Casino Royale FPT: "The biggest criticism that can be made of Leave is that they didn't expect to win so pursued two-stage strategy designed to maximise the Leave vote this time to position for an outright win in the 2020s. Viewed from that prism, contradictions didn't matter. However, you can also lay a similar criticism at the door of HMG who until the last few weeks had no real sense they'd lose and, in fact, deliberately failed to prepare for it as part of the Remain strategy. That means a lot of hard work now has to be done on Brexit but that work will be done."
Difficult to see what meaningful prep could have been done without it leaking out and getting into the press as a sign that Remain (and the PM) thought they were going to lose, and that the sky wouldn't necessarily fall in on 24th June because the Establishment was already working on a plan they thought likely to have to implement, with options being prepared to address Brexit - both things that may have played into Leave's hands.
However, I suspect there WAS a degree of Civil Service worst case planning going on, and probably has been for years in truth, and I imagine despite the impression given, some sort of contingency plan was dusted off on the morning of the 24th....
I think it was irresponsible of the Government to call the vote with no serious strategy or preparation. If that was part of the Remain strategy (and it was) then it just reinforces the moral bankruptcy of the Remain case in my mind.
HMG (under Osborne) was happy to list the various unpaltable flavours of doom on offer through Government research, but not to secretly make real contingency plans to mitigate national risk.
What contingency plans did you have in mind other than those effectively deployed by the govt since the referendum? And if you had any how utterly irresponsible of both you and the Leave campaign to keep them under wraps.
What an awful lot of histrionic nonsense on the last thread. I recommend ten days in Zimbabwe and Zambia - whence I have this morning returned - to get some perspective.
We knew the economy would take a knock from Brexit. Any sane LEAVER - virtually all of us on here, for instance - admitted this. But we thought it was worth it, politically, to quarantine ourselves from the torpid and stagnant entity that is the EU. Nothing has changed to alter this opinion: recent Islamist attacks have, if anything, suggested the Brits were right to quit, to get a better degree of control over our borders.
So we may get a recession. It may be quite nasty. And that recession may or may not have happened even if we hadn't Brexited. And in the future we may grow faster than we would have inside the EU, if we had REMAINED.
When it comes to the economics, no one knows. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
Weighing up the economic events against the "immigration" * related terror events post Brexit, does anyone really think a rerun would be good for Remain?
*Several of the "terrorists" were not Middle Eastern refugees
If we'd stayed in, within five-seven years all the millions of Muslim refugees Merkel let in would have got German passports: entitling them to move to the UK, even without jobs.
The immigration issue is the killer question, as currency was in Sindyref. REMAINIACS had no counter argument before the vote, and they have nothing now.
If the vote was rerun, LEAVE would win again, probably by a bigger margin.
I think it is the case that "The Economy" doesn't/didn't feel like a tangible thing to millions of people, especially those who are very poor, where as immigration was something they saw in their daily lives.
As you say, and has been confirmed by the Remain team in tv programmes detailing the campaigns post brexit, they had no answer to immigration concerns and that's why they lost.
Maybe not so much that it was intangible but that many people who voted Leave haven't benefited from the "good economy" of the last however-many years and so the threat of a failing economy didn't strike home, because "how much worse can it actually get?".
Of course one wonders how they'll feel in a few years if they discover it can get worse
This article is predicated on the fact that Owen is electable and Corbyn isn't. Neither are electable. Labour are screwed. If it wasn't such a bad thing for parliamentary democracy, I'd be laughing.
Casino Royale FPT: "The biggest criticism that can be made of Leave is that they didn't expect to win so pursued two-stage strategy designed to maximise the Leave vote this time to position for an outright win in the 2020s. Viewed from that prism, contradictions didn't matter. However, you can also lay a similar criticism at the door of HMG who until the last few weeks had no real sense they'd lose and, in fact, deliberately failed to prepare for it as part of the Remain strategy. That means a lot of hard work now has to be done on Brexit but that work will be done."
Difficult to see what meaningful prep could have been done without it leaking out and getting into the press as a sign that Remain (and the PM) thought they were going to lose, and that the sky wouldn't necessarily fall in on 24th June because the Establishment was already working on a plan they thought likely to have to implement, with options being prepared to address Brexit - both things that may have played into Leave's hands.
However, I suspect there WAS a degree of Civil Service worst case planning going on, and probably has been for years in truth, and I imagine despite the impression given, some sort of contingency plan was dusted off on the morning of the 24th....
I think it was irresponsible of the Government to call the vote with no serious strategy or preparation. If that was part of the Remain strategy (and it was) then it just reinforces the moral bankruptcy of the Remain case in my mind.
HMG (under Osborne) was happy to list the various unpaltable flavours of doom on offer through Government research, but not to secretly make real contingency plans to mitigate national risk.
What contingency plans did you have in mind other than those effectively deployed by the govt since the referendum? And if you had any how utterly irresponsible of both you and the Leave campaign to keep them under wraps.
How dull of you to keep repeating this. Contingency plans are the preserve of government for obvious reasons.
An interesting and positive article, Don: good to have some positive thinking coming out of the Labour party. Thank you very much.
(edited to add: good afternoon, everybody)
Smith had a really bad week because of his inability to mask his nasty side. Better that is found out now.
It won't alter the fact that he isn't fit to be Labour leader or that he stands preciously little chance of winning the job.
Not sure that Smith did have a really bad week or that he revealed a nasty side. He used some inappropriate language and apologised for it. What else happened?
In terms of quality, all parties have a similar problem, as the recent line-up of contenders for the Tory leadership made clear.
When you have to spend the day of your big speech defending your choice of language, firstly refusing to admit there was anything wrong and then being forced to make a rather limp apology, that is a bad week.
Combined with his previous comments about domestic violence, a very unpleasant picture of him is being painted. And it is all his own fault.
Public perception of him is firstly - who??? and then 'oh, the one who wanted to hit Theresa May'
That is a bad week
Last week a poll came out which had voters saying that Smith would be a better Labour leader than Corbyn by a large margin.
I think your recollection of events may be a little faulty. My impression is that very few people noticed what Smith said and that the majority of those who did accepted his apology and explanation without any problem. Obviously, some people will believe he is a nasty misogynist, but my sense is that is going to be a tricky one to make stick. We'll see.
His comments were a front page story on the BBC website. The poll didn't.
He will be remembered for using sexually violence language towards the PM.
By some like you who wish Labour ill, of course. By the general public, not so much.
Actually I want to see a strong opposition party - a party that can be a potential government. Without that our system fails to operate policy.
Labour is not even close to that - and that is Labour's own fault.
