I'm glad to see that TSE's stint as guest editor is as usual quiet, dull and doesn't require a new thread as often as Jos Buttler hits a six.
Edit - and sixth like Owen Smith in this two horse race and Labour in the 2025 election.
I'm absolutely sated at the moment. I can barely function.
I was at Trent Bridge today, Oh Lord what a time to be alive.
Watched the highlights today. Incredibly they almost slowed down towards the end. And then we had Root scoring "only" 85 in 86 balls. Surely 450 is on the cards soon.
I reckon if slow coach Root or Hales had gotten out 5 overs earlier, we would have got 500.
When the England innings ended, I swear to Allah, the crowd, especially we English fans gave out a sigh that you only manage after a post coital cigarette.
AND I'VE GOT TICKETS TO HEADINGLEY, PLEASE LET US WIN THE TOSS AND BAT FIRST
One day I might understand why Vince played ahead of Buttler in the test matches. Maybe.
I dunno... they bat in different positions, Buttler has consistently failed to translate his one day form into the test arena (similar, for example to Hales), Vince was obviously picked to do better than he has, batting in test cricket is a different art to limited over cricket, Buttler effectively made himself unavailable at the start of the summer...
Well Buttler would not have played where Vince did in the batting line up but at 6 or 7 he would have the potential to be another Adam Gilchrist. Such talent really should not be denied.
Drop Vince, Bring Ali up to 4, Bairstow at 5, Stokes 6, Buttler at 7.
Ali at 4 is too high.
I'd still like to see Scott Borthwick tried out at three - giving the additional benefit of an extra spin option. Root at 4, Bairstow 5, Stokes 6, Ali 7, Buttler 8, Woakes 9. Basically a team of all-rounders. Do you remember when our one all-rounder was Paul Collingwood?
If we could find a solid opener, a steady #3/#4, and a left arm bowler, the England side with that middle / lower order would take a hell of a lot of beating. Any of 4->8 could take the game away from you in one session.
Bowling my biggest concern. Anderson is suffering a lot of injuries, Finn is a disaster, Ali is fine but never going to be as good one of the worlds best spinners, and we don't have a lot of variation when opponents get in (we have 4 right arm bowlers who bowl similar pace).
Looks like we are going to see a Corbyn GE campaign after all....what could possibly go wrong?
Some sort of Pledgehenge? An entire army of Elvis impersonators? Gerry Adams campaigning alongside Corbyn? Accidentally designing a new logo for the Labour Party that looks a bit like a swastika?
Far from this continual balls about a 'progressive alliance', I expect we'll see a couple of enterprising New Labourites switching to the Tories. Lining one up for the first day of the Labour conference would be fun...
Good luck to them holding their seats in the ensuing by-elections.
Erm, have you seen the polls?
I can name at least two Labour MPs who would win under any label. Labour is the C&A of today; only really exists outside of the U.K.,and it might yet become the BHS.
You think the Tories would GAIN seats in byelections??
Did you see the results of this year's local elections?
Parliamentary by election would be a tad different.
I'm glad to see that TSE's stint as guest editor is as usual quiet, dull and doesn't require a new thread as often as Jos Buttler hits a six.
Edit - and sixth like Owen Smith in this two horse race and Labour in the 2025 election.
I'm absolutely sated at the moment. I can barely function.
I was at Trent Bridge today, Oh Lord what a time to be alive.
Watched the highlights today. Incredibly they almost slowed down towards the end. And then we had Root scoring "only" 85 in 86 balls. Surely 450 is on the cards soon.
I reckon if slow coach Root or Hales had gotten out 5 overs earlier, we would have got 500.
When the England innings ended, I swear to Allah, the crowd, especially we English fans gave out a sigh that you only manage after a post coital cigarette.
AND I'VE GOT TICKETS TO HEADINGLEY, PLEASE LET US WIN THE TOSS AND BAT FIRST
One day I might understand why Vince played ahead of Buttler in the test matches. Maybe.
I dunno... they bat in different positions, Buttler has consistently failed to translate his one day form into the test arena (similar, for example to Hales), Vince was obviously picked to do better than he has, batting in test cricket is a different art to limited over cricket, Buttler effectively made himself unavailable at the start of the summer...
Well Buttler would not have played where Vince did in the batting line up but at 6 or 7 he would have the potential to be another Adam Gilchrist. Such talent really should not be denied.
Drop Vince, Bring Ali up to 4, Bairstow at 5, Stokes 6, Buttler at 7.
Ali at 4 is too high.
He should be 3....thrived there for Worcs.
FC average of 38.77. Nothing special.
More importantly, at Test Match level, has he shown the consistent ability to dig in for long periods, technically very sound, never giving opportunities etc etc etc, which is what you need from #3 / #4.
For me he hasn't. He is fine coming at 7/8 and being very dangerous if he gets going.
Quite possibly a low-sample-size fluke, but he averages close to 100 at no. 7 in tests.
Looks like we are going to see a Corbyn GE campaign after all....what could possibly go wrong?
Some sort of Pledgehenge? An entire army of Elvis impersonators? Gerry Adams campaigning alongside Corbyn? Accidentally designing a new logo for the Labour Party that looks a bit like a swastika?
Far from this continual balls about a 'progressive alliance', I expect we'll see a couple of enterprising New Labourites switching to the Tories. Lining one up for the first day of the Labour conference would be fun...
Good luck to them holding their seats in the ensuing by-elections.
Erm, have you seen the polls?
I can name at least two Labour MPs who would win under any label. Labour is the C&A of today; only really exists outside of the U.K.,and it might yet become the BHS.
You think the Tories would GAIN seats in byelections??
Did you see the results of this year's local elections?
Newsflash for Danny - we have a new leader. She is a darn sight more popular.
Looks like we are going to see a Corbyn GE campaign after all....what could possibly go wrong?
Some sort of Pledgehenge? An entire army of Elvis impersonators? Gerry Adams campaigning alongside Corbyn? Accidentally designing a new logo for the Labour Party that looks a bit like a swastika?
Far from this continual balls about a 'progressive alliance', I expect we'll see a couple of enterprising New Labourites switching to the Tories. Lining one up for the first day of the Labour conference would be fun...
Good luck to them holding their seats in the ensuing by-elections.
Erm, have you seen the polls?
I can name at least two Labour MPs who would win under any label. Labour is the C&A of today; only really exists outside of the U.K.,and it might yet become the BHS.
You think the Tories would GAIN seats in byelections??
Did you see the results of this year's local elections?
Parliamentary by election would be a tad different.
And just because Carswell and Reckless went down the by-election route, there is no reason for anyone else to follow that.
I'm glad to see that TSE's stint as guest editor is as usual quiet, dull and doesn't require a new thread as often as Jos Buttler hits a six.
Edit - and sixth like Owen Smith in this two horse race and Labour in the 2025 election.
I'm absolutely sated at the moment. I can barely function.
I was at Trent Bridge today, Oh Lord what a time to be alive.
Watched the highlights today. Incredibly they almost slowed down towards the end. And then we had Root scoring "only" 85 in 86 balls. Surely 450 is on the cards soon.
I reckon if slow coach Root or Hales had gotten out 5 overs earlier, we would have got 500.
