, he belittles- it seems to come quite naturally to him. Cameron really looks angry and quite threatening in full flow.
This kind of behaviour is not uncommon for PMQ's, but Corbyn's response is unusual- he looks and acts like a classic victim. His whole body language is victim like- almost cowering. You expect Dianne Abbot to jump up and shout at Cameron "Leave the old man alone, he's trying his best.." whilst shepherding Corbyn away. It makes compelling viewing in an unpleasant way.
Should Cameron tone it down? No, I don't think so. You don't let your enemy off the hook when they are down, and Corbyn is most certainly down on the canvass. I doubt Corbyn is going to put himself through this ritual humiliation week in, week out- but Cameron should continue pressing home his advantage.
I haven't seen today's episode yet but the kind of thing you describe, while it might engender some sympathy for Corbyn, won't, I think, make people vote for him. So from that point of view it is probably good business for Cameron.
Cameron can be good with a cruel jibe but can overdo it sometimes but I suppose if it's overwhelming it's about making an impression. Cameron is gone in 2-3 years at most, if people think he's a bit of a bastard but also that Corbyn is weak, that could be worth it in his view as even if Corbyn improves he is working against an initial impression. I haven't watched in a while, he usually seems distracted to me, uncertain, more than anything else.
Fairly or not, it now seems like a very good job they did.
I have yet to read the thread comments - maybe my questions have been answered already:
Just suppose the (relevant) elections were re-run because the Conservatives were deemed to have won unfairly. Sure they might lose their majority, but equally they might increase it. Would that be 'fair'?
Or they lose their majority & who becomes PM? Mr Corbyn or Mr Miliband?
Do we get to replay all political events after the election too? A re run of the Labour leadership election for instance
Tyson.. my sympathies for your good self, having been born and raised in Lancashire..As a Cumbrian I can only offer slight comfort to you that Cumbrians look upon both Yorkshiremen and Lancastrians as some example of a lesser life form whose sole purpose for existence is to pollute the highways and byways of the beautiful Lake District every year...A pox on both your uncouth tribes.
Fairly or not, it now seems like a very good job they did.
I have yet to read the thread comments - maybe my questions have been answered already:
Just suppose the (relevant) elections were re-run because the Conservatives were deemed to have won unfairly. Sure they might lose their majority, but equally they might increase it. Would that be 'fair'?
Or they lose their majority & who becomes PM? Mr Corbyn or Mr Miliband?
Do we get to replay all political events after the election too? A re run of the Labour leadership election for instance
Well, exactly. Who'd be up for cancelling the EU referendum?
Roger- I thought those Tory posters were excellent, and amongst the most powerful I have seen- up there with the Saatchi posters even. They really did make Ed look to be weak and a pushover, and they got in the SNP threat too. Class
OT. I'm struggling to understand what Cameron's tactics were linking Khan to terrorism today. Either his team have researched it and it's been found to be a concern among Londoners or he's just flying a kite it which case the effect wont be neutral for his man-it'll be negative.
It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising -that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election.
I'd imagine its exactly the sort of thing that might motivate Tory leaning voters, who might otherwise have sat on their hands, to get out and vote. Might help a little with the second preferences too.
Lynton knows..
That's why I wondered whether it had been researched. During the election the posters with Miliband in Salmond's pocket didn't make any sense to me but they were tested to be the most effective of the election. A perfect example of the value of research.
I found them insidious and I couldn't see them working. They were very stylishly presented and eye catching but I hadn't picked up the anti Scottish sentiment that they must have uncovered during research
Fairly or not, it now seems like a very good job they did.
I have yet to read the thread comments - maybe my questions have been answered already:
Just suppose the (relevant) elections were re-run because the Conservatives were deemed to have won unfairly. Sure they might lose their majority, but equally they might increase it. Would that be 'fair'?
Or they lose their majority & who becomes PM? Mr Corbyn or Mr Miliband?
I think they won nearly all, or all, of the seats in question. Best case is that they win all the by-elections but that seems incredibly unlikely given the backdrop against which they would be fought. Also the main opposition in many would be LD so not susceptible to a campaign based on Corbyn-smearing. If the PM then can't command the confidence of the house due to lacking a majority, then I guess that HMQ would ask Mr Corbyn to see if he could form a government and if he couldn't (he couldn't) then we'd have a very interesting GE.
I think strategically Cameron should go in for the kill with Corbyn. Corbyn is not going to lead the Labour party into the next election- so better get him changed sooner rather than later and see the party divide catastrophically.
I actually thought today Corbyn appeared like he rather be anyone else than the HoC. There is no coming back from these kind of cowering, weak, flat footed performances.
Watching the dynamics between Cameron and Corbyn at PMQ's is interesting- it clearly has become a bullying/victim relationship where Cameron is the bully- he shouts, he abuses, he harasses, he taunts, he demeans, he belittles- it seems to come quite naturally to him. Cameron really looks angry and quite threatening in full flow.
This kind of behaviour is not uncommon for PMQ's, but Corbyn's response is unusual- he looks and acts like a classic victim. His whole body language is victim like- almost cowering. You expect Dianne Abbot to jump up and shout at Cameron "Leave the old man alone, he's trying his best.." whilst shepherding Corbyn away. It makes compelling viewing in an unpleasant way.
Should Cameron tone it down? No, I don't think so. You don't let your enemy off the hook when they are down, and Corbyn is most certainly down on the canvass. I doubt Corbyn is going to put himself through this ritual humiliation week in, week out- but Cameron should continue pressing home his advantage.
I haven't seen today's episode yet but the kind of thing you describe, while it might engender some sympathy for Corbyn, won't, I think, make people vote for him. So from that point of view it is probably good business for Cameron.
Cameron can be good with a cruel jibe but can overdo it sometimes but I suppose if it's overwhelming it's about making an impression. Cameron is gone in 2-3 years at most, if people think he's a bit of a bastard but also that Corbyn is weak, that could be worth it in his view as even if Corbyn improves he is working against an initial impression. I haven't watched in a while, he usually seems distracted to me, uncertain, more than anything else.
OT. I'm struggling to understand what Cameron's tactics were linking Khan to terrorism today. Either his team have researched it and it's been found to be a concern among Londoners or he's just flying a kite it which case the effect wont be neutral for his man-it'll be negative.
It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising -that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election.
I'd imagine its exactly the sort of thing that might motivate Tory leaning voters, who might otherwise have sat on their hands, to get out and vote. Might help a little with the second preferences too.
Lynton knows..
During the election the posters with Miliband in Salmond's pocket didn't make any sense to me
I'm surprised at you Roger - surely a picture is worth a thousand words - though I'm sure it often feels the client thinks its the other way round!
Roger- I thought those Tory posters were excellent, and amongst the most powerful I have seen- up there with the Saatchi posters even. They really did make Ed look to be weak and a pushover, and they got in the SNP threat too. Class
OT. I'm struggling to understand what Cameron's tactics were linking Khan to terrorism today. Either his team have researched it and it's been found to be a concern among Londoners or he's just flying a kite it which case the effect wont be neutral for his man-it'll be negative.
