Mr. Meeks, ordinary people not showing sufficient respect to judges might also be seen as the consequence of judges not showing sufficient respect to ordinary people (and the way they voted).
Not my view, but I think a lot of people will hold it.
I think the point is that the Government by appearing to silently endorse the hysteria wishes to undermine the integrity of the judiciary. Ordinary people will think whatever they want. Rightly so and in any case you can't stop them.
It's more that the government does not want to alienate the right wing press and its own right wing MPs.
Mr. 43, perhaps. I'm not sure whether most people care, though. They see bewigged pillars of the Establishment helping those who wish to delay, frustrate and deny the democratic result of the referendum, and are not especially concerned if the great and the good are censured.
That said, the papers may overdo things and generate sympathy for the judges (the 'openly gay' line was as baffling as it was unacceptable).
Maybe. In any case the hostility against the judges is almost certainly part of a government spin campaign. Deflect so people don't notice you mucked up on the arguments. Like the Blair government blaming France for not winning the Iraq vote in the UN Security Council.
Has Momentum ever been that important to Corbyn? I get the impression that it has benefitted from him much more than he has benefitted from it.
Morning David
What do you want to do about our bet?
Pay it.
Could you e-mail me your details - either your address so I can send a cheque or your bank details eo I can transfer - to davidherdson (at) aol.com please?
Has Momentum ever been that important to Corbyn? I get the impression that it has benefitted from him much more than he has benefitted from it.
Morning David
What do you want to do about our bet?
Pay it.
Could you e-mail me your details - either your address so I can send a cheque or your bank details eo I can transfer - to davidherdson (at) aol.com please?
Admit it
you are not David Herdson political blogger but a scammer based in Nigeria and youre about to empty Scotts bank account
I'm sure the top judges are independent, but they are human. Some elements of the judgement will be subjective because there are never totally objective views. It's worrying that people don't seem aware if this. They may appoint some top judges in America, but there's often a fuss over how they appointed - because they have natural biases.
It also happens in the most objective of subjects - science. Scientists can have different views. Faced with objective evidence, they can come to differing opinions. At least we are aware of this and don't pretend otherwise.
Could you e-mail me your details - either your address so I can send a cheque or your bank details eo I can transfer - to davidherdson (at) aol.com please?
To provoke Hispanics in the way that Trump has repeatedly done is the most barmy aspect of his campaign - and that is, of course, saying something!
I don't think he knows the demographics of America, although living in New York you would have thought he would.
The only time Trump comes across Hispanics is when they are clearing his table or tidying his hotel room. He probably does not realise how many there are and that they do plenty of other things too.
Mr. 43, I think that's a stretch. The Mail going a bit over the top doesn't require government intervention.
No paper will accept spin if they don't want to. The angles the papers took on the judges do look suspiciously similar however. On reflection I should revise my "almost certainly" down a notch.
Mr. 43, perhaps. I'm not sure whether most people care, though. They see bewigged pillars of the Establishment helping those who wish to delay, frustrate and deny the democratic result of the referendum, and are not especially concerned if the great and the good are censured.
That said, the papers may overdo things and generate sympathy for the judges (the 'openly gay' line was as baffling as it was unacceptable).
MD exactly. As part of 'most people', all I see is a repeat of what's happened time and time again within the EU. If a result given by the electorate is not what was wanted it is either ignored or the electorate are told to vote again until the 'correct' result is obtained
The mobilisation of the super rich, disconnected, privileged elite to frustrate the clear result is generating a lot of anger that can only be focussed on the few publicly identified individuals that are furthering the remainers cause.
The real mistrust of politicians is contributing to this.
Mr. Meeks, ordinary people not showing sufficient respect to judges might also be seen as the consequence of judges not showing sufficient respect to ordinary people (and the way they voted).
Not my view, but I think a lot of people will hold it.
I think the point is that the Government by appearing to silently endorse the hysteria wishes to undermine the integrity of the judiciary. Ordinary people will think whatever they want. Rightly so and in any case you can't stop them.
It's more that the government does not want to alienate the right wing press and its own right wing MPs.
I'm sure the top judges are independent, but they are human. Some elements of the judgement will be subjective because there are never totally objective views. It's worrying that people don't seem aware if this. They may appoint some top judges in America, but there's often a fuss over how they appointed - because they have natural biases.
It also happens in the most objective of subjects - science. Scientists can have different views. Faced with objective evidence, they can come to differing opinions. At least we are aware of this and don't pretend otherwise.
Of course they're human. And the judgment may yet be overturned. If you accept that they are doing their honest best, you will condemn headlines that accuse them of being enemies of the people.
Additional note: High Court judges take a pay cut of anything up to 90% when they take on the role. They do so because of the status it confers and a sense of public duty. The British judiciary is in general of exceptionally high quality and hard working. It's part of the constitutional set-up that works exceptionally well.
It is also one of the reasons that English law is (along with NY law to a point and if one waives jury trial) the de facto international business law. I am aware that love for lawyers is not high here but they are an extraordinarily successful export business.