At the moment there is no viable alternative - and Smith is not presenting a pathway back for Labour.
Labour needs to sort itself out. And it isn't close to being able to do that.
Casino Royale FPT: "The biggest criticism that can be made of Leave is that they didn't expect to win so pursued two-stage strategy designed to maximise the Leave vote this time to position for an outright win in the 2020s. Viewed from that prism, contradictions didn't matter. However, you can also lay a similar criticism at the door of HMG who until the last few weeks had no real sense they'd lose and, in fact, deliberately failed to prepare for it as part of the Remain strategy. That means a lot of hard work now has to be done on Brexit but that work will be done."
Difficult to see what meaningful prep could have been done without it leaking out and getting into the press as a sign that Remain (and the PM) thought they were going to lose, and that the sky wouldn't necessarily fall in on 24th June because the Establishment was already working on a plan they thought likely to have to implement, with options being prepared to address Brexit - both things that may have played into Leave's hands.
However, I suspect there WAS a degree of Civil Service worst case planning going on, and probably has been for years in truth, and I imagine despite the impression given, some sort of contingency plan was dusted off on the morning of the 24th....
I think it was irresponsible of the Government to call the vote with no serious strategy or preparation. If that was part of the Remain strategy (and it was) then it just reinforces the moral bankruptcy of the Remain case in my mind.
HMG (under Osborne) was happy to list the various unpaltable flavours of doom on offer through Government research, but not to secretly make real contingency plans to mitigate national risk.
What contingency plans did you have in mind other than those effectively deployed by the govt since the referendum? And if you had any how utterly irresponsible of both you and the Leave campaign to keep them under wraps.
Leave were neither the Government nor had access to the civil service.
I would expect the incumbent administration to routinely plan for all eventualities as a basic part of good government.
Casino Royale FPT: "The biggest criticism that can be made of Leave is that they didn't expect to win so pursued two-stage strategy designed to maximise the Leave vote this time to position for an outright win in the 2020s. Viewed from that prism, contradictions didn't matter. However, you can also lay a similar criticism at the door of HMG who until the last few weeks had no real sense they'd lose and, in fact, deliberately failed to prepare for it as part of the Remain strategy. That means a lot of hard work now has to be done on Brexit but that work will be done."
Difficult to see what meaningful prep could have been done without it leaking out and getting into the press as a sign that Remain (and the PM) thought they were going to lose, and that the sky wouldn't necessarily fall in on 24th June because the Establishment was already working on a plan they thought likely to have to implement, with options being prepared to address Brexit - both things that may have played into Leave's hands.
However, I suspect there WAS a degree of Civil Service worst case planning going on, and probably has been for years in truth, and I imagine despite the impression given, some sort of contingency plan was dusted off on the morning of the 24th....
I think it was irresponsible of the Government to call the vote with no serious strategy or preparation. If that was part of the Remain strategy (and it was) then it just reinforces the moral bankruptcy of the Remain case in my mind.
HMG (under Osborne) was happy to list the various unpaltable flavours of doom on offer through Government research, but not to secretly make real contingency plans to mitigate national risk.
What contingency plans did you have in mind other than those effectively deployed by the govt since the referendum? And if you had any how utterly irresponsible of both you and the Leave campaign to keep them under wraps.
How dull of you to keep repeating this. Contingency plans are the preserve of government for obvious reasons.
How ignorant of you to fail to read/understand what I wrote.
Mr. Royale, particularly when there's a referendum that was pretty much 50/50. Black swans can't be seen until they arrive, but this was a thousand white swans noisily announcing their imminent arrival.
@owenjbennett: EXC: Woolfe admits not declaring drink drive conviction when he stood as PPC in 2012 - breaching electoral law https://t.co/vszs6aau4a
OK, so he breached electoral law when standing for Police and Crime Commissioner. I guess that electoral law is different when he stood and was elected as an MEP?
@owenjbennett: EXC: Woolfe admits not declaring drink drive conviction when he stood as PPC in 2012 - breaching electoral law https://t.co/vszs6aau4a
And that is Woolfe done.
Disqualified from the leadership race for non-party membership, failure to submit application papers on time and now breaching electoral law hanging over his head. – He’s obviously not the most switched on Barrister I’ve met, to be sure.
Casino Royale FPT: "The biggest criticism that can be made of Leave is that they didn't expect to win so pursued two-stage strategy designed to maximise the Leave vote this time to position for an outright win in the 2020s. Viewed from that prism, contradictions didn't matter. However, you can also lay a similar criticism at the door of HMG who until the last few weeks had no real sense they'd lose and, in fact, deliberately failed to prepare for it as part of the Remain strategy. That means a lot of hard work now has to be done on Brexit but that work will be done."
Difficult to see what meaningful prep could have been done without it leaking out and getting into the press as a sign that Remain (and the PM) thought they were going to lose, and that the sky wouldn't necessarily fall in on 24th June because the Establishment was already working on a plan they thought likely to have to implement, with options being prepared to address Brexit - both things that may have played into Leave's hands.
However, I suspect there WAS a degree of Civil Service worst case planning going on, and probably has been for years in truth, and I imagine despite the impression given, some sort of contingency plan was dusted off on the morning of the 24th....
I think it was irresponsible of the Government to call the vote with no serious strategy or preparation. If that was part of the Remain strategy (and it was) then it just reinforces the moral bankruptcy of the Remain case in my mind.
HMG (under Osborne) was happy to list the various unpaltable flavours of doom on offer through Government research, but not to secretly make real contingency plans to mitigate national risk.
What contingency plans did you have in mind other than those effectively deployed by the govt since the referendum? And if you had any how utterly irresponsible of both you and the Leave campaign to keep them under wraps.
Leave were neither the Government nor had access to the civil service.
I would expect the incumbent administration to routinely plan for all eventualities as a basic part of good government.
Especially when it was a 50/50 chance. I guess they had too many Nabavis advising them of a possible 70/30 win for Remain...
Casino Royale FPT: "The biggest criticism that can be made of Leave is that they didn't expect to win so pursued two-stage strategy designed to maximise the Leave vote this time to position for an outright win in the 2020s. Viewed from that prism, contradictions didn't matter. However, you can also lay a similar criticism at the door of HMG who until the last few weeks had no real sense they'd lose and, in fact, deliberately failed to prepare for it as part of the Remain strategy. That means a lot of hard work now has to be done on Brexit but that work will be done."
Difficult to see what meaningful prep could have been done without it leaking out and getting into the press as a sign that Remain (and the PM) thought they were going to lose, and that the sky wouldn't necessarily fall in on 24th June because the Establishment was already working on a plan they thought likely to have to implement, with options being prepared to address Brexit - both things that may have played into Leave's hands.