It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising -that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election.
I'd imagine its exactly the sort of thing that might motivate Tory leaning voters, who might otherwise have sat on their hands, to get out and vote. Might help a little with the second preferences too.
Lynton knows..
That's why I wondered whether it had been researched. During the election the posters with Miliband in Salmond's pocket didn't make any sense to me but they were tested to be the most effective of the election. A perfect example of the value of research.
I hadn't picked up the anti Scottish sentiment that they must have uncovered during research
Don't fall into the Nats trap of equating Scotland with the SNP.
It is perfectly possible (indeed sensible!) to be anti-SNP while being pro-Scottish.....
I think strategically Cameron should go in for the kill with Corbyn. Corbyn is not going to lead the Labour party into the next election- so better get him changed sooner rather than later and see the party divide catastrophically.
I actually thought today Corbyn appeared like he rather be anyone else than the HoC. There is no coming back from these kind of cowering, weak, flat footed performances.
Watching the dynamics between Cameron and Corbyn at PMQ's is interesting- it clearly has become a bullying/victim relationship where Cameron is the bully- he shouts, he abuses, he harasses, he taunts, he demeans, he belittles- it seems to come quite naturally to him. Cameron really looks angry and quite threatening in full flow.
This kind of behaviour is not uncommon for PMQ's, but Corbyn's response is unusual- he looks and acts like a classic victim. His whole body language is victim like- almost cowering. You expect Dianne Abbot to jump up and shout at Cameron "Leave the old man alone, he's trying his best.." whilst shepherding Corbyn away. It makes compelling viewing in an unpleasant way.
Should Cameron tone it down? No, I don't think so. You don't let your enemy off the hook when they are down, and Corbyn is most certainly down on the canvass. I doubt Corbyn is going to put himself through this ritual humiliation week in, week out- but Cameron should continue pressing home his advantage.
I haven't seen today's episode yet but the kind of thing you describe, while it might engender some sympathy for Corbyn, won't, I think, make people vote for him. So from that point of view it is probably good business for Cameron.
Cameron can be good with a cruel jibe but can overdo it sometimes but I suppose if it's overwhelming it's about making an impression. Cameron is gone in 2-3 years at most, if people think he's a bit of a bastard but also that Corbyn is weak, that could be worth it in his view as even if Corbyn improves he is working against an initial impression. I haven't watched in a while, he usually seems distracted to me, uncertain, more than anything else.
I am not sure Corbyn really cares that much. He is not that interested in Parliament, never has been. He can take being shouted at by Cameron for ten minutes once a week. Whatever else he is, he seems to be pretty impervious to vocal hostility. I reckon he can compartmentalise very well.
OT. I'm struggling to understand what Cameron's tactics were linking Khan to terrorism today. Either his team have researched it and it's been found to be a concern among Londoners or he's just flying a kite it which case the effect wont be neutral for his man-it'll be negative.
It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising -that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election.
I'd imagine its exactly the sort of thing that might motivate Tory leaning voters, who might otherwise have sat on their hands, to get out and vote. Might help a little with the second preferences too.
Lynton knows..
During the election the posters with Miliband in Salmond's pocket didn't make any sense to me
I'm surprised at you Roger - surely a picture is worth a thousand words - though I'm sure it often feels the client thinks its the other way round!
I didn't mean the posters didn't make any sense. They were as you suggest wonderfully clear and well execucuted. It was the concept.. The anti Scottish feeling had really passed me by
If criminal prosecutions materialise from this , I suspect it will be well into next year before the issue comes to trial. Were there to be convictions which triggered 20 by-elections the Government would effectively lose its majority during the period leading up to such elections and would become dependent on the Unionists for survival. Moreover, if we end up with 20 by-elections , I would expect the Government to lose a good half of them - including Thanet South to Farage.
Mighty big if at the start of the sentence there!
Absolutely! Were it to happen Cameron would find himself in a much weaker position than John Major in the 1992 Parliament . It would be a scenario closer to the Callaghan Government post Spring 1977.
I didn't mean the posters didn't make any sense. They were as you suggest wonderfully clear and well execucuted. It was the concept.. The anti Scottish feeling had really passed me by
It wasn't an anti-Scottish feeling, it was an anti-being-held-to-ransom feeling.
Now that Trump has a clear field, the pressure on Bernie Sanders to withdraw is going to intensify massively. He's now unambiguously helping Trump.
He has been for a while. The last week has simply confirmed the inevitable and weakened Hillary. She really did not need to still be losing States at this point and there is a tricky run of primaries coming up which might make it even worse.
OT. I'm struggling to understand what Cameron's tactics were linking Khan to terrorism today. Either his team have researched it and it's been found to be a concern among Londoners or he's just flying a kite it which case the effect wont be neutral for his man-it'll be negative.
It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising -that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election.
I'd imagine its exactly the sort of thing that might motivate Tory leaning voters, who might otherwise have sat on their hands, to get out and vote. Might help a little with the second preferences too.
Lynton knows..
During the election the posters with Miliband in Salmond's pocket didn't make any sense to me
I'm surprised at you Roger - surely a picture is worth a thousand words - though I'm sure it often feels the client thinks its the other way round!
I think strategically Cameron should go in for the kill with Corbyn. Corbyn is not going to lead the Labour party into the next election- so better get him changed sooner rather than later and see the party divide catastrophically.
I actually thought today Corbyn appeared like he rather be anyone else than the HoC. There is no coming back from these kind of cowering, weak, flat footed performances.
Watching the dynamics between Cameron and Corbyn at PMQ's is interesting- it clearly has become a bullying/victim relationship where Cameron is the bully- he shouts, he abuses, he harasses, he taunts, he demeans, he belittles- it seems to come quite naturally to him. Cameron really looks angry and quite threatening in full flow.
This kind of behaviour is not uncommon for PMQ's, but Corbyn's response is unusual- he looks and acts like a classic victim. His whole body language is victim like- almost cowering. You expect Dianne Abbot to jump up and shout at Cameron "Leave the old man alone, he's trying his best.." whilst shepherding Corbyn away. It makes compelling viewing in an unpleasant way.
Should Cameron tone it down? No, I don't think so. You don't let your enemy off the hook when they are down, and Corbyn is most certainly down on the canvass. I doubt Corbyn is going to put himself through this ritual humiliation week in, week out- but Cameron should continue pressing home his advantage.
I haven't seen today's episode yet but the kind of thing you describe, while it might engender some sympathy for Corbyn, won't, I think, make people vote for him. So from that point of view it is probably good business for Cameron.
