I note the BBC seems to be covering the terrible heroin epidemic in the USA now, and also the massive drug war problem in Mexico.
"More Americans now die from drugs than from guns or in car accidents, and increasingly, reports Ian Pannell, the victims are young, white and middle class." (BBC News)
Trump's said he would deal with the heroin epidemic, something I never heard Clinton say anything about once. The MSM shamefully never really covered this issue with the prescience or attention it deserved pre-election.
The BBC to their credit are actually now looking at some of the lesser reported issues and angles that helped Trump win.
Judges set for 15% pay rise to tackle recruitment crisis.
High Court judges are in line to receive a pay rise of 12 to 15 per cent, angering other public servants and trade unions.
The proposed rise, which has been approved by ministers, emerged in court papers yesterday. The 106 High Court judges receive £179,768 a year. The increase, to take effect from April, will add between £21,572.16 and £26,965.20 to that.
Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader. Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.
Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.
Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.
The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.
It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.
It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.
Joe Biden was the impressive campaigner in the recent election, with a common touch that eschews Trump's cynicism. He's yesterday's man too, of course.
Biden should really have been the Democrat candidate. I'm sure his personal problems could have been overcome, it was the whole DNC getting behind Clinton that put him off. If he'd been against Trump he'd have walked it.
Would he though? Remember Biden had twice run for president and flopped. And how does a man who is the sitting vice president run as an outsider like Trump?
He'd only have had to do about 0.2% better than Clinton to end up POTUS.
As I've said before, no way would the man from Scranton have lost Penn.
Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader. Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.
Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.
Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.
The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.
It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.
It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.
Joe Biden was the impressive campaigner in the recent election, with a common touch that eschews Trump's cynicism. He's yesterday's man too, of course.
Biden should really have been the Democrat candidate. I'm sure his personal problems could have been overcome, it was the whole DNC getting behind Clinton that put him off. If he'd been against Trump he'd have walked it.
Would he though? Remember Biden had twice run for president and flopped. And how does a man who is the sitting vice president run as an outsider like Trump?
He'd only have had to do about 0.2% better than Clinton to end up POTUS.
As I've said before, no way would the man from Scranton have lost Penn.
Gore lost his home state against Bush; complacency sets in. It may be true Biden would only have needed 0.2% more than Hillary (in the right states, of course, a lesson not learned from Hillary's PV win but delegate loss to Obama in the primaries) but presumably at least some women voted for Hillary as a woman, which Biden isn't.
Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader. Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.
Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.
Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.
The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.
It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.
It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.
There's nothing in the constitution stopping Obama running for the Senate or House, is there?
Fun fun fun. Seems a Shame presidents and PMs just call it quits re politics after they leave, focusing on private projects and fundraising.
Turns out there is a precedent: John Quincy Adams joined the House, and Andrew Jackson the Senate after being president.
Or alternatively, he will go down the modern ex-leader route of a book or two and some very well paid speaking engagements. That said, I seemed to remember him saying that he's going to live in Washington for another couple of years, so that his daughter can finish her schooling.
As Dr Fox pointed out, the EU might not be able to force us out of any trade deal which we signed while we have been members as it could lead to compensation claims against the EU. What might happen is the UK will stay in all of the existing trade deals and then add to them once we're out on a bilateral basis.
Mr. Eagles, the French system makes it very hard, I think, for Le Pen to win.
Yes, the all but in name AV voting system the French use to elect POTFR makes it very difficult for Le Pen to win.
Whereas the Blue Firewall made it all but impossible for Trump to win ECV. I have been burnt, badly burnt during POTUS, I'm keep options open on FR.
It's a different system, I think the best/worst that can happen is Le Pen campaigning on Frexit and the LR candidate being forced to offer a vote to ensure she doesn't win.
Mr. Eagles, the French system makes it very hard, I think, for Le Pen to win.
Yes, the all but in name AV voting system the French use to elect POTFR makes it very difficult for Le Pen to win.
Has pb ever had a French AV thread?
But the French don't use AV.
The French use a system where the lowest ranked candidates are eliminated until we have two, and then winner gets overs 50% of votes.
Tell me how that's not AV ?
The candidates are eliminated all at once, not one at a time. The runoff is held on a separate date, making it a staged election.
Nothing like AV, much more like a simplified version of the Tory party leader MP election.
It is like AV from the voters' perspective to the extent that you can vote for a less popular candidate knowing your vote can transfer later to one of the front-runners, so that like AV provided you number all the candidates you will always have a say in the final runoff.
In practice of course you have greater knowledge when you cast your second vote in the French system, plus the opportunity of a week to change your mind entirely, and to hear the views of the candidates on the initial result.
