A serial entrepreneur friend of mine from 'oop North, who's built several successful tech companies in London, decided that for his next business, he'd create it in Manchester (near to his Cheshire pile).
He thought recruiting techies in Manchester (albeit with some mildly esoteric skill sets) would be cheaper than London. The reality was that there was a much smaller skills pool, and that he's really struggled to man his firm. The salaries he's paying are actually higher than London, because most 22 year computer science graduates head for the excitement of London and Silicon Roundabout.
(Given how much cheaper it is to live in Manchester than Shoreditch, this may sound absurd. But the reality is that the incredible cycle of creation and destruction of small tech companies in London means that young tech people are never unemployed for long. Joining a start-up in Manchester carries greater risks than joining one in London.)
Previous company I worked for was a outsourcing/consulting business based in Newcastle and Edinburgh, was able to hire software developers far below London rates then charge out to London investmemt banks.
Your friend should have based in Glasgow/Edinburgh , huge number of university computing graduates from top computing universities to pull from.
Manchester is a big university city too, Manchester Uni, UMIST, Man Met and probably the most vibrant city in the north, it is just that London is 20 times the size and only challenged by New York as the global capital
No such thing as UMIST these days, it merged into Manchester Uni.
Trump: "Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics. Hillary was an enabler. Some of those women were destroyed, not by him, but by the way she treated them after it went down."
If that's just the opening salvo in the War on Hillary, then we're in for an epic political gore fest.
Trump: "Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics. Hillary was an enabler. Some of those women were destroyed, not by him, but by the way she treated them after it went down."
More Republican grandees will look for the exit door ! Trump will only win WV.
A serial entrepreneur friend of mine from 'oop North, who's built several successful tech companies in London, decided that for his next business, he'd create it in Manchester (near to his Cheshire pile).
He thought recruiting techies in Manchester (albeit with some mildly esoteric skill sets) would be cheaper than London. The reality was that there was a much smaller skills pool, and that he's really struggled to man his firm. The salaries he's paying are actually higher than London, because most 22 year computer science graduates head for the excitement of London and Silicon Roundabout.
(Given how much cheaper it is to live in Manchester than Shoreditch, this may sound absurd. But the reality is that the incredible cycle of creation and destruction of small tech companies in London means that young tech people are never unemployed for long. Joining a start-up in Manchester carries greater risks than joining one in London.)
Previous company I worked for was a outsourcing/consulting business based in Newcastle and Edinburgh, was able to hire software developers far below London rates then charge out to London investmemt banks.
Your friend should have based in Glasgow/Edinburgh , huge number of university computing graduates from top computing universities to pull from.
Manchester is a big university city too, Manchester Uni, UMIST, Man Met and probably the most vibrant city in the north, it is just that London is 20 times the size and only challenged by New York as the global capital
You haven't been to Manchester recently have you? UMIST merged into the University of Manchester over a decade ago.
A serial entrepreneur friend of mine from 'oop North, who's built several successful tech companies in London, decided that for his next business, he'd create it in Manchester (near to his Cheshire pile).
He thought recruiting techies in Manchester (albeit with some mildly esoteric skill sets) would be cheaper than London. The reality was that there was a much smaller skills pool, and that he's really struggled to man his firm. The salaries he's paying are actually higher than London, because most 22 year computer science graduates head for the excitement of London and Silicon Roundabout.
(Given how much cheaper it is to live in Manchester than Shoreditch, this may sound absurd. But the reality is that the incredible cycle of creation and destruction of small tech companies in London means that young tech people are never unemployed for long. Joining a start-up in Manchester carries greater risks than joining one in London.)
Previous company I worked for was a outsourcing/consulting business based in Newcastle and Edinburgh, was able to hire software developers far below London rates then charge out to London investmemt banks.
Your friend should have based in Glasgow/Edinburgh , huge number of university computing graduates from top computing universities to pull from.
Manchester is a big university city too, Manchester Uni, UMIST, Man Met and probably the most vibrant city in the north, it is just that London is 20 times the size and only challenged by New York as the global capital
You haven't been to Manchester recently have you? UMIST merged with the University of Manchester over a decade ago.
Edit: Mr Urquhart beat me to it.
I was in Manchester last year and while presently working in London there is a possibility we could be based up there from 2019 but I don't think that really changes the point much, if its scientific and technological research now comes under the banner of Manchester Uni, of course many of the London colleges come under the banner of the University of London
I've not seen the Rallings & Thrasher projections yet.
A straw in the wind for CON minority in 2020 perhaps. But very early days of course
Academics say the numbers are very good for Tories.
No they don't. There has been a 2% swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle, which suggests Tory minority.
Figures I have seen quoted from academic modelling are predicted 39/30 & 37/30 for 2020 and 92% Tories to win.
Indeed - there is an extremely high probability Tories will get most votes in 2020, but, as 2010 showed, that is not necessarily the same as getting a majority.
If there was a swing to Labour in 2016 as compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 as compared to 2015. And any swing to Labour no matter how small most likely means no Tory majority.
39/30 or 37/30 is tory majority...which are the two sets of figures released by two different academic models. But as I say in other post, lots of flux & uncertainty with change of leader(s) & high potential for choppy economy.
I am going to wait and see at least 12 months before even starting to think about my betting positions for 2020. At the moment there is no real signs corbynism is sweeping the nation, but a long way to go.
A lot depends on the Lib Dem vote. Remember the Tories won in 2015 not because there was a swing from Labour to Tory. But the LD vote collapsed.
There was a Lab to Tory swing where it mattered.
Had Labour not lost any seats to the Tories, the Tories wouldn't have a majority.
Wrong ! There was a net swing of 2 from Con to Lab. [ OK - not enough ]. But that did not win the election for the Tories.
It was the 27 gains the Tories made from the Lib Dems.
Some welcome changes in drug policy perhaps.Nicola Sturgeon has said she will decriminalise cannabis for medical purposes ie prescribed by a medical practitioner.I hope the other Scottish parties hold her to her word.The government legislation on New Psycho Active Substances has hit the rocks as all evidence points to prohibition not working.The Lib Dems,to their credit,are sticking to their guns on evidence-based legal regulation,Poland,Germany and Australia now have legal medical cannabis,in the USA the states are falling down like ninepins,Canada under Trudeau is going for a fully legally regulated system.The world is changing and the UK is lagging behind.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
I've not seen the Rallings & Thrasher projections yet.
A straw in the wind for CON minority in 2020 perhaps. But very early days of course
Academics say the numbers are very good for Tories.
No they don't. There has been a 2% swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle, which suggests Tory minority.
Figures I have seen quoted from academic modelling are predicted 39/30 & 37/30 for 2020 and 92% Tories to win.
Indeed - there is an extremely high probability Tories will get most votes in 2020, but, as 2010 showed, that is not necessarily the same as getting a majority.
If there was a swing to Labour in 2016 as compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 as compared to 2015. And any swing to Labour no matter how small most likely means no Tory majority.
39/30 or 37/30 is tory majority...which are the two sets of figures released by two different academic models. But as I say in other post, lots of flux & uncertainty with change of leader(s) & high potential for choppy economy.
I am going to wait and see at least 12 months before even starting to think about my betting positions for 2020. At the moment there is no real signs corbynism is sweeping the nation, but a long way to go.
A lot depends on the Lib Dem vote. Remember the Tories won in 2015 not because there was a swing from Labour to Tory. But the LD vote collapsed.
There was a Lab to Tory swing where it mattered.
Had Labour not lost any seats to the Tories, the Tories wouldn't have a majority.
Wrong ! There was a net swing of 2 from Con to Lab. [ OK - not enough ]. But that did not win the election for the Tories.