Cameron can be good with a cruel jibe but can overdo it sometimes but I suppose if it's overwhelming it's about making an impression. Cameron is gone in 2-3 years at most, if people think he's a bit of a bastard but also that Corbyn is weak, that could be worth it in his view as even if Corbyn improves he is working against an initial impression. I haven't watched in a while, he usually seems distracted to me, uncertain, more than anything else.
I am not sure Corbyn really cares that much. He is not that interested in Parliament, never has been. He can take being shouted at by Cameron for ten minutes once a week. Whatever else he is, he seems to be pretty impervious to vocal hostility. I reckon he can compartmentalise very well.
He looked genuinely shaken today. More than I have seen before.
If criminal prosecutions materialise from this , I suspect it will be well into next year before the issue comes to trial. Were there to be convictions which triggered 20 by-elections the Government would effectively lose its majority during the period leading up to such elections and would become dependent on the Unionists for survival. Moreover, if we end up with 20 by-elections , I would expect the Government to lose a good half of them - including Thanet South to Farage.
Mighty big if at the start of the sentence there!
Absolutely! Were it to happen Cameron would find himself in a much weaker position than John Major in the 1992 Parliament . It would be a scenario closer to the Callaghan Government post Spring 1977.
With 20 by-elections I'm not sure it wouldn't be such a bad idea to simply dissolve Parliament.
I am not sure Corbyn really cares that much. He is not that interested in Parliament, never has been. He can take being shouted at by Cameron for ten minutes once a week. Whatever else he is, he seems to be pretty impervious to vocal hostility. I reckon he can compartmentalise very well.
It is really bizarre to have a Party Leader who is not interested in leading, let alone winning
He isn't even using his office to raise issues in a meaningful way
It's a very good question and I'm not too sure there is a good answer.
The problem for the GOP is not the nomination in isolation but finding a credible candidate that might square the circle of nomination and general election.
Rubio might have provided a contest but was found badly wanting too early in the nomination and so was unable to recover, grow and pull through.
Accordingly this time around the most likely answer was "none of the above" which for the GOP is a desperate situation as Clinton was vulnerable but not to the shortlisted crop and certainly not Trump.
I think strategically Cameron should go in for the kill with Corbyn. Corbyn is not going to lead the Labour party into the next election- so better get him changed sooner rather than later and see the party divide catastrophically.
I actually thought today Corbyn appeared like he rather be anyone else than the HoC. There is no coming back from these kind of cowering, weak, flat footed performances.
Watching the dynamics between Cameron and Corbyn at PMQ's is interesting- it clearly has become a bullying/victim relationship where Cameron is the bully- he shouts, he abuses, he harasses, he taunts, he demeans, he belittles- it seems to come quite naturally to him. Cameron really looks angry and quite threatening in full flow.
This kind of behaviour is not uncommon for PMQ's, but Corbyn's response is unusual- he looks and acts like a classic victim. His whole body language is victim like- almost cowering. You expect Dianne Abbot to jump up and shout at Cameron "Leave the old man alone, he's trying his best.." whilst shepherding Corbyn away. It makes compelling viewing in an unpleasant way.
Should Cameron tone it down? No, I don't think so. You don't let your enemy off the hook when they are down, and Corbyn is most certainly down on the canvass. I doubt Corbyn is going to put himself through this ritual humiliation week in, week out- but Cameron should continue pressing home his advantage.
I haven't seen today's episode yet but the kind of thing you describe, while it might engender some sympathy for Corbyn, won't, I think, make people vote for him. So from that point of view it is probably good business for Cameron.
Cameron can be good with a cruel jibe but can overdo it sometimes but I suppose if it's overwhelming it's about making an impression. Cameron is gone in 2-3 years at most, if people think he's a bit of a bastard but also that Corbyn is weak, that could be worth it in his view as even if Corbyn improves he is working against an initial impression. I haven't watched in a while, he usually seems distracted to me, uncertain, more than anything else.
I am not sure Corbyn really cares that much. He is not that interested in Parliament, never has been. He can take being shouted at by Cameron for ten minutes once a week. Whatever else he is, he seems to be pretty impervious to vocal hostility. I reckon he can compartmentalise very well.
He looked genuinely shaken today. More than I have seen before.
I haven't seen it, to be fair. Whenever I do watch (rarely) it all seems to go over his head.
I didn't mean the posters didn't make any sense. They were as you suggest wonderfully clear and well execucuted. It was the concept.. The anti Scottish feeling had really passed me by
It wasn't an anti-Scottish feeling, it was an anti-being-held-to-ransom feeling.
It appealed to both, surely. That's why it was so perfect.
But they're going to lose London Assembly seats? Interesting to see the swing going in two opposite directions with the mayoral and assembly elections.
(1)A proceeding against a person in respect of any offence under any provision contained in or made under this Act] shall be commenced within one year after the offence was committed, and the time so limited by this section shall, in the case of any proceedings under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (or, in Northern Ireland, the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981) for any such offence, . . . be substituted for any limitation of time contained in that Act or Order.
I am not sure Corbyn really cares that much. He is not that interested in Parliament, never has been. He can take being shouted at by Cameron for ten minutes once a week. Whatever else he is, he seems to be pretty impervious to vocal hostility. I reckon he can compartmentalise very well.
It is really bizarre to have a Party Leader who is not interested in leading, let alone winning
He isn't even using his office to raise issues in a meaningful way
JC was elected by, and speaks for, Labour activists, most of whom prefer the purity of Opposition to the compromises of power.
Now that Trump has a clear field, the pressure on Bernie Sanders to withdraw is going to intensify massively. He's now unambiguously helping Trump.
He has been for a while. The last week has simply confirmed the inevitable and weakened Hillary. She really did not need to still be losing States at this point and there is a tricky run of primaries coming up which might make it even worse.
It doesn't matter that Clinton is losing the odd state now, she's had the nomination wrapped up from early doors when she built up a fire wall of pledged delegates in the closed primaries and her massive lead in Super Delegates.
If criminal prosecutions materialise from this , I suspect it will be well into next year before the issue comes to trial. Were there to be convictions which triggered 20 by-elections the Government would effectively lose its majority during the period leading up to such elections and would become dependent on the Unionists for survival. Moreover, if we end up with 20 by-elections , I would expect the Government to lose a good half of them - including Thanet South to Farage.
Mighty big if at the start of the sentence there!
Absolutely! Were it to happen Cameron would find himself in a much weaker position than John Major in the 1992 Parliament . It would be a scenario closer to the Callaghan Government post Spring 1977.
With 20 by-elections I'm not sure it wouldn't be such a bad idea to simply dissolve Parliament.
Not really. It would actually produce a House of Commons very close to what the Exit Poll initially predicted last year - a minority Tory Government.
I didn't mean the posters didn't make any sense. They were as you suggest wonderfully clear and well execucuted. It was the concept.. The anti Scottish feeling had really passed me by
It wasn't an anti-Scottish feeling, it was an anti-being-held-to-ransom feeling.
Probably a bit of both. As Carlotta says not Scottish but SNP. It just seemed a weak argument. But it's a good object lesson not to assume that any of us know the public mood.
