I would just like to publicly say that I was clearly wrong when I called the election for Hillary in the early hours of Wednesday morning. I took the exit polls at face value....
Noted and very welcome.
But, the elephant in the room for PB moderators etc is the lack of contrary voices and articles on PB on major matters. We had with Brexit a ratio of at least 3:1 in the views of pro-Remain vs pro-Leave in the articles published. We have now had the USA Presidential elections where the articles seem to have been almost 10:1* for a Clinton win. This is not the Guardian.
We need more diversity in the articles.
* I may be exagerating but that is what it feels like.
While that's true, Mike can only publish the articles people write for him. Plato, for example, wrote a lot of comments, but I don't believe she wrote an article.
Thank you for the response. But perhaps asking specific people who post views contrary to the "settled view" of most of the moderators and the main authors, should be done? 1. Articles written from someone who is pro-May would be a start. (I am not very pro-May). 2. Also articles from a viewpoint that is pro-Brexit. 3. Re-start the PB annual forecast. 4. What will Phillip Hammond do?
There has always been a fairly balanced discussion below the line, whatever the header.
Well I think if Le Pen is only 2-3 points behind in the polls and she is promising an EU referendum while Juppé isn't, I'd like to do a header on why she'll win and take France out of the EU.
If she does, it would be potentially more significant long term than either Brexit or Trump. Can't see how the EU could possibly survive a frexit
Speaking as a thread header writer, I find that very often articles aren't read at all and the discussion below the line proceeds on the basis of what the poster assumes was written as opposed to what was actually written. Some posters are exceptionally keen to find something to cause them offence, whether or not the ground for being offended actually exists.
Of course that is true but, the really valuable articles are ones that make a person stop and think and see a matter through a different light. I can read biased, badly written opinion pieces from uninformed hacks every day in our national newspapers. I come to PB for things that make me stop and question what I believe or even provides evidence to support a conclusion I was leaning towards. I have only ever written one PB article. One which questioned Cameron's deviation from the Harold Wilson approach to european referendums.
Speaking as a thread header writer, I find that very often articles aren't read at all and the discussion below the line proceeds on the basis of what the poster assumes was written as opposed to what was actually written. Some posters are exceptionally keen to find something to cause them offence, whether or not the ground for being offended actually exists.
Of course that is true but, the really valuable article s are ones that make a person stop and think and see a matter through a different light. I can read biased, badly written opinion pieces from uninformed hacks every day in our national newspapers. I come to PB for things that make me stop and question what I believe or even provides evidence to support a conclusion I was leaning towards. I have only ever written one PB article. One which questioned Cameron's deviation from the Harold Wilson approach to european referendums.
I agree with you there. Easier said than done though.
With the benefit of hindsight, I'm only satisfied with about half a dozen or so of my thread headers.
lol @ "You can see where this is going. By then animals will have been granted human rights and a fuckin’ hamster is going to be running the country. This has to stop!"
Wake me up when Farron commits the LibDems to rejoining the EU, even if that means the Euro, the European Army, common tax rates, etc etc etc. Otherwise, I'll treat him as Ed Milliband's replacement as Westminster's Opportunistic Little Shit.
I would just like to publicly say that I was clearly wrong when I called the election for Hillary in the early hours of Wednesday morning. I took the exit polls at face value....
Noted and very welcome.
But, the elephant in the room for PB moderators etc is the lack of contrary voices and articles on PB on major matters. We had with Brexit a ratio of at least 3:1 in the views of pro-Remain vs pro-Leave in the articles published. We have now had the USA Presidential elections where the articles seem to have been almost 10:1* for a Clinton win. This is not the Guardian.
We need more diversity in the articles.
* I may be exagerating but that is what it feels like.
While that's true, Mike can only publish the articles people write for him. Plato, for example, wrote a lot of comments, but I don't believe she wrote an article.
Thank you for the response. But perhaps asking specific people who post views contrary to the "settled view" of most of the moderators and the main authors, should be done? 1. Articles written from someone who is pro-May would be a start. (I am not very pro-May). 2. Also articles from a viewpoint that is pro-Brexit. 3. Re-start the PB annual forecast. 4. What will Phillip Hammond do?
There has always been a fairly balanced discussion below the line, whatever the header.
Well I think if Le Pen is only 2-3 points behind in the polls and she is promising an EU referendum while Juppé isn't, I'd like to do a header on why she'll win and take France out of the EU.
If she does, it would be potentially more significant long term than either Brexit or Trump. Can't see how the EU could possibly survive a frexit
It wouldn't. The EU would be finished if France left and I think that is now a door that had opened. Le Pen will campaign on Frexit and Frexit alone, Juppé will either have to offer a vote or he'll lose the election IMO. A vote which may be won by leave under Juppé or guaranteed under Le Pen.
I was out last night with some colleagues at dinner, from a variety of specialities.
Not a cheerful bunch, and with a variety of concerns. Last year GO topped up the NHS deficit via raiding the training and capital budgets to top up the acute Trusts, and the consequences of that are filtering through. The decline in standards is continous, and threatens British medicine in its entirety, as private hospitals do no training, relying on staff trained in the NHS. British nurse training is dire and makes medical education look sound. The NHS needs to train constantly to replenish staff who leave. The rota gaps are approaching unbridgeable stages.
It is not simple cutting senior management, unless you get rid of the targets and CQC and similar things that they have to report on. I do not see an easy solution.
I do not believe there is an easy solution, but a solution no matter how hard has to be found, and properly thought through and properly funded.
The reason I suggested sacking all the non-medical senior management is not to save money or the usual business process reasons but because most of them seem utterly incompetent. They are presiding over failure whilst being paid very substantial salaries.
I went to see my osteopath yesterday and she tells me that she was a trained ITU nurse before giving up on the NHS, not because she disliked nursing but she could no longer put up with the way she was managed and serious sums of money were wasted by idiots who did not know what they were talking about and would not listen to the staff who did. So she left and retrained for three years as an osteopath. How did she fund herself through those three years by working as an agency nurse in an A&E unit at weekends working double shifts where she was paid three times the amount a NHS nurse would receive for doing the same job, plus the agency took its wack out of the NHS on top. Furthermore, and this is the crippler, every nurse in that A&E, save the sister, were agency nurses. What sort of management allows that situation to develop? Only a grossly incompetent one.
Her comments on modern nurse training are unrepeatable on a site where young people may be reading.
Speaking as a thread header writer, I find that very often articles aren't read at all and the discussion below the line proceeds on the basis of what the poster assumes was written as opposed to what was actually written. Some posters are exceptionally keen to find something to cause them offence, whether or not the ground for being offended actually exists.
