I've always held that the views of southern Tories with no Scottish votes, no influence and minimal clues should be of vital importance. Unfortunately most of my countrymen are of a different opinion.
They are rattled TUD, showing their desperation in trying to claim their pig's ear is in fact a silk purse. they froth just a little too much
I've always held that the views of southern Tories with no Scottish votes, no influence and minimal clues should be of vital importance. Unfortunately most of my countrymen are of a different opinion.
We'll just have to build on Scottish votes for Tories then....
Look, I predicted that the SNP would poll 50% of the Scottish votes in the 2015 General Election. (It was 49.9 something % - so sue me!) I'm now predicting that the SNP high tide has been and gone.
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "
Well you seem to be admitting you will not win the seat
Like Farage and Johnson admitted not winning the referendum as the polls closed
More seriously, I don't think anyone thinks a LibDem win is anything other than an extremely remote possibility,
It reminds me of Oldham West, when the UKIP odds kept shortening and shortening, and we heard regular posts about UKIP was doing really well. And we all fell for it.
And then UKIP barely budged on their 2015 result, and Labour actually increased its share.
No one knows anything and volumes of activists and posters prove nothing.
Not quite true. The party machines should have an indication by how on how postal voting is going. Clearly it is illegal for that information to be passed on.
But that doesn't add much unless either overwhelming or in an already poll baselined close fight.
Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "
Well you seem to be admitting you will not win the seat
Like Farage and Johnson admitted not winning the referendum as the polls closed
More seriously, I don't think anyone thinks a LibDem win is anything other than an extremely remote possibility,
It reminds me of Oldham West, when the UKIP odds kept shortening and shortening, and we heard regular posts about UKIP was doing really well. And we all fell for it.
And then UKIP barely budged on their 2015 result, and Labour actually increased its share.
No one knows anything and volumes of activists and posters prove nothing.
Not quite true. The party machines should have an indication by how on how postal voting is going. Clearly it is illegal for that information to be passed on.
But that doesn't add much unless either overwhelming or in an already poll baselined close fight.
And not really. It is exceptionally difficult to get any useful information from a postal vote verification, if it is done properly, since the ballot papers are kept face down and the sample isn't random to start with.
I've always held that the views of southern Tories with no Scottish votes, no influence and minimal clues should be of vital importance. Unfortunately most of my countrymen are of a different opinion.
They are rattled TUD, showing their desperation in trying to claim their pig's ear is in fact a silk purse. they froth just a little too much
Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "
Well you seem to be admitting you will not win the seat
Like Farage and Johnson admitted not winning the referendum as the polls closed
More seriously, I don't think anyone thinks a LibDem win is anything other than an extremely remote possibility,
It reminds me of Oldham West, when the UKIP odds kept shortening and shortening, and we heard regular posts about UKIP was doing really well. And we all fell for it.
And then UKIP barely budged on their 2015 result, and Labour actually increased its share.
No one knows anything and volumes of activists and posters prove nothing.
Posters do provide some general indication of local enthusiasm and also confirmation that someone from the party concerned has canvassed the local area.
Imagine if remain had won by tiny margin & the govt went for "hard remain" - Schengen, Euro, multilingual signage. People would go apeshit.
True, because there wouldn't be a mandate.
They won't, however, go apeshit about leaving the EU when the country has voted for it. Remaining subject to the ECJ, to Commission directives, to free movement of people and paying a membership fee for the privilege is not leaving the EU in any meaningful way; it'd simply be keeping the obligations while giving up the influence.
I've always held that the views of southern Tories with no Scottish votes, no influence and minimal clues should be of vital importance. Unfortunately most of my countrymen are of a different opinion.
They are rattled TUD, showing their desperation in trying to claim their pig's ear is in fact a silk purse. they froth just a little too much
As I've previously said, the first headline stating that the SNP honeymoon is over was in 2007. The press and their wee finger puppets have been unimaginatively regurgitating it ever since.
On topic, the polarisation of the US is frightening to behold. There was a time when even if one was opposed, there was an inherent respect for the office of POTUS. That seems to have ebbed away. As for a bet, I think Alaska to go for Clinton is one on which I'd invest a few pounds. Obama wasn't far away in 2012 and the latest poll gives Trump only a 3-point advantage. It's the sort of state I could imagine Johnson polling well and perhaps acting as a spoiler.
Off topic, I wholeheartedly agree there should not be a vote in parliament on triggering A50 - we voted to do that on June 23rd. There does need to be scrutiny and debate on the final deal in Parliament with a vote and I think I favour that over a second referendum though I'm not wholly convinced.
How is the rise of Trump any different from the rise of Palin? Both are populists who appeal to the anti-intellectual, anti-'liberal elite', white poor.
There will always be that target group in the US, but so far, in recent times, their political representatives have been soundly beaten.
Were Hillary to win it would be a major victory for global liberalism and will stop the international nationalistic protectionist Platoite far right juggernaut in its tracks.
It is quite possible that Trump, like Palin, becomes an irrelevance very quickly after election day.
If I could venture a prediction: Trump's business empire will falter following an election loss, and it is entirely possible that we see (another) bankruptcy in the near future.
Why?
Firstly, there can be no doubt that Trump's run has damaged his personal brand. Bookings at his hotels are down sharply. And as Gerald Ratner discovered, brand damage can be extremely long lived.
Secondly, Donald has always been a thin sliver of equity on top of a lot of debt. He makes the claim that he has minimal personal debt, his individual projects all have meaningful debt. (The New York Times did an analysis of some of the debt sitting inside his various entities.) My experience is that there is an implicit guarantee with these kind of projects: banks say "Yes, Mr Trump you can borrow at a rate lower than other people, because you agree that if there are probables here, then you will subsidise it with profits from other businesses." In other words, the contingent liabilities might be very significant.
If his empire is 70% debt, 30% equity, then a 30% shift in the enterprise value would wipe him out completely.
Both May & Corbyn have raised their games....I suspect we've heard the last of 'Lisa from Lowestoft' from Corbyn.....
