Your antibacterial soap might not be what you thought it was: antibacterial.
Today, the Food and Drug Administration issued a rule banning 19 chemicals from wash-off antibacterial soaps, citing a lack of effectiveness and saying soap manufacturers would have a year to remove the ingredients from their products.
"Consumers may think antibacterial washes are more effective at preventing the spread of germs, but we have no scientific evidence that they are any better than plain soap or water," Dr. Janet Woodcock, the director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.
Ponte Jack What is it about the beret that immediately eliminates all gravitas and makes the wearer look like a clown? https://t.co/JTCMqck22j
I wouldn't say that near a Royal Marine or Paratrooper!
And of course Izzard IS a clown albeit not a very funny one!
From Reading University before the Brexit vote - Eddie Izzard vs Daniel Hannan.
The politician vs the clown. ttps://youtu.be/aBIIdcUjl90
Hannan is exceptionally good at this form of debate.
Yes he is. A jumped-up transvestite comedian-cum-wannabe-politician wasn't really a match for him.
My favourite Hannan line from that debate was the one about liking Europe being possible without liking the EU, in the same way as liking football is possible without liking FIFA.
That is going to be a problem for the Brexiteers. A lot of Leavers are anti-Europe as well as anti EU.
It is part of what will lead to a hard Brexit. Out of that will be some winners and some losers, but it is going to hit our service industry exports.
I am rich enough to benefit from hard Brexit though, I can afford to retire to Europe.
I'm just one Brexiter - and quite a young one at that - but I love going to Europe. I'll be in Paris in 10 days time, Sofia in November and Basle in December.
Okay, I might not do Sofia.
The away games in Europe for Leicester are a bit tricky for me. Brugge is too soon to get leave, and Copenhagen and Oporto coincide with some important business for me that will be difficult to get out of.
We had a good transfer season, keeping everyone (bar Kante) that we wanted to keep, and gaining formidable firepower. Our owners are the best in the PL, respecting traditions yet taking us to the next level.
Probably the biggest perk of my job is being able to sort out leave quite quickly. It's a shame you can't do Brugge as that's a very decent trip. I'm glad we're playing on different days as I'm looking forward to seeing how Leicester get on.
We will have more squad rotation than last year, but the core will be solid. Ranieri and the owners are serious about winning the group, and I think that very possible. We are an unknown quantity to the Continentals too, so it works both ways. They don't want to just make up the numbers.
I suspect to see the reserves more in the following PL games, but those look kind to us too.
I think "Psephography" is wrong concerning the polling error in 2015: from memory the average error was over 2%. He or she may be measuring against the UK result, but it should be against the GB result as pollsters did not include Northern Ireland until very recently. I also have a nagging doubt that the error of the average isn't necessarily the same as the average of the error, but don't quote me 'til I've done the math.
As for Carville... well, he could be right, he could be wrong, but regardless I'd be very dubious about making predictions like that this far out.
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
@YvetteCooperMP: I'd watched it once already & I think it's fabulous. But @edballs is in a bit of a state of shock & trauma after watching that #Strictly
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
There might be a chance for a political party in America to gain significant number of votes from minorities, but not the current Republican party not when they do things like this. Can you imagine the out cry if the Tory party tried something like this?
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
A majority won't, but his new tactics will covert more than most think. To someone who has been voting the same way and has seen the city turn to shit over the last 30 years, what do they have to lose by taking a punt. That's the pitch. You may not understand it, but it's pretty powerful and you were on the losing side of it in June because you don't understand it.
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
But remember that Trump is not "The Republican Party" of 2004, 2008 and 2012. He has much less baggage around him and is therefore more attractive than an 'establishment' figure.
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
A majority won't, but his new tactics will covert more than most think. To someone who has been voting the same way and has seen the city turn to shit over the last 30 years, what do they have to lose by taking a punt. That's the pitch. You may not understand it, but it's pretty powerful and you were on the losing side of it in June because you don't understand it.
I do understand it, indeed I cited it this morning as a motivation for the Junior Doctors strike. When people are told to suck it up or quit, then a good percentage will feel that they have nothing to lose.
You may have noticed that it was not me running the Remain campaign, indeed I was quite critical of it. In particular allowing it to be an internal Tory battle with the other parties on the sidelines.
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
But remember that Trump is not "The Republican Party" of 2004, 2008 and 2012. He has much less baggage around him and is therefore more attractive than an 'establishment' figure.
The net effect of that will be to lose him more establishment voters amongst Republicans than gain anti-establishment voters amongst Democrat voters.
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
But remember that Trump is not "The Republican Party" of 2004, 2008 and 2012. He has much less baggage around him and is therefore more attractive than an 'establishment' figure.
The net effect of that will be to lose him more establishment voters amongst Republicans than gain anti-establishment voters amongst Democrat voters.
Current polling suggests he has 78% of republican voters compared to Clintons 79% of Democrats. (This is up from 71% which explains his rise last week)
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
A majority won't, but his new tactics will covert more than most think. To someone who has been voting the same way and has seen the city turn to shit over the last 30 years, what do they have to lose by taking a punt. That's the pitch. You may not understand it, but it's pretty powerful and you were on the losing side of it in June because you don't understand it.