In principle I'd suggest it's similar but in practice has significant differences. The principal difference in practice is that under AV less favoured candidates rarely risk undermining their own vote by recommending another candidate as their preferred second choice (it does sometimes happen - for example the Greens recommended putting Sadiq second for London Mayor) whereas under the second vote system the declared views of eliminated candidates on the final candidates can be critical in influencing their original supporters.
I have seen quite a few Lib Dems moan about Goldsmith being wealthy. Not sure Richmond is the right constituency for such a strategy.
I wouldn't moan about him being wealthy - that's not an issue. It's the claim about "starting from scratch" that is the most ridiculous. He's been talking about resigning and fighting a by election on LHR3 for years. Are we to believe that, just like REMAIN, he had done no contingency planning or preparation for the eventuality ?
He's been preparing for this by election for years - are we seriously to believe that if he was completely unprepared and had no chance of winning, he would have resigned and jeopardised his political career ?
No, this has been long planned and well prepared. It may well not carry the Conservative Party stamp but it has the Party's approval and tacit support and to pretend otherwise is to be ridiculously politically naïve.
What do you want, David, how likely are we to get it, and are you in the 'better out on our own and unambiguously economically worse off, than in' group?
Blimey, big questions.
I want us to have tariff free trade with the EU. I do not want us to be in the Customs Union. I want us to continue to work together with the EU on a range of matters including security, mutual enforcement of judgments, law and order, patents and anything else someone can make a case for. I am not ideological about this. I would like the Single Passport arrangements to be kept in a mutual recognition of equivalent regulation. I would be open for that principle to be extended to other areas.
I want us to have better controls on our borders but also have a government that recognises that relatively free movement of people is an essential element of a successful economy.
I do think we will be better on our own. The direction of the EU does not suit us. It is inevitably focussed on the Euro bloc and its interests. This will inevitably drive centralisation because a single currency bloc cannot survive without better central control than they have at the moment. Over time it seemed highly likely to me that we would find ourselves being presented with fait accomplis that did not suit us and budgetary choices that were not to our advantage. I am willing to take the undoubted risk that things might have been better in the short term if we had not rocked the boat and left.
I think a package like this is achievable. It won't tick every box and politics will get in the way. I think we need to recognise that our article 50 deal will not be the end of the story but the start of a process that will continue indefinitely. I want smart, pragmatic politicians negotiating in our national interest with a clear view of what that is. Personally I would like our negotiators to be Osborne and Mandelson but clearly that is not going to happen. I am increasingly frustrated by the lack of vision or clarity of thought in our current government.
If Remain had won, Cameron resigned in 2017, and Osborne installed as leader via a vote of Tory MPs that also dodged the membership ballot, I somehow doubt we'd be hearing as much of this argument from him.
Model voting systems as an economist would, and the similarities between AV and the French system become very apparent.
The 'economist's' model will assume that at the end of the campaign each voter has made his or her decision, whether it is "I like A but B is my second choice", "I only like D and don't care thereafter" or "I want anyone but C". If you model each voter (in their geographical locations as appropriate) and then run the election model using a whole variety of voting systems, the results of the AV and second stage voting models will always be the same, whereas the results of the FPTP, STV, AMS or List system may be different, depending on how the votes fall.
It is reasonable to conclude that two systems that give identical results from a model like this are quite similar, and not "nothing like" each other as someone concluded below.
Nevertheless, as we all know, economists' models rarely work in the real world, because human subjectivity doesn't lend itself to modelling like this, and in practice as per my earlier post the gap in time and the additional information you have in a staged voting system can influence the outcome significantly.
I have seen quite a few Lib Dems moan about Goldsmith being wealthy. Not sure Richmond is the right constituency for such a strategy.
I wouldn't moan about him being wealthy - that's not an issue. It's the claim about "starting from scratch" that is the most ridiculous. He's been talking about resigning and fighting a by election on LHR3 for years. Are we to believe that, just like REMAIN, he had done no contingency planning or preparation for the eventuality ?
He's been preparing for this by election for years - are we seriously to believe that if he was completely unprepared and had no chance of winning, he would have resigned and jeopardised his political career ?
No, this has been long planned and well prepared. It may well not carry the Conservative Party stamp but it has the Party's approval and tacit support and to pretend otherwise is to be ridiculously politically naïve.
And if he wins, what lessons can be learned? The electors of Richmond Park (etc) will have elected an MP who supports the Government on everything except the extension of Heathrow. The man should be charged the full cost of the election, on grounds of wasting public money.
Mr. Eagles, the French system makes it very hard, I think, for Le Pen to win.
Yes, the all but in name AV voting system the French use to elect POTFR makes it very difficult for Le Pen to win.