Just avoided answering as ever.
If the SNP leader isn't going to bother to listen and/or is unable to understand that it's been explained that the premise of his question is false, whose fault is it?
Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "
Well you seem to be admitting you will not win the seat
Like Farage and Johnson admitted not winning the referendum as the polls closed
More seriously, I don't think anyone thinks a LibDem win is anything other than an extremely remote possibility,
It reminds me of Oldham West, when the UKIP odds kept shortening and shortening, and we heard regular posts about UKIP was doing really well. And we all fell for it.
And then UKIP barely budged on their 2015 result, and Labour actually increased its share.
No one knows anything and volumes of activists and posters prove nothing.
Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "
Well you seem to be admitting you will not win the seat
Like Farage and Johnson admitted not winning the referendum as the polls closed
More seriously, I don't think anyone thinks a LibDem win is anything other than an extremely remote possibility,
It reminds me of Oldham West, when the UKIP odds kept shortening and shortening, and we heard regular posts about UKIP was doing really well. And we all fell for it.
And then UKIP barely budged on their 2015 result, and Labour actually increased its share.
No one knows anything and volumes of activists and posters prove nothing.
Posters do provide some general indication of local enthusiasm and also confirmation that someone from the party concerned has canvassed the local area.
They show there are pumped up activists who are good at putting up posters.
You can make a town of several thousand voters look dominated for one side just by putting up a few dozen posters on the main thoroughfares and streets, and in every seat I've ever campaigned the Lib Dems have been much better at it, but it doesn't translate into votes.
It can, at best, demoralise the opposition activists and imply to voters that (for instance) the LDs might stand a sporting chance, so isn't a wasted vote, but tells you very little about the result.
Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "
Presumably the new LD by election slogan based on this will be 'LOSING HERE, THERE AND EVERYWHERE'
If I could venture a prediction: Trump's business empire will falter following an election loss, and it is entirely possible that we see (another) bankruptcy in the near future.
Why?
Firstly, there can be no doubt that Trump's run has damaged his personal brand. Bookings at his hotels are down sharply. And as Gerald Ratner discovered, brand damage can be extremely long lived.
Secondly, Donald has always been a thin sliver of equity on top of a lot of debt. He makes the claim that he has minimal personal debt, his individual projects all have meaningful debt. (The New York Times did an analysis of some of the debt sitting inside his various entities.) My experience is that there is an implicit guarantee with these kind of projects: banks say "Yes, Mr Trump you can borrow at a rate lower than other people, because you agree that if there are probables here, then you will subsidise it with profits from other businesses." In other words, the contingent liabilities might be very significant.
If his empire is 70% debt, 30% equity, then a 30% shift in the enterprise value would wipe him out completely.
Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "
Well you seem to be admitting you will not win the seat
Like Farage and Johnson admitted not winning the referendum as the polls closed
More seriously, I don't think anyone thinks a LibDem win is anything other than an extremely remote possibility,
It reminds me of Oldham West, when the UKIP odds kept shortening and shortening, and we heard regular posts about UKIP was doing really well. And we all fell for it.
And then UKIP barely budged on their 2015 result, and Labour actually increased its share.
No one knows anything and volumes of activists and posters prove nothing.
Posters do provide some general indication of local enthusiasm and also confirmation that someone from the party concerned has canvassed the local area.
They show there are pumped up activists who are good at putting up posters.
You can make a town of several thousand voters look dominated for one side just by putting up a few dozen posters on the main thoroughfares and streets, and in every seat I've ever campaigned the Lib Dems have been much better at it, but it doesn't translate into votes.
It can, at best, demoralise the opposition activists and imply to voters that (for instance) the LDs might stand a sporting chance, so isn't a wasted vote, but tells you very little about the result.
In the case of Witney, surely the purpose is to persuade Green and Labour voters that the LibDems are the local alternative to the Conservative Party.
I suspect it will be a moderately successful pitch.
Imagine if remain had won by tiny margin & the govt went for "hard remain" - Schengen, Euro, multilingual signage. People would go apeshit.
True, because there wouldn't be a mandate.
They won't, however, go apeshit about leaving the EU when the country has voted for it. Remaining subject to the ECJ, to Commission directives, to free movement of people and paying a membership fee for the privilege is not leaving the EU in any meaningful way; it'd simply be keeping the obligations while giving up the influence.
Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "
That would imply something like Con 50 / LD 30 / Lab 10 / UKIP 5 / loose change.
And still a week to go, Mr Herdson! But it is very reasonable to think that the Lib Dems will do very well. How many local Conservatives will have been appalled by the discourteous way Mrs May has behaved towards their very own Mr Cameron? And indeed the change in tone of the whole Conservative approach to governing? Not to mention the personaility and performance of the Conservative candidate - reports of the the first hustings tell of a steady cooling towards him, until at the end he had to be hustled away by his minders.
On top of that, Witney came out strongly for Remain, and this hapless Tory candidate is very much a Leaver. There is every reason why traditional Conservative voters should decide to "send a message" to Mrs May in this byelection.
As a bonus, of course, the Labour candidate is no threat. He currently stands at 400 on Betfair. And the UKIP and Green Party candidates are at 1000. The Tory campaign cannot play that card. It`s a straight choice for the people of Witney, and you know very well what happens when one of them is the Lib Dem candidate!
Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "
That would imply something like Con 50 / LD 30 / Lab 10 / UKIP 5 / loose change.
That would be good for LDs, acceptable for Tories, bad for Labour and UKIP. I would guess that it won't be far off that.
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
If enough small c conservative middle class (in the US sense of the word) people in the US are concerned enough about this enough, their votes combined with the angry wwcs might just be enough for Trump to squeak it.
Because of this, whoever wins will be attempting to set the course of the US long after they are in their grave.
The thought of judicial activist types having a majority in SCOTUS could be enough to make me vote trump, despite everything, it if I had the vote.
Trump isnt very sound on the social issues involved, but Hillary is a grade 1 ism obsessed Social Justice Warrior of the worst sort.
