"NICOLA Sturgeon will need Westminster co-operation to hold a second independence referendum, ministers have confirmed.
A draft referendum bill, published this morning, show that a Section 30 order temporarily transferring legal powers to Holyrood would be sought if the legislation is introduced at the Scottish Parliament.
In a pre-amble to a consultation accompanying the draft bill, the Scottish Government states that it would be "expected" that a Section 30 order would be granted, as it was ahead of the 2014 vote."
I think "expected" is a tad optimistic.
PB Yoons in all their convoluted glory:
'The Nats would never win a 2nd referendum, that's why Nicola's stopped mentioning it.'
Sturgeon has just said she's starting a consultation on a new referendum bill and that she thinks it's highly likely that there will be a 2nd referendum.
(Yoon starts gabbling slightly) 'That's only posturing, she definitely won't have a 2nd referendum, besides she'd lose it and that would be the issue settled once and for all, and they'd need the permission of Westminster anyway.'
Why doesn't Tessy offer them a referendum then?
Long silence.
'We know that referendums are nasty, divisive things that causes elected politicians and immigrants to be murdered and assaulted.'
Speak for yourself.
Mrs May could easily turn it down on
a) There was a referendum 2 years ago b) There is no change in the polling c) The expense of another referendum d) A period of uncertainty from another referendum is not in the national interest at this time
So even if she (like everyone else) can see that the Nats would lose again , she can turn it down with plenty of justification.
Raddled heavyweight champ refuses rematch with hungry contender.
"NICOLA Sturgeon will need Westminster co-operation to hold a second independence referendum, ministers have confirmed.
A draft referendum bill, published this morning, show that a Section 30 order temporarily transferring legal powers to Holyrood would be sought if the legislation is introduced at the Scottish Parliament.
In a pre-amble to a consultation accompanying the draft bill, the Scottish Government states that it would be "expected" that a Section 30 order would be granted, as it was ahead of the 2014 vote."
I think "expected" is a tad optimistic.
Obviously they don't expect anything of the kind. They could well lose a Westminster sanctioned referendum. The interesting thing is whether they go ahead with an unsanctioned Catalonia-style referendum. It could work for them either way. Theresa May blocks Scotland from exercising its democratic right. They will almost certainly win an unofficial referendum by a big margin on a low turnout. Those opposed to independence won't vote in it. They can then say 80%, or whatever, of Scots voted for independence.
But it is pointless twattery from the SNP. They have had their "once in a generation" shot. It needs Westminster to play ball. Otherwise it would be like giving your teenagers the right to sell the family home.
Any views on turnout in the presidential election? My assumption is that it might be higher than usual - the intensity with which both candidates are disliked will provoke many to vote against the one that they hate most. Do others feel differently?
My view is Rep turnout depressed, Dem turnout up. Overall a wash. 55%
It really won't fly. Scotland has a coherence that Wales and Ireland lacked. It was why England could invade Scotland at will but could never hold the country. Apart from Cromwell who had to use the most powerful army in Britain before the First World War to lock Scotland down.
I'm not so sure. Scotland didn't have much coherence between lowland and highland until the 1500s or 1600s. In fact, you might even be able to go as far as to say General Wade introduced that coherence by use of military might and infrastructure.
In that respect, when you talk about 'Scotland' you are mainly referring to the Forth-Clyde and south; the important part from a strategic point of view.
A bit like the myth about Eskimos having a dozen words for snow, Scots has several words for forceful and purposeless argument: rammy, stramash, stooshie and so on. In the end we are all Scots - Jock Tamson's bairns - and we will sort something out eventually. Seventeenth century Highland chieftains saw themselves as Scots. No doubt about it.
"With less than three weeks to go, and all of the debates blessedly in the rearview mirror, Clinton is in a commanding position in the contest to become the 45th president."
What about Scots living outside Scotland,not least those living in the rest of the U.K.?
Why don't they get to vote on the future of the country they were born in?
Well, David Cameron has set the precedent for that..
Actually first time round I thought that some acknowledgment should be made to ex pat/economic migrant (delete to taste) Scots: perhaps being on the Holyrood voters' roll at some point since 1998, or some reasonably convoluted application system that ensured they would have to make some effort to get a vote. However (much like smokers and the smoking in pubs ban) they turned out to be such self pitying whiners, I now think sod them.
"self pitying whiners"
You mean Scottish Nationalists?
Ah, invective at the 'your mum smells' level. Always shatteringly effective.
Your words, mate. Your words.
I'm not your mate.
You could both join UKIP, then take it 'outside'.
Wash your mouth out! I'd never join UKIP.
They're too sensible for me.
But if you joined they'd probably make you leader ...
"NICOLA Sturgeon will need Westminster co-operation to hold a second independence referendum, ministers have confirmed.
A draft referendum bill, published this morning, show that a Section 30 order temporarily transferring legal powers to Holyrood would be sought if the legislation is introduced at the Scottish Parliament.
In a pre-amble to a consultation accompanying the draft bill, the Scottish Government states that it would be "expected" that a Section 30 order would be granted, as it was ahead of the 2014 vote."
I think "expected" is a tad optimistic.
PB Yoons in all their convoluted glory:
'The Nats would never win a 2nd referendum, that's why Nicola's stopped mentioning it.'
Sturgeon has just said she's starting a consultation on a new referendum bill and that she thinks it's highly likely that there will be a 2nd referendum.
(Yoon starts gabbling slightly) 'That's only posturing, she definitely won't have a 2nd referendum, besides she'd lose it and that would be the issue settled once and for all, and they'd need the permission of Westminster anyway.'
Why doesn't Tessy offer them a referendum then?
Long silence.
'We know that referendums are nasty, divisive things that causes elected politicians and immigrants to be murdered and assaulted.'
Speak for yourself.
Mrs May could easily turn it down on
a) There was a referendum 2 years ago b) There is no change in the polling c) The expense of another referendum d) A period of uncertainty from another referendum is not in the national interest at this time
So even if she (like everyone else) can see that the Nats would lose again , she can turn it down with plenty of justification.
Raddled heavyweight champ refuses rematch with hungry contender.
'I'd win it easy so there's no point.'
Disappointed in that comeback to be honest - I thought you'd have a decent counter argument.
I agree on the current land border being rock solid but during the 11th and 12th centuries (and a bit after that too) the border wibbled quite a bit, I think.
As for coherency, aren't England and Wales in precisely the same boat?
Berwick is the biggest wibble. It was Scotland's main port in the early Middle Ages. However it has been in English hands continuously since the end of the fifteenth century. I am guessing the inhabitants won't vote to join an independent Scotland in a referendum but I see no reason to stop them if they do. For completeness there was a Norwegian colony in Orkney, Shetland and Sutherland, which they also lost in the fifteenth century (and for which I think they still could make a claim if they wanted to?)
England's other land border is with Wales but I don't know the dynamics of that. Isn't there an issue about Monmouthshire?
My grandfather is from Monmouth and tells me there was a referendum on whether it should become part of England. My great-grandfather didn't really like the Welsh apparently so voted Yes but it was No that won. Slightly ironic as my grandfather then went on to captain Wales to the Grand Slam on two occasions!
Any views on turnout in the presidential election? My assumption is that it might be higher than usual - the intensity with which both candidates are disliked will provoke many to vote against the one that they hate most. Do others feel differently?
% for "none of the top two" might be an interesting market - I would bet higher than usual.
I would have thought lower than usual, but I think Trump is turning into a massive hate figure over there, so would imagine more people than usual may vote to keep him out
This mainly looks into the demographics of who voted Yes or No.
Lord Ashcroft did a study similar to the one he did later for the EURef. They both suffer in my view from asking complicated, leading and limiting questions about why people voted the way the way they did.
"NICOLA Sturgeon will need Westminster co-operation to hold a second independence referendum, ministers have confirmed.
A draft referendum bill, published this morning, show that a Section 30 order temporarily transferring legal powers to Holyrood would be sought if the legislation is introduced at the Scottish Parliament.
In a pre-amble to a consultation accompanying the draft bill, the Scottish Government states that it would be "expected" that a Section 30 order would be granted, as it was ahead of the 2014 vote."
I think "expected" is a tad optimistic.
PB Yoons in all their convoluted glory:
'The Nats would never win a 2nd referendum, that's why Nicola's stopped mentioning it.'
