Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast.
This is just a supposition as I haven't looked at any numbers but I wonder if this could inadvertently burst the tech bubble. Cutting off San Francisco's federal funding would leave a hole and put tax breaks for companies like Twitter which are based there (and already struggling) in question.
''All Trump does is Turbo charge the base problem that Brexit was a rejection of something by a majority coalition of voters who don't agree on a replacement.''
This is the latest comfort blanket being used by the progressive left. The uneducated mass are rebelling, but don;t know what they want, and so we don;t have to implement anything.
It's your side's game now, taffy, your rules. It's all down to you. Stop dithering, take responsibility and get on with it.
Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast.
This is just a supposition as I haven't looked at any numbers but I wonder if this could inadvertently burst the tech bubble. Cutting off San Francisco's federal funding would leave a hole and put tax breaks for companies like Twitter which are based there (and already struggling) in question.
They will just dump sanctuary status, tbh. It's of no benefit to them and just virtue signalling.
Spot on. A brand-name that's already been trashed. In Clinton's case, a by-word for corruption. In Miliband's case, a by-word for muddled thinking and incompetence.
At David Miliband's first open event, he'd be dogged by people wearing "Ed-stone" outfits.
Given we've seen people talking up Michelle Obama's and Chelsea Clinton's prospects as a future President it can only be a matter of time until some Miliband sprog is receiving the same sort of plaudits.
Iffy source at the moment, but Reddit has 3m non-citizen (illegals/undocumented or whatever) registrations out of 180m registered voters for this election.
If that is confirmed then it could turn into a big deal, especially given Trump struggled in Arizona and Texas.
Or, in my doom mood, a post-truth pretext that could be used at some juncture down the road to label a further 3m Mexicans &c as 'criminal' and send them off into camps.
I'd be more than happy for it to all be a pub joke that passed over my head. But, meanwhile, forgive me for supporting some serious contingency planning here.
I find it highly unlikely that the US will ever go down the internment route. Processing centres and shifting people in busses back to Mexico is definitely possible, but that already exists. Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast. I also think harsh penalties for hiring illegals including jail time and massive fines are going to come down the line. Fines for universities who offer palaces to illegals is also something I think they will look at. Basically the Trump administration will have to make it very unattractive to hire illegal immigrants and eventually once they stop getting work they will stop coming. Even middle class families who hire illegal labourers to cut the grass will face hefty fines.
I wonder how many illegals Trump businesses employ.
Given his company is basically running hotels, I'd have guessed quite a few.
Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast.
This is just a supposition as I haven't looked at any numbers but I wonder if this could inadvertently burst the tech bubble. Cutting off San Francisco's federal funding would leave a hole and put tax breaks for companies like Twitter which are based there (and already struggling) in question.
They will just dump sanctuary status, tbh. It's of no benefit to them and just virtue signalling.
There will be local pressures for them to stand firm and places like LA and Oakland are a bit 'rioty'. I'm not sure if they'll be able to dump it that easily.
Spot on. A brand-name that's already been trashed. In Clinton's case, a by-word for corruption. In Miliband's case, a by-word for muddled thinking and incompetence.
At David Miliband's first open event, he'd be dogged by people wearing "Ed-stone" outfits.
Given we've seen people talking up Michelle Obama's and Chelsea Clinton's prospects as a future President it can only be a matter of time until some Miliband sprog is receiving the same sort of plaudits.
One of Dave's kids is probably a better bet. The Milibands have never won anything.
Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast.
This is just a supposition as I haven't looked at any numbers but I wonder if this could inadvertently burst the tech bubble. Cutting off San Francisco's federal funding would leave a hole and put tax breaks for companies like Twitter which are based there (and already struggling) in question.
They will just dump sanctuary status, tbh. It's of no benefit to them and just virtue signalling.
There will be local pressures for them to stand firm and places like LA and Oakland are a bit 'rioty'. I'm not sure if they'll be able to dump it that easily.
It will be that or face defunding of all federal programmes within the city. I don't see that the cities have a choice.
Last week's Panelbase had Remain 0.8% ahead on a rerun. Which is within MoE of the result so not really a change. The last Survation had it 51/49 for Leave on a rerun. So no buyers remorse but over 4 months in there is still no consensus.
Iffy source at the moment, but Reddit has 3m non-citizen (illegals/undocumented or whatever) registrations out of 180m registered voters for this election.
If that is confirmed then it could turn into a big deal, especially given Trump struggled in Arizona and Texas.
Or, in my doom mood, a post-truth pretext that could be used at some juncture down the road to label a further 3m Mexicans &c as 'criminal' and send them off into camps.
I'd be more than happy for it to all be a pub joke that passed over my head. But, meanwhile, forgive me for supporting some serious contingency planning here.
I find it highly unlikely that the US will ever go down the internment route. Processing centres and shifting people in busses back to Mexico is definitely possible, but that already exists. Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast. I also think harsh penalties for hiring illegals including jail time and massive fines are going to come down the line. Fines for universities who offer palaces to illegals is also something I think they will look at. Basically the Trump administration will have to make it very unattractive to hire illegal immigrants and eventually once they stop getting work they will stop coming. Even middle class families who hire illegal labourers to cut the grass will face hefty fines.
I wonder how many illegals Trump businesses employ.
Given his company is basically running hotels, I'd have guessed quite a few.
That may well preclude "harsh penalties for hiring illegals including jail time and massive fines".
Last week's Panelbase had Remain 0.8% ahead on a rerun. Which is within MoE of the result so not really a change. The last Survation had it 51/49 for Leave on a rerun. So no buyers remorse but over 4 months in there is still no consensus.
Of course 0.8% ahead is what the polling average was in the week before the vote...
Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast.
This is just a supposition as I haven't looked at any numbers but I wonder if this could inadvertently burst the tech bubble. Cutting off San Francisco's federal funding would leave a hole and put tax breaks for companies like Twitter which are based there (and already struggling) in question.
They will just dump sanctuary status, tbh. It's of no benefit to them and just virtue signalling.
There will be local pressures for them to stand firm and places like LA and Oakland are a bit 'rioty'. I'm not sure if they'll be able to dump it that easily.
It will be that or face defunding of all federal programmes within the city. I don't see that the cities have a choice.
Several of them are already saying they won't bend. I know this is just politics but I don't think they'll be able to fold without a fight.
Iffy source at the moment, but Reddit has 3m non-citizen (illegals/undocumented or whatever) registrations out of 180m registered voters for this election.
If that is confirmed then it could turn into a big deal, especially given Trump struggled in Arizona and Texas.
Or, in my doom mood, a post-truth pretext that could be used at some juncture down the road to label a further 3m Mexicans &c as 'criminal' and send them off into camps.
