Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
Another good way of saving the two party system would be to end gerrymandering of congressional districts and to act aggressively against voter suppression. What are the chances, do you think?
That Trump got North Carolina's EC votes on the back of egregious voter suppression is a real stain on the 2016 election. If that had made the difference, he would have a real problem with claiming a credible mandate, losing the popular vote too.
It was also a big issue in Wisconsin.
Really? I hadn't been aware of that. Will look into it.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
Another good way of saving the two party system would be to end gerrymandering of congressional districts and to act aggressively against voter suppression. What are the chances, do you think?
As it's an issue for individual states, slim. It can be done (see, for instance, California), but it requires politicians to legislate against their electoral interest - or a popular electoral revolt at the state level.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
Another good way of saving the two party system would be to end gerrymandering of congressional districts and to act aggressively against voter suppression. What are the chances, do you think?
That Trump got North Carolina's EC votes on the back of egregious voter suppression is a real stain on the 2016 election. If that had made the difference, he would have a real problem with claiming a credible mandate, losing the popular vote too.
I think Trump's lead in North Carolina was sufficiently big to win without it.
But, gerrymandering and voter suppression are stains on the system.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
Another good way of saving the two party system would be to end gerrymandering of congressional districts and to act aggressively against voter suppression. What are the chances, do you think?
That Trump got North Carolina's EC votes on the back of egregious voter suppression is a real stain on the 2016 election. If that had made the difference, he would have a real problem with claiming a credible mandate, losing the popular vote too.
It was also a big issue in Wisconsin.
Really? I hadn't been aware of that. Will look into it.
And the voter ID laws can be tightened because Democrats don't bother to show up in the mid terms.
I went to an interesting talk recently given by a former senior member of Blair's government. He correctly guessed that Trump would win.
On Brexit his thoughts were these:-
1. The Johnson, Davis and Fox trio were a joke and not the people needed to build the relationships needed to get the best deal possible for the UK. 2. May was running scared of the voters (his words) and would seek to prioritise immigration controls for fear of being washed away by the voters if she did not. It was implicit in what he said that he felt that this was not calculated to lead to the best possible decision making. 3. The chances of getting any sort of a deal with the EU within the 2-year time frame were low to non-existent. There was a huge amount of work to be done and the devil was in the details. Those in charge - see point 1 - did not do detail. 4. He did not think the EU wished us harm and would want some sort of deal but they felt that the economic consequences of being outside the EU would necessarily not be as good as being in the EU and Britain needed to understand that. 5. Dropping out of the EU without a deal in place and only WTO terms to fall back on would be very risky indeed and if the economy fell off a cliff he could envisage a Corbyn led Labour Party winning an election, an outcome he did not welcome. 6. He thought Corbyn was very thick indeed. 7. One possible interim solution would be to formally leave the EU in March 2019 but remain a member of the Single Market pro tem until an alternative was negotiated. 8. We should not underestimate how much polticians hate - really hate - lawyers. Politicians think that they can do everything and that lawyers are just there to stop them. The Article 50 court case will only have reinforced this view and this could be seen in the reaction of May and others. 9. He thought it quite likely that within a decade Scotland would have left the Union.
Incidentally, his general tone - despite being a Remainer - was quite sympathetic to why people outside London had voted leave and he saw no evidence of buyers' remorse.
That's almost exactly my take, including sympathy towards those that voted Leave.
On point 7, which is likely to be semi-permanent, our* choices are no effective deal or no effective change. No effective change is less painful but it takes discretion and good will to agree to.
* OUR choice requires buy-in from EU partners as well as us
Seems bizarre that politicians hate lawyers, half the commons must be made up of barristers.
Politicians seem to hate the law which they make.
In particular they rage against their own corporate tax laws.
I went to an interesting talk recently given by a former senior member of Blair's government. He correctly guessed that Trump would win.
On Brexit his thoughts were these:-
1. The Johnson, Davis and Fox trio were a joke and not the people needed to build the relationships needed to get the best deal possible for the UK. 2. May was running scared of the voters (his words) and would seek to prioritise immigration controls for fear of being washed away by the voters if she did not. It was implicit in what he said that he felt that this was not calculated to lead to the best possible decision making. 3. The chances of getting any sort of a deal with the EU within the 2-year time frame were low to non-existent. There was a huge amount of work to be done and the devil was in the details. Those in charge - see point 1 - did not do detail. 4. He did not think the EU wished us harm and would want some sort of deal but they felt that the economic consequences of being outside the EU would necessarily not be as good as being in the EU and Britain needed to understand that. 5. Dropping out of the EU without a deal in place and only WTO terms to fall back on would be very risky indeed and if the economy fell off a cliff he could envisage a Corbyn led Labour Party winning an election, an outcome he did not welcome. snip
Incidentally, his general tone - despite being a Remainer - was quite sympathetic to why people outside London had voted leave and he saw no evidence of buyers' remorse.