Sturgeon has just said she's starting a consultation on a new referendum bill and that she thinks it's highly likely that there will be a 2nd referendum.
(Yoon starts gabbling slightly) 'That's only posturing, she definitely won't have a 2nd referendum, besides she'd lose it and that would be the issue settled once and for all, and they'd need the permission of Westminster anyway.'
Why doesn't Tessy offer them a referendum then?
Long silence.
'We know that referendums are nasty, divisive things that causes elected politicians and immigrants to be murdered and assaulted.'
Speak for yourself.
Mrs May could easily turn it down on
a) There was a referendum 2 years ago b) There is no change in the polling c) The expense of another referendum d) A period of uncertainty from another referendum is not in the national interest at this time
So even if she (like everyone else) can see that the Nats would lose again , she can turn it down with plenty of justification.
Raddled heavyweight champ refuses rematch with hungry contender.
'I'd win it easy so there's no point.'
Disappointed in that comeback to be honest - I thought you'd have a decent counter argument.
Given that your 'justifications' are just a rehash of my not very satirical take on Yoonery, you can feel confident that I'm never disappointed by your contributions.
That article is a interesting read from the point of view of the BrExit negotiations. We heard a lot here a few days ago about how people like Tusk and his HardBrExit/NoBrExit didn't really matter because in reality the decision was going to be made by the European Council, and then we read this:
even as the European Council — where the national leaders gather — has grown ever less powerful on anything that does not regard the eurozone. In the so-called trilogues — in which officials from the three major EU institutions meet to hash out directives — the Commission and the Parliament often steamroller the Council.
To my mind, there's a bigger question than who wins the presidency. It's whether America can stop the rot.
There are big problems in the US at the moment. Without getting all SeanT over this, it's still the greatest country in the world, but other countries are yapping at its heels, wanting its place.
The problem is that Americans cannot agree on what the problems are, yet alone the solutions. They just have a nagging feeling that their rightful position is being threatened.
America being usurped by China and/or others is not inevitable. China itself faces significant problems. But America is being thrust forwards by inertia, not leadership. And four or eight years of Trump or Clinton won't fix this. Neither have the capability of bringing the country together.
I doubt their broken political system will allow such a leader to reach a position where they could do any good. Their political system is utterly broken, and the last system you would choose if you wanted real democracy.
Having said all that, I have little doubt that Trump would accelerate the rot. As such, Clinton is the best choice for America. Which in itself is a symbol of their malaise.
I don't think America can stop the rot. Its hegemony has been in decline for decades.
We are looking at the flipside of globalisation, where the rich look more like each other whether in London, California, Shanghai and Mumbai, and the mob look like each other too, whether in Ohio or Kyiv.
And the mob in Workington, West Virginia, Wroclaw and Vladivostok have observed that the rich in those places care only about the rich in each others places, and not a fig for the rest; and are starting to vote accordingly.
When in history was it ever really any different? It is getting worse not better with globalisation and I don't criticise those left behind for being angry behind but I do question what they see as the solution (Brexit and Trump).
It is easy to say globalisation has made everything worse, but is this backed by any evidence? It is quite possible that widespread protectionism over the last 30 years would have made things worse.
Possibly but the point I was really trying to make was that those not doing well economically are largely right be peed off but are opting for the wrong solution in Trump and Brexit.
This is my take on things too. People are right to look for leaders with something different to say but so far we've got Farage, Corbyn and Trump of whom are the wrong alternatives.
"NICOLA Sturgeon will need Westminster co-operation to hold a second independence referendum, ministers have confirmed.
A draft referendum bill, published this morning, show that a Section 30 order temporarily transferring legal powers to Holyrood would be sought if the legislation is introduced at the Scottish Parliament.
In a pre-amble to a consultation accompanying the draft bill, the Scottish Government states that it would be "expected" that a Section 30 order would be granted, as it was ahead of the 2014 vote."
I think "expected" is a tad optimistic.
PB Yoons in all their convoluted glory:
'The Nats would never win a 2nd referendum, that's why Nicola's stopped mentioning it.'
Sturgeon has just said she's starting a consultation on a new referendum bill and that she thinks it's highly likely that there will be a 2nd referendum.
(Yoon starts gabbling slightly) 'That's only posturing, she definitely won't have a 2nd referendum, besides she'd lose it and that would be the issue settled once and for all, and they'd need the permission of Westminster anyway.'
Why doesn't Tessy offer them a referendum then?
Long silence.
'We know that referendums are nasty, divisive things that causes elected politicians and immigrants to be murdered and assaulted.'
Speak for yourself.
Mrs May could easily turn it down on
a) There was a referendum 2 years ago b) There is no change in the polling c) The expense of another referendum d) A period of uncertainty from another referendum is not in the national interest at this time
So even if she (like everyone else) can see that the Nats would lose again , she can turn it down with plenty of justification.
Raddled heavyweight champ refuses rematch with hungry contender.
'I'd win it easy so there's no point.'
Disappointed in that comeback to be honest - I thought you'd have a decent counter argument.
Given that your 'justifications' are just a rehash of my not very satirical take on Yoonery, you can feel confident that I'm never disappointed by your contributions.
It really won't fly. Scotland has a coherence that Wales and Ireland lacked. It was why England could invade Scotland at will but could never hold the country. Apart from Cromwell who had to use the most powerful army in Britain before the First World War to lock Scotland down.
I'm not so sure. Scotland didn't have much coherence between lowland and highland until the 1500s or 1600s. In fact, you might even be able to go as far as to say General Wade introduced that coherence by use of military might and infrastructure.
In that respect, when you talk about 'Scotland' you are mainly referring to the Forth-Clyde and south; the important part from a strategic point of view.
A bit like the myth about Eskimos having a dozen words for snow, Scots has several words for forceful and purposeless argument: rammy, stramash, stooshie and so on. In the end we are all Scots - Jock Tamson's bairns - and we will sort something out eventually. Seventeenth century Highland chieftains saw themselves as Scots. No doubt about it.
But the Scots and Picts distinction goes way back into pre-history and the kingdom of Strathclyde etc. English settlement into the Scottish lowlands over the centuries subsequent magnified the separateness of the highlands.
Very good, if entirely unsurprising, news for SNP fans.
It's an expected consequence of the reduction in seat count. Dominance within an area is intensified with fewer seats in first past the post.
Using 2015 GE voting is probably a mistake however, given the Unionist challenger in seats was less well known and the vote more split. They don't say which seat was extremely close do they?
"NICOLA Sturgeon will need Westminster co-operation to hold a second independence referendum, ministers have confirmed.
A draft referendum bill, published this morning, show that a Section 30 order temporarily transferring legal powers to Holyrood would be sought if the legislation is introduced at the Scottish Parliament.
In a pre-amble to a consultation accompanying the draft bill, the Scottish Government states that it would be "expected" that a Section 30 order would be granted, as it was ahead of the 2014 vote."
I think "expected" is a tad optimistic.
PB Yoons in all their convoluted glory:
'The Nats would never win a 2nd referendum, that's why Nicola's stopped mentioning it.'
Sturgeon has just said she's starting a consultation on a new referendum bill and that she thinks it's highly likely that there will be a 2nd referendum.
(Yoon starts gabbling slightly) 'That's only posturing, she definitely won't have a 2nd referendum, besides she'd lose it and that would be the issue settled once and for all, and they'd need the permission of Westminster anyway.'
Why doesn't Tessy offer them a referendum then?
Long silence.
'We know that referendums are nasty, divisive things that causes elected politicians and immigrants to be murdered and assaulted.'
Speak for yourself.
Mrs May could easily turn it down on
a) There was a referendum 2 years ago b) There is no change in the polling c) The expense of another referendum d) A period of uncertainty from another referendum is not in the national interest at this time
So even if she (like everyone else) can see that the Nats would lose again , she can turn it down with plenty of justification.
Raddled heavyweight champ refuses rematch with hungry contender.
'I'd win it easy so there's no point.'
Disappointed in that comeback to be honest - I thought you'd have a decent counter argument.
Given that your 'justifications' are just a rehash of my not very satirical take on Yoonery, you can feel confident that I'm never disappointed by your contributions.
Your deflection is revealing and reassuring.
It's revealing though unsurprising that you so desperately need reassurance
The FT reports that Hammond at the Treasury Select Committee y'day is keen to exclude students from the migration numbers.