I'm sure the top judges are independent, but they are human. Some elements of the judgement will be subjective because there are never totally objective views. It's worrying that people don't seem aware if this. They may appoint some top judges in America, but there's often a fuss over how they appointed - because they have natural biases.
It also happens in the most objective of subjects - science. Scientists can have different views. Faced with objective evidence, they can come to differing opinions. At least we are aware of this and don't pretend otherwise.
Of course they're human. And the judgment may yet be overturned. If you accept that they are doing their honest best, you will condemn headlines that accuse them of being enemies of the people.
The two are not automatically contradictory. I deplore the language that The Mail and the like used but I equally deplore the attempt to rstrict the freedom of the press and freedom of speech that some aim for in reaction. We have to trust that the public can recognise when fair comment goes too far.
Additional note: High Court judges take a pay cut of anything up to 90% when they take on the role. They do so because of the status it confers and a sense of public duty. The British judiciary is in general of exceptionally high quality and hard working. It's part of the constitutional set-up that works exceptionally well.
It is also one of the reasons that English law is (along with NY law to a point and if one waives jury trial) the de facto international business law. I am aware that love for lawyers is not high here but they are an extraordinarily successful export business.
The international bond markets would run without it. Most people don't realise just how huge of a deal that is for the City.
Mr. 43, on consistency: I don't think that's surprising. If you're frustrated by the ruling there's only really one angle to take, which reflects that.
Mr. Rog, in trust terms, I wonder if the Conservatives are being the pro-poppy FA to the judges' FIFA (along with the likes of Blair, Clegg, the SNP and Sinn Fein).
This could still turn very ugly. And I agree that rich, metropolitan types are doing their best to bugger up our departure and get us to remain. If they succeed, I fear it'll be Pyrrhic.
Has Momentum ever been that important to Corbyn? I get the impression that it has benefitted from him much more than he has benefitted from it.
Morning David
What do you want to do about our bet?
Pay it.
Could you e-mail me your details - either your address so I can send a cheque or your bank details eo I can transfer - to davidherdson (at) aol.com please?
Admit it
you are not David Herdson political blogger but a scammer based in Nigeria and youre about to empty Scotts bank account
Yes. The last ten years posting on here have in fact been the creation of an elaborate cover.
Judges are referees. Rich referees, but referees just the same. They should expect a good kicking sometimes. Ask Mark Clattenberg.
As judges are likely to be Remainers, there will always be doubt. That's why the FA don't allow referees who support a club to referee their games. And why the plebs are suspicious.
Well there's a surprise! Public schoolboy with sense of entitlement feels thwarted so decides to focus on £750,000/year main job.....saves him having to commute to Lincolnshire too, which must have been such a chore......
Almost as big a surprise as 'anonymous' Tory colleagues stabbing him in the back.
To provoke Hispanics in the way that Trump has repeatedly done is the most barmy aspect of his campaign - and that is, of course, saying something!
I don't think he knows the demographics of America, although living in New York you would have thought he would.
The only time Trump comes across Hispanics is when they are clearing his table or tidying his hotel room. He probably does not realise how many there are and that they do plenty of other things too.
he most likely thought they are all illegal and can't vote.
I'm sure the top judges are independent, but they are human. Some elements of the judgement will be subjective because there are never totally objective views. It's worrying that people don't seem aware if this. They may appoint some top judges in America, but there's often a fuss over how they appointed - because they have natural biases.
It also happens in the most objective of subjects - science. Scientists can have different views. Faced with objective evidence, they can come to differing opinions. At least we are aware of this and don't pretend otherwise.
Of course they're human. And the judgment may yet be overturned. If you accept that they are doing their honest best, you will condemn headlines that accuse them of being enemies of the people.
The two are not automatically contradictory. I deplore the language that The Mail and the like used but I equally deplore the attempt to rstrict the freedom of the press and freedom of speech that some aim for in reaction. We have to trust that the public can recognise when fair comment goes too far.
It's the classic case of newspapers pandering to their readers' prejudices. When I got in from work on Thursday, my dad's comment was "the problem is, the people who voted for Leave aren't the sort to kick off." And he's right. They'll see the judgement and think "well, there's a f****** surprise."
What this whole episode has done, I am afraid, is increase the distrust in politicians. This, and other issues, should have been sorted out BEFORE the referendum. But that would have required the government of the day to acknowledge that their was a chance that they might actually lose. And in the matcho world of politics that's just not on. So they played to win without the slightest thought for what would happen if they lost.
I've chucked some more cash on Florida because dude... it's done.
on what basis? still looks close to me, yes hispanic vote is surging but white voters (of whom there are many more) are surging aswell, and uni educated white in FL is way below avreage.
I've chucked some more cash on Florida because dude... it's done.
on what basis? still looks close to me, yes hispanic vote is surging but white voters (of whom there are many more) are surging aswell, and uni educated white in FL is way below avreage.