When it comes to voting day such hard headed considerations might do for hillary as did different hard headed considerations do for Kinnock in 1992.
Why then did France continue to allow such immigration into the country? The killer in Nice, for instance, was an unskilled labourer from North Africa who was allowed to move to France in 2003. Why?
Family visa, wife is reported as "French-Tunisian", so I guess she was a French national?
Apparently he wasn't religious and drank like a proper French person, so it's not obvious that immigration should have been able to guess that he'd go religious-homicidal-bonkers 10 years later.
That's not really the point. What benefit to France was it to have an unskilled labourer immigrate into the country? What skills did he bring that could not be found within the country or within the EU itself?
He was a loving husband to his (presumably) French wife. OK, not really, as he turned out to be a scumbag at home as well as a homicidal nutter, but as far as an immigration bureaucrat could have known, he would have been.
This represents a great benefit to a particular French person. I think this is obviously the right question when somebody wants to live with their spouse, particularly as judging the net benefit of a human being to an entire nation is a seriously inexact science.
The interview on the BBC website that talks with a former Apprentice contestant over Trump appearing to have more interest in looks than brains of contestants.
She doesn't half lay it on thick with the surprise and shock that in the entertainment biz there huge amount of focus of a persons attractiveness over their intelligence. As if nobody has heard of the "casting couch" culture in Hollywood and all the stories of waffer thin models been told oi fatty lose some weight.
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
Because of this, whoever wins will be attempting to set the course of the US long after they are in their grave.
The thought of judicial activist types having a majority in SCOTUS could be enough to make me vote trump, despite everything, it if I had the vote.
Trump isnt very sound on the social issues involved, but Hillary is a grade 1 ism obsessed Social Justice Warrior of the worst sort.
When it comes to voting day that might do for hillary as it did for Kinnock.
Lot of maybe's there. I don't see anything in the polls which has the Justices being that high in people's opinions overall, aside in the hard core Trump voters. And Trump isn't making that argument is he, in a coherent and focused manner.
''If enough small c middle class (in the US) people in the US are concerned enough about this enough, their votes combined with the angry wwcs might just be enough for Trump to squeak it.''
I thought last night's news night piece from Ohio was one of the best bits of political broadcasting the BBC have done for a while. No brusque dismissal of Trump supporters as racists. A genuine attempt to understand.
IF you saw it you might cast an sceptical eye over the polls showing Clinton doing so well. What came out of it was the answer to America's woes may well not be Donald Trump, but it sure as hell ain't Hillary Clinton.
If I could venture a prediction: Trump's business empire will falter following an election loss, and it is entirely possible that we see (another) bankruptcy in the near future.
Why?
Firstly, there can be no doubt that Trump's run has damaged his personal brand. Bookings at his hotels are down sharply. And as Gerald Ratner discovered, brand damage can be extremely long lived.
Secondly, Donald has always been a thin sliver of equity on top of a lot of debt. He makes the claim that he has minimal personal debt, his individual projects all have meaningful debt. (The New York Times did an analysis of some of the debt sitting inside his various entities.) My experience is that there is an implicit guarantee with these kind of projects: banks say "Yes, Mr Trump you can borrow at a rate lower than other people, because you agree that if there are probables here, then you will subsidise it with profits from other businesses." In other words, the contingent liabilities might be very significant.
If his empire is 70% debt, 30% equity, then a 30% shift in the enterprise value would wipe him out completely.
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
Because of this, whoever wins will be attempting to set the course of the US long after they are in their grave.
The thought of judicial activist types having a majority in SCOTUS could be enough to make me vote trump, despite everything, it if I had the vote.
Trump isnt very sound on the social issues involved, but Hillary is a grade 1 ism obsessed Social Justice Warrior of the worst sort.
When it comes to voting day that might do for hillary as it did for Kinnock.
Lot of maybe's there. I don't see anything in the polls which has the Justices being that high in people's opinions overall, aside in the hard core Trump voters. And Trump isn't making that argument is he, in a coherent and focused manner.
Of course there are lots of maybes.
But that issue is the only one that would now be big enough to make people like me vote Trump despite everything we now know about him, so it is not something to be just brushed away.
Although I'm not following the parliamentary debate live, judging by the Guardian live blog, Sir Keith Starmer is sounding like a grown-up and making some well-argued points. That's quite a novelty amongst the Shadow front-bench nowadays.
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
Because of this, whoever wins will be attempting to set the course of the US long after they are in their grave.
The thought of judicial activist types having a majority in SCOTUS could be enough to make me vote trump, despite everything, it if I had the vote.
Trump isnt very sound on the social issues involved, but Hillary is a grade 1 ism obsessed Social Justice Warrior of the worst sort.
When it comes to voting day that might do for hillary as it did for Kinnock.
Lot of maybe's there. I don't see anything in the polls which has the Justices being that high in people's opinions overall, aside in the hard core Trump voters. And Trump isn't making that argument is he, in a coherent and focused manner.
Of course there are lots of maybes.
But that issue is the only one that would now be big enough to make people like me vote Trump despite everything we now know about him, so it is not something to be just brushed away.
I'm not brushing it aside, I'm just saying it isn't something which has come up as a major issue in any polls I've seen, and the people who care enough to vote for Trump about it are probably already doing so. I don't see it being enough to sway people repulsed by Trump and Trump isn't making this argument in a coherent way. Though Trump seems to have given up on making any coherent policy arguments other than #MAGA and 'Lock Her Up'/
If I could venture a prediction: Trump's business empire will falter following an election loss, and it is entirely possible that we see (another) bankruptcy in the near future.
Why?
Firstly, there can be no doubt that Trump's run has damaged his personal brand. Bookings at his hotels are down sharply. And as Gerald Ratner discovered, brand damage can be extremely long lived.
Secondly, Donald has always been a thin sliver of equity on top of a lot of debt. He makes the claim that he has minimal personal debt, his individual projects all have meaningful debt. (The New York Times did an analysis of some of the debt sitting inside his various entities.) My experience is that there is an implicit guarantee with these kind of projects: banks say "Yes, Mr Trump you can borrow at a rate lower than other people, because you agree that if there are probables here, then you will subsidise it with profits from other businesses." In other words, the contingent liabilities might be very significant.
