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.
And therein you see the fear of the EUrocracy.
The Irish will have 66% of their exports and 75% of their imports (or may be it's the other way round) outside the single market once we leave.
The Irish face the US on one side and the UK on the other as their markets.
Latvia, Estonia etc are an absolute irrelevance to them, yet they are chained to them with all the Brussels talk of the favourable tax regime being targeted. And they are in the Euro.
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
Shouldn't be left to the legislators to draw their own boundaries though!
Public opinion doesn't matter to this government. The sole concern is to stop the Tory Party from falling apart. Whatever the cost to us the Tories are happy for us to pay it.
Public opinion doesn't matter to this government. The sole concern is to stop the Tory Party from falling apart. Whatever the cost to us the Tories are happy for us to pay it.
Public opinion doesn't matter to this government. The sole concern is to stop the Tory Party from falling apart. Whatever the cost to us the Tories are happy for us to pay it.
I have to say that Remoaners never cease to amaze me with their stamina and imagination.
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.
Wait until after the next election. Labour will be even more concentrated. The key will be are they still competitive in more than half the seats?
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.
Wait until after the next election. Labour will be even more concentrated. The key will be are they still competitive in more than half the seats?
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.
Wait until after the next election. Labour will be even more concentrated. The key will be are they still competitive in more than half the seats?
It does explain the lack of urgency in the Labour party. Most of those MPs are probably feeling pretty secure in their seats right now so don't feel a compelling need to act.
Public opinion doesn't matter to this government. The sole concern is to stop the Tory Party from falling apart. Whatever the cost to us the Tories are happy for us to pay it.
Yep, who needs public support to win elections.
They have convinced themselves that Labour cannot win and the Lib Dems are finished. They believe and I'm not arguing with them, that they will win by default. Theresa still sees herself as the Party Chair, not the PM.
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.
Wait until after the next election. Labour will be even more concentrated. The key will be are they still competitive in more than half the seats?
It does explain the lack of urgency in the Labour party. Most of those MPs are probably feeling pretty secure in their seats right now so don't feel a compelling need to act.
What can they do though ?
Last time round they thought it was a good idea to let Owen Smith! run for the leadership. It certainly made Corbyn look better than he did previously.
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.
Wait until after the next election. Labour will be even more concentrated. The key will be are they still competitive in more than half the seats?
It does explain the lack of urgency in the Labour party. Most of those MPs are probably feeling pretty secure in their seats right now so don't feel a compelling need to act.
so far Brexit has been a mean-spirited battle over how many people we stop coming versus how many businesses we stop leaving.
If May and co., are short of intelligent principles to guide them re a broadly sensible immigration policy, can I - ahem - suggest the following as a start.
No-one wants closed borders. But, equally, no-one wants to be made to feel that the British are no more special than anyone else in their own country.
There is a saying in business that when the business is going through some big change what management has to do is "change the people or change the people" i.e. if existing staff won't change their attitudes and execute the new strategy then replace them with new staff who will.
It probably feels to some that this is what has been done to them by governments over recent decades. The trouble is being in government is not like being a CEO and a country is something more than a company. A country is not simply an economic entity and people are not simply economic resources or human capital. They are people and people are something more than economic actors.
It is one of the delicious ironies of recent events that so many people seem to have absorbed (almost unthinkingly) a very Marxist approach to what animates people.
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.
Wait until after the next election. Labour will be even more concentrated. The key will be are they still competitive in more than half the seats?
It does explain the lack of urgency in the Labour party. Most of those MPs are probably feeling pretty secure in their seats right now so don't feel a compelling need to act.
What can they do though ?
Last time round they thought it was a good idea to let Owen Smith! run for the leadership. It certainly made Corbyn look better than he did previously.
Not certain that was the intention though.
The most important lesson I'd draw from Donald Trump's victory is that with a sufficiently gripping message you don't need all that much of a ground game (and without one a ground game is useless, something Labour MPs should already know from 2015). So unhappy Labour MPs should be considering what their pitch to the public should be and whether that could be more effectively made from outside the Labour party. Right now there looks to be an awful lot of empty ground to be filled.
''No-one wants closed borders. But, equally, no-one wants to be made to feel that the British are no more special than anyone else in their own country.''
The bones of the policy aren't really the point right now.
What matters is that voters have total control, so that political parties will have to have a detailed menu of what they are going to do with immigration next time around.
I think people want selective closing of borders, both for immigration and trade purposes.
Unfettered immigration and unfettered free trade are now both perceived as bad, yet very few want zero migration and absolute trade protectionism.
A free trade and free movement zone among similarly wealthy and like minded nations would still win approval, but no to wholesale under-cutting and undesirables. A 'fair trade zone'.
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.
Wait until after the next election. Labour will be even more concentrated. The key will be are they still competitive in more than half the seats?
It does explain the lack of urgency in the Labour party. Most of those MPs are probably feeling pretty secure in their seats right now so don't feel a compelling need to act.
What can they do though ?
Last time round they thought it was a good idea to let Owen Smith! run for the leadership. It certainly made Corbyn look better than he did previously.
Not certain that was the intention though.
The most important lesson I'd draw from Donald Trump's victory is that with a sufficiently gripping message you don't need all that much of a ground game (and without one a ground game is useless, something Labour MPs should already know from 2015). So unhappy Labour MPs should be considering what their pitch to the public should be and whether that could be more effectively made from outside the Labour party. Right now there looks to be an awful lot of empty ground to be filled.
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
What are you talking about? The Dems won the NC Gubernatorial race but lost the Presidential race, that means Dems split their tickets, not voter suppression.