I think the polls are missing a big hispanic surge and over estimating the white non educated one. I would probably say NV is done as well for Trump
Judges are referees. Rich referees, but referees just the same. They should expect a good kicking sometimes. Ask Mark Clattenberg.
As judges are likely to be Remainers, there will always be doubt. That's why the FA don't allow referees who support a club to referee their games. And why the plebs are suspicious.
Judges expect to be moaned at by losers. They are entitled to assume that their integrity is not going to be questioned.
Incidentally, I cannot think of anything more calculated to get the Supreme Court starting from a predisposition of upholding the current judgment than a fullscale assault on three of their most respected colleagues by the tabloids without the government fulsomely defending the independence of the judiciary. It's worse than immoral, it's really stupid.
Judges are referees. Rich referees, but referees just the same. They should expect a good kicking sometimes. Ask Mark Clattenberg.
As judges are likely to be Remainers, there will always be doubt. That's why the FA don't allow referees who support a club to referee their games. And why the plebs are suspicious.
I don't think it's possible to prevent people trying cases because of political views, otherwise, no one could try any case that had political implications. I expect that the judiciary voted much the same way as other upper middle class people - I.e. A lead for Remain, but not a huge one. I'd be amazed if Jonathan Sumption didn't vote Leave for example.
Mr. Meeks, if we're discussing morality, the judgement is indefensible. If we're discussing legality, the judgement was technically correct and freedom of speech enables the press and plebs to condemn it.
Edited extra bit: also, you can't reasonably claim judges are objective fellows and then state that the Supreme Court is likelier to back up the original ruling because they're upset the judges have taken a kicking from the press.
I've chucked some more cash on Florida because dude... it's done.
on what basis? still looks close to me, yes hispanic vote is surging but white voters (of whom there are many more) are surging aswell, and uni educated white in FL is way below avreage.
I don't think you can "It's done" when it's a coin-toss.
I've chucked some more cash on Florida because dude... it's done.
on what basis? still looks close to me, yes hispanic vote is surging but white voters (of whom there are many more) are surging aswell, and uni educated white in FL is way below avreage.
I think the polls are missing a big hispanic surge and over estimating the white non educated one. I would probably say NV is done as well for Trump
Mr. Meeks, if we're discussing morality, the judgement is indefensible. If we're discussing legality, the judgement was technically correct and freedom of speech enables the press and plebs to condemn it.
The Press always complains about Judges, and Judges would love to regulate the Press.
Judges are referees. Rich referees, but referees just the same. They should expect a good kicking sometimes. Ask Mark Clattenberg.
As judges are likely to be Remainers, there will always be doubt. That's why the FA don't allow referees who support a club to referee their games. And why the plebs are suspicious.
Judges expect to be moaned at by losers. They are entitled to assume that their integrity is not going to be questioned.
Incidentally, I cannot think of anything more calculated to get the Supreme Court starting from a predisposition of upholding the current judgment than a fullscale assault on three of their most respected colleagues by the tabloids without the government fulsomely defending the independence of the judiciary. It's worse than immoral, it's really stupid.
Hard not to agree with this. About the only virtue the government can claim to date in this nonsense is consistency.
I've chucked some more cash on Florida because dude... it's done.
on what basis? still looks close to me, yes hispanic vote is surging but white voters (of whom there are many more) are surging aswell, and uni educated white in FL is way below avreage.
I think the polls are missing a big hispanic surge and over estimating the white non educated one. I would probably say NV is done as well for Trump
I've chucked some more cash on Florida because dude... it's done.
on what basis? still looks close to me, yes hispanic vote is surging but white voters (of whom there are many more) are surging aswell, and uni educated white in FL is way below avreage.
I think the polls are missing a big hispanic surge and over estimating the white non educated one. I would probably say NV is done as well for Trump
Would Mrs May win such an election and would it be an endorsement of Brexit?
Of the 632 GB seats, 221 voted Remain, 15 were 50/50 and 396 voted Leave.
But the result of the election will be determined by the 120 marginals with a majority of less than 10%.
There are 42 Tory marginals that voted Remain with LibDems mainly in second place (Twickenham, Kingston, Lewes, Bath, Cardiff N, etc). LibDems are likely to win most of these seats back in an election focused on Brexit. That reduces the Tory majority by up to 24.
13 of the Labour marginals have a Leave vote of 60%+ which might be a problem for Labour if they are anti-Brexit but possibly not such a problem if they are pro a soft Brexit as many Leavers might agree with that.
So, ignoring the Corbyn effect, a Brexit based election is likely to lead to a loss of the Tory majority as many LibDems regain Tory seats and not many Labour lose seats.
So the election, in practice would be a judgement of Corbyn not of Brexit and a big risk for the Tories!