Has pb ever had a French AV thread?
But the French don't use AV.
The French use a system where the lowest ranked candidates are eliminated until we have two, and then winner gets overs 50% of votes.
Tell me how that's not AV ?
The candidates are eliminated all at once, not one at a time. The runoff is held on a separate date, making it a staged election.
Nothing like AV, much more like a simplified version of the Tory party leader MP election.
But the Tory election system is AV in all but name.
Grrr I have to go into a meeting now, just when we were discussing AV.
It really isn't mate, it's exhaustive ballot.
Key difference: in AV you vote once for all candidates in your preferred rank order, but are blind to the impact of your preferences. In exhaustive ballot you vote for one candidate only but can switch as you see the impact of the numbers and the elimination as the the vote proceeds round by round.
Bless. He need to curl up with his favourite Bollywood movie and relax.
Quite despicable selective quoting of the article by Mike and his little yellow Minion there.
Anyone bothering to go and read he whole article will see that Goldsmith is not complaining at all about the Lack of Conservative support. He is highlighting it as an attempt to distance himself from the Tory party and emphasize his status as an independent.
Mrs May is soaring beyond anywhere Osborne could ever imagine to be in the polls.
Yeah, but that's because she is effective saying and doing nothing. You can criticise GO for many things, but not that.
Nope - I'm not going to accept either premise.
1) Osborne said much and generally failed to meet his targets. His tenure being timed nicely with the economic cycle has, in my opinion, given a false impression of his ability.
2) I'm glad you consider giving Heathrow the green light, approving Hinckley Point and starting a green paper on Grammar schools nothing. You won't mind them all being implemented, presumably? She is also wrestling with the biggest constitutional issue in the post war era.
Congrats on the new books, Morris. I hope to get round to trying one out someday but my wife is more into fantasy than I am so will perhaps try her first!
Bless. He need to curl up with his favourite Bollywood movie and relax.
Quite despicable selective quoting of the article by Mike and his little yellow Minion there.
Anyone bothering to go and read he whole article will see that Goldsmith is not complaining at all about the Lack of Conservative support. He is highlighting it as an attempt to distance himself from the Tory party and emphasize his status as an independent.
Except that he doesn't appear to be very distant from the Conservative party and his status as an independent looks somewhat less than genuine.
Congrats on the new books, Morris. I hope to get round to trying one out someday but my wife is more into fantasy than I am so will perhaps try her first!
So after yesterday's let-down for REMAIN Re. inflation, another let-down today Re. unemployment.
A misery index (unemployment +inflation) of under 6 would have been pretty much inconceivable during most of my adult life. But it does not feel that great, probably for the reasons discussed on Cyclefree's excellent thread yesterday.
If Remain had won, Cameron resigned in 2017, and Osborne installed as leader via a vote of Tory MPs that also dodged the membership ballot, I somehow doubt we'd be hearing as much of this argument from him.
Bitter sniping from Osborne, a sore loser. If he thinks his attempts to derail May and Brexit will lead to future reward at the ballot box, he's in for a surprise.
Still, with the Xmas sales approaching, his talents will be much in demand. Harrods need a towel folder in Bathroom Accessories.
Mr. Rentool, worth noting that both Austrian candidates are anti-Establishment, an ex-green and a chap on the right, both of whom say they'll use presidential powers that typically have not been used.
What do you want, David, how likely are we to get it, and are you in the 'better out on our own and unambiguously economically worse off, than in' group?
Blimey, big questions.
I want us to have tariff free trade with the EU. I do not want us to be in the Customs Union. I want us to continue to work together with the EU on a range of matters including security, mutual enforcement of judgments, law and order, patents and anything else someone can make a case for. I am not ideological about this. I would like the Single Passport arrangements to be kept in a mutual recognition of equivalent regulation. I would be open for that principle to be extended to other areas.
I want us to have better controls on our borders but also have a government that recognises that relatively free movement of people is an essential element of a successful economy.
I do think we will be better on our own. The direction of the EU does not suit us. It is inevitably focussed on the Euro bloc and its interests. This will inevitably drive centralisation because a single currency bloc cannot survive without better central control than they have at the moment. Over time it seemed highly likely to me that we would find ourselves being presented with fait accomplis that did not suit us and budgetary choices that were not to our advantage. I am willing to take the undoubted risk that things might have been better in the short term if we had not rocked the boat and left.
I think a package like this is achievable. It won't tick every box and politics will get in the way. I think we need to recognise that our article 50 deal will not be the end of the story but the start of a process that will continue indefinitely. I want smart, pragmatic politicians negotiating in our national interest with a clear view of what that is. Personally I would like our negotiators to be Osborne and Mandelson but clearly that is not going to happen. I am increasingly frustrated by the lack of vision or clarity of thought in our current government.