Tyrie cited a survey in which only 1/5 of people considered students migrants.
Would very much help get some sanity back; assist in May's delivery of targets (which I think ought to have been abandoned completely); and protect one of major export industries.
What's not to like?
Something is not to like but I really cannot remember what or why -- but this question of whether to count students was a bone of contention between May, Osborne and Cable through most of the coalition period iirc.
Any views on turnout in the presidential election? My assumption is that it might be higher than usual - the intensity with which both candidates are disliked will provoke many to vote against the one that they hate most. Do others feel differently?
Yes, I can also see potential with that as a solid theory.
As someone who sees little merit in Trump as a candidate (apart from his Supreme Court potential nominees) I would still turn out in a hurricane to vote for him and keep Hillary out at all costs.
My position would be far from unique and would certainly be mirrored on the other side.
Our regressions allow for a counterfactual analysis. We find that relatively modest reductions in fiscal cuts at the local authority level (less than £50 per person) may have been sufficient to lead to the opposite referendum outcome, pushing the Vote Leave share below 50 percent.
But the correlation between UKIP / BNP voting is not exactly much use as a conclusion. That simply shows they were disaffected in 2010 and 2015 so its hardly surprising that they picked the disaffected (leave) option in 2016.
The report would be far more use if it focused on why those people are disaffected.
Roland Rudd @RolandRudd @Simon_Nixon@DanielKorski Cameron ran and governed as most Eurosceptic Conservative only to tell us it would be a catastrophe if we left.
Also intetesting Mr Meeks retweeted claims telegraph showed a picture of somebody who isn't even one of the child migrants...guess who is shown in this article arrived in the UK.
Any views on turnout in the presidential election? My assumption is that it might be higher than usual - the intensity with which both candidates are disliked will provoke many to vote against the one that they hate most. Do others feel differently?
Yes, I can also see potential with that as a solid theory.
As someone who sees little merit in Trump as a candidate (apart from his Supreme Court potential nominees) I would still turn out in a hurricane to vote for him and keep Hillary out at all costs.
My position would be far from unique and would certainly be mirrored on the other side.
I think there will be a slight to moderate differential in turnout against Trump, in that whilst Hillary has unfavourables she isn't clearly beyond the pail. The Democratic Party is united broadly around its nominee, the GOP blatantly isn't. That will have a tendency to push swing voters away from the disunited party. For that reason I'd be inclined to view states polling inside the margin as somewhat more likely to fall to Hillary than Trump and her massively superior ground game will accentuate that trend.
Any views on turnout in the presidential election? My assumption is that it might be higher than usual - the intensity with which both candidates are disliked will provoke many to vote against the one that they hate most. Do others feel differently?
Yes, I can also see potential with that as a solid theory.
As someone who sees little merit in Trump as a candidate (apart from his Supreme Court potential nominees) I would still turn out in a hurricane to vote for him and keep Hillary out at all costs.
My position would be far from unique and would certainly be mirrored on the other side.
This isn't an election anymore - it's a referendum on People vs Elite
Everything I'm watching and reading is talking like Brexit on steroids. And I watch a lot. I find the pontificating on here from those who've only seen CNN clips or polling that oversamples Democrats or college or women... Swallowed the red pill. And a great many haven't and aren't. They're angry and feeling threatened.
The fuss over Trump saying he may not respect the result... Gore took it to the Supreme Court FFS. They made a movie about it!
"The first edition headline on an article on May 27 about the funding of the organisation responsible for a controversial referendum advert referred to the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust as a 'pro-terrorist charity'. We are happy to make clear that the JRCT does not support or fund terrorism. We apologise for the error."
That Korski article is the best essay I have read on the functioning of government in the UK. The huge but in the end futile efforts made by very clever people to get to grips with things they actually do not really understand. Different departments working against each other. Civil servants actively trying to frustrate their political masters. Its all in there.
The first part of the essay does in my view make the case for why, politically, it is right for the UK to leave the EU. The latter sections on what went wrong with the campaign shed a fascinating light onto the inner workings of the core of politics (and also contain an indictment of polling).
All round a brilliant piece of work, well worth taking the time to read carefully.
Any views on turnout in the presidential election? My assumption is that it might be higher than usual - the intensity with which both candidates are disliked will provoke many to vote against the one that they hate most. Do others feel differently?
Yes, I can also see potential with that as a solid theory.
As someone who sees little merit in Trump as a candidate (apart from his Supreme Court potential nominees) I would still turn out in a hurricane to vote for him and keep Hillary out at all costs.
My position would be far from unique and would certainly be mirrored on the other side.
This isn't an election anymore - it's a referendum on People vs Elite
Everything I'm watching and reading is talking like Brexit on steroids. And I watch a lot. I find the pontificating on here from those who've only seen CNN clips or polling that oversamples Democrats or college or women... Swallowed the red pill. And a great many haven't and aren't. They're angry and feeling threatened.
The fuss over Trump saying he may not respect the result... Gore took it to the Supreme Court FFS. They made a movie about it!
It's Alice in Wonderland stuff now.
Actually it was Bush who took it to the Supreme Court.
Also intetesting Mr Meeks retweeted claims telegraph showed a picture of somebody who isn't even one of the child migrants...guess who is shown in this article arrived in the UK.
It was a tweet from the photographer who took the picture directly challenging the truth of the Telegraph's caption for the photo. The fact that the migrant has since arrived in Britain is neither here nor there. The Telegraph didn't have access to a time machine.
"The first edition headline on an article on May 27 about the funding of the organisation responsible for a controversial referendum advert referred to the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust as a 'pro-terrorist charity'. We are happy to make clear that the JRCT does not support or fund terrorism. We apologise for the error."
You clearly have that bookmarked...In this case, they are highlighting tweets by the charities that make these false claims, including one which compiled the list...
Also intetesting Mr Meeks retweeted claims telegraph showed a picture of somebody who isn't even one of the child migrants...guess who is shown in this article arrived in the UK.
It was a tweet from the photographer who took the picture directly challenging the truth of the Telegraph's caption for the photo. The fact that the migrant has since arrived in Britain is neither here nor there. The Telegraph didn't have access to a time machine.
I know where the tweet came from. They were lying not the telegraph. The telegraph used a clearer photo of somebody who has come as a child migrant to emphasis the issue. Where it was taken is irrevelant.
The twitterati are desperate to close this story down as just the Sun / Mail / Telegraph being racist, rather than addressing what is clearly going on...which is genuine children are being pushed out of the way by 30+ year old lying about their situation.
Any views on turnout in the presidential election? My assumption is that it might be higher than usual - the intensity with which both candidates are disliked will provoke many to vote against the one that they hate most. Do others feel differently?
Yes, I can also see potential with that as a solid theory.
As someone who sees little merit in Trump as a candidate (apart from his Supreme Court potential nominees) I would still turn out in a hurricane to vote for him and keep Hillary out at all costs.
My position would be far from unique and would certainly be mirrored on the other side.
This isn't an election anymore - it's a referendum on People vs Elite
Everything I'm watching and reading is talking like Brexit on steroids. And I watch a lot. I find the pontificating on here from those who've only seen CNN clips or polling that oversamples Democrats or college or women... Swallowed the red pill. And a great many haven't and aren't. They're angry and feeling threatened.
The fuss over Trump saying he may not respect the result... Gore took it to the Supreme Court FFS. They made a movie about it!
It's Alice in Wonderland stuff now.
Why am I put in mind of Karl Rove who went on an epic rant last time when all the magic reasons that the polls were wrong and Mitt should get a tux for his inaugural turned out to be specious bullshit.
Also intetesting Mr Meeks retweeted claims telegraph showed a picture of somebody who isn't even one of the child migrants...guess who is shown in this article arrived in the UK.
Awkward. – So not an interpreter after all. – Could the charity’s reputation sink any lower?
Also intetesting Mr Meeks retweeted claims telegraph showed a picture of somebody who isn't even one of the child migrants...guess who is shown in this article arrived in the UK.
Awkward. – So not an interpreter after all. – Could the charity’s reputation sink any lower?
Its one thing for randoms on twitter to spread false rumours, but the charity entrusted with providing the list of individuals who are being brought over is quite another. This lie was then repeated by the likes of the BBC and their employees.