However, I suspect there WAS a degree of Civil Service worst case planning going on, and probably has been for years in truth, and I imagine despite the impression given, some sort of contingency plan was dusted off on the morning of the 24th....
I think it was irresponsible of the Government to call the vote with no serious strategy or preparation. If that was part of the Remain strategy (and it was) then it just reinforces the moral bankruptcy of the Remain case in my mind.
HMG (under Osborne) was happy to list the various unpaltable flavours of doom on offer through Government research, but not to secretly make real contingency plans to mitigate national risk.
What contingency plans did you have in mind other than those effectively deployed by the govt since the referendum? And if you had any how utterly irresponsible of both you and the Leave campaign to keep them under wraps.
Leave were neither the Government nor had access to the civil service.
I would expect the incumbent administration to routinely plan for all eventualities as a basic part of good government.
If you'd read more closely you'd have seen that is precisely what I said. You seemed to suggest there are other things which could have been done - we're all dying to hear them.
Casino Royale FPT: "The biggest criticism that can be made of Leave is that they didn't expect to win so pursued two-stage strategy designed to maximise the Leave vote this time to position for an outright win in the 2020s. Viewed from that prism, contradictions didn't matter. However, you can also lay a similar criticism at the door of HMG who until the last few weeks had no real sense they'd lose and, in fact, deliberately failed to prepare for it as part of the Remain strategy. That means a lot of hard work now has to be done on Brexit but that work will be done."
Difficult to see what meaningful prep could have been done without it leaking out and getting into the press as a sign that Remain (and the PM) thought they were going to lose, and that the sky wouldn't necessarily fall in on 24th June because the Establishment was already working on a plan they thought likely to have to implement, with options being prepared to address Brexit - both things that may have played into Leave's hands.
However, I suspect there WAS a degree of Civil Service worst case planning going on, and probably has been for years in truth, and I imagine despite the impression given, some sort of contingency plan was dusted off on the morning of the 24th....
I think it was irresponsible of the Government to call the vote with no serious strategy or preparation. If that was part of the Remain strategy (and it was) then it just reinforces the moral bankruptcy of the Remain case in my mind.
HMG (under Osborne) was happy to list the various unpaltable flavours of doom on offer through Government research, but not to secretly make real contingency plans to mitigate national risk.
What contingency plans did you have in mind other than those effectively deployed by the govt since the referendum? And if you had any how utterly irresponsible of both you and the Leave campaign to keep them under wraps.
How dull of you to keep repeating this. Contingency plans are the preserve of government for obvious reasons.
How ignorant of you to fail to read/understand what I wrote.
I understand you perfectly well. You keep attempting to draw false equivalencies between HMG and the Vote Leave campaign. Presumably this is an attempt to assuage your severe case of butt hurt that the electorate didn't vote the way you wished in EUref.
Casino Royale FPT: "The biggest criticism that can be made of Leave is that they didn't expect to win so pursued two-stage strategy designed to maximise the Leave vote this time to position for an outright win in the 2020s. Viewed from that prism, contradictions didn't matter. However, you can also lay a similar criticism at the door of HMG who until the last few weeks had no real sense they'd lose and, in fact, deliberately failed to prepare for it as part of the Remain strategy. That means a lot of hard work now has to be done on Brexit but that work will be done."
Difficult to see what meaningful prep could have been done without it leaking out and getting into the press as a sign that Remain (and the PM) thought they were going to lose, and that the sky wouldn't necessarily fall in on 24th June because the Establishment was already working on a plan they thought likely to have to implement, with options being prepared to address Brexit - both things that may have played into Leave's hands.
However, I suspect there WAS a degree of Civil Service worst case planning going on, and probably has been for years in truth, and I imagine despite the impression given, some sort of contingency plan was dusted off on the morning of the 24th....
I think it was irresponsible of the Government to call the vote with no serious strategy or preparation. If that was part of the Remain strategy (and it was) then it just reinforces the moral bankruptcy of the Remain case in my mind.
HMG (under Osborne) was happy to list the various unpaltable flavours of doom on offer through Government research, but not to secretly make real contingency plans to mitigate national risk.
HMG was not the only body which cautioned against Brexit with estimates of damage. Bodies such as the IFS and business bodies did so. Our negotiations with the EU will involve compromises on all sides, even by the EU. It would not have been realistic to offer the whole spectrum of possibilities particularly since so many variables will be subject to negotiation. Leavers had a simple-minded approach to Brexit. In particular the Project Fear of Immigration from Turkey was both ignorant or intentionally misleading. Having said that I look forward to a successful Exit.
Mr. Royale, particularly when there's a referendum that was pretty much 50/50. Black swans can't be seen until they arrive, but this was a thousand white swans noisily announcing their imminent arrival.
As a Tory, I'd appreciate an explanation about why an infrastructure fund/bank capitalised with long dated government bonds (50yrs+) is a bad idea.
We're continually told that government borrowing costs are at an all time low so can't we leverage that and rebuild the country?
Trust.
If the government has a track record of soubdly managed finances and a minimal structural budget then I'm sure you could borrow the money.
The issue is that the markets don't trust the government not to waste it on current spending (or to shift existing capital spending into this new pocket to free up money for current spending elsewhere in the budget).
hence there is a risk ut will impact ocetall perceptions of credit worthonesd and borrowing rates
Been away for a couple of days, what is this about Corbyn wanting there to be a commons vote every time we deploy the SAS? You know the SAS that we don't acknowledge their deployments or if they are involved in anything.
Been away for a couple of days, what is this about Corbyn wanting there to be a commons vote every time we deploy the SAS? You know the SAS that we don't acknowledge their deployments or if they are involved in anything.
Jezbollah wanting to level the playing field?
@iainmartin1: Really, operational problems aside, how big is political market for Corbyn stopping the SAS killing ISIS fighters? https://t.co/Gdn7y8vBDi
Been away for a couple of days, what is this about Corbyn wanting there to be a commons vote every time we deploy the SAS? You know the SAS that we don't acknowledge their deployments or if they are involved in anything.
''Presumably this is an attempt to assuage your severe case of butt hurt that the electorate didn't vote the way you wished in EUref. ''
It's worse than that. Felix would have found it most disagreeable if some of those awful Brexit oiks had voted the same way as him.
He wanted them to vote leave and lose. Turned out there were far more than he thought.
How amusing that at the first signs of economic clouds have leavers panicking so much that they want to re-run the campaign to re-assure themselves they've not royally f***** up. Lord knows what we'll get if/when Theresa doesn't deliver the full package.
