I see that my observation that Leavers are strangely bitter despite having won is receiving ample support today in respect of Mark Carney.
Yes, bitter Leavers sums them up rather well. I have quite a few Leaver friends on Facebook and judging by their demeanour you'd hardly guess they'd won. Sore winners!
I see that my observation that Leavers are strangely bitter despite having won is receiving ample support today in respect of Mark Carney.
There's nothing bitter about thinking someone is doing a bad job. His projections have proven wrong time and again. He is just not very good at his job, especially compared to his predecessor.
As I said, it depends on your point of view. Seen through the prism of wanting to hold Sterling down his and other MPC members' pronouncements make a lot of sense. We know that the ECB may be gearing up a new round of stimulus and that the Fed are looking to delay their rate rise into the "at some point" range rather than before the end of the year as many previously thought. Holding down Sterling and making the economy less reliant on "the kindness of strangers" is going to be extremely important in the run up to actual Brexit. Using these two or three years to close the current account deficit and fix our balance of trade is worthwhile.
I see that my observation that Leavers are strangely bitter despite having won is receiving ample support today in respect of Mark Carney.
There's nothing bitter about thinking someone is doing a bad job. His projections have proven wrong time and again. He is just not very good at his job, especially compared to his predecessor.
No: for a start, the comments are absurdly personalised - many Leavers seem to have an irrational hatred of him. Secondly, in what conceivable way is he 'doing a bad job'? How to deal with the expected economic shock of the referendum result was a difficult judgement; no one can be sure that in some alternative universe he could have done better, but so far the BoE's response seems to have helped avoid the worst immediate crisis of confidence. In particular, he steadied the ship and boosted confidence on the day after the referendum very successfully.
Just two weeks ago, we were discussing whether Hillary might win a landslide; at that time the RCP 'no toss-ups' map had her winning by 362 to Trump's 176. Now it is 293 to 245.
The Brexit parallels are strong with this one. Not least my own assessments - which were: initially an easy win for Remain, then "Leave looks like a good value loser" and finally "1.6 is an absolute steal; this is over".
But of course parallels are only parallels until they diverge. I think 3.0 looks about right for Trump but have backed him looking for 2.5 as pneumoniagate hits the polls.
I see that my observation that Leavers are strangely bitter despite having won is receiving ample support today in respect of Mark Carney.
There's nothing bitter about thinking someone is doing a bad job. His projections have proven wrong time and again. He is just not very good at his job, especially compared to his predecessor.
No: for a start, the comments are absurdly personalised - many Leavers seem to have an irrational hatred of him. Secondly, in what conceivable way is he 'doing a bad job'? How to deal with the expected economic shock of the referendum result was a difficult judgement; no one can be sure that in some alternative universe he could have done better, but so far the BoE's response seems to have helped avoid the worst immediate crisis of confidence. In particular, he steadied the ship and boosted confidence on the day after the referendum very successfully.
I gave him credit on the day after the referendum and I think most people here did. The Bank very sensibly held off on changing rates in July. He then for some reason reverted to Chicken Licken behaviour in August which was completely unnecessary. He should have stuck with the calm and reassuring behaviour which he was given credit for in the aftermath.
Just two weeks ago, we were discussing whether Hillary might win a landslide; at that time the RCP 'no toss-ups' map had her winning by 362 to Trump's 176. Now it is 293 to 245.
If I recall correctly New Hampshire declares first.
''There's nothing bitter about thinking someone is doing a bad job. His projections have proven wrong time and again. He is just not very good at his job, especially compared to his predecessor. ''
Its amazing how Remainers have totally ignored the far more measured comments of Mervyn King both before and after Brexit.
It avoided the legal question and stuck to considering what was appropriate constitutionally. Its view?
"It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament."
I see that my observation that Leavers are strangely bitter despite having won is receiving ample support today in respect of Mark Carney.
There's nothing bitter about thinking someone is doing a bad job. His projections have proven wrong time and again. He is just not very good at his job, especially compared to his predecessor.
I see from the latest releases that Clinton is taking Coumadin and Clarinex on a chronic basis and Levaquin for bacterial pneumonia.
My conclusion is that the government health plan she is on is absurdly generous: those drugs have all be generic for a decade and could be obtained at a fraction of the cost.
Hillary's book sells less than 3000 copies in its first week.
Only one candidate is box office this year...