I do understand it, indeed I cited it this morning as a motivation for the Junior Doctors strike. When people are told to suck it up or quit, then a good percentage will feel that they have nothing to lose.
You may have noticed that it was not me running the Remain campaign, indeed I was quite critical of it. In particular allowing it to be an internal Tory battle with the other parties on the sidelines.
So middle class doctors can proverbially tell the establishment to fuck off but poor minorities can't? This is the attitude that lost your side the referendum.
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
A majority won't, but his new tactics will covert more than most think. To someone who has been voting the same way and has seen the city turn to shit over the last 30 years, what do they have to lose by taking a punt. That's the pitch. You may not understand it, but it's pretty powerful and you were on the losing side of it in June because you don't understand it.
I do understand it, indeed I cited it this morning as a motivation for the Junior Doctors strike. When people are told to suck it up or quit, then a good percentage will feel that they have nothing to lose.
You may have noticed that it was not me running the Remain campaign, indeed I was quite critical of it. In particular allowing it to be an internal Tory battle with the other parties on the sidelines.
Comparing the disposessed with junior docs just takes the biscuit. Every Junior Doc that I know has a huge amount to lose.
@YvetteCooperMP: I'd watched it once already & I think it's fabulous. But @edballs is in a bit of a state of shock & trauma after watching that #Strictly
Remarkable. - Dances like the father of the bride after one or too many celebratory toasts…
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
A majority won't, but his new tactics will covert more than most think. To someone who has been voting the same way and has seen the city turn to shit over the last 30 years, what do they have to lose by taking a punt. That's the pitch. You may not understand it, but it's pretty powerful and you were on the losing side of it in June because you don't understand it.
I do understand it, indeed I cited it this morning as a motivation for the Junior Doctors strike. When people are told to suck it up or quit, then a good percentage will feel that they have nothing to lose.
You may have noticed that it was not me running the Remain campaign, indeed I was quite critical of it. In particular allowing it to be an internal Tory battle with the other parties on the sidelines.
So middle class doctors can proverbially tell the establishment to fuck off but poor minorities can't? This is the attitude that lost your side the referendum.
Dr Fox doesn't seem to understand the difference between having nothing to lose and thinking you have nothing to lose...
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
A majority won't, but his new tactics will covert more than most think. To someone who has been voting the same way and has seen the city turn to shit over the last 30 years, what do they have to lose by taking a punt. That's the pitch. You may not understand it, but it's pretty powerful and you were on the losing side of it in June because you don't understand it.
I do understand it, indeed I cited it this morning as a motivation for the Junior Doctors strike. When people are told to suck it up or quit, then a good percentage will feel that they have nothing to lose.
You may have noticed that it was not me running the Remain campaign, indeed I was quite critical of it. In particular allowing it to be an internal Tory battle with the other parties on the sidelines.
Comparing the disposessed with junior docs just takes the biscuit. Every Junior Doc that I know has a huge amount to lose.
It is the same motivation for many. I do not think that the Juniors will win, indeed there will be no winners from this strike.
They want to kick the medical establishment and the Department of Health in the balls. That is why the BMA is not leading this strike, it is too antiestablishment and grassroots in origin.
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
A majority won't, but his new tactics will covert more than most think. To someone who has been voting the same way and has seen the city turn to shit over the last 30 years, what do they have to lose by taking a punt. That's the pitch. You may not understand it, but it's pretty powerful and you were on the losing side of it in June because you don't understand it.
I do understand it, indeed I cited it this morning as a motivation for the Junior Doctors strike. When people are told to suck it up or quit, then a good percentage will feel that they have nothing to lose.
You may have noticed that it was not me running the Remain campaign, indeed I was quite critical of it. In particular allowing it to be an internal Tory battle with the other parties on the sidelines.
So middle class doctors can proverbially tell the establishment to fuck off but poor minorities can't? This is the attitude that lost your side the referendum.
Dr Fox doesn't seem to understand the difference between having nothing to lose and thinking you have nothing to lose...
Voters (and strikers) often make that mistake.
"How can it get worse" is often followed by it getting worse!
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Republicans in North Carolina just engaged in what can only be described as a nefarious attempt to strip voting access from Blacks in the state. They literally surveyed what forms of early voting Blacks use and tried to shut just those avenues down, the courts blocked them. The Republican party would have to stop treating African Americans as the enemy before any large number if them will vote for them.
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
A majority won't, but his new tactics will covert more than most think. To someone who has been voting the same way and has seen the city turn to shit over the last 30 years, what do they have to lose by taking a punt. That's the pitch. You may not understand it, but it's pretty powerful and you were on the losing side of it in June because you don't understand it.
I do understand it, indeed I cited it this morning as a motivation for the Junior Doctors strike. When people are told to suck it up or quit, then a good percentage will feel that they have nothing to lose.
You may have noticed that it was not me running the Remain campaign, indeed I was quite critical of it. In particular allowing it to be an internal Tory battle with the other parties on the sidelines.
