Finally it looks like the decision is coming. Two decades too late, but coming at last.
Heathrow expansion is the correct decision.
But the question as put for an either/or job of Gatwick, Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester, Stanstead was ridiculous.
Heathrow needs to expand because it is at capacity for itself, on it's own flight traffic in/out (!)
It should have no bearing on expansion at any other UK airport.
Yes, I'd let thewould end up at Heathrow for refurbishing T4 and possibly building a new T1/3 to increase passenger capacity along with the new runway.
That's far too sensible.
It's not just the site within the perimeter though. Without major changes to the M4/M3/M25 area, will road network cope (and in some respects Gatwick is worse). Do we have the ATC capacity without fundamental changes in approach. Given that we seem to want to turn LHR into GBHR should there be a proper integrated HST network through there (as per, for example, Frankfurt)?
Have these questions been answered properly?
I don't understand why LHR has not been properly integrated into HS2. Being able to get the train from Manchester to Heathrow in 1.30 and then onto a plane makes it much more of a UK hub airport than having to fly from Manchester to LHR, getting stuck in a landing pattern and then missing your connection.
Heathrow's train links are a total mess
Not so much a mess as functionally non-existent.
Piccadilly line and the Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect services are hardly "non-existent"!
There's also a projected link from the Great Western Line from the west (Slough area).
Manchester Airport is served by train services from all over the north of England, and beyond. London Heathrow is served by train services from the west side of London and the western suburbs only.
Cockfosters, Finsbury Park and the Arsenal are in West London?
I said train services, not mobile sardine cans!
But they run on rails, so I count them as trains. I also count trams as "trains" for the same reason.
Finally it looks like the decision is coming. Two decades too late, but coming at last.
Heathrow expansion is the correct decision.
But the question as put for an either/or job of Gatwick, Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester, Stanstead was ridiculous.
Heathrow needs to expand because it is at capacity for itself, on it's own flight traffic in/out (Schipol has 6 runways and is less busy I think !)
It should have no bearing on expansion at any other UK airport.
Yes, I'd let thewould end up at Heathrow for refurbishing T4 and possibly building a new T1/3 to increase passenger capacity along with the new runway.
That's far too sensible.
It's not just the site within the perimeter though. Without major changes to the M4/M3/M25 area, will road network cope (and in some respects Gatwick is worse). Do we have the ATC capacity without fundamental changes in approach. Given that we seem to want to turn LHR into GBHR should there be a proper integrated HST network through there (as per, for example, Frankfurt)?
Have these questions been answered properly?
I don't understand why LHR has not been properly integrated into HS2. Being able to get the train from Manchester to Heathrow in 1.30 and then onto a plane makes it much more of a UK hub airport than having to fly from Manchester to LHR, getting stuck in a landing pattern and then missing your connection.
Heathrow's train links are a total mess
Not so much a mess as functionally non-existent.
Piccadilly line and the Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect services are hardly "non-existent"!
There's also a projected link from the Great Western Line from the west (Slough area).
Manchester Airport is served by train services from all over the north of England, and beyond. London Heathrow is served by train services from the west side of London and the western suburbs only.
Cockfosters, Finsbury Park and the Arsenal are in West London?
The ignorance about London, Londoners, its culture and its geography on PB never ceases to amaze me.
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
I think Hillary will make a fine president.
Same here. And if she is bad, no way will be she as catastrophically bad as Crazy Racist Donald
The next general election is currently due to happen in May 2020. Do you think there should or should not be an early general election?
Should be an early election 36%
Should NOT be an early election 46%
Just look at the splits!
Con 15% Yes 76% No
Lab 65% Yes 22% No
I say us blues reach across party boundaries and give the red team what they want.
And imagine if by some weird quirk of fate, the campaign went disastrously for May and let in Corbyn? You would have pissed off at least 76% of your party (and probably some of the 15% would be equally unforgiving if even two of their synapses had considered Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn a worthwhile thing to think about.... And that would be before Corbyn and Momentum set to work raising their blood pressure by about eighty points....
Do please elaborate further on this "quirk of fate" :-)
I'm doing a thread on this quirk of fate this weekend.
It begins with this opening
'Like looking for a nun in a whorehouse, trying to find good polling for Labour......
He would be an excellent choice for the EU negotiations – an extremely able, intelligent, strategic and serious figure who would broker a good deal for Britain.
I didn't know you moonlighted as a stand-up comedian Jobabob!!!!