That's almost exactly my take, including sympathy towards those that voted Leave.
On point 7, which is likely to be semi-permanent, our* choices are no effective deal or no effective change. No effective change is less painful but it takes discretion and good will to agree to.
* OUR choice requires buy-in from EU partners as well as us
Seems bizarre that politicians hate lawyers, half the commons must be made up of barristers.
Politicians seem to hate the law which they make.
In particular they rage against their own corporate tax laws.
I dunno, quite a few of them seem to enjoy setting up small businesses in order to avoid payroll taxes. See Ken 'Hug-a-Hitler' Livingstone
That's almost exactly my take, including sympathy towards those that voted Leave.
On point 7, which is likely to be semi-permanent, our* choices are no effective deal or no effective change. No effective change is less painful but it takes discretion and good will to agree to.
* OUR choice requires buy-in from EU partners as well as us
I think the hardest part would be to get a May to put this forward. It requires leadership and that is not consistent with her being scared of voters. However, if she does go for hard Brexit the likely economic consequences could be so severe that she cannot achieve her other objectives of helping the less well off and/or the Tories lose to Corbyn. That is her dilemma and it would be hubristic to imagine that the Tories could not lose power, even to someone as awful as Corbyn. That seems to me to risk falling into one of the traps that the Democrats have just done.
So at some point she has to speak some hard truths to people - that disengaging from the EU will take time, must be done in a way which minimises abrupt economic disruption for all our sakes and some compromises, even interim ones, will be needed. She might find it easier to persuade people of this if she took some effective steps to control the immigration we do have control over. If people see some change they may - not guaranteed of course - but they just may be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
And the remaining states in the EU may be more willing to engage if we are willing to play a constructive role in Europe in the new situation we find ourselves in, albeit not as a member. Pretending we can guide Trump (all too reminiscent of Macmilan's delusional belief that Britain could be Greece to the USA's Rome) seems to me to be absurd. We risk deluding ourselves about our importance, both to the US and to the EU.
She might find it easier to persuade people of this if she took some effective steps to control the immigration we do have control over. If people see some change they may - not guaranteed of course - but they just may be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
You mean like India?
Where the price of a trade deal is more immigration.
An exurb is one of those rich only commutable by car areas outside the city's suburbs.
But I thought Trumps support was lukewarm with college educated whites? Or do they mainly live in the city and suburbs? And what would be U.K equivalent? Essex?
''Why should the US,UK or France have to pay when Germany can't be arsed, it's not as if they can't afford it, the 2% contribution hasn't appeared overnight ?''
Then allow the EU to create its own army. Why are we blocking this? what's it got to do with us?
Why would anyone trust the Germans any more than the Russians based on form?
The ICM poll is interesting and shows the three seemingly different blocs out there - come out at all costs, stay in at all costs and let's have a look at the terms. The third option is where I am personally - I think we should leave the EU but not on any old terms and Cyclefree's friend's comments about Johnson, Fox and Davis mirrors my view of them exactly.
I fear the half-baked Brexit being prepared won't be an appetising meal for anyone except the desperate to leave but unless we get some kind of say in it via a referendum, it'll be the General Election where we will have a say.
What will the positions of the parties be ? We can surmise the Conservatives will make the best of a bad job and try and persuade us the shambles will be to our ultimate benefit but what of the counter view ? The options are either a) to renegotiate the terms of exit or b) renegotiate the terms of re-entry to the EU (obviously trying to preserve as many of the previous opt-outs as possible).
The EU might say - "the negotiations are done, that's your treaty. Take it or leave it". OTOH, they might take the view the door will always be open for reviewing the UK-EU relationship if a different Government takes over with a different attitude.
Mr. Rabbit, yeah, it's unhelpful having those two things put together as one option.
Good afternoon, Mr. Stodge.
Afternoon, Mr Dancer. Commiserations on the F1 predictions yesterday. The times I've worked out the form at a horse race meeting based on the ground report given which ultimately bears no relation to the actual surface are many.