I'd be more than happy for it to all be a pub joke that passed over my head. But, meanwhile, forgive me for supporting some serious contingency planning here.
I find it highly unlikely that the US will ever go down the internment route. Processing centres and shifting people in busses back to Mexico is definitely possible, but that already exists. Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast. I also think harsh penalties for hiring illegals including jail time and massive fines are going to come down the line. Fines for universities who offer palaces to illegals is also something I think they will look at. Basically the Trump administration will have to make it very unattractive to hire illegal immigrants and eventually once they stop getting work they will stop coming. Even middle class families who hire illegal labourers to cut the grass will face hefty fines.
I wonder how many illegals Trump businesses employ.
Given his company is basically running hotels, I'd have guessed quite a few.
That may well preclude "harsh penalties for hiring illegals including jail time and massive fines".
One imagines Trump industries is getting its house in order right now and double triple checking all employee documentation.
Last week's Panelbase had Remain 0.8% ahead on a rerun. Which is within MoE of the result so not really a change. The last Survation had it 51/49 for Leave on a rerun. So no buyers remorse but over 4 months in there is still no consensus.
Of course 0.8% ahead is what the polling average was in the week before the vote...
And the week before that Leave was on average approx. 3.5% ahead. I think all we can safely say is polling has its limitations.
Spot on. A brand-name that's already been trashed. In Clinton's case, a by-word for corruption. In Miliband's case, a by-word for muddled thinking and incompetence.
At David Miliband's first open event, he'd be dogged by people wearing "Ed-stone" outfits.
As I was driving to work today, I noticed for the first time that a house I pass on my route is called Edstone House.
Spot on. A brand-name that's already been trashed. In Clinton's case, a by-word for corruption. In Miliband's case, a by-word for muddled thinking and incompetence.
At David Miliband's first open event, he'd be dogged by people wearing "Ed-stone" outfits.
Given we've seen people talking up Michelle Obama's and Chelsea Clinton's prospects as a future President it can only be a matter of time until some Miliband sprog is receiving the same sort of plaudits.
One of Dave's kids is probably a better bet. The Milibands have never won anything.
Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast.
This is just a supposition as I haven't looked at any numbers but I wonder if this could inadvertently burst the tech bubble. Cutting off San Francisco's federal funding would leave a hole and put tax breaks for companies like Twitter which are based there (and already struggling) in question.
They will just dump sanctuary status, tbh. It's of no benefit to them and just virtue signalling.
There will be local pressures for them to stand firm and places like LA and Oakland are a bit 'rioty'. I'm not sure if they'll be able to dump it that easily.
It will be that or face defunding of all federal programmes within the city. I don't see that the cities have a choice.
Several of them are already saying they won't bend. I know this is just politics but I don't think they'll be able to fold without a fight.
'Tis all politics. As ever, money talks, bullshit walks. Especially in the US. When the House approves defunding of cities with sanctuary status in January next year, they will all fall in line or have to raise billions in local taxes and destroy their local economies. The fastest way to make the locals anti immigration, especially in areas of existing poverty like LA and Oakland is to raise taxes on locals to pay for illegals.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
I was referring to the absolute dearth of comment from Leavers on Farage's self promoted lynchpin status, several of whom also assured me & the wider public that Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of Brexit.
Commenting on Scottish politicos, who pretend to have levers when they don't, seems to have blinded to the reality that Farage merely visited Trump.
You'll have to translate that for me. Though I am getting the distinct impression that levers get you excited.
Sturgeon likes to think she has power over constitutional affairs - turns out she should have read up on the matter.
Else she might end up meeting junior foreign ministers in restaurants...
Mortimer, you cannot be as stupid as you make out , I presume you are baiting TUD and that you know well that Sturgeon is not a turnip like your average Tory Cabinet minister, that she knows she has no power(s) and merely points it out to show the few deluded NO voters left that think otherwise.
No voters are very happy she doesn't have constitutional powers over Scotland's position with other nations.
Otherwise they would have voted Yes.
Corrected it for you No voter is very happy she doesn't have constitutional powers over Scotland's position with other nations.
Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast.
This is just a supposition as I haven't looked at any numbers but I wonder if this could inadvertently burst the tech bubble. Cutting off San Francisco's federal funding would leave a hole and put tax breaks for companies like Twitter which are based there (and already struggling) in question.
They will just dump sanctuary status, tbh. It's of no benefit to them and just virtue signalling.
There will be local pressures for them to stand firm and places like LA and Oakland are a bit 'rioty'. I'm not sure if they'll be able to dump it that easily.
It will be that or face defunding of all federal programmes within the city. I don't see that the cities have a choice.
Several of them are already saying they won't bend. I know this is just politics but I don't think they'll be able to fold without a fight.
I've been away for a little while; can anyone explain to me in words of one syllable why anyone is taking seriously Farage's desperate attempts at self-publicity?
I've been away for a little while; can anyone explain to me in words of one syllable why anyone is taking seriously Farage's desperate attempts at self-publicity?
I've been away for a little while; can anyone explain to me in words of one syllable why anyone is taking seriously Farage's desperate attempts at self-publicity?
The way 2015/16 has gone, is there any reason not to take anything seriously?
Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast.
This is just a supposition as I haven't looked at any numbers but I wonder if this could inadvertently burst the tech bubble. Cutting off San Francisco's federal funding would leave a hole and put tax breaks for companies like Twitter which are based there (and already struggling) in question.
They will just dump sanctuary status, tbh. It's of no benefit to them and just virtue signalling.
There will be local pressures for them to stand firm and places like LA and Oakland are a bit 'rioty'. I'm not sure if they'll be able to dump it that easily.
It will be that or face defunding of all federal programmes within the city. I don't see that the cities have a choice.
Several of them are already saying they won't bend. I know this is just politics but I don't think they'll be able to fold without a fight.
Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast.
This is just a supposition as I haven't looked at any numbers but I wonder if this could inadvertently burst the tech bubble. Cutting off San Francisco's federal funding would leave a hole and put tax breaks for companies like Twitter which are based there (and already struggling) in question.
They will just dump sanctuary status, tbh. It's of no benefit to them and just virtue signalling.
There will be local pressures for them to stand firm and places like LA and Oakland are a bit 'rioty'. I'm not sure if they'll be able to dump it that easily.
It will be that or face defunding of all federal programmes within the city. I don't see that the cities have a choice.
Several of them are already saying they won't bend. I know this is just politics but I don't think they'll be able to fold without a fight.
Last week's Panelbase had Remain 0.8% ahead on a rerun. Which is within MoE of the result so not really a change. The last Survation had it 51/49 for Leave on a rerun. So no buyers remorse but over 4 months in there is still no consensus.