The next general election is currently due to happen in May 2020. Do you think there should or should not be an early general election?
Should be an early election 36%
Should NOT be an early election 46%
Just look at the splits!
Con 15% Yes 76% No
Lab 65% Yes 22% No
I say us blues reach across party boundaries and give the red team what they want.
And imagine if by some weird quirk of fate, the campaign went disastrously for May and let in Corbyn? You would have pissed off at least 76% of your party (and probably some of the 15% would be equally unforgiving if even two of their synapses had considered Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn a worthwhile thing to think about.... And that would be before Corbyn and Momentum set to work raising their blood pressure by about eighty points....
Do please elaborate further on this "quirk of fate" :-)
Interesting that Labour types want an early election. I guess a significant number of these do so because they really believe Corbyn will be PM. A smaller group are probably like Mandelson and just desperate to get the slaughter over with and move on.
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
The next general election is currently due to happen in May 2020. Do you think there should or should not be an early general election?
Should be an early election 36%
Should NOT be an early election 46%
Just look at the splits!
Con 15% Yes 76% No
Lab 65% Yes 22% No
I say us blues reach across party boundaries and give the red team what they want.
And imagine if by some weird quirk of fate, the campaign went disastrously for May and let in Corbyn? You would have pissed off at least 76% of your party (and probably some of the 15% would be equally unforgiving if even two of their synapses had considered Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn a worthwhile thing to think about.... And that would be before Corbyn and Momentum set to work raising their blood pressure by about eighty points....
Do please elaborate further on this "quirk of fate" :-)
I'm doing a thread on this quirk of fate this weekend.
It begins with this opening
'Like looking for a nun in a whorehouse, trying to find good polling for Labour......
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
I think Hillary will make a fine president.
You set your standards low then. Leaving aside questions of her willingness (some would say enthusiasm) to accept gratuities, and her rampant carelessness with government secrets, including information that could (and may yet) get agents in place killed. She will do nothing to placate a furious working class that is convinced, with some justification, that it has been sold out by the democrats. She has been widely despised by a substantial chunk of her country for a long time, and almost any other Democrat would be better received. Aside from that I am sure she will do fine.
The next general election is currently due to happen in May 2020. Do you think there should or should not be an early general election?
Should be an early election 36%
Should NOT be an early election 46%
Just look at the splits!
Con 15% Yes 76% No
Lab 65% Yes 22% No
I say us blues reach across party boundaries and give the red team what they want.
And imagine if by some weird quirk of fate, the campaign went disastrously for May and let in Corbyn? You would have pissed off at least 76% of your party (and probably some of the 15% would be equally unforgiving if even two of their synapses had considered Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn a worthwhile thing to think about.... And that would be before Corbyn and Momentum set to work raising their blood pressure by about eighty points....
Do please elaborate further on this "quirk of fate" :-)
Interesting that Labour types want an early election. I guess a significant number of these do so because they really believe Corbyn will be PM. A smaller group are probably like Mandelson and just desperate to get the slaughter over with and move on.
Would the slaughter be worse soon or later? I imagine the Tories are happy to wait because they think the longer Jezza is in control the more profoundly screwed Labour will become.
The next general election is currently due to happen in May 2020. Do you think there should or should not be an early general election?
Should be an early election 36%
Should NOT be an early election 46%
Just look at the splits!
Con 15% Yes 76% No
Lab 65% Yes 22% No
I say us blues reach across party boundaries and give the red team what they want.
And imagine if by some weird quirk of fate, the campaign went disastrously for May and let in Corbyn? You would have pissed off at least 76% of your party (and probably some of the 15% would be equally unforgiving if even two of their synapses had considered Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn a worthwhile thing to think about.... And that would be before Corbyn and Momentum set to work raising their blood pressure by about eighty points....
Do please elaborate further on this "quirk of fate" :-)
I'm doing a thread on this quirk of fate this weekend.
It begins with this opening
'Like looking for a nun in a whorehouse, trying to find good polling for Labour......
You can find anything in a whorehouse.
Or so I'm told.
I wouldn't know. I'm the male equivalent of an ingénue
That Florentine administrator knew exactly why BrExit would be a pain to organise, and predicted the Remoaners in 1513
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.