Of course that is true but, the really valuable articles are ones that make a person stop and think and see a matter through a different light. I can read biased, badly written opinion pieces from uninformed hacks every day in our national newspapers. I come to PB for things that make me stop and question what I believe or even provides evidence to support a conclusion I was leaning towards. I have only ever written one PB article. One which questioned Cameron's deviation from the Harold Wilson approach to european referendums.
I read most of Antifrank's articles - and then stopped after he morphed in Mr Meeks. Being called a stupid, racist, xenophobic, homophobe Little Englander for the Nth time over 25 paragraphs really isn't a way to engage an audience.
There's no insight there - just appalling smug prejudice.
lol @ "You can see where this is going. By then animals will have been granted human rights and a fuckin’ hamster is going to be running the country. This has to stop!"
It is not simple cutting senior management, unless you get rid of the targets and CQC and similar things that they have to report on. I do not see an easy solution.
As a system grows it becomes less and susceptible to be managed. The required complexity is simply beyond human control. There's the famous story of a Russian diplomat in London in the early 70s being amazed at the offering in a local bakery and asking who was in charge of bread in London - getting the astonishing answer 'nobody - it's a free market'. The health needs of a country of 60m people is a tad more complex than the London bread market! It's literally not manageable. Unfortunately the NHS has also morphed into a religion. Labour drones line up to promise no more privatisation. we need to accept that if managed as a Stalinist central blob we'll get a Stalinist central blob, with the quality and efficiency that implies. The only way the health system can really hum and be efficient is as a market. Paid for by tax but a market for delivery. Even the bloody French have worked this out. But not us in NHS religionland.
I think you're pretty much right there.
My view is that the letters "NHS" are the biggest barrier to improving healthcare in this country, for two reasons:
1) Far too much effort is put into "saving the NHS", when we shouldn't care about the NHS, we should care about the standard of healthcare people receive when they need it.
2) Political control of the whole system is a bad idea - despite common belief, politicians are not cleverer than anyone else and don't know what another person wants or needs better than that person themselves. Any change to the NHS results in campaigns to prevent it, and means that things go in circles - see fundholding going away then coming back as choose and book.
The NHS needs re-naming as a matter of urgency, just to break the spell. And someone needs to be brave enough to say that it doesn't work, it isn't the envy of the world and there is a better way possible. It is quite possible to have the taxpayer paying for healthcare without also running every hospital.
In front of the largest televised debate audience ever, Donald Trump blew it.
Swing-state Republicans expressed frustration at his Monday night performance, characterizing it as a series of missed opportunities to move the dial in the places that will matter most to his electoral fortunes in November.
Name-checking battleground states like Michigan and Ohio was a wise move, state and local GOP leaders said. And Trump’s message on trade resonates in industrial areas across the Rust Belt, from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin. But above all else, Republican officials and operatives lamented his lack of preparation and failure to reach persuadable voters, especially women and GOP-leaners who are not yet sold on him.
In front of the largest televised debate audience ever, Donald Trump blew it.
Swing-state Republicans expressed frustration at his Monday night performance, characterizing it as a series of missed opportunities to move the dial in the places that will matter most to his electoral fortunes in November.
Name-checking battleground states like Michigan and Ohio was a wise move, state and local GOP leaders said. And Trump’s message on trade resonates in industrial areas across the Rust Belt, from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin. But above all else, Republican officials and operatives lamented his lack of preparation and failure to reach persuadable voters, especially women and GOP-leaners who are not yet sold on him.
Without being rude - Politico has ZERO credibility with me now post Wikileaks. Asking the DNC for article approval...
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
What? Trump had a smaller % of Whites - or am I mistaken? He got more Blacks and Latinos/Hispanics than Romney.
If he gets this right - he'll convert a bunch more Blacks and L/H to the GOP.
I mean in terms of identity rather than votes. The Dems are already seen as the party of foreigners and gays, the GOP are now going to be the party of whites and straights. Horrible to think about it like that, but the Liberal left are reaping what they have sowed. The Dems have concentrated so hard on trying to offer something to each minority group they forgot about white voters who previously had no reason to identify as a group or voting block.
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Trump did no better with whites than Romney did (he did do a bit better among minorities than Romney did).
But, he did considerably better than Romney among working class whites in the North East and Mid West, while falling back among better off whites. Both Maine and Rhode Island have large working class white populations.
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
What? Trump had a smaller % of Whites - or am I mistaken? He got more Blacks and Latinos/Hispanics than Romney.
If he gets this right - he'll convert a bunch more Blacks and L/H to the GOP.
A REALLY shrewd move would be Trump granting an amnesty for those Hispanics and others who have been in the US illegally for say five years, as long as they have a clean criminal record and a job. Whilst building the wall.
Mr Trump has an extensive stable of more than 500 businesses, including glitzy hotels and casinos. "His having a financial empire ironically could be what saves us from disaster," Prof Painter said. "[Policies] that would destroy trade would destroy his businesses." He said Mr Trump's campaign trail pronouncements should be taken with a pinch of salt, and were aimed at appealing to the US electorate.
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
It is not simple cutting senior management, unless you get rid of the targets and CQC and similar things that they have to report on. I do not see an easy solution.
As a system grows it becomes less and susceptible to be managed. The required complexity is simply beyond human control. There's the famous story of a Russian diplomat in London in the early 70s being amazed at the offering in a local bakery and asking who was in charge of bread in London - getting the astonishing answer 'nobody - it's a free market'. The health needs of a country of 60m people is a tad more complex than the London bread market! It's literally not manageable. Unfortunately the NHS has also morphed into a religion. Labour drones line up to promise no more privatisation. we need to accept that if managed as a Stalinist central blob we'll get a Stalinist central blob, with the quality and efficiency that implies. The only way the health system can really hum and be efficient is as a market. Paid for by tax but a market for delivery. Even the bloody French have worked this out. But not us in NHS religionland.
I think you're pretty much right there. My view is that the letters "NHS" are the biggest barrier to improving healthcare in this country, for two reasons: .......SNIP.............. The NHS needs re-naming as a matter of urgency, just to break the spell.........
A quick start down that road is simply to call its parts what they are. English Health Service Scottish Health Service Welsh Health Service There is no NHS these days.
Speaking as a thread header writer, I find that very often articles aren't read at all and the discussion below the line proceeds on the basis of what the poster assumes was written as opposed to what was actually written. Some posters are exceptionally keen to find something to cause them offence, whether or not the ground for being offended actually exists.
