I preferred May to Leadsom. Her speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street was interesting.
But am becoming less impressed, TBH.
When you are leader of a government, wanting to be in control of every little thing - if that is the case - is going to lead to disaster. Important to be in charge. Important not to be blind-sided by not being on top of issues. Important to make sure there is follow-through. But the more senior you are the more important it is to understand how to delegate effectively and not micro-manage.
Also, I do not understand the grammar school policy. I'm with @DavidL on this: it seems to be:- (1) a distraction from Brexit which is where her and her government's focus needs to be; and (2) yet another education reorganization which must make those at the receiving end despair.
I think it's probably too early to conclude that May will end up micro-managing herself into the ground like Gordon Brown did. Besides anything else, she is 60 this year and a type 1 diabetic. She's physically incapable of staying up night after night agonising over details. If she does display Brownian tendencies then she'll be forced to learn to master them, or else she'll find herself in hospital before very long.
I think she has chosen to reinstate the grammars for the following reasons: 1. She believes in the policy. 2. She is serious about wanting to achieve reform in the domestic sphere, and not have her entire Ministry absorbed by Brexit. 3. It's politically advantageous, for several reasons (popular with the Tory Party; more supported than opposed by electors, but especially her working class target audience; to spike Ukip's guns; and as a stick with which to beat Labour, and one which will only become more valuable if this ends with the teaching unions getting stroppy and the opposition using the Lords to veto the Commons.)
Churchill was 64 in 1940 and micro managed like crazy, and I don't know any evidence that type 1 diabetes, properly managed, prevents one from staying up all night.
I don't buy Cameron's reasons for standing down - if he thought as a general principle that PMs should not stick around on the back benches he could have stood down immediately. More likely he has given it time to assess May's premiership and doesn't like what he sees.
Or he was telling the truth when he said he didn't want to be a distraction. Or he just couldn't be arsed to keep plodding on. Who can say?
In either of thoses cases he could have gone immediately. Sticking around for 60 days is only consistent with a "wait and see" approach.
I preferred May to Leadsom. Her speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street was interesting.
But am becoming less impressed, TBH.
When you are leader of a government, wanting to be in control of every little thing - if that is the case - is going to lead to disaster. Important to be in charge. Important not to be blind-sided by not being on top of issues. Important to make sure there is follow-through. But the more senior you are the more important it is to understand how to delegate effectively and not micro-manage.
Also, I do not understand the grammar school policy. I'm with @DavidL on this: it seems to be:- (1) a distraction from Brexit which is where her and her government's focus needs to be; and (2) yet another education reorganization which must make those at the receiving end despair.
I think it's probably too early to conclude that May will end up micro-managing herself into the ground like Gordon Brown did. Besides anything else, she is 60 this year and a type 1 diabetic. She's physically incapable of staying up night after night agonising over details. If she does display Brownian tendencies then she'll be forced to learn to master them, or else she'll find herself in hospital before very long.
I think she has chosen to reinstate the grammars for the following reasons: 1. She believes in the policy. 2. She is serious about wanting to achieve reform in the domestic sphere, and not have her entire Ministry absorbed by Brexit. 3. It's politically advantageous, for several reasons (popular with the Tory Party; more supported than opposed by electors, but especially her working class target audience; to spike Ukip's guns; and as a stick with which to beat Labour, and one which will only become more valuable if this ends with the teaching unions getting stroppy and the opposition using the Lords to veto the Commons.)
Churchill was 64 in 1940 and micro managed like crazy, and I don't know any evidence that type 1 diabetes, properly managed, prevents one from staying up all night.
I don't buy Cameron's reasons for standing down - if he thought as a general principle that PMs should not stick around on the back benches he could have stood down immediately. More likely he has given it time to assess May's premiership and doesn't like what he sees.
Or he was telling the truth when he said he didn't want to be a distraction. Or he just couldn't be arsed to keep plodding on. Who can say?
In either of thoses cases he could have gone immediately. Sticking around for 60 days is only consistent with a "wait and see" approach.
I wish Cameron well. By delivering on the 0.7% Aid pledge he will save millions of lives. It's an extraordinary thing to say but politics is an extraordinary thing. Because of David Cameron millions of people who would otherwise have had early and painful deaths will now survive. One of them may be the next Hitler. One of them may cure Cancer. One of them might set foot on Mars. Politics changes the world. As politicians go Cameron's legacy on Aid will be extraordinary. No matter what else now happens he'll always know he saved millions of lives. Who'll have millions f children themselves and then....
..they will attempt to illegally immigrate to the United Kingdom.
Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?
They are not, yougov has shown most privately educated support grammar schools
Yes - those of them who care what the townies do support the existence of grammar schools but they still have contempt for them. They support their existence because they uphold the principle of social hierarchy and exclusion, which is massively more evident in Britain than in most other countries. They look down their noses at them because they consider themselves to have been born with superior merit. Why else does one get the contempt for people who "try hard"?
That said,
* there are exceptions * sometimes people are watching, and hypocrisy is the ransom that vice pays to virtue * not all beliefs are conscious * some who socially climb are accepted (David Frost married the Duke of Norfolk's daughter), usually from among those who take care to change their accents and manners to match those of the people who are already there; but the vast majority of those who were privately educated consider the kind of school that a person attended to be an extremely important feature of who that person is.
Only at the very top private schools like Eton and Harrow, Westminster and Winchester where a few old boys look down their noses at other ex public schoolboys, let alone those who went to state schools! Most parents who educate their children privately do so to give them a good education, not because of snobbery
But these numbers are not adding up. 30 Labour + 17 Tories + 4 Lib Dems =51 and there has to be some SNP seats and some NI ones as well.
About half-a-dozen SNP and one from NI. A Con figure of 17 doesn't look plausible. Tory losses likely to be less than ten. Imagine fuller analysis will emerge from independent sources tomorrow.
On the politics Cameron is right to go. He's disgraced. If he goes to the Lords he should take the title Lord North as penance. I actually regret the loss of experience and institutional memory from the Commons. Seeing things out till 2020 as he promised would have been good. But politically he's disgraced. He accidentally weakened the United Kingdom, weakened the European Union and weakened the Transatlantic Union. He reversed 500 years of British Foriegn Policy by acvident. He promised a referendum because he thought he couldn't win a General Election. He kept his promise on a referendum because he thought he couldn't lose it. He was wrong on both. God alone knows the consequences longer term but he must be a broken man. Disgraced and in the historical company of Lord North. If he just can't face it anymore I entirely understand and wish him the best.
David Cameron's official gov.uk web page has yet to be written, but I expect he'd settle for being called great and brought down by events outside his control.
I preferred May to Leadsom. Her speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street was interesting.
But am becoming less impressed, TBH.
When you are leader of a government, wanting to be in control of every little thing - if that is the case - is going to lead to disaster. Important to be in charge. Important not to be blind-sided by not being on top of issues. Important to make sure there is follow-through. But the more senior you are the more important it is to understand how to delegate effectively and not micro-manage.
Also, I do not understand the grammar school policy. I'm with @DavidL on this: it seems to be:- (1) a distraction from Brexit which is where her and her government's focus needs to be; and (2) yet another education reorganization which must make those at the receiving end despair.
I think it's probably too early to conclude that May will end up micro-managing herself into the ground like Gordon Brown did. Besides anything else, she is 60 this year and a type 1 diabetic. She's physically incapable of staying up night after night agonising over details. If she does display Brownian tendencies then she'll be forced to learn to master them, or else she'll find herself in hospital before very long.