He goes onto say:
It is necessary, therefore, if we desire to discuss this matter thoroughly, to inquire whether these innovators can rely on themselves or have to depend on others: that is to say, whether, to consummate their enterprise, have they to use prayers or can they use force? In the first instance they always succeed badly, and never accomplish anything; but when they can rely on themselves and use force, then they are rarely endangered. Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed. Besides the reasons mentioned, the nature of the people is variable, and whilst it is easy to persuade them, it is difficult to fix them in that persuasion. And thus it is necessary to take such measures that, when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force.
So it's War! I'm not sure if that's against the EU or Remainers. Maybe both? It's not going to work otherwise.
Manchester Airport is served by train services from all over the north of England, and beyond. London Heathrow is served by train services from the west side of London and the western suburbs only.
You can get a train direct from Edinburgh to Manchester airport.
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
Manchester Airport is served by train services from all over the north of England, and beyond. London Heathrow is served by train services from the west side of London and the western suburbs only.
You can get a train direct from Edinburgh to Manchester airport.
I saw that train at Preston on Wednesday (scalped Wigan to Preston that day, coming up from Brum).
Manchester Airport is served by train services from all over the north of England, and beyond. London Heathrow is served by train services from the west side of London and the western suburbs only.
You can get a train direct from Edinburgh to Manchester airport.
The next general election is currently due to happen in May 2020. Do you think there should or should not be an early general election?
Should be an early election 36%
Should NOT be an early election 46%
Just look at the splits!
Con 15% Yes 76% No
Lab 65% Yes 22% No
I say us blues reach across party boundaries and give the red team what they want.
And imagine if by some weird quirk of fate, the campaign went disastrously for May and let in Corbyn? You would have pissed off at least 76% of your party (and probably some of the 15% would be equally unforgiving if even two of their synapses had considered Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn a worthwhile thing to think about.... And that would be before Corbyn and Momentum set to work raising their blood pressure by about eighty points....
Do please elaborate further on this "quirk of fate" :-)
I'm doing a thread on this quirk of fate this weekend.
It begins with this opening
'Like looking for a nun in a whorehouse, trying to find good polling for Labour......
You can find anything in a whorehouse.
Or so I'm told.
I wouldn't know. I'm the male equivalent of an ingénue
The next general election is currently due to happen in May 2020. Do you think there should or should not be an early general election?
Should be an early election 36%
Should NOT be an early election 46%
Just look at the splits!
Con 15% Yes 76% No
Lab 65% Yes 22% No
I say us blues reach across party boundaries and give the red team what they want.
And imagine if by some weird quirk of fate, the campaign went disastrously for May and let in Corbyn? You would have pissed off at least 76% of your party (and probably some of the 15% would be equally unforgiving if even two of their synapses had considered Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn a worthwhile thing to think about.... And that would be before Corbyn and Momentum set to work raising their blood pressure by about eighty points....
Do please elaborate further on this "quirk of fate" :-)
I'm doing a thread on this quirk of fate this weekend.
It begins with this opening
'Like looking for a nun in a whorehouse, trying to find good polling for Labour......
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
I think Hillary will make a fine president.
You set your standards low then. Leaving aside questions of her willingness (some would say enthusiasm) to accept gratuities, and her rampant carelessness with government secrets, including information that could (and may yet) get agents in place killed. She will do nothing to placate a furious working class that is convinced, with some justification, that it has been sold out by the democrats. She has been widely despised by a substantial chunk of her country for a long time, and almost any other Democrat would be better received. Aside from that I am sure she will do fine.
She will do a lot more those areas than Racist, Crazy Donald would.
Manchester Airport is served by train services from all over the north of England, and beyond. London Heathrow is served by train services from the west side of London and the western suburbs only.
You can get a train direct from Edinburgh to Manchester airport.
But not from Edinburgh to Edinburgh Airport!
(Yes, Dr P, I know, there is now a tram...)
. I changed trains at Edinburgh in 2012, on the way to Leuchars and St Andrews, but the tram wasn't up and running back then...
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
I think Hillary will make a fine president.
She's as corrupt as hell.
In what regard is she corrupt?
Just another of those words that is thrown around about her, without much to back it up.
The next general election is currently due to happen in May 2020. Do you think there should or should not be an early general election?
Should be an early election 36%
Should NOT be an early election 46%
Just look at the splits!
Con 15% Yes 76% No
Lab 65% Yes 22% No
I say us blues reach across party boundaries and give the red team what they want.
And imagine if by some weird quirk of fate, the campaign went disastrously for May and let in Corbyn? You would have pissed off at least 76% of your party (and probably some of the 15% would be equally unforgiving if even two of their synapses had considered Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn a worthwhile thing to think about.... And that would be before Corbyn and Momentum set to work raising their blood pressure by about eighty points....