''Unfettered immigration and unfettered free trade are now both perceived as bad, yet very few want zero migration and absolute trade protectionism.''
Voters want to see a beauty parade on immigration from the people that purport to govern them . They want to receive a detailed menu of choices, from which they can make a selection.
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
Outrageous would be having an unelected upper chamber. Supplying ID when voting is merely good sense.
Amongst first time voters Hillary won 56% to Trump's 40%
Also - I assume it doesn't include 40+ old voters who decided not to bother voting for 12 years as they were so disllusioned. Would be better if it could be broken down by ** unlikely voters **.
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
What are you talking about? The Dems won the NC Gubernatorial race but lost the Presidential race, that means Dems split their tickets, not voter suppression.
Lefties tend to be guided by their beliefs, not facts.
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
Outrageous would be having an unelected upper chamber. Supplying ID when voting is merely good sense.
Plus there's no evidence that the Dems lost NC to voter suppression, they won the Gubernatorial race and lost the Presidential race, that means split tickets. Surely because the Dems had a shit candidate.
''No-one wants closed borders. But, equally, no-one wants to be made to feel that the British are no more special than anyone else in their own country.''
The bones of the policy aren't really the point right now.
What matters is that voters have total control, so that political parties will have to have a detailed menu of what they are going to do with immigration next time around.
No-one has total control of anything. What matters is that voters feel they have enough control and that the principles underlying whatever policy we do have are properly debated and broadly agreed. Above all, immigration needs to be seen as a subject for policy change.
For all the endless talk about immigration in recent years, all that happened was that politicians advertised their inability or unwillingness to do anything about controlling it, their unwillingness or ability to make a case for it (rather than simply asserting it) and voters got more and more frustrated that a topic seemed to be, for all the talk, off limits as a subject which voters' votes could change. Voters need to feel that votes can make a difference. If they don't that is a worrying development because something else will fill the voters' desire for change.
That is why Juncker's statement that it is "impermissible" to do anything outside the treaties, regardless of the wishes of the voters, is so stupid. The failure of the EU to adapt to the voters' wishes on a topic as important as who lives in and becomes a citizen of a country has led, in part, to the Brexit vote. A bit more flexibility and pragmatism and honesty earlier on - and I blame UK governments at least as much as the EU - would have avoided the mess we're in, where getting change acceptable to a majority without blowing up our economy seems a near impossible task, especially given the politicians we have in charge.
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
Outrageous would be having an unelected upper chamber. Supplying ID when voting is merely good sense.
Plus there's no evidence that the Dems lost NC to voter suppression, they won the Gubernatorial race and lost the Presidential race, that means split tickets. Surely because the Dems had a shit candidate.
The Wayne County and Philadelphia vote counts indicate that black voters were simply very unenthusiastic for Clinton compared to Obama.
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
Outrageous would be having an unelected upper chamber. Supplying ID when voting is merely good sense.
Plus there's no evidence that the Dems lost NC to voter suppression, they won the Gubernatorial race and lost the Presidential race, that means split tickets. Surely because the Dems had a shit candidate.
The Wayne County and Philadelphia vote counts indicate that black voters were simply very unenthusiastic for Clinton compared to Obama.
Yes, nothing as bad as voter suppression. I'm surprised that someone as thoughtful as SO is buying into this conspiracy theory. The Dems won the governor's mansion, they had enough votes to take the ECVs but Clinton was just rubbish.
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
What are you talking about? The Dems won the NC Gubernatorial race but lost the Presidential race, that means Dems split their tickets, not voter suppression.
And they'll be with a few percentage points of the Reps for total votes cast in the Congressional races but lose the seat count 10 to 3 due to districting designed specifically to dilute the African American vote. So obviously and delibertly it had gone to court and been knocked back at least once.
Never mind the illegal early voting changes that are documented to damage Democratic voting.
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
What are you talking about? The Dems won the NC Gubernatorial race but lost the Presidential race, that means Dems split their tickets, not voter suppression.
And they'll be with a few percentage points of the Reps for total votes cast in the Congressional races but lose the seat count 10 to 3 due to districting designed specifically to dilute the African American vote. So obviously and delibertly it had gone to court and been knocked back at least once.
Never mind the illegal early voting changes that are documented to damage Democratic voting.
And yet the Dems won the governor's mansion. Their voters turned out but Clinton was so uninspiring their voters split and voted for Trump. That's basically what it boils down to, Clinton was a rubbish candidate.
''Unfettered immigration and unfettered free trade are now both perceived as bad, yet very few want zero migration and absolute trade protectionism.''
Voters want to see a beauty parade on immigration from the people that purport to govern them . They want to receive a detailed menu of choices, from which they can make a selection.
Do voters really want a detailed menu of choices? Or do they think, we employ the government to work these things out. You get immigration down to less than 100 000 a year as you promised. You sort out Brexit as we decided by referendum, so we are out of the EU but our jobs, welfare and lifestyle are not impacted.
Then Theresa May - hypothetically - comes back and says, Weeell, actually, it's not QUITE as simple as that. We have some choices and there are other things we have no control over. What do you want us to do? ...
The congressional districting means Dems can beat the Republicans in total votes cast and still lose the district count.
The gerrymandering in North Carolina is disgusting and an affront to democracy.
The election in North Carolina, just like the US presidential election, (and for that matter a UK parliamentary election) is a series of individual votes, by district, state or constituency. The total aggregate vote is not a factor in any of these elections.