If his empire is 70% debt, 30% equity, then a 30% shift in the enterprise value would wipe him out completely.
''If enough small c middle class (in the US) people in the US are concerned enough about this enough, their votes combined with the angry wwcs might just be enough for Trump to squeak it.''
I thought last night's news night piece from Ohio was one of the best bits of political broadcasting the BBC have done for a while. No brusque dismissal of Trump supporters as racists. A genuine attempt to understand.
IF you saw it you might cast an sceptical eye over the polls showing Clinton doing so well. What came out of it was the answer to America's woes may well not be Donald Trump, but it sure as hell ain't Hillary Clinton.
I'd probably rely more on respected polls showing a 9 point lead in Ohio over what a few people said on television. Just me though,
Although I'm not following the parliamentary debate live, judging by the Guardian live blog, Sir Keith Starmer is sounding like a grown-up and making some well-argued points. That's quite a novelty amongst the Shadow front-bench nowadays.
That sort of intellectualism isn't tolerated in Maoist regimes, is it?
Although I'm not following the parliamentary debate live, judging by the Guardian live blog, Sir Keith Starmer is sounding like a grown-up and making some well-argued points. That's quite a novelty amongst the Shadow front-bench nowadays.
He is very impressive and seems professional and not entirely dogmatic. Must be a real prospect for leader.
On a wider point it does seem that this debate is good for democracy and hopefully will introduce sensible dialogue while accepting the vote to leave. Though as David Davis has just said that Keir Starmer's request to answer 170 questions, one for each day to A50 being served, is just a stunt
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?
That phrase is liberal code for judges who will seek to make up law rather than interpret it.
A very good example of this is Roe v Wade. Whatever you think about Abortion, the founding fathers were devout eighteenth century nonconformist protestants who would have viewed it as an utter abomination.
The idea that they intended when writing the constitution to prevent the states from banning abortion is laughable.
The SCOTUS judges who decided this were engaging in judicial activism ie making new laws by intentionally perversely interpreting existing ones.
The threat of Hilary seeing to it that a majority of SCOTUS judges in years to come are such liberal judicial activists would be enough to see to it that me and many like me would vote for him to block this, however repulsive and loathsome a character he is.
I wouldnt go round telling people I was doing that though unless I knew they were of a similar view.
Imagine if remain had won by tiny margin & the govt went for "hard remain" - Schengen, Euro, multilingual signage. People would go apeshit.
A Polish delicatessen on every corner......
Hard Remain was the status quo when the question was worded as such. Soft remain would have been actually getting the crap deal through - which likely wouldn't have happened given it was not a binding agreement with any legal force.
Amazing, after the vote, how many remoaners thought that change would be just fiddling around the edges.
And think that negotiating involves reassuring your opposite number that you'll of course take the crap deal offered because you'll never contemplate the alternative. Oh, wait...that was exactly what Cameron did....
Although I'm not following the parliamentary debate live, judging by the Guardian live blog, Sir Keith Starmer is sounding like a grown-up and making some well-argued points. That's quite a novelty amongst the Shadow front-bench nowadays.
Though as David Davis has just said that Keir Starmer's request to answer 170 questions, one for each day to A50 being served, is just a stunt
Davis would know all about pointless stunts of course.
And good to know that he has such a low view of Parliament.
On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.
They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms
In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?
That phrase is liberal code for judges who will seek to make up law rather than interpret it.
A very good example of this is Roe v Wade. Whatever you think about Abortion, the founding fathers were devout eighteenth century nonconformist protestants who would have viewed it as an utter abomination.
The idea that they intended when writing the constitution to prevent the states from banning abortion is laughable.
The SCOTUS judges who decided this were engaging in judicial activism ie making new laws by intentionally perversely interpreting existing ones.
The threat of Hilary seeing to it that a majority of SCOTUS judges in years to come are such liberal judicial activists would be enough to see to it that me and many like me would vote for him to block this, however repulsive and loathsome a character he is.
I wouldnt go round telling people I was doing that though unless I knew they were of a similar view.
So you would prefer the US to still ban abortion based on the fact that the founding fathers wouldn't have allowed it? That's not back to the 70s that's back to the 1770s.
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?
That phrase is liberal code for judges who will seek to make up law rather than interpret it.
A very good example of this is Roe v Wade. Whatever you think about Abortion, the founding fathers were devout eighteenth century nonconformist protestants who would have viewed it as an utter abomination.
The idea that they intended when writing the constitution to prevent the states from banning abortion is laughable.
The SCOTUS judges who decided this were engaging in judicial activism ie making new laws by intentionally perversely interpreting existing ones.
The threat of Hilary seeing to it that a majority of SCOTUS judges in years to come are such liberal judicial activists would be enough to see to it that me and many like me would vote for him to block this, however repulsive and loathsome a character he is.
I wouldnt go round telling people I was doing that though unless I knew they were of a similar view.
You've made it very clear what YOU think about abortion. I take it you think that the Founding Fathers wanted their values to be set in stone forever. Those values were, of course, at least in part the result of centuries of judicial activism on both sides of the Pond.
Although I'm not following the parliamentary debate live, judging by the Guardian live blog, Sir Keith Starmer is sounding like a grown-up and making some well-argued points. That's quite a novelty amongst the Shadow front-bench nowadays.
He is very impressive and seems professional and not entirely dogmatic. Must be a real prospect for leader.
On a wider point it does seem that this debate is good for democracy and hopefully will introduce sensible dialogue while accepting the vote to leave. Though as David Davis has just said that Keir Starmer's request to answer 170 questions, one for each day to A50 being served, is just a stunt
He absolutely is not professional. His press conferences to announce the bringing of charges would if anyone else had behaved like that bring contempt of court charges on the grounds that nothing is more likely to prejudice a future juror towards a guilty verdict than a really important and official looking and sounding person getting prime time news coverage saying there were sufficient grounds to proceed to trial.