Yes and on 1st October the pollster Matthew Goodwin explained: “There is scant evidence of buyer’s remorse. As the tumultuous summer of 2016 drew to a close, 52 per cent of voters still said that Brexit was the “right decision”.”
Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast.
This is just a supposition as I haven't looked at any numbers but I wonder if this could inadvertently burst the tech bubble. Cutting off San Francisco's federal funding would leave a hole and put tax breaks for companies like Twitter which are based there (and already struggling) in question.
They will just dump sanctuary status, tbh. It's of no benefit to them and just virtue signalling.
There will be local pressures for them to stand firm and places like LA and Oakland are a bit 'rioty'. I'm not sure if they'll be able to dump it that easily.
It will be that or face defunding of all federal programmes within the city. I don't see that the cities have a choice.
Several of them are already saying they won't bend. I know this is just politics but I don't think they'll be able to fold without a fight.
Currently flying over a Missouri county where Obama narrowly won in 2008, but Trump won by 55 points, 76-21
I'm sure flying over the county is the best way to gain an insight into what has motivated the voters to turn out for Trump.
Nate Cohn has had a mixed election.
He misread the country due to piss poor polling (Didn't we all), and his pre-elections state modelling was a bit off. He underestimated the extent of DEM cannibalisation of their own vote in mail in ballots..
On the plus side his NY Times modelling of the states (As the results come in) was very very good.
Trump is about to centralise it by withdrawing federal funding for any city with sanctuary status. It's a smart move.
It's possibly also a good example of why people who are hoping Trump won't be able to get anything done because he doesn't know how to use the levers of power will be disappointed.
Interesting to note that Sterling is up against the Euro again today. The markets definitely see Trump as a huge negative for the EU. A less secure border, increased defence spending to pay for and a possible trade war to contend with. Juncker and Merkel have hardle helped matters either.
Interesting to note that Sterling is up against the Euro again today. The markets definitely see Trump as a huge negative for the EU. A less secure border, increased defence spending to pay for and a possible trade war to contend with. Juncker and Merkel have hardly helped matters either.
Trump will pull out of NATO f Germany doesn't commit to 2% defence spending. Unlike his domestic promises there's no political price for that one in the US.
Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast.
This is just a supposition as I haven't looked at any numbers but I wonder if this could inadvertently burst the tech bubble. Cutting off San Francisco's federal funding would leave a hole and put tax breaks for companies like Twitter which are based there (and already struggling) in question.
They will just dump sanctuary status, tbh. It's of no benefit to them and just virtue signalling.
There will be local pressures for them to stand firm and places like LA and Oakland are a bit 'rioty'. I'm not sure if they'll be able to dump it that easily.
It will be that or face defunding of all federal programmes within the city. I don't see that the cities have a choice.
Several of them are already saying they won't bend. I know this is just politics but I don't think they'll be able to fold without a fight.
'Tis all politics. As ever, money talks, bullshit walks. Especially in the US. When the House approves defunding of cities with sanctuary status in January next year, they will all fall in line or have to raise billions in local taxes and destroy their local economies. The fastest way to make the locals anti immigration, especially in areas of existing poverty like LA and Oakland is to raise taxes on locals to pay for illegals.
He's not going to be returning to frontline UK politics. I pretty much know that for a fact.
And even if we didn't know it, where would he fit in now? His chance was in 2010 (some would say 2009; I wouldn't - that wouldn't just have been a hospital pass, it would have been wrenching the ball from a teammate just in time to receive the tackle). But Labour is utterly transformed now. If he was too right wing in 2010, where would he have been on Labour's spectrum in 2015, never mind now? And his personal contacts are old now. He's only been out of parliament for three years but Labour's 2015 intake has never seen him as an MP and those from 2010 didn't see much.
Trump is about to centralise it by withdrawing federal funding for any city with sanctuary status. It's a smart move.
It's possibly also a good example of why people who are hoping Trump won't be able to get anything done because he doesn't know how to use the levers of power will be disappointed.
True although the irony is that it is Republican voters who tend to be keenest on states' rights.
Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast.
This is just a supposition as I haven't looked at any numbers but I wonder if this could inadvertently burst the tech bubble. Cutting off San Francisco's federal funding would leave a hole and put tax breaks for companies like Twitter which are based there (and already struggling) in question.
They will just dump sanctuary status, tbh. It's of no benefit to them and just virtue signalling.
There will be local pressures for them to stand firm and places like LA and Oakland are a bit 'rioty'. I'm not sure if they'll be able to dump it that easily.
It will be that or face defunding of all federal programmes within the city. I don't see that the cities have a choice.
Several of them are already saying they won't bend. I know this is just politics but I don't think they'll be able to fold without a fight.
Currently flying over a Missouri county where Obama narrowly won in 2008, but Trump won by 55 points, 76-21
I'm sure flying over the county is the best way to gain an insight into what has motivated the voters to turn out for Trump.
Nate Cohn has had a mixed election.
He misread the country due to piss poor polling (Didn't we all), and his pre-elections state modelling was a bit off. He underestimated the extent of DEM cannibalisation of their own vote in mail in ballots..
On the plus side his NY Times modelling of the states (As the results come in) was very very good.
Yes, they got all of the big calls right, my betting night was mostly based on their early 50%+ projection of Florida while the POTUS projection was still 70%+ for Hillary. Once PA came in at 50/50 Trump's price surged from ~9 to ~3.5 and once Ohio went 60%+ for Trump they crossed over. Still one of the best election nights I've ever had, not just from betting either. It was absolutely breathtaking watching as America turned its back on globalisation and free trade.
Spot on. A brand-name that's already been trashed. In Clinton's case, a by-word for corruption. In Miliband's case, a by-word for muddled thinking and incompetence.
At David Miliband's first open event, he'd be dogged by people wearing "Ed-stone" outfits.
Given we've seen people talking up Michelle Obama's and Chelsea Clinton's prospects as a future President it can only be a matter of time until some Miliband sprog is receiving the same sort of plaudits.
One of Dave's kids is probably a better bet. The Milibands have never won anything.
5th-generation Benn must be in with an hereditary shout?
Trump is about to centralise it by withdrawing federal funding for any city with sanctuary status. It's a smart move.
It's possibly also a good example of why people who are hoping Trump won't be able to get anything done because he doesn't know how to use the levers of power will be disappointed.
True although the irony is that it is Republican voters who tend to be keenest on states' rights.
The true irony is that the liberal left has spent 8 years weaponising the federal government on the assumption they'd own it forever - only to see Trump assume the reins of power! Maybe they'll learn to love Executive Orders a little less. Obama's petulant 'I won' isn't going to sound so clever for them going forwards I suspect.
Trump is about to centralise it by withdrawing federal funding for any city with sanctuary status. It's a smart move.