How can it be 'an affront' to democracy' when it was done by people who were elected and could be voted out next time, and results could be reversed after the next census?
Boris Johnson continues to be a total embarrasment. A complete, pathetic, shambles. No concept of nuance and totally unguarded.
No need to hold back, niel. Tell us what you REALLY think!
But at least he's better than Fox as Johnson's disgraceful behaviour never got him sacked from the Cabinet. It really is a government of non-entities.
Can you enlighten us as to what Bojo has actually done ?
OK. Look at todays headlines. "a lot to be positive about". (Re trump being elected) This is what you say to your EU counterparts when the incoming PUSA is elected on a pledge to reverse the principles of seven decades of your foreign policy, creating uncertainty about NATO, the cornerstone of your foreign policy, and is openly friendly towards Putin, who you have been using all your influence within the EU - the very people you are in the room with - to contain for the past ten years.
I am fairly certain that this is not coming from the foreign or diplomatic service. It is someone who doesn't have a clue how to master his brief or strike a serious, measured, diplomatic tone. The content of what he is actually saying, as it is reported, is absolutely fine, but he just cant help himself in his desperate quest to have an impact. And, to do this, he has to fall wholly on one side of a debate, to get maximum impact, however ridiculous his position is.
He is out of his depth, and his stance will be interpreted around the world in one way only - a kow tow, an arselicker, a fool and a tool. May will give him enough rope to hang himself, and then he will beat a very fast retreat away from parliament, politics, public life. But how much damage will he do in the meantime?
I guess so. It will be interesting to see what immigration policy Donald Trump actually comes up with, after all the rhetoric and ballyhoo.
I thought it was interesting that in his first interview he talked about deporting first gang members and criminals. Is there anything in that with which reasonable people could disagree?
Some of the anger over here has been at cases where people who are criminals simply avoid any deportation. The idea that people can break the rules of a country where they are a visitor without paying any penalty i.e. by having their right to remain in that country revoked strikes most people as wholly unfair. Where is the moral hazard? Why shouldn't illegal/criminal actions have consequences? Why should immigrants apparently be given a free pass? The numbers may be small. But they are emblematic of a system which appears to bear down on those who play by the rules and do nothing about those who don't.
For all the talk of "fairness" by politicians they are very poor at trying to remedy some obvious examples which might do more to maintain peoples' confidence in the system than grander - but ultimately meaningless - gestures.
And yet the Dems won the governor's mansion. Their voters turned out but Clinton was so uninspiring their voters split and voted for Trump. That's basically what it boils down to, Clinton was a rubbish candidate.
The congressional districting means Dems can beat the Republicans in total votes cast and still lose the district count.
The gerrymandering in North Carolina is disgusting and an affront to democracy.
The election in North Carolina, just like the US presidential election, (and for that matter a UK parliamentary election) is a series of individual votes, by district, state or constituency. The total aggregate vote is not a factor in any of these elections.
How can it be 'an affront' to democracy' when it was done by people who were elected and could be voted out next time, and results could be reversed after the next census?
Some of the shit north Carolina has pulled has been ruled illegal.
Illegal. Yet wasn't reversed in time for the election.
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
Outrageous would be having an unelected upper chamber. Supplying ID when voting is merely good sense.
Outrageous would be an upper chamber in which Rutland had as much influence as Middlesex.
Boris Johnson continues to be a total embarrasment. A complete, pathetic, shambles. No concept of nuance and totally unguarded.
No need to hold back, niel. Tell us what you REALLY think!
But at least he's better than Fox as Johnson's disgraceful behaviour never got him sacked from the Cabinet. It really is a government of non-entities.
Can you enlighten us as to what Bojo has actually done ?
You mean since becoming Foreign Secretary? Nothing except cause grave embarrassment.
Yes. What a shame Thornberry isn't in situ with her astonishing breadth of knowledge of world affairs. How fortunate she hasn't embarrassed herself yet.......
Another unbelievable intervention. Another reversal of thirty years of government policy. Supporting the right of a dictator well known for witch hunts to reinstate the death penalty for political opponents? Telling people to 'go easy' on Erdogan!
I guess so. It will be interesting to see what immigration policy Donald Trump actually comes up with, after all the rhetoric and ballyhoo.
I thought it was interesting that in his first interview he talked about deporting first gang members and criminals. Is there anything in that with which reasonable people could disagree?
Some of the anger over here has been at cases where people who are criminals simply avoid any deportation. The idea that people can break the rules of a country where they are a visitor without paying any penalty i.e. by having their right to remain in that country revoked strikes most people as wholly unfair. Where is the moral hazard? Why shouldn't illegal/criminal actions have consequences? Why should immigrants apparently be given a free pass? The numbers may be small. But they are emblematic of a system which appears to bear down on those who play by the rules and do nothing about those who don't.
For all the talk of "fairness" by politicians they are very poor at trying to remedy some obvious examples which might do more to maintain peoples' confidence in the system than grander - but ultimately meaningless - gestures.
It's worse in the US where some Democratic politicians encourage the breaking of immigration laws, and seek to prevent their enforcement.
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
Outrageous would be having an unelected upper chamber. Supplying ID when voting is merely good sense.
Outrageous would be an upper chamber in which Rutland had as much influence as Middlesex.
Indeed - Rutland is a county, Middlesex isn't any longer. Yes, it is a bit of a smartypants response
Boris Johnson continues to be a total embarrasment. A complete, pathetic, shambles. No concept of nuance and totally unguarded.
No need to hold back, niel. Tell us what you REALLY think!