If that's the same article I read late last night - Palin sold tens of thousands in her first week - more than Obama. If Hillary manages 7k in total, I'll be surprised - some of her press pool didn't know about it.
I'm coming to theview that too much focus on polling is unhelpful.
Fundamentals will put in the end
It's always very difficult to know how much weight to give to changes in polling. You need to keep a healthy scepticism about shifts in noisy data, without kidding yourself or letting yourself be selective in what facts you give weight to.
Fortunately in the case of US elections we have Nate Silver's models, which seem to be very well calibrated for interpreting polling data. Of course, you still have to form a judgement on how things are likely to change from here, and that's a subjective political judgement.
FWIW, my own view is that the shift to Trump is real, and that the betting markets (and more importantly, the financial markets) are underestimating the probability of a Trump win.
"It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament."
It would set a precedent, but not a disturbing one. The whole purpose of an advisory referendum is surely to advise the Executive.
I see from the latest releases that Clinton is taking Coumadin and Clarinex on a chronic basis and Levaquin for bacterial pneumonia.
My conclusion is that the government health plan she is on is absurdly generous: those drugs have all be generic for a decade and could be obtained at a fraction of the cost.
Isn't that more to with her meds have to vetted by the Secret Service, so have to obtained via certain sources.
I remember George Bush Senior complaining when he was Veep, his staff wasn't allowed to buy him over the counter cough medicine.
John McDonnell welcomed the financial crash and called himself a Marxist, newly found footage shows /
"It has triggered anger among Labour moderates locked in a civil war against the party’s left-wing who say this shows Mr McDonnell is willing to “sacrifice” British jobs to fit his ideology."
That should come as no surprise to anyone. - It's the very definition of Commies everywhere?
I see that my observation that Leavers are strangely bitter despite having won is receiving ample support today in respect of Mark Carney.
There's nothing bitter about thinking someone is doing a bad job. His projections have proven wrong time and again. He is just not very good at his job, especially compared to his predecessor.
Well quite.
Mr Nabavi is projecting. Again.
No, I'm really not. And I can prove it simply enough; consider this comment:
"I want Carney gone - what a shifty and political opportunist. "
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
The problem is that the boundaries aren't finalised now - it goes out for consultation and then get approved in autumn 2018.
If that became autumn 2019 (by pushing it back a year) it means that the Lords could block is on spurious grounds (which would be a constitutional outrage). Additionally, it would make it very hard to select candidates and get them campaigning in time for a May 2020 election.
In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021.
It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
But it is also a problem created by the Government by its failure to comply with the Electoral Commission's recommended Registration Date on which to base any new boundaries. However, the Boundary Commission is required by law to submit its final recommendations by September 2018. A change in legislation would be required to prevent that or to alter the Commission's remit. More likely ,I suspect, is that the Government will take a relaxed view as to whether the proposals are actually approved.
I see from the latest releases that Clinton is taking Coumadin and Clarinex on a chronic basis and Levaquin for bacterial pneumonia.
My conclusion is that the government health plan she is on is absurdly generous: those drugs have all be generic for a decade and could be obtained at a fraction of the cost.
Isn't that more to with her meds have to vetted by the Secret Service, so have to obtained via certain sources.
I remember George Bush Senior complaining when he was Veep, his staff wasn't allowed to buy him over the counter cough medicine.
You would have thought a random box of Superdrug One-a-Day Hayfever Remedy would be safe. It's never done me any harm. To get the President, you would have to poison the whole supply.
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
The problem is that the boundaries aren't finalised now - it goes out for consultation and then get approved in autumn 2018.
If that became autumn 2019 (by pushing it back a year) it means that the Lords could block is on spurious grounds (which would be a constitutional outrage). Additionally, it would make it very hard to select candidates and get them campaigning in time for a May 2020 election.
In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021.
It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
But it is also a problem created by the Government by its failure to comply with the Electoral Commission's recommended Registration Date on which to base any new boundaries. However, the Boundary Commission is required by law to submit its final recommendations by September 2018. A change in legislation would be required to prevent that or to alter the Commission's remit. More likely ,I suspect, is that the Government will take a relaxed view as to whether the proposals are actually approved.
Fat chance the Government should take a relaxed view, while there is an argument that the proposed new boundaries are not perfect there is not a single reason to prefer the old boundaries over the new ones. Not one reason.