I've always related Mr Hamilton a fine wet weather driver - wasn't it Monaco in the rain where he first announced his presence as a potential F1 champion ?
Mr. Rabbit, yeah, it's unhelpful having those two things put together as one option.
Good afternoon, Mr. Stodge.
Afternoon, Mr Dancer. Commiserations on the F1 predictions yesterday. The times I've worked out the form at a horse race meeting based on the ground report given which ultimately bears no relation to the actual surface are many.
I've always related Mr Hamilton a fine wet weather driver - wasn't it Monaco in the rain where he first announced his presence as a potential F1 champion ?
Will you be taking on Douvan or Thistlecrack ?
Un De Sceuax looks interesting at 11s for the Queen Mother.
But I'm not backing anything Ruby Mullins ante-post.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
Another good way of saving the two party system would be to end gerrymandering of congressional districts and to act aggressively against voter suppression. What are the chances, do you think?
That Trump got North Carolina's EC votes on the back of egregious voter suppression is a real stain on the 2016 election. If that had made the difference, he would have a real problem with claiming a credible mandate, losing the popular vote too.
I think Trump's lead in North Carolina was sufficiently big to win without it.
But, gerrymandering and voter suppression are stains on the system.
There are some funny shaped districts (although some are designed to give minority groups the chance to select their own representatives.) Gerrymandering of course is impossible at the State level, but relatively easy to do at the District level - hence the importance of being in power when the census results come out.
With regards to 'voter suppression' - are you meaning Trump depressing AA voters by saying that the Democrats have done nothing for you - or are you talking about voters requiring to register and have suitable ID?
If the latter, then the opposite argument is that by allowing anyone to turn up and vote you are greatly increasing the ease of voter fraud.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky Sources: The Government is expected to announce shortly that the UK will opt into new Europol regulations
Given we haven't actually left, isn't that the only thing we could have done?
About Europol | | Europol https://www.europol.europa.eu › about-e... Europol is the European Union’s law enforcement agency. Our main goal is to achieve a safer Europe for the benefit of all EU citizens. Headquartered in The Hague, the Netherlands, we assist the 28 EU Member States in their fight against serious international crime and terrorism.
I don't think Britons will care about staying in this organization.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky Sources: The Government is expected to announce shortly that the UK will opt into new Europol regulations
Given we haven't actually left, isn't that the only thing we could have done?
No, we have opt out rights on these as part of our EU membership. There was some controversy the other year when May opted us back into another batch of Europol regs eg
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky Sources: The Government is expected to announce shortly that the UK will opt into new Europol regulations
Given we haven't actually left, isn't that the only thing we could have done?
No, we have opt out rights on these as part of our EU membership. There was some controversy the other year when May opted us back into another batch of Europol regs eg
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
Another good way of saving the two party system would be to end gerrymandering of congressional districts and to act aggressively against voter suppression. What are the chances, do you think?
That Trump got North Carolina's EC votes on the back of egregious voter suppression is a real stain on the 2016 election. If that had made the difference, he would have a real problem with claiming a credible mandate, losing the popular vote too.
I think Trump's lead in North Carolina was sufficiently big to win without it.
But, gerrymandering and voter suppression are stains on the system.
There are some funny shaped districts (although some are designed to give minority groups the chance to select their own representatives.) Gerrymandering of course is impossible at the State level, but relatively easy to do at the District level - hence the importance of being in power when the census results come out.
With regards to 'voter suppression' - are you meaning Trump depressing AA voters by saying that the Democrats have done nothing for you - or are you talking about voters requiring to register and have suitable ID?
If the latter, then the opposite argument is that by allowing anyone to turn up and vote you are greatly increasing the ease of voter fraud.
That is indeed the argument but rarely is this sort of voter fraud (personation) actually found.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
Another good way of saving the two party system would be to end gerrymandering of congressional districts and to act aggressively against voter suppression. What are the chances, do you think?
That Trump got North Carolina's EC votes on the back of egregious voter suppression is a real stain on the 2016 election. If that had made the difference, he would have a real problem with claiming a credible mandate, losing the popular vote too.
I think Trump's lead in North Carolina was sufficiently big to win without it.
But, gerrymandering and voter suppression are stains on the system.
There are some funny shaped districts (although some are designed to give minority groups the chance to select their own representatives.) Gerrymandering of course is impossible at the State level, but relatively easy to do at the District level - hence the importance of being in power when the census results come out.