But at least he's better than Fox as Johnson's disgraceful behaviour never got him sacked from the Cabinet. It really is a government of non-entities.
Can you enlighten us as to what Bojo has actually done ?
OK. Look at todays headlines. "a lot to be positive about". (Re trump being elected) This is what you say to your EU counterparts when the incoming PUSA is elected on a pledge to reverse the principles of seven decades of your foreign policy, creating uncertainty about NATO, the cornerstone of your foreign policy, and is openly friendly towards Putin, who you have been using all your influence within the EU - the very people you are in the room with - to contain for the past ten years.
I am fairly certain that this is not coming from the foreign or diplomatic service. It is someone who doesn't have a clue how to master his brief or strike a serious, measured, diplomatic tone. The content of what he is actually saying, as it is reported, is absolutely fine, but he just cant help himself in his desperate quest to have an impact. And, to do this, he has to fall wholly on one side of a debate, to get maximum impact, however ridiculous his position is.
He is out of his depth, and his stance will be interpreted around the world in one way only - a kow tow, an arselicker, a fool and a tool. May will give him enough rope to hang himself, and then he will beat a very fast retreat away from parliament, politics, public life. But how much damage will he do in the meantime?
You've got to be shitting me ?
It doesn't matter what the private views of various British government ministers are on Trump or not. He's the President of the United F*cking States of America.
It's still a bloody big country. #1 by GDP in the world, it matters. ALOT.
Now I know Javid, Rifkind and quite a few others within the Conservatives would have liked a Hillary victory, but to expect or want the foreign secretary to immediately shit on Trump is both foolish and stupid.
I don't think Juncker and Merkel have done themselves any favours with their reaction by the way.
Another unbelievable intervention. Another reversal of thirty years of government policy. Supporting the right of a dictator well known for witch hunts to reinstate the death penalty for political opponents? Telling people to 'go easy' on Erdogan!
How is:
“We should not push Turkey into a corner, we should not overreact in a way that is against our collective interests,”
I guess so. It will be interesting to see what immigration policy Donald Trump actually comes up with, after all the rhetoric and ballyhoo.
I thought it was interesting that in his first interview he talked about deporting first gang members and criminals. Is there anything in that with which reasonable people could disagree?
Some of the anger over here has been at cases where people who are criminals simply avoid any deportation. The idea that people can break the rules of a country where they are a visitor without paying any penalty i.e. by having their right to remain in that country revoked strikes most people as wholly unfair. Where is the moral hazard? Why shouldn't illegal/criminal actions have consequences? Why should immigrants apparently be given a free pass? The numbers may be small. But they are emblematic of a system which appears to bear down on those who play by the rules and do nothing about those who don't.
For all the talk of "fairness" by politicians they are very poor at trying to remedy some obvious examples which might do more to maintain peoples' confidence in the system than grander - but ultimately meaningless - gestures.
It's worse in the US where some Democratic politicians encourage the breaking of immigration laws, and seek to prevent their enforcement.
Well, we have politicians here encouraging the government to let in all sorts from France, regardless of applicable conventions, treaties and laws.
The Lib Dems in particular, so keen on international law when it comes to illegal wars, but rather less so when it comes to migrants refusing to comply with the requirements of international law on asylum and migration.
These laws may be a mess in today's world. Lots of laws don't make sense in today's world. Can we all pick and choose which laws to obey?
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
Outrageous would be having an unelected upper chamber. Supplying ID when voting is merely good sense.
Outrageous would be an upper chamber in which Rutland had as much influence as Middlesex.
Indeed - Rutland is a county, Middlesex isn't any longer. Yes, it is a bit of a smartypants response
The EC was designed to prevent the North of America always outvoting the South. (In fact the South's influence was increased by deeming slaves to have 40% of the influence of non-slaves). It seems to have changed over the years and now it serves to prevent the Coastal States outvoting the interior.
Not exactly a brilliant argument running rings round us logically or winning any converts with silly comments like that.
Given that the multiple examples of targeted, frequently ruled illegal, disenfranchisement/voter suppression have been hand waved away as perfectly reasonable I'll make myself feel better by pointing out how disgusting it is and how awful people who accept it as reasonable are.
He's the President of the United F*cking States of America..
The world changed. We don't yet know how.
No it hasn't. For whatever reason the electorate felt that change was a better option than the status quo. Folks need to stop over-reacting.
I would argue that it isn't really change in 2016. The change has been happening steadily in America since 2008 - it has just completed its incubation and fulfilled its potential.
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.
The Norway numbers are largely oil and gas which is tariff free whether with the EU or anyone else.
Another unbelievable intervention. Another reversal of thirty years of government policy. Supporting the right of a dictator well known for witch hunts to reinstate the death penalty for political opponents? Telling people to 'go easy' on Erdogan!
Sadly BoJo is letting his Turkish genes do the talking. He is rapidly losing his bearings if he supports Erdogans Turkey joining any European body or organisation, let alone the EU.
The congressional districting means Dems can beat the Republicans in total votes cast and still lose the district count.
The gerrymandering in North Carolina is disgusting and an affront to democracy.
The election in North Carolina, just like the US presidential election, (and for that matter a UK parliamentary election) is a series of individual votes, by district, state or constituency. The total aggregate vote is not a factor in any of these elections.
How can it be 'an affront' to democracy' when it was done by people who were elected and could be voted out next time, and results could be reversed after the next census?
Because the districts are ordered entirely to suit the governing party. Not every state does it this way and some have bipartisan or independent commissioners.
A distribution whereby the party (Republicans) get 77% of the congressional seats on 53% of the votes is an affront to democracy.