It was the 27 gains the Tories made from the Lib Dems.
Labour lost 8 seats to the Tories, had they retained those seats, the Tories wouldn't have a majority.
Mind you when you consider the average house price is £162,814 and in London it is now £556,350 graduates can get far more bang for their buck in Manchester while in London a majority now rent
Trump: "Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics. Hillary was an enabler. Some of those women were destroyed, not by him, but by the way she treated them after it went down."
It's true he was a serial abuser, and it's also true that some of the women's lives were destroyed by Hillary going after them, so hardly Trumpian hyperbole in this case.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Trump: "Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics. Hillary was an enabler. Some of those women were destroyed, not by him, but by the way she treated them after it went down."
It's true he was a serial abuser, and it's also true that some of the women's lives were destroyed by Hillary going after them, so hardly Trumpian hyperbole in this case.
I've not seen the Rallings & Thrasher projections yet.
A straw in the wind for CON minority in 2020 perhaps. But very early days of course
Academics say the numbers are very good for Tories.
No they don't. There has been a 2% swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle, which suggests Tory minority.
Figures I have seen quoted from academic modelling are predicted 39/30 & 37/30 for 2020 and 92% Tories to win.
Indeed - there is an extremely high probability Tories will get most votes in 2020, but, as 2010 showed, that is not necessarily the same as getting a majority.
If there was a swing to Labour in 2016 as compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 as compared to 2015. And any swing to Labour no matter how small most likely means no Tory majority.
39/30 or 37/30 is tory majority...which are the two sets of figures released by two different academic models. But as I say in other post, lots of flux & uncertainty with change of leader(s) & high potential for choppy economy.
I am going to wait and see at least 12 months before even starting to think about my betting positions for 2020. At the moment there is no real signs corbynism is sweeping the nation, but a long way to go.
A lot depends on the Lib Dem vote. Remember the Tories won in 2015 not because there was a swing from Labour to Tory. But the LD vote collapsed.
There was a Lab to Tory swing where it mattered.
Had Labour not lost any seats to the Tories, the Tories wouldn't have a majority.
Wrong ! There was a net swing of 2 from Con to Lab. [ OK - not enough ]. But that did not win the election for the Tories.
It was the 27 gains the Tories made from the Lib Dems.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
A serial entrepreneur friend of mine from 'oop North, who's built several successful tech companies in London, decided that for his next business, he'd create it in Manchester (near to his Cheshire pile).
He thought recruiting techies in Manchester (albeit with some mildly esoteric skill sets) would be cheaper than London. The reality was that there was a much smaller skills pool, and that he's really struggled to man his firm. The salaries he's paying are actually higher than London, because most 22 year computer science graduates head for the excitement of London and Silicon Roundabout.
(Given how much cheaper it is to live in Manchester than Shoreditch, this may sound absurd. But the reality is that the incredible cycle of creation and destruction of small tech companies in London means that young tech people are never unemployed for long. Joining a start-up in Manchester carries greater risks than joining one in London.)
Previous company I worked for was a outsourcing/consulting business based in Newcastle and Edinburgh, was able to hire software developers far below London rates then charge out to London investmemt banks.
Your friend should have based in Glasgow/Edinburgh , huge number of university computing graduates from top computing universities to pull from.
Manchester is a big university city too, Manchester Uni, UMIST, Man Met and probably the most vibrant city in the north, it is just that London is 20 times the size and only challenged by New York as the global capital
You haven't been to Manchester recently have you? UMIST merged with the University of Manchester over a decade ago.
Edit: Mr Urquhart beat me to it.
I was in Manchester last year and while presently working in London there is a possibility we could be based up there from 2019 but I don't think that really changes the point much, if its scientific and technological research now comes under the banner of Manchester Uni, of course many of the London colleges come under the banner of the University of London
People don't say that they went to UoL, they went to x college, London. Imperial is no longer part of UoL either. That's not the same with Manchester where it's one university. You might accept, just once, that you're wrong.
I replied to you at some lenght at the fag end of the last thread. Unfortunately I am typing on the phone in the semi gloom of the Gibraltar Darts Trophy and I can't see how to FPT it on to this thread. So if you are still interested in an answer it's back that way <----</p>
Geoff - just seen this.
Many thanks for your very open and candid response FPT; I understand entirely, and it's very much appreciated.
If The Donald does become POTUS we'll certainly have a LOT of fun in the next four years!
Yes - I must say it's hokum but it's quite engaging hokum - some of the techniques of stand-up comedy turned to political use. I still think he'd be a completely random President, but as you say he'd be fun too.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
The first time I noticed Sadiq Khan was his victory speech in Tooting at the 2010 election. That, too, was extroadinarily graceless. I think (I may be misremembering) that the main theme of that too was that his opponents were all racists.
A serial entrepreneur friend of mine from 'oop North, who's built several successful tech companies in London, decided that for his next business, he'd create it in Manchester (near to his Cheshire pile).
He thought recruiting techies in Manchester (albeit with some mildly esoteric skill sets) would be cheaper than London. The reality was that there was a much smaller skills pool, and that he's really struggled to man his firm. The salaries he's paying are actually higher than London, because most 22 year computer science graduates head for the excitement of London and Silicon Roundabout.
(Given how much cheaper it is to live in Manchester than Shoreditch, this may sound absurd. But the reality is that the incredible cycle of creation and destruction of small tech companies in London means that young tech people are never unemployed for long. Joining a start-up in Manchester carries greater risks than joining one in London.)
Previous company I worked for was a outsourcing/consulting business based in Newcastle and Edinburgh, was able to hire software developers far below London rates then charge out to London investmemt banks.
Your friend should have based in Glasgow/Edinburgh , huge number of university computing graduates from top computing universities to pull from.
Manchester is a big university city too, Manchester Uni, UMIST, Man Met and probably the most vibrant city in the north, it is just that London is 20 times the size and only challenged by New York as the global capital
You haven't been to Manchester recently have you? UMIST merged with the University of Manchester over a decade ago.
Edit: Mr Urquhart beat me to it.
I was in Manchester last year and while presently working in London there is a possibility we could be based up there from 2019 but I don't think that really changes the point much, if its scientific and technological research now comes under the banner of Manchester Uni, of course many of the London colleges come under the banner of the University of London
Not to get into a big argument, but you are wrong. Not only did UMIST merge, they have (or will have soon) deposed of all the old UMIST campus. UMIST, facilities, etc doesn't exist physically in any way anymore.
I've not seen the Rallings & Thrasher projections yet.
A straw in the wind for CON minority in 2020 perhaps. But very early days of course
Academics say the numbers are very good for Tories.
No they don't. There has been a 2% swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle, which suggests Tory minority.
Figures I have seen quoted from academic modelling are predicted 39/30 & 37/30 for 2020 and 92% Tories to win.
Indeed - there is an extremely high probability Tories will get most votes in 2020, but, as 2010 showed, that is not necessarily the same as getting a majority.
If there was a swing to Labour in 2016 as compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 as compared to 2015. And any swing to Labour no matter how small most likely means no Tory majority.
39/30 or 37/30 is tory majority...which are the two sets of figures released by two different academic models. But as I say in other post, lots of flux & uncertainty with change of leader(s) & high potential for choppy economy.
I am going to wait and see at least 12 months before even starting to think about my betting positions for 2020. At the moment there is no real signs corbynism is sweeping the nation, but a long way to go.
A lot depends on the Lib Dem vote. Remember the Tories won in 2015 not because there was a swing from Labour to Tory. But the LD vote collapsed.
There was a Lab to Tory swing where it mattered.
Had Labour not lost any seats to the Tories, the Tories wouldn't have a majority.