Now that Trump has a clear field, the pressure on Bernie Sanders to withdraw is going to intensify massively. He's now unambiguously helping Trump.
He has been for a while. The last week has simply confirmed the inevitable and weakened Hillary. She really did not need to still be losing States at this point and there is a tricky run of primaries coming up which might make it even worse.
It doesn't matter that Clinton is losing the odd state now, she's had the nomination wrapped up from early doors when she built up a fire wall of pledged delegates in the closed primaries and her massive lead in Super Delegates.
This race is over.
It matters to the extent that Clinton has to continue to waste time playing the primary game, and positioning against Bernie to avoid too many embarrassments that might suggest she doesnt have the momentum and make swing voters think again, while Trump is going to tack like crazy for the centre and come over all reasonable as he starts his run for the general immediately.
I think strategically Cameron should go in for the kill with Corbyn. Corbyn is not going to lead the Labour party into the next election- so better get him changed sooner rather than later and see the party divide catastrophically.
I actually thought today Corbyn appeared like he rather be anyone else than the HoC. There is no coming back from these kind of cowering, weak, flat footed performances.
Watching the dynamics between Cameron and Corbyn at PMQ's is interesting- it clearly has become a bullying/victim relationship where Cameron is the bully- he shouts, he abuses, he harasses, he taunts, he demeans, he belittles- it seems to come quite naturally to him. Cameron really looks angry and quite threatening in full flow.
This kind of behaviour is not uncommon for PMQ's, but Corbyn's response is unusual- he looks and acts like a classic victim. His whole body language is victim like- almost cowering. You expect Dianne Abbot to jump up and shout at Cameron "Leave the old man alone, he's trying his best.." whilst shepherding Corbyn away. It makes compelling viewing in an unpleasant way.
Should Cameron tone it down? No, I don't think so. You don't let your enemy off the hook when they are down, and Corbyn is most certainly down on the canvass. I doubt Corbyn is going to put himself through this ritual humiliation week in, week out- but Cameron should continue pressing home his advantage.
I haven't seen today's episode yet but the kind of thing you describe, while it might engender some sympathy for Corbyn, won't, I think, make people vote for him. So from that point of view it is probably good business for Cameron.
Cameron can be good with a cruel jibe but can overdo it sometimes but I suppose if it's overwhelming it's about making an impression. Cameron is gone in 2-3 years at most, if people think he's a bit of a bastard but also that Corbyn is weak, that could be worth it in his view as even if Corbyn improves he is working against an initial impression. I haven't watched in a while, he usually seems distracted to me, uncertain, more than anything else.
I am not sure Corbyn really cares that much. He is not that interested in Parliament, never has been. He can take being shouted at by Cameron for ten minutes once a week. Whatever else he is, he seems to be pretty impervious to vocal hostility. I reckon he can compartmentalise very well.
He looked genuinely shaken today. More than I have seen before.
Maybe he realises he's very close indeed to becoming PM.
If criminal prosecutions materialise from this , I suspect it will be well into next year before the issue comes to trial. Were there to be convictions which triggered 20 by-elections the Government would effectively lose its majority during the period leading up to such elections and would become dependent on the Unionists for survival. Moreover, if we end up with 20 by-elections , I would expect the Government to lose a good half of them - including Thanet South to Farage.
Mighty big if at the start of the sentence there!
Absolutely! Were it to happen Cameron would find himself in a much weaker position than John Major in the 1992 Parliament . It would be a scenario closer to the Callaghan Government post Spring 1977.
With 20 by-elections I'm not sure it wouldn't be such a bad idea to simply dissolve Parliament.
It's a very good question and I'm not too sure there is a good answer.
The problem for the GOP is not the nomination in isolation but finding a credible candidate that might square the circle of nomination and general election.
Rubio might have provided a contest but was found badly wanting too early in the nomination and so was unable to recover, grow and pull through.
Accordingly this time around the most likely answer was "none of the above" which for the GOP is a desperate situation as Clinton was vulnerable but not to the shortlisted crop and certainly not Trump.
Where's the best place to go to bet on final Premier League positions?
Not sure what you're looking for exactly SO, but take a look at the miscellany of markets available at the foot of this page from oddschecker.com and maybe you'll be lucky:
I think strategically Cameron should go in for the kill with Corbyn. Corbyn is not going to lead the Labour party into the next election- so better get him changed sooner rather than later and see the party divide catastrophically.
I actually thought today Corbyn appeared like he rather be anyone else than the HoC. There is no coming back from these kind of cowering, weak, flat footed performances.
Watching the dynamics between Cameron and Corbyn at PMQ's is interesting- it clearly has become a bullying/victim relationship where Cameron is the bully- he shouts, he abuses, he harasses, he taunts, he demeans, he belittles- it seems to come quite naturally to him. Cameron really looks angry and quite threatening in full flow.
This kind of behaviour is not uncommon for PMQ's, but Corbyn's response is unusual- he looks and acts like a classic victim. His whole body language is victim like- almost cowering. You expect Dianne Abbot to jump up and shout at Cameron "Leave the old man alone, he's trying his best.." whilst shepherding Corbyn away. It makes compelling viewing in an unpleasant way.
Should Cameron tone it down? No, I don't think so. You don't let your enemy off the hook when they are down, and Corbyn is most certainly down on the canvass. I doubt Corbyn is going to put himself through this ritual humiliation week in, week out- but Cameron should continue pressing home his advantage.
I haven't seen today's episode yet but the kind of thing you describe, while it might engender some sympathy for Corbyn, won't, I think, make people vote for him. So from that point of view it is probably good business for Cameron.
Cameron can be good with a cruel jibe but can overdo it sometimes but I suppose if it's overwhelming it's about making an impression. Cameron is gone in 2-3 years at most, if people think he's a bit of a bastard but also that Corbyn is weak, that could be worth it in his view as even if Corbyn improves he is working against an initial impression. I haven't watched in a while, he usually seems distracted to me, uncertain, more than anything else.
I am not sure Corbyn really cares that much. He is not that interested in Parliament, never has been. He can take being shouted at by Cameron for ten minutes once a week. Whatever else he is, he seems to be pretty impervious to vocal hostility. I reckon he can compartmentalise very well.
It's a very good question and I'm not too sure there is a good answer.
The problem for the GOP is not the nomination in isolation but finding a credible candidate that might square the circle of nomination and general election.
Rubio might have provided a contest but was found badly wanting too early in the nomination and so was unable to recover, grow and pull through.
Accordingly this time around the most likely answer was "none of the above" which for the GOP is a desperate situation as Clinton was vulnerable but not to the shortlisted crop and certainly not Trump.
I first realised the GOP were in trouble when Scott Walker was touted by many as a serious candidate and, at one point, betting favourite.
Now that Trump has a clear field, the pressure on Bernie Sanders to withdraw is going to intensify massively. He's now unambiguously helping Trump.