I think she has chosen to reinstate the grammars for the following reasons: 1. She believes in t)
Churchill was 64 in 1940 and micro managed like crazy, and I don't know any evidence that type 1 diabetes, properly managed, prevents one from staying up all night.
I don't buy Cameron's reasons for standing down - if he thought as a general principle that PMs should not stick around on the back benches he could have stood down immediately. More likely he has given it time to assess May's premiership and doesn't like what he sees.
Or he was telling the truth when he said he didn't want to be a distraction. Or he just couldn't be arsed to keep plodding on. Who can say?
In either of thoses cases he could have gone immediately. Sticking around for 60 days is only consistent with a "wait and see" approach.
Surely the latter reflects greater credit on his decision. He initially thought that remaining in Parliament would work, but after realizing that he would be uncomfortable with at least some of May's policies, such as grammar schools, he opted to quit rather than become a focus for dissent and disunity.
On the politics Cameron is right to go. He's disgraced. If he goes to the Lords he should take the title Lord North as penance. I actually regret the loss of experience and institutional memory from the Commons. Seeing things out till 2020 as he promised would have been good. But politically he's disgraced. He accidentally weakened the United Kingdom, weakened the European Union and weakened the Transatlantic Union. He reversed 500 years of British Foriegn Policy by acvident. He promised a referendum because he thought he couldn't win a General Election. He kept his promise on a referendum because he thought he couldn't lose it. He was wrong on both. God alone knows the consequences longer term but he must be a broken man. Disgraced and in the historical company of Lord North. If he just can't face it anymore I entirely understand and wish him the best.
David Cameron's official gov.uk web page has yet to be written, but I expect he'd settle for being called great and brought down by events outside his control.
I would describe him as competent with potential, but unable to manage his biggest challenges.
I preferred May to Leadsom. Her speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street was interesting.
But am becoming less impressed, TBH.
When you are leader of a government, wanting to be in control of every little thing - if that is the case - is going to lead to disaster. Important to be in charge. Important not to be blind-sided by not being on top of issues. Important to make sure there is follow-through. But the more senior you are the more important it is to understand how to delegate effectively and not micro-manage.
Also, I do not understand the grammar school policy. I'm with @DavidL on this: it seems to be:- (1) a distraction from Brexit which is where her and her government's focus needs to be; and (2) yet another education reorganization which must make those at the receiving end despair.
I think it's probably too early to conclude that May will end up micro-managing herself into the ground like Gordon Brown did. Besides anything else, she is 60 this year and a type 1 diabetic. She's physically incapable of staying up night after night agonising over details. If she does display Brownian tendencies then she'll be forced to learn to master them, or else she'll find herself in hospital before very long.
I think she has chosen to reinstate the grammars for the following reasons: 1. She believes in the policy. 2. She is serious about wanting to achieve reform in the domestic sphere, and not have her entire Ministry absorbed by Brexit. 3. It's politically advantageous, for several reasons (popular with the Tory Party; more supported than opposed by electors, but especially her working class target audience; to spike Ukip's guns; and as a stick with which to beat Labour, and one which will only become more valuable if this ends with the teaching unions getting stroppy and the opposition using the Lords to veto the Commons.)
Churchill was 64 in 1940 and micro managed like crazy, and I don't know any evidence that type 1 diabetes, properly managed, prevents one from staying up all night.
I don't buy Cameron's reasons for standing down - if he thought as a general principle that PMs should not stick around on the back benches he could have stood down immediately. More likely he has given it time to assess May's premiership and doesn't like what he sees.
Or he was telling the truth when he said he didn't want to be a distraction. Or he just couldn't be arsed to keep plodding on. Who can say?
In either of thoses cases he could have gone immediately. Sticking around for 60 days is only consistent with a "wait and see" approach.
I still maintain he'd decided to stand down immediately after election of a new PM. As Leadsom dropped out, that dislocated the timetable. The original contest was due to be settled last Friday, and here's Cameron resigning on Monday.
Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?
They are not, yougov has shown most privately educated support grammar schools
Yes - those of them who care what the townies do support the existence of grammar schools but they still have contempt for them. They support their existence because they uphold the principle of social hierarchy and exclusion, which is massively more evident in Britain than in most other countries. They look down their noses at them because they consider themselves to have been born with superior merit. Why else does one get the contempt for people who "try hard"?
That said,
* there are exceptions * sometimes people are watching, and hypocrisy is the ransom that vice pays to virtue * not all beliefs are conscious * some who socially climb are accepted (David Frost married the Duke of Norfolk's daughter), usually from among those who take care to change their accents and manners to match those of the people who are already there; but the vast majority of those who were privately educated consider the kind of school that a person attended to be an extremely important feature of who that person is.
But these numbers are not adding up. 30 Labour + 17 Tories + 4 Lib Dems =51 and there has to be some SNP seats and some NI ones as well.
About half-a-dozen SNP and one from NI. A Con figure of 17 doesn't look plausible. Tory losses likely to be less than ten. Imagine fuller analysis will emerge from independent sources tomorrow.
I was thinking 10-12. Shouldn't be too difficult for the whips to sort out, although there will be 19 redundant MEPs also looking around.
On the politics Cameron is right to go. He's disgraced. If he goes to the Lords he should take the title Lord North as penance. I actually regret the loss of experience and institutional memory from the Commons. Seeing things out till 2020 as he promised would have been good. But politically he's disgraced. He accidentally weakened the United Kingdom, weakened the European Union and weakened the Transatlantic Union. He reversed 500 years of British Foriegn Policy by acvident. He promised a referendum because he thought he couldn't win a General Election. He kept his promise on a referendum because he thought he couldn't lose it. He was wrong on both. God alone knows the consequences longer term but he must be a broken man. Disgraced and in the historical company of Lord North. If he just can't face it anymore I entirely understand and wish him the best.
On the politics Cameron is right to go. He's disgraced. If he goes to the Lords he should take the title Lord North as penance. I actually regret the loss of experience and institutional memory from the Commons. Seeing things out till 2020 as he promised would have been good. But politically he's disgraced. He accidentally weakened the United Kingdom, weakened the European Union and weakened the Transatlantic Union. He reversed 500 years of British Foriegn Policy by acvident. He promised a referendum because he thought he couldn't win a General Election. He kept his promise on a referendum because he thought he couldn't lose it. He was wrong on both. God alone knows the consequences longer term but he must be a broken man. Disgraced and in the historical company of Lord North. If he just can't face it anymore I entirely understand and wish him the best.
Or you could take my view that the status quo of the UK-EU relationship was unsustainable in the absence of meaningful reform, and it was a case of when not if.
If I were Cameron, I wouldn't be too hard on myself.
Sadly they fail to mention the most important thing, namely what Betfair should do about their election market.
They say that in the selection of a replacement "(n)o special consideration would be given to Tim Kaine". But the DNC cannot remove Kaine against his will any more than they can remove Clinton. The DNC would surely enquire of prospective replacements for Clinton - other than Kaine himself - whether they would be happy to have Kaine as their running-mate. They would also presumably ask Kaine which potential replacements he would be happy to run on the same ticket as.
Current Betfair mid-prices are Biden 28, Sanders 35, Kaine 160, Gore 710, Warren 710, Kerry 720. I bought Kaine at 200 but reckon he remains underpriced.
Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?
A rhetorical question I guess.
Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar schools. They only help a few, not all.
Whereas the Comprehensive system helps no one as it works on the principle of dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. .
The state education is of no concern to them, Richard. They have parents with the means to send them to fee paying schools. It's only the plebs who have to worry about the quality of state education.