So middle class doctors can proverbially tell the establishment to fuck off but poor minorities can't? This is the attitude that lost your side the referendum.
Dr Fox doesn't seem to understand the difference between having nothing to lose and thinking you have nothing to lose...
Voters (and strikers) often make that mistake.
"How can it get worse" is often followed by it getting worse!
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
A majority won't, but his new tactics
I do understand it, indeed I cited it this morning as a motivation for the Junior Doctors strike. When people are told to suck it up or quit, then a good percentage will feel that they have nothing to lose.
You may have noticed that it was not me running the Remain campaign, indeed I was quite critical of it. In particular allowing it to be an internal Tory battle with the other parties on the sidelines.
So middle class doctors can proverbially tell the establishment to fuck off but poor minorities can't? This is the attitude that lost your side the referendum.
Dr Fox doesn't seem to understand the difference between having nothing to lose and thinking you have nothing to lose...
Voters (and strikers) often make that mistake.
"How can it get worse" is often followed by it getting worse!
Yes But that doesn't stop them voting for it.
Which is why the Juniors will strike. It is the same motivation. Even intelligent people can be idiots at times.
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
A majority won't, but his new tactics will covert more than most think. To someone who has been voting the same way and has seen the city turn to shit over the last 30 years, what do they have to lose by taking a punt. That's the pitch. You may not understand it, but it's pretty powerful and you were on the losing side of it in June because you don't understand it.
I do understand it, indeed I cited it this morning as a motivation for the Junior Doctors strike. When people are told to suck it up or quit, then a good percentage will feel that they have nothing to lose.
You may have noticed that it was not me running the Remain campaign, indeed I was quite critical of it. In particular allowing it to be an internal Tory battle with the other parties on the sidelines.
So middle class doctors can proverbially tell the establishment to fuck off but poor minorities can't? This is the attitude that lost your side the referendum.
Dr Fox doesn't seem to understand the difference between having nothing to lose and thinking you have nothing to lose...
Voters (and strikers) often make that mistake.
"How can it get worse" is often followed by it getting worse!
The worst is not So long as we can say “This is the worst.”
Ponte Jack What is it about the beret that immediately eliminates all gravitas and makes the wearer look like a clown? https://t.co/JTCMqck22j
I wouldn't say that near a Royal Marine or Paratrooper!
And of course Izzard IS a clown albeit not a very funny one!
From Reading University before the Brexit vote - Eddie Izzard vs Daniel Hannan.
The politician vs the clown. ttps://youtu.be/aBIIdcUjl90
Hannan is exceptionally good at this form of debate.
Yes he is. A jumped-up transvestite comedian-cum-wannabe-politician wasn't really a match for him.
My favourite Hannan line from that debate was the one about liking Europe being possible without liking the EU, in the same way as liking football is possible without liking FIFA.
2020 he aims to be a full time politician. Would could possibly go wrong.
I'm sure he goes down well with the Islington set, they'll find somewhere for him to stand near Corbynsville. Kate Hoey's seat probably.
Meanwhile the Tories need to find a job for the soon to be redundant Hannan, before he buggers off to the US for a big-money think tank post.
Hannan is capable and coherent, but he's still rather unknown. If he heads off to the US then its almost self-contradictory.
I can't quite understand why the US like our spin offs. Do they really need DMill for example? Couldn't they find their own slightly-wiser-than-his-daft-younger-brother-but-was-outfoxed-when-it-mattered type person?
Barkworth points out a few obvious truths in Tomorrows Torygraph:
"Britain is already a full member of the EEA [so dosent need to join it] And secondly, the point of remaining in it is that, if we also apply to join Norway in the European Free Trade Area, we would not have to engage in lengthy negotiations about our access to the single market, because that would all be part of the package. We would also have considerably more say over single market rules than we have now. And we would even, under Article 112 of the EEA Agreement, have the unilateral right to exercise limited control over immigration. I know to many people this all seems incredibly complicated. But in fact it is by far the quickest, simplest and most obvious solution to much of our problem."
Izzard - I've got a lot of time for him. He's really quite good at what he does (comedy). He has the odd joined-up political thought, but that's no reason whatsoever for him putting himself forwards as some wise owl (even if they're now again to be free).
Is he still good at the old comedy? Genuine question, because I only time I ever see him on tv these days is in regards to politics.
Good question. Saw him a few years ago, before the politics rubbish - he did a late gig, 11pm-2am - was definitely funny then.
I think the guy's a complete prat, but "The Death Star Canteen" always has me in stitches. He really should have stuck to the comedy clubs, rarely do entertainers make good politicians.
Ponte Jack What is it about the beret that immediately eliminates all gravitas and makes the wearer look like a clown? https://t.co/JTCMqck22j
I wouldn't say that near a Royal Marine or Paratrooper!
And of course Izzard IS a clown albeit not a very funny one!
From Reading University before the Brexit vote - Eddie Izzard vs Daniel Hannan.
The politician vs the clown. ttps://youtu.be/aBIIdcUjl90
Hannan is exceptionally good at this form of debate.
Yes he is. A jumped-up transvestite comedian-cum-wannabe-politician wasn't really a match for him.