Take a look at districts 1, 4 and 12 whose boundaries have been so arranged to scoop up the majority of the Democratic voters into as few districts as possible. They can be shape for no other reason than for gerrymandering.
Boris Johnson continues to be a total embarrasment. A complete, pathetic, shambles. No concept of nuance and totally unguarded.
No need to hold back, niel. Tell us what you REALLY think!
But at least he's better than Fox as Johnson's disgraceful behaviour never got him sacked from the Cabinet. It really is a government of non-entities.
Can you enlighten us as to what Bojo has actually done ?
OK. Look at todays headlines. "a lot to be positive about". (Re trump being elected)
You've got to be shitting me ?
It doesn't matter what the private views of various British government ministers are on Trump or not. He's the President of the United F*cking States of America.
It's still a bloody big country. #1 by GDP in the world, it matters. ALOT.
Now I know Javid, Rifkind and quite a few others within the Conservatives would have liked a Hillary victory, but to expect or want the foreign secretary to immediately shit on Trump is both foolish and stupid.
I don't think Juncker and Merkel have done themselves any favours with their reaction by the way.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The same rules apply in diplomacy as any other professional or social interaction: arselicking gets you nowhere. Being seen to abandon your principles when the tide appears to turn is not the way to build up a successful, constructive set of relationships. Look at China. Look at Russia. I'm afraid to say that the way these countries work on the diplomatic stage puts us to shame. Boris Johnson was described by a UK prison inmate in a VICE documentary as 'a retard in a russian comedy'. Its the most accurate description ive heard of the man.
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
Outrageous would be having an unelected upper chamber. Supplying ID when voting is merely good sense.
Plus there's no evidence that the Dems lost NC to voter suppression, they won the Gubernatorial race and lost the Presidential race, that means split tickets. Surely because the Dems had a shit candidate.
The Wayne County and Philadelphia vote counts indicate that black voters were simply very unenthusiastic for Clinton compared to Obama.
Milwaukee county in Wisconsin as well. Multiply that by every county in those states with large number of Black voters and you see how she was a really a crap candidate.
The congressional districting means Dems can beat the Republicans in total votes cast and still lose the district count.
The gerrymandering in North Carolina is disgusting and an affront to democracy.
The election in North Carolina, just like the US presidential election, (and for that matter a UK parliamentary election) is a series of individual votes, by district, state or constituency. The total aggregate vote is not a factor in any of these elections.
How can it be 'an affront' to democracy' when it was done by people who were elected and could be voted out next time, and results could be reversed after the next census?
Because the districts are ordered entirely to suit the governing party. Not every state does it this way and some have bipartisan or independent commissioners.
A distribution whereby the party (Republicans) get 77% of the congressional seats on 53% of the votes is an affront to democracy.
Take a look at districts 1, 4 and 12 whose boundaries have been so arranged to scoop up the majority of the Democratic voters into as few districts as possible. They can be shape for no other reason than for gerrymandering.
He's the President of the United F*cking States of America..
The world changed. We don't yet know how.
No it hasn't. For whatever reason the electorate felt that change was a better option than the status quo. Folks need to stop over-reacting.
I would argue that it isn't really change in 2016. The change has been happening steadily in America since 2008 - it has just completed its incubation and fulfilled its potential.
I would agree with that - every election since 2008 not featuring Obama at the top of the ticket has resulted in major defeats (even by midterm standards) of his party and policies.
Obama is a very rare animal - personally very popular, but 3/4 of the country think his policies led the country in the wrong direction.
He's the President of the United F*cking States of America..
The world changed. We don't yet know how.
No it hasn't. For whatever reason the electorate felt that change was a better option than the status quo. Folks need to stop over-reacting.
President Trump. The world changed. It simply wasn't a possible world as I saw it. When 0% chances happen you have to rethink a little. I'm rethinking. I've made little progress.
Boris Johnson continues to be a total embarrasment. A complete, pathetic, shambles. No concept of nuance and totally unguarded.
No need to hold back, niel. Tell us what you REALLY think!
But at least he's better than Fox as Johnson's disgraceful behaviour never got him sacked from the Cabinet. It really is a government of non-entities.
Can you enlighten us as to what Bojo has actually done ?
OK. Look at todays headlines. "a lot to be positive about". (Re trump being elected)
You've got to be shitting me ?
It doesn't matter what the private views of various British government ministers are on Trump or not. He's the President of the United F*cking States of America.
It's still a bloody big country. #1 by GDP in the world, it matters. ALOT.
Now I know Javid, Rifkind and quite a few others within the Conservatives would have liked a Hillary victory, but to expect or want the foreign secretary to immediately shit on Trump is both foolish and stupid.
I don't think Juncker and Merkel have done themselves any favours with their reaction by the way.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The same rules apply in diplomacy as any other professional or social interaction: arselicking gets you nowhere. Being seen to abandon your principles when the tide appears to turn is not the way to build up a successful, constructive set of relationships. Look at China. Look at Russia. I'm afraid to say that the way these countries work on the diplomatic stage puts us to shame. Boris Johnson was described by a UK prison inmate in a VICE documentary as 'a retard in a russian comedy'. Its the most accurate description ive heard of the man.
I think you're getting Boris Johnson mixed up with Tony Blair.
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
Outrageous would be having an unelected upper chamber. Supplying ID when voting is merely good sense.
Outrageous would be an upper chamber in which Rutland had as much influence as Middlesex.