Actually yougov showed a majority of the privately educated backed new grammars, only by a slightly smaller margin than those educated at grammar schools. Even a narrow plurality of those educated at comprehensives and secondary moderns supported new ones being created
Fairly or not, it doesn't look good when the public-school educated condemn grammars.
I preferred May to Leadsom. Her speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street was interesting.
But am becoming less impressed, TBH.
When you are leader of a government, wanting to be in control of every little thing - if that is the case - is going to lead to disaster. Important to be in charge. Important not to be blind-sided by not being on top of issues. Important to make sure there is follow-through. But the more senior you are the more important it is to understand how to delegate effectively and not micro-manage.
Also, I do not understand the grammar school policy. I'm with @DavidL on this: it seems to be:- (1) a distraction from Brexit which is where her and her government's focus needs to be; and (2) yet another education reorganization which must make those at the receiving end despair.
I think it's probably too early to conclude that May will end up micro-managing herself into the ground like Gordon Brown did. Besides anything else, she is 60 this year and a type 1 diabetic. She's physically incapable of staying up night after night agonising over details. If she does display Brownian tendencies then she'll be forced to learn to master them, or else she'll find herself in hospital before very long.
I think she has chosen to reinstate the grammars for the following reasons: 1. She believes in t)
Churchill was 64 in 1940 and micro managed like crazy, and I don't know any evidence that type 1 diabetes, properly managed, prevents one from staying up all night.
I don't buy Cameron's reasons for standing down - if he thought as a general principle that PMs should not stick around on the back benches he could have stood down immediately. More likely he has given it time to assess May's premiership and doesn't like what he sees.
Or he was telling the truth when he said he didn't want to be a distraction. Or he just couldn't be arsed to keep plodding on. Who can say?
In either of thoses cases he could have gone immediately. Sticking around for 60 days is only consistent with a "wait and see" approach.
Surely the latter reflects greater credit on his decision. He initially thought that remaining in Parliament would work, but after realizing that he would be uncomfortable with at least some of May's policies, such as grammar schools, he opted to quit rather than become a focus for dissent and disunity.
That may I suppose be right. My point is that his going now is to some extent a commentary on May's premiership - but the comment might be that it's bad, or that it's good but not something he feels he can usefully work with.
Cameron was also good on Climate Change. Or more accurately much less worse than you'd expect from an english speaking conservative at the moment. Which is not nothing. Some good decarbonisation measures were taken and Paris agreed to. The down side was Osborne's vandalism of Renewables. I'm ambiguous on Gay Marriage. A decent conservative reform who's time had come. Albeit via dogs breakfast of an Act bulldozed through as a piece of identity politics. Of course Libya has proved to be a disastrous vanity war which has made things worse. Thankfully the Commons stopped him doing the same in Syria. The worst of his Heir to Blair instincts would be more of a reputational problem if Europe hadn't buried everything else.
I still maintain he'd decided to stand down immediately after election of a new PM. As Leadsom dropped out, that dislocated the timetable. The original contest was due to be settled last Friday, and here's Cameron resigning on Monday.
True, he probably posted his resignation letter in June effective on today's date.
Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?
A rhetorical question I guess.
Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar schools. They only help a few, not all.
Whereas the Comprehensive system helps no one as it works on the principle of dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. .
The state education is of no concern to them, Richard. They have parents with the means to send them to fee paying schools. It's only the plebs who have to worry about the quality of state education.
Actually yougov showed a majority of the privately educated backed new grammars, only by a slightly smaller margin than those educated at grammar schools. Even a narrow plurality of those educated at comprehensives and secondary moderns supported new ones being created
Fairly or not, it doesn't look good when the public-school educated condemn grammars.
Indeed but only a small minority do, mainly Cameroon and Labour MPs, as the polling shows a majority of those educated at public school back grammars
I've just backed either Trump or Clinton to become POTUS @ 1/11 - with the intention of laying off within a week @ ~1/100.
A very low risk ~8% return hopefully.
The Biden/Sanders prices are just flat out wrong. Should be more like biden 100/1, sanders 200/1 IMO
Kaine is probably the (relative) value.
Clinton could theoretically direct her electors to vote for someone else - laws on faithless electors nothwithstanding (I don't know how they are all drafted in dealing with this eventuality). That might be Biden or Kaine, but surely not Sanders.
However NB that Betfair's rules are:
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market.
In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
So any settlement might hinge on an interpretation of the word "projected". If Clinton were to stand aside in favour of e.g. Biden and pledge her electors to him, would he be the projected winner?
If I were betfair, I'd void the market, give everyone a £5 free bet and start from scratch.
That market looks like it's going up to >£200m by the close of play.
I'm not betfair, though!
I think it would take a great deal more than a miserable £5 free bet to keep everyone sweet!
I'd be really annoyed if they did that, but you have to bear in mind this is betfair/paddy power we're talking about.
The company actively despise their own exchange customers.
But these numbers are not adding up. 30 Labour + 17 Tories + 4 Lib Dems =51 and there has to be some SNP seats and some NI ones as well.
About half-a-dozen SNP and one from NI. A Con figure of 17 doesn't look plausible. Tory losses likely to be less than ten. Imagine fuller analysis will emerge from independent sources tomorrow.
I was thinking 10-12. Shouldn't be too difficult for the whips to sort out, although there will be 19 redundant MEPs also looking around.
It oughtn't to be too difficult to shuffle the small number of threatened MPs into safe seats vacated by retirement. It's probably also safe to assume at this stage that most notional Labour seats where the Tories are a good second, and only have a small majority to overturn, are there for the taking.
But these numbers are not adding up. 30 Labour + 17 Tories + 4 Lib Dems =51 and there has to be some SNP seats and some NI ones as well.
That's 17 out of 50. Maybe one or two more than expected. Labour maybe one or two less - especially because, as you say, the 50 includes Scotland and NI too.
Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?
A rhetorical question I guess.
Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar schools. They only help a few, not all.
Whereas the Comprehensive system helps no one as it works on the principle of dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. .
The state education is of no concern to them, Richard. They have parents with the means to send them to fee paying schools. It's only the plebs who have to worry about the quality of state education.
Actually yougov showed a majority of the privately educated backed new grammars, only by a slightly smaller margin than those educated at grammar schools. Even a narrow plurality of those educated at comprehensives and secondary moderns supported new ones being created
Fairly or not, it doesn't look good when the public-school educated condemn grammars.
And it's not as if allowing townies to have two types of school, one higher than the other, is opening the door to letting townies marry their daughters.
I preferred May to Leadsom. Her speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street was interesting.
But am becoming less impressed, TBH.
When you are leader of a government, wanting to be in control of every little thing - if that is the case - is going to lead to disaster. Important to be in charge. Important not to be blind-sided by not being on top of issues. Important to make sure there is follow-through. But the more senior you are the more important it is to understand how to delegate effectively and not micro-manage.
Also, I do not understand the grammar school policy. I'm with @DavidL on this: it seems to be:- (1) a distraction from Brexit which is where her and her government's focus needs to be; and (2) yet another education reorganization which must make those at the receiving end despair.
I think it's probably too early to conclude that May will end up micro-managing herself into the ground like Gordon Brown did. Besides anything else, she is 60 this year and a type 1 diabetic. She's physically incapable of staying up night after night agonising over details. If she does display Brownian tendencies then she'll be forced to learn to master them, or else she'll find herself in hospital before very long.
I think she has chosen to reinstate the grammars for the following reasons: 1. She believes in the policy. 2. She is serious about wanting to achieve reform in the domestic sphere, and not have her entire Ministry absorbed by Brexit. 3. It's politically advantageous, for several reasons (popular with the Tory Party; more supported than opposed by electors, but especially her working class target audience; to spike Ukip's guns; and as a stick with which to beat Labour, and one which will only become more valuable if this ends with the teaching unions getting stroppy and the opposition using the Lords to veto the Commons.)