Of course that is true but, the really valuable articles are ones that make a person stop and think and see a matter through a different light. I can read biased, badly written opinion pieces from uninformed hacks every day in our national newspapers. I come to PB for things that make me stop and question what I believe or even provides evidence to support a conclusion I was leaning towards. I have only ever written one PB article. One which questioned Cameron's deviation from the Harold Wilson approach to european referendums.
I read most of Antifrank's articles - and then stopped after he morphed in Mr Meeks. Being called a stupid, racist, xenophobic, homophobe Little Englander for the Nth time over 25 paragraphs really isn't a way to engage an audience.
There's no insight there - just appalling smug prejudice.
I would have kept the pseudonym. The risk with using your real name is that everything just gets a bit more personal.
It is not simple cutting senior management, unless you get rid of the targets and CQC and similar things that they have to report on. I do not see an easy solution.
As a system grows it becomes less and susceptible to be managed. The required complexity is simply beyond human control. There's the famous story of a Russian diplomat in London in the early 70s being amazed at the offering in a local bakery and asking who was in charge of bread in London - getting the astonishing answer 'nobody - it's a free market'. The health needs of a country of 60m people is a tad more complex than the London bread market! It's literally not manageable. Unfortunately the NHS has also morphed into a religion. Labour drones line up to promise no more privatisation. we need to accept that if managed as a Stalinist central blob we'll get a Stalinist central blob, with the quality and efficiency that implies. The only way the health system can really hum and be efficient is as a market. Paid for by tax but a market for delivery. Even the bloody French have worked this out. But not us in NHS religionland.
I think you're pretty much right there. My view is that the letters "NHS" are the biggest barrier to improving healthcare in this country, for two reasons: .......SNIP.............. The NHS needs re-naming as a matter of urgency, just to break the spell.........
A quick start down that road is simply to call its parts what they are. English Health Service Scottish Health Service Welsh Health Service There is no NHS these days.
I'm well aware I work in the English NHS, but that split has been done in everything BUT name! The problem is still there as things stand. Unfortunately I don't think there is any healthcare solution which is both politically and economically possible at the moment. Chucking more money in isn't the solution.
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
What? Trump had a smaller % of Whites - or am I mistaken? He got more Blacks and Latinos/Hispanics than Romney.
If he gets this right - he'll convert a bunch more Blacks and L/H to the GOP.
A REALLY shrewd move would be Trump granting an amnesty for those Hispanics and others who have been in the US illegally for say five years, as long as they have a clean criminal record and a job. Whilst building the wall.
Four years time - landslide.
I've read a few pieces suggesting that if Trump can come up with the 'right criteria' for some illegals - he can change this traditionally Dem voting demographic to the GOP for years. It's the smart move.
He instantly creates a dividing line between the decent and the unwelcome. No one is going to cry about deporting criminals who sucked on the teat of welfare.
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Trump did no better with whites than Romney did (he did do a bit better among minorities than Romney did).
But, he did considerably better than Romney among working class whites in the North East and Mid West, while falling back among better off whites. Both Maine and Rhode Island have large working class white populations.
Part of that is losing the traditional white collar GOP to Clinton and Johnson. I think if Trump runs in 2020 that will unwind and he could win a landslide and flip a few New England states. Assuming the Dems put forwards someone like Warren.
Point of order: That is some people not in the Trump camp suggesting he'll water down trade pledges. That is categorically not "Trump starting to water down trade pledges". They may be right but ma\y be wrong, take with salt.
Speaking as a thread header writer, I find that very often articles aren't read at all and the discussion below the line proceeds on the basis of what the poster assumes was written as opposed to what was actually written. Some posters are exceptionally keen to find something to cause them offence, whether or not the ground for being offended actually exists.
Of course that is true but, the really valuable articles are ones that make a person stop and think and see a matter through a different light. I can read biased, badly written opinion pieces from uninformed hacks every day in our national newspapers. I come to PB for things that make me stop and question what I believe or even provides evidence to support a conclusion I was leaning towards. I have only ever written one PB article. One which questioned Cameron's deviation from the Harold Wilson approach to european referendums.
I read most of Antifrank's articles - and then stopped after he morphed in Mr Meeks. Being called a stupid, racist, xenophobic, homophobe Little Englander for the Nth time over 25 paragraphs really isn't a way to engage an audience.
There's no insight there - just appalling smug prejudice.
I would have kept the pseudonym. The risk with using your real name is that everything just gets a bit more personal.
Being potentially identifiable is however an effective brake on posting stuff that you really shouldn't (except possibly in Primrose Hill).
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Speaking as a thread header writer, I find that very often articles aren't read at all and the discussion below the line proceeds on the basis of what the poster assumes was written as opposed to what was actually written. Some posters are exceptionally keen to find something to cause them offence, whether or not the ground for being offended actually exists.
Of course that is true but, the really valuable articles are ones that make a person stop and think and see a matter through a different light. I can read biased, badly written opinion pieces from uninformed hacks every day in our national newspapers. I come to PB for things that make me stop and question what I believe or even provides evidence to support a conclusion I was leaning towards. I have only ever written one PB article. One which questioned Cameron's deviation from the Harold Wilson approach to european referendums.
I read most of Antifrank's articles - and then stopped after he morphed in Mr Meeks. Being called a stupid, racist, xenophobic, homophobe Little Englander for the Nth time over 25 paragraphs really isn't a way to engage an audience.
There's no insight there - just appalling smug prejudice.
I would have kept the pseudonym. The risk with using your real name is that everything just gets a bit more personal.
I think we now have learnt twice that in the current political environment hard information and even good anecdata are worth alot more than opinions ,particularly opinions from liberals.
It is not simple cutting senior management, unless you get rid of the targets and CQC and similar things that they have to report on. I do not see an easy solution.
As a system grows it becomes less and susceptible to be managed. The required complexity is simply beyond human control. There's the famous story of a Russian diplomat in London in the early 70s being amazed at the offering in a local bakery and asking who was in charge of bread in London - getting the astonishing answer 'nobody - it's a free market'. The health needs of a country of 60m people is a tad more complex than the London bread market! It's literally not manageable. Unfortunately the NHS has also morphed into a religion. Labour drones line up to promise no more privatisation. we need to accept that if managed as a Stalinist central blob we'll get a Stalinist central blob, with the quality and efficiency that implies. The only way the health system can really hum and be efficient is as a market. Paid for by tax but a market for delivery. Even the bloody French have worked this out. But not us in NHS religionland.
I think you're pretty much right there.
My view is that the letters "NHS" are the biggest barrier to improving healthcare in this country, for two reasons:
1) Far too much effort is put into "saving the NHS", when we shouldn't care about the NHS, we should care about the standard of healthcare people receive when they need it.