Indeed - Rutland is a county, Middlesex isn't any longer. Yes, it is a bit of a smartypants response
The EC was designed to prevent the North of America always outvoting the South. (In fact the South's influence was increased by deeming slaves to have 40% of the influence of non-slaves). It seems to have changed over the years and now it serves to prevent the Coastal States outvoting the interior.
The electoral college started with only 13 states. Only Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia were in the South. 4 out of 13. It was the price extracted by the "smaller" states. It might have made sense the. Not today. Now it is an affront to democracy. An EC vote in Wyoming is worth 33 times or whatever in California.
Boris Johnson continues to be a total embarrasment. A complete, pathetic, shambles. No concept of nuance and totally unguarded.
No need to hold back, niel. Tell us what you REALLY think!
But at least he's better than Fox as Johnson's disgraceful behaviour never got him sacked from the Cabinet. It really is a government of non-entities.
Can you enlighten us as to what Bojo has actually done ?
OK. Look at todays headlines. "a lot to be positive about". (Re trump being elected)
You've got to be shitting me ?
It doesn't matter what the private views of various British government ministers are on Trump or not. He's the President of the United F*cking States of America.
It's still a bloody big country. #1 by GDP in the world, it matters. ALOT.
Now I know Javid, Rifkind and quite a few others within the Conservatives would have liked a Hillary victory, but to expect or want the foreign secretary to immediately shit on Trump is both foolish and stupid.
I don't think Juncker and Merkel have done themselves any favours with their reaction by the way.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The same rules apply in diplomacy as any other professional or social interaction: arselicking gets you nowhere. Being seen to abandon your principles when the tide appears to turn is not the way to build up a successful, constructive set of relationships. Look at China. Look at Russia. I'm afraid to say that the way these countries work on the diplomatic stage puts us to shame. Boris Johnson was described by a UK prison inmate in a VICE documentary as 'a retard in a russian comedy'. Its the most accurate description ive heard of the man.
And who really gives a shit what Vice thinks about anything?
Wandering through the current state of the Democratic Party post-election, it's not too good for them. -
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.
Either way it is absolutely outrageous.
Populations shift, grow and decrease. You have a to have a way of dealing with it. It may not be perfect, but hardly 'absolutely outrageous'.
No, outrageous is entirely appropriate. Suppression affects very specific groups with very specific voting patterns.
Outrageous would be having an unelected upper chamber. Supplying ID when voting is merely good sense.
Outrageous would be an upper chamber in which Rutland had as much influence as Middlesex.
Indeed - Rutland is a county, Middlesex isn't any longer. Yes, it is a bit of a smartypants response
The EC was designed to prevent the North of America always outvoting the South. (In fact the South's influence was increased by deeming slaves to have 40% of the influence of non-slaves). It seems to have changed over the years and now it serves to prevent the Coastal States outvoting the interior.
The electoral college started with only 13 states. Only Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia were in the South. 4 out of 13. It was the price extracted by the "smaller" states. It might have made sense the. Not today. Now it is an affront to democracy. An EC vote in Wyoming is worth 33 times or whatever in California.
Let's not go overboard, it's only three and a half times.
Boris Johnson continues to be a total embarrasment. A complete, pathetic, shambles. No concept of nuance and totally unguarded.
No need to hold back, niel. Tell us what you REALLY think!
But at least he's better than Fox as Johnson's disgraceful behaviour never got him sacked from the Cabinet. It really is a government of non-entities.
Can you enlighten us as to what Bojo has actually done ?
OK. Look at todays headlines. "a lot to be positive about". (Re trump being elected)
You've got to be shitting me ?
It doesn't matter what the private views of various British government ministers are on Trump or not. He's the President of the United F*cking States of America.
It's still a bloody big country. #1 by GDP in the world, it matters. ALOT.
Now I know Javid, Rifkind and quite a few others within the Conservatives would have liked a Hillary victory, but to expect or want the foreign secretary to immediately shit on Trump is both foolish and stupid.
I don't think Juncker and Merkel have done themselves any favours with their reaction by the way.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The same rules apply in diplomacy as any other professional or social interaction: arselicking gets you nowhere. Being seen to abandon your principles when the tide appears to turn is not the way to build up a successful, constructive set of relationships. Look at China. Look at Russia. I'm afraid to say that the way these countries work on the diplomatic stage puts us to shame. Boris Johnson was described by a UK prison inmate in a VICE documentary as 'a retard in a russian comedy'. Its the most accurate description ive heard of the man.
And who really gives a shit what Vice thinks about anything?
Their coverage of the Syria-Iraq ongoing war has been brilliant.
Boris Johnson continues to be a total embarrasment. A complete, pathetic, shambles. No concept of nuance and totally unguarded.
No need to hold back, niel. Tell us what you REALLY think!
But at least he's better than Fox as Johnson's disgraceful behaviour never got him sacked from the Cabinet. It really is a government of non-entities.
Can you enlighten us as to what Bojo has actually done ?
OK. Look at todays headlines. "a lot to be positive about". (Re trump being elected)
You've got to be shitting me ?
It doesn't matter what the private views of various British government ministers are on Trump or not. He's the President of the United F*cking States of America.
It's still a bloody big country. #1 by GDP in the world, it matters. ALOT.
Now I know Javid, Rifkind and quite a few others within the Conservatives would have liked a Hillary victory, but to expect or want the foreign secretary to immediately shit on Trump is both foolish and stupid.