He has been for a while. The last week has simply confirmed the inevitable and weakened Hillary. She really did not need to still be losing States at this point and there is a tricky run of primaries coming up which might make it even worse.
It doesn't matter that Clinton is losing the odd state now, she's had the nomination wrapped up from early doors when she built up a fire wall of pledged delegates in the closed primaries and her massive lead in Super Delegates.
This race is over.
It matters to the extent that Clinton has to continue to waste time playing the primary game, and positioning against Bernie to avoid too many embarrassments that might suggest she doesnt have the momentum and make swing voters think again, while Trump is going to tack like crazy for the centre and come over all reasonable as he starts his run for the general immediately.
Clinton is not wasting time at all.
She raising $squillions in these states and already pivoting to the GE and swing states. See my link down thread. Much like Obama in 08.
I'm interested that you think Trump is going "to come over all reasonable" especially given his repeated accusation today about Cruz's father and the JFK assassination. Trump is Trump - he ain't going to change.
Peter- I posted here yesterday that I saw Federer driving to 40's on the betfair exchange for the French. It's closer to 30's now but that still looks value plus.
Couple of points to consider- Federer has a good chance of going in as 2nd seed if Murray slips up at Madrid, and Federer is clearly just targeting the majors now.
Where's the best place to go to bet on final Premier League positions?
Not sure what you're looking for exactly SO, but take a look at the miscellany of markets available at the foot of this page from oddschecker.com and maybe you'll be lucky:
I'm all for us doing our bit, but why have other EU countries let this get so bad. Why has the EU country furthest from all of this got to pick up all the slack?
Because they know we are soft touches. They know they if they sit on their arses and do nothing for a few months the Daily Handwring will jump into gear and all of a sudden their problem will become our problem. We should get the word "sucker" tattooed on our national forehead.
If criminal prosecutions materialise from this , I suspect it will be well into next year before the issue comes to trial. Were there to be convictions which triggered 20 by-elections the Government would effectively lose its majority during the period leading up to such elections and would become dependent on the Unionists for survival. Moreover, if we end up with 20 by-elections , I would expect the Government to lose a good half of them - including Thanet South to Farage.
Mighty big if at the start of the sentence there!
Absolutely! Were it to happen Cameron would find himself in a much weaker position than John Major in the 1992 Parliament . It would be a scenario closer to the Callaghan Government post Spring 1977.
With 20 by-elections I'm not sure it wouldn't be such a bad idea to simply dissolve Parliament.
Not really. It would actually produce a House of Commons very close to what the Exit Poll initially predicted last year - a minority Tory Government.
So? I don't see why matching the exit poll should be viewed as some sort of goal.
If criminal prosecutions materialise from this , I suspect it will be well into next year before the issue comes to trial. Were there to be convictions which triggered 20 by-elections the Government would effectively lose its majority during the period leading up to such elections and would become dependent on the Unionists for survival. Moreover, if we end up with 20 by-elections , I would expect the Government to lose a good half of them - including Thanet South to Farage.
Mighty big if at the start of the sentence there!
Absolutely! Were it to happen Cameron would find himself in a much weaker position than John Major in the 1992 Parliament . It would be a scenario closer to the Callaghan Government post Spring 1977.
With 20 by-elections I'm not sure it wouldn't be such a bad idea to simply dissolve Parliament.
I am not sure Corbyn really cares that much. He is not that interested in Parliament, never has been. He can take being shouted at by Cameron for ten minutes once a week. Whatever else he is, he seems to be pretty impervious to vocal hostility. I reckon he can compartmentalise very well.
It is really bizarre to have a Party Leader who is not interested in leading, let alone winning
He isn't even using his office to raise issues in a meaningful way
JC was elected by, and speaks for, Labour activists, most of whom prefer the purity of Opposition to the compromises of power.
He may be the Leader but in no sense is he a leader. It is quite unfathomable that someone would seek high political office and then utterly waste the opportunity. He seems totally lost
Now that Trump has a clear field, the pressure on Bernie Sanders to withdraw is going to intensify massively. He's now unambiguously helping Trump.
He has been for a while. The last week has simply confirmed the inevitable and weakened Hillary. She really did not need to still be losing States at this point and there is a tricky run of primaries coming up which might make it even worse.
It doesn't matter that Clinton is losing the odd state now, she's had the nomination wrapped up from early doors when she built up a fire wall of pledged delegates in the closed primaries and her massive lead in Super Delegates.
This race is over.
It matters to the extent that Clinton has to continue to waste time playing the primary game, and positioning against Bernie to avoid too many embarrassments that might suggest she doesnt have the momentum and make swing voters think again, while Trump is going to tack like crazy for the centre and come over all reasonable as he starts his run for the general immediately.
Clinton is not wasting time at all.
She raising $squillions in these states and already pivoting to the GE and swing states. See my link down thread. Much like Obama in 08.
I'm interested that you think Trump is going "to come over all reasonable" especially given his repeated accusation today about Cruz's father and the JFK assassination. Trump is Trump - he ain't going to change.
"No police investigation has yet been launched, but the commission says it seems "sensible for the criminal justice agencies to retain the ability to take action should appropriate evidence come to light as part of the commission's own investigation"."
If they are only going to get an extension of a month, would that allow enough time for a police investigation (which hasn't yet even started) to be completed?
It would mean they would have just over two months from today - ie 35 days + one month.
If it did go to Court and the Conservatives lost, what would be the position re appeals etc? Is it something which could then go to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court - which could take a very long time indeed.
Now that Trump has a clear field, the pressure on Bernie Sanders to withdraw is going to intensify massively. He's now unambiguously helping Trump.
He has been for a while. The last week has simply confirmed the inevitable and weakened Hillary. She really did not need to still be losing States at this point and there is a tricky run of primaries coming up which might make it even worse.
It doesn't matter that Clinton is losing the odd state now, she's had the nomination wrapped up from early doors when she built up a fire wall of pledged delegates in the closed primaries and her massive lead in Super Delegates.
This race is over.
It matters to the extent that Clinton has to continue to waste time playing the primary game, and positioning against Bernie to avoid too many embarrassments that might suggest she doesnt have the momentum and make swing voters think again, while Trump is going to tack like crazy for the centre and come over all reasonable as he starts his run for the general immediately.
Clinton is not wasting time at all.
She raising $squillions in these states and already pivoting to the GE and swing states. See my link down thread. Much like Obama in 08.
I'm interested that you think Trump is going "to come over all reasonable" especially given his repeated accusation today about Cruz's father and the JFK assassination. Trump is Trump - he ain't going to change.
I think strategically Cameron should go in for the kill with Corbyn. Corbyn is not going to lead the Labour party into the next election- so better get him changed sooner rather than later and see the party divide catastrophically.
I actually thought today Corbyn appeared like he rather be anyone else than the HoC. There is no coming back from these kind of cowering, weak, flat footed performances.