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.
They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms
In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
That is interesting. What did he say about 'Shy Trumpers' or whether the Supreme Court nomination is an important factor? Or was he not that specific?
On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.
They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms
In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
If that's right it's not only the Republicans that need to think hard after the election, the Democrats will have to assume that Clinton is a single term president and plan accordingly.
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?
That phrase is liberal code for judges who will seek to make up law rather than interpret it.
A very good example of this is Roe v Wade. Whatever you think about Abortion, the founding fathers were devout eighteenth century nonconformist protestants who would have viewed it as an utter abomination.
The idea that they intended when writing the constitution to prevent the states from banning abortion is laughable.
The SCOTUS judges who decided this were engaging in judicial activism ie making new laws by intentionally perversely interpreting existing ones.
The threat of Hilary seeing to it that a majority of SCOTUS judges in years to come are such liberal judicial activists would be enough to see to it that me and many like me would vote for him to block this, however repulsive and loathsome a character he is.
I wouldnt go round telling people I was doing that though unless I knew they were of a similar view.
You've made it very clear what YOU think about abortion. I take it you think that the Founding Fathers wanted their values to be set in stone forever. Those values were, of course, at least in part the result of centuries of judicial activism on both sides of the Pond.
Yeah... People who want abortion banned are all in on Trump and are part of his 35% or so.
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
Sod future Labour leader. I backed him to be *next* Labour leader.
The problem with that is that Labour won't want to lose the lock on the mayoralty that they have with Sadiq in the role. He is hugely popular here, and has already delivered on the Night Tube, which was forever delayed by fudge and faff under Boris.
I suspect he is a shoe-in for 2020, if he stands. By what process would he a) become an MP and b) depose Corbyn?
I think he would be an excellent Labour leader – he is a hugely talented, energetic, intelligent guy – but I don't see the path from City Hall to Westminster.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
You have to give the Republican membership a lot of credit in finding just about the only candidate who Hilary has a chance of winning against.
Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "
That would imply something like Con 50 / LD 30 / Lab 10 / UKIP 5 / loose change.
And still a week to go, Mr Herdson! But it is very reasonable to think that the Lib Dems will do very well. How many local Conservatives will have been appalled by the discourteous way Mrs May has behaved towards their very own Mr Cameron? And indeed the change in tone of the whole Conservative approach to governing? Not to mention the personaility and performance of the Conservative candidate - reports of the the first hustings tell of a steady cooling towards him, until at the end he had to be hustled away by his minders.
On top of that, Witney came out strongly for Remain, and this hapless Tory candidate is very much a Leaver. There is every reason why traditional Conservative voters should decide to "send a message" to Mrs May in this byelection.
As a bonus, of course, the Labour candidate is no threat. He currently stands at 400 on Betfair. And the UKIP and Green Party candidates are at 1000. The Tory campaign cannot play that card. It`s a straight choice for the people of Witney, and you know very well what happens when one of them is the Lib Dem candidate!
There was clearly an element of high profile Remainers moving the vote in their constituencies compared to neighbouring MPs. Cameron would have benefitted more than any others - Witney was going to lose the prestige of having the PM as their MP if he lost the Referendum. Plus, if you were already inclined to give the guy your vote, you were probably more inclined to give him a hearing on the big issue of the day.
I suspect there was a sizeable number of voters who would otherwise have voted Leave, but didn't want to line up against their MP. I reckon there would be a big shift to Leave in Witney if there was another vote.
How that impacts on the by-election, I haven't a clue.
Regarding Trump if this was any other candidate in any other election, it would be all over. And even now on paper his opponent should win by a least a country mile if not a landslide.
However, his opponent is Hillary Clinton. A lot of people clearly find Trump repulsive and are saying so openly. A lot of people also find Clinton repulsive but to say so openly is to give tacit approval to Trump so they don't.
Polls have shown that a decent chunk of Hillary voters are anti-Trump not pro-Clinton. If he is written off then their need to vote disappears and does that let him back into contention in states like Florida?
Despite everything, despite all the shocks to the Trump campaign, his video response to the sex tape scandal still rings true for me. That all this is a distraction to the tens of millions of Americans for whom the American dream is an evil fiction. That they are unhappy and they are disconnected and that a vote for the Uber Establishment Clinton changes nothing.
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?
That phrase is liberal code for judges who will seek to make up law rather than interpret it.
A very good example of this is Roe v Wade. Whatever you think about Abortion, the founding fathers were devout eighteenth century nonconformist protestants who would have viewed it as an utter abomination.
The idea that they intended when writing the constitution to prevent the states from banning abortion is laughable.
The SCOTUS judges who decided this were engaging in judicial activism ie making new laws by intentionally perversely interpreting existing ones.
The threat of Hilary seeing to it that a majority of SCOTUS judges in years to come are such liberal judicial activists would be enough to see to it that me and many like me would vote for him to block this, however repulsive and loathsome a character he is.
I wouldnt go round telling people I was doing that though unless I knew they were of a similar view.
So you would prefer the US to still ban abortion based on the fact that the founding fathers wouldn't have allowed it? That's not back to the 70s that's back to the 1770s.
Or he'd prefer it to be legalised via Congress rather than via the courts. Like Parliament legalised it here.
It should be remembered the founding fathers weren't the beacons of liberty, truth, and justice, after all they valued a negro as three fifths of a white man.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
You have to give the Republican membership a lot of credit in finding just about the only candidate who Hilary has a chance of winning against.
The very worst thing that can be levelled against Trump is that he is about the only guy that could have given Hillary the free pass to the Presidency, without her enduring the level of scrutiny that should (IMHO) have barred her from office.
On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.
They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms
In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
That is interesting. What did he say about 'Shy Trumpers' or whether the Supreme Court nomination is an important factor? Or was he not that specific?
Trumpers aren't shy, far from it.
If they have concerns about supreme court nominations, they can vote for the appropriate senator if they have an election this year.