Churchill was 64 in 1940 and micro managed like crazy, and I don't know any evidence that type 1 diabetes, properly managed, prevents one from staying up all night.
I don't buy Cameron's reasons for standing down - if he thought as a general principle that PMs should not stick around on the back benches he could have stood down immediately. More likely he has given it time to assess May's premiership and doesn't like what he sees.
Or he was telling the truth when he said he didn't want to be a distraction. Or he just couldn't be arsed to keep plodding on. Who can say?
This article in the Telegraph carries the ring of truth:
Cameron is still not yet 50, has a hot wife, lovely kids, riches beyond the ken of most mortals and I guess he really can't be arsed to hang around the commons with it's constant reminders of what might have been. I'd bail out if I was him too.
Sadly they fail to mention the most important thing, namely what Betfair should do about their election market.
They say that in the selection of a replacement "(n)o special consideration would be given to Tim Kaine". But the DNC cannot remove Kaine against his will any more than they can remove Clinton. The DNC would surely enquire of prospective replacements for Clinton - other than Kaine himself - whether they would be happy to have Kaine as their running-mate. They would also presumably ask Kaine which potential replacements he would be happy to run on the same ticket as.
Current Betfair mid-prices are Biden 28, Sanders 35, Kaine 160, Gore 710, Warren 710, Kerry 720. I bought Kaine at 200 but reckon he remains underpriced.
I am not sure they know what they are talking about. They seem to be assuming this is a DNC decision but it is too late to get anyone registered in the bulk of States now who isn't already on the ticket. Unless the rules are bent if Hilary withdraws its Kaine or no Democratic candidate.
Cameron is still not yet 50, has a hot wife, lovely kids, riches beyond the ken of most mortals and I guess he really can't be arsed to hang around the commons with it's constant reminders of what might have been. I'd bail out if I was him too.
Erm - that's epic-ly thick... what about the other 33 seats that go then?
Isn't the point being made that there are 17 Tory MPs, at least, who might vote against the new boundaries? It wouldn't take that many.
Only becomes an issue if (a) all Tory MPs want to stand in 2020 or, assuming that they do not, (b) Tory high command fails to ensure that displaced MPs are offered first pick of available, vacated safe seats. Doesn't seem likely, especially since value of 17 reported in that tweet sounds implausibly high.
Erm - that's epic-ly thick... what about the other 33 seats that go then?
Isn't the point being made that there are 17 Tory MPs, at least, who might vote against the new boundaries? It wouldn't take that many.
That probably is the, rather simplistic, point being made. In reality, of course, there are more Tory MPs that will see their 'safe' seats disappear, since there are also probably some new seats being drawn that are likely to be Tory, but have no incumbent. For example under the last proposals IDS's safe Chingford seat didn't disappear, but became marginal by having a chunk of Edmonton attached to it. There will be similar examples all over the place. The question isn't how many seats will be affected, but how many Tory MPs feel sufficiently strongly (and have sufficiently few other prospects or loyalties) about it to consider joining the opposition to vote the proposals down.
The one thing going for them that the opponents do have is that their challenge on the basis of the numbers being used has the merit of being a wider, apparently non-partisan argument against the proposals, which is a more convincing and principled platform for opposition than simply disliking where the lines have been drawn on the map.
Cameron is still not yet 50, has a hot wife, lovely kids, riches beyond the ken of most mortals and I guess he really can't be arsed to hang around the commons with it's constant reminders of what might have been. I'd bail out if I was him too.
Indeed. Who can blame him. I certainly don't, though I do hope there is a way back for him either in the Lords or as a party grandee who comes on TV every so often to shit on the current PM, whoever that may be.
On the politics Cameron is right to go. He's disgraced. If he goes to the Lords he should take the title Lord North as penance. I actually regret the loss of experience and institutional memory from the Commons. Seeing things out till 2020 as he promised would have been good. But politically he's disgraced. He accidentally weakened the United Kingdom, weakened the European Union and weakened the Transatlantic Union. He reversed 500 years of British Foriegn Policy by acvident. He promised a referendum because he thought he couldn't win a General Election. He kept his promise on a referendum because he thought he couldn't lose it. He was wrong on both. God alone knows the consequences longer term but he must be a broken man. Disgraced and in the historical company of Lord North. If he just can't face it anymore I entirely understand and wish him the best.
Ludicrous hyperbole.
Analogy might have worked had Lord North made a speech in Massachusetts in 1773, called a referendum to settle the Patriot issue, and then lost it.
I preferred May to Leadsom. Her speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street was interesting.
But am becoming less impressed, TBH.
When you are leader of a government, wanting to be in control of every little thing - if that is the case - is going to lead to disaster. Important to be in charge. Important not to be blind-sided by not being on top of issues. Important to make sure there is follow-through. But the more senior you are the more important it is to understand how to delegate effectively and not micro-manage.
Also, I do not understand the grammar school policy. I'm with @DavidL on this: it seems to be:- (1) a distraction from Brexit which is where her and her government's focus needs to be; and (2) yet another education reorganization which must make those at the receiving end despair.
I think it's probably too early to conclude that May will end up micro-managing herself into the ground like Gordon Brown did. Besides anything else, she is 60 this year and a type 1 diabetic. She's physically incapable of staying up night after night agonising over details. If she does display Brownian tendencies then she'll be forced to learn to master them, or else she'll find herself in hospital before very long.
I think she has chosen to reinstate the grammars for the following reasons: 1. She believes in the policy. 2. She is serious about wanting to achieve reform in the domestic sphere, and not have her entire Ministry absorbed by Brexit. 3. It's politically advantageous, for several reasons (popular with the Tory Party; more supported than opposed by electors, but especially her working class target audience; to spike Ukip's guns; and as a stick with which to beat Labour, and one which will only become more valuable if this ends with the teaching unions getting stroppy and the opposition using the Lords to veto the Commons.)
Churchill was 64 in 1940 and micro managed like crazy, and I don't know any evidence that type 1 diabetes, properly managed, prevents one from staying up all night.
I don't buy Cameron's reasons for standing down - if he thought as a general principle that PMs should not stick around on the back benches he could have stood down immediately. More likely he has given it time to assess May's premiership and doesn't like what he sees.
Or he was telling the truth when he said he didn't want to be a distraction. Or he just couldn't be arsed to keep plodding on. Who can say?
This article in the Telegraph carries the ring of truth:
I wish Cameron well. By delivering on the 0.7% Aid pledge he will save millions of lives. It's an extraordinary thing to say but politics is an extraordinary thing. Because of David Cameron millions of people who would otherwise have had early and painful deaths will now survive. One of them may be the next Hitler. One of them may cure Cancer. One of them might set foot on Mars. Politics changes the world. As politicians go Cameron's legacy on Aid will be extraordinary. No matter what else now happens he'll always know he saved millions of lives. Who'll have millions f children themselves and then....
Cameron did a number of very good things. Gay Marriage for me was a great thing. 0.7% GDP on foreign aid is another. As I said at the time his plans for helping Syrian refugees were and are far more intelligent and will save far more lives than Merkel's idiotic decisions which have already resulted in many thousands more unnecessary deaths in the Mediterranean.
HS2 and his unrequited Europhilia are amongst his low points - as was his faith in Osborne.
The race seemed to have stabilized in late August-early September, but no longer. Since Sept.3rd the gap is closing again.