It's possibly also a good example of why people who are hoping Trump won't be able to get anything done because he doesn't know how to use the levers of power will be disappointed.
Priebus is there to twist arms and be a friendly face with GOPers. Bannon's is to play hard man on policy to show Trump means business.
Interesting to note that Sterling is up against the Euro again today. The markets definitely see Trump as a huge negative for the EU. A less secure border, increased defence spending to pay for and a possible trade war to contend with. Juncker and Merkel have hardly helped matters either.
Trump will pull out of NATO f Germany doesn't commit to 2% defence spending. Unlike his domestic promises there's no political price for that one in the US.
It is also one of his earliest stated and most consistent stances on any policy issue. He has been banging that drum since the 80s. It will happen.
The EU's plans of playing hardball with the UK are going down the drain, unless we are so lily-livered we let them.
Trump is about to centralise it by withdrawing federal funding for any city with sanctuary status. It's a smart move.
It's possibly also a good example of why people who are hoping Trump won't be able to get anything done because he doesn't know how to use the levers of power will be disappointed.
True although the irony is that it is Republican voters who tend to be keenest on states' rights.
This is about federal funding though, not state level funding. The state could decide to plug the gap but it would require statewide tax rises or spending cuts to other programmes. Again, the fastest way to set the local population against illegal immigration is to force tax rises onto them, in areas of poverty it won't be Trump that will suffer, it will be the city legislature that refuses to dump sanctuary status that will take the hit. Trump is giving them a choice, after all.
Trump is about to centralise it by withdrawing federal funding for any city with sanctuary status. It's a smart move.
It's possibly also a good example of why people who are hoping Trump won't be able to get anything done because he doesn't know how to use the levers of power will be disappointed.
True although the irony is that it is Republican voters who tend to be keenest on states' rights.
The true irony is that the liberal left has spent 8 years weaponising the federal government on the assumption they'd own it forever - only to see Trump assume the reins of power! Maybe they'll learn to love Executive Orders a little less. Obama's petulant 'I won' isn't going to sound so clever for them going forwards I suspect.
Yes, because George W Bush never ever issued an executive order or undertook line item vetoes.
Blimey Kennedy is 80 too. He's the neutral(ish) one I think.
The morbidity tables look to favour the conservatives to me.
well they should becareful of appointing a social conservative because in North carolina where the Republican govoner introduced the transgender toilet bill it looks like the Democrat won. Eventhough Trump won the state easily.
Blimey Kennedy is 80 too. He's the neutral(ish) one I think.
The morbidity tables look to favour the conservatives to me.
well they should becareful of appointing a social conservative because in North carolina where the Republican govoner introduced the transgender toilet bill it looks like the Democrat won. Eventhough Trump won the state easily.
US presidents, on the whole, move the court in the direction of their view of social ideals, at a slow pace. They don't replace hard pro-life with hard pro-choice.
Blimey Kennedy is 80 too. He's the neutral(ish) one I think.
The morbidity tables look to favour the conservatives to me.
well they should becareful of appointing a social conservative because in North carolina where the Republican govoner introduced the transgender toilet bill it looks like the Democrat won. Eventhough Trump won the state easily.
Arpaio lost in Arizona too, which suggests that the Trump voters that matter won't be too concerned about immigration.
And yes in NC they got very fixated on that bathroom stuff - cost Ted Cruz heavily in the primaries too.
''It's your side's game now, taffy, your rules. It's all down to you. Stop dithering, take responsibility and get on with it. ''
Wish someone would tell Tim Farron and the house of lords!
Tim Farron has a team of eight MPs, including himself. The Commons can do whatever it wants to the Lords. Take control, mate, it's your game.
And at least two of his MPs are from Leave voting constituencies, so he's not sure of all eight.
Good point. I guess they will not be looking forward to a GE too quickly?
With 20 and 30 percent swings in their favour in real elections, I would think they wouldn't mind at all. UKIP being consistently down 6 to 8 percent helps too.
Blimey Kennedy is 80 too. He's the neutral(ish) one I think.
The morbidity tables look to favour the conservatives to me.
well they should becareful of appointing a social conservative because in North carolina where the Republican govoner introduced the transgender toilet bill it looks like the Democrat won. Eventhough Trump won the state easily.
Arpaio lost in Arizona too,
And yes in NC they got very fixated on that bathroom stuff - cost Ted Cruz heavily in the primaries too.
It does seem like Trump doesn't give a shit about this stuff though. Liberals on my fb feed are all having a whinge-o-rama about Trump backing gay rights and calling the issue settled. You'd think they'd be happy about it.
Ha! Was just reading an article about the EU and defence, and it quoted a Mr Johnson. I had no idea who that was until I realized it was Boris.
How many other politicians are so well known by simply their first name that you have to do a double-take when they are referred to by solely their family name?
Trump is about to centralise it by withdrawing federal funding for any city with sanctuary status. It's a smart move.
It's possibly also a good example of why people who are hoping Trump won't be able to get anything done because he doesn't know how to use the levers of power will be disappointed.
True although the irony is that it is Republican voters who tend to be keenest on states' rights.
The true irony is that the liberal left has spent 8 years weaponising the federal government on the assumption they'd own it forever - only to see Trump assume the reins of power! Maybe they'll learn to love Executive Orders a little less. Obama's petulant 'I won' isn't going to sound so clever for them going forwards I suspect.
Federal funding has been used to override the states for decades. As regards executive orders, the problem is that some Republicans in Congress, led by the tea party, refuse to cooperate or even negotiate with a Democrat President (or even with each other half the time). The Supreme Court is a judge short already because Republicans refused even to schedule hearings for Obama's nominee.
''It's your side's game now, taffy, your rules. It's all down to you. Stop dithering, take responsibility and get on with it. ''
Wish someone would tell Tim Farron and the house of lords!
Tim Farron has a team of eight MPs, including himself. The Commons can do whatever it wants to the Lords. Take control, mate, it's your game.
And at least two of his MPs are from Leave voting constituencies, so he's not sure of all eight.
Good point. I guess they will not be looking forward to a GE too quickly?
With 20 and 30 percent swings in their favour in real elections, I would think they wouldn't mind at all. UKIP being consistently down 6 to 8 percent helps too.
Opinion polls have the Lib Dems on ~ 10%, but I can see that going up to around 16 giving polls a +/-6% actual margin of terror as it seems to be the case. Labour might actually be around 22%.
Interesting to note that Sterling is up against the Euro again today. The markets definitely see Trump as a huge negative for the EU. A less secure border, increased defence spending to pay for and a possible trade war to contend with. Juncker and Merkel have hardly helped matters either.
Trump will pull out of NATO f Germany doesn't commit to 2% defence spending. Unlike his domestic promises there's no political price for that one in the US.