Superb post. Except I would exchange Mandelson for Gove.
So after yesterday's let-down for REMAIN Re. inflation, another let-down today Re. unemployment.
A misery index (unemployment +inflation) of under 6 would have been pretty much inconceivable during most of my adult life. But it does not feel that great, probably for the reasons discussed on Cyclefree's excellent thread yesterday.
Exactly. It is good news that the immediate consequences of the vote have been milder than some suggested. But no-one, Leaver or Remainer, does themself any favours by ignoring the significant impact that leaving the EU will have on our economy, quite a few of which are beginning to be reflected by economic indicators despite the fact that nothing has actually changed as yet, and may not do so for some years at least.
Mrs May is soaring beyond anywhere Osborne could ever imagine to be in the polls.
Not necessarily. Electoral politics is a zero sum game. May does well because Corbyn does so badly. The same would presumably apply to Osborne.
Err, no. Might be worth looking at Osbo's unfavourables.
Like Cameron, he had an AWFUL referendum campaign. Unlike Cameron, he didn't start from such a high point.
Fair enough. Mrs May is like my sister. Who wouldn't want to vote for her? George Osborne isn't, obviously. Maybe a few people who would vote for Theresa May would vote Corbyn instead if Osborne were in place.
Electoral politics is necessarily zero sum. You have to take from the choice in front of you. Candidate A's negatives benefit Candidate B.
If Remain had won, Cameron resigned in 2017, and Osborne installed as leader via a vote of Tory MPs that also dodged the membership ballot, I somehow doubt we'd be hearing as much of this argument from him.
So after yesterday's let-down for REMAIN Re. inflation, another let-down today Re. unemployment.
I don't take pleasure in people losing jobs, which was a major reason for my voting Remain. The £60 billion of missed investment since the referendum will show up in the job figures eventually, unfortunately. Hopefully and probably more Credit Crunch levels of unemployment than those we saw in the 1980's
So after yesterday's let-down for REMAIN Re. inflation, another let-down today Re. unemployment.
A misery index (unemployment +inflation) of under 6 would have been pretty much inconceivable during most of my adult life. But it does not feel that great, probably for the reasons discussed on Cyclefree's excellent thread yesterday.
Exactly. It is good news that the immediate consequences of the vote have been milder than some suggested. But no-one, Leaver or Remainer, does themself any favours by ignoring the significant impact that leaving the EU will have on our economy, quite a few of which are beginning to be reflected by economic indicators despite the fact that nothing has actually changed as yet, and may not do so for some years at least.
There may be troubles ahead...
Anyway, I think it is too early to say if the effect of leaving the EU will be "significant". There will be some changes to the flows of trade. There may be some reduction in inward investment (hopefully reflecting a better balance of payments). Much depends on the form of the deal. It is likely that over time the EU will form a smaller share of our trade. That has been a trend for some years already. Whether the impact with be significant, adverse or beneficial is still to be played for. Nissan and Google both indicate that at least some in the government get that but I see no overarching vision yet.
Bless. He need to curl up with his favourite Bollywood movie and relax.
Quite despicable selective quoting of the article by Mike and his little yellow Minion there.
Anyone bothering to go and read he whole article will see that Goldsmith is not complaining at all about the Lack of Conservative support. He is highlighting it as an attempt to distance himself from the Tory party and emphasize his status as an independent.
Except that he doesn't appear to be very distant from the Conservative party and his status as an independent looks somewhat less than genuine.
Independent In Name Only The Tories would be worried about their slim majority unless they had faith that his resignation was only cosmetic.
Blimey. Tea Party of the Left on the move. Win elections or blow things up:
"Some will pursue the strategy of using social movements to elections while others go down the dark path of '70s guerrilla insurrection. I advocate winning elections.”
So after yesterday's let-down for REMAIN Re. inflation, another let-down today Re. unemployment.
A misery index (unemployment +inflation) of under 6 would have been pretty much inconceivable during most of my adult life. But it does not feel that great, probably for the reasons discussed on Cyclefree's excellent thread yesterday.
Exactly. It is good news that the immediate consequences of the vote have been milder than some suggested. But no-one, Leaver or Remainer, does themself any favours by ignoring the significant impact that leaving the EU will have on our economy, quite a few of which are beginning to be reflected by economic indicators despite the fact that nothing has actually changed as yet, and may not do so for some years at least.
Bless. He need to curl up with his favourite Bollywood movie and relax.
Quite despicable selective quoting of the article by Mike and his little yellow Minion there.