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?
That phrase is liberal code for judges who will seek to make up law rather than interpret it.
A very good example of this is Roe v Wade. Whatever you think about Abortion, the founding fathers were devout eighteenth century nonconformist protestants who would have viewed it as an utter abomination.
The idea that they intended when writing the constitution to prevent the states from banning abortion is laughable.
The SCOTUS judges who decided this were engaging in judicial activism ie making new laws by intentionally perversely interpreting existing ones.
The threat of Hilary seeing to it that a majority of SCOTUS judges in years to come are such liberal judicial activists would be enough to see to it that me and many like me would vote for him to block this, however repulsive and loathsome a character he is.
I wouldnt go round telling people I was doing that though unless I knew they were of a similar view.
So you would prefer the US to still ban abortion based on the fact that the founding fathers wouldn't have allowed it? That's not back to the 70s that's back to the 1770s.
It also misses the point that abortion wasn't illegal in Texas if it was to save the mothers life.
It should be remembered the founding fathers weren't the beacons of liberty, truth, and justice, after all they valued a negro as three fifths of a white man.
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?
Supreme Court's sole role is to interpret the Constitution. Arguably real life would be a distraction from their duty!
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.
Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.
It should be remembered the founding fathers weren't the beacons of liberty, truth, and justice, after all they valued a negro as three fifths of a white man.
You could buy a white man through slavery?
Plenty of white slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries. Have you never read Robinson Crusoe? I'd be wary of judging historical figures by modern standards. Maybe we should then decry all modern Muslims as they split umma/dhimmi and their value 100/50 in eg court cases.
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
I must have imagined those congressional hearings, special prosecutors, FBI investigation etc
No scrutiny! Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
You have to give the Republican membership a lot of credit in finding just about the only candidate who Hilary has a chance of winning against.
Not so. I think the GOP field was very weak indeed and all of the candidates would have struggled to beat her. I'm not sure this "even a spaniel with a red rosette would have beaten Hillary" meme has much basis in fact.
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
A star is born.
Yes, straight in at no. 1 (I wonder what happened to braeside01) but work needed on the distinction between predicting and approving outcomes. Like a lot of other posters, to be fair.
Regarding Trump if this was any other candidate in any other election, it would be all over. And even now on paper his opponent should win by a least a country mile if not a landslide.
However, his opponent is Hillary Clinton. A lot of people clearly find Trump repulsive and are saying so openly. A lot of people also find Clinton repulsive but to say so openly is to give tacit approval to Trump so they don't.
Polls have shown that a decent chunk of Hillary voters are anti-Trump not pro-Clinton. If he is written off then their need to vote disappears and does that let him back into contention in states like Florida?
Despite everything, despite all the shocks to the Trump campaign, his video response to the sex tape scandal still rings true for me. That all this is a distraction to the tens of millions of Americans for whom the American dream is an evil fiction. That they are unhappy and they are disconnected and that a vote for the Uber Establishment Clinton changes nothing.
So I'm not prepared to write him off just yet...
The latest polls have him losing the debate, and that line has not cut through passed the debate, because he decided to start a civil war in his own party.
That would be a decent line for a more disciplined candidate, but that's not Trump
Although I'm not following the parliamentary debate live, judging by the Guardian live blog, Sir Keith Starmer is sounding like a grown-up and making some well-argued points. That's quite a novelty amongst the Shadow front-bench nowadays.
He is very impressive and seems professional and not entirely dogmatic. Must be a real prospect for leader.
On a wider point it does seem that this debate is good for democracy and hopefully will introduce sensible dialogue while accepting the vote to leave. Though as David Davis has just said that Keir Starmer's request to answer 170 questions, one for each day to A50 being served, is just a stunt
He absolutely is not professional. His press conferences to announce the bringing of charges would if anyone else had behaved like that bring contempt of court charges on the grounds that nothing is more likely to prejudice a future juror towards a guilty verdict than a really important and official looking and sounding person getting prime time news coverage saying there were sufficient grounds to proceed to trial.
In the context of his performance today he was impressive and seemed professional and remember I am a conservative and a brexiteer
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.
Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.
Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.
Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
You have to give the Republican membership a lot of credit in finding just about the only candidate who Hilary has a chance of winning against.
Not so. I think the GOP field was very weak indeed and all of the candidates would have struggled to beat her. I'm not sure this "even a spaniel with a red rosette would have beaten Hillary" meme has much basis in fact.
Yeah. Maybe Rubio, but I suspect she would have bested him in the debate. Would have been closer though.
On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.
They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms
In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
If that's right it's not only the Republicans that need to think hard after the election, the Democrats will have to assume that Clinton is a single term president and plan accordingly.
I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020.
On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.
They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms
In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
If that's right it's not only the Republicans that need to think hard after the election, the Democrats will have to assume that Clinton is a single term president and plan accordingly.
Indeed, she might decide voluntarily to be a President Juan Term
Although I'm not following the parliamentary debate live, judging by the Guardian live blog, Sir Keith Starmer is sounding like a grown-up and making some well-argued points. That's quite a novelty amongst the Shadow front-bench nowadays.
He is very impressive and seems professional and not entirely dogmatic. Must be a real prospect for leader.
On a wider point it does seem that this debate is good for democracy and hopefully will introduce sensible dialogue while accepting the vote to leave. Though as David Davis has just said that Keir Starmer's request to answer 170 questions, one for each day to A50 being served, is just a stunt
He absolutely is not professional. His press conferences to announce the bringing of charges would if anyone else had behaved like that bring contempt of court charges on the grounds that nothing is more likely to prejudice a future juror towards a guilty verdict than a really important and official looking and sounding person getting prime time news coverage saying there were sufficient grounds to proceed to trial.
In the context of his performance today he was impressive and seemed professional and remember I am a conservative and a brexiteer
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
I must have imagined those congressional hearings, special prosecutors, FBI investigation etc
No scrutiny! Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?
Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "
That would imply something like Con 50 / LD 30 / Lab 10 / UKIP 5 / loose change.