2) Political control of the whole system is a bad idea - despite common belief, politicians are not cleverer than anyone else and don't know what another person wants or needs better than that person themselves. Any change to the NHS results in campaigns to prevent it, and means that things go in circles - see fundholding going away then coming back as choose and book.
The NHS needs re-naming as a matter of urgency, just to break the spell. And someone needs to be brave enough to say that it doesn't work, it isn't the envy of the world and there is a better way possible. It is quite possible to have the taxpayer paying for healthcare without also running every hospital.
That's back to front. Just about any reform could be pushed through *providing* that the name NHS is kept.
On point 2, there has to be political control because there has to be political accountability for the spending of over £100bn pa and the policy choices that come with that.
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
But we should be careful not to learn the wrong lessons.
What we are seeing in almost all democracies is that traditional political loyalties are weakening; the reasons have been well rehearsed. Surely it follows from this, not that one particular perspective is doomed for all time, but that things that changed quickly in one way can just as easily change quickly in another? (edit/ and that however things change, an awful lot of people won't see it coming).
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
I assume that after Tuesday's result I will be able to pick up Carville's book in my local Oxfam 'Sale' bin for 50p.
What you need to remember is that a lot of GOP voters (e.g. in OC) voted for Johnson over Trump.
*If* Trump proves to be sensible over the next 4 years the slate will be wiped clean in terms of the historical sexism etc and so he could get 2m+ additional votes relatively easily. They probably are in the wrong places (CA and TX for instance) to help in the ECV but you need to be careful not to underestimate his potential starting point
Again 'Trump' and 'sensible' in the same sentence. Can he do that, see my earlier post about a golf course in Scotland and his actions there.
And again you have ignored the conditionality.
this time i put *asterixes* and everything around it too.
I agree. Worth a thread on its own. No need to write the article just publish the LD quotes. Is this the LD charge of the Light Brigade?
No, it's identity politics. There is a Hard Remainer vote out there that is substantially bigger than the 6-8% share of the polls that the LDs get at the moment. They want maximum obstructionism and any legal means to disrupt and ultimately defeat withdrawal. There is nothing immoral about that - people with a minority view (e.g. Tory MPs who supported fox-hunting, to take a relatively trivial example) will often do just that. The hardcore is not attracted to Labour, which is necessarily more inclined to acknowledge the result to avoid infuriating its other voters. If Farron can mop them up, the LDs could hope for say 15%, and would see that as a big recovery.
His problem is that nobody is really listening to him and there is still an element of scepticism about anything the LibDems say.
The reports of "Go home!" "Speak English!" incidents in America have started.
Because they've never happened before?
Well the Latino New York Times reporter whose account I saw - and tried but failed to find a way to put into a post on here - said that in all her years in the US nothing like that had happened to her before. As did a lot of the post-Brexit victims of similarly abusive public remarks.
How many more votes are left to be counted? Is it out of the question that Trump will be able to say he got more votes than Romney?
Should do, there are a lot of postal ballots still to count. Trump should beat Romney by a fair amount in the end, puts paid to the idea that he did worse than Romney overall.
I agree. Worth a thread on its own. No need to write the article just publish the LD quotes. Is this the LD charge of the Light Brigade?
No, it's identity politics. There is a Hard Remainer vote out there that is substantially bigger than the 6-8% share of the polls that the LDs get at the moment. They want maximum obstructionism and any legal means to disrupt and ultimately defeat withdrawal. There is nothing immoral about that - people with a minority view (e.g. Tory MPs who supported fox-hunting, to take a relatively trivial example) will often do just that. The hardcore is not attracted to Labour, which is necessarily more inclined to acknowledge the result to avoid infuriating its other voters. If Farron can mop them up, the LDs could hope for say 15%, and would see that as a big recovery.
His problem is that nobody is really listening to him and there is still an element of scepticism about anything the LibDems say.
They do, nevertheless, already have the declared support of David Lammy, Owen Smith, and the SDLP.
edit/ the PB post should really be a counter-factual as to where Labour would be had the Owen beaten the Corby!
The reports of "Go home!" "Speak English!" incidents in America have started.
Because they've never happened before?
Well the Latino New York Times reporter whose account I saw - and tried but failed to find a way to put into a post on here - said that in all her years in the US nothing like that had happened to her before. As did a lot of the post-Brexit victims of similarly abusive public remarks.
I honestly don't believe a word about this from anyone. When it's on video or subject to police scrutiny - then I'll pay attention.
It is not simple cutting senior management, unless you get rid of the targets and CQC and similar things that they have to report on. I do not see an easy solution.
As a system grows it becomes less and susceptible to be managed. The required complexity is simply beyond human control. There's the famous story of a Russian diplomat in London in the early 70s being amazed at the offering in a local bakery and asking who was in charge of bread in London - getting the astonishing answer 'nobody - it's a free market'. The health needs of a country of 60m people is a tad more complex than the London bread market! It's literally not manageable. Unfortunately the NHS has also morphed into a religion. Labour drones line up to promise no more privatisation. we need to accept that if managed as a Stalinist central blob we'll get a Stalinist central blob, with the quality and efficiency that implies. The only way the health system can really hum and be efficient is as a market. Paid for by tax but a market for delivery. Even the bloody French have worked this out. But not us in NHS religionland.
I think you're pretty much right there. My view is that the letters "NHS" are the biggest barrier to improving healthcare in this country, for two reasons: .......SNIP.............. The NHS needs re-naming as a matter of urgency, just to break the spell.........
A quick start down that road is simply to call its parts what they are. English Health Service Scottish Health Service Welsh Health Service There is no NHS these days.
I'm well aware I work in the English NHS, but that split has been done in everything BUT name! The problem is still there as things stand. Unfortunately I don't think there is any healthcare solution which is both politically and economically possible at the moment. Chucking more money in isn't the solution.
How can you be sure that chucking more money in isn't the solution?
Given that we spend a lower proportion of GDP per capita on healthcare than most other first world countries (especially those offering good healthcare), the obvious conclusion would be that chucking more money in is exactly what we need to do!
Fox .@Reince: Americans decided to put Republicans in control of the House, Senate & White House; now we have to execute the will of the people. https://t.co/vtRVCBYc66
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more millenials and minorities had turned out for Hillary in the swing states as they did for Obama she would have narrowly won. It is mainly about which sides voters come out it was white working class turnout and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
The reports of "Go home!" "Speak English!" incidents in America have started.
Because they've never happened before?
Well the Latino New York Times reporter whose account I saw - and tried but failed to find a way to put into a post on here - said that in all her years in the US nothing like that had happened to her before. As did a lot of the post-Brexit victims of similarly abusive public remarks.