When the England innings ended, I swear to Allah, the crowd, especially we English fans gave out a sigh that you only manage after a post coital cigarette.
AND I'VE GOT TICKETS TO HEADINGLEY, PLEASE LET US WIN THE TOSS AND BAT FIRST
One day I might understand why Vince played ahead of Buttler in the test matches. Maybe.
I dunno... they bat in different positions, Buttler has consistently failed to translate his one day form into the test arena (similar, for example to Hales), Vince was obviously picked to do better than he has, batting in test cricket is a different art to limited over cricket, Buttler effectively made himself unavailable at the start of the summer...
Well Buttler would not have played where Vince did in the batting line up but at 6 or 7 he would have the potential to be another Adam Gilchrist. Such talent really should not be denied.
Drop Vince, Bring Ali up to 4, Bairstow at 5, Stokes 6, Buttler at 7.
Ali at 4 is too high.
He should be 3....thrived there for Worcs.
FC average of 38.77. Nothing special.
More importantly, at Test Match level, has he shown the consistent ability to dig in for long periods, technically very sound, never giving opportunities etc etc etc, which is what you need from #3 / #4.
For me he hasn't. He is fine coming at 7/8 and being very dangerous if he gets going.
Quite possibly a low-sample-size fluke, but he averages close to 100 at no. 7 in tests.
Ali frustrates me. He makes it look so effortless, but far too often he gets to 20-30 and then appears to give his wicket away rather too easily. When he does focus and get going, he is fantastic to watch.
Looks like we are going to see a Corbyn GE campaign after all....what could possibly go wrong?
Some sort of Pledgehenge? An entire army of Elvis impersonators? Gerry Adams campaigning alongside Corbyn? Accidentally designing a new logo for the Labour Party that looks a bit like a swastika?
Far from this continual balls about a 'progressive alliance', I expect we'll see a couple of enterprising New Labourites switching to the Tories. Lining one up for the first day of the Labour conference would be fun...
Good luck to them holding their seats in the ensuing by-elections.
Erm, have you seen the polls?
I can name at least two Labour MPs who would win under any label. Labour is the C&A of today; only really exists outside of the U.K.,and it might yet become the BHS.
You think the Tories would GAIN seats in byelections??
Did you see the results of this year's local elections?
Parliamentary by election would be a tad different.
It would indeed be different, but probably not in a beneficial way to the Tories - governments almost always do worse in by-elections than they do in local elections.
Tony Blair couldn't even gain in by-elections like Beckenham in late 1997 (where he only needed to overturn a 4% majority), even when he was officially the most popular politician since Churchill and when Labour was ahead of the Tories by 30% in the national polls.
Looks like we are going to see a Corbyn GE campaign after all....what could possibly go wrong?
Some sort of Pledgehenge? An entire army of Elvis impersonators? Gerry Adams campaigning alongside Corbyn? Accidentally designing a new logo for the Labour Party that looks a bit like a swastika?
Far from this continual balls about a 'progressive alliance', I expect we'll see a couple of enterprising New Labourites switching to the Tories. Lining one up for the first day of the Labour conference would be fun...
Good luck to them holding their seats in the ensuing by-elections.
What by-elections? They don't have to resign their seat.
However terrible a candidate Owen Smith is, I'm struggling to imagine who actually could have beaten Corbyn. The only name that comes to mind is Alan Johnson, but would anyone have had a chance against the army of post-GE true believers?
One of the most unfair things is how Corbyn has been blamed by his opponents for Brexit.
The person who failed to energise the Labour vote was Alan Johnson. He played a key role in the campaign. For Chrissake, Johnson couldn't even persuade his own constituency to vote Remain.
Leave took 67.6 per cent of the vote in Hull. Remain were walloped in Johnson's Hull.
And somehow, the conclusion of this is that Corbyn is to blame for Brexit, and Johnson is not.
Agree absolutely - there's a lot of scapegoating going on by the fanatical EU-philes in Labour. They know their campaign was naff but they're blaming Corbyn for it. I'm delighted they ran a naff campaign but that's beside the point...
Still, Johnson could portray himself as being firmly on the left more easily, and can point to real front-bench experience, unlike Smith who simply asserts that he'd be more competent than Corbyn.
As I type I realise Johnson voted for the Iraq War, which rules out winning over many Corbynites. With that criterion in mind, TSE's suggestion of Ed Miliband isn't a bad one.
Looks like we are going to see a Corbyn GE campaign after all....what could possibly go wrong?
Some sort of Pledgehenge? An entire army of Elvis impersonators? Gerry Adams campaigning alongside Corbyn? Accidentally designing a new logo for the Labour Party that looks a bit like a swastika?
Far from this continual balls about a 'progressive alliance', I expect we'll see a couple of enterprising New Labourites switching to the Tories. Lining one up for the first day of the Labour conference would be fun...
Good luck to them holding their seats in the ensuing by-elections.
Erm, have you seen the polls?
I can name at least two Labour MPs who would win under any label. Labour is the C&A of today; only really exists outside of the U.K.,and it might yet become the BHS.
You think the Tories would GAIN seats in byelections??
Did you see the results of this year's local elections?
Parliamentary by election would be a tad different.
It would indeed be different, but probably not in a beneficial way to the Tories - governments almost always do worse in by-elections than they do in local elections.
Tony Blair couldn't even gain in by-elections like Beckenham in late 1997 (where he only needed to overturn a 4% majority), even when he was officially the most popular politician since Churchill and when Labour was ahead of the Tories by 30% in the national polls.
Almost always, so in particularly unusual circumstances they don't. I think these qualify
Looks like we are going to see a Corbyn GE campaign after all....what could possibly go wrong?
Some sort of Pledgehenge? An entire army of Elvis impersonators? Gerry Adams campaigning alongside Corbyn? Accidentally designing a new logo for the Labour Party that looks a bit like a swastika?
Far from this continual balls about a 'progressive alliance', I expect we'll see a couple of enterprising New Labourites switching to the Tories. Lining one up for the first day of the Labour conference would be fun...
Good luck to them holding their seats in the ensuing by-elections.
Erm, have you seen the polls?
I can name at least two Labour MPs who would win under any label. Labour is the C&A of today; only really exists outside of the U.K.,and it might yet become the BHS.
You think the Tories would GAIN seats in byelections??
Did you see the results of this year's local elections?
Parliamentary by election would be a tad different.
It would indeed be different, but probably not in a beneficial way to the Tories - governments almost always do worse in by-elections than they do in local elections.
Tony Blair couldn't even gain in by-elections like Beckenham in late 1997 (where he only needed to overturn a 4% majority), even when he was officially the most popular politician since Churchill and when Labour was ahead of the Tories by 30% in the national polls.
Almost always, so in particularly unusual circumstances they don't. I think these qualify
Why are the current circumstances unusual, in a historical context?
Looks like we are going to see a Corbyn GE campaign after all....what could possibly go wrong?
Some sort of Pledgehenge? An entire army of Elvis impersonators? Gerry Adams campaigning alongside Corbyn? Accidentally designing a new logo for the Labour Party that looks a bit like a swastika?
Far from this continual balls about a 'progressive alliance', I expect we'll see a couple of enterprising New Labourites switching to the Tories. Lining one up for the first day of the Labour conference would be fun...