This isn't an election anymore - it's a referendum on People vs Elite
What I can never work out is how people with such wildly simplistic, one-sided views manage to get through their daily lives, without falling prey to every plausible rogue who tells them what they want to hear.
Presumably they can't be quite so naive and gullible in their everyday dealings. Or can they?
Any views on turnout in the presidential election? My assumption is that it might be higher than usual - the intensity with which both candidates are disliked will provoke many to vote against the one that they hate most. Do others feel differently?
Yes, I can also see potential with that as a solid theory.
As someone who sees little merit in Trump as a candidate (apart from his Supreme Court potential nominees) I would still turn out in a hurricane to vote for him and keep Hillary out at all costs.
My position would be far from unique and would certainly be mirrored on the other side.
This isn't an election anymore - it's a referendum on People vs Elite
Everything I'm watching and reading is talking like Brexit on steroids. And I watch a lot. I find the pontificating on here from those who've only seen CNN clips or polling that oversamples Democrats or college or women... Swallowed the red pill. And a great many haven't and aren't. They're angry and feeling threatened.
The fuss over Trump saying he may not respect the result... Gore took it to the Supreme Court FFS. They made a movie about it!
It's Alice in Wonderland stuff now.
Why am I put in mind of Karl Rove who went on an epic rant last time when all the magic reasons that the polls were wrong and Mitt should get a tux for his inaugural turned out to be specious bullshit.
Even Karl Rove thinks Trump is toast.
The fact is, Trump is clearly losing women and minorities by a very large margin, and the college educated by a smaller margin. He hasn't got a ground game and there is no evidence of higher than normal WWC voter registration. He has no path to 270 electoral college votes, as he is behind by a large margin in the majority of the states he needs.
Just shouting 'BREXIT' isn't a counter-argument to the facts.
And it was Bush who took it to the supreme court. And he lost by 500 votes. Trump will be losing by a lot more than that.
Also intetesting Mr Meeks retweeted claims telegraph showed a picture of somebody who isn't even one of the child migrants...guess who is shown in this article arrived in the UK.
It was a tweet from the photographer who took the picture directly challenging the truth of the Telegraph's caption for the photo. The fact that the migrant has since arrived in Britain is neither here nor there. The Telegraph didn't have access to a time machine.
I know where the tweet came from. They were lying not the telegraph. The telegraph used a clearer photo of somebody who has come as a child migrant to emphasis the issue. Where it was taken is irrevelant.
The twitterati are desperate to close this story down as just the Sun / Mail / Telegraph being racist, rather than addressing what is clearly going on...which is genuine children are being pushed out of the way by 30+ year old lying about their situation.
I'm not desperate to close this story down. I believe in conducting suitable age checks on those claiming to be child migrants. But I also believe in truth in journalism and this simply isn't good enough.
Any views on turnout in the presidential election? My assumption is that it might be higher than usual - the intensity with which both candidates are disliked will provoke many to vote against the one that they hate most. Do others feel differently?
Yes, I can also see potential with that as a solid theory.
As someone who sees little merit in Trump as a candidate (apart from his Supreme Court potential nominees) I would still turn out in a hurricane to vote for him and keep Hillary out at all costs.
My position would be far from unique and would certainly be mirrored on the other side.
This isn't an election anymore - it's a referendum on People vs Elite
Everything I'm watching and reading is talking like Brexit on steroids. And I watch a lot. I find the pontificating on here from those who've only seen CNN clips or polling that oversamples Democrats or college or women... Swallowed the red pill. And a great many haven't and aren't. They're angry and feeling threatened.
The fuss over Trump saying he may not respect the result... Gore took it to the Supreme Court FFS. They made a movie about it!
It's Alice in Wonderland stuff now.
Gore won the popular vote, he was close in Florida where there were problems with the 'hanging chads' etc. In other words the result was close. This time Trump will be trounced and he should accept the result. If it's really close and he can find some technical issues then he can challenge those, but it won't be.
Any views on turnout in the presidential election? My assumption is that it might be higher than usual - the intensity with which both candidates are disliked will provoke many to vote against the one that they hate most. Do others feel differently?
Yes, I can also see potential with that as a solid theory.
As someone who sees little merit in Trump as a candidate (apart from his Supreme Court potential nominees) I would still turn out in a hurricane to vote for him and keep Hillary out at all costs.
My position would be far from unique and would certainly be mirrored on the other side.
This isn't an election anymore - it's a referendum on People vs Elite
Everything I'm watching and reading is talking like Brexit on steroids. And I watch a lot. I find the pontificating on here from those who've only seen CNN clips or polling that oversamples Democrats or college or women... Swallowed the red pill. And a great many haven't and aren't. They're angry and feeling threatened.
The fuss over Trump saying he may not respect the result... Gore took it to the Supreme Court FFS. They made a movie about it!
It's Alice in Wonderland stuff now.
Which conveniently ignores that Gore, as president of the Senate, consistently refused congressional challenges to the result, which he undoubtedly could have orchestrated had he been so minded. He respected the result once determined. Asking for a recount or haggling over potentially spoilt ballots is all action before the result is declared.
Definition of a hate crime (in this context): anything which is reported to the police as a hate crime by anybody (without any need to provide any actual evidence,) and is therefore automatically logged as such. The data could therefore be influenced, amongst other things, by increased awareness of reporting mechanisms, and politically-motivated reporting. Also, this:
Worth a read in its entirety, but especially the following:
"The alleged post-Brexit spike in hate crime is likely to be down to both this highly relativistic recording of such crimes and also to officialdom’s active trawling for such crimes. Various wings of the authorities went looking for hate after the referendum. From the widespread Twitter-sharing of the police’s hate-crime hotline to the Mayor of London’s special webpage imploring people to phone or email about ‘hate crimes following the referendum result,’ the authorities were desperate to get more people phoning, because every single phone call is instantly a hate crime and this bolsters their general belief that Brexit has caused instability. They didn’t neutrally, scientifically observe a hate-crime epidemic; they were convinced one was taking place and they set out to prove that. They proved their own theory. They found what they wanted to find."
There may possibly have been some isolated incidents of thuggery directly related to the referendum, but I would be surprised if there was any *significant* increase in the commission of hate crimes at all. If this is incorrect then we ought, presumably, to be able to observe a spike in convictions for such crimes committed in the period immediately after the referendum after they have gone through the courts, say, by next Summer.
Jo Coburn on Daily Politics nails Clegg on his lie that "LEAVE never said we would be leaving the single market because they could not agree on it". She has been learning from Andrew Neil on the use of thorough research.
This isn't an election anymore - it's a referendum on People vs Elite
What I can never work out is how people with such wildly simplistic, one-sided views manage to get through their daily lives, without falling prey to every plausible rogue who tells them what they want to hear.
Presumably they can't be quite so naive and gullible in their everyday dealings. Or can they?
I am reminded of George W Bush's pithy observation on politics "You can fool some of the people all of the time - and those are the ones you want to concentrate on..."
Definition of a hate crime (in this context): anything which is reported to the police as a hate crime by anybody (without any need to provide any actual evidence,) and is therefore automatically logged as such. The data could therefore be influenced, amongst other things, by increased awareness of reporting mechanisms, and politically-motivated reporting. Also, this:
Worth a read in its entirety, but especially the following:
"The alleged post-Brexit spike in hate crime is likely to be down to both this highly relativistic recording of such crimes and also to officialdom’s active trawling for such crimes. Various wings of the authorities went looking for hate after the referendum. From the widespread Twitter-sharing of the police’s hate-crime hotline to the Mayor of London’s special webpage imploring people to phone or email about ‘hate crimes following the referendum result,’ the authorities were desperate to get more people phoning, because every single phone call is instantly a hate crime and this bolsters their general belief that Brexit has caused instability. They didn’t neutrally, scientifically observe a hate-crime epidemic; they were convinced one was taking place and they set out to prove that. They proved their own theory. They found what they wanted to find."
There may possibly have been some isolated incidents of thuggery directly related to the referendum, but I would be surprised if there was any *significant* increase in the commission of hate crimes at all. If this is incorrect then we ought, presumably, to be able to observe a spike in convictions for such crimes committed in the period immediately after the referendum after they have gone through the courts, say, by next Summer.
Or instead we could rely on a careful statistic analysis. Like the one I originally linked to.