"I want Carney gone - what a shifty and political opportunist. "
What does the gulf between his comments and Mervyn King's before Brexit suggest to you then?
Well, obviously not that he's an opportunist, since there's no conceivable opportunity he would have from making his comments. So I conclude that the obvious explanation is the right one: that there was an honest difference of opinion. I cite as evidence in support of this theory that most senior economists agreed with Carney. That doesn't of course mean that he was necessarily right, but it does mean that you don't have to look for base motives or impugn his integrity.
It avoided the legal question and stuck to considering what was appropriate constitutionally. Its view?
"It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament."
Parliament is a legislature not an executive body. The people have told the Government how to act, there is no need for an intermediary to second-guess that instruction. Parliament will get involved later when specific Acts of Parliament need to be passed.
On another matter, next time we commit troops to a conflict I want to see May doing it explicitly as a Prerogative action, without asking Parliamentary "approval".
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
The problem is that the boundaries aren't finalised now - it goes out for consultation and then get approved in autumn 2018.
If that became autumn 2019 (by pushing it back a year) it means that the Lords could block is on spurious grounds (which would be a constitutional outrage). Additionally, it would make it very hard to select candidates and get them campaigning in time for a May 2020 election.
In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021.
It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
But it is also a problem created by the Government by its failure to comply with the Electoral Commission's recommended Registration Date on which to base any new boundaries. However, the Boundary Commission is required by law to submit its final recommendations by September 2018. A change in legislation would be required to prevent that or to alter the Commission's remit. More likely ,I suspect, is that the Government will take a relaxed view as to whether the proposals are actually approved.
The government considered the proposed registration date but felt it would put the approval process at risk.
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.
"I want Carney gone - what a shifty and political opportunist. "
What does the gulf between his comments and Mervyn King's before Brexit suggest to you then?
Well, obviously not that he's an opportunist, since there's no conceivable opportunity he would have from making his comments. So I conclude that the obvious explanation is the right one: that there was an honest difference of opinion. I cite as evidence in support of this theory that most senior economists agreed with Carney. That doesn't of course mean that he was necessarily right, but it does mean that you don't have to look for base motives or impugn his integrity.
The MPC are right about business investment as well, that may take slightly longer to show up in the statistics. Consumers have shrugged off the vote as expected, but businesses seem more cautious IMO going forwards, investment for the next quarter hasn't changed but longer term plans are on hold for being recalibrated. I don't think that's a controversial statement either.
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.
Or "Little [New] Englanders"....
Quite - the parallels are moving from nuance to stark.
It avoided the legal question and stuck to considering what was appropriate constitutionally. Its view?
"It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament."
Parliament is a legislature not an executive body. The people have told the Government how to act, there is no need for an intermediary to second-guess that instruction. Parliament will get involved later when specific Acts of Parliament need to be passed.
On another matter, next time we commit troops to a conflict I want to see May doing it explicitly as a Prerogative action, without asking Parliamentary "approval".
Amusing to see John Lilburne advocating the use of the Royal Prerogative!
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
"Doesn't have a path" is a nonsense, as goes New Hampshire so goes the Nation I reckon. The popular vote winner will also very likely win the EC methinks.
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
Alternatively, Trump pretty much just needs to win the popular vote (or even lose it narrowly). Harking back to 1992 is a red herring.
The left-leaning New York Times editorial board is coming out against Hillary Clinton for her controversial comment in which she lumped half of Donald Trump supporters into what she called a "basket of deplorables."
The Times said the remark was an example of a candidate having "spent more and more time cocooned with their wealthiest supporters" and having made herself "vulnerable to a particular kind of influence. Not just the kind journalists are ever on the watch for — the classic quid pro quo — but a more subtle form, a cultural form that tends to be heard and not seen.
..."This is what happens when candidates spend so much time in what F. Scott Fitzgerald called 'the consoling proximity of millionaires.'"
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.
Or "Little [New] Englanders"....
Yes, she's played this very badly. I hope she claims ill health and Kaine gets the run, not just for my book either! Trump isn't going to be a good POTUS and Hillary seems incapable of putting him away, and would not be a good POTUS either. For the good of the nation she should give way. If she doesn't and Trump beats her she will have the worst legacy of any Democrat politician.
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
"Doesn't have a path" is a nonsense, as goes New Hampshire so goes the Nation I reckon. The popular vote winner will also very likely win the EC methinks.