Good luck to them holding their seats in the ensuing by-elections.
Erm, have you seen the polls?
I can name at least two Labour MPs who would win under any label. Labour is the C&A of today; only really exists outside of the U.K.,and it might yet become the BHS.
You think the Tories would GAIN seats in byelections??
Did you see the results of this year's local elections?
Parliamentary by election would be a tad different.
It would indeed be different, but probably not in a beneficial way to the Tories - governments almost always do worse in by-elections than they do in local elections.
Tony Blair couldn't even gain in by-elections like Beckenham in late 1997 (where he only needed to overturn a 4% majority), even when he was officially the most popular politician since Churchill and when Labour was ahead of the Tories by 30% in the national polls.
Almost always, so in particularly unusual circumstances they don't. I think these qualify
Why are the current circumstances unusual, in a historical context?
Are you trying to tell me everything is relatively normal?
Looks like we are going to see a Corbyn GE campaign after all....what could possibly go wrong?
Some sort of Pledgehenge? An entire army of Elvis impersonators? Gerry Adams campaigning alongside Corbyn? Accidentally designing a new logo for the Labour Party that looks a bit like a swastika?
Far from this continual balls about a 'progressive alliance', I expect we'll see a couple of enterprising New Labourites switching to the Tories. Lining one up for the first day of the Labour conference would be fun...
Good luck to them holding their seats in the ensuing by-elections.
Erm, have you seen the polls?
I can name at least two Labour MPs who would win under any label. Labour is the C&A of today; only really exists outside of the U.K.,and it might yet become the BHS.
You think the Tories would GAIN seats in byelections??
Did you see the results of this year's local elections?
Parliamentary by election would be a tad different.
It would indeed be different, but probably not in a beneficial way to the Tories - governments almost always do worse in by-elections than they do in local elections.
Tony Blair couldn't even gain in by-elections like Beckenham in late 1997 (where he only needed to overturn a 4% majority), even when he was officially the most popular politician since Churchill and when Labour was ahead of the Tories by 30% in the national polls.
Almost always, so in particularly unusual circumstances they don't. I think these qualify
Why are the current circumstances unusual, in a historical context?
Are you trying to tell me everything is relatively normal?
What's "normal"? I don't think there's ever been a year that's gone by without political journalists getting themselves into a lather about how "everything's changing forever".
Looks like we are going to see a Corbyn GE campaign after all....what could possibly go wrong?
Some sort of Pledgehenge? An entire army of Elvis impersonators? Gerry Adams campaigning alongside Corbyn? Accidentally designing a new logo for the Labour Party that looks a bit like a swastika?
Far from this continual balls about a 'progressive alliance', I expect we'll see a couple of enterprising New Labourites switching to the Tories. Lining one up for the first day of the Labour conference would be fun...
Good luck to them holding their seats in the ensuing by-elections.
Erm, have you seen the polls?
I can name at least two Labour MPs who would win under any label. Labour is the C&A of today; only really exists outside of the U.K.,and it might yet become the BHS.
You think the Tories would GAIN seats in byelections??
Did you see the results of this year's local elections?
Parliamentary by election would be a tad different.
It would indeed be different, but probably not in a beneficial way to the Tories - governments almost always do worse in by-elections than they do in local elections.
Tony Blair couldn't even gain in by-elections like Beckenham in late 1997 (where he only needed to overturn a 4% majority), even when he was officially the most popular politician since Churchill and when Labour was ahead of the Tories by 30% in the national polls.
Almost always, so in particularly unusual circumstances they don't. I think these qualify
Why are the current circumstances unusual, in a historical context?
Are you trying to tell me everything is relatively normal?
What's "normal"? I don't think there's ever been a year that's gone by without political journalists getting themselves into a lather about how "everything's changing forever".
Normal meaning having two relatively competent parties vying for office. Not sure we've been in a situation with a part in such disarray.
Normal meaning having two relatively competent parties vying for office. Not sure we've been in a situation with a part in such disarray.
LOL, atleast one party has been in "disarray" at virtually any one time since Thatcher came to power.
In the example I gave, the Tories were in considerably more disarray in 1997 than Labour are currently (much worse poll ratings, etc.), yet Labour still couldn't come close to gaining the seat, because governments just never do gain in by-elections, unless there are VERY exceptional circumstances (like an actual war).
Normal meaning having two relatively competent parties vying for office. Not sure we've been in a situation with a part in such disarray.
LOL, atleast one party has been in "disarray" at virtually any one time since Thatcher came to power.
In the example I gave, the Tories were in considerably more disarray in 1997 than Labour are currently (much worse poll ratings, etc.), yet Labour still couldn't come close to gaining the seat, because governments just never do gain in by-elections, unless there are VERY exceptional circumstances (like an actual war).
To the extent Labour is at the moment? I don't think so. And I'm not talking about poll ratings!
The Times headline is rather misleading. Last year Corbyn received 59.5% in a four-way contest , but had preferences been redistributed his % share would have been a fair bit higher. Against Andy Burnham he would have won circa 64/36 , whilst had Corbyn faced Yvette Cooper in the final round his winning margin would probably have been at least 67/33. Against those benchmarks Owen Smith has - according to this poll - narrowed the margin a bit.
Normal meaning having two relatively competent parties vying for office. Not sure we've been in a situation with a part in such disarray.
LOL, atleast one party has been in "disarray" at virtually any one time since Thatcher came to power.
In the example I gave, the Tories were in considerably more disarray in 1997 than Labour are currently (much worse poll ratings, etc.), yet Labour still couldn't come close to gaining the seat, because governments just never do gain in by-elections, unless there are VERY exceptional circumstances (like an actual war).
Normal meaning having two relatively competent parties vying for office. Not sure we've been in a situation with a part in such disarray.
LOL, atleast one party has been in "disarray" at virtually any one time since Thatcher came to power.
In the example I gave, the Tories were in considerably more disarray in 1997 than Labour are currently (much worse poll ratings, etc.), yet Labour still couldn't come close to gaining the seat, because governments just never do gain in by-elections, unless there are VERY exceptional circumstances (like an actual war).
No party has ever been in open warfare like this before. Corbyn is repeatedly outside his own cabinet's and spokesmen's briefed positions. He is the ultimate rebel, incapable of leading or even conceiving of compromise.
Corbyn has "low support among long standing members"; 68% for Smith from members who joined before May last year.
Nothing encapsulates Labour's nightmare more than these numbers. Hard working members, many of whom have given years to the party, knocking on doors etc etc, have had their party stolen by a bunch of entryists from hard-left splinter parties and neophytes who have never met a swing voter on a doorstep in their lives.
Electoral disaster awaits.
I think that is the point. On these figures, there has been quite a significant shift against Corbyn from amongst pre May 2015 members who are still members in August 2016. They are now more than 2:1 against Corbyn.
Future Labour campaigning will be in the hands of those who have indeed "never met a swing voter on a doorstep on their lives". They can do the hard work henceforth. I certainly have better things to do. Henceforth it will be a revelation to do some proper gardening before the first week in May has been and gone and the weeds are well established.