I don't think Juncker and Merkel have done themselves any favours with their reaction by the way.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The same rules apply in diplomacy as any other professional or social interaction: arselicking gets you nowhere. Being seen to abandon your principles when the tide appears to turn is not the way to build up a successful, constructive set of relationships. Look at China. Look at Russia. I'm afraid to say that the way these countries work on the diplomatic stage puts us to shame. Boris Johnson was described by a UK prison inmate in a VICE documentary as 'a retard in a russian comedy'. Its the most accurate description ive heard of the man.
China's diplomacy is based wholly on money. Lots of examples you can find in Africa, SEA and S.America. Russia has skipped right to the war is the ultimate diplomacy with few intermediate stops. That you see them as inspiration is interesting.
Edit: I'd add with China that they have a moral advantage to us when dealing with totalitarians, despots, and human rights issues.
He's the President of the United F*cking States of America..
The world changed. We don't yet know how.
No it hasn't. For whatever reason the electorate felt that change was a better option than the status quo. Folks need to stop over-reacting.
President Trump. The world changed. It simply wasn't a possible world as I saw it. When 0% chances happen you have to rethink a little. I'm rethinking. I've made little progress.
You didn't see it coming so the world has changed? Hardly. Sounds more like rose colored glasses.
Boris Johnson continues to be a total embarrasment. A complete, pathetic, shambles. No concept of nuance and totally unguarded.
No need to hold back, niel. Tell us what you REALLY think!
But at least he's better than Fox as Johnson's disgraceful behaviour never got him sacked from the Cabinet. It really is a government of non-entities.
Can you enlighten us as to what Bojo has actually done ?
OK. Look at todays headlines. "a lot to be positive about". (Re trump being elected)
You've got to be shitting me ?
It doesn't matter what the private views of various British government ministers are on Trump or not. He's the President of the United F*cking States of America.
It's still a bloody big country. #1 by GDP in the world, it matters. ALOT.
Now I know Javid, Rifkind and quite a few others within the Conservatives would have liked a Hillary victory, but to expect or want the foreign secretary to immediately shit on Trump is both foolish and stupid.
I don't think Juncker and Merkel have done themselves any favours with their reaction by the way.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The same rules apply in diplomacy as any other professional or social interaction: arselicking gets you nowhere. Being seen to abandon your principles when the tide appears to turn is not the way to build up a successful, constructive set of relationships. Look at China. Look at Russia. I'm afraid to say that the way these countries work on the diplomatic stage puts us to shame. Boris Johnson was described by a UK prison inmate in a VICE documentary as 'a retard in a russian comedy'. Its the most accurate description ive heard of the man.
Nothing is more arse-licking than repeating the meaningless expression: "special relationship". Special to the UK only.
Another unbelievable intervention. Another reversal of thirty years of government policy. Supporting the right of a dictator well known for witch hunts to reinstate the death penalty for political opponents? Telling people to 'go easy' on Erdogan!
How is:
“We should not push Turkey into a corner, we should not overreact in a way that is against our collective interests,”
an unbelievable intervention?
On the issue (reinstating the death penalty for political opponents) it will be interpreted around the world as weak, pathetic and appeasement. Again, I cannot believe that this is the UK government policy, but Johnson the clown has allowed it to be interpreted this way due to his performance at the meeting.
Comments
The Irish face the US on one side and the UK on the other as their markets.
Latvia, Estonia etc are an absolute irrelevance to them, yet they are chained to them with all the Brussels talk of the favourable tax regime being targeted. And they are in the Euro.
No concept of nuance and totally unguarded.
Have I missed something ?
so far Brexit has been a mean-spirited battle over how many people we stop coming versus how many businesses we stop leaving.
AlastairMeeks
It's not looking good:
https://twitter.com/GavinQuinney/status/797723340374999041
I like this quote:
so far Brexit has been a mean-spirited battle over how many people we stop coming versus how many businesses we stop leaving.
What a load of crap.
Last time round they thought it was a good idea to let Owen Smith! run for the leadership. It certainly made Corbyn look better than he did previously.
Not certain that was the intention though.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/31/mind-the-gap/
No-one wants closed borders. But, equally, no-one wants to be made to feel that the British are no more special than anyone else in their own country.
There is a saying in business that when the business is going through some big change what management has to do is "change the people or change the people" i.e. if existing staff won't change their attitudes and execute the new strategy then replace them with new staff who will.
It probably feels to some that this is what has been done to them by governments over recent decades. The trouble is being in government is not like being a CEO and a country is something more than a company. A country is not simply an economic entity and people are not simply economic resources or human capital. They are people and people are something more than economic actors.
It is one of the delicious ironies of recent events that so many people seem to have absorbed (almost unthinkingly) a very Marxist approach to what animates people.
The bones of the policy aren't really the point right now.
What matters is that voters have total control, so that political parties will have to have a detailed menu of what they are going to do with immigration next time around.
Unfettered immigration and unfettered free trade are now both perceived as bad, yet very few want zero migration and absolute trade protectionism.
A free trade and free movement zone among similarly wealthy and like minded nations would still win approval, but no to wholesale under-cutting and undesirables. A 'fair trade zone'.
Voters want to see a beauty parade on immigration from the people that purport to govern them . They want to receive a detailed menu of choices, from which they can make a selection.
For all the endless talk about immigration in recent years, all that happened was that politicians advertised their inability or unwillingness to do anything about controlling it, their unwillingness or ability to make a case for it (rather than simply asserting it) and voters got more and more frustrated that a topic seemed to be, for all the talk, off limits as a subject which voters' votes could change. Voters need to feel that votes can make a difference. If they don't that is a worrying development because something else will fill the voters' desire for change.