Agree. Has anyone ever come up with any actual numbers to justify the "50 different elections" theory? Casually watching way the states swing it's not obvious that they're any more independent than British elections. Just apply a national swing.
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.
It's was the raucous self-satisfied laughter from the fat cat diner donors following the remark that I found particularly telling and repulsive.
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.
The CiC debate was not a proper one on one debate so I doubt had much impact. The first proper head to head debate is on 27th September in New York
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
The problem is that the boundaries aren't finalised now - it goes out for consultation and then get approved in autumn 2018.
If that became autumn 2019 (by pushing it back a year) it means that the Lords could block is on spurious grounds (which would be a constitutional outrage). Additionally, it would make it very hard to select candidates and get them campaigning in time for a May 2020 election.
In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021.
It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
But it is also a problem created by the Government by its failure to comply with the Electoral Commission's recommended Registration Date on which to base any new boundaries. However, the Boundary Commission is required by law to submit its final recommendations by September 2018. A change in legislation would be required to prevent that or to alter the Commission's remit. More likely ,I suspect, is that the Government will take a relaxed view as to whether the proposals are actually approved.
Fat chance the Government should take a relaxed view, while there is an argument that the proposed new boundaries are not perfect there is not a single reason to prefer the old boundaries over the new ones. Not one reason.
Quite a few Tory MPs appear to disagree - particularly with the reduction in MPs from 650 to 600.
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
I see 538 is predicting an 81.5% chance Trump is going to win states Obama won last time. Any idea which states are most likely to flip?
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.
LA times poll has been one of the most consistently trump leaning. Cherry picking polls isn't a good way to look at the race. It's close but like I say Hillary has multiple path's to victory, Trump has to roll a double 6 unless he makes significant inroads into the states the Dems have won every time since 1992.
The left-leaning New York Times editorial board is coming out against Hillary Clinton for her controversial comment in which she lumped half of Donald Trump supporters into what she called a "basket of deplorables."
The Times said the remark was an example of a candidate having "spent more and more time cocooned with their wealthiest supporters" and having made herself "vulnerable to a particular kind of influence. Not just the kind journalists are ever on the watch for — the classic quid pro quo — but a more subtle form, a cultural form that tends to be heard and not seen.
Come now, Alistair was telling us that Trump was walking into a well laid trap by repeating the basket of deplorables claim. Surely he can't be wrong, I mean he is an expert on US politics and loves Clinton.
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
The problem is that the boundaries aren't finalised now - it goes out for consultation and then get approved in autumn 2018.
If that became autumn 2019 (by pushing it back a year) it means that the Lords could block is on spurious grounds (which would be a constitutional outrage). Additionally, it would make it very hard to select candidates and get them campaigning in time for a May 2020 election.
In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021.
It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
But it is also a problem created by the Government by its failure to comply with the Electoral Commission's recommended Registration Date on which to base any new boundaries. However, the Boundary Commission is required by law to submit its final recommendations by September 2018. A change in legislation would be required to prevent that or to alter the Commission's remit. More likely ,I suspect, is that the Government will take a relaxed view as to whether the proposals are actually approved.
Fat chance the Government should take a relaxed view, while there is an argument that the proposed new boundaries are not perfect there is not a single reason to prefer the old boundaries over the new ones. Not one reason.
Quite a few Tory MPs appear to disagree - particularly with the reduction in MPs from 650 to 600.
A reduction of MPs that was manifesto policy. Be "brave" to override the law and manifesto policy and fairness and what's in the best interests of the party ...
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
I see 538 is predicting an 81.5% chance Trump is going to win states Obama won last time. Any idea which states are most likely to flip?