Huge split between pre-May 2015 longstanding members, who back Smith by 68% to 32% and the 70% of registered supporters who back Corbyn but it looks like Corbyn is going to win. The biggest winner of course of a clear Corbyn win will be the next leader of UKIP who will also be announced in September, with May aiming to avoid hard BREXIT and allow at least some controlled free movement the white working class is there for the taking, look for Labour to potentially drop to third in next year's County Council elections
Corbyn has "low support among long standing members"; 68% for Smith from members who joined before May last year.
Nothing encapsulates Labour's nightmare more than these numbers. Hard working members, many of whom have given years to the party, knocking on doors etc etc, have had their party stolen by a bunch of entryists from hard-left splinter parties and neophytes who have never met a swing voter on a doorstep in their lives.
Electoral disaster awaits.
I think that is the point. On these figures, there has been quite a significant shift against Corbyn from amongst pre May 2015 members who are still members in August 2016. They are now more than 2:1 against Corbyn.
Future Labour campaigning will be in the hands of those who have indeed "never met a swing voter on a doorstep on their lives". They can do the hard work henceforth. I certainly have better things to do. Henceforth it will be a revelation to do some proper gardening before the first week in May has been and gone and the weeds are well established.
Mr Wulfrun, apparently this can all now be done via #DigitalDemocracy that will unleash such wonders, the voters will be swept to the voting booths in a revolutionary fervour. All without leaving the comfort of one's campaigning armchair.
It's worse than that. In the event of a split, in terms of the core pre May 2015 membership, only 42% would commit to remaining a party member if Corbyn won. 69% would commit to remaining a member if Smith won. Apart from those leaving the party, other experienced active members would also lapse into inactivity.
29% of the 38% who support Smith is 11% of the total. Not much of a split, more like a chip.
They will mainly be experienced party members who do the groundwork canvassing, not Corbynistas who attend a few rallies and Corbyn loves-ins and that is it, that is potentially devastating for Labour in the County Council elections next year with UKIP snapping at their heels
Trump is like a rubber duck. No matter how many times he gets pulled underwater he just pops back up. If he doesn't have a disaster in the debates then his chances in November must be pretty good.
Normal meaning having two relatively competent parties vying for office. Not sure we've been in a situation with a part in such disarray.
LOL, atleast one party has been in "disarray" at virtually any one time since Thatcher came to power.
In the example I gave, the Tories were in considerably more disarray in 1997 than Labour are currently (much worse poll ratings, etc.), yet Labour still couldn't come close to gaining the seat, because governments just never do gain in by-elections, unless there are VERY exceptional circumstances (like an actual war).
Normal meaning having two relatively competent parties vying for office. Not sure we've been in a situation with a part in such disarray.
LOL, atleast one party has been in "disarray" at virtually any one time since Thatcher came to power.
In the example I gave, the Tories were in considerably more disarray in 1997 than Labour are currently (much worse poll ratings, etc.), yet Labour still couldn't come close to gaining the seat, because governments just never do gain in by-elections, unless there are VERY exceptional circumstances (like an actual war).
No party has ever been in open warfare like this before. Corbyn is repeatedly outside his own cabinet's and spokesmen's briefed positions. He is the ultimate rebel, incapable of leading or even conceiving of compromise.
Absolutely
At no point in our modern political history have we have an opposition party where the parliamentary party has voted overwhelmingly to support a motion of no confidence in their leader - and for that leader to refuse to resign.
At no point have we have an opposition party unable to fill all the key roles in the shadow team
At no point have we had members of the Shadow team refusing to attend Shadow Cabinet because of their lack of confidence in the leadership
At no point have we had so many threats of violence towards members of the opposition party - from members of that opposition party
Labour is in an unprecedented mess. One of their own making. And one they are not going to clear up in the foreseeable future.
Where is this mini Trump surging coming from? Has he been offering free owls?
I don't know precisely. But I do know that it started on August 15th on my average daily tracking poll, the same day he changed his campaign team.
In my average daily tracking poll (composed of 7 polls) he has closed the gap to 3.5 points as of yesterday, down from a record of 7 points a little over 2 weeks ago.
On another note I found how Trump may finance his wall with Mexico, toll booths on the border crossings.
Trump is like a rubber duck. No matter how many times he gets pulled underwater he just pops back up. If he doesn't have a disaster in the debates then his chances in November must be pretty good.
I agree entirely, as long as he survives the debates he will be in contention, night
Trump is like a rubber duck. No matter how many times he gets pulled underwater he just pops back up. If he doesn't have a disaster in the debates then his chances in November must be pretty good.
Why oh why did the dems pick Clinton the most establishment candidate when the mood has never been so anti-establishment since WW2?
29% of the 38% who support Smith is 11% of the total. Not much of a split, more like a chip.
No, in the event of a split following a Corbyn victory, 54% of Smith supporters would leave Labour and a further 23% don't know. Only 22% are committed to staying.
The more worrying statistic (in terms of the party's campaigning ability, if not its ability to ever recover from the clutches of the far left) is this: in the event of a split, 36% of the pre May 2015 members would leave and a further 21% don't know. Only 42% would stay as Labour members.
29% of the 38% who support Smith is 11% of the total. Not much of a split, more like a chip.
No, in the event of a split following a Corbyn victory, 54% of Smith supporters would leave Labour and a further 23% don't know. Only 22% are committed to staying.
The more worrying statistic (in terms of the party's campaigning ability, if not its ability to ever recover from the clutches of the far left) is this: in the event of a split, 36% of the pre May 2015 members would leave and a further 21% don't know. Only 42% would stay as Labour members.
Trump has 22 times and 11 times more campaign offices in a state that he will never win (Wisconsin) than in states that he absolutely needs and can win (Florida and Pennsylvania).
Hillary knows it's all about Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.
Surely the noteworthy thing is that even despite the massive organisational and advertising advantage to Hillary, the polls are still neck and neck. It can only get better for Trump from here and he's weathered the toughest political storm he's likely to face, unless something personal blows up.
Where is this mini Trump surging coming from? Has he been offering free owls?
I don't know precisely. But I do know that it started on August 15th on my average daily tracking poll, the same day he changed his campaign team.
In my average daily tracking poll (composed of 7 polls) he has closed the gap to 3.5 points as of yesterday, down from a record of 7 points a little over 2 weeks ago.
On another note I found how Trump may finance his wall with Mexico, toll booths on the border crossings.
I've been saying all along that Trump doesn't have to cut through very far with African American voters to sink Hillary. Simply by pitching for those votes he will win a statistically significant number of them.
Surely the noteworthy thing is that even despite the massive organisational and advertising advantage to Hillary, the polls are still neck and neck. It can only get better for Trump from here and he's weathered the toughest political storm he's likely to face, unless something personal blows up.
The voters don't like Hillary's dog food, even if she is advertising it.
We know each nominee's weakness since the primaries.
People don't like Hillary's policies and think she is corrupt and a little incompetent.
People also don't like Trump's character and think he is an idiot or a racist.
Where is this mini Trump surging coming from? Has he been offering free owls?
I don't know precisely. But I do know that it started on August 15th on my average daily tracking poll, the same day he changed his campaign team.
In my average daily tracking poll (composed of 7 polls) he has closed the gap to 3.5 points as of yesterday, down from a record of 7 points a little over 2 weeks ago.