That is why Juncker's statement that it is "impermissible" to do anything outside the treaties, regardless of the wishes of the voters, is so stupid. The failure of the EU to adapt to the voters' wishes on a topic as important as who lives in and becomes a citizen of a country has led, in part, to the Brexit vote. A bit more flexibility and pragmatism and honesty earlier on - and I blame UK governments at least as much as the EU - would have avoided the mess we're in, where getting change acceptable to a majority without blowing up our economy seems a near impossible task, especially given the politicians we have in charge.
Boris Johnson may be many things, but he is no non entity.
Never mind the illegal early voting changes that are documented to damage Democratic voting.
I guess so. It will be interesting to see what immigration policy Donald Trump actually comes up with, after all the rhetoric and ballyhoo.
Then Theresa May - hypothetically - comes back and says, Weeell, actually, it's not QUITE as simple as that. We have some choices and there are other things we have no control over. What do you want us to do? ...
It's a mess.
The congressional districting means Dems can beat the Republicans in total votes cast and still lose the district count.
The gerrymandering in North Carolina is disgusting and an affront to democracy.
What on earth are you talking about?
Were you embarrassed by his forthright criticism of Russian aggression?
How can it be 'an affront' to democracy' when it was done by people who were elected and could be voted out next time, and results could be reversed after the next census?
"a lot to be positive about". (Re trump being elected)
This is what you say to your EU counterparts when the incoming PUSA is elected on a pledge to reverse the principles of seven decades of your foreign policy, creating uncertainty about NATO, the cornerstone of your foreign policy, and is openly friendly towards Putin, who you have been using all your influence within the EU - the very people you are in the room with - to contain for the past ten years.
I am fairly certain that this is not coming from the foreign or diplomatic service. It is someone who doesn't have a clue how to master his brief or strike a serious, measured, diplomatic tone. The content of what he is actually saying, as it is reported, is absolutely fine, but he just cant help himself in his desperate quest to have an impact. And, to do this, he has to fall wholly on one side of a debate, to get maximum impact, however ridiculous his position is.
He is out of his depth, and his stance will be interpreted around the world in one way only - a kow tow, an arselicker, a fool and a tool. May will give him enough rope to hang himself, and then he will beat a very fast retreat away from parliament, politics, public life. But how much damage will he do in the meantime?
Some of the anger over here has been at cases where people who are criminals simply avoid any deportation. The idea that people can break the rules of a country where they are a visitor without paying any penalty i.e. by having their right to remain in that country revoked strikes most people as wholly unfair. Where is the moral hazard? Why shouldn't illegal/criminal actions have consequences? Why should immigrants apparently be given a free pass? The numbers may be small. But they are emblematic of a system which appears to bear down on those who play by the rules and do nothing about those who don't.
For all the talk of "fairness" by politicians they are very poor at trying to remedy some obvious examples which might do more to maintain peoples' confidence in the system than grander - but ultimately meaningless - gestures.
I may never recover.
Illegal. Yet wasn't reversed in time for the election.
Fuck that noise.
If you are defending that shit you are an utter cretin.
Another unbelievable intervention. Another reversal of thirty years of government policy. Supporting the right of a dictator well known for witch hunts to reinstate the death penalty for political opponents? Telling people to 'go easy' on Erdogan!
It doesn't matter what the private views of various British government ministers are on Trump or not. He's the President of the United F*cking States of America.
It's still a bloody big country. #1 by GDP in the world, it matters. ALOT.
Now I know Javid, Rifkind and quite a few others within the Conservatives would have liked a Hillary victory, but to expect or want the foreign secretary to immediately shit on Trump is both foolish and stupid.
I don't think Juncker and Merkel have done themselves any favours with their reaction by the way.
“We should not push Turkey into a corner, we should not overreact in a way that is against our collective interests,”
an unbelievable intervention?
I'm doubting it as he was alot more witty and less boorish quite frankly (Though he did leave with unpaid gambling debts...)
The Lib Dems in particular, so keen on international law when it comes to illegal wars, but rather less so when it comes to migrants refusing to comply with the requirements of international law on asylum and migration.
These laws may be a mess in today's world. Lots of laws don't make sense in today's world. Can we all pick and choose which laws to obey?
A distribution whereby the party (Republicans) get 77% of the congressional seats on 53% of the votes is an affront to democracy.
Take a look at districts 1, 4 and 12 whose boundaries have been so arranged to scoop up the majority of the Democratic voters into as few districts as possible. They can be shape for no other reason than for gerrymandering.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/north-carolina-house-district-1-butterfield-dew
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/north-carolina-house-district-4-price-googe
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/north-carolina-house-district-12-adams-threatt
The same rules apply in diplomacy as any other professional or social interaction: arselicking gets you nowhere. Being seen to abandon your principles when the tide appears to turn is not the way to build up a successful, constructive set of relationships.
Look at China. Look at Russia. I'm afraid to say that the way these countries work on the diplomatic stage puts us to shame.
Boris Johnson was described by a UK prison inmate in a VICE documentary as 'a retard in a russian comedy'. Its the most accurate description ive heard of the man.
Green are the states that have an independent commission doing it (like the UK).
Obama is a very rare animal - personally very popular, but 3/4 of the country think his policies led the country in the wrong direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:State_population_per_electoral_vote.png
They could solve that by having more legislators
Edit: I'd add with China that they have a moral advantage to us when dealing with totalitarians, despots, and human rights issues.
It is embarrassing !
Again, I cannot believe that this is the UK government policy, but Johnson the clown has allowed it to be interpreted this way due to his performance at the meeting.