OT Re Poles in the UK, I just found this article in a magazine published by the company I work for 70 years ago;
"NOVEMBER, 1946 PRICE ONE SHILLING
Fair Play
The National Union of Agricultural Workers is reported to have informed the T.U.C. that it cannot agree to the employment of demobilized Polish soldiers on the land. This bars the Poles from agriculture as well as the mining industry. To my mind, this is a stupid and short-sighted attitude for in both industries there is work for all. We were glad to have the Poles fighting for us in Tobruk, Italy and other campaigns, and now, having helped to win the war, they are being cold-shouldered. That is against our traditional British sense of fair play and decency. This treatment of the Poles is a sheer dog-in-the-manger attitude. The rights of British workers are not being jeopardized in any way by the employment of Poles-then what is it that the workers fear ? Are they afraid that the Poles will show them how to do a real day's work? The British labourer at his best can do more in the way of consistently good labour than any of the world's workers, including the Russian Stakhonovitch "shock" worker, yet nowadays he seems to be forfeiting the title of worker and even his right to work if the latter is now based upon the matter of earning his money. Workers are being better paid now than ever before, yet every industry reports that the output per man is getting less. A better standard of labour such as the employment of Poles may bring, will perhaps stimulate our own workers into becoming labourers worthy of their hire. Incidentally, I note that a fair proportion of the Poles may be seen at Training Institutes and Night School classes, where they wrestle with the difficulty of understanding a lecture on some complex subject delivered in a foreign tongue. It is obvious that they intend to qualify in the respective professions which they have adopted, and, without exception, they prize the prospect of becoming British citizens. We have nothing to fear from this peaceful penetration for historical precedents show that similar "invasions," such as the Flemish weavers, brought new crafts and industries to the country. When we grumble on seeing a successful " foreigner " in our midst, it is well to remember that they probably started from scratch and worked hard to succeed. How would you like to start again, shall we say-in Turkey? We should welcome the Poles, particularly in rural areas, and do our best to make them feel that they really are " at home " in the land of their adoption. This matter of what is their country reminds me of the story told of a Polish soldier who, on being repatriated from the U.K. to Poland, was telling his friend of all he had done. The friend suggested: " I suppose you've picked up some English too." "Aye," replied the Pole, "a wee bit." " http://www.thecga.co.uk/pages/blog
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
The problem is that the boundaries aren't finalised now - it goes out for consultation and then get approved in autumn 2018.
If that became autumn 2019 (by pushing it back a year) it means that the Lords could block is on spurious grounds (which would be a constitutional outrage). Additionally, it would make it very hard to select candidates and get them campaigning in time for a May 2020 election.
In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021.
It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
But it is also a problem created by the Government by its failure to comply with the Electoral Commission's recommended Registration Date on which to base any new boundaries. However, the Boundary Commission is required by law to submit its final recommendations by September 2018. A change in legislation would be required to prevent that or to alter the Commission's remit. More likely ,I suspect, is that the Government will take a relaxed view as to whether the proposals are actually approved.
Fat chance the Government should take a relaxed view, while there is an argument that the proposed new boundaries are not perfect there is not a single reason to prefer the old boundaries over the new ones. Not one reason.
Quite a few Tory MPs appear to disagree - particularly with the reduction in MPs from 650 to 600.
How do you price this, justin? Yes/No on revised boundaries being in place for the next GE, provided that GE is after 2018? [Bet void if early GE]
This showed me how little I know about U.S politics, I thought red Texas would be on favour of Trumps unworkable policies but not so.
Farmers in Texas use a lot of (illegal) migrant labour, and there are also a lot of naturalised US Latino citizens from past amnesties in Texas. Overall it won't outweigh the massive GOP vote though, Texas is going to vote for Trump.
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.
LA times poll has been one of the most consistently trump leaning. Cherry picking polls isn't a good way to look at the race. It's close but like I say Hillary has multiple path's to victory, Trump has to roll a double 6 unless he makes significant inroads into the states the Dems have won every time since 1992.
The thing to do is to look at the trend. The LA times poll hasn't been Trump +6 all the time, nor is there any evidence it is getting more Trump-leaning as time goes on.
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
I see 538 is predicting an 81.5% chance Trump is going to win states Obama won last time. Any idea which states are most likely to flip?
RCP now has Trump ahead in Florida, Ohio and Iowa in a 4 way race and less than 1% behind in Nevada. However Hillary leads in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia and Colorado by more than she does nationally
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.
Or "Little [New] Englanders"....
Yes, she's played this very badly. I hope she claims ill health and Kaine gets the run, not just for my book either! Trump isn't going to be a good POTUS and Hillary seems incapable of putting him away, and would not be a good POTUS either. For the good of the nation she should give way. If she doesn't and Trump beats her she will have the worst legacy of any Democrat politician.
Iain Martin compared Kaine to Stan Laurel. I know little about him - Kaine that is.
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
I see 538 is predicting an 81.5% chance Trump is going to win states Obama won last time. Any idea which states are most likely to flip?