'And in the face of Jeremy Corbyn’s reluctance to take part in TV hustings he should challenge the broadcasters to empty chair the incumbent, as they threatened to do to David Cameron at the General Election.' Whilst I can understand the frustration felt by those who wish to see the Leadership candidates in a head to head debate I don't feel at all comfortable with the idea that it is for the media to decide how these elections should be conducted. Ther were no such debates between Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 , between John Smith and Bryan Gould in 1992 nor between Blair, Beckett and Prescott in 1994. I take a similar view re-general election debates between party leaders. The fact that three such debates took place in 2010 should not impose an obligation on future Leaders to do do likewise - and it was interesting that the 2010 format was not followed in 2015. There is a strong case for arguing that the media is abusing its position by seeking to its own preferred format on the conduct of elections.
''Presumably this is an attempt to assuage your severe case of butt hurt that the electorate didn't vote the way you wished in EUref. ''
It's worse than that. Felix would have found it most disagreeable if some of those awful Brexit oiks had voted the same way as him.
He wanted them to vote leave and lose. Turned out there were far more than he thought.
How amusing that at the first signs of economic clouds have leavers panicking so much that they want to re-run the campaign to re-assure themselves they've not royally f***** up. Lord knows what we'll get if/when Theresa doesn't deliver the full package.
Mr. Observer, do you expect no split whatsoever? Not even single figures, whether to a new party or becoming independents?
I just can't see it happening - except with any MPs that end up being deselected. Labour is deeply ingrained in most of the hearts of the MPs that sit in the Commons. They see it as their party, just as Corbyn sees it as his. If we had a different electoral system, that may not be as big a factor, but we don't so Labour is really the only game in town
I can't dispute what you say, but do you not consider that if a sufficient number of MPs are guaranteed to be deselected, that would have the same effect?
It would for a time in the Commons, perhaps. But then what? It's hard to see any but a tiny number having a chance of re-election if they stood as non-Labour candidates.
Surely if they split off properly and take the chalice of opposition with them they will stand a chance. If they go in dribs and drabs they will get picked off by hard left Labour candidates vs independents. If 120 MPs split off they could make it work, but they need the balls to do it, so far I've not seen that among any sitting Labour MP
What unites the rebels is their dismay about just how poor a leader Corbyn is. Some on the right have deep-seated and irreconcilable ideological differences with him, but I'd say they are a tiny minority.
What really unites the rebels is that there is not a single leader amongst them. Nobody to organise a coup properly and nobody with the experience, quality and self-belief to put themselves forward as an alternative to Corbyn.
Corbyn's media strategy is a joke. Why is he not everywhere banging on about Cameron's honours list? It's an open goal for him.
If Corbyn bangs on about Cameron's Honours List and nobody reports it, did it actually happen?
He did criticise it today at a news conference that appears to have been well attended by journalists, but only Sky have reported it as far as I can see and that was by putting a vido clip online.
'And in the face of Jeremy Corbyn’s reluctance to take part in TV hustings he should challenge the broadcasters to empty chair the incumbent, as they threatened to do to David Cameron at the General Election.' Whilst I can understand the frustration felt by those who wish to see the Leadership candidates in a head to head debate I don't feel at all comfortable with the idea that it is for the media to decide how these elections should be conducted. Ther were no such debates between Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 , between John Smith and Bryan Gould in 1992 nor between Blair, Beckett and Prescott in 1994. I take a similar view re-general election debates between party leaders. The fact that three such debates took place in 2010 should not impose an obligation on future Leaders to do do likewise - and it was interesting that the 2010 format was not followed in 2015. There is a strong case for arguing that the media is abusing its position by seeking to its own preferred format on the conduct of elections.
Without wishing to be bashing the media, I really do suspect that it is difficult for a televised debate to be genuinely fair to both/all parties.
When one attends a debate in a hall, being present means one can be aware of all the parties to a debate.
On TV, all one sees is what the producer/camera decides to show you. For example, a close-up of one person may mean that the body language/facial expression of another is lost on the viewer.
As I see it, moderate Labour MPs must stand and fight or they will get picked off by investigations, de/reselections and being hassled and bullied into standing down by the hard left.
How many have the guts and energy for that, really, I wonder. Some will be knocking on in years and hoping to string things out until 2020 to get out. Some are just straws in the wind happy to go with whatever the leadership decides.
if you have no confidence in Corbyn winning the next election, then you have until 2025 for a proper chance of getting into power.
Thats a fecking long time, and a good proportion of your career gone.
Incidentally, I believe this is the first time a driver has won four races in a month (July, obviously).
July felt a bloody long month for me personally, for various reasons, but I never imagined there were 4 GPs in it until I read your post and double-checked. Have there ever been 4 in a month before?
(Watching 4 GPs in 5 weekends probably explains why it felt so long.... :-) )
'And in the face of Jeremy Corbyn’s reluctance to take part in TV hustings he should challenge the broadcasters to empty chair the incumbent, as they threatened to do to David Cameron at the General Election.' Whilst I can understand the frustration felt by those who wish to see the Leadership candidates in a head to head debate I don't feel at all comfortable with the idea that it is for the media to decide how these elections should be conducted. Ther were no such debates between Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 , between John Smith and Bryan Gould in 1992 nor between Blair, Beckett and Prescott in 1994. I take a similar view re-general election debates between party leaders. The fact that three such debates took place in 2010 should not impose an obligation on future Leaders to do do likewise - and it was interesting that the 2010 format was not followed in 2015. There is a strong case for arguing that the media is abusing its position by seeking to its own preferred format on the conduct of elections.
Without wishing to be bashing the media, I really do suspect that it is difficult for a televised debate to be genuinely fair to both/all parties.
When one attends a debate in a hall, being present means one can be aware of all the parties to a debate.
On TV, all one sees is what the producer/camera decides to show you. For example, a close-up of one person may mean that the body language/facial expression of another is lost on the viewer.
Indeed so. Moreover, the fact that the Broadcasting Authorities might wish to facilitate such debates does not oblige politicians to go along with their wishes!
This is the longest ever season, with 21 races. Unfortunately, the ones most at risk of being dropped (Germany, Belgium, Italy [well, Monza], Brazil) tend to be great old tracks. Hockenheim's a bit so-so but the others are fantastic.
BTW, had a pleasant evening with Kelvin Hopkins MP and his family. It wasn't really appropriate to talk politics, so asking whether he thought Corbyn would win would just elicit a roll of the eyes. However, he is planning to spend the summer getting to grips with his Shadow brief (Culture) given to him by Jeremy... Make of that what you will.
pb-ers also might be interested to know that he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of wines, especially those of Burgundy. No champagne socialist he.