Over 170 Labour seats voted Leave, most of them in white working class areas tailor made for UKIP, as Witney showed and Richmond will likely reinforce the LDs are not storming to victory in the minority of Tory seats which voted Remain while the majority of Tory seats which voted Leave will comfortably back her on Brexit
Most of the 170 Labour seats that voted Leave are not marginals. UKIP would have a mountain to climb and would split the anti-Labour vote. Furthermore, it isn't clear that Labour will have an anti-Brexit manifesto. Labour may well have a soft Brexit manifesto which will appeal to many Leavers.
In Witney and Richmond, the LibDems face huge Tory majorities. In the 12 Tory Remain marginals I mentioned, the LibDems are up against Tory majorities of less than 10%.
My point stands. In a Brexit General Election, the LibDems will remove the Tory majority and Labour will lose very few seats if any because of Brexit. (Corbyn is a different matter).
Would Mrs May win such an election and would it be an endorsement of Brexit?
Of the 632 GB seats, 221 voted Remain, 15 were 50/50 and 396 voted Leave.
But the result of the election will be determined by the 120 marginals with a majority of less than 10%.
There are 42 Tory marginals that voted Remain with LibDems mainly in second place (Twickenham, Kingston, Lewes, Bath, Cardiff N, etc). LibDems are likely to win most of these seats back in an election focused on Brexit. That reduces the Tory majority by up to 24.
13 of the Labour marginals have a Leave vote of 60%+ which might be a problem for Labour if they are anti-Brexit but possibly not such a problem if they are pro a soft Brexit as many Leavers might agree with that.
So, ignoring the Corbyn effect, a Brexit based election is likely to lead to a loss of the Tory majority as many LibDems regain Tory seats and not many Labour lose seats.
So the election, in practice would be a judgement of Corbyn not of Brexit and a big risk for the Tories!
Over 170 Labour seats voted Leave, most of them in white working class areas tailor made for UKIP, as Witney showed and Richmond will likely reinforce the LDs are not storming to victory in the minority of Tory seats which voted Remain while the majority of Tory seats which voted Leave will comfortably back her on Brexit
Most of the 170 Labour seats that voted Leave are not marginals. UKIP would have a mountain to climb and would split the anti-Labour vote. Furthermore, it isn't clear that Labour will have an anti-Brexit manifesto. Labour may well have a soft Brexit manifesto which will appeal to many Leavers.
In Witney and Richmond, the LibDems face huge Tory majorities. In the 12 Tory Remain marginals I mentioned, the LibDems are up against Tory majorities of less than 10%.
My point stands. In a Brexit General Election, the LibDems will remove the Tory majority and Labour will lose very few seats if any because of Brexit. (Corbyn is a different matter).
You could have made the same point about Labour majorities in Scotland pre-2015. Indeed, some prominent posters did.
How can a General Election be of the "snap" variety if it is being planned 4 months in advance?
Yes, the headline is misleading; a 'snap election' would surely be one called pre-emptively by the government. What the article seems to be about is preparations for being overtaken by events in the next few months. I wouldn't mind their being reactive rather than proactive, if they reacted a bit quicker...
Mr. Meeks, if we're discussing morality, the judgement is indefensible. If we're discussing legality, the judgement was technically correct and freedom of speech enables the press and plebs to condemn it.
Edited extra bit: also, you can't reasonably claim judges are objective fellows and then state that the Supreme Court is likelier to back up the original ruling because they're upset the judges have taken a kicking from the press.
Good morning, Mr D. In what way is the judgment morally indefensible ?
Would Mrs May win such an election and would it be an endorsement of Brexit?
Of the 632 GB seats, 221 voted Remain, 15 were 50/50 and 396 voted Leave.
But the result of the election will be determined by the 120 marginals with a majority of less than 10%.
There are 42 Tory marginals that voted Remain with LibDems mainly in second place (Twickenham, Kingston, Lewes, Bath, Cardiff N, etc). LibDems are likely to win most of these seats back in an election focused on Brexit. That reduces the Tory majority by up to 24.
13 of the Labour marginals have a Leave vote of 60%+ which might be a problem for Labour if they are anti-Brexit but possibly not such a problem if they are pro a soft Brexit as many Leavers might agree with that.
So, ignoring the Corbyn effect, a Brexit based election is likely to lead to a loss of the Tory majority as many LibDems regain Tory seats and not many Labour lose seats.
So the election, in practice would be a judgement of Corbyn not of Brexit and a big risk for the Tories!
Over 170 Labour seats voted Leave, most of them in white working class areas tailor made for UKIP, as Witney showed and Richmond will likely reinforce the LDs are not storming to victory in the minority of Tory seats which voted Remain while the majority of Tory seats which voted Leave will comfortably back her on Brexit
Most of the 170 Labour seats that voted Leave are not marginals. UKIP would have a mountain to climb and would split the anti-Labour vote. Furthermore, it isn't clear that Labour will have an anti-Brexit manifesto. Labour may well have a soft Brexit manifesto which will appeal to many Leavers.
In Witney and Richmond, the LibDems face huge Tory majorities. In the 12 Tory Remain marginals I mentioned, the LibDems are up against Tory majorities of less than 10%.