Wrong ! There was a net swing of 2 from Con to Lab. [ OK - not enough ]. But that did not win the election for the Tories.
It was the 27 gains the Tories made from the Lib Dems.
Labour lost 8 seats to the Tories, had they retained those seats, the Tories wouldn't have a majority.
You are both right.
OTOH, if Labour had failed to pick up any seats from the Tories, they would now have 341 MPs and a majority of 32.
I've not seen the Rallings & Thrasher projections yet.
A straw in the wind for CON minority in 2020 perhaps. But very early days of course
Academics say the numbers are very good for Tories.
No they don't. There has been a 2% swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle, which suggests Tory minority.
Figures I have seen quoted from academic modelling are predicted 39/30 & 37/30 for 2020 and 92% Tories to win.
Indeed - there is an extremely high probability Tories will get most votes in 2020, but, as 2010 showed, that is not necessarily the same as getting a majority.
If there was a swing to Labour in 2016 as compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 as compared to 2015. And any swing to Labour no matter how small most likely means no Tory majority.
39/30 or 37/30 is tory majority...which are the two sets of figures released by two different academic models. But as I say in other post, lots of flux & uncertainty with change of leader(s) & high potential for choppy economy.
I am going to wait and see at least 12 months before even starting to think about my betting positions for 2020. At the moment there is no real signs corbynism is sweeping the nation, but a long way to go.
A lot depends on the Lib Dem vote. Remember the Tories won in 2015 not because there was a swing from Labour to Tory. But the LD vote collapsed.
There was a Lab to Tory swing where it mattered.
Had Labour not lost any seats to the Tories, the Tories wouldn't have a majority.
Wrong ! There was a net swing of 2 from Con to Lab. [ OK - not enough ]. But that did not win the election for the Tories.
It was the 27 gains the Tories made from the Lib Dems.
No, It was a swing of 0.3%
Con 36.9 (+0.8%) Lab 30.4 (+1.4%)
1.4-0.8 = 0.6 0.6/2 = 0.3%
2 seats - not %. It was still the 27 seats won from the LDs that gave the Tories their majority.
Virtually all opinion polls in April bar two [ both YouGov ] showed narrow to comfortable leads for the Tories.
Yet the NEV on 5th May gives a 1% Labour lead in GB and possibly 2% in England.
Those polls measure voting intention in a general election, not voting intention in local elections.
By way of comparison, the Conservatives led Labour in the local elections of 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, at a time when Labour was mostly ahead in the polls.
I've not seen the Rallings & Thrasher projections yet.
A straw in the wind for CON minority in 2020 perhaps. But very early days of course
Academics say the numbers are very good for Tories.
No they don't. There has been a 2% swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle, which suggests Tory minority.
Figures I have seen quoted from academic modelling are predicted 39/30 & 37/30 for 2020 and 92% Tories to win.
Indeed - there is an extremely high probability Tories will get most votes in 2020, but, as 2010 showed, that is not necessarily the same as getting a majority.
If there was a swing to Labour in 2016 as compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 as compared to 2015. And any swing to Labour no matter how small most likely means no Tory majority.
39/30 or 37/30 is tory majority...which are the two sets of figures released by two different academic models. But as I say in other post, lots of flux & uncertainty with change of leader(s) & high potential for choppy economy.
I am going to wait and see at least 12 months before even starting to think about my betting positions for 2020. At the moment there is no real signs corbynism is sweeping the nation, but a long way to go.
A lot depends on the Lib Dem vote. Remember the Tories won in 2015 not because there was a swing from Labour to Tory. But the LD vote collapsed.
There was a Lab to Tory swing where it mattered.
Had Labour not lost any seats to the Tories, the Tories wouldn't have a majority.
Wrong ! There was a net swing of 2 from Con to Lab. [ OK - not enough ]. But that did not win the election for the Tories.
It was the 27 gains the Tories made from the Lib Dems.
You do not understand his point - in key Lab/tory marginals there was a swing to the cons - and judging by Dudley it is still there. suck it up.
Trump: "Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics. Hillary was an enabler. Some of those women were destroyed, not by him, but by the way she treated them after it went down."
Trump seems to be going for the coveted Jimmy Hoffa Jr. endorsement:
I've not seen the Rallings & Thrasher projections yet.
A straw in the wind for CON minority in 2020 perhaps. But very early days of course
Academics say the numbers are very good for Tories.
No they don't. There has been a 2% swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle, which suggests Tory minority.
Figures I have seen quoted from academic modelling are predicted 39/30 & 37/30 for 2020 and 92% Tories to win.
Indeed - there is an extremely high probability Tories will get most votes in 2020, but, as 2010 showed, that is not necessarily the same as getting a majority.
If there was a swing to Labour in 2016 as compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 as compared to 2015. And any swing to Labour no matter how small most likely means no Tory majority.
39/30 or 37/30 is tory majority...which are the two sets of figures released by two different academic models. But as I say in other post, lots of flux & uncertainty with change of leader(s) & high potential for choppy economy.
I am going to wait and see at least 12 months before even starting to think about my betting positions for 2020. At the moment there is no real signs corbynism is sweeping the nation, but a long way to go.
A lot depends on the Lib Dem vote. Remember the Tories won in 2015 not because there was a swing from Labour to Tory. But the LD vote collapsed.
There was a Lab to Tory swing where it mattered.
Had Labour not lost any seats to the Tories, the Tories wouldn't have a majority.
Wrong ! There was a net swing of 2 from Con to Lab. [ OK - not enough ]. But that did not win the election for the Tories.
It was the 27 gains the Tories made from the Lib Dems.
There was a swing to the Conservatives from Labour in marginal seats.
A serial entrepreneur friend of mine from 'oop North, who's built several successful tech companies in London, decided that for his next business, he'd create it in Manchester (near to his Cheshire pile).
He thought recruiting techies in Manchester (albeit with some mildly esoteric skill sets) would be cheaper than London. The reality was that there was a much smaller skills pool, and that he's really struggled to man his firm. The salaries he's paying are actually higher than London, because most 22 year computer science graduates head for the excitement of London and Silicon Roundabout.
(Given how much cheaper it is to live in Manchester than Shoreditch, this may sound absurd. But the reality is that the incredible cycle of creation and destruction of small tech companies in London means that young tech people are never unemployed for long. Joining a start-up in Manchester carries greater risks than joining one in London.)
Previous company I worked for was a outsourcing/consulting business based in Newcastle and Edinburgh, was able to hire software developers far below London rates then charge out to London investmemt banks.
Your friend should have based in Glasgow/Edinburgh , huge number of university computing graduates from top computing universities to pull from.
Manchester is a big university city too, Manchester Uni, UMIST, Man Met and probably the most vibrant city in the north, it is just that London is 20 times the size and only challenged by New York as the global capital
You haven't been to Manchester recently have you? UMIST merged with the University of Manchester over a decade ago.
Edit: Mr Urquhart beat me to it.
I was in Manchester last year and while presently working in London there is a possibility we couln
Not to get into a big argument, but you are wrong. Not only did UMIST merge, they have (or will have soon) deposed of all the old UMIST campus. UMIST, facilities, etc doesn't exist physically in any way anymore.
Which is totally different to the UoL setup.
The UMIST academia and staff have presumably moved to Manchester Uni though but I too do not really want to get into an argument on this as it is a distraction from the main point ie Manchester is a significant university city, just not in the same global league as London (which has 6 universities in the global top 100 to Manchester's 1)
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
A serial entrepreneur friend of mine from 'oop North, who's built several successful tech companies in London, decided that for his next business, he'd create it in Manchester (near to his Cheshire pile).