My favourite Hannan line from that debate was the one about liking Europe being possible without liking the EU, in the same way as liking football is possible without liking FIFA.
2020 he aims to be a full time politician. Would could possibly go wrong.
I'm sure he goes down well with the Islington set, they'll find somewhere for him to stand near Corbynsville. Kate Hoey's seat probably.
Meanwhile the Tories need to find a job for the soon to be redundant Hannan, before he buggers off to the US for a big-money think tank post.
Hannan is capable and coherent, but he's still rather unknown. If he heads off to the US then its almost self-contradictory.
I can't quite understand why the US like our spin offs. Do they really need DMill for example? Couldn't they find their own slightly-wiser-than-his-daft-younger-brother-but-was-outfoxed-when-it-mattered type person?
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Republicans in North Carolina just engaged in what can only be described as a nefarious attempt to strip voting access from Blacks in the state. They literally surveyed what forms of early voting Blacks use and tried to shut just those avenues down, the courts blocked them. The Republican party would have to stop treating African Americans as the enemy before any large number if them will vote for them.
Watch ABC news now to see why AA voters will vote for Trump in FEWER numbers than in 2012.
Barkworth points out a few obvious truths in Tomorrows Torygraph:
"Britain is already a full member of the EEA [so dosent need to join it] And secondly, the point of remaining in it is that, if we also apply to join Norway in the European Free Trade Area, we would not have to engage in lengthy negotiations about our access to the single market, because that would all be part of the package. We would also have considerably more say over single market rules than we have now. And we would even, under Article 112 of the EEA Agreement, have the unilateral right to exercise limited control over immigration. I know to many people this all seems incredibly complicated. But in fact it is by far the quickest, simplest and most obvious solution to much of our problem."
I'm not convinced about all of this. I thought one of the drawbacks of the "Norway Option" was that Oslo didn't have any say on the rules of the Single Market and had to accept whatever the EU wanted.
I also thought Norway weren't keen on us joining or rejoining EFTA.
I'm opposed to the Single Market for a number of reasons but accept parts of it as a prerequisite for future trade arrangements with the EU. I think it has been largely pernicious drawing wealth from some parts of the EU and concentrating it in others.
In another, "what's Brexit?" moment, the Telegraph have rounded up whay they say is £30bn in flotations in London over the next month or so. EU or no EU, I don't see any financial centre challenging the City any time soon, I especially don't see that challenge coming from a city within a hostile regulatory zone like the EU.
Barkworth points out a few obvious truths in Tomorrows Torygraph:
"Britain is already a full member of the EEA [so dosent need to join it] And secondly, the point of remaining in it is that, if we also apply to join Norway in the European Free Trade Area, we would not have to engage in lengthy negotiations about our access to the single market, because that would all be part of the package. We would also have considerably more say over single market rules than we have now. And we would even, under Article 112 of the EEA Agreement, have the unilateral right to exercise limited control over immigration. I know to many people this all seems incredibly complicated. But in fact it is by far the quickest, simplest and most obvious solution to much of our problem."
May has already ruled out an off the shelf arrangement, so that's no EEA. Also the EEA doesn't give you any control over Freedom of Movement which crosses another of her red lines.
In another, "what's Brexit?" moment, the Telegraph have rounded up whay they say is £30bn in flotations in London over the next month or so. EU or no EU, I don't see any financial centre challenging the City any time soon, I especially don't see that challenge coming from a city within a hostile regulatory zone like the EU.
I'm worried about the Deutsche Borse takeover tho.
Hugo Rifkind's "my week" in The Times are often excellent, but this week on May and Brexit is sublime
Liam Fox says that the British people have made a very straightforward set of demands. And chief among them, he adds, is clearly the demand that he should have an office in Downing Street.
“I think you mean that I should,” says David Davis.
“Both of you,” I say, “shall have access to Downing Street.”
They both look pleased. Then less pleased. Liam says the whole cabinet has access to Downing Street, though. You just walk through the gate.
“Exactly!” says Philip. “And this is the whole problem with our statements on the single market! Just having access to it doesn’t mean anything.”
“Access means access,” I say, firmly.
“No, but seriously,” argues Philip. “A chap might have access to his friend’s bedroom. Doesn’t mean they both sleep with his wife.”
LOL. A "blogger" for LibDemVoice is claiming that hundreds of thousands of people attended the EU rally today. Not quite sure how they worked that one out as the police in London estimated just 4,000. Desperate stuff....
May has already ruled out an off the shelf arrangement, so that's no EEA. Also the EEA doesn't give you any control over Freedom of Movement which crosses another of her red lines.
The details of the "British Model" for future economic and political relations with the EU will be fascinating to analyse once they see the light of day.
In some key respects, we are going for a more radical option than Norway or Switzerland and indeed further removed than our pre-1973 situation. Exiting the Single Market and ending Freedom of Movement will be pretty fundamental and for all the euphoria from Team Brexit, this LEAVE voter is convinced the devil will be in the detail - it nearly always is.