It is also one of his earliest stated and most consistent stances on any policy issue. He has been banging that drum since the 80s. It will happen.
The EU's plans of playing hardball with the UK are going down the drain, unless we are so lily-livered we let them.
We need to be more worried about determining what our own interests are than how it affects the EU's Brexit negotiating position. So far the noises are that we will try to 'tame' Trump and explain to him why he needs to take a tough line on Russia and maintain NATO. Not gonna happen.
Interesting to note that Sterling is up against the Euro again today. The markets definitely see Trump as a huge negative for the EU. A less secure border, increased defence spending to pay for and a possible trade war to contend with. Juncker and Merkel have hardly helped matters either.
Trump will pull out of NATO f Germany doesn't commit to 2% defence spending. Unlike his domestic promises there's no political price for that one in the US.
It is also one of his earliest stated and most consistent stances on any policy issue. He has been banging that drum since the 80s. It will happen.
The EU's plans of playing hardball with the UK are going down the drain, unless we are so lily-livered we let them.
Not sure how the US pulling out of NATO will strengthen our negotiating position with the EU. We are a European country and if the US were to abandon its 70 year defence strategy it would be dumping on us just as much as the Germans. Indeed, it would make Trump the most anti-British US president for many a long year.
Ha! Was just reading an article about the EU and defence, and it quoted a Mr Johnson. I had no idea who that was until I realized it was Boris.
How many other politicians are so well known by simply their first name that you have to do a double-take when they are referred to by solely their family name?
I know a "tim" that wouldn't have recognised Gideon's surname
Neither is looking that likely, but I've got D Miliband red and Ed Balls Green in my Labour leadership betting.
Ed Balls should probably be shorter than David Miliband I reckon.
Nothing is ever going to prove a 100/1 shot poor value, but still, I think you're mad.
There's plenty that can prove 100/1 shots poor value. Constituency betting invariably does, where 'haven't a chance in hell' candidates get offered at only that sort of price. Across the country, six or so 100/1 candidates ought to come in at any given election, if the odds were 'true'. In fact, hardly any do (though some do who were 100/1 some time before the election, and when some do like that, quite a lot can, as with the SNP this last time).
Just heard clip of head of CNN saying they gave Trump too much coverage. Find this and Facebook promise to clamp down on "false" news very worrying. Also when will they get it...Censorship will just encourage even more conspiracy theories.
Well, given that the TRump campaign is threatening legal action against people who say mean things about Trump it's a two way street.
An Facebook isn't clamping down on false news, it's clamping down on fake news. Bogus websites made to look like legitimate but non-existent newspapers. There's a cookie cutter template for them that basically fills in The Daily "City Name Here" Times template around the bogus story.
''It's your side's game now, taffy, your rules. It's all down to you. Stop dithering, take responsibility and get on with it. ''
Wish someone would tell Tim Farron and the house of lords!
Tim Farron has a team of eight MPs, including himself. The Commons can do whatever it wants to the Lords. Take control, mate, it's your game.
And at least two of his MPs are from Leave voting constituencies, so he's not sure of all eight.
Good point. I guess they will not be looking forward to a GE too quickly?
With 20 and 30 percent swings in their favour in real elections, I would think they wouldn't mind at all. UKIP being consistently down 6 to 8 percent helps too.
Opinion polls have the Lib Dems on ~ 10%, but I can see that going up to around 16 giving polls a +/-6% actual margin of terror as it seems to be the case. Labour might actually be around 22%.
Its all very hard to tell.
all bets off if aaron banks launches some kind of populist party given the febrile state of things.
Blimey Kennedy is 80 too. He's the neutral(ish) one I think.
The morbidity tables look to favour the conservatives to me.
well they should becareful of appointing a social conservative because in North carolina where the Republican govoner introduced the transgender toilet bill it looks like the Democrat won. Eventhough Trump won the state easily.
Also, Supreme Court judges can surprise. Roberts backing Obamacare was a shocker. And formerly two of the 'liberal/swing' wing of the Court were Reagan appointees - Kennedy and Stevens (the latter until 2010). Stevens was so liberal he chose to retire under a Dem President, and being replaced by a Dem appointee was not seen as changing the balance of the court significantly.
Blimey Kennedy is 80 too. He's the neutral(ish) one I think.
The morbidity tables look to favour the conservatives to me.
well they should becareful of appointing a social conservative because in North carolina where the Republican govoner introduced the transgender toilet bill it looks like the Democrat won. Eventhough Trump won the state easily.
Arpaio lost in Arizona too,
And yes in NC they got very fixated on that bathroom stuff - cost Ted Cruz heavily in the primaries too.
It does seem like Trump doesn't give a shit about this stuff though. Liberals on my fb feed are all having a whinge-o-rama about Trump backing gay rights and calling the issue settled. You'd think they'd be happy about it.
I've liberals complaining about him not taking any salary. 'Because he doesn't want to pay tax'
''It's your side's game now, taffy, your rules. It's all down to you. Stop dithering, take responsibility and get on with it. ''
Wish someone would tell Tim Farron and the house of lords!
Tim Farron has a team of eight MPs, including himself. The Commons can do whatever it wants to the Lords. Take control, mate, it's your game.
And at least two of his MPs are from Leave voting constituencies, so he's not sure of all eight.
Good point. I guess they will not be looking forward to a GE too quickly?
With 20 and 30 percent swings in their favour in real elections, I would think they wouldn't mind at all. UKIP being consistently down 6 to 8 percent helps too.
In the most recent major elections in May of this year the Lib Dems:- Dropped to 1 in London Dropped to 1 in Wales Made no net gains in Scotland.
''It's your side's game now, taffy, your rules. It's all down to you. Stop dithering, take responsibility and get on with it. ''
Wish someone would tell Tim Farron and the house of lords!
Tim Farron has a team of eight MPs, including himself. The Commons can do whatever it wants to the Lords. Take control, mate, it's your game.
And at least two of his MPs are from Leave voting constituencies, so he's not sure of all eight.
Good point. I guess they will not be looking forward to a GE too quickly?
With 20 and 30 percent swings in their favour in real elections, I would think they wouldn't mind at all. UKIP being consistently down 6 to 8 percent helps too.
Blimey Kennedy is 80 too. He's the neutral(ish) one I think.
The morbidity tables look to favour the conservatives to me.
well they should becareful of appointing a social conservative because in North carolina where the Republican govoner introduced the transgender toilet bill it looks like the Democrat won. Eventhough Trump won the state easily.
US presidents, on the whole, move the court in the direction of their view of social ideals, at a slow pace. They don't replace hard pro-life with hard pro-choice.
Trump isn't an 'on the whole' president though, and after the Senate's stand-off with Obama, I doubt they'll object too much were he to break that particular precedent.