Do please elaborate further on this "quirk of fate" :-)
Interesting that Labour types want an early election. I guess a significant number of these do so because they really believe Corbyn will be PM. A smaller group are probably like Mandelson and just desperate to get the slaughter over with and move on.
Would the slaughter be worse soon or later? I imagine the Tories are happy to wait because they think the longer Jezza is in control the more profoundly screwed Labour will become.
if he gets to 2019, iirc, then conference will have had chance to vote through changes to MP nominations threshold for leader, overruling the NEC (which is currently weighted slightly against Corbyn). Then a left winger will always be able to get on the ballot. A Tory strategist might well see that as the point at which Labour are screwed.
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
I think Hillary will make a fine president.
She's as corrupt as hell.
I don't think that's true. She has an unhealthy penchant for secrecy, and plays the normal borderline-shady political donations game, but we've just seen basically huge amounts of her internal emails and DNC emails hacked and so far there's remarkably little corruption there.
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
I think Hillary will make a fine president.
She's as corrupt as hell.
In what regard is she corrupt?
Just another of those words that is thrown around about her, without much to back it up.
Conflicts of interest between the Foundation and her role as SoS is a good example.
The perception of corruption is almost as bad as the reality
(I'm also well aware of some of the favor-trafficking that goes on: I know of two specific cases in particular. Is that corruption? Possibly not - standard practice in the US AIUI - but I don't have to like it)
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
I think Hillary will make a fine president.
Why?
I think she'll make a tolerable one and, for Britain, will be a step up on Obama but I see no vision and no programme for government from her (though as she'll probably be hamstrung throughout with a GOP congress, that might be of little consequence). As a national figurehead she'll be divisive and and unempathetic.
There's no point in telling "Europe" what they should have, for the reasons Nick gives. But we can start with what WE want.
Indeed. But creating a shared vision starts with someone having a vision, then listening to those with whom they would like that vision to become shared, and molding the vision in response to what is heard until it is shared.
Until it is feasible to start listening (i.e. until the Europeans are over lecturing us on the outcome of the vote and what it means for us, and are ready to talk about what THEY actually WANT, rather than their reflexive reaction to 'save' the EU), they only useful thing we can do is to find our own vision.
But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.
538 has moved Clinton's chances from 63% to 65% and Nevada has joined Florida in the Democrat column.
PS This is hugely addictive! I think I must have an addictive personality. I'm also competing with my grandchildren on Pokemon Go to see who is the first to get to level nine. There must be better ways of spending my remaining years.
There's no point in telling "Europe" what they should have, for the reasons Nick gives. But we can start with what WE want.
Indeed. But creating a shared vision starts with someone having a vision, then listening to those with whom they would like that vision to become shared, and molding the vision in response to what is heard until it is shared.
Until it is feasible to start listening (i.e. until the Europeans are over lecturing us on the outcome of the vote and what it means for us, and are ready to talk about what THEY actually WANT, rather than their reflexive reaction to 'save' the EU), they only useful thing we can do is to find our own vision.
But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.
Nonsense!
Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
I think Hillary will make a fine president.
Why?
I think she'll make a tolerable one and, for Britain, will be a step up on Obama but I see no vision and no programme for government from her (though as she'll probably be hamstrung throughout with a GOP congress, that might be of little consequence). As a national figurehead she'll be divisive and and unempathetic.
Hillary will not be a good president. She will never have more than 50% of the country with her on any issue. Trump would be a worse president. Both VP nominees would be better presidents than the top of their respective tickets.
The only hope is that Hillary wins, the GOP wins both Houses (or even just retains the Senate). Then we'll have effectively minimal government, perhaps the best available solution.
The next general election is currently due to happen in May 2020. Do you think there should or should not be an early general election?
Should be an early election 36%
Should NOT be an early election 46%
Just look at the splits!
Con 15% Yes 76% No
Lab 65% Yes 22% No
I say us blues reach across party boundaries and give the red team what they want.
And imagine if by some weird quirk of fate, the campaign went disastrously for May and let in Corbyn? You would have pissed off at least 76% of your party (and probably some of the 15% would be equally unforgiving if even two of their synapses had considered Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn a worthwhile thing to think about.... And that would be before Corbyn and Momentum set to work raising their blood pressure by about eighty points....