Hillary recorded an all time low in the series on Sept. 8th at just bellow 44.5 since then she has recovered a bit, while Trump has surged to just 0.5 point bellow his all time high recorded on July 29th.
But these numbers are not adding up. 30 Labour + 17 Tories + 4 Lib Dems =51 and there has to be some SNP seats and some NI ones as well.
About half-a-dozen SNP and one from NI. A Con figure of 17 doesn't look plausible. Tory losses likely to be less than ten. Imagine fuller analysis will emerge from independent sources tomorrow.
I was thinking 10-12. Shouldn't be too difficult for the whips to sort out, although there will be 19 redundant MEPs also looking around.
It oughtn't to be too difficult to shuffle the small number of threatened MPs into safe seats vacated by retirement. It's probably also safe to assume at this stage that most notional Labour seats where the Tories are a good second, and only have a small majority to overturn, are there for the taking.
Good point about the new winnable marginals. Yep, there will be a few retirements, and a few more happy to move to the red benches to make way for the next generation. The Witney by-election and a few more like it in the next few years will also allow for new arrivals.
Clinton could theoretically direct her electors to vote for someone else - laws on faithless electors nothwithstanding (I don't know how they are all drafted in dealing with this eventuality).
There's some information here about the relevant laws in a number of states. It comes with the disclaimer that "The Office of the Federal Register presents this material for informational purposes only, in response to numerous public inquiries. The list has no legal significance. It is based on information compiled by the Congressional Research Service."
In Washington a faithless elector is subject to a $1000 fine. In Oklahoma, it's a fine of up to the same figure. In New Mexico they will have committed a "fourth degree felony", which may carry a sentence of up to 18 months in prison or a fine of $5000.
The page cites specific sections of law in about half of the states. It is possible that they mean to say that in all the other states, electors are not bound either by law or pledge to vote for a specific candidate.
Cameron is still not yet 50, has a hot wife, lovely kids, riches beyond the ken of most mortals and I guess he really can't be arsed to hang around the commons with it's constant reminders of what might have been. I'd bail out if I was him too.
Lol, true. Must be weird to be a 49 year old former prime minister. Samantha will be happy today.
I wish David Cameron well in retirement. To echo an earlier comment. Like Major has, I think Cam will get the tone right. Although it did provoke the thought. Will we ever have an ex PM as grasping as Blair has been?
Cameron is still not yet 50, has a hot wife, lovely kids, riches beyond the ken of most mortals and I guess he really can't be arsed to hang around the commons with it's constant reminders of what might have been. I'd bail out if I was him too.
Lol, true. Must be weird to be a 49 year old former prime minister. Samantha will be happy today.
Just a shame her daughter won't be able to get that apprenticeship she always dreamed of...
On the politics Cameron is right to go. He's disgraced. If he goes to the Lords he should take the title Lord North as penance. I actually regret the loss of experience and institutional memory from the Commons. Seeing things out till 2020 as he promised would have been good. But politically he's disgraced. He accidentally weakened the United Kingdom, weakened the European Union and weakened the Transatlantic Union. He reversed 500 years of British Foriegn Policy by acvident. He promised a referendum because he thought he couldn't win a General Election. He kept his promise on a referendum because he thought he couldn't lose it. He was wrong on both. God alone knows the consequences longer term but he must be a broken man. Disgraced and in the historical company of Lord North. If he just can't face it anymore I entirely understand and wish him the best.
Ludicrous hyperbole.
Analogy might have worked had Lord North made a speech in Massachusetts in 1773, called a referendum to settle the Patriot issue, and then lost it.
In a sense he did, given that such issues were fought out somewhat differently back in those days.
Cameron is still not yet 50, has a hot wife, lovely kids, riches beyond the ken of most mortals and I guess he really can't be arsed to hang around the commons with it's constant reminders of what might have been. I'd bail out if I was him too.
Lol, true. Must be weird to be a 49 year old former prime minister. Samantha will be happy today.
Just a shame her daughter won't be able to get that apprenticeship she always dreamed of...
I've sorted her out with a ZHC in the Amazon Warehouse in Fife, I know a guy...
I wish Cameron well. By delivering on the 0.7% Aid pledge he will save millions of lives. It's an extraordinary thing to say but politics is an extraordinary thing. Because of David Cameron millions of people who would otherwise have had early and painful deaths will now survive. One of them may be the next Hitler. One of them may cure Cancer. One of them might set foot on Mars. Politics changes the world. As politicians go Cameron's legacy on Aid will be extraordinary. No matter what else now happens he'll always know he saved millions of lives. Who'll have millions f children themselves and then....
Cameron did a number of very good things. Gay Marriage for me was a great thing. 0.7% GDP on foreign aid is another. As I said at the time his plans for helping Syrian refugees were and are far more intelligent and will save far more lives than Merkel's idiotic decisions which have already resulted in many thousands more unnecessary deaths in the Mediterranean.
HS2 and his unrequited Europhilia are amongst his low points - as was his faith in Osborne.
With due credit to the LibDems for both of the good points (and indeed responsibility for one of them) and for involvement with both of the alleged low points...
A friend of mine with little interest in politics, just said to me that he reckoned if Hillary fell down dead tomorrow, those around her would put the body in a fridge and say nothing to anyone until after the election! If non-political people are thinking like that, then something is cutting through.
Cameron was also good on Climate Change. Or more accurately much less worse than you'd expect from an english speaking conservative at the moment. Which is not nothing. Some good decarbonisation measures were taken and Paris agreed to. The down side was Osborne's vandalism of Renewables. I'm ambiguous on Gay Marriage. A decent conservative reform who's time had come. Albeit via dogs breakfast of an Act bulldozed through as a piece of identity politics. Of course Libya has proved to be a disastrous vanity war which has made things worse. Thankfully the Commons stopped him doing the same in Syria. The worst of his Heir to Blair instincts would be more of a reputational problem if Europe hadn't buried everything else.
I think his cabinet made good moves on education and welfare reform, a few solid wins on localism, and restored sanity to the nation's macroeconomic strategy. He was also level-headed and stable, unlike both of his predecessors, and it was refreshing to see calm, sober Government again. But from 2013 onwards it was really just administering and achieving very little, even when he finally secured a majority.
Otherwise I think he was the Heir to Blair from dawn to dusk, probably with a large amount of influence from Osborne who was obsessed by the man.
I don't think their politics ever truly moved on from c.2005 which is, ultimately, why they both lost office.
Cameron is still not yet 50, has a hot wife, lovely kids, riches beyond the ken of most mortals and I guess he really can't be arsed to hang around the commons with it's constant reminders of what might have been. I'd bail out if I was him too.
I’d do exactly the same if I were him. - He got the Tories re-elected and the majority they needed, tis time now to let them get on with it and for the family man to spend more time with Sam and the kids.
Cameron is still not yet 50, has a hot wife, lovely kids, riches beyond the ken of most mortals and I guess he really can't be arsed to hang around the commons with it's constant reminders of what might have been. I'd bail out if I was him too.
Lol, true. Must be weird to be a 49 year old former prime minister. Samantha will be happy today.
A 49 year old former prime minister watching a US presidential race between people 20 years older.
In 20 years' time he might get to watch the race to become the first elected president of the EU and think about what might have been...
Sadly they fail to mention the most important thing, namely what Betfair should do about their election market.
They say that in the selection of a replacement "(n)o special consideration would be given to Tim Kaine". But the DNC cannot remove Kaine against his will any more than they can remove Clinton. The DNC would surely enquire of prospective replacements for Clinton - other than Kaine himself - whether they would be happy to have Kaine as their running-mate. They would also presumably ask Kaine which potential replacements he would be happy to run on the same ticket as.