With regards to 'voter suppression' - are you meaning Trump depressing AA voters by saying that the Democrats have done nothing for you - or are you talking about voters requiring to register and have suitable ID?
If the latter, then the opposite argument is that by allowing anyone to turn up and vote you are greatly increasing the ease of voter fraud.
Voter I/D is fine. Making it harder for groups that are likely to vote against you to vote isn't.
I agree that the requirement to create majority/minority districts now works against the people it was designed to help.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
Another good way of saving the two party system would be to end gerrymandering of congressional districts and to act aggressively against voter suppression. What are the chances, do you think?
That Trump got North Carolina's EC votes on the back of egregious voter suppression is a real stain on the 2016 election. If that had made the difference, he would have a real problem with claiming a credible mandate, losing the popular vote too.
I think Trump's lead in North Carolina was sufficiently big to win without it.
But, gerrymandering and voter suppression are stains on the system.
There are some funny shaped districts (although some are designed to give minority groups the chance to select their own representatives.) Gerrymandering of course is impossible at the State level, but relatively easy to do at the District level - hence the importance of being in power when the census results come out.
With regards to 'voter suppression' - are you meaning Trump depressing AA voters by saying that the Democrats have done nothing for you - or are you talking about voters requiring to register and have suitable ID?
If the latter, then the opposite argument is that by allowing anyone to turn up and vote you are greatly increasing the ease of voter fraud.
Hm, not sure how much I like the idea of drawing boundaries based on voter's ethnicity.
1. The Johnson, Davis and Fox trio were a joke and not the people needed to build the relationships needed to get the best deal possible for the UK. 2. May was running scared of the voters (his words) and would seek to prioritise immigration controls for fear of being washed away by the voters if she did not. It was implicit in what he said that he felt that this was not calculated to lead to the best possible decision making. 3. The chances of getting any sort of a deal with the EU within the 2-year time frame were low to non-existent. There was a huge amount of work to be done and the devil was in the details. Those in charge - see point 1 - did not do detail. 4. He did not think the EU wished us harm and would want some sort of deal but they felt that the economic consequences of being outside the EU would necessarily not be as good as being in the EU and Britain needed to understand that. 5. Dropping out of the EU without a deal in place and only WTO terms to fall back on would be very risky indeed and if the economy fell off a cliff he could envisage a Corbyn led Labour Party winning an election, an outcome he did not welcome. 6. He thought Corbyn was very thick indeed. 7. One possible interim solution would be to formally leave the EU in March 2019 but remain a member of the Single Market pro tem until an alternative was negotiated.
Incidentally, his general tone - despite being a Remainer - was quite sympathetic to why people outside London had voted leave and he saw no evidence of buyers' remorse.
That's almost exactly my take, including sympathy towards those that voted Leave.
On point 7, which is likely to be semi-permanent, our* choices are no effective deal or no effective change. No effective change is less painful but it takes discretion and good will to agree to.
* OUR choice requires buy-in from EU partners as well as us
The only one I would disagree with is 5. There is a snowball's chance in hell of Corbyn ever leading Labour to a general election victory, whatever the circumstances.
I agree. And it's interesting to cross-reference with (2). Yes, May is running scared of the voters to an extent but it's not Labour that she's scared of. The same Brexit/Trump nationalist-protest vote has the potential to find form here in UKIP. Bearing in mind that they've polled in the teens for the last four years now, one major shock against the Westminster establishment and they could easily be well into the 20s. Of course, how that pans out into the bottom line depends on (a) how far they advance and (b) in what proportions they take votes from Con/Lab/LD. But there comes a point where they become a threat in their own right, as Scottish Labour found from the SNP.
I think the Europol news will be of somewhat "limited prescience" to the average leave voter in Sunderland.
To expand - Its the sort of thing May can get good will on, and the voters won't care about.
I doubt we get much goodwill from this. They are pocketed and forgotten.
What May needs is time to work out what the hell the country needs/wants post-Brexit, the best way of going about getting it and how to bring the country with her.
No evidence any of the necessary thinking is happening. But who knows.
Mr. Rabbit, yeah, it's unhelpful having those two things put together as one option.
Good afternoon, Mr. Stodge.
Afternoon, Mr Dancer. Commiserations on the F1 predictions yesterday. The times I've worked out the form at a horse race meeting based on the ground report given which ultimately bears no relation to the actual surface are many.
I've always related Mr Hamilton a fine wet weather driver - wasn't it Monaco in the rain where he first announced his presence as a potential F1 champion ?