I'm not desperate to close this story down. I believe in conducting suitable age checks on those claiming to be child migrants. But I also believe in truth in journalism and this simply isn't good enough.
Ok lying is too strong a word. But he knows what he is doing, he is trying to spread doubt over the Telegraph story using the classic Bad Al tactic. The Telegraph is still correct all 3 have arrived in Croydon, but didn't add * (we picked a better photo of this guy from Calais to help you judge).
The stories across the media have been found to be true and not "Oh its the Daily Mail / Sun"...until it was pointed out across many media outlets and Getty who took the images.
Its one thing for randoms on twitter to spread false rumours, but the charity entrusted with providing the list of individuals who are being brought over is quite another. This lie was then repeated by the likes of the BBC and their employees.
The BBC in particular but the media in general accept what charities say about almost any issue with little to no scepticism. Now that is not the end of the world if say it is the RSPB talking about bird numbers, but when it is a politically sensitive issue the journalists ought to scrutinise claims from charity spokesmen as carefully as they would if they were speaking to a government minister. People from charities rarely face tough questioning.
Its one thing for randoms on twitter to spread false rumours, but the charity entrusted with providing the list of individuals who are being brought over is quite another. This lie was then repeated by the likes of the BBC and their employees.
The BBC in particular but the media in general accept what charities say about almost any issue with little to no scepticism. Now that is not the end of the world if say it is the RSPB talking about bird numbers, but when it is a politically sensitive issue the journalists ought to scrutinise claims from charity spokesmen as carefully as they would if they were speaking to a government minister. People from charities rarely face tough questioning.
Remember the woman from volunteering charity who got the softest of soft rides, when it was found she was paid up Labour stodge.
I'm not desperate to close this story down. I believe in conducting suitable age checks on those claiming to be child migrants. But I also believe in truth in journalism and this simply isn't good enough.
Ok lying is too strong a word. But he knows what he is doing, he is trying to spread doubt over the Telegraph story using the classic Bad Al tactic. The Telegraph is still correct all 3 have arrived in Croydon, but didn't add * (we picked a better photo of this guy from Calais to help you judge).
The stories across the media have been found to be true and not "Oh its the Daily Mail / Sun"...until it was pointed out across many media outlets and Getty who took the images.
It's a straightforward lie in the caption and dishonest journalism. The Telegraph should be ashamed of itself.
Also intetesting Mr Meeks retweeted claims telegraph showed a picture of somebody who isn't even one of the child migrants...guess who is shown in this article arrived in the UK.
It was a tweet from the photographer who took the picture directly challenging the truth of the Telegraph's caption for the photo. The fact that the migrant has since arrived in Britain is neither here nor there. The Telegraph didn't have access to a time machine.
So...Let's say it is reported that a Labour politician has given a speech at a rally, fulminating against Israelis. The newspaper reporting this story adds a picture of this politician taken at a different rally. You are saying the fact that the politician actually made the speech "is neither here nor there".
"NICOLA Sturgeon will need Westminster co-operation to hold a second independence referendum, ministers have confirmed.
A draft referendum bill, published this morning, show that a Section 30 order temporarily transferring legal powers to Holyrood would be sought if the legislation is introduced at the Scottish Parliament.
In a pre-amble to a consultation accompanying the draft bill, the Scottish Government states that it would be "expected" that a Section 30 order would be granted, as it was ahead of the 2014 vote."
I think "expected" is a tad optimistic.
Obviously they don't expect anything of the kind. They could well lose a Westminster sanctioned referendum. The interesting thing is whether they go ahead with an unsanctioned Catalonia-style referendum. It could work for them either way. Theresa May blocks Scotland from exercising its democratic right. They will almost certainly win an unofficial referendum by a big margin on a low turnout. Those opposed to independence won't vote in it. They can then say 80%, or whatever, of Scots voted for independence.
But it is pointless twattery from the SNP. They have had their "once in a generation" shot. It needs Westminster to play ball. Otherwise it would be like giving your teenagers the right to sell the family home.
So says our Lord and Master, get in your place plebs.
I'm not desperate to close this story down. I believe in conducting suitable age checks on those claiming to be child migrants. But I also believe in truth in journalism and this simply isn't good enough.
Ok lying is too strong a word. But he knows what he is doing, he is trying to spread doubt over the Telegraph story using the classic Bad Al tactic. The Telegraph is still correct all 3 have arrived in Croydon, but didn't add * (we picked a better photo of this guy from Calais to help you judge).
The stories across the media have been found to be true and not "Oh its the Daily Mail / Sun"...until it was pointed out across many media outlets and Getty who took the images.
It's a straightforward lie in the caption and dishonest journalism. The Telegraph should be ashamed of itself.
Bollocks. It would have been dishonest that they show a guy who is clearly not a kid and had not come to the UK under such guise, but he has. They picked a clearly image of a guy who is a very good example of somebody who is neither Syrian nor a kid.
The intention of the tweet was clear and your posting of it on here was the same, following the false claims about the Sun, it was look they are all at it the lying right wing media.
The fact is they haven't lied. All 3 are here as supposed child migrants.
As SeanT says, the reaction by the authorities and the left is making this worse. Rather than it being a good story about how we are talking in vulnerable little kids, all we are seeing is people trying to excuse lying adults playing the system.
I have said from the beginning, Cameron had this right. Taking those from the camps in Turkey, those that have played by the rules and been checked out. Instead, the system is being abused.
Also intetesting Mr Meeks retweeted claims telegraph showed a picture of somebody who isn't even one of the child migrants...guess who is shown in this article arrived in the UK.
It was a tweet from the photographer who took the picture directly challenging the truth of the Telegraph's caption for the photo. The fact that the migrant has since arrived in Britain is neither here nor there. The Telegraph didn't have access to a time machine.
So...Let's say it is reported that a Labour politician has given a speech at a rally, fulminating against Israelis. The newspaper reporting this story adds a picture of this politician taken at a different rally. You are saying the fact that the politician actually made the speech "is neither here nor there".
Interesting....
I'm saying no such thing. I think we should take more refugees but if we are starting with child refugees we should check appropriately that they are in fact children.
It is possible to hold more than one view in your head at any one time.
I'm not desperate to close this story down. I believe in conducting suitable age checks on those claiming to be child migrants. But I also believe in truth in journalism and this simply isn't good enough.
Ok lying is too strong a word. But he knows what he is doing, he is trying to spread doubt over the Telegraph story using the classic Bad Al tactic. The Telegraph is still correct all 3 have arrived in Croydon, but didn't add * (we picked a better photo of this guy from Calais to help you judge).
The stories across the media have been found to be true and not "Oh its the Daily Mail / Sun"...until it was pointed out across many media outlets and Getty who took the images.
It's a straightforward lie in the caption and dishonest journalism. The Telegraph should be ashamed of itself.
Bollocks. It would have been dishonest that they show a guy who is clearly not a kid and had not come to the UK under such guise, but he has. They picked a clearly image of a guy who is a very good example of somebody who is neither Syrian nor a kid.
The intention of the tweet was clear and your posting of it on here was the same, following the false claims about the Sun, it was look they are all at it the lying right wing media.
The fact is they haven't lied. All 3 are here as supposed child migrants.
I'm not desperate to close this story down. I believe in conducting suitable age checks on those claiming to be child migrants. But I also believe in truth in journalism and this simply isn't good enough.
Ok lying is too strong a word. But he knows what he is doing, he is trying to spread doubt over the Telegraph story using the classic Bad Al tactic. The Telegraph is still correct all 3 have arrived in Croydon, but didn't add * (we picked a better photo of this guy from Calais to help you judge).
The stories across the media have been found to be true and not "Oh its the Daily Mail / Sun"...until it was pointed out across many media outlets and Getty who took the images.
It's a straightforward lie in the caption and dishonest journalism. The Telegraph should be ashamed of itself.
Bollocks. It would have been dishonest that they show a guy who is clearly not a kid and had not come to the UK under such guise, but he has. They picked a clearly image of a guy who is a very good example of somebody who is neither Syrian nor a kid.
The intention of the tweet was clear and your posting of it on here was the same, following the false claims about the Sun, it was look they are all at it the lying right wing media.
The fact is they haven't lied. All 3 are here as supposed child migrants.
The caption is untrue.
So if they had added an asterix with (* photo used was taken in Calais as clearer). Would that have been ok?