Current Betfair mid-prices are Biden 28, Sanders 35, Kaine 160, Gore 710, Warren 710, Kerry 720. I bought Kaine at 200 but reckon he remains underpriced.
All this stuff about "releasing" personal health records is most unfamiliar. If I were asked to 'release' my own records, despite having had a good range of treatment for conditions both mild and serious over many years from both the NHS and privately, I wouldn't know how to go about releasing my own records to anyone.
I had hoped to write up something rather more substantial, but alas my month long jolly to the USA - starting tomorrow - has rather crept up on me.
I expect two things to gain traction in France while I am away. The first is the primary for Les Republicans (the latest name for the centre right). This has the same two stage election system as the presidency itself, which the top two going through. But it has some new rules, allowing anyone to pay their £3 2€ to vote, regardless of party affiliation. There is some talk of entryism (rather more familiar this side of the channel!) but the top two contenders will still almost certainly be Alain Juppé and Nicolas Sarkozy. Juppé and Sarkozy are currently in a poll fight for first place in round one, with Juppé currently holding a consistent 60/40 lead in the run off. Juppé would make much the better contender for the presidency; entryists would be wise simply to bolster Sarkozy's vote. Hollande is (apparently) confident of taking on his old adversary.
What's interesting about this is that Juppé has a clear line to the Presidency. In the first round he has a small lead (something like 30/28) over Le Pen, more than enough for a landslide in the run off. Juppé is currently 2.38 for the Presidency, and should in my view be priced ~1.8 (i.e. strong favourite) if he opens a clearer lead over Sarkozy; 1.5 once he wins the Primary (but that's November).
If Sarkozy wins, the scene looks much more fractured. The temptation is to back Le Pen, but there's no value at the current 5s/6s. The Front National remains very very bad at picking up second round votes whilst simultaneously firing up opposition to get out and vote ("for the crook, not the fascist") a pattern seen very clearly in regional elections. I have laid Le Pen out at this price (though no big money). The better bet is Emmanuel Macron, until recently an ambitious minister in the government. There is certainly something of the third way about him, although he would need the break Sarkozy would offer as he is standing outside the Socialists - he needs two old guard (Hollande and Sarkozy) to make the most of that option. He hasn't officially declared, but all the indications are he is waiting for his moment. He has previously made no attempt to hide his ambitious nature. I have picked him up at 13s, which I think is value for now but could offer much better value if Sarkozy wins. Sarkozy himself, at 5s, offers a bigger downside than upside, IMO.
Over on the other side of politics, there are no words apt for Hollande's collapse. He's polling at maybe 14%. There are discussions unfolding about whether he would be challenged; as in the US a sitting President is usually given a clear run. The only problem is that no would-be successor polls well; Monteburg - one of the names in the picture - might take over with polling in single digits (!). As a result, the Socialists are largely an irrelevance. It would take a miracle to get into second.
Cameron was also good on Climate Change. Or more accurately much less worse than you'd expect from an english speaking conservative at the moment. Which is not nothing. Some good decarbonisation measures were taken and Paris agreed to. The down side was Osborne's vandalism of Renewables. I'm ambiguous on Gay Marriage. A decent conservative reform who's time had come. Albeit via dogs breakfast of an Act bulldozed through as a piece of identity politics. Of course Libya has proved to be a disastrous vanity war which has made things worse. Thankfully the Commons stopped him doing the same in Syria. The worst of his Heir to Blair instincts would be more of a reputational problem if Europe hadn't buried everything else.
I think his cabinet made good moves on education and welfare reform, a few solid wins on localism, and restored sanity to the nation's macroeconomic strategy. He was also level-headed and stable, unlike both of his predecessors, and it was refreshing to see calm, sober Government again. But from 2013 onwards it was really just administering and achieving very little, even when he finally secured a majority.
Otherwise I think he was the Heir to Blair from dawn to dusk, probably with a large amount of influence from Osborne who was obsessed by the man.
I don't think their politics ever truly moved on from c.2005 which is, ultimately, why they both lost office.
The one area where he was a massive improvement on the previous administration, was that he let ministers get on with their own jobs. They stayed long enough in post to master their briefs, and achieved a lot despite reductions in budgets. Education and welfare reform were the standout areas, with hopefully lasting changes delivered.
Cameron was also good on Climate Change. Or more accurately much less worse than you'd expect from an english speaking conservative at the moment. Which is not nothing. Some good decarbonisation measures were taken and Paris agreed to. The down side was Osborne's vandalism of Renewables. I'm ambiguous on Gay Marriage. A decent conservative reform who's time had come. Albeit via dogs breakfast of an Act bulldozed through as a piece of identity politics. Of course Libya has proved to be a disastrous vanity war which has made things worse. Thankfully the Commons stopped him doing the same in Syria. The worst of his Heir to Blair instincts would be more of a reputational problem if Europe hadn't buried everything else.
By good on climate change you mean he added to peoples and business tax burden making the country uncompetitive over a fashionable unproven theory while meanwhile China and India continued to build coal power stations as fast as they could and laugh at us?
Cameron was also good on Climate Change. Or more accurately much less worse than you'd expect from an english speaking conservative at the moment. Which is not nothing. Some good decarbonisation measures were taken and Paris agreed to. The down side was Osborne's vandalism of Renewables. I'm ambiguous on Gay Marriage. A decent conservative reform who's time had come. Albeit via dogs breakfast of an Act bulldozed through as a piece of identity politics. Of course Libya has proved to be a disastrous vanity war which has made things worse. Thankfully the Commons stopped him doing the same in Syria. The worst of his Heir to Blair instincts would be more of a reputational problem if Europe hadn't buried everything else.
Ah yes let's be grateful for the Commons for making sure that Syria is the reknowned beacon of peace and stability that it is today! /sarcasm
A friend of mine with little interest in politics, just said to me that he reckoned if Hillary fell down dead tomorrow, those around her would put the body in a fridge and say nothing to anyone until after the election! If non-political people are thinking like that, then something is cutting through.
Maybe there is more than one of her, as there used to be back in the USSR?
Sadly they fail to mention the most important thing, namely what Betfair should do about their election market.
They say that in the selection of a replacement "(n)o special consideration would be given to Tim Kaine". But the DNC cannot remove Kaine against his will any more than they can remove Clinton. The DNC would surely enquire of prospective replacements for Clinton - other than Kaine himself - whether they would be happy to have Kaine as their running-mate. They would also presumably ask Kaine which potential replacements he would be happy to run on the same ticket as.
Current Betfair mid-prices are Biden 28, Sanders 35, Kaine 160, Gore 710, Warren 710, Kerry 720. I bought Kaine at 200 but reckon he remains underpriced.
All this stuff about "releasing" personal health records is most unfamiliar. If I were asked to 'release' my own records, despite having had a good range of treatment for conditions both mild and serious over many years from both the NHS and privately, I wouldn't know how to go about releasing my own records to anyone.
I am guessing you aren't worth £100's millions and have a personal physician on hand 24/7 for years on end...
A friend of mine with little interest in politics, just said to me that he reckoned if Hillary fell down dead tomorrow, those around her would put the body in a fridge and say nothing to anyone until after the election! If non-political people are thinking like that, then something is cutting through.
Maybe there is more than one of her, as there used to be back in the USSR?
If she somehow wins, all the old Kremlinologists could find new employment trying to decipher the significance of which doctor is accompanying her at a given moment.
A friend of mine with little interest in politics, just said to me that he reckoned if Hillary fell down dead tomorrow, those around her would put the body in a fridge and say nothing to anyone until after the election! If non-political people are thinking like that, then something is cutting through.