Interesting to note that Sterling is up against the Euro again today. The markets definitely see Trump as a huge negative for the EU. A less secure border, increased defence spending to pay for and a possible trade war to contend with. Juncker and Merkel have hardly helped matters either.
Trump will pull out of NATO f Germany doesn't commit to 2% defence spending. Unlike his domestic promises there's no political price for that one in the US.
It is also one of his earliest stated and most consistent stances on any policy issue. He has been banging that drum since the 80s. It will happen.
The EU's plans of playing hardball with the UK are going down the drain, unless we are so lily-livered we let them.
Not sure how the US pulling out of NATO will strengthen our negotiating position with the EU. We are a European country and if the US were to abandon its 70 year defence strategy it would be dumping on us just as much as the Germans. Indeed, it would make Trump the most anti-British US president for many a long year.
It would mean the EU would be even more reliant on our defence cooperation. I.e. it would be another bargaining chip for us in Brexit negotiations.
Ha! Was just reading an article about the EU and defence, and it quoted a Mr Johnson. I had no idea who that was until I realized it was Boris.
How many other politicians are so well known by simply their first name that you have to do a double-take when they are referred to by solely their family name?
There is a Mr Johnson and he is a separate person to Boris. Mr Johnson thinks that, on balance, we should stay in the EU and has just written an essay about it. Mr Johnson also plans to lie down in front of bulldozers at the new heathrow runway site.
I was looking at 2Q numbers for world automotive production, and was amused to see that US production is growing, while Mexican is shrinking.
The best performers (among large-ish producers), you will all be pleased to know, are Canada (+13%), the UK (+12%) and Spain (+11%).
I was also amused to discover that - since 1994 and the introduction of NAFTA - auto imports to the US have declined by more than a million cars a year.
The biggest issue for the rust belt have been that US autos are now made in Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee, and Mississippi rather than arounf the Great Lakes.
The reason for the displacement of auto manufacturing away from the Great Lakes area is the more favourable labour laws for employers.
Wasn't it to do with where the Japanese chose to site their original US factories back in the day? Driven by constructive unions (and possibly labour laws), willingness to try new policies, and (I'd assume) state incentives
Ha! Was just reading an article about the EU and defence, and it quoted a Mr Johnson. I had no idea who that was until I realized it was Boris.
How many other politicians are so well known by simply their first name that you have to do a double-take when they are referred to by solely their family name?
There is a Mr Johnson and he is a separate person to Boris. Mr Johnson thinks that, on balance, we should stay in the EU and has just written an essay about it. Mr Johnson also plans to lie down in front of bulldozers at the new heathrow runway site.
''It's your side's game now, taffy, your rules. It's all down to you. Stop dithering, take responsibility and get on with it. ''
Wish someone would tell Tim Farron and the house of lords!
Tim Farron has a team of eight MPs, including himself. The Commons can do whatever it wants to the Lords. Take control, mate, it's your game.
And at least two of his MPs are from Leave voting constituencies, so he's not sure of all eight.
Good point. I guess they will not be looking forward to a GE too quickly?
With 20 and 30 percent swings in their favour in real elections, I would think they wouldn't mind at all. UKIP being consistently down 6 to 8 percent helps too.
Opinion polls have the Lib Dems on ~ 10%, but I can see that going up to around 16 giving polls a +/-6% actual margin of terror as it seems to be the case. Labour might actually be around 22%.
Its all very hard to tell.
all bets off if aaron banks launches some kind of populist party given the febrile state of things.
If Aaron Banks thinks the Trump phenomenon can be easily replicated he's as guilty of underestimating Trump as anyone else.
Trump is about to centralise it by withdrawing federal funding for any city with sanctuary status. It's a smart move.
It's possibly also a good example of why people who are hoping Trump won't be able to get anything done because he doesn't know how to use the levers of power will be disappointed.
True although the irony is that it is Republican voters who tend to be keenest on states' rights.
The true irony is that the liberal left has spent 8 years weaponising the federal government on the assumption they'd own it forever - only to see Trump assume the reins of power! Maybe they'll learn to love Executive Orders a little less. Obama's petulant 'I won' isn't going to sound so clever for them going forwards I suspect.
Just checked on Wikipedia -- it is actually Republican presidents who have used most executive orders. Here are the numbers (and remember GHW Bush was a single-term president).
Ronald Reagan 381 George H. W. Bush 166 William J. Clinton 364 George W. Bush 291 Barack Obama 235
California is now the US equivalent of Merseyside, politically.
And of London economically.
Not so much, outside of Silicon Valley (obviously a big exception). There is a surprising level of poverty in California, and its schools now rank with Alabama and Mississippi.
I noticed that down in San Diego, which seemed like a very prosperous successful city. But the districts on the eastern fringes of the city clearly have some significant social problems and locals talk about them very unfavourably, and an hour's drive or so north east are some quite poor places indeed.
Part of its problem is that its population is booming (I think San Diego is one of the fastest growing cities in the US), fuelled by in-migration of people who have either succeeded, or not succeeded, elsewhere. Doubtless this is part of the reverse side of the rust belt coin.
But that's the Inland Empire Trendy people in LA and SF don't notice them, except to point and laugh.
Interesting to note that Sterling is up against the Euro again today. The markets definitely see Trump as a huge negative for the EU. A less secure border, increased defence spending to pay for and a possible trade war to contend with. Juncker and Merkel have hardly helped matters either.
Trump will pull out of NATO f Germany doesn't commit to 2% defence spending. Unlike his domestic promises there's no political price for that one in the US.
It is also one of his earliest stated and most consistent stances on any policy issue. He has been banging that drum since the 80s. It will happen.
The EU's plans of playing hardball with the UK are going down the drain, unless we are so lily-livered we let them.
Not sure how the US pulling out of NATO will strengthen our negotiating position with the EU. We are a European country and if the US were to abandon its 70 year defence strategy it would be dumping on us just as much as the Germans. Indeed, it would make Trump the most anti-British US president for many a long year.
It would mean the EU would be even more reliant on our defence cooperation. I.e. it would be another bargaining chip for us in Brexit negotiations.
Hardly - without the US, our defence spend is essentially meaningless. It's like not having the US or China in global warming agreements. Without them what anyone else does is essentially irrelevant.
Neither is looking that likely, but I've got D Miliband red and Ed Balls Green in my Labour leadership betting.
Ed Balls should probably be shorter than David Miliband I reckon.
Nothing is ever going to prove a 100/1 shot poor value, but still, I think you're mad.