Its the bad Al defence. The story is still true, but they failed to add the asterix. They aren't lying to their readers that this guy is here as a child migrant. As for the photographer claiming this guy never claimed he was a kid, well either the photographer or the individual is lying, because he wouldn't be here otherwise. They all had to apply and supposedly checked out (which is becoming clear was nothing more than a dodgy charity doing the bare minimum and always urging on giving benefit of the doubt that 30+ year looking people were classified as kids if they said so).
As I say, if they had used a photo of somebody who wasn't here as a child migrant I would agree, but he is and he clearly isn't a kid nor from Syria.
Also intetesting Mr Meeks retweeted claims telegraph showed a picture of somebody who isn't even one of the child migrants...guess who is shown in this article arrived in the UK.
It was a tweet from the photographer who took the picture directly challenging the truth of the Telegraph's caption for the photo. The fact that the migrant has since arrived in Britain is neither here nor there. The Telegraph didn't have access to a time machine.
The incredible "adult interpreter" lie spread by the charity has just made it all WORSE. Do bien pensants not see how this is playing out amongst the public? What should be a genuine good news story, like the kindertransport, is turning into a PR catastrophe for the refugees, the charities, and future cases like this.
Jack Straw has it right. The Home Office now has no choice but to start rigorously checking these poor guys, or the whole system will be held up to contemptuous ridicule.
The fact is if one or two older migrants slipped through the net then I expect it wouldn't be too much of an issue. The problem is is that ALL of the people at least photographed are older males makes it look so bad.
That's the problem here. It looks bad. People have eyes and they can see something which they don't like.
Or instead we could rely on a careful statistic analysis. Like the one I originally linked to.
Which, when you sit down to read it, is waffle - as is apparent when one takes into account this crucial paragraph near the beginning:
"This does mean that essentially, anyone can report something as a hate crime if they perceive it as such. In addition, it’s true that a majority of these cases go unsolved – about a quarter of offences are taken to court. I don’t want to get into the territory of disagreeing with the very definition of hate crimes (or how they’re reported) – but it’s worth being open about what is behind the analysis."
'I don't want to get into the territory...' = the idea that the definition of a hate crime and how it is reported is too difficult and nebulous for me to deal with, so I am going to stick with the numbers which, in and of themselves, *appear* to support my argument. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Pointing out trends in the hate crime reporting figures is a pointless exercise if the figures themselves are USELESS to begin with.
Also intetesting Mr Meeks retweeted claims telegraph showed a picture of somebody who isn't even one of the child migrants...guess who is shown in this article arrived in the UK.
It was a tweet from the photographer who took the picture directly challenging the truth of the Telegraph's caption for the photo. The fact that the migrant has since arrived in Britain is neither here nor there. The Telegraph didn't have access to a time machine.
The incredible "adult interpreter" lie spread by the charity has just made it all WORSE. Do bien pensants not see how this is playing out amongst the public? What should be a genuine good news story, like the kindertransport, is turning into a PR catastrophe for the refugees, the charities, and future cases like this.
Jack Straw has it right. The Home Office now has no choice but to start rigorously checking these poor guys, or the whole system will be held up to contemptuous ridicule.
The fact is if one or two older migrants slipped through the net then I expect it wouldn't be too much of an issue. The problem is is that ALL of the people at least photographed are older males makes it look so bad.
That's the problem here. It looks bad. People have eyes and they can see something which they don't like.
And there are 10,000's of women and tiny tots in camps in Turkey.
Or instead we could rely on a careful statistic analysis. Like the one I originally linked to.
Which, when you sit down to read it, is waffle - as is apparent when one takes into account this crucial paragraph near the beginning:
"This does mean that essentially, anyone can report something as a hate crime if they perceive it as such. In addition, it’s true that a majority of these cases go unsolved – about a quarter of offences are taken to court. I don’t want to get into the territory of disagreeing with the very definition of hate crimes (or how they’re reported) – but it’s worth being open about what is behind the analysis."
'I don't want to get into the territory...' = the idea that the definition of a hate crime and how it is reported is too difficult and nebulous for me to deal with, so I am going to stick with the numbers which, in and of themselves, *appear* to support my argument. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Pointing out trends in the hate crime reporting figures is a pointless exercise if the figures themselves are USELESS to begin with.
You go ahead putting your faith in evidence-free saloon bar burbling and I'll keep putting mine in something a bit more grounded.
This isn't an election anymore - it's a referendum on People vs Elite
What I can never work out is how people with such wildly simplistic, one-sided views manage to get through their daily lives, without falling prey to every plausible rogue who tells them what they want to hear.
Presumably they can't be quite so naive and gullible in their everyday dealings. Or can they?
We are all at times naive and gullible, which is how con artists and internet hackers prosper. I've just spent 10 minutes trying to decide if an email is genuine.
What is different in America is that broadcasters are not required to be politically neutral, so that various groups now have their own facts, as well as opinions on those facts. (And perhaps we are starting to see that here, thanks to social media.) You get a flavour of it from reading and then trying to source some of the Trumper drivel that Plato has posted over the last couple of weeks.
As 538 said, it was noticeable in the debate that Trump was often talking only to his base, and that other viewers, unfamiliar with his starting position, would have no idea what he was saying. This is accidental dog-whistling, if you like.
Now, one question is whether this means the polls are wrong. Another is whether the polls are right but the Trumpers will believe they were robbed in two and a bit weeks.
I'm not desperate to close this story down. I believe in conducting suitable age checks on those claiming to be child migrants. But I also believe in truth in journalism and this simply isn't good enough.
Ok lying is too strong a word. But he knows what he is doing, he is trying to spread doubt over the Telegraph story using the classic Bad Al tactic. The Telegraph is still correct all 3 have arrived in Croydon, but didn't add * (we picked a better photo of this guy from Calais to help you judge).
The stories across the media have been found to be true and not "Oh its the Daily Mail / Sun"...until it was pointed out across many media outlets and Getty who took the images.
It's a straightforward lie in the caption and dishonest journalism. The Telegraph should be ashamed of itself.
It's the difference between "arrive in Croydon yesterday" and "who arrived in Croydon yesterday"
I think you are focusing on the trees at the expense of the forest
Also intetesting Mr Meeks retweeted claims telegraph showed a picture of somebody who isn't even one of the child migrants...guess who is shown in this article arrived in the UK.
It was a tweet from the photographer who took the picture directly challenging the truth of the Telegraph's caption for the photo. The fact that the migrant has since arrived in Britain is neither here nor there. The Telegraph didn't have access to a time machine.
The incredible "adult interpreter" lie spread by the charity has just made it all WORSE. Do bien pensants not see how this is playing out amongst the public? What should be a genuine good news story, like the kindertransport, is turning into a PR catastrophe for the refugees, the charities, and future cases like this.
Jack Straw has it right. The Home Office now has no choice but to start rigorously checking these poor guys, or the whole system will be held up to contemptuous ridicule.
The fact is if one or two older migrants slipped through the net then I expect it wouldn't be too much of an issue. The problem is is that ALL of the people at least photographed are older males makes it look so bad.
That's the problem here. It looks bad. People have eyes and they can see something which they don't like.
The Daily Mail (yes yes) says that dental checks on age are common in other countries, in such cases.
If that's true, why the F aren't we doing it? Why are we so incredibly feeble? The British public is tolerant and welcoming of immigrants, if we see the process as fair and transparent, but we are being forced into a position of mistrust by this mendacity and general liberal wetness.
Amazing the outrage by the usual groups and media outlets and then you look and see it was Labour policy 9 years ago.
"Politico" reports that GOP strategists and down ballot candidates "despondent" that Trump threw away the third debate with his refusal to accept the result of the election :
"Politico" reports that GOP strategists and down ballot candidates "despondent" that Trump threw away the third debate with his refusal to accept the result of the election :
I am convinced he is a double agent on a suicide mission....While blowing himself up, he has manage to kill the careers of the likes of Rubio, trashed what was left of the GOP brand (if you didn't think they had a problem with being perceived as tad racist before, well their candidate is full on) and now killing the career of down tickets GOP candidates across the US.
To my mind, there's a bigger question than who wins the presidency. It's whether America can stop the rot.
There are big problems in the US at the moment. Without getting all SeanT over this, it's still the greatest country in the world, but other countries are yapping at its heels, wanting its place.