Maybe there is more than one of her, as there used to be back in the USSR?
Just google "hillary bilocation" to see how widespread that belief is.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
A friend of mine with little interest in politics, just said to me that he reckoned if Hillary fell down dead tomorrow, those around her would put the body in a fridge and say nothing to anyone until after the election! If non-political people are thinking like that, then something is cutting through.
Maybe there is more than one of her, as there used to be back in the USSR?
That people even discuss the possibility of that, should worry the hell out of her campaign team.
I've thought for a couple of months that Trump can win this, now I think it's his to lose. His carefully polite response today shows he's growing up and listening to his people.
This emerged this morning on R4 today, interview with Olly Grender and others. tBF I got the impression this was a long-standing no. 10 thing and not something specifically tied to Cameron.
It plays into my opinion of how Cameron saw the job of being PM...that equivalent of being a CEO of a company. That he should be the face of the company, have some general knowledge of where things were heading, but really nitty gritty stuff was left to ministers.
And also, how many former CEO's then go and work on the shop floor...
This emerged this morning on R4 today, interview with Olly Grender and others. tBF I got the impression this was a long-standing no. 10 thing and not something specifically tied to Cameron.
Didn't Blair used to get a DVD of all the highlights of the week on the TV? Now there is a programme for that...Googlebox..with the added advantage you get to hear what normal folk think of things to.
Yep hyperbole. I love the way they use the figure as if we are all supposed to think it is a terribly huge amount of money. If you work it out it actually means a difference of 0.5% of expected GDP over the next 3 years. Not a drop of 0.5% but the economy growing by 0.5% less than expected - maybe.
Given that we had Osborne failing to meet his predicted GDP growth figures by more than that practically ever since he became Chancellor it really is nothing more than noise.
Gone from a sky falling in mother of all recessions, to a mild drop in gdp within the margin of error?
Thing is, back before the referendum when everybody was laughing at Gove for dismissing the opinion of the experts, none of the economic forecasters predicted the sort of catastrophe that the Remain ultras kept trying to talk up. None of them. Even if you take Economists for Brexit out of the equation, the forecasts of lost growth between now and 2030 varied from moderately bad (loss of about two-third of one percent per year, for each of the next 14 years) to absolutely sod all difference.
The people who painted scenes of economic catastrophe before the referendum - many of whom have redoubled their efforts since things didn't go their way - are continuing to distort the expert consensus on the issue. As you correctly point out, these latest BCC projections suggest the continuation of growth, just at a slightly slower rate next year, before moving back towards their pre-Brexit forecasts the year after. If these losses were to go on for many years then this might, eventually, become a problem. But there is no suggestion of disaster, or even recession.
Contrast, if you will, with Italy, which joined the Euro in 1999 and has seen almost zero economic growth in real terms over the entire 17 year period of its membership. A fat lot of good the EU has done them.
Gone from a sky falling in mother of all recessions, to a mild drop in gdp within the margin of error?
Thing is, back before the referendum when everybody was laughing at Gove for dismissing the opinion of the experts, none of the economic forecasters predicted the sort of catastrophe that the Remain ultras kept trying to talk up. None of them. Even if you take Economists for Brexit out of the equation, the forecasts of lost growth between now and 2030 varied from moderately bad (loss of about two-third of one percent per year, for each of the next 14 years) to absolutely sod all difference.
The people who painted scenes of economic catastrophe before the referendum - many of whom have redoubled their efforts since things didn't go their way - are continuing to distort the expert consensus on the issue. As you correctly point out, these latest BCC projections suggest the continuation of growth, just at a slightly slower rate next year, before moving back towards their pre-Brexit forecasts the year after. If these losses were to go on for many years then this might, eventually, become a problem. But there is no suggestion of disaster, or even recession.
Contrast, if you will, with Italy, which joined the Euro in 1999 and has seen almost zero economic growth in real terms over the entire 17 year period of its membership. A fat lot of good the EU has done them.
I don't recall Economists for Brexit saying they would introduce an Emergency Budget in the event we voted to Leave.... George Osborne carries the can for Cameron leaving the Commons today.
Cameron is still not yet 50, has a hot wife, lovely kids, riches beyond the ken of most mortals and I guess he really can't be arsed to hang around the commons with it's constant reminders of what might have been. I'd bail out if I was him too.
Indeed. Who can blame him. I certainly don't, though I do hope there is a way back for him either in the Lords or as a party grandee who comes on TV every so often to shit on the current PM, whoever that may be.
But why did he lie about his intentions? He has done this several times now, and has shown very clearly that his word counts for very little. The guy is thoroughly dishonourable.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It plays into my opinion of how Cameron saw the job of being PM...that equivalent of being a CEO of a company. That he should be the face of the company, have some general knowledge of where things were heading, but really nitty gritty stuff was left to ministers.
And also, how many former CEO's then go and work on the shop floor...
It'll be interesting to see what he does next. He's unlikely to watch the cricket like Major, or pimp himself out like Blair, he doesn't seem the sort to retire in his forties - way too intelligent for that- but the advance on his memoir means he'll never need to work again.
Maybe he'll take a part time role in govt relations for an aid charity, an area where he was passionate and where his understanding of governments would be invaluable. If I were Bill Gates I'd pick up the phone.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Trump has taken the lead in Utah! (No polls really affecting last week's events out yet) - looks like CVOTER will be interesting as it will show trends, but that is a running weekly one.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
I don't think it particularly likely, but it is not impossible.
A lot depends how she plays it, and if the sisterhood rally round, and fellow oldies too.
Gone from a sky falling in mother of all recessions, to a mild drop in gdp within the margin of error?
Thing is, back before the referendum when everybody was laughing at Gove for dismissing the opinion of the experts, none of the economic forecasters predicted the sort of catastrophe that the Remain ultras kept trying to talk up. None of them. Even if you take Economists for Brexit out of the equation, the forecasts of lost growth between now and 2030 varied from moderately bad (loss of about two-third of one percent per year, for each of the next 14 years) to absolutely sod all difference.
The people who painted scenes of economic catastrophe before the referendum - many of whom have redoubled their efforts since things didn't go their way - are continuing to distort the expert consensus on the issue. As you correctly point out, these latest BCC projections suggest the continuation of growth, just at a slightly slower rate next year, before moving back towards their pre-Brexit forecasts the year after. If these losses were to go on for many years then this might, eventually, become a problem. But there is no suggestion of disaster, or even recession.
Contrast, if you will, with Italy, which joined the Euro in 1999 and has seen almost zero economic growth in real terms over the entire 17 year period of its membership. A fat lot of good the EU has done them.
I don't recall Economists for Brexit saying they would introduce an Emergency Budget in the event we voted to Leave.... George Osborne carries the can for Cameron leaving the Commons today.
All I meant was, even if you remove from the equation the one group of forecasters that was ideologically well-disposed to Brexit, all of the other groups of economists (and HM Treasury as well) made long-term forecasts that varied between neutral and only moderately negative. Though you would be right to point out that it does make Osborne's catastrophist preaching of punishment budgets all the more reprehensible.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
I don't think it particularly likely, but it is not impossible.
A lot depends how she plays it, and if the sisterhood rally round, and fellow oldies too.
A lot also depends on how Trump reacts to it. So far he's been unusually statesmanlike, but it's obviously going to come up in the debates. The right approach is that highlighted in The Week article posted below, the problem isn't that she's sick but that she's lying about it.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
The data is almost certainly right, the big unanswered questions are (a) what is driving such a rise [humans/not humans] and (b) what are the consequences of such a rise, on the world and humanity - or in further rises.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
In the absence of the video I think you'd be right. As it is people are left wondering what they're not being told.