Watching the dynamics between Cameron and Corbyn at PMQ's is interesting-.. .
I haven't seen today's episode yet but the kind of thing you describe, while it might engender some sympathy for Corbyn, won't, I think, make people vote for him. So from that point of view it is probably good business for Cameron.
Cameron can be good with a cruel jibe but can overdo it sometimes but I suppose if it's overwhelming it's about making an impression. Cameron is gone in 2-3 years at most, if people think he's a bit of a bastard but also that Corbyn is weak, that could be worth it in his view as even if Corbyn improves he is working against an initial impression. I haven't watched in a while, he usually seems distracted to me, uncertain, more than anything else.
I am not sure Corbyn really cares that much. He is not that interested in Parliament, never has been. He can take being shouted at by Cameron for ten minutes once a week. Whatever else he is, he seems to be pretty impervious to vocal hostility. I reckon he can compartmentalise very well.
He looked genuinely shaken today. More than I have seen before.
I've just watched it. I was surprised Corbyn didn't fight back harder (or at all). He never drew attention to the fact that Cameron was brushing aside his questions then asking his own. He just seemed to accept that that was how it worked.
If criminal prosecutions materialise from this , I suspect it will be well into next year before the issue comes to trial. Were there to be convictions which triggered 20 by-elections the Government would effectively lose its majority during the period leading up to such elections and would become dependent on the Unionists for survival. Moreover, if we end up with 20 by-elections , I would expect the Government to lose a good half of them - including Thanet South to Farage.
Mighty big if at the start of the sentence there!
Absolutely! Were it to happen Cameron would find himself in a much weaker position than John Major in the 1992 Parliament . It would be a scenario closer to the Callaghan Government post Spring 1977.
With 20 by-elections I'm not sure it wouldn't be such a bad idea to simply dissolve Parliament.
I think strategically Cameron should go in for the kill with Corbyn. Corbyn is not going to lead the Labour party into the next election- so better get him changed sooner rather than later and see the party divide catastrophically.
I actually thought today Corbyn appeared like he rather be anyone else than the HoC. There is no coming back from these kind of cowering, weak, flat footed performances.
Watching the dynamics between Cameron and Corbyn at PMQ's is interesting-.. .
I haven't seen today's episode yet but the kind of thing you describe, while it might engender some sympathy for Corbyn, won't, I think, make people vote for him. So from that point of view it is probably good business for Cameron.
Cameron can be good with a cruel jibe but can overdo it sometimes but I suppose if it's overwhelming it's about making an impression. Cameron is gone in 2-3 years at most, if people think he's a bit of a bastard but also that Corbyn is weak, that could be worth it in his view as even if Corbyn improves he is working against an initial impression. I haven't watched in a while, he usually seems distracted to me, uncertain, more than anything else.
I am not sure Corbyn really cares that much. He is not that interested in Parliament, never has been. He can take being shouted at by Cameron for ten minutes once a week. Whatever else he is, he seems to be pretty impervious to vocal hostility. I reckon he can compartmentalise very well.
He looked genuinely shaken today. More than I have seen before.
I've just watched it. I was surprised Corbyn didn't fight back harder (or at all). He never drew attention to the fact that Cameron was brushing aside his questions then asking his own. He just seemed to accept that that was how it worked.
It is how it works - every PM I've ever seen does it, it's just a question of how much. Corbyn's not playing his part by arguing the PM is not answering his questions (this is to be done even if the PM does answer the question) is all.
Peter- I posted here yesterday that I saw Federer driving to 40's on the betfair exchange for the French. It's closer to 30's now but that still looks value plus.
Couple of points to consider- Federer has a good chance of going in as 2nd seed if Murray slips up at Madrid, and Federer is clearly just targeting the majors now.
Where's the best place to go to bet on final Premier League positions?
Not sure what you're looking for exactly SO, but take a look at the miscellany of markets available at the foot of this page from oddschecker.com and maybe you'll be lucky:
Cheers, SkyBet gave me exactly what I was after - final league placing odds. I am going to make a fortune out of Tottenham's choke.
You've obviously spotted something I haven't - surely Spurs must finish either 2nd or at worst 3rd?
Thanks Tyson - I really like considering the tennis tips suggested here on PB.com - I just wish we still had the benefit of HenryG's wisdom. Unfortunately he appears to have given up on his tennis tips.
Now that Trump has a clear field, the pressure on Bernie Sanders to withdraw is going to intensify massively. He's now unambiguously helping Trump.
He has been for a while. The last week has simply confirmed the inevitable and weakened Hillary. She really did not need to still be losing States at this point and there is a tricky run of primaries coming up which might make it even worse.
It doesn't matter that Clinton is losing the odd state now, she's had the nomination wrapped up from early doors when she built up a fire wall of pledged delegates in the closed primaries and her massive lead in Super Delegates.
This race is over.
It matters to the extent that Clinton has to continue to waste time playing the primary game, and positioning against Bernie to avoid too many embarrassments that might suggest she doesnt have the momentum and make swing voters think again, while Trump is going to tack like crazy for the centre and come over all reasonable as he starts his run for the general immediately.
Clinton is not wasting time at all.
She raising $squillions in these states and already pivoting to the GE and swing states. See my link down thread. Much like Obama in 08.
I'm interested that you think Trump is going "to come over all reasonable" especially given his repeated accusation today about Cruz's father and the JFK assassination. Trump is Trump - he ain't going to change.
A proper leader would have leapt up and roared back at Dave..Corbyn has not got the cojones for the job..He looked like a schoolkid who was caught smoking behind the bike sheds..time to let the wimp go
Now that Trump has a clear field, the pressure on Bernie Sanders to withdraw is going to intensify massively. He's now unambiguously helping Trump.
He has been for a while. The last week has simply confirmed the inevitable and weakened Hillary. She really did not need to still be losing States at this point and there is a tricky run of primaries coming up which might make it even worse.
It doesn't matter that Clinton is losing the odd state now, she's had the nomination wrapped up from early doors when she built up a fire wall of pledged delegates in the closed primaries and her massive lead in Super Delegates.
This race is over.
It matters to the extent that Clinton has to continue to waste time playing the primary game, and positioning against Bernie to avoid too many embarrassments that might suggest she doesnt have the momentum and make swing voters think again, while Trump is going to tack like crazy for the centre and come over all reasonable as he starts his run for the general immediately.
Clinton is not wasting time at all.
She raising $squillions in these states and already pivoting to the GE and swing states. See my link down thread. Much like Obama in 08.
I'm interested that you think Trump is going "to come over all reasonable" especially given his repeated accusation today about Cruz's father and the JFK assassination. Trump is Trump - he ain't going to change.
I think strategically Cameron should go in for the kill with Corbyn. Corbyn is not going to lead the Labour party into the next election- so better get him changed sooner rather than later and see the party divide catastrophically.