The problem is that Americans cannot agree on what the problems are, yet alone the solutions. They just have a nagging feeling that their rightful position is being threatened.
America being usurped by China and/or others is not inevitable. China itself faces significant problems. But America is being thrust forwards by inertia, not leadership. And four or eight years of Trump or Clinton won't fix this. Neither have the capability of bringing the country together.
I doubt their broken political system will allow such a leader to reach a position where they could do any good. Their political system is utterly broken, and the last system you would choose if you wanted real democracy.
Having said all that, I have little doubt that Trump would accelerate the rot. As such, Clinton is the best choice for America. Which in itself is a symbol of their malaise.
The population of China is over 4 times the population of the US. America being usurped by China and/or others is inevitable.
Not an historian are you.
Nothing, on a geopolitical level, is inevitable.
China has enormous economic problems looming.
Which will not make the blindest bit of difference to the outcome Edmund predicts.
Also intetesting Mr Meeks retweeted claims telegraph showed a picture of somebody who isn't even one of the child migrants...guess who is shown in this article arrived in the UK.
It was a tweet from the photographer who took the picture directly challenging the truth of the Telegraph's caption for the photo. The fact that the migrant has since arrived in Britain is neither here nor there. The Telegraph didn't have access to a time machine.
The incredible "adult interpreter" lie spread by the charity has just made it all WORSE. Do bien pensants not see how this is playing out amongst the public? What should be a genuine good news story, like the kindertransport, is turning into a PR catastrophe for the refugees, the charities, and future cases like this.
Jack Straw has it right. The Home Office now has no choice but to start rigorously checking these poor guys, or the whole system will be held up to contemptuous ridicule.
The fact is if one or two older migrants slipped through the net then I expect it wouldn't be too much of an issue. The problem is is that ALL of the people at least photographed are older males makes it look so bad.
That's the problem here. It looks bad. People have eyes and they can see something which they don't like.
The Daily Mail (yes yes) says that dental checks on age are common in other countries, in such cases.
If that's true, why the F aren't we doing it? Why are we so incredibly feeble? The British public is tolerant and welcoming of immigrants, if we see the process as fair and transparent, but we are being forced into a position of mistrust by this mendacity and general liberal wetness.
Amazing the outrage by the usual groups and media outlets and then you look and see it was Labour policy 9 years ago.
Also intetesting Mr Meeks retweeted claims telegraph showed a picture of somebody who isn't even one of the child migrants...guess who is shown in this article arrived in the UK.
It was a tweet from the photographer who took the picture directly challenging the truth of the Telegraph's caption for the photo. The fact that the migrant has since arrived in Britain is neither here nor there. The Telegraph didn't have access to a time machine.
The incredible "adult interpreter" lie spread by the charity has just made it all WORSE. Do bien pensants not see how this is playing out amongst the public? What should be a genuine good news story, like the kindertransport, is turning into a PR catastrophe for the refugees, the charities, and future cases like this.
Jack Straw has it right. The Home Office now has no choice but to start rigorously checking these poor guys, or the whole system will be held up to contemptuous ridicule.
The fact is if one or two older migrants slipped through the net then I expect it wouldn't be too much of an issue. The problem is is that ALL of the people at least photographed are older males makes it look so bad.
That's the problem here. It looks bad. People have eyes and they can see something which they don't like.
The Daily Mail (yes yes) says that dental checks on age are common in other countries, in such cases.
If that's true, why the F aren't we doing it? Why are we so incredibly feeble? The British public is tolerant and welcoming of immigrants, if we see the process as fair and transparent, but we are being forced into a position of mistrust by this mendacity and general liberal wetness.
Amazing the outrage by the usual groups and media outlets and then you look and see it was Labour policy 9 years ago.
It was??
Young illegal immigrants to face teeth x-ray test for real age
Home Office minister Liam Byrne said the measure was "essential" to check that unaccompanied youngsters who arrive in Britain are under the age of 18.
That Korski article is the best essay I have read on the functioning of government in the UK. The huge but in the end futile efforts made by very clever people to get to grips with things they actually do not really understand. Different departments working against each other. Civil servants actively trying to frustrate their political masters. Its all in there. The first part of the essay does in my view make the case for why, politically, it is right for the UK to leave the EU. The latter sections on what went wrong with the campaign shed a fascinating light onto the inner workings of the core of politics (and also contain an indictment of polling). All round a brilliant piece of work, well worth taking the time to read carefully. http://www.politico.eu/article/why-we-lost-the-brexit-vote-former-uk-prime-minister-david-cameron/
Agreed. Great insights into the malign effects of civil servants. Mark Wallace @wallaceme Korski shows that when they did try to build a positive case they still couldn't really find one. The EU is at heart a crap product. (7/?)
"Politico" reports that GOP strategists and down ballot candidates "despondent" that Trump threw away the third debate with his refusal to accept the result of the election :
I am convinced he is a double agent on a suicide mission....While blowing himself up, he has manage to kill the careers of the likes of Rubio, trashed what was left of the GOP brand (if you didn't think they had a problem with being perceived as tad racist before, well their candidate is full on) and now killing the career of down tickets GOP candidates across the US.
"Politico" reports that GOP strategists and down ballot candidates "despondent" that Trump threw away the third debate with his refusal to accept the result of the election :
I am convinced he is a double agent on a suicide mission....While blowing himself up, he has manage to kill the careers of the likes of Rubio, trashed what was left of the GOP brand (if you didn't think they had a problem with being perceived as tad racist before, well their candidate is full on) and now killing the career of down tickets GOP candidates across the US.
He also turned away women from the GOP brand, which is the real kicker, as well alienate the hispanic population.
If the GOP even want a chance at getting back women and hispanics, they need stop trying to overturn roe v wade and embrace amnesty for immigrants.
Or instead we could rely on a careful statistic analysis. Like the one I originally linked to.
Which, when you sit down to read it, is waffle - as is apparent when one takes into account this crucial paragraph near the beginning:
"This does mean that essentially, anyone can report something as a hate crime if they perceive it as such. In addition, it’s true that a majority of these cases go unsolved – about a quarter of offences are taken to court. I don’t want to get into the territory of disagreeing with the very definition of hate crimes (or how they’re reported) – but it’s worth being open about what is behind the analysis."
'I don't want to get into the territory...' = the idea that the definition of a hate crime and how it is reported is too difficult and nebulous for me to deal with, so I am going to stick with the numbers which, in and of themselves, *appear* to support my argument. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Pointing out trends in the hate crime reporting figures is a pointless exercise if the figures themselves are USELESS to begin with.
Exactly surely some women , girls or toddlers have escaped, it cannot all be hairy arsed man boys. Is it any wonder people laugh at this country, they could not run a bath. Refuse to take children for years and then start fast tracking adults masquerading as "children". I presume we are using same idiots as DWP use to diagnose dying peopel as fit for work.
To my mind, there's a bigger question than who wins the presidency. It's whether America can stop the rot.
Th
Having said all that, I have little doubt that Trump would accelerate the rot. As such, Clinton is the best choice for America. Which in itself is a symbol of their malaise.
The population of China is over 4 times the population of the US. America being usurped by China and/or others is inevitable.
Not an historian are you.
Nothing, on a geopolitical level, is inevitable.
China has enormous economic problems looming.
Which will not make the blindest bit of difference to the outcome Edmund predicts.
On the measures being used by many to judge Britain's position post-Brexit - i.e. GDP by PPP - China has ALREADY usurped America, and China is number 1.
By GDP nominal China is closing in fast. This year China will achieve growth of 6.5-7%, America about 1.5% (slower than expected). With that kind of difference China will overtake around 2020. In four years.
Comments
"The fact 40% of the country still supports him makes me feel that 40% of Americans are utter morons."
I suspect you believe that about your fellow UK citizens. One reason that Remain lost.
'I'd win it easy so there's no point.'
Meanwhile Bangladesh's 18 year old on deyboo has 57/4......
REMAIN lost because more people voted for LEAVE
Have you ever considered becoming a government adviser?
"With less than three weeks to go, and all of the debates blessedly in the rearview mirror, Clinton is in a commanding position in the contest to become the 45th president."
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/with-19-days-to-go-clintons-lead-is-bigger-than-ever/
Includes interesting thoughts on Utah.
... against your will. ;-)
This mainly looks into the demographics of who voted Yes or No.