Do please elaborate further on this "quirk of fate" :-)
I'm doing a thread on this quirk of fate this weekend.
It begins with this opening
'Like looking for a nun in a whorehouse, trying to find good polling for Labour......
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
I think Hillary will make a fine president.
She's as corrupt as hell.
In what regard is she corrupt?
Just another of those words that is thrown around about her, without much to back it up.
Conflicts of interest between the Foundation and her role as SoS is a good example.
The perception of corruption is almost as bad as the reality
(I'm also well aware of some of the favor-trafficking that goes on: I know of two specific cases in particular. Is that corruption? Possibly not - standard practice in the US AIUI - but I don't have to like it)
"The perception of corruption is almost as bad as the reality"
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
I think Hillary will make a fine president.
Why?
I think she'll make a tolerable one and, for Britain, will be a step up on Obama but I see no vision and no programme for government from her (though as she'll probably be hamstrung throughout with a GOP congress, that might be of little consequence). As a national figurehead she'll be divisive and and unempathetic.
I think she will have a Democrat Senate which will help. It is a tragedy that Obama has been so hamstrung by the partisan antics of the Republicans.
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
I think Hillary will make a fine president.
She's as corrupt as hell.
In what regard is she corrupt?
Just another of those words that is thrown around about her, without much to back it up.
Conflicts of interest between the Foundation and her role as SoS is a good example.
The perception of corruption is almost as bad as the reality
(I'm also well aware of some of the favor-trafficking that goes on: I know of two specific cases in particular. Is that corruption? Possibly not - standard practice in the US AIUI - but I don't have to like it)
"The perception of corruption is almost as bad as the reality"
LOL. QED.
How about trying to engage with the argument and think through the nuances of what I've suggested. You might learn something.
The next general election is currently due to happen in May 2020. Do you think there should or should not be an early general election?
Should be an early election 36%
Should NOT be an early election 46%
Just look at the splits!
Con 15% Yes 76% No
Lab 65% Yes 22% No
I say us blues reach across party boundaries and give the red team what they want.
And imagine if by some weird quirk of fate, the campaign went disastrously for May and let in Corbyn? You would have pissed off at least 76% of your party (and probably some of the 15% would be equally unforgiving if even two of their synapses had considered Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn a worthwhile thing to think about.... And that would be before Corbyn and Momentum set to work raising their blood pressure by about eighty points....
Do please elaborate further on this "quirk of fate" :-)
I'm doing a thread on this quirk of fate this weekend.
It begins with this opening
'Like looking for a nun in a whorehouse, trying to find good polling for Labour......
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
I think Hillary will make a fine president.
You set your standards low then. Leaving aside questions of her willingness (some would say enthusiasm) to accept gratuities, and her rampant carelessness with government secrets, including information that could (and may yet) get agents in place killed. She will do nothing to placate a furious working class that is convinced, with some justification, that it has been sold out by the democrats. She has been widely despised by a substantial chunk of her country for a long time, and almost any other Democrat would be better received. Aside from that I am sure she will do fine.
She will do a lot more those areas than Racist, Crazy Donald would.
That's doesn't make her a good (or even adequate) candidate. Your hatred of Trump makes you blind to the manifest limitations of his opponent, not to mention making you a partisan bore.
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
I think Hillary will make a fine president.
She's as corrupt as hell.
In what regard is she corrupt?
Just another of those words that is thrown around about her, without much to back it up.
Conflicts of interest between the Foundation and her role as SoS is a good example.
The perception of corruption is almost as bad as the reality
(I'm also well aware of some of the favor-trafficking that goes on: I know of two specific cases in particular. Is that corruption? Possibly not - standard practice in the US AIUI - but I don't have to like it)
Oh, please. Citizens United basically equated cash with free speech, so anything short of actually paying cash for a vote is basically fair game in the US now.
It was an awful decision, and I'm no massive fan of Clinton, but the 'corruption' stuff is a huge pile of BS.
On a poll with a margin of error of 3.5%, this is as bad as the last GE with everyone getting excited because of 1% movements in polls with 3% margins of error.
Latest polls today on RCP.
Michigan D 42% R 35% New Hampshire D 42% R 35%
All the polls are moving the same way. I agree single polls are within MOE but there is a significant pattern here.
Plus Trump is allegedly losing it because he is being beaten by a girl.
As has been noted many times before it's a shame they both can't lose.