He thought recruiting techies in Manchester (albeit with some mildly esoteric skill sets) would be cheaper than London. The reality was that there was a much smaller skills pool, and that he's really struggled to man his firm. The salaries he's paying are actually higher than London, because most 22 year computer science graduates head for the excitement of London and Silicon Roundabout.
(Given how much cheaper it is to live in Manchester than Shoreditch, this may sound absurd. But the reality is that the incredible cycle of creation and destruction of small tech companies in London means that young tech people are never unemployed for long. Joining a start-up in Manchester carries greater risks than joining one in London.)
Previous company I worked for was a outsourcing/consulting business based in Newcastle and Edinburgh, was able to hire software developers far below London rates then charge out to London investmemt banks.
Your friend should have based in Glasgow/Edinburgh , huge number of university computing graduates from top computing universities to pull from.
Manchester is a big university city too, Manchester Uni, UMIST, Man Met and probably the most vibrant city in the north, it is just that London is 20 times the size and only challenged by New York as the global capital
You haven't been to Manchester recently have you? UMIST merged with the University of Manchester over a decade ago.
Edit: Mr Urquhart beat me to it.
I was in Manchester last year and while presently working in London there is a possibility we could be based up there from 2019 but I don't think that really changes the point much, if its scientific and technological research now comes under the banner of Manchester Uni, of course many of the London colleges come under the banner of the University of London
People don't say that they went to UoL, they went to x college, London. Imperial is no longer part of UoL either. That's not the same with Manchester where it's one university. You might accept, just once, that you're wrong.
KCL, UCL, SOAS, Queen Mary, Royal Holloway are all still part of the University of London
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
I've not seen the Rallings & Thrasher projections yet.
A straw in the wind for CON minority in 2020 perhaps. But very early days of course
Academics say the numbers are very good for Tories.
No they don't. There has been a 2% swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle, which suggests Tory minority.
Figures I have seen quoted from academic modelling are predicted 39/30 & 37/30 for 2020 and 92% Tories to win.
Indeed - there is an extremely high probability Tories will get most votes in 2020, but, as 2010 showed, that is not necessarily the same as getting a majority.
If there was a swing to Labour in 2016 as compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 as compared to 2015. And any swing to Labour no matter how small most likely means no Tory majority.
39/30 or 37/30 is tory majority...which are the two sets of figures released by two different academic models. But as I say in other post, lots of flux & uncertainty with change of leader(s) & high potential for choppy economy.
I am going to wait and see at least 12 months before even starting to think about my betting positions for 2020. At the moment there is no real signs corbynism is sweeping the nation, but a long way to go.
A lot depends on the Lib Dem vote. Remember the Tories won in 2015 not because there was a swing from Labour to Tory. But the LD vote collapsed.
There was a Lab to Tory swing where it mattered.
Had Labour not lost any seats to the Tories, the Tories wouldn't have a majority.
Wrong ! There was a net swing of 2 from Con to Lab. [ OK - not enough ]. But that did not win the election for the Tories.
It was the 27 gains the Tories made from the Lib Dems.
No, It was a swing of 0.3%
Con 36.9 (+0.8%) Lab 30.4 (+1.4%)
1.4-0.8 = 0.6 0.6/2 = 0.3%
2 seats - not %. It was still the 27 seats won from the LDs that gave the Tories their majority.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
The first time I noticed Sadiq Khan was his victory speech in Tooting at the 2010 election. That, too, was extroadinarily graceless. I think (I may be misremembering) that the main theme of that too was that his opponents were all racists.
I too remember the menacing atmosphere with endless chants of " Yes we Khan ".
On PR (if we really must open up that chat again), and I'm coming round to the idea, I'd be open to an Open List PR system based on both major metropolitan areas and cities, and historical counties and/or major boroughs.
So, for example, most English counties would have 10-20 MPs. But I'd expect them to work together nationally once elected to represent all of it.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
The first time I noticed Sadiq Khan was his victory speech in Tooting at the 2010 election. That, too, was extroadinarily graceless. I think (I may be misremembering) that the main theme of that too was that his opponents were all racists.
I too remember the menacing atmosphere with endless chants of " Yes we Khan ".
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
I’ve just placed £10 on Cruz at 1000/1. If anything happens to Trump before Cleveland then Cruz would seem best placed to step into the breach. 1000/1 seems massive to me.
There's another £123 available to back Cruz at 1000/1 if anyone is tempted?
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
I've not seen the Rallings & Thrasher projections yet.
A straw in the wind for CON minority in 2020 perhaps. But very early days of course
Academics say the numbers are very good for Tories.
No they don't. There has been a 2% swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle, which suggests Tory minority.
Figures I have seen quoted from academic modelling are predicted 39/30 & 37/30 for 2020 and 92% Tories to win.
.
39/30 or 37/30 is tory majority...which are the two sets of figures released by two different academic models. But as I say in other post, lots of flux & uncertainty with change of leader(s) & high potential for choppy economy.
I am going to wait and see at least 12 months before even starting to think about my betting positions for 2020. At the moment there is no real signs corbynism is sweeping the nation, but a long way to go.
A lot depends on the Lib Dem vote. Remember the Tories won in 2015 not because there was a swing from Labour to Tory. But the LD vote collapsed.
There was a Lab to Tory swing where it mattered.
Had Labour not lost any seats to the Tories, the Tories wouldn't have a majority.
Wrong ! There was a net swing of 2 from Con to Lab. [ OK - not enough ]. But that did not win the election for the Tories.
It was the 27 gains the Tories made from the Lib Dems.
No, It was a swing of 0.3%
Con 36.9 (+0.8%) Lab 30.4 (+1.4%)
1.4-0.8 = 0.6 0.6/2 = 0.3%
2 seats - not %. It was still the 27 seats won from the LDs that gave the Tories their majority.
Which 2 seats??
"Net" two seats cannot be answered by which two seats. I am not sure why you are being so pedantic. I think it was 6 won and 4 lost or something like that.
Labour had 258 seats. 40 were lost to the SNP. Labour won 12 from the LD's and 2 from the Tories.
A serial entrepreneur friend of mine from 'oop North, who's built several successful tech companies in London, decided that for his next business, he'd create it in Manchester (near to his Cheshire pile).
He thought recruiting techies in Manchester (albeit with some mildly esoteric skill sets) would be cheaper than London. The reality was that there was a much smaller skills pool, and that he's really struggled to man his firm. The salaries he's paying are actually higher than London, because most 22 year computer science graduates head for the excitement of London and Silicon Roundabout.
(Given how much cheaper it is to live in Manchester than Shoreditch, this may sound absurd. But the reality is that the incredible cycle of creation and destruction of small tech companies in London means that young tech people are never unemployed for long. Joining a start-up in Manchester carries greater risks than joining one in London.)
I can believe this. My first job out when I graduated from degree #1, I was paid way over the odds for that exact reason. Was based in a lovely part of the country, but deadly dull and they really struggled to get excitable 22 year olds to join the start up. Ultimately, the company failed and I think this inability to convince enough really bright minds was a significant factor as although the initial product was good, it needs talented and motivated people to really drive it on (and there weren't enough of them).
Isn't that what Ken Arrow got his Nobel Prize in Economics for?
Trump: "Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics. Hillary was an enabler. Some of those women were destroyed, not by him, but by the way she treated them after it went down."
It's true he was a serial abuser, and it's also true that some of the women's lives were destroyed by Hillary going after them, so hardly Trumpian hyperbole in this case.
He is, in some respects, the Teflon Don. He seems able to sling mud that sticks and not be at all adversely affected by the ricochets. Indeed, within the GOP primary, the more mud, and the more rank it was, that he flung, the more his vote share went up.
I don't see that happening in November, but there will still be an element of his mud slinging helping build a substantial base of support even while it drives others away.