I honestly don't believe a word about this from anyone. When it's on video or subject to police scrutiny - then I'll pay attention.
That isn't really helpful. In the UK (where there are plenty of videos on YouTube of such incidents) I have met several such people and see no reason not to believe their accounts.
You really don't need to read that much history to understand how the peddling of certain views by prominent politicians can legitimise unpleasant actions from a minority of a population.
It is not simple cutting senior management, unless you get rid of the targets and CQC and similar things that they have to report on. I do not see an easy solution.
As a system grows it becomes less and susceptible to be managed. The required complexity is simply beyond human control. There's the famous story of a Russian diplomat in London in the early 70s being amazed at the offering in a local bakery and asking who was in charge of bread in London - getting the astonishing answer 'nobody - it's a free market'. The health needs of a country of 60m people is a tad more complex than the London bread market! It's literally not manageable. Unfortunately the NHS has also morphed into a religion. Labour drones line up to promise no more privatisation. we need to accept that if managed as a Stalinist central blob we'll get a Stalinist central blob, with the quality and efficiency that implies. The only way the health system can really hum and be efficient is as a market. Paid for by tax but a market for delivery. Even the bloody French have worked this out. But not us in NHS religionland.
I think you're pretty much right there.
My view is that the letters "NHS" are the biggest barrier to improving healthcare in this country, for two reasons:
1) Far too much effort is put into "saving the NHS", when we shouldn't care about the NHS, we should care about the standard of healthcare people receive when they need it.
2) Political control of the whole system is a bad idea - despite common belief, politicians are not cleverer than anyone else and don't know what another person wants or needs better than that person themselves. Any change to the NHS results in campaigns to prevent it, and means that things go in circles - see fundholding going away then coming back as choose and book.
The NHS needs re-naming as a matter of urgency, just to break the spell. And someone needs to be brave enough to say that it doesn't work, it isn't the envy of the world and there is a better way possible. It is quite possible to have the taxpayer paying for healthcare without also running every hospital.
That's back to front. Just about any reform could be pushed through *providing* that the name NHS is kept.
On point 2, there has to be political control because there has to be political accountability for the spending of over £100bn pa and the policy choices that come with that.
Who is in charge of the NHS in Scotland? Hunt or the SNP Govt. Who is in charge of Welsh... English... etc
The reports of "Go home!" "Speak English!" incidents in America have started.
Because they've never happened before?
Well the Latino New York Times reporter whose account I saw - and tried but failed to find a way to put into a post on here - said that in all her years in the US nothing like that had happened to her before. As did a lot of the post-Brexit victims of similarly abusive public remarks.
I honestly don't believe a word about this from anyone. When it's on video or subject to police scrutiny - then I'll pay attention.
Funny how that standard doesn't apply to the most of what you retweet
It is not simple cutting senior management, unless you get rid of the targets and CQC and similar things that they have to report on. I do not see an easy solution.
As a system grows it becomes less and susceptible to be managed. The required complexity is simply beyond human control. There's the famous story of a Russian diplomat in London in the early 70s being amazed at the offering in a local bakery and asking who was in charge of bread in London - getting the astonishing answer 'nobody - it's a free market'. The health needs of a country of 60m people is a tad more complex than the London bread market! It's literally not manageable. Unfortunately the NHS has also morphed into a religion. Labour drones line up to promise no more privatisation. we need to accept that if managed as a Stalinist central blob we'll get a Stalinist central blob, with the quality and efficiency that implies. The only way the health system can really hum and be efficient is as a market. Paid for by tax but a market for delivery. Even the bloody French have worked this out. But not us in NHS religionland.
I think you're pretty much right there. My view is that the letters "NHS" are the biggest barrier to improving healthcare in this country, for two reasons: .......SNIP.............. The NHS needs re-naming as a matter of urgency, just to break the spell.........
A quick start down that road is simply to call its parts what they are. English Health Service Scottish Health Service Welsh Health Service There is no NHS these days.
I'm well aware I work in the English NHS, but that split has been done in everything BUT name! The problem is still there as things stand. Unfortunately I don't think there is any healthcare solution which is both politically and economically possible at the moment. Chucking more money in isn't the solution.
How can you be sure that chucking more money in isn't the solution?
Given that we spend a lower proportion of GDP per capita on healthcare than most other first world countries (especially those offering good healthcare), the obvious conclusion would be that chucking more money in is exactly what we need to do!
New Labour's experience isn't however tremendously reassuring in this regard?
The reports of "Go home!" "Speak English!" incidents in America have started.
Because they've never happened before?
Well the Latino New York Times reporter whose account I saw - and tried but failed to find a way to put into a post on here - said that in all her years in the US nothing like that had happened to her before. As did a lot of the post-Brexit victims of similarly abusive public remarks.
After all the made up stories I'm not really sure I believe this stuff anymore.
It is not simple cutting senior management, unless you get rid of the targets and CQC and similar things that they have to report on. I do not see an easy solution.
As a system grows it becomes less and susceptible to be managed. The required complexity is simply beyond human control. There's the famous story of a Russian diplomat in London in the early 70s being amazed at the offering in a local bakery and asking who was in charge of bread in London - getting the astonishing answer 'nobody - it's a free market'. The health needs of a country of 60m people is a tad more complex than the London bread market! It's literally not manageable. Unfortunately the NHS has also morphed into a religion. Labour drones line up to promise no more privatisation. we need to accept that if managed as a Stalinist central blob we'll get a Stalinist central blob, with the quality and efficiency that implies. The only way the health system can really hum and be efficient is as a market. Paid for by tax but a market for delivery. Even the bloody French have worked this out. But not us in NHS religionland.
I think you're pretty much right there.
My view is that the letters "NHS" are the biggest barrier to improving healthcare in this country, for two reasons:
1) Far too much effort is put into "saving the NHS", when we shouldn't care about the NHS, we should care about the standard of healthcare people receive when they need it.
2) Political control of the whole system is a bad idea - despite common belief, politicians are not cleverer than anyone else and don't know what another person wants or needs better than that person themselves. Any change to the NHS results in campaigns to prevent it, and means that things go in circles - see fundholding going away then coming back as choose and book.
The NHS needs re-naming as a matter of urgency, just to break the spell. And someone needs to be brave enough to say that it doesn't work, it isn't the envy of the world and there is a better way possible. It is quite possible to have the taxpayer paying for healthcare without also running every hospital.
That's back to front. Just about any reform could be pushed through *providing* that the name NHS is kept.