I have a nasty suspicion that the days following the election are going to make the EU Referendum look like a mild disagreement. They are going to be very lucky if they only get a blizzard of lawsuits, and not serious civil disobedience.
As unfashionable a view as it is on here, I'm not a subscriber to the transparent "I wish they would both lose" "plague on both their houses" schtick.
I think Hillary will make a fine president.
Why?
I think she'll make a tolerable one and, for Britain, will be a step up on Obama but I see no vision and no programme for government from her (though as she'll probably be hamstrung throughout with a GOP congress, that might be of little consequence). As a national figurehead she'll be divisive and and unempathetic.
I think she will have a Democrat Senate which will help. It is a tragedy that Obama has been so hamstrung by the partisan antics of the Republicans.
Have you seen that after overriding the veto on the 9/11 bill the Republicans are now saying they will rewrite it and blaming the white house for not pushing back strongly enough.
Most of the 48% are AB voters, the "I'm alright Jacques" set, which would be a good pool to fish in for say Clegg, but Farron is too leftie for that audience
Perhaps, but the current (fairly meager) by-election data suggests otherwise. The LibDems are winning seats in middle-class areas, but going nowhere or even backwards in working class areas such as Blackpool last night.
Of the parliamentary by-elections so far this year, the LDs lost 1.4% at Tooting, were unchanged at Ogmore, gained 1.6% at Sheffield Brightside and were unchanged at Oldham West, and didnt win any of them, hardly a ringing endorsement.
I'm offering 10-1 on the LibDems to lose their deposit in Witney. I've already had a couple of takers. Come on Indigo, take the plunge
Comments
There are no direct services between the London termini and Manchester Airport. One must change at Manchester Piccadilly or Crewe.
It begins with this opening
'Like looking for a nun in a whorehouse, trying to find good polling for Labour......
Trump may have some issues.
Or so I'm told.
Or you can go via Sheffield from St Pancras, and catch the Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport service, the latter of which is part of my daily commute
Who is the SADDEST one of all?"
It is necessary, therefore, if we desire to discuss this matter thoroughly, to inquire whether these innovators can rely on themselves or have to depend on others: that is to say, whether, to consummate their enterprise, have they to use prayers or can they use force? In the first instance they always succeed badly, and never accomplish anything; but when they can rely on themselves and use force, then they are rarely endangered. Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed. Besides the reasons mentioned, the nature of the people is variable, and whilst it is easy to persuade them, it is difficult to fix them in that persuasion. And thus it is necessary to take such measures that, when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force.
So it's War! I'm not sure if that's against the EU or Remainers. Maybe both? It's not going to work otherwise.
I might back the draw.
(Yes, Dr P, I know, there is now a tram...)
The Ryder Cup shows us how much better Europe would be IF WE RAN IT.
Spanish passion fine, German efficiency absolutely, but a British and Irish spine.
Just another of those words that is thrown around about her, without much to back it up.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/781788223055994880
He is astoundingly easy to bait. Gob smacking easy. I wonder what the Clinton campaign has lined up for debate two?
The perception of corruption is almost as bad as the reality
(I'm also well aware of some of the favor-trafficking that goes on: I know of two specific cases in particular. Is that corruption? Possibly not - standard practice in the US AIUI - but I don't have to like it)
I think she'll make a tolerable one and, for Britain, will be a step up on Obama but I see no vision and no programme for government from her (though as she'll probably be hamstrung throughout with a GOP congress, that might be of little consequence). As a national figurehead she'll be divisive and and unempathetic.
Until it is feasible to start listening (i.e. until the Europeans are over lecturing us on the outcome of the vote and what it means for us, and are ready to talk about what THEY actually WANT, rather than their reflexive reaction to 'save' the EU), they only useful thing we can do is to find our own vision.
But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.
538 has moved Clinton's chances from 63% to 65% and Nevada has joined Florida in the Democrat column.
PS This is hugely addictive! I think I must have an addictive personality. I'm also competing with my grandchildren on Pokemon Go to see who is the first to get to level nine. There must be better ways of spending my remaining years.
Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
The only hope is that Hillary wins, the GOP wins both Houses (or even just retains the Senate). Then we'll have effectively minimal government, perhaps the best available solution.
LOL. QED.
NEW THREAD
Citizens United basically equated cash with free speech, so anything short of actually paying cash for a vote is basically fair game in the US now.
It was an awful decision, and I'm no massive fan of Clinton, but the 'corruption' stuff is a huge pile of BS.