My point stands. In a Brexit General Election, the LibDems will remove the Tory majority and Labour will lose very few seats if any because of Brexit. (Corbyn is a different matter).
Most Tory Remain seats have huge majorities, because they're hugely wealthy. Could they lose a few thousand votes in those seats, due to Brexit? Yes. But, they're the sorts of seats where losing a few thousand would still leave a comfortable majority.
I've chucked some more cash on Florida because dude... it's done.
on what basis? still looks close to me, yes hispanic vote is surging but white voters (of whom there are many more) are surging aswell, and uni educated white in FL is way below avreage.
More Hispanics have voted so far than in the entirety of the 2012 election .
Judges are referees. Rich referees, but referees just the same. They should expect a good kicking sometimes. Ask Mark Clattenberg.
As judges are likely to be Remainers, there will always be doubt. That's why the FA don't allow referees who support a club to referee their games. And why the plebs are suspicious.
Judges expect to be moaned at by losers. They are entitled to assume that their integrity is not going to be questioned.
Incidentally, I cannot think of anything more calculated to get the Supreme Court starting from a predisposition of upholding the current judgment than a fullscale assault on three of their most respected colleagues by the tabloids without the government fulsomely defending the independence of the judiciary. It's worse than immoral, it's really stupid.
I think that 'entitlement' is putting it a bit strong; no one should be above having to defend their integrity on occasion. They should be entitled to the presumption of integrity, and absolutely entitled to the defence of their integrity by the government in a case like this, rather than the current deafening silence.
Re ... integrity. I'm sure they acted with integrity. I'm sure they think they were acting objectively. It doesn't mean they don't have a bias. It happens in science too.
That's why double-blind tests are useful. We are aware of natural biases.
Because the judges are toffs, it doesn't make them immune from bias. And other lawyers coming out in support is hardly surprising.
I refer M'Lud to the case of Ms Mandy Rice-Davies.
Would Mrs May win such an election and would it be an endorsement of Brexit?
Of the 632 GB seats, 221 voted Remain, 15 were 50/50 and 396 voted Leave.
But the result of the election will be determined by the 120 marginals with a majority of less than 10%.
There are 42 Tory marginals that voted Remain with LibDems mainly in second place (Twickenham, Kingston, Lewes, Bath, Cardiff N, etc). LibDems are likely to win most of these seats back in an election focused on Brexit. That reduces the Tory majority by up to 24.
13 of the Labour marginals have a Leave vote of 60%+ which might be a problem for Labour if they are anti-Brexit but possibly not such a problem if they are pro a soft Brexit as many Leavers might agree with that.
So, ignoring the Corbyn effect, a Brexit based election is likely to lead to a loss of the Tory majority as many LibDems regain Tory seats and not many Labour lose seats.
So the election, in practice would be a judgement of Corbyn not of Brexit and a big risk for the Tories!
Over 170 Labour seats voted Leave, most of them in white working class areas tailor made for UKIP, as Witney showed and Richmond will likely reinforce the LDs are not storming to victory in the minority of Tory seats which voted Remain while the majority of Tory seats which voted Leave will comfortably back her on Brexit
Most of the 170 Labour seats that voted Leave are not marginals. UKIP would have a mountain to climb and would split the anti-Labour vote. Furthermore, it isn't clear that Labour will have an anti-Brexit manifesto. Labour may well have a soft Brexit manifesto which will appeal to many Leavers.
In Witney and Richmond, the LibDems face huge Tory majorities. In the 12 Tory Remain marginals I mentioned, the LibDems are up against Tory majorities of less than 10%.
My point stands. In a Brexit General Election, the LibDems will remove the Tory majority and Labour will lose very few seats if any because of Brexit. (Corbyn is a different matter).
In most of those 170 seats UKIP are now second and most of the white working class voters there want hard Brexit not soft Brexit i.e. they put controls over immigration first. The Tories presently have a far higher poll rating relative to the LDs than Labour do relative to UKIP and given May has said she still wants to do a trade deal with the EU and even tto try and get some single market access I do not see the LDs making too many gains in Tory seats
"The second sweep, according to the Democratic officials, found a radio signal near the chairman's office that indicated there MIGHT be a listening device outside the office"
"The guys who did the sweep said it was a strong indication." No device was recovered. No possible culprits were identified"
"The FBI did not respond to a request for comment" might have been one of there own devices used while investigating the Clinton foundation.
Yup....Bang to rights, lock em up throw the key away......No doubt such "evidence" was used by the judges in their findings against Brexit here. Give us a shout when they find half a dozen GOP supporters cowing in HRC office at 10 o clock at night and it will be worth consideration.
I've chucked some more cash on Florida because dude... it's done.
on what basis? still looks close to me, yes hispanic vote is surging but white voters (of whom there are many more) are surging aswell, and uni educated white in FL is way below avreage.