For the record on topic. I might disagree with just about everything Ed Balls stands for politically but on a personal level I find him one of the most endearing and admirable political figures of recent years. He just seems so utterly human, unassuming and normal. I think that Parliament will be a better place for his return.
And I still probably won't agree with a single damned thing he says.
Barkworth points out a few obvious truths in Tomorrows Torygraph:
"Britain is already a full member of the EEA [so dosent need to join it] And secondly, the point of remaining in it is that, if we also apply to join Norway in the European Free Trade Area, we would not have to engage in lengthy negotiations about our access to the single market, because that would all be part of the package. We would also have considerably more say over single market rules than we have now. And we would even, under Article 112 of the EEA Agreement, have the unilateral right to exercise limited control over immigration. I know to many people this all seems incredibly complicated. But in fact it is by far the quickest, simplest and most obvious solution to much of our problem."
May has already ruled out an off the shelf arrangement, so that's no EEA. Also the EEA doesn't give you any control over Freedom of Movement which crosses another of her red lines.
I think Barkworth is talking about the Liechtenstein Model which was pushed by some prior to the vote as a means of having membership of the single market but not having to abide by the rules on Freedom of Movement. It was being pushed by Dr Richard North a few months ago.
I think however that it is a non starter for a country of our size.
In another, "what's Brexit?" moment, the Telegraph have rounded up whay they say is £30bn in flotations in London over the next month or so. EU or no EU, I don't see any financial centre challenging the City any time soon, I especially don't see that challenge coming from a city within a hostile regulatory zone like the EU.
I'm worried about the Deutsche Borse takeover tho.
As am I. May be in 10 years time when everything has settled down. But not now.
Barkworth points out a few obvious truths in Tomorrows Torygraph:
"Britain is already a full member of the EEA [so dosent need to join it] And secondly, the point of remaining in it is that, if we also apply to join Norway in the European Free Trade Area, we would not have to engage in lengthy negotiations about our access to the single market, because that would all be part of the package. We would also have considerably more say over single market rules than we have now. And we would even, under Article 112 of the EEA Agreement, have the unilateral right to exercise limited control over immigration. I know to many people this all seems incredibly complicated. But in fact it is by far the quickest, simplest and most obvious solution to much of our problem."
May has already ruled out an off the shelf arrangement, so that's no EEA. Also the EEA doesn't give you any control over Freedom of Movement which crosses another of her red lines.
I think Barkworth is talking about the Liechtenstein Model which was pushed by some prior to the vote as a means of having membership of the single market but not having to abide by the rules on Freedom of Movement. It was being pushed by Dr Richard North a few months ago.
I think however that it is a non starter for a country of our size.
Yes I've seen Lichtenstein mentioned before. I don't see how that situation would be any different than with Camerons EU promise on free movement. We would be trusting the other EU countries in what their interpretation of the deal was and it would only be temporary.
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Republicans in North Carolina just engaged in what can only be described as a nefarious attempt to strip voting access from Blacks in the state. They literally surveyed what forms of early voting Blacks use and tried to shut just those avenues down, the courts blocked them. The Republican party would have to stop treating African Americans as the enemy before any large number if them will vote for them.
Watch ABC news now to see why AA voters will vote for Trump in FEWER numbers than in 2012.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNZvIgA0DIc
It's not about making the x minority more likely to vote for you, they always vote like a block forever, it's about making the non-minorities who are sensitive to accusations of racism feel more comfortable about you.
Trump's outreach is about making white people (especially women), who are sensitive about the issue, think he is not a racist.
Barkworth points out a few obvious truths in Tomorrows Torygraph:
"Britain is already a full member of the EEA [so dosent need to join it] And secondly, the point of remaining in it is that, if we also apply to join Norway in the European Free Trade Area, we would not have to engage in lengthy negotiations about our access to the single market, because that would all be part of the package. We would also have considerably more say over single market rules than we have now. And we would even, under Article 112 of the EEA Agreement, have the unilateral right to exercise limited control over immigration. I know to many people this all seems incredibly complicated. But in fact it is by far the quickest, simplest and most obvious solution to much of our problem."
May has already ruled out an off the shelf arrangement, so that's no EEA. Also the EEA doesn't give you any control over Freedom of Movement which crosses another of her red lines.
I think Barkworth is talking about the Liechtenstein Model which was pushed by some prior to the vote as a means of having membership of the single market but not having to abide by the rules on Freedom of Movement. It was being pushed by Dr Richard North a few months ago.
I think however that it is a non starter for a country of our size.
Yes I've seen Lichtenstein mentioned before. I don't see how that situation would be any different than with Camerons EU promise on free movement. We would be trusting the other EU countries in what their interpretation of the deal was and it would only be temporary.
The last thing the rest of Europe wants is to be cut off again. Fog in the Channel is one thing, but the idea that something like that could go on for years is unthinkable.
In another, "what's Brexit?" moment, the Telegraph have rounded up whay they say is £30bn in flotations in London over the next month or so. EU or no EU, I don't see any financial centre challenging the City any time soon, I especially don't see that challenge coming from a city within a hostile regulatory zone like the EU.
I'm worried about the Deutsche Borse takeover tho.
As am I. May be in 10 years time when everything has settled down. But not now.