There's plenty that can prove 100/1 shots poor value. Constituency betting invariably does, where 'haven't a chance in hell' candidates get offered at only that sort of price. Across the country, six or so 100/1 candidates ought to come in at any given election, if the odds were 'true'. In fact, hardly any do (though some do who were 100/1 some time before the election, and when some do like that, quite a lot can, as with the SNP this last time).
I have not backed Ed Balls at all for the Labour leadership, but neither have I laid him. I have laid David Miliband.
Laying Ed Balls at 100-1 on Betfair doesn't tempt me. Laying David Miliband sub 10-1 is a big component of my long term book. A tiny bit rebacked at 17ish, so far but the only true liability.
Interesting to note that Sterling is up against the Euro again today. The markets definitely see Trump as a huge negative for the EU. A less secure border, increased defence spending to pay for and a possible trade war to contend with. Juncker and Merkel have hardly helped matters either.
Trump will pull out of NATO f Germany doesn't commit to 2% defence spending. Unlike his domestic promises there's no political price for that one in the US.
It is also one of his earliest stated and most consistent stances on any policy issue. He has been banging that drum since the 80s. It will happen.
The EU's plans of playing hardball with the UK are going down the drain, unless we are so lily-livered we let them.
Not sure how the US pulling out of NATO will strengthen our negotiating position with the EU. We are a European country and if the US were to abandon its 70 year defence strategy it would be dumping on us just as much as the Germans. Indeed, it would make Trump the most anti-British US president for many a long year.
The French also refused to attend the emergency meeting as well. That's Europe's two major military powers effectively backing Trump over the EU on NATO. It's time for Germany and the rest to pay up. €117bn please.
Trump is about to centralise it by withdrawing federal funding for any city with sanctuary status. It's a smart move.
It's possibly also a good example of why people who are hoping Trump won't be able to get anything done because he doesn't know how to use the levers of power will be disappointed.
True although the irony is that it is Republican voters who tend to be keenest on states' rights.
This is about federal funding though, not state level funding. The state could decide to plug the gap but it would require statewide tax rises or spending cuts to other programmes. Again, the fastest way to set the local population against illegal immigration is to force tax rises onto them, in areas of poverty it won't be Trump that will suffer, it will be the city legislature that refuses to dump sanctuary status that will take the hit. Trump is giving them a choice, after all.
Penalising Sanctuary Cities seems entirely reasonable to me. Immigration is a Federal issue, not a local government issue.
This is an interesting and rare example of US politics being to the Left of UK politics. In this country, enfranchising illegal immigrants is an idea restricted to the extreme Left. In the US, it's mainstream in the Democratic Party.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
I was looking at 2Q numbers for world automotive production, and was amused to see that US production is growing, while Mexican is shrinking.
The best performers (among large-ish producers), you will all be pleased to know, are Canada (+13%), the UK (+12%) and Spain (+11%).
I was also amused to discover that - since 1994 and the introduction of NAFTA - auto imports to the US have declined by more than a million cars a year.
The biggest issue for the rust belt have been that US autos are now made in Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee, and Mississippi rather than arounf the Great Lakes.
The reason for the displacement of auto manufacturing away from the Great Lakes area is the more favourable labour laws for employers.
Wasn't it to do with where the Japanese chose to site their original US factories back in the day? Driven by constructive unions (and possibly labour laws), willingness to try new policies, and (I'd assume) state incentives
State incentives and the state's status on labour laws/unionism, especially if the state has a 'Right to Work" law:
My recollection is that the new factories were built in Right to Work states, and Boeing shifted a big part of its production to one too (SC) over the objections of the NLRB.
''It's your side's game now, taffy, your rules. It's all down to you. Stop dithering, take responsibility and get on with it. ''
Wish someone would tell Tim Farron and the house of lords!
Tim Farron has a team of eight MPs, including himself. The Commons can do whatever it wants to the Lords. Take control, mate, it's your game.
And at least two of his MPs are from Leave voting constituencies, so he's not sure of all eight.
Good point. I guess they will not be looking forward to a GE too quickly?
With 20 and 30 percent swings in their favour in real elections, I would think they wouldn't mind at all. UKIP being consistently down 6 to 8 percent helps too.
In the most recent major elections in May of this year the Lib Dems:- Dropped to 1 in London Dropped to 1 in Wales Made no net gains in Scotland.
Give the full facts! Net gain of 30 councillors in May. Net gain of 18 seats since May was 'elected'. +23.4% swing in Witney by-election
This is a betting site, don't just give partial information.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
He's not. HMG has made that very clear.
He's just a self-agrandising tit
Surely one of the levers of power is having Trump's ear. For the moment he seems to have it. People paid the Clinton Foundation hundreds of millions for the same privilege.
''It's your side's game now, taffy, your rules. It's all down to you. Stop dithering, take responsibility and get on with it. ''
Wish someone would tell Tim Farron and the house of lords!
Tim Farron has a team of eight MPs, including himself. The Commons can do whatever it wants to the Lords. Take control, mate, it's your game.
And at least two of his MPs are from Leave voting constituencies, so he's not sure of all eight.
Good point. I guess they will not be looking forward to a GE too quickly?
With 20 and 30 percent swings in their favour in real elections, I would think they wouldn't mind at all. UKIP being consistently down 6 to 8 percent helps too.
Opinion polls have the Lib Dems on ~ 10%, but I can see that going up to around 16 giving polls a +/-6% actual margin of terror as it seems to be the case. Labour might actually be around 22%.
Its all very hard to tell.
all bets off if aaron banks launches some kind of populist party given the febrile state of things.
Launching a party is easy enough if you're rich. To make an impact though, you still need a membership, an activist base and candidates to act as spokesmen, and they can't be bought so readily.
Trump is about to centralise it by withdrawing federal funding for any city with sanctuary status. It's a smart move.
It's possibly also a good example of why people who are hoping Trump won't be able to get anything done because he doesn't know how to use the levers of power will be disappointed.
True although the irony is that it is Republican voters who tend to be keenest on states' rights.
This is about federal funding though, not state level funding. The state could decide to plug the gap but it would require statewide tax rises or spending cuts to other programmes. Again, the fastest way to set the local population against illegal immigration is to force tax rises onto them, in areas of poverty it won't be Trump that will suffer, it will be the city legislature that refuses to dump sanctuary status that will take the hit. Trump is giving them a choice, after all.
Penalising Sanctuary Cities seems entirely reasonable to me. Immigration is a Federal issue, not a local government issue.
This is an interesting and rare example of US politics being to the Left of UK politics. In this country, enfranchising illegal immigrants is an idea restricted to the extreme Left. In the US, it's mainstream in the Democratic Party.
Rush for demographics. US politics is infected with it. If Trump does manage to reverse Mexican migration significantly it could change US politics forever as the Dems would not be able to rely on underlying demographic changes to help them.