Anyone bothering to go and read he whole article will see that Goldsmith is not complaining at all about the Lack of Conservative support. He is highlighting it as an attempt to distance himself from the Tory party and emphasize his status as an independent.
Except that he doesn't appear to be very distant from the Conservative party and his status as an independent looks somewhat less than genuine.
Hence his attempts to do so. The exact opposite of what Mike and TSE claim.
The incompetence of a post-Brexit government in Britain was entirely predictable and predicted in advance. It was inevitably going to result in the ablest leaving government and second-raters taking charge.
The incompetence of a post-Brexit government in Britain was entirely predictable and predicted in advance. It was inevitably going to result in the ablest leaving government and second-raters taking charge.
I agree. This made me hesitate more about my vote than any other aspect of the argument.
Blimey. Tea Party of the Left on the move. Win elections or blow things up:
"Some will pursue the strategy of using social movements to elections while others go down the dark path of '70s guerrilla insurrection. I advocate winning elections.”
So after yesterday's let-down for REMAIN Re. inflation, another let-down today Re. unemployment.
I don't take pleasure in people losing jobs, which was a major reason for my voting Remain. The £60 billion of missed investment since the referendum will show up in the job figures eventually, unfortunately. Hopefully and probably more Credit Crunch levels of unemployment than those we saw in the 1980's
We are in deep and uncharted waters since Brexit will combine with fiscal expansion, protectionist Trumponomics in USA.
If Remain had won, Cameron resigned in 2017, and Osborne installed as leader via a vote of Tory MPs that also dodged the membership ballot, I somehow doubt we'd be hearing as much of this argument from him.
Osborne needs purging for disloyalty.
He feels he has already been purged.
Not to hard to work out what he's up to. He thinks May might fail and the economy could greatly suffer, in which case a grateful Tory party and nation will turn to him to clear up the mess, form the closest possible economic relationship with the EU, Brexit in name only, and then return him as PM at a GE.
Unlikely indeed, but not as long as a 200/1 shot.
Gove would probably be part of his team. Possible Chancellor. That's why I think May should on-board him to help in 2017.
Mr. Eagles, the French system makes it very hard, I think, for Le Pen to win.
Yes, the all but in name AV voting system the French use to elect POTFR makes it very difficult for Le Pen to win.
Has pb ever had a French AV thread?
But the French don't use AV.
The French use a system where the lowest ranked candidates are eliminated until we have two, and then winner gets overs 50% of votes.
Tell me how that's not AV ?
The candidates are eliminated all at once, not one at a time. The runoff is held on a separate date, making it a staged election.
Nothing like AV, much more like a simplified version of the Tory party leader MP election.
But the Tory election system is AV in all but name.
Grrr I have to go into a meeting now, just when we were discussing AV.
It really isn't mate, it's exhaustive ballot.
Key difference: in AV you vote once for all candidates in your preferred rank order, but are blind to the impact of your preferences. In exhaustive ballot you vote for one candidate only but can switch as you see the impact of the numbers and the elimination as the the vote proceeds round by round.
The systems are slightly different, but still very similar. AV does it all in one round, so could be said to be more efficient. Nobody would suggest having runoff elections for council elections, but for Presidential elections, which are much rarer they could make sense.
Bless. He need to curl up with his favourite Bollywood movie and relax.
Quite despicable selective quoting of the article by Mike and his little yellow Minion there.
Anyone bothering to go and read he whole article will see that Goldsmith is not complaining at all about the Lack of Conservative support. He is highlighting it as an attempt to distance himself from the Tory party and emphasize his status as an independent.
Except that he doesn't appear to be very distant from the Conservative party and his status as an independent looks somewhat less than genuine.
Hence his attempts to do so. The exact opposite of what Mike and TSE claim.
If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck ........
As Dr Fox pointed out, the EU might not be able to force us out of any trade deal which we signed while we have been members as it could lead to compensation claims against the EU. What might happen is the UK will stay in all of the existing trade deals and then add to them once we're out on a bilateral basis.
It would be ridiculous for the UK to be forced out of trade deals signed while it was an EU member state. Whatever the rhetoric, I cannot see that happening.
Blimey. Tea Party of the Left on the move. Win elections or blow things up:
"Some will pursue the strategy of using social movements to elections while others go down the dark path of '70s guerrilla insurrection. I advocate winning elections.”
Reflecting on the upcoming A50 Supreme Court case, ISTM that a finding that A50 can be withdrawn or revoked is worth much more to the remainers than actually winning the case.
Winning the case gets them a vote on a three-line bill that will probably sail through both houses and the only issue is whether the debate and any amendments puts the government on the spot and forces/reveals some choices.