I think the polls are missing a big hispanic surge and over estimating the white non educated one. I would probably say NV is done as well for Trump
Would Mrs May win such an election and would it be an endorsement of Brexit?
Of the 632 GB seats, 221 voted Remain, 15 were 50/50 and 396 voted Leave.
But the result of the election will be determined by the 120 marginals with a majority of less than 10%.
There are 42 Tory marginals that voted Remain with LibDems mainly in second place (Twickenham, Kingston, Lewes, Bath, Cardiff N, etc). LibDems are likely to win most of these seats back in an election focused on Brexit. That reduces the Tory majority by up to 24.
13 of the Labour marginals have a Leave vote of 60%+ which might be a problem for Labour if they are anti-Brexit but possibly not such a problem if they are pro a soft Brexit as many Leavers might agree with that.
So, ignoring the Corbyn effect, a Brexit based election is likely to lead to a loss of the Tory majority as many LibDems regain Tory seats and not many Labour lose seats.
So the election, in practice would be a judgement of Corbyn not of Brexit and a big risk for the Tories!
Over 170 Labour seats voted Leave, most of them in white working class areas tailor made for UKIP, as Witney showed and Richmond will likely reinforce the LDs are not storming to victory in the minority of Tory seats which voted Remain while the majority of Tory seats which voted Leave will comfortably back her on Brexit
Most of the 170 Labour seats that voted Leave are not marginals. UKIP would have a mountain to climb and would split the anti-Labour vote. Furthermore, it isn't clear that Labour will have an anti-Brexit manifesto. Labour may well have a soft Brexit manifesto which will appeal to many Leavers.
In Witney and Richmond, the LibDems face huge Tory majorities. In the 12 Tory Remain marginals I mentioned, the LibDems are up against Tory majorities of less than 10%.
My point stands. In a Brexit General Election, the LibDems will remove the Tory majority and Labour will lose very few seats if any because of Brexit. (Corbyn is a different matter).
In most of those 170 seats UKIP are now second and most of the white working class voters there want hard Brexit not soft Brexit i.e. they put controls over immigration first. The Tories presently have a far higher poll rating relative to the LDs than Labour do relative to UKIP and given May has said she still wants to do a trade deal with the EU and even tto try and get some single market access I do not see the LDs making too many gains in Tory seats
I hope your views are reflected in the advice being given to May and that, based on those views, she goes for an early election.
How can a General Election be of the "snap" variety if it is being planned 4 months in advance?
Yes, the headline is misleading; a 'snap election' would surely be one called pre-emptively by the government. What the article seems to be about is preparations for being overtaken by events in the next few months. I wouldn't mind their being reactive rather than proactive, if they reacted a bit quicker...
Of course if a snap election occurs then this would be fought on the old boundaries and not the new ones as set out in the bill. Difficult choice for Mrs May.
It's the attitude towards the judges that epitomises the reasons why the REMAINERS were so worried about leaving. The popular press in this country have always had the ability to mobilize the mob.
It's always been a comfort to know that at least with Europe being the final arbiter we had a line of defense against this egregious 4th Estate. Yesterday was a dystopian vision into the future where all checks and balances are lost and the press assume free reign to humiliate and denigrate those whose job it is to interpret the law in order to cower them to their will.
Would Mrs May win such an election and would it be an endorsement of Brexit?
Of the 632 GB seats, 221 voted Remain, 15 were 50/50 and 396 voted Leave.
But the result of the election will be determined by the 120 marginals with a majority of less than 10%.
There are 42 Tory marginals that voted Remain with LibDems mainly in second place (Twickenham, Kingston, Lewes, Bath, Cardiff N, etc). LibDems are likely to win So, ignoring the Corbyn effect, a Brexit based election is likely to lead to a loss of the Tory majority as many LibDems regain Tory seats and not many Labour lose seats.
So the election, in practice would be a judgement of Corbyn not of Brexit and a big risk for the Tories!
Over 170 Labour seats voted Leave, most of them in white working class areas tailor made for UKIP, as Witney showed and Richmond will likely reinforce the LDs are not storming to victory in the minority of Tory seats which voted Remain while the majority of Tory seats which voted Leave will comfortably back her on Brexit
Most of the 170 Labour seats that voted Leave are not marginals. UKIP would have a mountain to climb and would split the anti-Labour vote. Furthermore, it isn't clear that Labour will have an anti-Brexit manifesto. Labour may well have a soft Brexit manifesto which will appeal to many Leavers.
In Witney and Richmond, the LibDems face huge Tory majorities. In the 12 Tory Remain marginals I mentioned, the LibDems are up against Tory majorities of less than 10%.
My point stands. In a Brexit General Election, the LibDems will remove the Tory majority and Labour will lose very few seats if any because of Brexit. (Corbyn is a different matter).