Casino Royale FPT: "The biggest criticism that can be made of Leave is that they didn't expect to win so pursued two-stage strategy designed to maximise the Leave vote this time to position for an outright win in the 2020s. Viewed from that prism, contradictions didn't matter. However, you can also lay a similar criticism at the door of HMG who until the last few weeks had no real sense they'd lose and, in fact, deliberately failed to prepare for it as part of the Remain strategy. That means a lot of hard work now has to be done on Brexit but that work will be done."
Difficult to see what meaningful prep could have been done without it leaking out and getting into the press as a sign that Remain (and the PM) thought they were going to lose, and that the sky wouldn't necessarily fall in on 24th June because the Establishment was already working on a plan they thought likely to have to implement, with options being prepared to address Brexit - both things that may have played into Leave's hands.
However, I suspect there WAS a degree of Civil Service worst case planning going on, and probably has been for years in truth, and I imagine despite the impression given, some sort of contingency plan was dusted off on the morning of the 24th....
I think it was irresponsible of the Government to call the vote with no serious strategy or preparation. If that was part of the Remain strategy (and it was) then it just reinforces the moral bankruptcy of the Remain case in my mind.
HMG (under Osborne) was happy to list the various unpaltable flavours of doom on offer through Government research, but not to secretly make real contingency plans to mitigate national risk.
HMG was not the only body which cautioned against Brexit with estimates of damage. Bodies such as the IFS and business bodies did so. Our negotiations with the EU will involve compromises on all sides, even by the EU. It would not have been realistic to offer the whole spectrum of possibilities particularly since so many variables will be subject to negotiation. Leavers had a simple-minded approach to Brexit. In particular the Project Fear of Immigration from Turkey was both ignorant or intentionally misleading. Having said that I look forward to a successful Exit.
Sorry, this 'it's the fault of Leavers' doesn't wash.
It was Government policy to hold a referendum. Therefore, given there were only two options, they should have had an idea of what they would do if they lost. They didn't even have to make it public, just have a contingency plan.
The failure to do so was recklessly irresponsible.
Been away for a couple of days, what is this about Corbyn wanting there to be a commons vote every time we deploy the SAS? You know the SAS that we don't acknowledge their deployments or if they are involved in anything.
Jezbollah wanting to level the playing field?
It means he's a dangerous f***ing idiot, who has no idea of the role our special forces play in keeping Britain and the world safe. Not only that but he doesn't care that he has no idea, and doesn't think it's important that he should check these things before opening his stupid mouth.
Mr. Sandpit, I believe there was about a decade ago (I think Alonso won a couple of races that time).
Checking the podium finishes, Rosberg's only been on the podium twice during that time. Just not good enough for a chap with the dominant car.
A quick Google can only find this year, I'll stand corrected if I can find a source for it. It will have had to be a five week month like last month, which narrows it down a little. I'm not even sure four races in five weeks has happened before!
Casino Royale FPT: "The biggest criticism that can be made of Leave is that they didn't expect to win so pursued two-stage strategy designed to maximise the Leave vote this time to position for an outright win in the 2020s. Viewed from that prism, contradictions didn't matter. However, you can also lay a similar criticism at the door of HMG who until the last few weeks had no real sense they'd lose and, in fact, deliberately failed to prepare for it as part of the Remain strategy. That means a lot of hard work now has to be done on Brexit but that work will be done."
Difficult to see what meaningful prep could have been done without it leaking out and getting into the press as a sign that Remain (and the PM) thought they were going to lose, and that the sky wouldn't necessarily fall in on 24th June because the Establishment was already working on a plan they thought likely to have to implement, with options being prepared to address Brexit - both things that may have played into Leave's hands.
However, I suspect there WAS a degree of Civil Service worst case planning going on, and probably has been for years in truth, and I imagine despite the impression given, some sort of contingency plan was dusted off on the morning of the 24th....
I think it was irresponsible of the Government to call the vote with no serious strategy or preparation. If that was part of the Remain strategy (and it was) then it just reinforces the moral bankruptcy of the Remain case in my mind.
HMG (under Osborne) was happy to list the various unpaltable flavours of doom on offer through Government research, but not to secretly make real contingency plans to mitigate national risk.
HMG was not the only body which cautioned against Brexit with estimates of damage. Bodies such as the IFS and business bodies did so. Our negotiations with the EU will involve compromises on all sides, even by the EU. It would not have been realistic to offer the whole spectrum of possibilities particularly since so many variables will be subject to negotiation. Leavers had a simple-minded approach to Brexit. In particular the Project Fear of Immigration from Turkey was both ignorant or intentionally misleading. Having said that I look forward to a successful Exit.
Sorry, this 'it's the fault of Leavers' doesn't wash.
It was Government policy to hold a referendum. Therefore, given there were only two options, they should have had an idea of what they would do if they lost. They didn't even have to make it public, just have a contingency plan.
The failure to do so was recklessly irresponsible.
They should have made it public; then we could have made an informed decision.
Mr. Sandpit, I'd guess five races in four weekends has happened a fair bit, simply because the end of season (and sometimes the start) often has back-to-back pairs separated by a fortnight.
Mr. Taffys, I agree, but would add that Rosberg is at least as responsible as Hamilton for that. When the gap was larger, Hamilton was looking a bit down (understandably). Rosberg should've kept focus. Even more than pace, psychological resilience is, I think, Rosberg's weakness.
''if you have no confidence in Corbyn winning the next election, then you have until 2025 for a proper chance of getting into power.''
That's if you survive until 2025. Safe seats will be for Corbynistas only, and good luck fighting marginals on Corbyn's manifesto.
Given that we are about to have boundary changes, its perfectly possible that all seats are Corbynistas only as everyone will have to fight for their new seats..
BTW, had a pleasant evening with Kelvin Hopkins MP and his family. It wasn't really appropriate to talk politics, so asking whether he thought Corbyn would win would just elicit a roll of the eyes. However, he is planning to spend the summer getting to grips with his Shadow brief (Culture) given to him by Jeremy... Make of that what you will.
pb-ers also might be interested to know that he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of wines, especially those of Burgundy. No champagne socialist he.
More of a Burgundy Bolshevik Red wine only I guess?
If the vote was rerun, LEAVE would win again, probably by a bigger margin.
Project Fear would now be seen to largely comprise a load of bollocks.
As, to be fair, was the Lave stuff on the NHS. But Project Fear swung more votes, is my guess.
Leave would win comprehensively simply because the British public don't like a bad loser.