On point 2, there has to be political control because there has to be political accountability for the spending of over £100bn pa and the policy choices that come with that.
The government spends £160bn pa on welfare. Are you arguing that there should be political control of what the recipients spend the money on?
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more millenials and minorities had turned out for Hillary in the swing states as they did for Obama she would have narrowly won. It is mainly about which sides voters come out it was white working class turnout and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
Even more important is WHERE the growth is. If most of the Hispanic growth is concentrated in uncompetitive states like CA and TX then it won't change anything.
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more millenials and minorities had turned out for Hillary in the swing states as they did for Obama she would have narrowly won. It is mainly about which sides voters come out it was white working class turnout and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
Hmm AIUI Trump won with white women and college educated white women, but lost so heavily with black and Hispanic women that he lost with women overall. Those estimates are also based on the exit poll which was Clinton +3 the result is Clinton +0.5.
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more millenials and minorities had turned out for Hillary in the swing states as they did for Obama she would have narrowly won. It is mainly about which sides voters come out it was white working class turnout and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
Hmm AIUI Trump won with white women and college educated white women, but lost so heavily with black and Hispanic women that he lost with women overall. Those estimates are also based on the exit poll which was Clinton +3 the result is Clinton +0.5.
It'll end up Clinton +1.2 or so.
Exit poll similiar tale to Israel, and GE2015 here.
The reports of "Go home!" "Speak English!" incidents in America have started.
Because they've never happened before?
Well the Latino New York Times reporter whose account I saw - and tried but failed to find a way to put into a post on here - said that in all her years in the US nothing like that had happened to her before. As did a lot of the post-Brexit victims of similarly abusive public remarks.
I honestly don't believe a word about this from anyone. When it's on video or subject to police scrutiny - then I'll pay attention.
Any attempt at rational dialogue in the US is being undermined more and more by hoaxes and false reporting.
The exaggerations and outright lies are tiresome now and very unhelpful.
Even the Labour Party managed not to fall into this Heffalump Trap.
The referendum he proposes is impossible.
It wouldn't be impossible; it would be absurd.
I think a Noel Edmonds referendum would be absurd. But a deal-or-stay-in? How can Parliament call that referendum when one option is literally not an option?
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more millenials and minorities had turned out for Hillary in the swing states as they did for Obama she would have narrowly won. It is mainly about which sides voters come out it was white working class turnout and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
Even more important is WHERE the growth is. If most of the Hispanic growth is concentrated in uncompetitive states like CA and TX then it won't change anything.
Good point.
On the demographics I think Trump/the GOP have far more to gain by chipping away at their toxicity in the AA community. It's also the right thing to do.
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more millenials and minorities had turned out for Hillary in the swing states as they did for Obama she would have narrowly won. It is mainly about which sides voters come out it was white working class turnout and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
Hmm AIUI Trump won with white women and college educated white women, but lost so heavily with black and Hispanic women that he lost with women overall. Those estimates are also based on the exit poll which was Clinton +3 the result is Clinton +0.5.
Trump lost white female college graduates according to every exit poll, they had voted for Romney in 2012
Wall Street doesn't seem to know whether to go up or down. Everywhere else is down; surely it is only a matter of time before the NYSE gets the message...
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more millenials and minorities had turned out for Hillary in the swing states as they did for Obama she would have narrowly won. It is mainly about which sides voters come out it was white working class turnout and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
Even more important is WHERE the growth is. If most of the Hispanic growth is concentrated in uncompetitive states like CA and TX then it won't change anything.
Arizona could go Dem as could even Texas in a decade or two even as the Midwest turns increasingly red, both states saw Trump do worse than Romney did, that would change things significantly
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more millenials and minorities had turned out for Hillary in the swing states as they did for Obama she would have narrowly won. It is mainly about which sides voters come out it was white working class turnout and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
Even more important is WHERE the growth is. If most of the Hispanic growth is concentrated in uncompetitive states like CA and TX then it won't change anything.
Arizona could go Dem as could even Texas in a decade or two even as the Midwest turns increasingly red, both states saw Trump do worse than Romney did, that would change things significantly
edit/ the PB post should really be a counter-factual as to where Labour would be had the Owen beaten the Corby!
But that requires a road trip to the land of Never Gonna Happen.... Why would we want to go there (other than the reality of the here and now is so horrible, you want to escape)?
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more millenials and minorities had turned out for Hillary in the swing states as they did for Obama she would have narrowly won. It is mainly about which sides voters come out it was white working class turnout and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
Even more important is WHERE the growth is. If most of the Hispanic growth is concentrated in uncompetitive states like CA and TX then it won't change anything.
Arizona could go Dem as could even Texas in a decade or two even as the Midwest turns increasingly red, both states saw Trump do worse than Romney did, that would change things significantly
Texas is in play next election.
Certainly, by 2030 Ohio may no longer be a swing state but safe GOP, Texas may no longer be safe GOP but a swing state
There are any number of mug punter bets on offer from the bookies right now appearing under the heading "Donald Trump Specials" on Oddschecker.
These include, by way of example, odds of 5/4 against him winning the 2020 POTUS Election (having held onto your money for 4 long years), 12/1 against Hillary Clinton being the Democratic candidate against him in 2020 or arguably worst of all, 13/8 against Russia being the first State Visit of his presidency .... there are many more equally rubbish bets on offer.
But one real plum of a bet imho which I noticed last night was a 25/1 offering from Betway against "Donald Trump resigning as President before completing a full term." There are any number of possible ways or reasons why such a scenario might come to pass and too many to go into here but I grabbed what I believed to be outstanding value, attempting to invest a tenner to win £250, but those nice folk at Betway would only allow me the curious stake of £4.39 to win £109.75. Still it's definitely a betting slip to put away under lock and key for the future.
Sadly, the bookie appears to have since taken down this offering, but maybe it's worth looking out for its possible reappearance.
The reports of "Go home!" "Speak English!" incidents in America have started.
Because they've never happened before?
Well the Latino New York Times reporter whose account I saw - and tried but failed to find a way to put into a post on here - said that in all her years in the US nothing like that had happened to her before. As did a lot of the post-Brexit victims of similarly abusive public remarks.
I honestly don't believe a word about this from anyone. When it's on video or subject to police scrutiny - then I'll pay attention.
That isn't really helpful. In the UK (where there are plenty of videos on YouTube of such incidents) I have met several such people and see no reason not to believe their accounts.
You really don't need to read that much history to understand how the peddling of certain views by prominent politicians can legitimise unpleasant actions from a minority of a population.
Piffle - a Muslim lady claimed she had her hijab pulled off by Trumpers - and later said she lied to police. Another woman said Trump raped her at 13yrs old and then confessed it was all made up.