A ruling that A50 can be dropped at any point before actual exit opens up a whole range of possibilities, depending on future events and future public opinion, over at least the next two years and potentially beyond.
Blimey. Tea Party of the Left on the move. Win elections or blow things up:
"Some will pursue the strategy of using social movements to elections while others go down the dark path of '70s guerrilla insurrection. I advocate winning elections.”
No doubt the original Tea Party will be rising up again to protest against Trump's tax and spending plans, since they were always motivated by deep concern about the federal deficit.
I see Obama has said he will continue to be involved in nitty gritty Democract orginisational stuff once he stops being president.
No idea if that will be a good thing or not but it could be the key to stop the Dems going down the path of introspective nut baggery
He will be sorely needed I suspect as a sensible rallying point once the chaos of Trump gets up to full-steam. Trump's choice of Priebus and Steve Bannon as two key people will end in tears and one of them gone within months imho.
"PHOENIX A.Z. (AP) — For months now, rumors have circulated the Internet that individuals were being paid to protest at rallies held by presidential hopeful Donald Trump. Today a man from Trump’s rally in Fountain Hills, Arizona back in March has come forward to say that he was paid to protest the event.
“I was given $3,500 to protest Donald Trump’s rally in Fountain Hills,” said 37-year-old Paul Horner. “I answered a Craigslist ad about a group needing actors for a political event. I interviewed with them and got the part.”
“As for who these people were affiliated with that interviewed me, my guess would be Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” Horner said. “The actual check I received after I was done with the job was from a group called ‘Women Are The Future’. After I was hired, they told me if anyone asked any questions about who I was with or communicated with me in any way, I should start talking about how great Bernie Sanders is.”
Blimey. Tea Party of the Left on the move. Win elections or blow things up:
"Some will pursue the strategy of using social movements to elections while others go down the dark path of '70s guerrilla insurrection. I advocate winning elections.”
No doubt the original Tea Party will be rising up again to protest against Trump's tax and spending plans, since they were always motivated by deep concern about the federal deficit.
Yes, good point. It has struck me as odd how quiet tea party have been on this. Trump is a pure RINO with respect to his plans for the deficit, which is set to blow through the roof (that's if he can get a new ceiling through congress).
Reflecting on the upcoming A50 Supreme Court case, ISTM that a finding that A50 can be withdrawn or revoked is worth much more to the remainers than actually winning the case.
Winning the case gets them a vote on a three-line bill that will probably sail through both houses and the only issue is whether the debate and any amendments puts the government on the spot and forces/reveals some choices.
A ruling that A50 can be dropped at any point before actual exit opens up a whole range of possibilities, depending on future events and future public opinion, over at least the next two years and potentially beyond.
Is it even possible for them to find that? IIUC both sides had been stipulating that it couldn't, although this may not be true. Or has the government changed its argument?
If Remain had won, Cameron resigned in 2017, and Osborne installed as leader via a vote of Tory MPs that also dodged the membership ballot, I somehow doubt we'd be hearing as much of this argument from him.
Osborne needs purging for disloyalty.
He feels he has already been purged.
Not to hard to work out what he's up to. He thinks May might fail and the economy could greatly suffer, in which case a grateful Tory party and nation will turn to him to clear up the mess, form the closest possible economic relationship with the EU, Brexit in name only, and then return him as PM at a GE.
Unlikely indeed, but not as long as a 200/1 shot.
Gove would probably be part of his team. Possible Chancellor. That's why I think May should on-board him to help in 2017.
But she probably won't.
Lest we forget.
'A YouGov poll for The Times today shows that Corbyn would beat Osborne in a head-to-head race for Prime Minister. Corbyn got 34% of support, Osborne got just 21%'
Blimey. Tea Party of the Left on the move. Win elections or blow things up:
"Some will pursue the strategy of using social movements to elections while others go down the dark path of '70s guerrilla insurrection. I advocate winning elections.”
No doubt the original Tea Party will be rising up again to protest against Trump's tax and spending plans, since they were always motivated by deep concern about the federal deficit.
Yes, good point. It has struck me as odd how quiet tea party have been on this. Trump is a pure RINO with respect to his plans for the deficit, which is set to blow through the roof (that's if he can get a new ceiling through congress).
Trump's presidency is likely to end in chaos.
Liberal activists should just start branding themselves as the Tea Party and protesting about the deficit. The original Tea Party will complain, but that will be a nice frame.
I see Obama has said he will continue to be involved in nitty gritty Democract orginisational stuff once he stops being president.