I've not seen the Rallings & Thrasher projections yet.
A straw in the wind for CON minority in 2020 perhaps. But very early days of course
Academics say the numbers are very good for Tories.
No they don't. There has been a 2% swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle, which suggests Tory minority.
Figures I have seen quoted from academic modelling are predicted 39/30 & 37/30 for 2020 and 92% Tories to win.
Indeed - there is an extremely high probability Tories will get most votes in 2020, but, as 2010 showed, that is not necessarily the same as getting a majority.
If there was a swing to Labour in 2016 as compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 as compared to 2015. And any swing to Labour no matter how small most likely means no Tory majority.
39/30 or 37/30 is tory majority...which are the two sets of figures released by two different academic models. But as I say in other post, lots of flux & uncertainty with change of leader(s) & high potential for choppy economy.
I am going to wait and see at least 12 months before even starting to think about my betting positions for 2020. At the moment there is no real signs corbynism is sweeping the nation, but a long way to go.
A lot depends on the Lib Dem vote. Remember the Tories won in 2015 not because there was a swing from Labour to Tory. But the LD vote collapsed.
There was a Lab to Tory swing where it mattered.
Had Labour not lost any seats to the Tories, the Tories wouldn't have a majority.
Wrong ! There was a net swing of 2 from Con to Lab. [ OK - not enough ]. But that did not win the election for the Tories.
It was the 27 gains the Tories made from the Lib Dems.
There was a swing to the Conservatives from Labour in marginal seats.
That didn't stop Labour making a gain of two seats net.
Plenty to chew over from Thursday's contests though how much of a guide they will be to 2020 will probably be more evident in 2020 (as it were).
First, commiserations to John O - if I learned anything in my politically active days, it was you often had to take the rough with the jagged and how individuals dealt with defeat was often far more informative than how they dealt with victory.
Reflecting on London, delighted Elaine Bagshaw got over the 5% barrier in City and East - the tiniest of successes but going forward is infinitely better than going backward.
Looking at the Mayoral result - 538,490 first preference votes didn't go to either Sadiq Khan or Zac Goldsmith. Of these, 246,286 or 46% voted for either Khan or Goldsmith as their second preference. Beyond that, of the 2.2 million second preferences, Sian Berry got the most, followed by Sadiq Khan and Caroline Pidgeon third.
Of the 246,486 second preferences, Sadiq Khan got 65% - the Labour candidate has always won more second preferences but Boris kept the lead to 55-45. Goldsmith lost heavily on these second preferences which formed 12% of the total votes cast turning a 9 point deficit on first preferences into a 14-point hole on all votes.
On the Assembly votes, it was incredibly close for the final two places:
Nicky Gavron (Labour) 87,900 - ELECTED David Kurten (UKIP) 85.535 - ELECTED Susan Hall (Conservative) 84,914 Emily Davey (Lib Dem) 82,790 Murad Qureshi (Labour) 81,139
With 2.6 million votes cast, less than 7,000 votes separated the five candidates fighting for the last two places.
Labour did very well though I thought they would win Havering & Redbridge and miss Merton & Wandsworth and missed the former by less than 1%. The Conservatives missed a ninth GLA seat by a few hundred. Given the next Mayoral election will (perhaps) be on General Election day in 2020, it might be very different next time.
If The Donald does become POTUS we'll certainly have a LOT of fun in the next four years!
Yes - I must say it's hokum but it's quite engaging hokum - some of the techniques of stand-up comedy turned to political use. I still think he'd be a completely random President, but as you say he'd be fun too.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
I am not so sure, Zac was doing better in the polls last year when he had a more positive message, Khan was both able to fend off attacks on him while making Zac's campaign look negative while Zac's campaign did nothing to promote Zac when Khan attacked his weaknesses
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
That image of Zac and Boris in the pub showed up the issue in all its glory. Anybody can have an unfortunate photo taken, cough cough Ed, but it was such a contrast. One guy looking uncomfortable, not sure he wants to be there, what he is supposed to be doing and other looking excited and happy, a bit like a chimp that is just about to fling poo at the glass.
Scottish Elections: Can someone explain why in the constituency section Labour got 23% but in the list 19%. I can understand why someone voting SNP in the constituency section did not want to have their vote wasted in the list section. But surely a Labour voter would not think like that in 2016, maybe in 2003 or 2007.
A serial entrepreneur friend of mine from 'oop North, who's built several successful tech companies in London, decided that for his next business, he'd create it in Manchester (near to his Cheshire pile).
He thought recruiting techies in Manchester (albeit with some mildly esoteric skill sets) would be cheaper than London. The reality was that there was a much smaller skills pool, and that he's really struggled to man his firm. The salaries he's paying are actually higher than London, because most 22 year computer science graduates head for the excitement of London and Silicon Roundabout.
(Given how much cheaper it is to live in Manchester than Shoreditch, this may sound absurd. But the reality is that the incredible cycle of creation and destruction of small tech companies in London means that young tech people are never unemployed for long. Joining a start-up in Manchester carries greater risks than joining one in London.)
I can believe this. My first job out when I graduated from degree #1, I was paid way over the odds for that exact reason. Was based in a lovely part of the country, but deadly dull and they really struggled to get excitable 22 ye
Isn't that what Ken Arrow got his Nobel Prize in Economics for?
Trump: "Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics. Hillary was an enabler. Some of those women were destroyed, not by him, but by the way she treated them after it went down."
It's true he was a serial abuser, and it's also true that some of the women's lives were destroyed by Hillary going after them, so hardly Trumpian hyperbole in this case.
He is, in some respects, the Teflon Don. He seems able to sling mud that sticks and not be at all adversely affected by the ricochets. Indeed, within the GOP primary, the more mud, and the more rank it was, that he flung, the more his vote share went up.
I don't see that happening in November, but there will still be an element of his mud slinging helping build a substantial base of support even while it drives others away.
Indeed but of course the electorate in November will be rather broader than the one in the GOP primaries
Trump: "Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics. Hillary was an enabler. Some of those women were destroyed, not by him, but by the way she treated them after it went down."
It's true he was a serial abuser, and it's also true that some of the women's lives were destroyed by Hillary going after them, so hardly Trumpian hyperbole in this case.
This is a very suspicious claim. The alleged 'event' took place in 1994 in New York. The suit is filed 22 years later in California, where the rape statute of limitation is 6 years. There is (I think) no statute of limitations on rape in NY, although whether that was the case at the time of the 'event' I don't know.
The woman is defending herself.
It sounds like a gold digging expedition and the filing date seems calculated to cause the maximum damage to Trump's campaign.
Maybe Ms. Johnson is not aware of Trump's reputation of never settling cases, always pursuing them through the courts to a conclusion.
I suspect she won't get much satisfaction on the legal front.
If The Donald does become POTUS we'll certainly have a LOT of fun in the next four years!
Yes - I must say it's hokum but it's quite engaging hokum - some of the techniques of stand-up comedy turned to political use. I still think he'd be a completely random President, but as you say he'd be fun too.
What's not to like - compared to this?
Clinton is ill, physically and mentally, while Trump is the picture of vigour and good mental health.
If The Donald does become POTUS we'll certainly have a LOT of fun in the next four years!
Yes - I must say it's hokum but it's quite engaging hokum - some of the techniques of stand-up comedy turned to political use. I still think he'd be a completely random President, but as you say he'd be fun too.
I've not seen the Rallings & Thrasher projections yet.
A straw in the wind for CON minority in 2020 perhaps. But very early days of course
Academics say the numbers are very good for Tories.
No they don't. There has been a 2% swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle, which suggests Tory minority.