''It's your side's game now, taffy, your rules. It's all down to you. Stop dithering, take responsibility and get on with it. ''
Wish someone would tell Tim Farron and the house of lords!
Tim Farron has a team of eight MPs, including himself. The Commons can do whatever it wants to the Lords. Take control, mate, it's your game.
And at least two of his MPs are from Leave voting constituencies, so he's not sure of all eight.
Good point. I guess they will not be looking forward to a GE too quickly?
With 20 and 30 percent swings in their favour in real elections, I would think they wouldn't mind at all. UKIP being consistently down 6 to 8 percent helps too.
In the most recent major elections in May of this year the Lib Dems:- Dropped to 1 in London Dropped to 1 in Wales Made no net gains in Scotland.
Give the full facts! Net gain of 30 councillors in May. Net gain of 18 seats since May was 'elected'. +23.4% swing in Witney by-election
This is a betting site, don't just give partial information.
Overall, the Lib Dems still only hold 9% of Council seats (compared to a more typical figure of about 20% prior to 2010). It's very much low-hanging fruit which they're regaining.
''It's your side's game now, taffy, your rules. It's all down to you. Stop dithering, take responsibility and get on with it. ''
Wish someone would tell Tim Farron and the house of lords!
Tim Farron has a team of eight MPs, including himself. The Commons can do whatever it wants to the Lords. Take control, mate, it's your game.
And at least two of his MPs are from Leave voting constituencies, so he's not sure of all eight.
Good point. I guess they will not be looking forward to a GE too quickly?
With 20 and 30 percent swings in their favour in real elections, I would think they wouldn't mind at all. UKIP being consistently down 6 to 8 percent helps too.
In the most recent major elections in May of this year the Lib Dems:- Dropped to 1 in London Dropped to 1 in Wales Made no net gains in Scotland.
Give the full facts! Net gain of 30 councillors in May. Net gain of 18 seats since May was 'elected'. +23.4% swing in Witney by-election
This is a betting site, don't just give partial information.
For a guide to a general election, the widespread May elections are likely to be a better test of a party's campaigning capacity than the odd one-off by-election.
Trump is about to centralise it by withdrawing federal funding for any city with sanctuary status. It's a smart move.
It's possibly also a good example of why people who are hoping Trump won't be able to get anything done because he doesn't know how to use the levers of power will be disappointed.
True although the irony is that it is Republican voters who tend to be keenest on states' rights.
This is about federal funding though, not state level funding. The state could decide to plug the gap but it would require statewide tax rises or spending cuts to other programmes. Again, the fastest way to set the local population against illegal immigration is to force tax rises onto them, in areas of poverty it won't be Trump that will suffer, it will be the city legislature that refuses to dump sanctuary status that will take the hit. Trump is giving them a choice, after all.
Penalising Sanctuary Cities seems entirely reasonable to me. Immigration is a Federal issue, not a local government issue.
This is an interesting and rare example of US politics being to the Left of UK politics. In this country, enfranchising illegal immigrants is an idea restricted to the extreme Left. In the US, it's mainstream in the Democratic Party.
Rush for demographics. US politics is infected with it. If Trump does manage to reverse Mexican migration significantly it could change US politics forever as the Dems would not be able to rely on underlying demographic changes to help them.
It has already reversed. For the past two years there has been a net emigration of Mexicans from the US back to Mexico. Being driven mainly by economic factors.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
He's not. HMG has made that very clear.
He's just a self-agrandising tit
Surely one of the levers of power is having Trump's ear. For the moment he seems to have it. People paid the Clinton Foundation hundreds of millions for the same privilege.
Comments
http://order-order.com/2016/11/14/bbc-presenter-tells-us-tv-britons-regret-brexit/
"Katty said on NBC’s Meet the Press that people didn’t really want to Leave and that Remain would win a second referendum"
Wish someone would tell Tim Farron and the house of lords!
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20161113/pilsen/chicago-remain-sanctuary-city-despite-trumps-election-rahm
No voter is very happy she doesn't have constitutional powers over Scotland's position with other nations.
Nate Cohn Verified account
@Nate_Cohn
Currently flying over a Missouri county where Obama narrowly won in 2008, but Trump won by 55 points, 76-21
“There is scant evidence of buyer’s remorse. As the tumultuous summer of 2016 drew to a close, 52 per cent of voters still said that Brexit was the “right decision”.”
He misread the country due to piss poor polling (Didn't we all), and his pre-elections state modelling was a bit off. He underestimated the extent of DEM cannibalisation of their own vote in mail in ballots..
On the plus side his NY Times modelling of the states (As the results come in) was very very good.
Even if he wanted to, he couldn't.
If he wants a trade deal with HMG, he needs to talk to someone else.
David Duke
@DrDavidDuke
David Duke Retweeted The Hill
I thought we were draining the swamp? Here we go again......
#BREAKING
Ed Balls should probably be shorter than David Miliband I reckon.
I thought it was 'pause' as in 'take a moment to reflect on the ideas advanced'.
The EU's plans of playing hardball with the UK are going down the drain, unless we are so lily-livered we let them.
And yes in NC they got very fixated on that bathroom stuff - cost Ted Cruz heavily in the primaries too.
How many other politicians are so well known by simply their first name that you have to do a double-take when they are referred to by solely their family name?
Labour might actually be around 22%.
Its all very hard to tell.
Err...
Dropped to 1 in London
Dropped to 1 in Wales
Made no net gains in Scotland.
And everyone is replying 'I don't think email should have been sent to me'
or 'Can you take me off this email discussion'
or 'Quit hit replying to all'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/one-in-four-buy-to-let-investors-sell-up-due-to-new-tax/
"Experts have warned that tenants will bear the brunt of the tax changes, and are likely to see their rents increase. Some will lose their homes as their landlords sell. "
Laying Ed Balls at 100-1 on Betfair doesn't tempt me.
Laying David Miliband sub 10-1 is a big component of my long term book. A tiny bit rebacked at 17ish, so far but the only true liability.
This is an interesting and rare example of US politics being to the Left of UK politics. In this country, enfranchising illegal immigrants is an idea restricted to the extreme Left. In the US, it's mainstream in the Democratic Party.
He's just a self-agrandising tit
http://www.workplacefairness.org/unions-right-to-work
My recollection is that the new factories were built in Right to Work states, and Boeing shifted a big part of its production to one too (SC) over the objections of the NLRB.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/business/labor-board-drops-case-against-boeing.html
Net gain of 30 councillors in May.
Net gain of 18 seats since May was 'elected'.
+23.4% swing in Witney by-election
This is a betting site, don't just give partial information.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/11/11/for-the-2nd-week-running-con-make-a-local-by-election-gain-this-time-from-lab/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37719170
Does he? Or is he merely a court jester?