On another note I found how Trump may finance his wall with Mexico, toll booths on the border crossings.
Is it not just a reversion to mean?
I can't tell, my average daily tracker started the day after the end of the DNC, like I did in 2012 to avoid the convention noise, the first result was a 1 point Hillary lead and grew to 7 points by August 15th.
But what I do know it that Trump has halved the gap in a little over 2 weeks, which coincided with his new campaign team.
Where is this mini Trump surging coming from? Has he been offering free owls?
I don't know precisely. But I do know that it started on August 15th on my average daily tracking poll, the same day he changed his campaign team.
In my average daily tracking poll (composed of 7 polls) he has closed the gap to 3.5 points as of yesterday, down from a record of 7 points a little over 2 weeks ago.
On another note I found how Trump may finance his wall with Mexico, toll booths on the border crossings.
Is it not just a reversion to mean?
I can't tell, my average daily tracker started the day after the end of the DNC, like I did in 2012 to avoid the convention noise, the first result was a 1 point Hillary lead and grew to 7 points by August 15th.
But what I do know it that Trump has halved the gap in a little over 2 weeks, which coincided with his new campaign team.
IPSOS polls for the last 4 days have been a virtual tie. Clinton 2 Clinton 1 Tie Clinton 1 - with an adjusted poll showing Trump ahead.
However a Pennsylvania poll (Clinton +8) is good news for the Blues.
Where is this mini Trump surging coming from? Has he been offering free owls?
I don't know precisely. But I do know that it started on August 15th on my average daily tracking poll, the same day he changed his campaign team.
In my average daily tracking poll (composed of 7 polls) he has closed the gap to 3.5 points as of yesterday, down from a record of 7 points a little over 2 weeks ago.
On another note I found how Trump may finance his wall with Mexico, toll booths on the border crossings.
Is it not just a reversion to mean?
I can't tell, my average daily tracker started the day after the end of the DNC, like I did in 2012 to avoid the convention noise, the first result was a 1 point Hillary lead and grew to 7 points by August 15th.
But what I do know it that Trump has halved the gap in a little over 2 weeks, which coincided with his new campaign team.
Yes but the gap had increased in the prior weeks, ending with what coincided with his new team.
It is the same reason why new football managers tend to get an uplift in team performance, while teams that sack their managers perform no better than those that kept their managers. Managers get sacked at the trough of the performance which leads to them getting sacked and the new manager gets an artificial uplift from the reversion to the mean which would have occured under the old manager had he not been sacked
I've been saying all along that Trump doesn't have to cut through very far with African American voters to sink Hillary. Simply by pitching for those votes he will win a statistically significant number of them.
And pitching for support from black voters will also win him support from some white voters who view themselves as middle-of-the-road but don't want to vote for a racist.
I can't tell, my average daily tracker started the day after the end of the DNC, like I did in 2012 to avoid the convention noise, the first result was a 1 point Hillary lead and grew to 7 points by August 15th.
But what I do know it that Trump has halved the gap in a little over 2 weeks, which coincided with his new campaign team.
FYI Aug 15th would likely be the first polls after the Milwaukee riots & false JFK terror incidents
Unless someone can show me otherwise, Richard Barbrook seems to be being smeared.
Where do you think he is being smeared? The article linked in the previous header made it clear he was only attacking censorship.
I agree with the ban on the publication of paedophile material, and I hold no brief for those who argue that such material should be allowed to circulate freely. What I didn't like was Ned Donovan's tweet saying "Richard Barbrook's old emails reveal he defended a banned book about 'good' and 'bad' paedophiles", with the link to the Business Insider article. Donovan makes it sound as though Barbrook was defending the publication of a book that says some paedophilia is "good". Well for all I know that may be true, but I doubt it, and that article does not even assert that, let alone demonstrate it.
Unless someone can show me otherwise, Richard Barbrook seems to be being smeared.
Where do you think he is being smeared? The article linked in the previous header made it clear he was only attacking censorship.
I agree with the ban on the publication of paedophile material, and I hold no brief for those who argue that such material should be allowed to circulate freely. What I didn't like was Ned Donovan's tweet saying "Richard Barbrook's old emails reveal he defended a banned book about 'good' and 'bad' paedophiles", with the link to the Business Insider article. Donovan makes it sound as though Barbrook was defending the publication of a book that says some paedophilia is "good". Well for all I know that may be true, but I doubt it, and that article does not even assert that, let alone demonstrate it.
Someone else is asserting it. Click the link on the second to last paragraph.
In any case, if he is campaigning against censorship, surely it doesn't matter what the content of the book is?
Unless someone can show me otherwise, Richard Barbrook seems to be being smeared.
Where do you think he is being smeared? The article linked in the previous header made it clear he was only attacking censorship.
I agree with the ban on the publication of paedophile material, and I hold no brief for those who argue that such material should be allowed to circulate freely. What I didn't like was Ned Donovan's tweet saying "Richard Barbrook's old emails reveal he defended a banned book about 'good' and 'bad' paedophiles", with the link to the Business Insider article. Donovan makes it sound as though Barbrook was defending the publication of a book that says some paedophilia is "good". Well for all I know that may be true, but I doubt it, and that article does not even assert that, let alone demonstrate it.
Someone else is asserting it. Click the link on the second to last paragraph.
In any case, if he is campaigning against censorship, surely it doesn't matter what the content of the book is?
Whether they are making that assertion depends on how one interprets the inverted commas around "good" and "bad". I am not convinced that the authors of the Italian publication were favourable about any type of paedophilia. They may have been, but I have not seen it asserted unambiguously that they were. Perhaps they were differentiating between more horrendous and less horrendous sexual abuse of children.
Barbrook's email is in any case stupid insofar as he expressed support for the defendants without even saying what the material they published was about and what view it took. If he was absolutely against censorship, then from his point of view it wouldn't matter what the authors wrote about and what view they took of it, yes. But he wasn't, since he said in his email that "Neither public or civil law should be used to prevent the expression of political opinions except in the most exceptional circumstances". "Except in the most exceptional circumstances" is circular and if the issue is whether the attempted judicial suppression of a text is justified or not, then whether such exceptional circumstances exist should be given some consideration.
Unless someone can show me otherwise, Richard Barbrook seems to be being smeared.
Where do you think he is being smeared? The article linked in the previous header made it clear he was only attacking censorship.
I agree with the ban on the publication of paedophile material, and I hold no brief for those who argue that such material should be allowed to circulate freely. What I didn't like was Ned Donovan's tweet saying "Richard Barbrook's old emails reveal he defended a banned book about 'good' and 'bad' paedophiles", with the link to the Business Insider article. Donovan makes it sound as though Barbrook was defending the publication of a book that says some paedophilia is "good". Well for all I know that may be true, but I doubt it, and that article does not even assert that, let alone demonstrate it.
Someone else is asserting it. Click the link on the second to last paragraph.
In any case, if he is campaigning against censorship, surely it doesn't matter what the content of the book is?
Whether they are making that assertion depends on how one interprets the inverted commas around "good" and "bad". I am not convinced that the authors of the Italian publication were favourable about any type of paedophilia. They may have been, but I have not seen it asserted unambiguously that they were. Perhaps they were differentiating between more horrendous and less horrendous sexual abuse of children.