Figures I have seen quoted from academic modelling are predicted 39/30 & 37/30 for 2020 and 92% Tories to win.
.
39/30 or 37/30 is tory majority...which are the two sets of figures released by two different academic models. But as I say in other post, lots of flux & uncertainty with change of leader(s) & high potential for choppy economy.
I am going to wait and see at least 12 months before even starting to think about my betting positions for 2020. At the moment there is no real signs corbynism is sweeping the nation, but a long way to go.
A lot depends on the Lib Dem vote. Remember the Tories won in 2015 not because there was a swing from Labour to Tory. But the LD vote collapsed.
There was a Lab to Tory swing where it mattered.
Had Labour not lost any seats to the Tories, the Tories wouldn't have a majority.
Wrong ! There was a net swing of 2 from Con to Lab. [ OK - not enough ]. But that did not win the election for the Tories.
It was the 27 gains the Tories made from the Lib Dems.
No, It was a swing of 0.3%
Con 36.9 (+0.8%) Lab 30.4 (+1.4%)
1.4-0.8 = 0.6 0.6/2 = 0.3%
2 seats - not %. It was still the 27 seats won from the LDs that gave the Tories their majority.
Which 2 seats??
"Net" two seats cannot be answered by which two seats. I am not sure why you are being so pedantic. I think it was 6 won and 4 lost or something like that.
Labour had 258 seats. 40 were lost to the SNP. Labour won 12 from the LD's and 2 from the Tories.
I’ve just placed £10 on Cruz at 1000/1. If anything happens to Trump before Cleveland then Cruz would seem best placed to step into the breach. 1000/1 seems massive to me.
There's another £123 available to back Cruz at 1000/1 if anyone is tempted?
That’s in the GOP nominee market not the POTUS market. He is 1000/1 for both.
The Trump rape claim has pretty much been debunked and hence why it is not getting any air time. The women claimed she was connected to that dodgy guy who all the rich folks used to hang out with, but there is no mention of her in his little black book etc and she hasn't offered any proof of moving in those circles.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
I’ve just placed £10 on Cruz at 1000/1. If anything happens to Trump before Cleveland then Cruz would seem best placed to step into the breach. 1000/1 seems massive to me.
There's another £123 available to back Cruz at 1000/1 if anyone is tempted?
That’s in the GOP nominee market not the POTUS market. He is 1000/1 for both.
If The Donald does become POTUS we'll certainly have a LOT of fun in the next four years!
Yes - I must say it's hokum but it's quite engaging hokum - some of the techniques of stand-up comedy turned to political use. I still think he'd be a completely random President, but as you say he'd be fun too.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
I've not seen the Rallings & Thrasher projections yet.
A straw in the wind for CON minority in 2020 perhaps. But very early days of course
Academics say the numbers are very good for Tories.
No they don't. There has been a 2% swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle, which suggests Tory minority.
Figures I have seen quoted from academic modelling are predicted 39/30 & 37/30 for 2020 and 92% Tories to win.
.
39/30 or 37/30 is tory majority...which are the two sets of figures released by two different academic models. But as I say in other post, lots of flux & uncertainty with change of leader(s) & high potential for choppy economy.
I am going to wait and see at least 12 months before even starting to think about my betting positions for 2020. At the moment there is no real signs corbynism is sweeping the nation, but a long way to go.
A lot depends on the Lib Dem vote. Remember the Tories won in 2015 not because there was a swing from Labour to Tory. But the LD vote collapsed.
There was a Lab to Tory swing where it mattered.
Had Labour not lost any seats to the Tories, the Tories wouldn't have a majority.
Wrong ! There was a net swing of 2 from Con to Lab. [ OK - not enough ]. But that did not win the election for the Tories.
It was the 27 gains the Tories made from the Lib Dems.
No, It was a swing of 0.3%
Con 36.9 (+0.8%) Lab 30.4 (+1.4%)
1.4-0.8 = 0.6 0.6/2 = 0.3%
2 seats - not %. It was still the 27 seats won from the LDs that gave the Tories their majority.
Which 2 seats??
"Net" two seats cannot be answered by which two seats. I am not sure why you are being so pedantic. I think it was 6 won and 4 lost or something like that.
Labour had 258 seats. 40 were lost to the SNP. Labour won 12 from the LD's and 2 from the Tories.
258 - 40 + 12 + 2 = 232.
So that means they lost 26 seats net?
You are great in maths. Congrats ! 258 - 232 = 26. Indeed !
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
Scottish Elections: Can someone explain why in the constituency section Labour got 23% but in the list 19%. I can understand why someone voting SNP in the constituency section did not want to have their vote wasted in the list section. But surely a Labour voter would not think like that in 2016, maybe in 2003 or 2007.
At a guess, some voted Green, and some Labour incumbents had a personal vote that didn't transfer to Labour generally.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
Zac's not going to like my morning thread.
But will we?
Well I've got in a gratuitous kick to some Leavers in it
As predicted, the grid is kicking on, first the spooks
/twitter.com/suttonnick/status/729053891204161536
Project Fear!
If I were to advise Remain, I'd advise them not to overplay their hand.
They might convince a few people with a gentle warning on security co-operation, but likening Brexit to a father abandoning his wife and children risks making them a target for mockery.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
Zac's not going to like my morning thread.
But will we?
Well I've got in a gratuitous kick to some Leavers in it
(Although I kick Remain for the same reason too)
I think we will all be feeling pretty well kicked in 7 weeks time.
Scottish Elections: Can someone explain why in the constituency section Labour got 23% but in the list 19%. I can understand why someone voting SNP in the constituency section did not want to have their vote wasted in the list section. But surely a Labour voter would not think like that in 2016, maybe in 2003 or 2007.
Lots of voters are sympathetic to both Labour and the Greens. I imagine some of them will have split votes between the two parties.
The Trump rape claim has pretty much been debunked and hence why it is not getting any air time. The women claimed she was connected to that dodgy guy who all the rich folks used to hang out with, but there is no mention of her in his little black book etc and she hasn't offered any proof of moving in those circles.
Trump has lived his life as a rich Manhattan socialite in the glare of enthusiastic negative press coverage of his affairs, peccadillos etc. There is nothing really to be uncovered from his past. It's all out there in the public domain.
Clinton is quite the opposite. The mainstream press has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover their scandals in more than cursory fashion, and there have been many over the years.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
Does he hate talking about voting systems, your AV vs your PR^2 as much as me?
I've decided not to do an electoral reform thread.
I'm knackered, and don't have the energy to write another thread.
I can write it. Corbynistas should love FPTP. It is the only system that lets them lead the left. PR electoral reform would lead to a separate moderate party funded by the trade unions, which would beat them into third place at best.
Trump: "Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics. Hillary was an enabler. Some of those women were destroyed, not by him, but by the way she treated them after it went down."
It's true he was a serial abuser, and it's also true that some of the women's lives were destroyed by Hillary going after them, so hardly Trumpian hyperbole in this case.
This is a very suspicious claim. The alleged 'event' took place in 1994 in New York. The suit is filed 22 years later in California, where the rape statute of limitation is 6 years. There is (I think) no statute of limitations on rape in NY, although whether that was the case at the time of the 'event' I don't know.
The woman is defending herself.
It sounds like a gold digging expedition and the filing date seems calculated to cause the maximum damage to Trump's campaign.
Maybe Ms. Johnson is not aware of Trump's reputation of never settling cases, always pursuing them through the courts to a conclusion.
I suspect she won't get much satisfaction on the legal front.
Further thoughts on last Thursday and as I said earlier in the week, something for everyone with no Party doing better than they hoped or worse than their opponents hoped.