I have serious concerns about who is currently proposed as its Chief Executive. That someone like that - who has presided over three of the worst scandals to hit the City in recent years - should be permitted to run an exchange which, after all, has a regulatory function - is an utter disgrace. Rewards for failure, indeed.
It is astonishing and depressing that despite everything the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards said about this that our regulators are, despite knowing about this and having been explicitly warned, are seemingly taking no action.
May has already ruled out an off the shelf arrangement, so that's no EEA. Also the EEA doesn't give you any control over Freedom of Movement which crosses another of her red lines.
The details of the "British Model" for future economic and political relations with the EU will be fascinating to analyse once they see the light of day.
In some key respects, we are going for a more radical option than Norway or Switzerland and indeed further removed than our pre-1973 situation. Exiting the Single Market and ending Freedom of Movement will be pretty fundamental and for all the euphoria from Team Brexit, this LEAVE voter is convinced the devil will be in the detail - it nearly always is.
In some key respects, we are going for a more radical option than Norway or Switzerland and indeed further removed than our pre-1973 situation
In what key respects 'further removed than our pre-1973 situation'?
In another, "what's Brexit?" moment, the Telegraph have rounded up whay they say is £30bn in flotations in London over the next month or so. EU or no EU, I don't see any financial centre challenging the City any time soon, I especially don't see that challenge coming from a city within a hostile regulatory zone like the EU.
I'm worried about the Deutsche Borse takeover tho.
As am I. May be in 10 years time when everything has settled down. But not now.
I have serious concerns about who is currently proposed as its Chief Executive. That someone like that - who has presided over three of the worst scandals to hit the City in recent years - should be permitted to run an exchange which, after all, has a regulatory function - is an utter disgrace. Rewards for failure, indeed.
It is astonishing and depressing that despite everything the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards said about this that our regulators are, despite knowing about this and having been explicitly warned, are seemingly taking no action.
For the record on topic. I might disagree with just about everything Ed Balls stands for politically but on a personal level I find him one of the most endearing and admirable political figures of recent years. He just seems so utterly human, unassuming and normal. I think that Parliament will be a better place for his return.
And I still probably won't agree with a single damned thing he says.
Totally agree. That said he seems to be enjoying life "outside" and good luck to him. In a normal political world surely Labour would be trying to crowbar him back asap and he would be mega keen too. Neither though seems likely.
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Republicans in North Carolina just engaged in what can only be described as a nefarious attempt to strip voting access from Blacks in the state. They literally surveyed what forms of early voting Blacks use and tried to shut just those avenues down, the courts blocked them. The Republican party would have to stop treating African Americans as the enemy before any large number if them will vote for them.
Watch ABC news now to see why AA voters will vote for Trump in FEWER numbers than in 2012.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNZvIgA0DIc
It's not about making the x minority more likely to vote for you, they always vote like a block forever, it's about making the non-minorities who are sensitive to accusations of racism feel more comfortable about you.
Trump's outreach is about making white people (especially women), who are sensitive about the issue, think he is not a racist.
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Minority voters are not going to vote Trump. I am not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
But remember that Trump is not "The Republican Party" of 2004, 2008 and 2012. He has much less baggage around him and is therefore more attractive than an 'establishment' figure.
less baggage?
to hispanics, he called all mexicans rapists.
to african americans, he is one of the biggest birthers around
to women, just pick one of the many things he has said about women.
he also really wants to sleep with his daughter. not really a vote winner
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
The Demographics are too heavily against him, and I think his Yankee city slicker schtick will not be that strong with the hillbilly vote.
Most white Americans do have a lot to lose, not many are in the nothing to lose bracket.
You're still missing the point Dr. Fox, the appeal of "you've got nothing to lose" might work with enough people. The Clinton camp has no answer to it. You're looking at it from the same point of view as Labour did in Scotland for so many years and how they looked at the North and Wales for the EU referendum, look how it ended for them. The Democrats have offered and given nothing to minority voters for 8 years, they are in a worse position socially and economically than ever before. Enough of them might be willing to give something new a go. Identity politics had hurt the great centre left party of the UK already.
Republicans in North Carolina just engaged in what can only be described as a nefarious attempt to strip voting access from Blacks in the state. They literally surveyed what forms of early voting Blacks use and tried to shut just those avenues down, the courts blocked them. The Republican party would have to stop treating African Americans as the enemy before any large number if them will vote for them.
Watch ABC news now to see why AA voters will vote for Trump in FEWER numbers than in 2012.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNZvIgA0DIc
It's not about making the x minority more likely to vote for you, they always vote like a block forever, it's about making the non-minorities who are sensitive to accusations of racism feel more comfortable about you.
Trump's outreach is about making white people (especially women), who are sensitive about the issue, think he is not a racist.
As you see Trump is losing N.Hampshire in this poll because he gets the same support among women as Hispanics there.
Yeah but you forget many of those women will be also be minorities, and I think it's a bit too late to "pivot" now people are quickley making their minds up about him. He looked so good after that meeting with the Mexican president then he ruined it with that rally in Arizona afterwards. As you have yourself said Trump will destroy (has already?) himself.