Plus there would be original squealing squared at that second result. Twitter would melt, Facebook sink into a swamp....almost worth doing it again. I wonder how many MPs would swap sides?
Difficult to see what meaningful prep could have been done without it leaking out and getting into the press as a sign that Remain (and the PM) thought they were going to lose, and that the sky wouldn't necessarily fall in on 24th June because the Establishment was already working on a plan they thought likely to have to implement, with options being prepared to address Brexit - both things that may have played into Leave's hands.
However, I suspect there WAS a degree of Civil Service worst case planning going on, and probably has been for years in truth, and I imagine despite the impression given, some sort of contingency plan was dusted off on the morning of the 24th....
HMG was not the only body which cautioned against Brexit with estimates of damage. Bodies such as the IFS and business bodies did so. Our negotiations with the EU will involve compromises on all sides, even by the EU. It would not have been realistic to offer the whole spectrum of possibilities particularly since so many variables will be subject to negotiation. Leavers had a simple-minded approach to Brexit. In particular the Project Fear of Immigration from Turkey was both ignorant or intentionally misleading. Having said that I look forward to a successful Exit.
Sorry, this 'it's the fault of Leavers' doesn't wash.
It was Government policy to hold a referendum. Therefore, given there were only two options, they should have had an idea of what they would do if they lost. They didn't even have to make it public, just have a contingency plan.
The failure to do so was recklessly irresponsible.
You keep ignoring the fact that the BoE took prompt and appropriate action which has meant relative calmness has prevailed. What else would you have them do? Cameron resigned very promptly while both he and Osborne calmed the markets. The Tory party acted with commendable speed to shorten the interregnum and prevent the catastrophe of leadership by Leadsom or Gove or worse. The new government contains a good balance and for the moment has united the party behind it. If there are problems ahead there I would be certain they'd come from the usual suspects on the right of the party. I'm moderately confident that the Brexit we get will command majority support in the country but we have to face some economic problems ahead at least for a time which will make government very difficult. Those problems were well signposted ahead of the campaign and i cannot understand the desire of some on here to keep quiet about them.
BTW, had a pleasant evening with Kelvin Hopkins MP and his family. It wasn't really appropriate to talk politics, so asking whether he thought Corbyn would win would just elicit a roll of the eyes. However, he is planning to spend the summer getting to grips with his Shadow brief (Culture) given to him by Jeremy... Make of that what you will.
pb-ers also might be interested to know that he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of wines, especially those of Burgundy. No champagne socialist he.
More of a Burgundy Bolshevik Red wine only I guess?
He did also bring a German desert wine. But his love was really for the Reds....
LOL. A peerage for being a failure. ttps://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/760085878635163648
He's 35 and doesn't appear to have had a proper job in his life except running a blog for a couple of years, failing to become an MP and working on the failed Remain campaign.
His most famous episode was surely the embarrassment he caused his Home Secretary father when he got caught trying to sell drugs to a journalist!
Mr. Sandpit, I'd guess five races in four weekends has happened a fair bit, simply because the end of season (and sometimes the start) often has back-to-back pairs separated by a fortnight. .
I'll bet you that five races in four weekends has never happened before
''Even more than pace, psychological resilience is, I think, Rosberg's weakness. ''
If Hamilton wins again, is it possible. I wonder, that Rosberg might be leave?? (or be replaced??). They really do seem to absolutely loathe each other.
BTW, had a pleasant evening with Kelvin Hopkins MP and his family. It wasn't really appropriate to talk politics, so asking whether he thought Corbyn would win would just elicit a roll of the eyes. However, he is planning to spend the summer getting to grips with his Shadow brief (Culture) given to him by Jeremy... Make of that what you will.
pb-ers also might be interested to know that he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of wines, especially those of Burgundy. No champagne socialist he.
More of a Burgundy Bolshevik Red wine only I guess?
He did also bring a German desert wine. But his love was really for the Reds....
Wouldn't have put him down as a Blue Nun kinda guy.
Mr. Taffys, they both have contracts. I strongly suspect they'll both be there for 2017.
I think Rosberg has good pace. At some circuits he's genuinely faster than Hamilton. But his wheel-to-wheel racing isn't as sharp and, as mentioned, he's not strong enough mentally. But, the four week break may help him improve, as will Hamilton's probable penalty for Spa.
I don't know if I should continue adding the LA Times tracking poll in my tracking averages, they are clearly an outlier (Trump can't be leading by 4 when he's clearly losing by 4 with all others).
I looked at their methodology to see whats wrong, I found that they are the only pollster in the USA that uses the very british polling method of likelyhood to vote.
They ask each person how likely they are to vote from 0-100, then they ask them who would they vote for and they add up them all up, it reminds me of ICM.
"The figures, from the UK's current account published by the Office for National Statistics, say that, before the application of the rebate, the UK's gross contribution was £19.6bn a year - about £376m a week.
But the rebate was £4.9bn, leaving a yearly contribution for the UK of £14.7bn.
Taking into account the EU's payments to the UK public sector brings the final figure down further to £10.4bn a year - or about £199m a week."
As I see it, moderate Labour MPs must stand and fight or they will get picked off by investigations, de/reselections and being hassled and bullied into standing down by the hard left.
How many have the guts and energy for that, really, I wonder. Some will be knocking on in years and hoping to string things out until 2020 to get out. Some are just straws in the wind happy to go with whatever the leadership decides.
if you have no confidence in Corbyn winning the next election, then you have until 2025 for a proper chance of getting into power.
Thats a fecking long time, and a good proportion of your career gone.
And in 'normal' politics (i.e. there is no "all bets are off" crisis) it is almost certainly worse than that. If Labour were recovering there is already a view that the mountain to climb, especially on new boundaries, back to a majority is a two election job. After (and including) 1979 the Tories won four running, and after 1997 Labour won three. You could argue 2010 was a special case, close to a draw, hence the Tories have only won outright once so far. If 2020 is the disaster for Labour that looks possible, then at best 2025 is the recovery election and the first chance of majority is then 2030. Assuming we stick with five year gaps, of course. Now that is a long time.
Mr. Taffys, they both have contracts. I strongly suspect they'll both be there for 2017.
I think Rosberg has good pace. At some circuits he's genuinely faster than Hamilton. But his wheel-to-wheel racing isn't as sharp and, as mentioned, he's not strong enough mentally. But, the four week break may help him improve, as will Hamilton's probable penalty for Spa.
It must be really difficult for people at the top in such competitive environments as that, to become what more ordinary people would consider 'team-mates'.
''Even more than pace, psychological resilience is, I think, Rosberg's weakness. ''
If Hamilton wins again, is it possible. I wonder, that Rosberg might be leave?? (or be replaced??). They really do seem to absolutely loathe each other.