Lord Ashcroft did a study similar to the one he did later for the EURef. They both suffer in my view from asking complicated, leading and limiting questions about why people voted the way the way they did.
even as the European Council — where the national leaders gather — has grown ever less powerful on anything that does not regard the eurozone. In the so-called trilogues — in which officials from the three major EU institutions meet to hash out directives — the Commission and the Parliament often steamroller the Council.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/305-2016_becker_fetzer_novy.pdf
Nice that the young 'un has got his fivefer though.
Very good, if entirely unsurprising, news for SNP fans.
As someone who sees little merit in Trump as a candidate (apart from his Supreme Court potential nominees) I would still turn out in a hurricane to vote for him and keep Hillary out at all costs.
My position would be far from unique and would certainly be mirrored on the other side.
Our regressions allow for a counterfactual analysis. We find that relatively
modest reductions in fiscal cuts at the local authority level (less than £50 per
person) may have been sufficient to lead to the opposite referendum outcome,
pushing the Vote Leave share below 50 percent.
But the correlation between UKIP / BNP voting is not exactly much use as a conclusion. That simply shows they were disaffected in 2010 and 2015 so its hardly surprising that they picked the disaffected (leave) option in 2016.
The report would be far more use if it focused on why those people are disaffected.
Roland Rudd @RolandRudd
@Simon_Nixon @DanielKorski Cameron ran and governed as most Eurosceptic Conservative only to tell us it would be a catastrophe if we left.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3854888/Charity-FALSELY-claims-38-year-old-child-asylum-seeker-actually-interpreter-one-migrant-Calais-confesses-course-majority-lie-a
Also intetesting Mr Meeks retweeted claims telegraph showed a picture of somebody who isn't even one of the child migrants...guess who is shown in this article arrived in the UK.
Everything I'm watching and reading is talking like Brexit on steroids. And I watch a lot. I find the pontificating on here from those who've only seen CNN clips or polling that oversamples Democrats or college or women... Swallowed the red pill. And a great many haven't and aren't. They're angry and feeling threatened.
The fuss over Trump saying he may not respect the result... Gore took it to the Supreme Court FFS. They made a movie about it!
It's Alice in Wonderland stuff now.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-3706170/Clarifications-corrections.html
Dacre has dragged the Daily Mail into the pits.
The first part of the essay does in my view make the case for why, politically, it is right for the UK to leave the EU. The latter sections on what went wrong with the campaign shed a fascinating light onto the inner workings of the core of politics (and also contain an indictment of polling).
All round a brilliant piece of work, well worth taking the time to read carefully.
http://www.politico.eu/article/why-we-lost-the-brexit-vote-former-uk-prime-minister-david-cameron/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37710435
Part II.
https://twitter.com/SunApology/status/789055502600765440
The twitterati are desperate to close this story down as just the Sun / Mail / Telegraph being racist, rather than addressing what is clearly going on...which is genuine children are being pushed out of the way by 30+ year old lying about their situation.
Presumably they can't be quite so naive and gullible in their everyday dealings. Or can they?
The fact is, Trump is clearly losing women and minorities by a very large margin, and the college educated by a smaller margin. He hasn't got a ground game and there is no evidence of higher than normal WWC voter registration. He has no path to 270 electoral college votes, as he is behind by a large margin in the majority of the states he needs.
Just shouting 'BREXIT' isn't a counter-argument to the facts.
And it was Bush who took it to the supreme court. And he lost by 500 votes. Trump will be losing by a lot more than that.
Observe the caption to the picture.
This is the photographer's account:
https://twitter.com/bjokie/status/789046613641756672
I'm not desperate to close this story down. I believe in conducting suitable age checks on those claiming to be child migrants. But I also believe in truth in journalism and this simply isn't good enough.
In other words the result was close. This time Trump will be trounced and he should accept the result. If it's really close and he can find some technical issues then he can challenge those, but it won't be.
Part III.
https://twitter.com/DorsetRachel/status/789051283969863680
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/its-time-to-shoot-down-the-post-brexit-hate-crime-hysteria/18874#.WAilD4WcFPY
Worth a read in its entirety, but especially the following:
"The alleged post-Brexit spike in hate crime is likely to be down to both this highly relativistic recording of such crimes and also to officialdom’s active trawling for such crimes. Various wings of the authorities went looking for hate after the referendum. From the widespread Twitter-sharing of the police’s hate-crime hotline to the Mayor of London’s special webpage imploring people to phone or email about ‘hate crimes following the referendum result,’ the authorities were desperate to get more people phoning, because every single phone call is instantly a hate crime and this bolsters their general belief that Brexit has caused instability. They didn’t neutrally, scientifically observe a hate-crime epidemic; they were convinced one was taking place and they set out to prove that. They proved their own theory. They found what they wanted to find."
There may possibly have been some isolated incidents of thuggery directly related to the referendum, but I would be surprised if there was any *significant* increase in the commission of hate crimes at all. If this is incorrect then we ought, presumably, to be able to observe a spike in convictions for such crimes committed in the period immediately after the referendum after they have gone through the courts, say, by next Summer.
The stories across the media have been found to be true and not "Oh its the Daily Mail / Sun"...until it was pointed out across many media outlets and Getty who took the images.
Interesting....
The intention of the tweet was clear and your posting of it on here was the same, following the false claims about the Sun, it was look they are all at it the lying right wing media.
The fact is they haven't lied. All 3 are here as supposed child migrants.
As SeanT says, the reaction by the authorities and the left is making this worse. Rather than it being a good story about how we are talking in vulnerable little kids, all we are seeing is people trying to excuse lying adults playing the system.
I have said from the beginning, Cameron had this right. Taking those from the camps in Turkey, those that have played by the rules and been checked out. Instead, the system is being abused.
It is possible to hold more than one view in your head at any one time.
Its the bad Al defence. The story is still true, but they failed to add the asterix. They aren't lying to their readers that this guy is here as a child migrant. As for the photographer claiming this guy never claimed he was a kid, well either the photographer or the individual is lying, because he wouldn't be here otherwise. They all had to apply and supposedly checked out (which is becoming clear was nothing more than a dodgy charity doing the bare minimum and always urging on giving benefit of the doubt that 30+ year looking people were classified as kids if they said so).
As I say, if they had used a photo of somebody who wasn't here as a child migrant I would agree, but he is and he clearly isn't a kid nor from Syria.
That's the problem here. It looks bad. People have eyes and they can see something which they don't like.
"This does mean that essentially, anyone can report something as a hate crime if they perceive it as such. In addition, it’s true that a majority of these cases go unsolved – about a quarter of offences are taken to court. I don’t want to get into the territory of disagreeing with the very definition of hate crimes (or how they’re reported) – but it’s worth being open about what is behind the analysis."
'I don't want to get into the territory...' = the idea that the definition of a hate crime and how it is reported is too difficult and nebulous for me to deal with, so I am going to stick with the numbers which, in and of themselves, *appear* to support my argument. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Pointing out trends in the hate crime reporting figures is a pointless exercise if the figures themselves are USELESS to begin with.
What is different in America is that broadcasters are not required to be politically neutral, so that various groups now have their own facts, as well as opinions on those facts. (And perhaps we are starting to see that here, thanks to social media.) You get a flavour of it from reading and then trying to source some of the Trumper drivel that Plato has posted over the last couple of weeks.
As 538 said, it was noticeable in the debate that Trump was often talking only to his base, and that other viewers, unfamiliar with his starting position, would have no idea what he was saying. This is accidental dog-whistling, if you like.
Now, one question is whether this means the polls are wrong. Another is whether the polls are right but the Trumpers will believe they were robbed in two and a bit weeks.
I think you are focusing on the trees at the expense of the forest
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/republicans-trump-debate-230071
Home Office minister Liam Byrne said the measure was "essential" to check that unaccompanied youngsters who arrive in Britain are under the age of 18.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-437629/Young-illegal-immigrants-face-teeth-x-ray-test-real-age.html
Now obviously this was New Labour where they floated a new policy every other day and few were actually enacted, but still...
Mark Wallace @wallaceme
Korski shows that when they did try to build a positive case they still couldn't really find one. The EU is at heart a crap product. (7/?)
If the GOP even want a chance at getting back women and hispanics, they need stop trying to overturn roe v wade and embrace amnesty for immigrants.
NEW THREAD