No Republican has had more than 10% of the African American vote in the last 50 years, and Trump is going to do worse than most. Ditto Hispanics.
.
Watch ABC news now to see why AA voters will vote for Trump in FEWER numbers than in 2012.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNZvIgA0DIc
It's not about making the x minority more likely to vote for you, they always vote like a block forever, it's about making the non-minorities who are sensitive to accusations of racism feel more comfortable about you.
Trump's outreach is about making white people (especially women), who are sensitive about the issue, think he is not a racist.
As you see Trump is losing N.Hampshire in this poll because he gets the same support among women as Hispanics there.
Yeah but you forget many of those women will be also be minorities, and I think it's a bit too late to "pivot" now people are quickley making their minds up about him. He looked so good after that meeting with the Mexican president then he ruined it with that rally in Arizona afterwards. As you have yourself said Trump will destroy (has already?) himself.
Also minorities don't always vote as a block. They vote in their own self interest, as everyone should. In 1960 30% of AA voted for the republican candidate the very next election it fell to 0%, about 30% voted for W. Bush and the next election that vote collapsed, GOP keep pissing of large sections of the electorate so guess what they don't vote for them.
And to think David Miliband leadership opportunity died when he waved a banana around, Ed was severely knocked by not being able to eat a bacon sandwich, and now we are talking about Ed "Dad Dancer" Balls with an increased chance of becoming leader after making a fool of himself on national tv.
"Freedom of Information figures suggest hate crimes increased by 20% last year, to more than 60,000 - yet police referrals to prosecutors fell by 1,379."
Expect that isn't what it says. The number of reports increased, but
"But the CPS hate crime report showed the number of racially aggravated and homophobic hate crimes referred by the police to prosecutors in 2014/15 was 14,376. That number decreased by 9.6%, to 12,997, in 2015/16."
Hillary now leads Trump by 3.2% in a 4 way contest with RCP, Obama beat Romney by 3.9% in 2012, so Trump is now officially polling closer to Hillary than Romney's losing margin was to Obama with the debates still to come. Goodnight! http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
THERESA MAY RULES OUT GENERAL ELECTION BEFORE 2020
Per interview on Andrew Marr Show.
May quote:
"I'm not going to be calling a snap election.
"I've been very clear that I think we need that period of time, that stability - to be able to deal with the issues that the country is facing and have that election in 2020."
THERESA MAY RULES OUT GENERAL ELECTION BEFORE 2020
Per interview on Andrew Marr Show.
May quote:
"I'm not going to be calling a snap election.
"I've been very clear that I think we need that period of time, that stability - to be able to deal with the issues that the country is facing and have that election in 2020."
Comments
Your antibacterial soap might not be what you thought it was: antibacterial.
Today, the Food and Drug Administration issued a rule banning 19 chemicals from wash-off antibacterial soaps, citing a lack of effectiveness and saying soap manufacturers would have a year to remove the ingredients from their products.
"Consumers may think antibacterial washes are more effective at preventing the spread of germs, but we have no scientific evidence that they are any better than plain soap or water," Dr. Janet Woodcock, the director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.
Wonder how long before it comes up here
I suspect to see the reserves more in the following PL games, but those look kind to us too.
Thank you both for your useful links.
I think "Psephography" is wrong concerning the polling error in 2015: from memory the average error was over 2%. He or she may be measuring against the UK result, but it should be against the GB result as pollsters did not include Northern Ireland until very recently. I also have a nagging doubt that the error of the average isn't necessarily the same as the average of the error, but don't quote me 'til I've done the math.
As for Carville... well, he could be right, he could be wrong, but regardless I'd be very dubious about making predictions like that this far out.
https://psephography.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/opinion-polling-in-the-uk/
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/james-carville-presidential-election-2016
Marie le Conte
oh my god :') https://t.co/E0GNWxEDko
I expect turnout by African Americans to be lower for Clinton than it was for Obama, but still 95+% for the Democrats.
The Presidency is not a referendum.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-provision.html
This is not a cross party referundum.
You may have noticed that it was not me running the Remain campaign, indeed I was quite critical of it. In particular allowing it to be an internal Tory battle with the other parties on the sidelines.
They want to kick the medical establishment and the Department of Health in the balls. That is why the BMA is not leading this strike, it is too antiestablishment and grassroots in origin.
"How can it get worse" is often followed by it getting worse!
Yes But that doesn't stop them voting for it.
A SCHOOLBOY who pleaded guilty to raping his five-year-old brother and four-year-old sister has been jailed.
The 15-year-old boy was jailed for nearly five years, having initially denied the offences ahead of a trial at the Liverpool Crown Court.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1719958/schoolboy-who-raped-his-five-year-old-brother-and-four-year-old-sister-in-horrific-crime-jailed-for-almost-five-years/?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-TheSunNewspaper-_-20160903-_-News-_-569966441
@RapSheet: The #Cowboys are expected to sign QB Mark Sanchez, source said.
I feel your pain...
Battleground state poll averages - @HillaryClinton vs. @realDonaldTrump. https://t.co/6H8x1NvqXq
So long as we can say “This is the worst.”