No driver would walk mid season from the best car on the grid, contract or no contract. This year is the best shot Rosberg will ever get at the title. I still think the 4.7 on Nico is value, Lewis will be starting at least two if not three of the remaining races from the back of the grid as he's out of engines for the season.
The assumption on the markets is that Diane James is the reserve candidate for Woolfe. There is plenty of money joining the dots, so I think it has to be taken seriously.
''Even more than pace, psychological resilience is, I think, Rosberg's weakness. ''
If Hamilton wins again, is it possible. I wonder, that Rosberg might be leave?? (or be replaced??). They really do seem to absolutely loathe each other.
No driver would walk mid season from the best car on the grid, contract or no contract. This year is the best shot Rosberg will ever get at the title. I still think the 4.7 on Nico is value, Lewis will be starting at least two if not three of the remaining races from the back of the grid as he's out of engines for the season.
Spa. Honda broke two whole PUs in at a single race last season for Alonso and Button, both took an 80 place grid penalty but effectively that jusy meant starting from the back of the grid. I have no doubt Mercedes will do the same for Hamilton at Spa where the overtaking potential is big and the chance of safety cars and rain is high. They could break in two new engines for him and he could finish on the podium at Spa. Those two would take him to the end of the season.
We're back to believing opinion polls then? Do we never learn?
Mind you, after the way Trump insulted the bereaved mother of a soldier, in normal circumstances, you would have thought he'd be finished so maybe the polls are getting it right for a change?
Mr. Taffys, they both have contracts. I strongly suspect they'll both be there for 2017.
I think Rosberg has good pace. At some circuits he's genuinely faster than Hamilton. But his wheel-to-wheel racing isn't as sharp and, as mentioned, he's not strong enough mentally. But, the four week break may help him improve, as will Hamilton's probable penalty for Spa.
It must be really difficult for people at the top in such competitive environments as that, to become what more ordinary people would consider 'team-mates'.
Quite. Even among the lower order teams, the one guy you want to beat first is the guy in the same car as you. Add to that that the main championship, which pays the prize money, is the Constructors Championship and not the Drivers Championship and it makes for very interesting intra-team relationships between those at the sharp end.
To be fair, Mercedes have managed two competitive drivers very well, some other teams have had No.1 and No.2 drivers that are expected to behave accordingly - Yes, you Ferrari and Schumacher a few years ago.
We're back to believing opinion polls then? Do we never learn...
Apart from Rasmussen, Fox, Marist, and Reuters, american pollsters have been accurate in the primaries.
As long as they don't suddenly change their methodologies mid stream (like Marist and Reuters) and they are not partisan (Rasmussen and Fox) they should give an accurate result.
''Even more than pace, psychological resilience is, I think, Rosberg's weakness. ''
If Hamilton wins again, is it possible. I wonder, that Rosberg might be leave?? (or be replaced??). They really do seem to absolutely loathe each other.
No driver would walk mid season from the best car on the grid, contract or no contract. This year is the best shot Rosberg will ever get at the title. I still think the 4.7 on Nico is value, Lewis will be starting at least two if not three of the remaining races from the back of the grid as he's out of engines for the season.
Spa. Honda broke two whole PUs in at a single race last season for Alonso and Button, both took an 80 place grid penalty but effectively that jusy meant starting from the back of the grid. I have no doubt Mercedes will do the same for Hamilton at Spa where the overtaking potential is big and the chance of safety cars and rain is high. They could break in two new engines for him and he could finish on the podium at Spa. Those two would take him to the end of the season.
Not too sure they're allowed to do that any more, but if they can get away with it then they will!
I was thinking Spa and Monza, the next two races. That would give Lewis the best chance of two good results and will let him know where he is in the championship in relation to Nico for the rest of the season.
Miss JGP, quite. Not only that, the first man a driver must beat is his team mate. Rosberg can't blame his machinery. If he had an equally good car in another team (and a rubbish team mate) he'd stand a better chance against Hamilton due to less pressure from knowing he has exactly the same machinery.
Mr. Max, I'd heard that double-engine line before, and if Mercedes do that, it'll likely be very good for Hamilton.
The only potential downside is it might (not sure how the rules work) push some components where he has a margin for failure into the red, so any subsequent failures would result in a massive grid penalty.
Comments
Could work.
Neither are electable.
Labour are screwed.
If it wasn't such a bad thing for parliamentary democracy, I'd be laughing.
Onset Whim Hits Women
Owen Smith. News To Him
close, so very close
Labour is not even close to that - and that is Labour's own fault.
At the moment there is no viable alternative - and Smith is not presenting a pathway back for Labour.
Labour needs to sort itself out. And it isn't close to being able to do that.
I would expect the incumbent administration to routinely plan for all eventualities as a basic part of good government.
You wouldn't know him, would you?
Having said that I look forward to a successful Exit.
An excellent metaphor.
If the government has a track record of soubdly managed finances and a minimal structural budget then I'm sure you could borrow the money.
The issue is that the markets don't trust the government not to waste it on current spending (or to shift existing capital spending into this new pocket to free up money for current spending elsewhere in the budget).
hence there is a risk ut will impact ocetall perceptions of credit worthonesd and borrowing rates
It's worse than that. Felix would have found it most disagreeable if some of those awful Brexit oiks had voted the same way as him.
He wanted them to vote leave and lose. Turned out there were far more than he thought.
Jezbollah wanting to level the playing field?
Its a partial account, but does include a verbatim excerpt of Corbyn explaining his position.
Should we burden the next generation with repayments of our borrowing?
If it is re-financed in twenty years time will interest rates still be at an all time low?
Whilst I can understand the frustration felt by those who wish to see the Leadership candidates in a head to head debate I don't feel at all comfortable with the idea that it is for the media to decide how these elections should be conducted.
Ther were no such debates between Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 , between John Smith and Bryan Gould in 1992 nor between Blair, Beckett and Prescott in 1994.
I take a similar view re-general election debates between party leaders. The fact that three such debates took place in 2010 should not impose an obligation on future Leaders to do do likewise - and it was interesting that the 2010 format was not followed in 2015.
There is a strong case for arguing that the media is abusing its position by seeking to its own preferred format on the conduct of elections.
He did criticise it today at a news conference that appears to have been well attended by journalists, but only Sky have reported it as far as I can see and that was by putting a vido clip online.
http://news.sky.com/video/corbyn-critical-of-cameron-honours-10519416
Checking the podium finishes, Rosberg's only been on the podium twice during that time. Just not good enough for a chap with the dominant car.