No idea if that will be a good thing or not but it could be the key to stop the Dems going down the path of introspective nut baggery
He will be sorely needed I suspect as a sensible rallying point once the chaos of Trump gets up to full-steam. Trump's choice of Priebus and Steve Bannon as two key people will end in tears and one of them gone within months imho.
Yep - hopefully, it will be the white supremacist.
Throughout the last year-and-a-half, stories about the imbalance between Clinton’s ad spending compared to Trump’s proliferated. They noted how Clinton spent more than $200 million on television ads in the final months of the election while Trump spent less than half that. Because Trump wasn’t spending as much on television all along, it seemed like his team wasn’t investing in changing anyone’s minds. But they were: they were just doing it online... ...Coby’s team took full advantage of the ability to perform massive tests with its ads. On any given day, Coby says, the campaign was running 40,000 to 50,000 variants of its ads, testing how they performed in different formats, with subtitles and without, and static versus video, among other small differences. On the day of the third presidential debate in October, the team ran 175,000 variations. Coby calls this approach “A/B testing on steroids.” The more variations the team was able to produce, Coby says, the higher the likelihood that its ads would actually be served to Facebook users…
If Remain had won, Cameron resigned in 2017, and Osborne installed as leader via a vote of Tory MPs that also dodged the membership ballot, I somehow doubt we'd be hearing as much of this argument from him.
Osborne needs purging for disloyalty.
He feels he has already been purged.
Not to hard to work out what he's up to. He thinks May might fail and the economy could greatly suffer, in which case a grateful Tory party and nation will turn to him to clear up the mess, form the closest possible economic relationship with the EU, Brexit in name only, and then return him as PM at a GE.
Unlikely indeed, but not as long as a 200/1 shot.
Gove would probably be part of his team. Possible Chancellor. That's why I think May should on-board him to help in 2017.
But she probably won't.
What amuses me is that the situation we now find ourselves in is entirely of Cameron and Osborne's own making. All Theresa May is trying to do is deal with the mess and fall-out these two clowns landed us in.
Yet we're expected to believe a grateful Tory Party and then UK will eventually fall down at the feet of George Osborne and sweep him to victory...
Trump is now 1,150,000 and 0.9% behind Clinton on the popular vote.
OT, the verdict on "why Trump won" should be that he didn't, but that the US electoral system is set up to pretend that he did.
No, I don't think so. The actors in this (GOP, Dem parties) both know the rules of ECV and behave accordingly. It would have been a completely different campaign if a straight race of popularity US-wide. The fact that Clinton failed to notice what was happening in WI and OH and Penn until the last few days shows she didn't play the game well enough.
This puzzles me, too. No political leader running for office for any party in the UK could get away with anything close to this and hope to have an ongoing career, let alone win an election: https://twitter.com/OwensDamien/status/798319397337178112
If Remain had won, Cameron resigned in 2017, and Osborne installed as leader via a vote of Tory MPs that also dodged the membership ballot, I somehow doubt we'd be hearing as much of this argument from him.
Osborne needs purging for disloyalty.
He feels he has already been purged.
Not to hard to work out what he's up to. He thinks May might fail and the economy could greatly suffer, in which case a grateful Tory party and nation will turn to him to clear up the mess, form the closest possible economic relationship with the EU, Brexit in name only, and then return him as PM at a GE.
Unlikely indeed, but not as long as a 200/1 shot.
Gove would probably be part of his team. Possible Chancellor. That's why I think May should on-board him to help in 2017.
But she probably won't.
What amuses me is that the situation we now find ourselves in is entirely of Cameron and Osborne's own making. All Theresa May is trying to do is deal with the mess and fall-out these two clowns landed us in.
Yet we're expected to believe a grateful Tory Party and then UK will eventually fall down at the feet of George Osborne and sweep him to victory...
Yeah right...
Osborne argued against a referendum, telling Cameron it was a "crazy idea". Perhaps he should have resigned over the issue?
Mr. Eagles, the French system makes it very hard, I think, for Le Pen to win.
Yes, the all but in name AV voting system the French use to elect POTFR makes it very difficult for Le Pen to win.
Has pb ever had a French AV thread?
But the French don't use AV.
The French use a system where the lowest ranked candidates are eliminated until we have two, and then winner gets overs 50% of votes.
Tell me how that's not AV ?
The candidates are eliminated all at once, not one at a time. The runoff is held on a separate date, making it a staged election.
Nothing like AV, much more like a simplified version of the Tory party leader MP election.
But the Tory election system is AV in all but name.
Grrr I have to go into a meeting now, just when we were discussing AV.
It really isn't mate, it's exhaustive ballot.