Good yes, but Verstappen: different class. Reminiscent of a young Schumacher.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
Another good way of saving the two party system would be to end gerrymandering of congressional districts and to act aggressively against voter suppression. What are the chances, do you think?
That Trump got North Carolina's EC votes on the back of egregious voter suppression is a real stain on the 2016 election. If that had made the difference, he would have a real problem with claiming a credible mandate, losing the popular vote too.
I think Trump's lead in North Carolina was sufficiently big to win without it.
But, gerrymandering and voter suppression are stains on the system.
There are some funny shaped districts (although some are designed to give minority groups the chance to select their own representatives.) Gerrymandering of course is impossible at the State level, but relatively easy to do at the District level - hence the importance of being in power when the census results come out.
With regards to 'voter suppression' - are you meaning Trump depressing AA voters by saying that the Democrats have done nothing for you - or are you talking about voters requiring to register and have suitable ID?
If the latter, then the opposite argument is that by allowing anyone to turn up and vote you are greatly increasing the ease of voter fraud.
Trump had nothing to do with voter suppression. It's about limiting the number of polling station in certain areas, meaning that it might take hours to get into vote and requiring very specific kinds of ID that discriminate against certain types of voter.
Burgon? Anyway, I don't get it. There used to be a law against slagging off judges (aka scandalising the court). It was abolished last year. Why is anyone now upset or surprised when the papers exercise their new freedom?
I doubt we get much goodwill from this. They are pocketed and forgotten.
What May needs is time to work out what the hell the country needs/wants post-Brexit, the best way of going about getting it and how to bring the country with her.
No evidence any of the necessary thinking is happening. But who knows.
I think there's a real danger that we'll end up as the last bastion of old-school thinking on NATO and foreign policy in Europe and will be seen as irrelevant not just by the EU but by the US as well.
''What May needs is time to work out what the hell the country needs/wants post-Brexit, the best way of going about getting it and how to bring the country with her.''
Voters want complete and irrevocable control of immigration.
The reason they want it is they see the person who controls immigration wields enormous power. They want that power for themselves.
IF they don;t get it now, they'll elect someone who'll give it to them. Perhaps someone a good deal less amenable to many than Theresa May.
Burgon? Anyway, I don't get it. There used to be a law against slagging off judges (aka scandalising the court). It was abolished last year. Why is anyone now upset or surprised when the papers exercise their new freedom?
"He told party members in September that employment tribunal fees made him ‘sick to [his] stomach’ and would be scrapped under a Labour government"
I think the Europol news will be of somewhat "limited prescience" to the average leave voter in Sunderland.
To expand - Its the sort of thing May can get good will on, and the voters won't care about.
I doubt we get much goodwill from this. They are pocketed and forgotten.
What May needs is time to work out what the hell the country needs/wants post-Brexit, the best way of going about getting it and how to bring the country with her.
No evidence any of the necessary thinking is happening. But who knows.
That's a good thing. Nothing leaking out is a prerequisite of us getting a half-way decent deal.
Mr. Herdson, Verstappen was immensely impressive in the wet. Worth noting he had fresh tyres and arguably the best car in terms of downforce (enhancing grip in the slippery conditions) but even so, he was miles ahead of Ricciardo, passing him with ease.
Ocon also outclassed his team mate. Worth noting for next year.
Mr. Stodge, first time I've ever had a weather report be quite *that* wrong. Mildly miffed, but nothing to do about it.
Can't recall that, bit far back for me. From memory, Hamilton had something ridiculous like six podium finishes in his first six races. However, worth noting he's never driven for a team unable to compete for wins, unlike Alonso, Vettel, (maybe Schumacher), and his other rivals.
Up to number 2 in the overall wins now, on 52, ahead of Prost and 39 behind Schumacher.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
Another good way of saving the two party system would be to end gerrymandering of congressional districts and to act aggressively against voter suppression. What are the chances, do you think?
That Trump got North Carolina's EC votes on the back of egregious voter suppression is a real stain on the 2016 election. If that had made the difference, he would have a real problem with claiming a credible mandate, losing the popular vote too.
I think Trump's lead in North Carolina was sufficiently big to win without it.
But, gerrymandering and voter suppression are stains on the system.
There are some funny shaped districts (although some are designed to give minority groups the chance to select their own representatives.) Gerrymandering of course is impossible at the State level, but relatively easy to do at the District level - hence the importance of being in power when the census results come out.