The Conservatives did very well in Scotland and whether we are looking at a profound realignment with the implosion of the SNP remains to be seen. The truth is the SNP remain the leading party in Scotland for now and I imagine Nicola Sturgeon will continue as First MInister in lieu of anyone else.
Wales was perhaps the dog that didn't bark with Labour retaining their dominance and the Conservatives perhaps not following up their strong 2015 GE performance. The LD performance was frankly disastrous despite Kirsty Williams increasing her majority in her seat. Yes, the Party was quite close to getting a second AM in the Mid Wales list but was well short everywhere else and there's no obvious road back.
As for England, however, interesting Council results with definite, albeit limited, signs of recovery for the LDs in, not surprisingly, traditional areas of strength and for those Conservatives thinking they would see net gains overall, something of a setback.
The 2017 County Council results will tell us much more - the Conservatives did incredibly well in 2009 and could afford to take some losses in 2013 (which they did) as losses to UKIP and Labour were balanced by gains from the LDs.
If The Donald does become POTUS we'll certainly have a LOT of fun in the next four years!
Yes - I must say it's hokum but it's quite engaging hokum - some of the techniques of stand-up comedy turned to political use. I still think he'd be a completely random President, but as you say he'd be fun too.
Clinton is quite the opposite. The mainstream press has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover their scandals in more than cursory fashion, and there have been many over the years.
This is why she would rather have faced any other Republican than Donald Trump. He will find a way to ensure all the historic scandals, as well as some new ones, get raked over in excruciating detail.
Trump: "Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics. Hillary was an enabler. Some of those women were destroyed, not by him, but by the way she treated them after it went down."
It's true he was a serial abuser, and it's also true that some of the women's lives were destroyed by Hillary going after them, so hardly Trumpian hyperbole in this case.
This is a very suspicious claim. The alleged 'event' took place in 1994 in New York. The suit is filed 22 years later in California, where the rape statute of limitation is 6 years. There is (I think) no statute of limitations on rape in NY, although whether that was the case at the time of the 'event' I don't know.
The woman is defending herself.
It sounds like a gold digging expedition and the filing date seems calculated to cause the maximum damage to Trump's campaign.
Maybe Ms. Johnson is not aware of Trump's reputation of never settling cases, always pursuing them through the courts to a conclusion.
I suspect she won't get much satisfaction on the legal front.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
Zac's not going to like my morning thread.
But will we?
Well I've got in a gratuitous kick to some Leavers in it
(Although I kick Remain for the same reason too)
I think we will all be feeling pretty well kicked in 7 weeks time.
That's why I booked our holiday a week later.
Well it begins with
'As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign'
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
If The Donald does become POTUS we'll certainly have a LOT of fun in the next four years!
Yes - I must say it's hokum but it's quite engaging hokum - some of the techniques of stand-up comedy turned to political use. I still think he'd be a completely random President, but as you say he'd be fun too.
Trump: "Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics. Hillary was an enabler. Some of those women were destroyed, not by him, but by the way she treated them after it went down."
It's true he was a serial abuser, and it's also true that some of the women's lives were destroyed by Hillary going after them, so hardly Trumpian hyperbole in this case.
This is a very suspicious claim. The alleged 'event' took place in 1994 in New York. The suit is filed 22 years later in California, where the rape statute of limitation is 6 years. There is (I think) no statute of limitations on rape in NY, although whether that was the case at the time of the 'event' I don't know.
The woman is defending herself.
It sounds like a gold digging expedition and the filing date seems calculated to cause the maximum damage to Trump's campaign.
Maybe Ms. Johnson is not aware of Trump's reputation of never settling cases, always pursuing them through the courts to a conclusion.
I suspect she won't get much satisfaction on the legal front.
His twitter feuds with celebrity females hardly falls into the same category though, and probably helped him on the non-PC front. I cannot see him suffering any further damage at this point from the Megyn Kelly or Rosie O'Donnell stuff, and who cares about Carly Fiorina?
I am having a hard time working why everyone is so convinced Trump is dead in the water. He is strongly disliked by 75% of Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. So what? Obama won these groups with 93%, 77% and 73%, so no change there.
The only difference on the negatives side is that Trump is losing white women. But that has to be balanced by a massive reinvigoration of the white male vote, the poaching of many blue collar white males from the Democrats and Hillary's own high negatives, particularly with the under 35s, which mean that she will not excite the Dem base. She has to rely on the Donald for that.
On balance, I think this is a very close election, not the blow out most assume.
The issue of the provision of school places is huge for education authorities everywhere. Huge amounts of capital expenditure are required to provide new primary schools and increase capacity at other schools and as the wave moves on there is a frantic rush to build and refurbish secondary schools to provide more places and the wave will in time roll on to higher and further education including Universities.
I know one County Council which spends £100 million per year every year on simply adding capacity and building new primary and junior schools. Arguably this can be added to the "cost of migration" if you like.
The other problem especially in the south is competition for land - any spare land is potential for housing to meet Government targets for providing new homes but at the same time land is also needed to build new schools to meet other Government targets for meeting school place provision.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
Zac's not going to like my morning thread.
But will we?
Well I've got in a gratuitous kick to some Leavers in it
(Although I kick Remain for the same reason too)
I think we will all be feeling pretty well kicked in 7 weeks time.
That's why I booked our holiday a week later.
Well it begins with
'As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign'
"...but as a Tory I was delighted as it reinforces the view that London is different (in a bad way) and they vote Labour"?
The Trump rape claim has pretty much been debunked and hence why it is not getting any air time. The women claimed she was connected to that dodgy guy who all the rich folks used to hang out with, but there is no mention of her in his little black book etc and she hasn't offered any proof of moving in those circles.
Trump has lived his life as a rich Manhattan socialite in the glare of enthusiastic negative press coverage of his affairs, peccadillos etc. There is nothing really to be uncovered from his past. It's all out there in the public domain.
Clinton is quite the opposite. The mainstream press has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover their scandals in more than cursory fashion, and there have been many over the years.
You mean the Whitewater rubbish. Remind us what happened to that ?
Trump: "Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics. Hillary was an enabler. Some of those women were destroyed, not by him, but by the way she treated them after it went down."
It's true he was a serial abuser, and it's also true that some of the women's lives were destroyed by Hillary going after them, so hardly Trumpian hyperbole in this case.
This is a very suspicious claim. The alleged 'event' took place in 1994 in New York. The suit is filed 22 years later in California, where the rape statute of limitation is 6 years. There is (I think) no statute of limitations on rape in NY, although whether that was the case at the time of the 'event' I don't know.
The woman is defending herself.
It sounds like a gold digging expedition and the filing date seems calculated to cause the maximum damage to Trump's campaign.
Maybe Ms. Johnson is not aware of Trump's reputation of never settling cases, always pursuing them through the courts to a conclusion.
I suspect she won't get much satisfaction on the legal front.
It's not just women - he's an equal opportunity insulter: Lyin'Ted, Little Marco, Jeb 'low energy' Bush etc.
Hillary also tried to destroy the lives of several of Bill's flings, so therefore she's anti-women too by your measurements.
And of course, true to form, you're trying to change the subject again.
By the way, Megyn Kelly has a 1 hour interview on Fox network (not FNC) with Trump scheduled soon.
It is not changing the subject at all, you said Trump attacked Bill Clinton for his record on women when Trump himself is a multiple times married womaniser, see the Scott article and mocking a political opponent is not the same as attacking their wives or mocking a female journalist
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
Zac's not going to like my morning thread.
But will we?
Well I've got in a gratuitous kick to some Leavers in it
(Although I kick Remain for the same reason too)
I think we will all be feeling pretty well kicked in 7 weeks time.
That's why I booked our holiday a week later.