Barbrook's email is in any case stupid insofar as he expressed support for the defendants without even saying what the material they published was about and what view it took. If he was absolutely against censorship, then from his point of view it wouldn't matter what the authors wrote about and what view they took of it, yes. But he wasn't, since he said in his email that "Neither public or civil law should be used to prevent the expression of political opinions except in the most exceptional circumstances". "Except in the most exceptional circumstances" is circular and if the issue is whether the attempted judicial suppression of a text is justified or not, then whether such exceptional circumstances exist should be given some consideration.
I fail to see how he's being smeared though? The tweet was a quote from this study. Perhaps it just needed some additional quotation marks to clarify.
Let's give professor hypermedia studies at best acted like an idiot on the paedo stuff. That just leaves all the other stuff like terrorist sympathizing, anti-Semite sympathizing etc etc etc. And that was within a handful of hours of the media having a quick look at this chap.
Looking at his writing & his proposals, at best he can be described a proper loony.
Unless someone can show me otherwise, Richard Barbrook seems to be being smeared.
The article linked in the previous header made it clear he was only attacking censorship.
I agree with the ban on the publication of paedophile material, and I hold no brief for those who argue that such material should be allowed to circulate freely. What I didn't like was Donovan's tweet saying with the link to the Business Insider article. Donovan makes it sound as though Barbrook was defending the publication of a book that says some paedophilia is "good". Well for all I know that may be true, but I doubt it, and that article does not even assert that, let alone demonstrate it.
Someone else is asserting it.
In any case, if he is campaigning against censorship, surely it doesn't matter what the content of the book is?
Whether they are making that assertion depends on how one interprets the inverted commas around "good" and "bad". I am not convinced that the authors of the Italian publication were favourable about any type of paedophilia. They may have been, but I have not seen it asserted unambiguously that they were. Perhaps they were differentiating between more horrendous and less horrendous sexual abuse of children.
Barbrook's email is in any case stupid insofar as he expressed support for the defendants without even saying what the material they published was about and what view it took. If he was absolutely against censorship, then from his point of view it wouldn't matter what the authors wrote about and what view they took of it, yes. But he wasn't, since he said in his email that "Neither public or civil law should be used to prevent the expression of political opinions except in the most exceptional circumstances". "Except in the most exceptional circumstances" is circular and if the issue is whether the attempted judicial suppression of a text is justified or not, then whether such exceptional circumstances exist should be given some consideration.
This also links in to the left's past record when it comes to paedophilia - the issues raised in connection with Harman and others at the Campaign for Civil Liberties and their relationship with certain groups.
It is a very uncomfortable topic for many people and often provokes an extreme reaction (before the full facts have emerged)
None of us would support widespread censorship - but there have to be limits of what can legally be published/circulated. Defining those limits is an ongoing process.
But Barbrook's position is not one of strength - and his appearance on a stage with Corbyn just reinforces too many perception issues that Labour should now deal with.
According to a tweet by the Wu Ming Foundation in reply to Ned Donovan - which if it is genuine is by the post-pro-situationist writers' collective in Bologna four of whose members wrote the novel "Q", and who are a subset of those who use the name "Luther Blissett" that was also used as the author name for the offending book - the book was banned because it contained "injuries" against a judge, rather than for being favourable about some kind of paedophilia, an allegation I've yet to see made by anyone. The WMF write about the case here. I still haven't tracked down the offending two passages, but from what is said here they don't appear to have been pro-paedophile in any way at all.
According to a tweet by the Wu Ming Foundation in reply to Ned Donovan - which if it is genuine is by the post-pro-situationist writers' collective in Bologna four of whose members wrote the novel "Q", and who are a subset of those who use the name "Luther Blissett" that was also used as the author name for the offending book - the book was banned because it contained "injuries" against a judge, rather than for being favourable about some kind of paedophilia, an allegation I've yet to see made by anyone. The WMF write about the case here. I still haven't tracked down the offending two passages, but from what is said here they don't appear to have been pro-paedophile in any way at all.
An allegation you've yet to see made? The accusation is in that report linked in the article...
"Tonight I'm asking for the vote of every African American and Hispanic citizen who wants to see real positive change. The inner cities have been run by the Democratic machine for so long. Their policies have produced poverty, failing schools and rising crime. They take your votes but they don't care about you."
However terrible a candidate Owen Smith is, I'm struggling to imagine who actually could have beaten Corbyn. The only name that comes to mind is Alan Johnson, but would anyone have had a chance against the army of post-GE true believers?
One of the most unfair things is how Corbyn has been blamed by his opponents for Brexit.
The person who failed to energise the Labour vote was Alan Johnson. He played a key role in the campaign. For Chrissake, Johnson couldn't even persuade his own constituency to vote Remain.
Leave took 67.6 per cent of the vote in Hull. Remain were walloped in Johnson's Hull.
And somehow, the conclusion of this is that Corbyn is to blame for Brexit, and Johnson is not.
- Iain McNicol's days are surely numbered. - If he does score 62%, that represents only a tiny swing against him overall since last year (his 59% would have been more had votes been redistributed down to just two nominees) - The pre-2015 members have swung against Corbyn but there are so many newer ones now that they've lost control. - So future challenges are almost certainly almost doomed as well. - That will give Corbyn and his wing 3+ years to reform Labour's rules, structures and personnel. - The chances of a split are now a good deal higher than they looked yesterday morning. Not certain or even probable yet but hard to see how a Corbyn leadership isn't the settled view of the Lab membership.
UK Labour is only one credible centre-left party from going the way of Scottish Labour.
However terrible a candidate Owen Smith is, I'm struggling to imagine who actually could have beaten Corbyn. The only name that comes to mind is Alan Johnson, but would anyone have had a chance against the army of post-GE true believers?
One of the most unfair things is how Corbyn has been blamed by his opponents for Brexit.
The person who failed to energise the Labour vote was Alan Johnson. He played a key role in the campaign. For Chrissake, Johnson couldn't even persuade his own constituency to vote Remain.
Leave took 67.6 per cent of the vote in Hull. Remain were walloped in Johnson's Hull.
And somehow, the conclusion of this is that Corbyn is to blame for Brexit, and Johnson is not.
The only thing keeping Labour afloat in England is the lack of a credible alternative. If that problem is solved they will suffer the same fate as SLAB.
The UKIPers did the PLP no favours. They re-established the principle that those who leave the party that elected them should stand in a by election for a fresh mandate. It was a brave thing to do and they were successful. The SDP, for example, didn't do that nor did that tory defector who joined up with Blair.
Would any minded to form a new centre left party be willing to take that risk? This might prove the biggest hurdle of all.
However terrible a candidate Owen Smith is, I'm struggling to imagine who actually could have beaten Corbyn. The only name that comes to mind is Alan Johnson, but would anyone have had a chance against the army of post-GE true believers?
Probably not. Corbyn's base comes from two main groups:
- Those who want a far-left 38-degrees protest leadership, who are delighted by Corbyn having become leader and enthusiastically back him. These represent the great bulk of new members, as the YouGov figures show, but also include a much smaller number of pre-2015 members. - Those who were ambivalent about Corbyn but felt a need for change from the likes of Miliband and believe that Corbyn deserves a fair shout. People like NickP, for example.