And still a week to go, Mr Herdson! But it is very reasonable to think that the Lib Dems will do very well. How many local Conservatives will have been appalled by the discourteous way Mrs May has behaved towards their very own Mr Cameron? And indeed the change in tone of the whole Conservative approach to governing? Not to mention the personaility and performance of the Conservative candidate - reports of the the first hustings tell of a steady cooling towards him, until at the end he had to be hustled away by his minders.
On top of that, Witney came out strongly for Remain, and this hapless Tory candidate is very much a Leaver. There is every reason why traditional Conservative voters should decide to "send a message" to Mrs May in this byelection.
As a bonus, of course, the Labour candidate is no threat. He currently stands at 400 on Betfair. And the UKIP and Green Party candidates are at 1000. The Tory campaign cannot play that card. It`s a straight choice for the people of Witney, and you know very well what happens when one of them is the Lib Dem candidate!
There was clearly an element of high profile Remainers moving the vote in their constituencies compared to neighbouring MPs. Cameron would have benefitted more than any others - Witney was going to lose the prestige of having the PM as their MP if he lost the Referendum. Plus, if you were already inclined to give the guy your vote, you were probably more inclined to give him a hearing on the big issue of the day.
I suspect there was a sizeable number of voters who would otherwise have voted Leave, but didn't want to line up against their MP. I reckon there would be a big shift to Leave in Witney if there was another vote.
How that impacts on the by-election, I haven't a clue.
Weren't many of the home county seats north west of London - in the belt up to Oxford and across to the Cotswolds and Bristol (where the proportion of people with qualifications is probably higher than in Kent or Essex) declared for Remain? I don't remember Witney being particularly out of line?
On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.
They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms
In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
If that's right it's not only the Republicans that need to think hard after the election, the Democrats will have to assume that Clinton is a single term president and plan accordingly.
I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020.
Her approval ratings went up massively during her first senatorial term. And don't forget, the republican's still have their primary voters who want a crazy racist like Trump to be elected.
Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "
That would imply something like Con 50 / LD 30 / Lab 10 / UKIP 5 / loose change.
And still a week to go, Mr Herdson! But it is very reasonable to think that the Lib Dems will do very well. How many local Conservatives will have been appalled by the discourteous way Mrs May has behaved towards their very own Mr Cameron? And indeed the change in tone of the whole Conservative approach to governing? Not to mention the personaility and performance of the Conservative candidate - reports of the the first hustings tell of a steady cooling towards him, until at the end he had to be hustled away by his minders.
On top of that, Witney came out strongly for Remain, and this hapless Tory candidate is very much a Leaver. There is every reason why traditional Conservative voters should decide to "send a message" to Mrs May in this byelection.
As a bonus, of course, the Labour candidate is no threat. He currently stands at 400 on Betfair. And the UKIP and Green Party candidates are at 1000. The Tory campaign cannot play that card. It`s a straight choice for the people of Witney, and you know very well what happens when one of them is the Lib Dem candidate!
There was clearly an element of high profile Remainers moving the vote in their constituencies compared to neighbouring MPs. Cameron would have benefitted more than any others - Witney was going to lose the prestige of having the PM as their MP if he lost the Referendum. Plus, if you were already inclined to give the guy your vote, you were probably more inclined to give him a hearing on the big issue of the day.
I suspect there was a sizeable number of voters who would otherwise have voted Leave, but didn't want to line up against their MP. I reckon there would be a big shift to Leave in Witney if there was another vote.
How that impacts on the by-election, I haven't a clue.
Weren't many of the home county seats north west of London - in the belt up to Oxford and across to the Cotswolds and Bristol (where the proportion of people with qualifications is probably higher than in Kent or Essex) declared for Remain? I don't remember Witney being particularly out of line?
That's right: Tory Remainia – a big band of Remain yellow in a blue Leaver sea
Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "
That would imply something like Con 50 / LD 30 / Lab 10 / UKIP 5 / loose change.
And still a week to go, Mr Herdson! But it is very reasonable to think that the Lib Dems will do very well. How many local Conservatives will have been appalled by the discourteous way Mrs May has behaved towards their very own Mr Cameron? And indeed the change in tone of the whole Conservative approach to governing? Not to mention the personaility and performance of the Conservative candidate - reports of the the first hustings tell of a steady cooling towards him, until at the end he had to be hustled away by his minders.
On top of that, Witney came out strongly for Remain, and this hapless Tory candidate is very much a Leaver. There is every reason why traditional Conservative voters should decide to "send a message" to Mrs May in this byelection.
As a bonus, of course, the Labour candidate is no threat. He currently stands at 400 on Betfair. And the UKIP and Green Party candidates are at 1000. The Tory campaign cannot play that card. It`s a straight choice for the people of Witney, and you know very well what happens when one of them is the Lib Dem candidate!
I expect the LDs to do well in the by-election, but to win from fourth place and 6.8% against 60% for the Tory would be beyond anything that has been achieved before by any party. (I await contradiction ;-) )
On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.
They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms
In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
If that's right it's not only the Republicans that need to think hard after the election, the Democrats will have to assume that Clinton is a single term president and plan accordingly.
I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020.
I think highly unlikely we will see Clinton in 2020. Not buying into the conspiracy theory nuts of Parkinsons or whatever their latest theory is, it is no secret she does have a number of long term health conditions and the next 5-10 years are going to be extremely testing.
I think after 5 years and being the first woman POTUS that will be enough.
Comments
Look, I predicted that the SNP would poll 50% of the Scottish votes in the 2015 General Election. (It was 49.9 something % - so sue me!) I'm now predicting that the SNP high tide has been and gone.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
@rhiannonlucyc
Imagine if remain had won by tiny margin & the govt went for "hard remain" - Schengen, Euro, multilingual signage. People would go apeshit.
I reckon he has a Gentleman's agreement with Andrew Neil on partiality pairing.
SindyRef2 - 'yes' or 'no'?