With regards to 'voter suppression' - are you meaning Trump depressing AA voters by saying that the Democrats have done nothing for you - or are you talking about voters requiring to register and have suitable ID?
If the latter, then the opposite argument is that by allowing anyone to turn up and vote you are greatly increasing the ease of voter fraud.
Trump had nothing to do with voter suppression. It's about limiting the number of polling station in certain areas, meaning that it might take hours to get into vote and requiring very specific kinds of ID that discriminate against certain types of voter.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
Another good way of saving the two party system would be to end gerrymandering of congressional districts and to act aggressively against voter suppression. What are the chances, do you think?
That Trump got North Carolina's EC votes on the back of egregious voter suppression is a real stain on the 2016 election. If that had made the difference, he would have a real problem with claiming a credible mandate, losing the popular vote too.
I think Trump's lead in North Carolina was sufficiently big to win without it.
But, gerrymandering and voter suppression are stains on the system.
There are some funny shaped districts (although some are designed to give minority groups the chance to select their own representatives.) Gerrymandering of course is impossible at the State level, but relatively easy to do at the District level - hence the importance of being in power when the census results come out.
With regards to 'voter suppression' - are you meaning Trump depressing AA voters by saying that the Democrats have done nothing for you - or are you talking about voters requiring to register and have suitable ID?
If the latter, then the opposite argument is that by allowing anyone to turn up and vote you are greatly increasing the ease of voter fraud.
The list of "things that went wrong" in North Carolina is gob smacking. Poling places closing down for over an hour as they had run out of forms, computer systems down and things like that.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
That's similar to Britain where 55% of all Labour seats in Parliament are now found in an English Core City (one of the big eight cities outside London) or in London itself.
Unlike Labour and the Tories, though, the Democrats get more votes than the Republicans on a regular basis.
I think the Europol news will be of somewhat "limited prescience" to the average leave voter in Sunderland.
To expand - Its the sort of thing May can get good will on, and the voters won't care about.
I doubt we get much goodwill from this. They are pocketed and forgotten.
What May needs is time to work out what the hell the country needs/wants post-Brexit, the best way of going about getting it and how to bring the country with her.
No evidence any of the necessary thinking is happening. But who knows.
That's a good thing. Nothing leaking out is a prerequisite of us getting a half-way decent deal.
Nothing leaking out might be a prerequisite of us getting a decent deal. But it could also be a sign there is nothing at all to leak out. Which I think is Ms Free's point
'We can surmise the Conservatives will make the best of a bad job and try and persuade us the shambles will be to our ultimate benefit but what of the counter view ?'
Negotiations haven't yet started but you already know they will be a shambles.
Are you a clairvoyant or is that just the Lib Dem line ?
'We can surmise the Conservatives will make the best of a bad job and try and persuade us the shambles will be to our ultimate benefit but what of the counter view ?'
Negotiations haven't yet started but you already know they will be a shambles.
Are you a clairvoyant or is that just the Lib Dem line ?
He might be right, if the UK ceases to be a signatory to the trade deal then SK may be due compensation as the terms of the deal have been changed unilateral action by the EU. This is why the UK might stay on all the existing trade deal as an independent signatory.
'We can surmise the Conservatives will make the best of a bad job and try and persuade us the shambles will be to our ultimate benefit but what of the counter view ?'
Negotiations haven't yet started but you already know they will be a shambles.
Are you a clairvoyant or is that just the Lib Dem line ?
You have far more confidence in Curly, Mo and Larry than I do.
Fortunately, of course, they won't be the ones doing the negotiating.
The problem they have is trying to satisfy all the competing priorities and viewpoints which is akin to herding cats.
By the way, it's not "the Lib Dem line", it's the Stodge line which is of course superior in every way.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
That's similar to Britain where 55% of all Labour seats in Parliament are now found in an English Core City (one of the big eight cities outside London) or in London itself.
Unlike Labour and the Tories, though, the Democrats get more votes than the Republicans on a regular basis.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
Another good way of saving the two party system would be to end gerrymandering of congressional districts and to act aggressively against voter suppression. What are the chances, do you think?
The party in control does the gerrymandering etc - sometimes it's the GOP, sometimes it's the Dems.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
Another good way of saving the two party system would be to end gerrymandering of congressional districts and to act aggressively against voter suppression. What are the chances, do you think?
The party in control does the gerrymandering etc - sometimes it's the GOP, sometimes it's the Dems.
I honestly don't know why one of the most advanced democracies in the world puts up with it, regardless of partisanship.