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more millenials and minorities had turned out for Hillary in the swing states as they did for Obama she would have narrowly won. It is mainly about which sides voters come out it was white working class turnout and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
Even more important is WHERE the growth is. If most of the Hispanic growth is concentrated in uncompetitive states like CA and TX then it won't change anything.
Arizona could go Dem as could even Texas in a decade or two even as the Midwest turns increasingly red, both states saw Trump do worse than Romney did, that would change things significantly
Texas is in play next election.
Yes, Clinton won Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin.
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more millenials and minorities had turned out for Hillary in the swing states as they did for Obama she would have narrowly won. It is mainly about which sides voters come out it was white working class turnout and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
Hmm AIUI Trump won with white women and college educated white women, but lost so heavily with black and Hispanic women that he lost with women overall. Those estimates are also based on the exit poll which was Clinton +3 the result is Clinton +0.5.
It'll end up Clinton +1.2 or so.
Exit poll similiar tale to Israel, and GE2015 here.
Shy right wingers.
Clinton still up just 0. 3% and Johnson on over 3%
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more millenials and minorities had turned out for Hillary in the swing states as they did for Obama she would have narrowly won. It is mainly about which sides voters come out it was white working class turnout and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
Even more important is WHERE the growth is. If most of the Hispanic growth is concentrated in uncompetitive states like CA and TX then it won't change anything.
Arizona could go Dem as could even Texas in a decade or two even as the Midwest turns increasingly red, both states saw Trump do worse than Romney did, that would change things significantly
Texas is in play next election.
Certainly, by 2030 Ohio may no longer be a swing state but safe GOP, Texas may no longer be safe GOP but a swing state
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more millenials and minorities had turned out for Hillary in the swing states as they did for Obama she would have narrowly won. It is mainly about which sides voters come out it was white working class turnout and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
Hmm AIUI Trump won with white women and college educated white women, but lost so heavily with black and Hispanic women that he lost with women overall. Those estimates are also based on the exit poll which was Clinton +3 the result is Clinton +0.5.
It'll end up Clinton +1.2 or so.
Exit poll similiar tale to Israel, and GE2015 here.
Shy right wingers.
Clinton still up just 0. 3% and Johnson on over 3%
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires? Then, at least, we'll know what we'd be getting and can offer a proper choice. Imagine that we are heading towards the hardest of Brexits, the economy is faltering badly and many are having second thoughts. Would it really make sense to press on regardless under such circumstances?
The reports of "Go home!" "Speak English!" incidents in America have started.
Because they've never happened before?
Well the Latino New York Times reporter whose account I saw - and tried but failed to find a way to put into a post on here - said that in all her years in the US nothing like that had happened to her before. As did a lot of the post-Brexit victims of similarly abusive public remarks.
I honestly don't believe a word about this from anyone. When it's on video or subject to police scrutiny - then I'll pay attention.
Funny how that standard doesn't apply to the most of what you retweet
Still sniping? Learnt anything?
HINT: Plato was demonstrably correct in assessing the level of incoherent anger that was fuelling the US election. And posting it, for you to assess its impact ON THE US ELECTION. So there was some stuff that was patently bonkers (Hillary body-doubles etc.). The point you should have been taking from her tweets was not that you believed it, but that a swathe of American opinion was so poisoned, IT was prepared to believe it.
Hell, these folk were so riled up, they might even do something REALLY stupid. Like vote in Trump as President...
It is not simple cutting senior management, unless you get rid of the targets and CQC and similar things that they have to report on. I do not see an easy solution.
As a system grows it becomes less and susceptible to be managed. The required complexity is simply beyond human control. There's the famous story of a Russian diplomat in London in the early 70s being amazed at the offering in a local bakery and asking who was in charge of bread in London - getting the astonishing answer 'nobody - it's a free market'. The health needs of a country of 60m people is a tad more complex than the London bread market! It's literally not manageable. Unfortunately the NHS has also morphed into a religion. Labour drones line up to promise no more privatisation. we need to accept that if managed as a Stalinist central blob we'll get a Stalinist central blob, with the quality and efficiency that implies. The only way the health system can really hum and be efficient is as a market. Paid for by tax but a market for delivery. Even the bloody French have worked this out. But not us in NHS religionland.
I think you're pretty much right there.
My view is that the letters "NHS" are the biggest barrier to improving healthcare in this country, for two reasons:
1) Far too much effort is put into "saving the NHS", when we shouldn't care about the NHS, we should care about the standard of healthcare people receive when they need it.
2) Political control of the whole system is a bad idea - despite common belief, politicians are not cleverer than anyone else and don't know what another person wants or needs better than that person themselves. Any change to the NHS results in campaigns to prevent it, and means that things go in circles - see fundholding going away then coming back as choose and book.
The NHS needs re-naming as a matter of urgency, just to break the spell. And someone needs to be brave enough to say that it doesn't work, it isn't the envy of the world and there is a better way possible. It is quite possible to have the taxpayer paying for healthcare without also running every hospital.
That's back to front. Just about any reform could be pushed through *providing* that the name NHS is kept.
On point 2, there has to be political control because there has to be political accountability for the spending of over £100bn pa and the policy choices that come with that.
Who is in charge of the NHS in Scotland? Hunt or the SNP Govt. Who is in charge of Welsh... English... etc
That is a different question. Indeed, it's proof of my point: the name 'NHS' has been kept despite it being carved up, and not only does no-one really care but many, particularly in the devolved areas, approve.
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the Dems shifted their focus towards the growing demographic groups, they would necessarily alienate some of their traditional white voters who would be ripe for the GOP picking. And that the corollary of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more millenials and minorities had turned out for Hillary in the swing states as they did for Obama she would have narrowly won. It is mainly about which sides voters come out it was white working class turnout and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
Even more important is WHERE the growth is. If most of the Hispanic growth is concentrated in uncompetitive states like CA and TX then it won't change anything.
Arizona could go Dem as could even Texas in a decade or two even as the Midwest turns increasingly red, both states saw Trump do worse than Romney did, that would change things significantly
Texas is in play next election.
Yes, Clinton won Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin.
Do the Dems have a real life Matt Santos to run in 2020?
Comments
With the benefit of hindsight, I'm only satisfied with about half a dozen or so of my thread headers.
New England is on the verge of going to GOP.
(((Harry Enten)))
(((Harry Enten))) – Verified account @ForecasterEnten
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
Yawn....
Wake me up when Farron commits the LibDems to rejoining the EU, even if that means the Euro, the European Army, common tax rates, etc etc etc. Otherwise, I'll treat him as Ed Milliband's replacement as Westminster's Opportunistic Little Shit.