In most of those 170 seats UKIP are now second and most of the white working class voters there want hard Brexit not soft Brexit i.e. they put controls over immigration first. The Tories presently have a far higher poll rating relative to the LDs than Labour do relative to UKIP and given May has said she still wants to do a trade deal with the EU and even tto try and get some single market access I do not see the LDs making too many gains in Tory seats
I hope your views are reflected in the advice being given to May and that, based on those views, she goes for an early election.
Bring it on.
If Parliament holds up her triggering of Article 50 she would have no choice and she would almost certainly win as big if not a bigger landslide than Thatcher did in 1983 in such circumstances while Labour woul be trying to hold off UKIP as Foot was the SDP
Mr. Meeks, if we're discussing morality, the judgement is indefensible. If we're discussing legality, the judgement was technically correct and freedom of speech enables the press and plebs to condemn it.
Edited extra bit: also, you can't reasonably claim judges are objective fellows and then state that the Supreme Court is likelier to back up the original ruling because they're upset the judges have taken a kicking from the press.
Freedom of speech does not extend to contempt of court. Paul Dacre should be locked up for seven days to purge his contempt and discourage him from repeating it.
I've chucked some more cash on Florida because dude... it's done.
on what basis? still looks close to me, yes hispanic vote is surging but white voters (of whom there are many more) are surging aswell, and uni educated white in FL is way below avreage.
I think the polls are missing a big hispanic surge and over estimating the white non educated one. I would probably say NV is done as well for Trump
Florida not so much, those numbers show Hispanics in line with their electorate not over preforming.
Trump won Hispanics in Nevada in the primaries and leads it in the RCP poll average and he is doing another event there this weekend unlike Hillary
How many registed republican hispanic voters are they in NV? Doesnylt really matter if he won that anyway, Romney did better than trump will do there and still lost in 2012
I've chucked some more cash on Florida because dude... it's done.
on what basis? still looks close to me, yes hispanic vote is surging but white voters (of whom there are many more) are surging aswell, and uni educated white in FL is way below avreage.
I think the polls are missing a big hispanic surge and over estimating the white non educated one. I would probably say NV is done as well for Trump
Florida not so much, those numbers show Hispanics in line with their electorate not over preforming.
Trump won Hispanics in Nevada in the primaries and leads it in the RCP poll average and he is doing another event there this weekend unlike Hillary
How many registed republican hispanic voters are they in NV? Doesnylt really matter if he won that anyway, Romney did better than trump will do there and still lost in 2012
Trump is now doing better than Romney did in the RCP poll average and leads Nevada, if he wins the popular vote, which he will have to to have a chance of victory given the EC leans GOP, he will win Nevada and of course he outperformed the polls there in the primary too. Most Nevadans are yet to vote and unlike say New Mexico a clear majority of Nevada voters are still white
On topic: Mrs May is indeed finding, as predicted by one of the political journalists, that the job of PM isn't as easy as Cameron made it look. Of course, she has intrinsically a particularly hard challenge, but she's made it worse for herself, with missteps such as the half-baked grammar-school nonsense, the miscalculation over Article 50, the delay in approving Heathrow expansion, the unnecessary making of enemies, the poor handling of the Hinkley Point decision, the unbalanced nature of the three key Brexit appointments, and a generally arrogant style. None of these errors are fatal, especially given the abject state of all three of the other main UK parties, but they are accumulating.
There is no doubt in my mind that preparations are being made for a GE. There are a number of small indicators of this, some in the public domain, some inside the party. Of course, that doesn't mean that the decision has been taken; at this stage, it's probably contingency planning. But the contingency is looking every more likely.
May is doing a Brown 2007
Good old brown. What's he up to thesedays?
More constitutional convention, new federal settlement bollox. Same old, same old.
Mr. Meeks, if we're discussing morality, the judgement is indefensible. If we're discussing legality, the judgement was technically correct and freedom of speech enables the press and plebs to condemn it.
Edited extra bit: also, you can't reasonably claim judges are objective fellows and then state that the Supreme Court is likelier to back up the original ruling because they're upset the judges have taken a kicking from the press.
Freedom of speech does not extend to contempt of court. Paul Dacre should be locked up for seven days to purge his contempt and discourage him from repeating it.
How has he commited contempt of court? Criticising a judgement isn't contempt of court, breaking a court's ruling is (eg naming someone the court said must not be named).
Mr. Meeks, if we're discussing morality, the judgement is indefensible. If we're discussing legality, the judgement was technically correct and freedom of speech enables the press and plebs to condemn it.
Edited extra bit: also, you can't reasonably claim judges are objective fellows and then state that the Supreme Court is likelier to back up the original ruling because they're upset the judges have taken a kicking from the press.
Freedom of speech does not extend to contempt of court. Paul Dacre should be locked up for seven days to purge his contempt and discourage him from repeating it.
How has he commited contempt of court? Criticising a judgement isn't contempt of court, breaking a court's ruling is (eg naming someone the court said must not be named).
He criticised the judges, their competence and independence, not just their ruling.
Comments
Could you e-mail me your details - either your address so I can send a cheque or your bank details eo I can transfer - to davidherdson (at) aol.com please?