I actually thought today Corbyn appeared like he rather be anyone else than the HoC. There is no coming back from these kind of cowering, weak, flat footed performances.
Watching the dynamics between Cameron and Corbyn at PMQ's is interesting-.. .
I haven't seen today's episode yet but the kind of thing you describe, while it might engender some sympathy for Corbyn, won't, I think, make people vote for him. So from that point of view it is probably good business for Cameron.
Cameron can be good with a cruel jibe but can overdo it sometimes but I suppose if it's overwhelming it's about making an impression. Cameron is gone in 2-3 years at most, if people think he's a bit of a bastard but also that Corbyn is weak, that could be worth it in his view as even if Corbyn improves he is working against an initial impression. I haven't watched in a while, he usually seems distracted to me, uncertain, more than anything else.
I am not sure Corbyn really cares that much. He is not that interested in Parliament, never has been. He can take being shouted at by Cameron for ten minutes once a week. Whatever else he is, he seems to be pretty impervious to vocal hostility. I reckon he can compartmentalise very well.
He looked genuinely shaken today. More than I have seen before.
I've just watched it. I was surprised Corbyn didn't fight back harder (or at all). He never drew attention to the fact that Cameron was brushing aside his questions then asking his own. He just seemed to accept that that was how it worked.
It is how it works - every PM I've ever seen does it, it's just a question of how much. Corbyn's not playing his part by arguing the PM is not answering his questions (this is to be done even if the PM does answer the question) is all.
What usually happens is that the Prime Minister counter-attacks on the subject of the question. What happened today was that Cameron opened up a counter-attack that bore no relation to Corbyn's questions and Corbyn just seemed to accept that.
Peter- I posted here yesterday that I saw Federer driving to 40's on the betfair exchange for the French. It's closer to 30's now but that still looks value plus.
Couple of points to consider- Federer has a good chance of going in as 2nd seed if Murray slips up at Madrid, and Federer is clearly just targeting the majors now.
Where's the best place to go to bet on final Premier League positions?
Not sure what you're looking for exactly SO, but take a look at the miscellany of markets available at the foot of this page from oddschecker.com and maybe you'll be lucky:
Cheers, SkyBet gave me exactly what I was after - final league placing odds. I am going to make a fortune out of Tottenham's choke.
You've obviously spotted something I haven't - surely Spurs must finish either 2nd or at worst 3rd?
Thanks Tyson - I really like considering the tennis tips suggested here on PB.com - I just wish we still had the benefit of HenryG's wisdom. Unfortunately he appears to have given up on his tennis tips.
Now that Trump has a clear field, the pressure on Bernie Sanders to withdraw is going to intensify massively. He's now unambiguously helping Trump.
He has been for a while. The last week has simply confirmed the inevitable and weakened Hillary. She really did not need to still be losing States at this point and there is a tricky run of primaries coming up which might make it even worse.
It doesn't matter that Clinton is losing the odd state now, she's had the nomination wrapped up from early doors when she built up a fire wall of pledged delegates in the closed primaries and her massive lead in Super Delegates.
This race is over.
It matters to the extent that Clinton has to continue to waste time playing the primary game, and positioning against Bernie to avoid too many embarrassments that might suggest she doesnt have the momentum and make swing voters think again, while Trump is going to tack like crazy for the centre and come over all reasonable as he starts his run for the general immediately.
Hillary is the centrist candidate against Sanders anyway
So with Kasich out, Trump in a potential GOP lead of 7 over Clinton becomes a Hillary lead of 13 over Trump. Trump 2016 Cruz 2020, the Hillary dream ticket!
I think strategically Cameron should go in for the kill with Corbyn. Corbyn is not going to lead the Labour party into the next election- so better get him changed sooner rather than later and see the party divide catastrophically.
I actually thought today Corbyn appeared like he rather be anyone else than the HoC. There is no coming back from these kind of cowering, weak, flat footed performances.
Watching the dynamics between Cameron and Corbyn at PMQ's is interesting-.. .
I haven't seen today's episode yet but the kind of thing you describe, while it might engender some sympathy for Corbyn, won't, I think, make people vote for him. So from that point of view it is probably good business for Cameron.
Cameron can be good with a cruel jibe but can overdo it sometimes but I suppose if it's overwhelming it's about making an impression. Cameron is gone in 2-3 years at most, if people think he's a bit of a bastard but also that Corbyn is weak, that could be worth it in his view as even if Corbyn improves he is working against an initial impression. I haven't watched in a while, he usually seems distracted to me, uncertain, more than anything else.
I am not sure Corbyn really cares that much. He is not that interested in Parliament, never has been. He can take being shouted at by Cameron for ten minutes once a week. Whatever else he is, he seems to be pretty impervious to vocal hostility. I reckon he can compartmentalise very well.
He looked genuinely shaken today. More than I have seen before.
I've just watched it. I was surprised Corbyn didn't fight back harder (or at all). He never drew attention to the fact that Cameron was brushing aside his questions then asking his own. He just seemed to accept that that was how it worked.
Corbyn ain't dirty enough.
If Cameron was digging at me over Hamas I'd tell him my so-called Hamas friends living in poverty in Palestine don't have the cash to kill as many people as the governnemt's good friends in Saudi Arabia do.
It's a bit below the belt but hey ho... better than just taking a shoeing over something he said years back.
If criminal prosecutions materialise from this , I suspect it will be well into next year before the issue comes to trial. Were there to be convictions which triggered 20 by-elections the Government would effectively lose its majority during the period leading up to such elections and would become dependent on the Unionists for survival. Moreover, if we end up with 20 by-elections , I would expect the Government to lose a good half of them - including Thanet South to Farage.
Mighty big if at the start of the sentence there!
Just say there was and just say the government either lost their majority as a result or the legitimacy of the Tory win was legally called into question............. Lots of if's I there I do grant you..........
What would then be the legitimacy of any EU referendum irrespective of how it turns out as it was offered by a government that perhaps was shown to be " not legitimate"
That would be quite a large can of worms to say the least.
Where's the best place to go to bet on final Premier League positions?
Not sure what you're looking for exactly SO, but take a look at the miscellany of markets available at the foot of this page from oddschecker.com and maybe you'll be lucky:
Cheers, SkyBet gave me exactly what I was after - final league placing odds. I am going to make a fortune out of Tottenham's choke.
You've obviously spotted something I haven't - surely Spurs must finish either 2nd or at worst 3rd?
Yep, Spurs not being able to finish lower than third is crucial. You can bet the final top three and top four placings, and with Sky bet you get a couple of freebies thrown in. I cannot see Spurs winning again this season without Dembele and Alli in midfield, and both Southampton and Newcastle still with reasons to give it everything. It's too complicated to throw around here, but if I am right about Spurs I think I only lose if City come second - and that looks like a vanishingly small possibility. And if Spurs do prove me wrong, I am a happy man anyway.