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.
It's was the raucous self-satisfied laughter from the fat cat diner donors following the remark that I found particularly telling and repulsive.
There's also the impact of those who were likely very soft Hillarys and then feel solidarity with Trumpers after the tribe insult.
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.
Or "Little [New] Englanders"....
Yes, she's played this very badly. I hope she claims ill health and Kaine gets the run, not just for my book either! Trump isn't going to be a good POTUS and Hillary seems incapable of putting him away, and would not be a good POTUS either. For the good of the nation she should give way. If she doesn't and Trump beats her she will have the worst legacy of any Democrat politician.
Iain Martin compared Kaine to Stan Laurel. I know little about him - Kaine that is.
This showed me how little I know about U.S politics, I thought red Texas would be on favour of Trumps unworkable policies but not so.
Farmers in Texas use a lot of (illegal) migrant labour, and there are also a lot of naturalised US Latino citizens from past amnesties in Texas. Overall it won't outweigh the massive GOP vote though, Texas is going to vote for Trump.
Rubio and Trump polling strongly from stuff I saw last night.
This showed me how little I know about U.S politics, I thought red Texas would be on favour of Trumps unworkable policies but not so.
Farmers in Texas use a lot of (illegal) migrant labour, and there are also a lot of naturalised US Latino citizens from past amnesties in Texas. Overall it won't outweigh the massive GOP vote though, Texas is going to vote for Trump.
Rubio and Trump polling strongly from stuff I saw last night.
Oops! Quite right, not sure why I didn't see that. Replace with Nevada + NH I guess. NH much more challenging.
The fact that it could come down to ME-2 is great. And I wonder which way the House would actually jump if it was a tie - there must be a few Republicans who might be peeled off.
Looking at Mori tables , it seems that Tory lead in England is 5% - compared with 9.5% in May 2015. They lead Labour by an unlikely 25% in Scotland!
The latest Scottish poll has May far ahead of Corbyn in Scotland and more popular than Sturgeon, let alone Cameron's past ratings. The Tories may well gain seats in Scotland in 2020, especially in the borders and Edinburgh even if they lose a handful in England. Major did that in 1992
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.
LA times poll has been one of the most consistently trump leaning. Cherry picking polls isn't a good way to look at the race. It's close but like I say Hillary has multiple path's to victory, Trump has to roll a double 6 unless he makes significant inroads into the states the Dems have won every time since 1992.
The thing to do is to look at the trend. The LA times poll hasn't been Trump +6 all the time, nor is there any evidence it is getting more Trump-leaning as time goes on.
This showed me how little I know about U.S politics, I thought red Texas would be on favour of Trumps unworkable policies but not so.
Farmers in Texas use a lot of (illegal) migrant labour, and there are also a lot of naturalised US Latino citizens from past amnesties in Texas. Overall it won't outweigh the massive GOP vote though, Texas is going to vote for Trump.
Rubio and Trump polling strongly from stuff I saw last night.
Oops! Quite right, not sure why I didn't see that. Replace with Nevada + NH I guess. NH much more challenging.
The fact that it could come down to ME-2 is great. And I wonder which way the House would actually jump if it was a tie - there must be a few Republicans who might be peeled off.
No don't forget "mandatory reselection" is a feature of American politics and the House only has a two year term. Any (R) that peeled off would lose the next primary in 2018.
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.
LA times poll has been one of the most consistently trump leaning. Cherry picking polls isn't a good way to look at the race. It's close but like I say Hillary has multiple path's to victory, Trump has to roll a double 6 unless he makes significant inroads into the states the Dems have won every time since 1992.
The thing to do is to look at the trend. The LA times poll hasn't been Trump +6 all the time, nor is there any evidence it is getting more Trump-leaning as time goes on.
Wisconsin, New Hampshire & Pennsylvania look to me to be the three potential "swing states".
Indeed, though all voted for Kerry as well as Obama so I expect Hillary to squeeze home even if Trump wins all the George W Bush 2004 states except Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia (which he may well do)
Oops! Quite right, not sure why I didn't see that. Replace with Nevada + NH I guess. NH much more challenging.
The fact that it could come down to ME-2 is great. And I wonder which way the House would actually jump if it was a tie - there must be a few Republicans who might be peeled off.