Well it begins with
'As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign'
"...but as a Tory I was delighted as it reinforces the view that London is different (in a bad way) and they vote Labour"?
Well the first six words of that is right, but the rest is very wrong.
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
Did not stop Reagan
Reagan (and the media) concealed it well, and there was no internet in 1980.
The voters mistook his amiable idiocy for homespun charm...
If The Donald does become POTUS we'll certainly have a LOT of fun in the next four years!
Yes - I must say it's hokum but it's quite engaging hokum - some of the techniques of stand-up comedy turned to political use. I still think he'd be a completely random President, but as you say he'd be fun too.
Comments
Edit: Mr Urquhart beat me to it.
It was the 27 gains the Tories made from the Lib Dems.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/07/sadiq-khan-attacks-tories-donald-trump-campaign-tactics?CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/donald-trump-denies-rape-teenage-7857357
Yet the NEV on 5th May gives a 1% Labour lead in GB and possibly 2% in England.
Con 36.9 (+0.8%)
Lab 30.4 (+1.4%)
1.4-0.8 = 0.6
0.6/2 = 0.3%
Many thanks for your very open and candid response FPT; I understand entirely, and it's very much appreciated.
I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Which is totally different to the UoL setup.
OTOH, if Labour had failed to pick up any seats from the Tories, they would now have 341 MPs and a majority of 32.
By way of comparison, the Conservatives led Labour in the local elections of 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, at a time when Labour was mostly ahead in the polls.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279114-trump-reaches-out-to-teamster-union-on-twitter
Because why not ?
Nixon did it too with Hoffa Snr., I'm not going into any legal innuendo.
#TheNewPolitics
So, for example, most English counties would have 10-20 MPs. But I'd expect them to work together nationally once elected to represent all of it.
I am not convinced by STV.
There's another £123 available to back Cruz at 1000/1 if anyone is tempted?
Labour had 258 seats. 40 were lost to the SNP. Labour won 12 from the LD's and 2 from the Tories.
258 - 40 + 12 + 2 = 232.
I don't see that happening in November, but there will still be an element of his mud slinging helping build a substantial base of support even while it drives others away.
The first two showed swings of 1.5% from Con to Lab at constituency level. The third showed a swing of 4% from Lab to Con.
Plenty to chew over from Thursday's contests though how much of a guide they will be to 2020 will probably be more evident in 2020 (as it were).
First, commiserations to John O - if I learned anything in my politically active days, it was you often had to take the rough with the jagged and how individuals dealt with defeat was often far more informative than how they dealt with victory.
Reflecting on London, delighted Elaine Bagshaw got over the 5% barrier in City and East - the tiniest of successes but going forward is infinitely better than going backward.
Looking at the Mayoral result - 538,490 first preference votes didn't go to either Sadiq Khan or Zac Goldsmith. Of these, 246,286 or 46% voted for either Khan or Goldsmith as their second preference. Beyond that, of the 2.2 million second preferences, Sian Berry got the most, followed by Sadiq Khan and Caroline Pidgeon third.
Of the 246,486 second preferences, Sadiq Khan got 65% - the Labour candidate has always won more second preferences but Boris kept the lead to 55-45. Goldsmith lost heavily on these second preferences which formed 12% of the total votes cast turning a 9 point deficit on first preferences into a 14-point hole on all votes.
On the Assembly votes, it was incredibly close for the final two places:
Nicky Gavron (Labour) 87,900 - ELECTED
David Kurten (UKIP) 85.535 - ELECTED
Susan Hall (Conservative) 84,914
Emily Davey (Lib Dem) 82,790
Murad Qureshi (Labour) 81,139
With 2.6 million votes cast, less than 7,000 votes separated the five candidates fighting for the last two places.
Labour did very well though I thought they would win Havering & Redbridge and miss Merton & Wandsworth and missed the former by less than 1%. The Conservatives missed a ninth GLA seat by a few hundred. Given the next Mayoral election will (perhaps) be on General Election day in 2020, it might be very different next time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ0hYABkbMo
Clinton is ill, physically and mentally, while Trump is the picture of vigour and good mental health.
The woman is defending herself.
It sounds like a gold digging expedition and the filing date seems calculated to cause the maximum damage to Trump's campaign.
Maybe Ms. Johnson is not aware of Trump's reputation of never settling cases, always pursuing them through the courts to a conclusion.
I suspect she won't get much satisfaction on the legal front.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/729053891204161536
I'm knackered, and don't have the energy to write another thread.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/729050332391706624
(Although I kick Remain for the same reason too)
"These election results show Labour’s made a significant start on the road to 2020"
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/these-election-results-show-labours-made-a-significant-start-on-the-road-to-2020/
They might convince a few people with a gentle warning on security co-operation, but likening Brexit to a father abandoning his wife and children risks making them a target for mockery.
That's why I booked our holiday a week later.
Clinton is quite the opposite. The mainstream press has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover their scandals in more than cursory fashion, and there have been many over the years.
Corbynistas should love FPTP. It is the only system that lets them lead the left.
PR electoral reform would lead to a separate moderate party funded by the trade unions, which would beat them into third place at best.
Oops, I am out of things to say. It's not easy
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/24/politics/donald-trump-women/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3424519/The-comb-creep-hates-women-know-SELINA-SCOTT-reveals-Donald-Trump-failed-seduce-stalked-20-years.html
The Conservatives did very well in Scotland and whether we are looking at a profound realignment with the implosion of the SNP remains to be seen. The truth is the SNP remain the leading party in Scotland for now and I imagine Nicola Sturgeon will continue as First MInister in lieu of anyone else.
Wales was perhaps the dog that didn't bark with Labour retaining their dominance and the Conservatives perhaps not following up their strong 2015 GE performance. The LD performance was frankly disastrous despite Kirsty Williams increasing her majority in her seat. Yes, the Party was quite close to getting a second AM in the Mid Wales list but was well short everywhere else and there's no obvious road back.
As for England, however, interesting Council results with definite, albeit limited, signs of recovery for the LDs in, not surprisingly, traditional areas of strength and for those Conservatives thinking they would see net gains overall, something of a setback.
The 2017 County Council results will tell us much more - the Conservatives did incredibly well in 2009 and could afford to take some losses in 2013 (which they did) as losses to UKIP and Labour were balanced by gains from the LDs.
Hillary also tried to destroy the lives of several of Bill's flings, so therefore she's anti-women too by your measurements.
And of course, true to form, you're trying to change the subject again.
By the way, Megyn Kelly has a 1 hour interview on Fox network (not FNC) with Trump scheduled soon.
'As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign'
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
I am having a hard time working why everyone is so convinced Trump is dead in the water. He is strongly disliked by 75% of Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. So what? Obama won these groups with 93%, 77% and 73%, so no change there.
The only difference on the negatives side is that Trump is losing white women. But that has to be balanced by a massive reinvigoration of the white male vote, the poaching of many blue collar white males from the Democrats and Hillary's own high negatives, particularly with the under 35s, which mean that she will not excite the Dem base. She has to rely on the Donald for that.
On balance, I think this is a very close election, not the blow out most assume.
And I will be depressed whatever the outcome.
I know one County Council which spends £100 million per year every year on simply adding capacity and building new primary and junior schools. Arguably this can be added to the "cost of migration" if you like.
The other problem especially in the south is competition for land - any spare land is potential for housing to meet Government targets for providing new homes but at the same time land is also needed to build new schools to meet other Government targets for meeting school place provision.
Migration pressure on schools revealed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/07/migration-pressure-on-schools-revealed/
Judges stop Theresa May deporting terror suspects
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/07/judges-stop-theresa-may-deporting-terror-suspects/
The voters mistook his amiable idiocy for homespun charm...