When one attends a debate in a hall, being present means one can be aware of all the parties to a debate.
On TV, all one sees is what the producer/camera decides to show you. For example, a close-up of one person may mean that the body language/facial expression of another is lost on the viewer.
Thats a fecking long time, and a good proportion of your career gone.
(Watching 4 GPs in 5 weekends probably explains why it felt so long.... :-) )
That's if you survive until 2025. Safe seats will be for Corbynistas only, and good luck fighting marginals on Corbyn's manifesto.
This is the longest ever season, with 21 races. Unfortunately, the ones most at risk of being dropped (Germany, Belgium, Italy [well, Monza], Brazil) tend to be great old tracks. Hockenheim's a bit so-so but the others are fantastic.
Anyway, four weeks off until Belgium.
pb-ers also might be interested to know that he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of wines, especially those of Burgundy. No champagne socialist he.
It was Government policy to hold a referendum. Therefore, given there were only two options, they should have had an idea of what they would do if they lost. They didn't even have to make it public, just have a contingency plan.
The failure to do so was recklessly irresponsible.
Clinton 42 .. Trump 46
http://www.rabaresearch.com/documents/RABA-Virginia-Survey-Results-July-2016.pdf
Mr Morris... it seems to the very casual observer as if Mr Hamilton had totally got inside Mr Rosberg's head.
On a serious point, having been away - who the hell IS going to be UKIP leader??
There was a contingency plan. It was activated immediately and is in operation now.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/760085878635163648
Mr. Taffys, I agree, but would add that Rosberg is at least as responsible as Hamilton for that. When the gap was larger, Hamilton was looking a bit down (understandably). Rosberg should've kept focus. Even more than pace, psychological resilience is, I think, Rosberg's weakness.
Red wine only I guess?
Boris arguably got about as a good a result as he could hope for (so far) but Gove's career appears to be over.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-bounce-appears-bigger-than-trumps/
Four races in October.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/race-calendar
It was Government policy to hold a referendum. Therefore, given there were only two options, they should have had an idea of what they would do if they lost. They didn't even have to make it public, just have a contingency plan.
The failure to do so was recklessly irresponsible.
You keep ignoring the fact that the BoE took prompt and appropriate action which has meant relative calmness has prevailed. What else would you have them do? Cameron resigned very promptly while both he and Osborne calmed the markets. The Tory party acted with commendable speed to shorten the interregnum and prevent the catastrophe of leadership by Leadsom or Gove or worse. The new government contains a good balance and for the moment has united the party behind it. If there are problems ahead there I would be certain they'd come from the usual suspects on the right of the party. I'm moderately confident that the Brexit we get will command majority support in the country but we have to face some economic problems ahead at least for a time which will make government very difficult. Those problems were well signposted ahead of the campaign and i cannot understand the desire of some on here to keep quiet about them.
His most famous episode was surely the embarrassment he caused his Home Secretary father when he got caught trying to sell drugs to a journalist!
(I give a 90% chance now)
Gallup is in, Hillary jumps 5 points among all adults and 7 among democrats for new record highs.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/189299/presidential-election-2016-key-indicators.aspx?g_source=ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles
It's the biggest convention bounce for a democrat since 1992.
Hillary's lead over Trump is now at the levels of early July.
Of course I have to give Trump the customary 10% chance for extreme longshots.
RCP haven't listed that poll but will they post the Virginia poll ....
Don't despair, Trump still has as much chance as Owen Smith right now.
But no one has ever recovered from being that far behind after the conventions, plus Hillary got the biggest bounce for a democrat since 1992.
Trump's only chance is that the pattern I saw in April continues and he can still muster a victory even if he's behind the popular vote.
Clearly, I have been working too hard
If Hamilton wins again, is it possible. I wonder, that Rosberg might be leave?? (or be replaced??). They really do seem to absolutely loathe each other.
They have Hillary +15 nationally.
But they have Trump leading in Virginia by 4, which would only be possible if Trump where leading nationally by 5.
I think Rosberg has good pace. At some circuits he's genuinely faster than Hamilton. But his wheel-to-wheel racing isn't as sharp and, as mentioned, he's not strong enough mentally. But, the four week break may help him improve, as will Hamilton's probable penalty for Spa.
they are clearly an outlier (Trump can't be leading by 4 when he's clearly losing by 4 with all others).
https://uasdata.usc.edu/data/election-poll
I looked at their methodology to see whats wrong, I found that they are the only pollster in the USA that uses the very british polling method of likelyhood to vote.
They ask each person how likely they are to vote from 0-100, then they ask them who would they vote for and they add up them all up, it reminds me of ICM.
"The figures, from the UK's current account published by the Office for National Statistics, say that, before the application of the rebate, the UK's gross contribution was £19.6bn a year - about £376m a week.
But the rebate was £4.9bn, leaving a yearly contribution for the UK of £14.7bn.
Taking into account the EU's payments to the UK public sector brings the final figure down further to £10.4bn a year - or about £199m a week."
July 2005. France, Britain, rest, Germany, Hungary.
Only other time it's happened this century.
http://www.gpupdate.net/en/calendar/3/2005-formula-1-calendar/
@GdnPolitics: Jeremy Corbyn denies he surrounds himself with sycophants https://t.co/c4UX0q5Hlz
...but still totally bogus
But it's not 20 points large, but perhaps 4 points, all due to Trump getting fewer republicans in safe republican states.
I have now decided to remove the LA Times tracker, their likelyhood to vote is not the factor that gives Trump his very large lead with them:
http://96.127.53.23/election/
Time travel: Spectacular images capture the lost station which Victorians used to travel through north London
To be fair, Mercedes have managed two competitive drivers very well, some other teams have had No.1 and No.2 drivers that are expected to behave accordingly - Yes, you Ferrari and Schumacher a few years ago.
As long as they don't suddenly change their methodologies mid stream (like Marist and Reuters) and they are not partisan (Rasmussen and Fox) they should give an accurate result.
I was thinking Spa and Monza, the next two races. That would give Lewis the best chance of two good results and will let him know where he is in the championship in relation to Nico for the rest of the season.
Miss JGP, quite. Not only that, the first man a driver must beat is his team mate. Rosberg can't blame his machinery. If he had an equally good car in another team (and a rubbish team mate) he'd stand a better chance against Hamilton due to less pressure from knowing he has exactly the same machinery.
Mr. Max, I'd heard that double-engine line before, and if Mercedes do that, it'll likely be very good for Hamilton.
The only potential downside is it might (not sure how the rules work) push some components where he has a margin for failure into the red, so any subsequent failures would result in a massive grid penalty.