No don't forget "mandatory reselection" is a feature of American politics and the House only has a two year term. Any (R) that peeled off would lose the next primary in 2018.
Fair enough. And in any case, I had forgotten that the election is decided by each state delegation (i.e. all their Representatives) having one vote. That ought to make things much more secure for Trump.
Peeling off a member of the electoral college would be far more viable (for either side).
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.
LA times poll has been one of the most consistently trump leaning. Cherry picking polls isn't a good way to look at the race. It's close but like I say Hillary has multiple path's to victory, Trump has to roll a double 6 unless he makes significant inroads into the states the Dems have won every time since 1992.
The thing to do is to look at the trend. The LA times poll hasn't been Trump +6 all the time, nor is there any evidence it is getting more Trump-leaning as time goes on.
This showed me how little I know about U.S politics, I thought red Texas would be on favour of Trumps unworkable policies but not so.
Farmers in Texas use a lot of (illegal) migrant labour, and there are also a lot of naturalised US Latino citizens from past amnesties in Texas. Overall it won't outweigh the massive GOP vote though, Texas is going to vote for Trump.
Rubio and Trump polling strongly from stuff I saw last night.
Looking at Mori tables , it seems that Tory lead in England is 5% - compared with 9.5% in May 2015. They lead Labour by an unlikely 25% in Scotland!
The latest Scottish poll has May far ahead of Corbyn in Scotland and more popular than Sturgeon, let alone Cameron's past ratings. The Tories may well gain seats in Scotland in 2020, especially in the borders and Edinburgh even if they lose a handful in England. Major did that in 1992
Major gained 1 seat in 1992 - Aberdeen South - and regained a seat lost to the Libdems at a by election in 1991. Whilst I agree that the Tories could pick up seats from SNP I am sure they are nowhere near 35% - or even 25%. Equally Labour is not on 11%. On Mori's England figures Labour would gain 18 Tory seats.
I just read through Kaine's political positions on Wiki, seems like a pretty moderate type who would have wide appeal. If he became POTUS I would be quite pleased. Much better than Clinton or Trump.
Comments
Again, there may be method to the madness.
Maybe the oddest question @PlatoSays
https://t.co/FSU1XlL2u3 …
Do you think Jesus would support or oppose
renationalising the railways?
But of course parallels are only parallels until they diverge. I think 3.0 looks about right for Trump but have backed him looking for 2.5 as pneumoniagate hits the polls.
Was for public ownership
Like Jeremy is?
Its amazing how Remainers have totally ignored the far more measured comments of Mervyn King both before and after Brexit.
It is as if he doesn;t exist.
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2016/september/brexit-government-must-consult-parliament-before-triggering-article-50-says-house-of-lords/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+out-law-NewsRoundUP+(OUT-LAW+News-RoundUP)
It avoided the legal question and stuck to considering what was appropriate constitutionally. Its view?
"It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament."
Mr Nabavi is projecting. Again.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/15/john-mcdonnell-welcomed-the-financial-crash-and-called-himself-a/
My conclusion is that the government health plan she is on is absurdly generous: those drugs have all be generic for a decade and could be obtained at a fraction of the cost.
Fortunately in the case of US elections we have Nate Silver's models, which seem to be very well calibrated for interpreting polling data. Of course, you still have to form a judgement on how things are likely to change from here, and that's a subjective political judgement.
FWIW, my own view is that the shift to Trump is real, and that the betting markets (and more importantly, the financial markets) are underestimating the probability of a Trump win.
http://order-order.com/2016/09/15/top-kipper-defects-tories-live-air/
I remember George Bush Senior complaining when he was Veep, his staff wasn't allowed to buy him over the counter cough medicine.
That should come as no surprise to anyone. - It's the very definition of Commies everywhere?
"I want Carney gone - what a shifty and political opportunist. "
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3782/The-honeymoon-continues-for-Theresa-May-as-most-remain-satisfied-in-her-performance-as-Prime-Minister.aspx
However, the Boundary Commission is required by law to submit its final recommendations by September 2018. A change in legislation would be required to prevent that or to alter the Commission's remit. More likely ,I suspect, is that the Government will take a relaxed view as to whether the proposals are actually approved.
Violets Are White,
The Boundaries Arn't Fair,
But Jezza Will Fight.
What does the gulf between his comments and Mervyn King's before Brexit suggest to you then?