They won't, however, go apeshit about leaving the EU when the country has voted for it. Remaining subject to the ECJ, to Commission directives, to free movement of people and paying a membership fee for the privilege is not leaving the EU in any meaningful way; it'd simply be keeping the obligations while giving up the influence.
Mebbe you should short some Trump CDSs...
You can make a town of several thousand voters look dominated for one side just by putting up a few dozen posters on the main thoroughfares and streets, and in every seat I've ever campaigned the Lib Dems have been much better at it, but it doesn't translate into votes.
It can, at best, demoralise the opposition activists and imply to voters that (for instance) the LDs might stand a sporting chance, so isn't a wasted vote, but tells you very little about the result.
There was no status quo available.
'How Redneck Are You?'
http://tinyurl.com/hqvpwf9
I suspect it will be a moderately successful pitch.
On top of that, Witney came out strongly for Remain, and this hapless Tory candidate is very much a Leaver. There is every reason why traditional Conservative voters should decide to "send a message" to Mrs May in this byelection.
As a bonus, of course, the Labour candidate is no threat. He currently stands at 400 on Betfair. And the UKIP and Green Party candidates are at 1000. The Tory campaign cannot play that card. It`s a straight choice for the people of Witney, and you know very well what happens when one of them is the Lib Dem candidate!
I would guess that it won't be far off that.
Davis not delighted.
Because of this, whoever wins will be attempting to set the course of the US long after they are in their grave.
The thought of judicial activist types having a majority in SCOTUS could be enough to make me vote trump, despite everything,
it if I had the vote.
Trump isnt very sound on the social issues involved, but Hillary is a grade 1 ism obsessed Social Justice Warrior of the worst sort.
When it comes to voting day such hard headed considerations might do for hillary as did different hard headed considerations do for Kinnock in 1992.
Labour: "The focus on Russian atrocities sometimes diverts attention away from other civilian casualties that have been taking place" #syria
WTF?
This represents a great benefit to a particular French person. I think this is obviously the right question when somebody wants to live with their spouse, particularly as judging the net benefit of a human being to an entire nation is a seriously inexact science.
She doesn't half lay it on thick with the surprise and shock that in the entertainment biz there huge amount of focus of a persons attractiveness over their intelligence. As if nobody has heard of the "casting couch" culture in Hollywood and all the stories of waffer thin models been told oi fatty lose some weight.
I thought last night's news night piece from Ohio was one of the best bits of political broadcasting the BBC have done for a while. No brusque dismissal of Trump supporters as racists. A genuine attempt to understand.
IF you saw it you might cast an sceptical eye over the polls showing Clinton doing so well. What came out of it was the answer to America's woes may well not be Donald Trump, but it sure as hell ain't Hillary Clinton.
But that issue is the only one that would now be big enough to make people like me vote Trump despite everything we now know about him, so it is not something to be just brushed away.
Or are there simple systems in place to stop this?
On a wider point it does seem that this debate is good for democracy and hopefully will introduce sensible dialogue while accepting the vote to leave. Though as David Davis has just said that Keir Starmer's request to answer 170 questions, one for each day to A50 being served, is just a stunt
A very good example of this is Roe v Wade. Whatever you think about Abortion, the founding fathers were devout eighteenth century nonconformist protestants who would have viewed it as an utter abomination.
The idea that they intended when writing the constitution to prevent the states from banning abortion is laughable.
The SCOTUS judges who decided this were engaging in judicial activism ie making new laws by intentionally perversely interpreting existing ones.
The threat of Hilary seeing to it that a majority of SCOTUS judges in years to come are such liberal judicial activists would be enough to see to it that me and many like me would vote for him to block this, however repulsive and loathsome a character he is.
I wouldnt go round telling people I was doing that though unless I knew they were of a similar view.
Amazing, after the vote, how many remoaners thought that change would be just fiddling around the edges.
And think that negotiating involves reassuring your opposite number that you'll of course take the crap deal offered because you'll never contemplate the alternative. Oh, wait...that was exactly what Cameron did....
And good to know that he has such a low view of Parliament.
They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms
In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
That's not back to the 70s that's back to the 1770s.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/786186523939078144
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/786186671809232896
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
Its amazing who Remainers will follow if it means slowing Brexit down.
Almost as amazing as those leftists fretting about losing City revenues.
I suspect he is a shoe-in for 2020, if he stands. By what process would he a) become an MP and b) depose Corbyn?
I think he would be an excellent Labour leader – he is a hugely talented, energetic, intelligent guy – but I don't see the path from City Hall to Westminster.
I suspect there was a sizeable number of voters who would otherwise have voted Leave, but didn't want to line up against their MP. I reckon there would be a big shift to Leave in Witney if there was another vote.
How that impacts on the by-election, I haven't a clue.
However, his opponent is Hillary Clinton. A lot of people clearly find Trump repulsive and are saying so openly. A lot of people also find Clinton repulsive but to say so openly is to give tacit approval to Trump so they don't.
Polls have shown that a decent chunk of Hillary voters are anti-Trump not pro-Clinton. If he is written off then their need to vote disappears and does that let him back into contention in states like Florida?
Despite everything, despite all the shocks to the Trump campaign, his video response to the sex tape scandal still rings true for me. That all this is a distraction to the tens of millions of Americans for whom the American dream is an evil fiction. That they are unhappy and they are disconnected and that a vote for the Uber Establishment Clinton changes nothing.
So I'm not prepared to write him off just yet...
If they have concerns about supreme court nominations, they can vote for the appropriate senator if they have an election this year.
A true shocker of a poll for the Trumpeter. Is there any way back for him from here?
Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.
No scrutiny! Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?
That would be a decent line for a more disciplined candidate, but that's not Trump
Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?
https://twitter.com/JWoodcockMP/status/786184848566255617
you mean... FBI "investigation"
You need to put scare quotes around it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/stop-the-war-oppose-the-west-and-support-dictators-they-are-trai/
(I await contradiction ;-) )
https://twitter.com/DavidAllenGreen/status/786190771158482944
I think after 5 years and being the first woman POTUS that will be enough.