The mainstream will never win over the former but they might outlast them. Endurance is the only credible strategy there.
The latter, by contrast, can be won over - and are being won over going by the pre-2015 membership figures. But therein lies the problem: the maths doesn't work at the moment. The scale of the post-2015 pro-Corbyn membership is too big for the swing 'give-him-a-chance' group to make the difference. Even if they were entirely won, Corbyn would still have a majority. Only if he loses confidence from the current true believers can they fight back. In the meantime, their best option is to give Corbyn as much rope as he wants.
The only thing keeping Labour afloat in England is the lack of a credible alternative. If that problem is solved they will suffer the same fate as SLAB.
The UKIPers did the PLP no favours. They re-established the principle that those who leave the party that elected them should stand in a by election for a fresh mandate. It was a brave thing to do and they were successful. The SDP, for example, didn't do that nor did that tory defector who joined up with Blair.
Would any minded to form a new centre left party be willing to take that risk? This might prove the biggest hurdle of all.
Actually, one SDP defector did resign to force a by-election. Bruce Douglas-Mann did so in Mitcham & Morden, in 1982 and lost. That by-election remains the last gain by a governing party at a Westminster by-election.
However, while I agree that UKIP have made it harder, defecting Labour MPs could advance the argument that it is Labour which has defected from the 2015 manifesto which they were elected on, and that in forming a new party, they are being loyal to the mandate that the electorate gave them and so don't need to go back to the people. Of course, that only works if they don't then form any electoral pacts.
It appears these are votes by party to select the candidate for the final run off in November. The only thing to note is that 30% more Republicans voted than Democrats for the Sentaor race and 30,000 more Republicans than Democrats have voted for the Congress in the districts where both elections have been called. I assume this will update.
Looks like John McCain has survived his primary challenge.
Just watched the Trump rally - he said a couple of things that caught my attention
- reducing tax rates for small businesses from 35% to 15% - making childcare costs totally tax deductable
I know nothing about this subject and be interested in how big a deal those two statements are.
They would be very popular here.
The equalisation of small and big business Corp tax was one of Osborne's most egregious errors.
Isn't the equalisation at 20% in uk partly a way of making sure individuals and small groups who set up as limited companies aren't actually just trying to avoid PAYE rate of 20%?
So .. what have all these Brind pieces been about then?
It was mentioned in the comments that he was working on the Smith campaign. So it was about spin then. And pretty poor spin at that.
Assuming of course that You Gov is not wildly inaccurate.... some people will be really pissed off if Brind's stuff was just all spin.. people(not me) on this site base bets on information gleaned.
A NOBEL Prize-winning economist and SNP Government adviser has admitted it “may have been a mistake” to push for a currency union after Scottish independence.
Joseph Stiglitz made the U-turn despite insisting the plan to share sterling would work before the 2014 referendum vote.
Yesterday, Stiglitz said a separate Scottish currency would have been a better bet for the government to stimulate the economy.
As one wag observed, when the Nat onal ran this story next to their 60p price flag, they wondered whether that was the exchange rate with the GBP......
Looks like John McCain has survived his primary challenge.
Just watched the Trump rally - he said a couple of things that caught my attention
- reducing tax rates for small businesses from 35% to 15% - making childcare costs totally tax deductable
I know nothing about this subject and be interested in how big a deal those two statements are.
They would be very popular here.
The equalisation of small and big business Corp tax was one of Osborne's most egregious errors.
Isn't the equalisation at 20% in uk partly a way of making sure individuals and small groups who set up as limited companies aren't actually just trying to avoid PAYE rate of 20%?
Osborne lowered the big business corporation tax without lowering the small business Corp tax. There was, IIRC, an 8% gap.
Actually it is a good idea to replace expenses with allowances. It will also be cheaper because it needs almost no administration.
No, it is not a good idea. The whole point of expenses is that they're recompensed necessary expenditure in the line of executing the job. Allowances are totally different and incentivise different activity.
Whether it has any bearing on the Election is debatable, but we could compare total votes cast for republicans and democrats in each sub-election with the results from 2012
e.g. district 9
2012: Democrats 165,000 Republicans 99,000 - for the house 2016: Democrats 43,000: Republicans 33,600 - total votes cast to select candidate
Although of course we don't know whether republicans are more likely than democrats to vote in these contests.
(Rubio was selected as A republican senator contestant)
Comments
Bowling my biggest concern. Anderson is suffering a lot of injuries, Finn is a disaster, Ali is fine but never going to be as good one of the worlds best spinners, and we don't have a lot of variation when opponents get in (we have 4 right arm bowlers who bowl similar pace).
Con gain Bootle
Tony Blair couldn't even gain in by-elections like Beckenham in late 1997 (where he only needed to overturn a 4% majority), even when he was officially the most popular politician since Churchill and when Labour was ahead of the Tories by 30% in the national polls.
Still, Johnson could portray himself as being firmly on the left more easily, and can point to real front-bench experience, unlike Smith who simply asserts that he'd be more competent than Corbyn.
As I type I realise Johnson voted for the Iraq War, which rules out winning over many Corbynites. With that criterion in mind, TSE's suggestion of Ed Miliband isn't a bad one.
In the example I gave, the Tories were in considerably more disarray in 1997 than Labour are currently (much worse poll ratings, etc.), yet Labour still couldn't come close to gaining the seat, because governments just never do gain in by-elections, unless there are VERY exceptional circumstances (like an actual war).
"BUT IT'S CLOSER THAT YOU THINK !!!!!"
(Labour vote share 2015: 74.5%)
Future Labour campaigning will be in the hands of those who have indeed "never met a swing voter on a doorstep on their lives". They can do the hard work henceforth. I certainly have better things to do. Henceforth it will be a revelation to do some proper gardening before the first week in May has been and gone and the weeds are well established.
Not much of a split, more like a chip.
If you check out my threads I've said so.
Here's two for you.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/08/14/the-1001-bet-on-the-next-labour-leader-that-quite-a-few-of-us-have-taken-this-last-week/
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/08/21/the-plp-indicate-that-they-expect-corbyn-to-win-and-that-they-wont-split/
Perhaps you should learn to read instead of shooting your mouth off eh?
I could link others threads I've written but that would be cruel on you.
Since De Gaulle, France has not elected a President who not been under police investigation.
In fact I think De Gaulle was the exception to a long list of incompetent and corrupt french politicians going back to the days of Napoleon.
So it could be a national characteristic of France to be crap.
At no point in our modern political history have we have an opposition party where the parliamentary party has voted overwhelmingly to support a motion of no confidence in their leader - and for that leader to refuse to resign.
At no point have we have an opposition party unable to fill all the key roles in the shadow team
At no point have we had members of the Shadow team refusing to attend Shadow Cabinet because of their lack of confidence in the leadership
At no point have we had so many threats of violence towards members of the opposition party - from members of that opposition party
Labour is in an unprecedented mess. One of their own making. And one they are not going to clear up in the foreseeable future.
But I do know that it started on August 15th on my average daily tracking poll, the same day he changed his campaign team.
In my average daily tracking poll (composed of 7 polls) he has closed the gap to 3.5 points as of yesterday, down from a record of 7 points a little over 2 weeks ago.