I have no idea whether that is accurate or not, but if you were a European nation paying an access fee to the EU, surely you would want the fee reduced if the market had lost 13% of it's population and 16% of it's economy?
We are Norway's best customer and Switzerland's second most important EU trading partner.
That's just in general terms, but what about if the UK was a disproportionately important part of the european market for non-EU countries?
Beyond Europe, the UK represents 42% of Canadian exports to the EU. The worth of a trade deal with the EU changes vastly if Britain isn't in it.
He might be right, if the UK ceases to be a signatory to the trade deal then SK may be due compensation as the terms of the deal have been changed unilateral action by the EU. This is why the UK might stay on all the existing trade deal as an independent signatory.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
69 of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by Republicans
24 states have a Republican governor and entire Republican control of the legislature. 6 states have democratic governors and democratic controlled legislatures.
There are 34 Republican governors. 16 Democratic governors.
But the real stunner is this -
Fully 1/3 of the caucus of the democratic party in the US House of Representatives comes from just 3 states – Massachusetts, New York and California. That's a bad sign.
This is where 8 years of Obama's leadership and policies have left them. One has to hope that for the sake of the two party system it doesn't get any worse. The party has strayed far from its history as an inclusive organization projecting American values and needs to return to it.
That's similar to Britain where 55% of all Labour seats in Parliament are now found in an English Core City (one of the big eight cities outside London) or in London itself.
Unlike Labour and the Tories, though, the Democrats get more votes than the Republicans on a regular basis.
I have no idea whether that is accurate or not, but if you were a European nation paying an access fee to the EU, surely you would want the fee reduced if the market had lost 13% of it's population and 16% of it's economy?
We are Norway's best customer and Switzerland's second most important EU trading partner.
That's just in general terms, but what about if the UK was a disproportionately important part of the european market for non-EU countries?
Beyond Europe, the UK represents 42% of Canadian exports to the EU. The worth of a trade deal with the EU changes vastly if Britain isn't in it.
'We can surmise the Conservatives will make the best of a bad job and try and persuade us the shambles will be to our ultimate benefit but what of the counter view ?'
'The problem they have is trying to satisfy all the competing priorities and viewpoints which is akin to herding cats.'
The fact that you can't keep all of the people happy all of the time is a long way from a 'shambles'
Comments
It can be done (see, for instance, California), but it requires politicians to legislate against their electoral interest - or a popular electoral revolt at the state level.
But, gerrymandering and voter suppression are stains on the system.
Politicians seem to hate the law which they make.
In particular they rage against their own corporate tax laws.
So at some point she has to speak some hard truths to people - that disengaging from the EU will take time, must be done in a way which minimises abrupt economic disruption for all our sakes and some compromises, even interim ones, will be needed. She might find it easier to persuade people of this if she took some effective steps to control the immigration we do have control over. If people see some change they may - not guaranteed of course - but they just may be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
And the remaining states in the EU may be more willing to engage if we are willing to play a constructive role in Europe in the new situation we find ourselves in, albeit not as a member. Pretending we can guide Trump (all too reminiscent of Macmilan's delusional belief that Britain could be Greece to the USA's Rome) seems to me to be absurd. We risk deluding ourselves about our importance, both to the US and to the EU.
Where the price of a trade deal is more immigration.
Oh, wait...
An exurb is one of those rich only commutable by car areas outside the city's suburbs.
But I thought Trumps support was lukewarm with college educated whites? Or do they mainly live in the city and suburbs?
And what would be U.K equivalent? Essex?
The ICM poll is interesting and shows the three seemingly different blocs out there - come out at all costs, stay in at all costs and let's have a look at the terms. The third option is where I am personally - I think we should leave the EU but not on any old terms and Cyclefree's friend's comments about Johnson, Fox and Davis mirrors my view of them exactly.
I fear the half-baked Brexit being prepared won't be an appetising meal for anyone except the desperate to leave but unless we get some kind of say in it via a referendum, it'll be the General Election where we will have a say.
What will the positions of the parties be ? We can surmise the Conservatives will make the best of a bad job and try and persuade us the shambles will be to our ultimate benefit but what of the counter view ? The options are either a) to renegotiate the terms of exit or b) renegotiate the terms of re-entry to the EU (obviously trying to preserve as many of the previous opt-outs as possible).
The EU might say - "the negotiations are done, that's your treaty. Take it or leave it". OTOH, they might take the view the door will always be open for reviewing the UK-EU relationship if a different Government takes over with a different attitude.