King Lear
"Britain is already a full member of the EEA [so dosent need to join it] And secondly, the point of remaining in it is that, if we also apply to join Norway in the European Free Trade Area, we would not have to engage in lengthy negotiations about our access to the single market, because that would all be part of the package. We would also have considerably more say over single market rules than we have now. And we would even, under Article 112 of the EEA Agreement, have the unilateral right to exercise limited control over immigration. I know to many people this all seems incredibly complicated. But in fact it is by far the quickest, simplest and most obvious solution to much of our problem."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/03/rising-emissions-show-paris-climate-agreement-is-an-act-of-delus/
South Africa Introduces Racial Quotas For Cricket Team https://t.co/0wfgJ71y8I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNZvIgA0DIc
I also thought Norway weren't keen on us joining or rejoining EFTA.
I'm opposed to the Single Market for a number of reasons but accept parts of it as a prerequisite for future trade arrangements with the EU. I think it has been largely pernicious drawing wealth from some parts of the EU and concentrating it in others.
Liam Fox says that the British people have made a very straightforward set of demands. And chief among them, he adds, is clearly the demand that he should have an office in Downing Street.
“I think you mean that I should,” says David Davis.
“Both of you,” I say, “shall have access to Downing Street.”
They both look pleased. Then less pleased. Liam says the whole cabinet has access to Downing Street, though. You just walk through the gate.
“Exactly!” says Philip. “And this is the whole problem with our statements on the single market! Just having access to it doesn’t mean anything.”
“Access means access,” I say, firmly.
“No, but seriously,” argues Philip. “A chap might have access to his friend’s bedroom. Doesn’t mean they both sleep with his wife.”
“Erm,” says Boris Johnson.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/my-week-theresa-may-spd8m03n7
http://www.libdemvoice.org/tweets-from-march-for-europe-as-huppert-and-bearder-address-crowds-51735.html
In some key respects, we are going for a more radical option than Norway or Switzerland and indeed further removed than our pre-1973 situation. Exiting the Single Market and ending Freedom of Movement will be pretty fundamental and for all the euphoria from Team Brexit, this LEAVE voter is convinced the devil will be in the detail - it nearly always is.
And I still probably won't agree with a single damned thing he says.
I think however that it is a non starter for a country of our size.
Trump's outreach is about making white people (especially women), who are sensitive about the issue, think he is not a racist.
For instance this N.Hampshire poll which was done on Monday has the following:
https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/gsp2016_summer_preselect090216.pdf
Hillary 45
Trump 36
Among women.
Hillary 54
Trump 28
Men.
Trump 45
Hillary 35
As you see Trump is losing N.Hampshire in this poll because he gets the same support among women as Hispanics there.
FranceBritain isnt doing anything...It is astonishing and depressing that despite everything the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards said about this that our regulators are, despite knowing about this and having been explicitly warned, are seemingly taking no action.
In what key respects 'further removed than our pre-1973 situation'?
to hispanics, he called all mexicans rapists.
to african americans, he is one of the biggest birthers around
to women, just pick one of the many things he has said about women.
he also really wants to sleep with his daughter. not really a vote winner
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3772571/Carnage-Calais-Horrific-crash-jungle-migrant-gangs-target-tourists-cars-MoS-journalists-badly-hurt-terrifying-new-ambush-technique.html
But why aren't
FranceBritain doing more....'Horrific crash as jungle migrant gangs target tourists in cars and MoS journalists are badly hurt in terrifying new ambush technique
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3772571/Carnage-Calais-Horrific-crash-jungle-migrant-gangs-target-tourists-cars-MoS-journalists-badly-hurt-terrifying-new-ambush-technique.html
But why aren't
FranceBritain doing more....'Is anyone still in doubt why we don't want these vermin in our country ?
"Freedom of Information figures suggest hate crimes increased by 20% last year, to more than 60,000 - yet police referrals to prosecutors fell by 1,379."
Expect that isn't what it says. The number of reports increased, but
"But the CPS hate crime report showed the number of racially aggravated and homophobic hate crimes referred by the police to prosecutors in 2014/15 was 14,376. That number decreased by 9.6%, to 12,997, in 2015/16."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37266636
So they are equating reports = crime, not even number of charges that may or may not result in a guilty verdict.
I bet the number of paedo reports to the Police went through the roof after Jimmy Saville.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Per interview on Andrew Marr Show.
May quote:
"I'm not going to be calling a snap election.
"I've been very clear that I think we need that period of time, that stability - to be able to deal with the issues that the country is facing and have that election in 2020."
http://news.sky.com/story/pm-rules-out-new-general-election-before-2020-10564460
May thinks she's been given a job to do (be PM until 2020) and she'll get on with it.
Osborne, on the other hand, would have thought 'how can I get one over on Labour' and called a GE.....
That's why one of them is PM, the other a back bencher.....
Is this acceptable?
White House aide and Chinese official having a row on video as Obama arrives - oops https://t.co/1FBTf5UkhQ
and to think, this was supposed to be Cameron's big farewell. Oh well!