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.
http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/breakdown-of-yougov-poll-on-apocalyptic.html
I love this article so much
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/how-the-media-will-report-the-apocalypse?utm_term=.wjVNr4bknP#.esWaBDOKN5
On another matter, next time we commit troops to a conflict I want to see May doing it explicitly as a Prerogative action, without asking Parliamentary "approval".
Do you beliee-eeve
They put Jeremy in power
Jeremy in power?
Thinking about that a bit more. Is it possible that Jeremy Corbyn is another Andy Kaufman joke persona?
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/13/comma-ai-will-ship-a-999-autonomous-driving-add-on-by-the-end-of-this-year/?ncid=rss
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
Nate's snake is an excellent infographic for spot checking state polls against.
I wonder if Trump could win with this:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/rDZw8
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
The left-leaning New York Times editorial board is coming out against Hillary Clinton for her controversial comment in which she lumped half of Donald Trump supporters into what she called a "basket of deplorables."
The Times said the remark was an example of a candidate having "spent more and more time cocooned with their wealthiest supporters" and having made herself "vulnerable to a particular kind of influence. Not just the kind journalists are ever on the watch for — the classic quid pro quo — but a more subtle form, a cultural form that tends to be heard and not seen.
..."This is what happens when candidates spend so much time in what F. Scott Fitzgerald called 'the consoling proximity of millionaires.'"
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2601782/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorder
This showed me how little I know about U.S politics, I thought red Texas would be on favour of Trumps unworkable policies but not so.
"NOVEMBER, 1946 PRICE ONE SHILLING
Fair Play
The National Union of Agricultural Workers is reported to have informed the T.U.C. that it cannot agree to the employment of demobilized Polish soldiers on the land. This bars the Poles from agriculture as well as the mining industry. To my mind, this is a stupid and short-sighted attitude for in both industries there is work for all. We were glad to have the Poles fighting for us in Tobruk, Italy and other campaigns, and now, having helped to win the war, they are being cold-shouldered. That is against our traditional British sense of fair play and decency. This treatment of the Poles is a sheer dog-in-the-manger attitude. The rights of British workers are not being jeopardized in any way by the employment of Poles-then what is it that the workers fear ? Are they afraid that the Poles will show them how to do a real day's work? The British labourer at his best can do more in the way of consistently good labour than any of the world's workers, including the Russian Stakhonovitch "shock" worker, yet nowadays he seems to be forfeiting the title of worker and even his right to work if the latter is now based upon the matter of earning his money. Workers are being better paid now than ever before, yet every industry reports that the output per man is getting less. A better standard of labour such as the employment of Poles may bring, will perhaps stimulate our own workers into becoming labourers worthy of their hire.
Incidentally, I note that a fair proportion of the Poles may be seen at Training Institutes and Night School classes, where they wrestle with the difficulty of understanding a lecture on some complex subject delivered in a foreign tongue. It is obvious that they intend to qualify in the respective professions which they have adopted, and, without exception, they prize the prospect of becoming British citizens. We have nothing to fear from this peaceful penetration for historical precedents show that similar "invasions," such as the Flemish weavers, brought new crafts and industries to the country. When we grumble on seeing a successful " foreigner " in our midst, it is well to remember that they probably started from scratch and worked hard to succeed. How would you like to start again, shall we say-in Turkey?
We should welcome the Poles, particularly in rural areas, and do our best to make them feel that they really are " at home " in the land of their adoption. This matter of what is their country reminds me of the story told of a Polish soldier who, on being repatriated from the U.K. to Poland, was telling his friend of all he had done. The friend suggested: " I suppose you've picked up some English too." "Aye," replied the Pole, "a wee bit." "
http://www.thecga.co.uk/pages/blog
http://reaction.life/overheated-hillary-clinton-collapse-teriible-candidate/
Incredibly stupid by Hillary and her team.
Exclusive: John McDonnell welcomed the financial crash and called himself a Marxist, newly found - The Telegraph https://t.co/jGOr4fd7PI
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/
The comments are documented in a YouTube video viewed less than 60 times which was posted on the website on 16 March, 2013."
Getting a lot now....
Peeling off a member of the electoral college would be far more viable (for either side).
http://order-order.com/2016/09/15/labour-moderates-secretly-investigated-corbynistas/
Rubio rising
On Mori's England figures Labour would gain 18 Tory seats.