If criminal prosecutions materialise from this , I suspect it will be well into next year before the issue comes to trial. Were there to be convictions which triggered 20 by-elections the Government would effectively lose its majority during the period leading up to such elections and would become dependent on the Unionists for survival. Moreover, if we end up with 20 by-elections , I would expect the Government to lose a good half of them - including Thanet South to Farage.
Mighty big if at the start of the sentence there!
Absolutely! Were it to happen Cameron would find himself in a much weaker position than John Major in the 1992 Parliament . It would be a scenario closer to the Callaghan Government post Spring 1977.
With 20 by-elections I'm not sure it wouldn't be such a bad idea to simply dissolve Parliament.
Not really. It would actually produce a House of Commons very close to what the Exit Poll initially predicted last year - a minority Tory Government.
So? I don't see why matching the exit poll should be viewed as some sort of goal.
The point being that such a scenario would not necessarily be unstable. Minority Governments can carry on for quite some time. Why should there be an election - FTPA aside?
If criminal prosecutions materialise from this , I suspect it will be well into next year before the issue comes to trial. Were there to be convictions which triggered 20 by-elections the Government would effectively lose its majority during the period leading up to such elections and would become dependent on the Unionists for survival. Moreover, if we end up with 20 by-elections , I would expect the Government to lose a good half of them - including Thanet South to Farage.
Mighty big if at the start of the sentence there!
Absolutely! Were it to happen Cameron would find himself in a much weaker position than John Major in the 1992 Parliament . It would be a scenario closer to the Callaghan Government post Spring 1977.
With 20 by-elections I'm not sure it wouldn't be such a bad idea to simply dissolve Parliament.
Not really. It would actually produce a House of Commons very close to what the Exit Poll initially predicted last year - a minority Tory Government.
So? I don't see why matching the exit poll should be viewed as some sort of goal.
The point being that such a scenario would not necessarily be unstable. Minority Governments can carry on for quite some time. Why should there be an election - FTPA aside?
Oh, I mean the government might just chose to face a general election than fight 20 by-elections each dominated by stories of fraud etc.
Now that Trump has a clear field, the pressure on Bernie Sanders to withdraw is going to intensify massively. He's now unambiguously helping Trump.
He has been for a while. The last week has simply confirmed the inevitable and weakened Hillary. She really did not need to still be losing States at this point and there is a tricky run of primaries coming up which might make it even worse.
It doesn't matter that Clinton is losing the odd state now, she's had the nomination wrapped up from early doors when she built up a fire wall of pledged delegates in the closed primaries and her massive lead in Super Delegates.
This race is over.
It matters to the extent that Clinton has to continue to waste time playing the primary game, and positioning against Bernie to avoid too many embarrassments that might suggest she doesnt have the momentum and make swing voters think again, while Trump is going to tack like crazy for the centre and come over all reasonable as he starts his run for the general immediately.
Clinton is not wasting time at all.
She raising $squillions in these states and already pivoting to the GE and swing states. See my link down thread. Much like Obama in 08.
I'm interested that you think Trump is going "to come over all reasonable" especially given his repeated accusation today about Cruz's father and the JFK assassination. Trump is Trump - he ain't going to change.
Trump has done what Trump needed to do to see off his Republican rivals.
He now gets to shake the Etch-a-Sketch and start again on Hillary....
Donald Trump is an enigma. He doesn't believe in anything apart from himself. Ironically he is the most careerist politician of them all. But if he was just thinking of electability he would have trimmed his Mr Angry act some time back as pandering to that section of Republicans is of diminishing returns. i really don't understand his gameplan.
Comments
Fairly or not, it now seems like a very good job they did.
I have yet to read the thread comments - maybe my questions have been answered already:
Just suppose the (relevant) elections were re-run because the Conservatives were deemed to have won unfairly. Sure they might lose their majority, but equally they might increase it. Would that be 'fair'?
Or they lose their majority & who becomes PM? Mr Corbyn or Mr Miliband?
Surely, if politics tells us anything you try and pick as your leader the person your enemies fear most.
I thought Christie would have been a good choice
Incidentally, if Kasich were to be Trump's VP pick, surely that would be a single big announcement rather than this one?
Edited to add: Snap!
Finally, a good decision.
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors".
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-swing-states-trump-222772?lo=ap_b1
I actually thought today Corbyn appeared like he rather be anyone else than the HoC. There is no coming back from these kind of cowering, weak, flat footed performances.
It is perfectly possible (indeed sensible!) to be anti-SNP while being pro-Scottish.....
He isn't even using his office to raise issues in a meaningful way
The problem for the GOP is not the nomination in isolation but finding a credible candidate that might square the circle of nomination and general election.
Rubio might have provided a contest but was found badly wanting too early in the nomination and so was unable to recover, grow and pull through.
Accordingly this time around the most likely answer was "none of the above" which for the GOP is a desperate situation as Clinton was vulnerable but not to the shortlisted crop and certainly not Trump.
This race is over.
All kicking off in liaison committee. Bernard Jenkin threatens PM with a writ if he doesn't take down pro-EU govt websites
And also how Zac is going to win the mayoral election.
Where's ya rap, bro?
(OK, so I don't do "urban")
@bbcsoutheast: BREAKING: Senior #Labour figure in #Thanet, Jackie Walker, suspended from party for alleged anti-Semitism. https://t.co/LXc7ymrnXN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_by-elections,_1986
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/trade-union-act-becomes-law
She raising $squillions in these states and already pivoting to the GE and swing states. See my link down thread. Much like Obama in 08.
I'm interested that you think Trump is going "to come over all reasonable" especially given his repeated accusation today about Cruz's father and the JFK assassination. Trump is Trump - he ain't going to change.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/trump-ted-cruz-dad-jfk-222784
Couple of points to consider- Federer has a good chance of going in as 2nd seed if Murray slips up at Madrid, and Federer is clearly just targeting the majors now.
He now gets to shake the Etch-a-Sketch and start again on Hillary....
"No police investigation has yet been launched, but the commission says it seems "sensible for the criminal justice agencies to retain the ability to take action should appropriate evidence come to light as part of the commission's own investigation"."
If they are only going to get an extension of a month, would that allow enough time for a police investigation (which hasn't yet even started) to be completed?
It would mean they would have just over two months from today - ie 35 days + one month.
If it did go to Court and the Conservatives lost, what would be the position re appeals etc? Is it something which could then go to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court - which could take a very long time indeed.
Clinton 60 .. Sanders 32
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/d689fc25-56ed-482b-bbb8-edbd9e49a6e2.pdf
If Cameron was digging at me over Hamas I'd tell him my so-called Hamas friends living in poverty in Palestine don't have the cash to kill as many people as the governnemt's good friends in Saudi Arabia do.
It's a bit below the belt but hey ho... better than just taking a shoeing over something he said years back.
What would then be the legitimacy of any EU referendum irrespective of how it turns out as it was offered by a government that perhaps was shown to be " not legitimate"
That would be quite a large can of worms to say the least.