To provoke Hispanics in the way that Trump has repeatedly done is the most barmy aspect of his campaign - and that is, of course, saying something!
you are not David Herdson political blogger but a scammer based in Nigeria and youre about to empty Scotts bank account
I'm sure the top judges are independent, but they are human. Some elements of the judgement will be subjective because there are never totally objective views. It's worrying that people don't seem aware if this. They may appoint some top judges in America, but there's often a fuss over how they appointed - because they have natural biases.
It also happens in the most objective of subjects - science. Scientists can have different views. Faced with objective evidence, they can come to differing opinions. At least we are aware of this and don't pretend otherwise.
The mobilisation of the super rich, disconnected, privileged elite to frustrate the clear result is generating a lot of anger that can only be focussed on the few publicly identified individuals that are furthering the remainers cause.
The real mistrust of politicians is contributing to this.
Mr. Rog, in trust terms, I wonder if the Conservatives are being the pro-poppy FA to the judges' FIFA (along with the likes of Blair, Clegg, the SNP and Sinn Fein).
This could still turn very ugly. And I agree that rich, metropolitan types are doing their best to bugger up our departure and get us to remain. If they succeed, I fear it'll be Pyrrhic.
You doth protest too much.
Judges are referees. Rich referees, but referees just the same. They should expect a good kicking sometimes. Ask Mark Clattenberg.
As judges are likely to be Remainers, there will always be doubt. That's why the FA don't allow referees who support a club to referee their games. And why the plebs are suspicious.
The Democratic National Committee Has Told the FBI It Found Evidence Its HQ Was Bugged
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/dnc-told-fbi-it-may-have-been-bugged
What this whole episode has done, I am afraid, is increase the distrust in politicians. This, and other issues, should have been sorted out BEFORE the referendum. But that would have required the government of the day to acknowledge that their was a chance that they might actually lose. And in the matcho world of politics that's just not on. So they played to win without the slightest thought for what would happen if they lost.
The real enemy of the people is David Cameron.
https://twitter.com/DaniellaMicaela/status/794740520815689728
Incidentally, I cannot think of anything more calculated to get the Supreme Court starting from a predisposition of upholding the current judgment than a fullscale assault on three of their most respected colleagues by the tabloids without the government fulsomely defending the independence of the judiciary. It's worse than immoral, it's really stupid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37880723
Edited extra bit: also, you can't reasonably claim judges are objective fellows and then state that the Supreme Court is likelier to back up the original ruling because they're upset the judges have taken a kicking from the press.
Most of the connections I use are done either wirelessly or via Bluetooth.
The only Apple devices that are exclusively wired in my house is my Apple TV box to my TV
Florida not so much, those numbers show Hispanics in line with their electorate not over preforming.
"They are entitled to assume that their integrity is not going to be questioned."
When did you last go to a football match? It's this sense of entitlement that produced a 52% Leave vote. Isn't this where we came in?
Also, did you briefly regenerate as Sean_Fear?
Or was that an imposter?
FWIW, i dont think Florida is done, but i also think the Dems have a very decent advantage at the moment
In Witney and Richmond, the LibDems face huge Tory majorities. In the 12 Tory Remain marginals I mentioned, the LibDems are up against Tory majorities of less than 10%.
My point stands. In a Brexit General Election, the LibDems will remove the Tory majority and Labour will lose very few seats if any because of Brexit. (Corbyn is a different matter).
I wouldn't mind their being reactive rather than proactive, if they reacted a bit quicker...
In what way is the judgment morally indefensible ?
They should be entitled to the presumption of integrity, and absolutely entitled to the defence of their integrity by the government in a case like this, rather than the current deafening silence.
Re ... integrity. I'm sure they acted with integrity. I'm sure they think they were acting objectively. It doesn't mean they don't have a bias. It happens in science too.
That's why double-blind tests are useful. We are aware of natural biases.
Because the judges are toffs, it doesn't make them immune from bias. And other lawyers coming out in support is hardly surprising.
I refer M'Lud to the case of Ms Mandy Rice-Davies.
"The second sweep, according to the Democratic officials, found a radio signal near the chairman's office that indicated there MIGHT be a listening device outside the office"
"The guys who did the sweep said it was a strong indication." No device was recovered. No possible culprits were identified"
"The FBI did not respond to a request for comment" might have been one of there own devices used while investigating the Clinton foundation.
Yup....Bang to rights, lock em up throw the key away......No doubt such "evidence" was used by the judges in their findings against Brexit here. Give us a shout when they find half a dozen GOP supporters cowing in HRC office at 10 o clock at night and it will be worth consideration.
Bring it on.
It's always been a comfort to know that at least with Europe being the final arbiter we had a line of defense against this egregious 4th Estate. Yesterday was a dystopian vision into the future where all checks and balances are lost and the press assume free reign to humiliate and denigrate those whose job it is to interpret the law in order to cower them to their will.
Same old, same old.