It plays into my opinion of how Cameron saw the job of being PM...that equivalent of being a CEO of a company. That he should be the face of the company, have some general knowledge of where things were heading, but really nitty gritty stuff was left to ministers.
And also, how many former CEO's then go and work on the shop floor...
It'll be interesting to see what he does next. He's unlikely to watch the cricket like Major, or pimp himself out like Blair, he doesn't seem the sort to retire in his forties - way too intelligent for that- but the advance on his memoir means he'll never need to work again.
Maybe he'll take a part time role in govt relations for an aid charity, an area where he was passionate and where his understanding of governments would be invaluable. If I were Bill Gates I'd pick up the phone.
I think he probably has something like that in mind - he did make a specific reference to continuing commitment to public service in his interview - which would be hard to square with a Blair like career of (solely) chasing the £
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/12/what-would-happen-if-hillary-clinton-drops-out-of-us-election-ra/
Sadly they fail to mention the most important thing, namely what Betfair should do about their election market.
https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/frederick-north
David Cameron's official gov.uk web page has yet to be written, but I expect he'd settle for being called great and brought down by events outside his control.
If I were Cameron, I wouldn't be too hard on myself.
Current Betfair mid-prices are Biden 28, Sanders 35, Kaine 160, Gore 710, Warren 710, Kerry 720. I bought Kaine at 200 but reckon he remains underpriced.
The company actively despise their own exchange customers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/12/david-camerons-petulant-resignation-as-an-mp-shows-why-he-leaves/
The one thing going for them that the opponents do have is that their challenge on the basis of the numbers being used has the merit of being a wider, apparently non-partisan argument against the proposals, which is a more convincing and principled platform for opposition than simply disliking where the lines have been drawn on the map.
HS2 and his unrequited Europhilia are amongst his low points - as was his faith in Osborne.
Hillary 44.5 -0.5
Trump 43 +1
The course of things since the first weekly update:
Hillary 44.5 45 46 46.5 46.5 47 44.5
Trump 43 42 42 41 40.5 41 42.5
The race seemed to have stabilized in late August-early September, but no longer.
Since Sept.3rd the gap is closing again.
Hillary recorded an all time low in the series on Sept. 8th at just bellow 44.5 since then she has recovered a bit, while Trump has surged to just 0.5 point bellow his all time high recorded on July 29th.
In Washington a faithless elector is subject to a $1000 fine. In Oklahoma, it's a fine of up to the same figure. In New Mexico they will have committed a "fourth degree felony", which may carry a sentence of up to 18 months in prison or a fine of $5000.
The page cites specific sections of law in about half of the states. It is possible that they mean to say that in all the other states, electors are not bound either by law or pledge to vote for a specific candidate. Yes.
To echo an earlier comment.
Like Major has, I think Cam will get the tone right.
Although it did provoke the thought.
Will we ever have an ex PM as grasping as Blair has been?
Otherwise I think he was the Heir to Blair from dawn to dusk, probably with a large amount of influence from Osborne who was obsessed by the man.
I don't think their politics ever truly moved on from c.2005 which is, ultimately, why they both lost office.
In 20 years' time he might get to watch the race to become the first elected president of the EU and think about what might have been...
I expect two things to gain traction in France while I am away. The first is the primary for Les Republicans (the latest name for the centre right). This has the same two stage election system as the presidency itself, which the top two going through. But it has some new rules, allowing anyone to pay their £3 2€ to vote, regardless of party affiliation. There is some talk of entryism (rather more familiar this side of the channel!) but the top two contenders will still almost certainly be Alain Juppé and Nicolas Sarkozy. Juppé and Sarkozy are currently in a poll fight for first place in round one, with Juppé currently holding a consistent 60/40 lead in the run off. Juppé would make much the better contender for the presidency; entryists would be wise simply to bolster Sarkozy's vote. Hollande is (apparently) confident of taking on his old adversary.
What's interesting about this is that Juppé has a clear line to the Presidency. In the first round he has a small lead (something like 30/28) over Le Pen, more than enough for a landslide in the run off. Juppé is currently 2.38 for the Presidency, and should in my view be priced ~1.8 (i.e. strong favourite) if he opens a clearer lead over Sarkozy; 1.5 once he wins the Primary (but that's November).
If Sarkozy wins, the scene looks much more fractured. The temptation is to back Le Pen, but there's no value at the current 5s/6s. The Front National remains very very bad at picking up second round votes whilst simultaneously firing up opposition to get out and vote ("for the crook, not the fascist") a pattern seen very clearly in regional elections. I have laid Le Pen out at this price (though no big money). The better bet is Emmanuel Macron, until recently an ambitious minister in the government. There is certainly something of the third way about him, although he would need the break Sarkozy would offer as he is standing outside the Socialists - he needs two old guard (Hollande and Sarkozy) to make the most of that option. He hasn't officially declared, but all the indications are he is waiting for his moment. He has previously made no attempt to hide his ambitious nature. I have picked him up at 13s, which I think is value for now but could offer much better value if Sarkozy wins. Sarkozy himself, at 5s, offers a bigger downside than upside, IMO.
Over on the other side of politics, there are no words apt for Hollande's collapse. He's polling at maybe 14%. There are discussions unfolding about whether he would be challenged; as in the US a sitting President is usually given a clear run. The only problem is that no would-be successor polls well; Monteburg - one of the names in the picture - might take over with polling in single digits (!). As a result, the Socialists are largely an irrelevance. It would take a miracle to get into second.
Gone from a sky falling in mother of all recessions, to a mild drop in gdp within the margin of error?
Seriously WTF?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785845/David-Cameron-kept-cheat-sheet-everyday-prices-minimum-wage-growth-figures-didn-t-caught-TV.html
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
I've thought for a couple of months that Trump can win this, now I think it's his to lose. His carefully polite response today shows he's growing up and listening to his people.
And also, how many former CEO's then go and work on the shop floor...
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign just made a massive error. We'll know within the next few weeks if the error will prove to be catastrophic."
http://theweek.com/articles/648141/why-did-hillary-clinton-lie-about-health
Given that we had Osborne failing to meet his predicted GDP growth figures by more than that practically ever since he became Chancellor it really is nothing more than noise.
The people who painted scenes of economic catastrophe before the referendum - many of whom have redoubled their efforts since things didn't go their way - are continuing to distort the expert consensus on the issue. As you correctly point out, these latest BCC projections suggest the continuation of growth, just at a slightly slower rate next year, before moving back towards their pre-Brexit forecasts the year after. If these losses were to go on for many years then this might, eventually, become a problem. But there is no suggestion of disaster, or even recession.
Contrast, if you will, with Italy, which joined the Euro in 1999 and has seen almost zero economic growth in real terms over the entire 17 year period of its membership. A fat lot of good the EU has done them.
Maybe he'll take a part time role in govt relations for an aid charity, an area where he was passionate and where his understanding of governments would be invaluable. If I were Bill Gates I'd pick up the phone.
First round
2012: 28.63%
2007: 25.87%
2002: 16.18%
1995: 23.30%
1988: 34.10%
1981: 25.85%
1974: 43.25%
1848: 19.65%
A lot depends how she plays it, and if the sisterhood rally round, and fellow oldies too.
OK, a short term bit of pain to manage, but not insurmountable with retirements and 'off to spend time with kids' but ... come on.
'He said he wanted to spend more time with his family, if he could remember which pub he left them in'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/01/matt-cartoons-september-2016/