Plenty of water to flow under these bridges...
The people that vote want out asap.
Good afternoon, Mr. Stodge.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky Sources: The Government is expected to announce shortly that the UK will opt into new Europol regulations
I've always related Mr Hamilton a fine wet weather driver - wasn't it Monaco in the rain where he first announced his presence as a potential F1 champion ?
The Irish have suddenly woken up to the fact that:
a) 66%-75% of their trade is outside the EU in a post Brexit world;
b) Trump is aggressively suggesting that US companies should go home with vastly reduced corporation tax;
c) The EU want to move to corporate tax harmonisation;
Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland etc have all voted in anti-migrant parties or pro-Kremlin ones.
The chances of the EU shrinking to core are steadily growing.
Un De Sceuax looks interesting at 11s for the Queen Mother.
But I'm not backing anything Ruby Mullins ante-post.
With regards to 'voter suppression' - are you meaning Trump depressing AA voters by saying that the Democrats have done nothing for you - or are you talking about voters requiring to register and have suitable ID?
If the latter, then the opposite argument is that by allowing anyone to turn up and vote you are greatly increasing the ease of voter fraud.
https://www.europol.europa.eu › about-e...
Europol is the European Union’s law enforcement agency. Our main goal is to achieve a safer Europe for the benefit of all EU citizens. Headquartered in The Hague, the Netherlands, we assist the 28 EU Member States in their fight against serious international crime and terrorism.
I don't think Britons will care about staying in this organization.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldeucom/16/1603.htm
The failure of the small EU countries to stop Britain being isolated when inside looks like a more colossal mistake on a daily basis.
I agree that the requirement to create majority/minority districts now works against the people it was designed to help.
https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/201611/burgeoning-justice
What May needs is time to work out what the hell the country needs/wants post-Brexit, the best way of going about getting it and how to bring the country with her.
No evidence any of the necessary thinking is happening. But who knows.
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/798195542555787265
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/12032958/Denmarks-EU-referendum-is-a-blow-to-David-Cameron.html
Strange that it's now of negligible interest.
Voters want complete and irrevocable control of immigration.
The reason they want it is they see the person who controls immigration wields enormous power. They want that power for themselves.
IF they don;t get it now, they'll elect someone who'll give it to them. Perhaps someone a good deal less amenable to many than Theresa May.
Not going to last five minutes in government.
Hillary 48%
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RG6rNcsVOaA
Ocon also outclassed his team mate. Worth noting for next year.
Mr. Stodge, first time I've ever had a weather report be quite *that* wrong. Mildly miffed, but nothing to do about it.
Can't recall that, bit far back for me. From memory, Hamilton had something ridiculous like six podium finishes in his first six races. However, worth noting he's never driven for a team unable to compete for wins, unlike Alonso, Vettel, (maybe Schumacher), and his other rivals.
Up to number 2 in the overall wins now, on 52, ahead of Prost and 39 behind Schumacher.
http://www.snopes.com/uncounted-california-ballots/
California Democrats didn't bother finishing their own ballot count !
Amongst first time voters Hillary won 56% to Trump's 40%
'We can surmise the Conservatives will make the best of a bad job and try and persuade us the shambles will be to our ultimate benefit but what of the counter view ?'
Negotiations haven't yet started but you already know they will be a shambles.
Are you a clairvoyant or is that just the Lib Dem line ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016
Just a hunch...
https://twitter.com/GavinQuinney/status/797723340374999041
Makes you wonder who does have influence in Europe's capital cities right now. Putin? Merkel? Hollande? Obama?
0.98%, apparently.
Fortunately, of course, they won't be the ones doing the negotiating.
The problem they have is trying to satisfy all the competing priorities and viewpoints which is akin to herding cats.
By the way, it's not "the Lib Dem line", it's the Stodge line which is of course superior in every way.
We are Norway's best customer and Switzerland's second most important EU trading partner.
That's just in general terms, but what about if the UK was a disproportionately important part of the european market for non-EU countries?
Beyond Europe, the UK represents 42% of Canadian exports to the EU. The worth of a trade deal with the EU changes vastly if Britain isn't in it.
Hillary 48%
'We can surmise the Conservatives will make the best of a bad job and try and persuade us the shambles will be to our ultimate benefit but what of the counter view ?'
'The problem they have is trying to satisfy all the competing priorities and viewpoints which is akin to herding cats.'
The fact that you can't keep all of the people happy all of the time is a long way from a 'shambles'