The reason I suggested sacking all the non-medical senior management is not to save money or the usual business process reasons but because most of them seem utterly incompetent. They are presiding over failure whilst being paid very substantial salaries.
I went to see my osteopath yesterday and she tells me that she was a trained ITU nurse before giving up on the NHS, not because she disliked nursing but she could no longer put up with the way she was managed and serious sums of money were wasted by idiots who did not know what they were talking about and would not listen to the staff who did. So she left and retrained for three years as an osteopath. How did she fund herself through those three years by working as an agency nurse in an A&E unit at weekends working double shifts where she was paid three times the amount a NHS nurse would receive for doing the same job, plus the agency took its wack out of the NHS on top. Furthermore, and this is the crippler, every nurse in that A&E, save the sister, were agency nurses. What sort of management allows that situation to develop? Only a grossly incompetent one.
Her comments on modern nurse training are unrepeatable on a site where young people may be reading.
Someone needs to do some serious thinking.
There's no insight there - just appalling smug prejudice.
Cached copy for those of us getting gateway errors.
My view is that the letters "NHS" are the biggest barrier to improving healthcare in this country, for two reasons:
1) Far too much effort is put into "saving the NHS", when we shouldn't care about the NHS, we should care about the standard of healthcare people receive when they need it.
2) Political control of the whole system is a bad idea - despite common belief, politicians are not cleverer than anyone else and don't know what another person wants or needs better than that person themselves. Any change to the NHS results in campaigns to prevent it, and means that things go in circles - see fundholding going away then coming back as choose and book.
The NHS needs re-naming as a matter of urgency, just to break the spell. And someone needs to be brave enough to say that it doesn't work, it isn't the envy of the world and there is a better way possible. It is quite possible to have the taxpayer paying for healthcare without also running every hospital.
If he gets this right - he'll convert a bunch more Blacks and L/H to the GOP.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/swing-state-republicans-dump-on-trump-228815
In front of the largest televised debate audience ever, Donald Trump blew it.
Swing-state Republicans expressed frustration at his Monday night performance, characterizing it as a series of missed opportunities to move the dial in the places that will matter most to his electoral fortunes in November.
Name-checking battleground states like Michigan and Ohio was a wise move, state and local GOP leaders said. And Trump’s message on trade resonates in industrial areas across the Rust Belt, from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin. But above all else, Republican officials and operatives lamented his lack of preparation and failure to reach persuadable voters, especially women and GOP-leaners who are not yet sold on him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/latino-decisions/lies-damn-lies-and-exit-p_b_12903492.html
Probably too early to make final judgement on all this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37947311
But, he did considerably better than Romney among working class whites in the North East and Mid West, while falling back among better off whites. Both Maine and Rhode Island have large working class white populations.
Sean Hannity is totally plugged into Trump - they talk everyday and he's cheerlead for him. His show is a window on what's going on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sTrR_dqTeA
Four years time - landslide.
"His having a financial empire ironically could be what saves us from disaster," Prof Painter said. "[Policies] that would destroy trade would destroy his businesses."
He said Mr Trump's campaign trail pronouncements should be taken with a pinch of salt, and were aimed at appealing to the US electorate.
English Health Service
Scottish Health Service
Welsh Health Service
There is no NHS these days.
He instantly creates a dividing line between the decent and the unwelcome. No one is going to cry about deporting criminals who sucked on the teat of welfare.
Talk about piling up the votes where you don't need em !
On point 2, there has to be political control because there has to be political accountability for the spending of over £100bn pa and the policy choices that come with that.
What we are seeing in almost all democracies is that traditional political loyalties are weakening; the reasons have been well rehearsed. Surely it follows from this, not that one particular perspective is doomed for all time, but that things that changed quickly in one way can just as easily change quickly in another? (edit/ and that however things change, an awful lot of people won't see it coming).
Clinton unbackable for PV.
this time i put *asterixes* and everything around it too.
https://twitter.com/madmanc1970/status/795927865955151872
Mr. Charles, asterisks*, unless we're speaking of magically-enhanced Gauls.
His problem is that nobody is really listening to him and there is still an element of scepticism about anything the LibDems say.
edit/ the PB post should really be a counter-factual as to where Labour would be had the Owen beaten the Corby!
Given that we spend a lower proportion of GDP per capita on healthcare than most other first world countries (especially those offering good healthcare), the obvious conclusion would be that chucking more money in is exactly what we need to do!
.@Reince: Americans decided to put Republicans in control of the House, Senate & White House; now we have to execute the will of the people. https://t.co/vtRVCBYc66
You really don't need to read that much history to understand how the peddling of certain views by prominent politicians can legitimise unpleasant actions from a minority of a population.
Who is in charge of Welsh... English... etc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-37948543
I remember at the time this was supposed to be a hate crime, now it's just made up guff.
Exit poll similiar tale to Israel, and GE2015 here.
Shy right wingers.
The exaggerations and outright lies are tiresome now and very unhelpful.
On the demographics I think Trump/the GOP have far more to gain by chipping away at their toxicity in the AA community. It's also the right thing to do.
There are any number of mug punter bets on offer from the bookies right now appearing under the heading "Donald Trump Specials" on Oddschecker.
These include, by way of example, odds of 5/4 against him winning the 2020 POTUS Election (having held onto your money for 4 long years), 12/1 against Hillary Clinton being the Democratic candidate against him in 2020 or arguably worst of all, 13/8 against Russia being the first State Visit of his presidency .... there are many more equally rubbish bets on offer.
But one real plum of a bet imho which I noticed last night was a 25/1 offering from Betway against "Donald Trump resigning as President before completing a full term." There are any number of possible ways or reasons why such a scenario might come to pass and too many to go into here but I grabbed what I believed to be outstanding value, attempting to invest a tenner to win £250, but those nice folk at Betway would only allow me the curious stake of £4.39 to win £109.75. Still it's definitely a betting slip to put away under lock and key for the future.
Sadly, the bookie appears to have since taken down this offering, but maybe it's worth looking out for its possible reappearance.
Politically motivated make-believe is endemic.
HINT: Plato was demonstrably correct in assessing the level of incoherent anger that was fuelling the US election. And posting it, for you to assess its impact ON THE US ELECTION. So there was some stuff that was patently bonkers (Hillary body-doubles etc.). The point you should have been taking from her tweets was not that you believed it, but that a swathe of American opinion was so poisoned, IT was prepared to believe it.
Hell, these folk were so riled up, they might even do something REALLY stupid. Like vote in Trump as President...