On another note I found how Trump may finance his wall with Mexico, toll booths on the border crossings.
The more worrying statistic (in terms of the party's campaigning ability, if not its ability to ever recover from the clutches of the far left) is this: in the event of a split, 36% of the pre May 2015 members would leave and a further 21% don't know. Only 42% would stay as Labour members.
[SORRY HYUFD]
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/trump-campaign-has-ground-game-problem/
Number of campaign offices per candidate per state.
Hillary 291
Pennsylvania 36
Ohio 36
Florida 34
Wisconsin 33
North Carolina 30
Virginia 29
Iowa 24
Colorado 18
New Hampshire 17
Nevada 6
Arizona 2
Georgia 1
Indiana 1
Utah 1
Trump 88
Wisconsin 22
Virginia 18
Ohio 16
Iowa 9
Colorado 8
Nevada 6
Georgia 3
Pennsylvania 2
Florida 1
New Hampshire 1
Arizona 1
Trump has 22 times and 11 times more campaign offices in a state that he will never win (Wisconsin) than in states that he absolutely needs and can win (Florida and Pennsylvania).
Hillary knows it's all about Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_DS_13/filters/LIKELY:1/dates/20160710-20160831/type/day
I’m a Young Black Man and I Support Donald Trump
I've been saying all along that Trump doesn't have to cut through very far with African American voters to sink Hillary. Simply by pitching for those votes he will win a statistically significant number of them.
We know each nominee's weakness since the primaries.
People don't like Hillary's policies and think she is corrupt and a little incompetent.
People also don't like Trump's character and think he is an idiot or a racist.
But what I do know it that Trump has halved the gap in a little over 2 weeks, which coincided with his new campaign team.
However a Pennsylvania poll (Clinton +8) is good news for the Blues.
It is the same reason why new football managers tend to get an uplift in team performance, while teams that sack their managers perform no better than those that kept their managers. Managers get sacked at the trough of the performance which leads to them getting sacked and the new manager gets an artificial uplift from the reversion to the mean which would have occured under the old manager had he not been sacked
See: http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/is-changing-the-coach-really-the-answer/
https://twitter.com/benbobgray/status/770765925125685248
Goodnight.
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/770745768185622528
In any case, if he is campaigning against censorship, surely it doesn't matter what the content of the book is?
Barbrook's email is in any case stupid insofar as he expressed support for the defendants without even saying what the material they published was about and what view it took. If he was absolutely against censorship, then from his point of view it wouldn't matter what the authors wrote about and what view they took of it, yes. But he wasn't, since he said in his email that "Neither public or civil law should be used to prevent the expression of political opinions except in the most exceptional circumstances". "Except in the most exceptional circumstances" is circular and if the issue is whether the attempted judicial suppression of a text is justified or not, then whether such exceptional circumstances exist should be given some consideration.
Looking at his writing & his proposals, at best he can be described a proper loony.
It is a very uncomfortable topic for many people and often provokes an extreme reaction (before the full facts have emerged)
None of us would support widespread censorship - but there have to be limits of what can legally be published/circulated. Defining those limits is an ongoing process.
But Barbrook's position is not one of strength - and his appearance on a stage with Corbyn just reinforces too many perception issues that Labour should now deal with.
And it won't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPfautohnMw
"Tonight I'm asking for the vote of every African American and Hispanic citizen who wants to see real positive change. The inner cities have been run by the Democratic machine for so long. Their policies have produced poverty, failing schools and rising crime. They take your votes but they don't care about you."
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irishvoice/After-Brexit-is-an-IrExit-possible.html
The possibility of Irexit does now seem to be more openly discussed. I wonder if this will go anywhere.
That'll go down well with the few general public that might still have been thinking of voting for him!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/30/parliamentary-expenses-should-be-scrapped-and-mps-trusted-with-a/
- Iain McNicol's days are surely numbered.
- If he does score 62%, that represents only a tiny swing against him overall since last year (his 59% would have been more had votes been redistributed down to just two nominees)
- The pre-2015 members have swung against Corbyn but there are so many newer ones now that they've lost control.
- So future challenges are almost certainly almost doomed as well.
- That will give Corbyn and his wing 3+ years to reform Labour's rules, structures and personnel.
- The chances of a split are now a good deal higher than they looked yesterday morning. Not certain or even probable yet but hard to see how a Corbyn leadership isn't the settled view of the Lab membership.
UK Labour is only one credible centre-left party from going the way of Scottish Labour.
The UKIPers did the PLP no favours. They re-established the principle that those who leave the party that elected them should stand in a by election for a fresh mandate. It was a brave thing to do and they were successful. The SDP, for example, didn't do that nor did that tory defector who joined up with Blair.
Would any minded to form a new centre left party be willing to take that risk? This might prove the biggest hurdle of all.
- Those who want a far-left 38-degrees protest leadership, who are delighted by Corbyn having become leader and enthusiastically back him. These represent the great bulk of new members, as the YouGov figures show, but also include a much smaller number of pre-2015 members.
- Those who were ambivalent about Corbyn but felt a need for change from the likes of Miliband and believe that Corbyn deserves a fair shout. People like NickP, for example.
The mainstream will never win over the former but they might outlast them. Endurance is the only credible strategy there.
The latter, by contrast, can be won over - and are being won over going by the pre-2015 membership figures. But therein lies the problem: the maths doesn't work at the moment. The scale of the post-2015 pro-Corbyn membership is too big for the swing 'give-him-a-chance' group to make the difference. Even if they were entirely won, Corbyn would still have a majority. Only if he loses confidence from the current true believers can they fight back. In the meantime, their best option is to give Corbyn as much rope as he wants.
However, while I agree that UKIP have made it harder, defecting Labour MPs could advance the argument that it is Labour which has defected from the 2015 manifesto which they were elected on, and that in forming a new party, they are being loyal to the mandate that the electorate gave them and so don't need to go back to the people. Of course, that only works if they don't then form any electoral pacts.
It appears these are votes by party to select the candidate for the final run off in November.
The only thing to note is that 30% more Republicans voted than Democrats for the Sentaor race and 30,000 more Republicans than Democrats have voted for the Congress in the districts where both elections have been called. I assume this will update.
- reducing tax rates for small businesses from 35% to 15%
- making childcare costs totally tax deductable
I know nothing about this subject and be interested in how big a deal those two statements are.
The equalisation of small and big business Corp tax was one of Osborne's most egregious errors.
A NOBEL Prize-winning economist and SNP Government adviser has admitted it “may have been a mistake” to push for a currency union after Scottish independence.
Joseph Stiglitz made the U-turn despite insisting the plan to share sterling would work before the 2014 referendum vote.
Yesterday, Stiglitz said a separate Scottish currency would have been a better bet for the government to stimulate the economy.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/economist-who-advised-snp-indy-8737922
As one wag observed, when the Nat onal ran this story next to their 60p price flag, they wondered whether that was the exchange rate with the GBP......
e.g. district 9
2012: Democrats 165,000 Republicans 99,000 - for the house
2016: Democrats 43,000: Republicans 33,600 - total votes cast to select candidate
Although of course we don't know whether republicans are more likely than democrats to vote in these contests.
(Rubio was selected as A republican senator contestant)