Key difference: in AV you vote once for all candidates in your preferred rank order, but are blind to the impact of your preferences. In exhaustive ballot you vote for one candidate only but can switch as you see the impact of the numbers and the elimination as the the vote proceeds round by round.
The systems are slightly different, but still very similar. AV does it all in one round, so could be said to be more efficient. Nobody would suggest having runoff elections for council elections, but for Presidential elections, which are much rarer they could make sense.
The difference is that (a) you only vote for one candidate at a time (not all of them) and (b) you can revisit that choice, each time, as you see the cards land.
The key difference with AV is being able to change your vote as candidates are eliminated, which in theory prevents a less popular third candidate from being elected (although it didn't in 2001 because it was basically a three-way tie)
This puzzles me, too. No political leader running for office for any party in the UK could get away with anything close to this and hope to have an ongoing career, let alone win an election: https://twitter.com/OwensDamien/status/798319397337178112
Which is why it is always a mistake not to think of the US as a truly foreign country, not just another european state with guns.
When talking about the Dems going Corbyn now, people should be wary of seeing too many similarities between Sanders and Corbyn, and hence the future direction of the Democrat party. If Sanders is the new direction that is wholly different to a Corbyn route.
Sanders has consistently focused on economic issues and is the type of candidate that would perform well in the rust belt. His problem in the primaries was that he was unable to speak 'convincingly' on things like BLM and identity politics. Sanders is exactly the route the Dems need to take now.
Corbyn doesn't care about economics, he's interested in foreign policy and all sorts of minority causes that don't decide elections. under him labour have followed that identity politics route. That is the path the Dems need to avoid (but is the one they are currently on).
If anything, Clinton resembles Corbyn more in the focus /priorities assigned to campaign issues.
If Remain had won, Cameron resigned in 2017, and Osborne installed as leader via a vote of Tory MPs that also dodged the membership ballot, I somehow doubt we'd be hearing as much of this argument from him.
Osborne needs purging for disloyalty.
He feels he has already been purged.
Not to hard to work out what he's up to. He thinks May might fail and the economy could greatly suffer, in which case a grateful Tory party and nation will turn to him to clear up the mess, form the closest possible economic relationship with the EU, Brexit in name only, and then return him as PM at a GE.
Unlikely indeed, but not as long as a 200/1 shot.
Gove would probably be part of his team. Possible Chancellor. That's why I think May should on-board him to help in 2017.
But she probably won't.
What amuses me is that the situation we now find ourselves in is entirely of Cameron and Osborne's own making. All Theresa May is trying to do is deal with the mess and fall-out these two clowns landed us in.
Yet we're expected to believe a grateful Tory Party and then UK will eventually fall down at the feet of George Osborne and sweep him to victory...
Yeah right...
Osborne argued against a referendum, telling Cameron it was a "crazy idea". Perhaps he should have resigned over the issue?
REMAIN might have won if Osborne had resigned and not run project fear.
Trump is now 1,150,000 and 0.9% behind Clinton on the popular vote.
OT, the verdict on "why Trump won" should be that he didn't, but that the US electoral system is set up to pretend that he did.
No, I don't think so. The actors in this (GOP, Dem parties) both know the rules of ECV and behave accordingly. It would have been a completely different campaign if a straight race of popularity US-wide. The fact that Clinton failed to notice what was happening in WI and OH and Penn until the last few days shows she didn't play the game well enough.
Yep - the rules are the rules. But Clinton winning so many more votes than Trump does put the "revolution" into some kind of proper perspective.
This puzzles me, too. No political leader running for office for any party in the UK could get away with anything close to this and hope to have an ongoing career, let alone win an election: https://twitter.com/OwensDamien/status/798319397337178112
If Remain had won, Cameron resigned in 2017, and Osborne installed as leader via a vote of Tory MPs that also dodged the membership ballot, I somehow doubt we'd be hearing as much of this argument from him.
Osborne needs purging for disloyalty.
He feels he has already been purged.
Not to hard to work out what he's up to. He thinks May might fail and the economy could greatly suffer, in which case a grateful Tory party and nation will turn to him to clear up the mess, form the closest possible economic relationship with the EU, Brexit in name only, and then return him as PM at a GE.
Unlikely indeed, but not as long as a 200/1 shot.
Gove would probably be part of his team. Possible Chancellor. That's why I think May should on-board him to help in 2017.
But she probably won't.
What amuses me is that the situation we now find ourselves in is entirely of Cameron and Osborne's own making. All Theresa May is trying to do is deal with the mess and fall-out these two clowns landed us in.
Yet we're expected to believe a grateful Tory Party and then UK will eventually fall down at the feet of George Osborne and sweep him to victory...
Yeah right...
Who does succeed May? There must be a good chance of her going within the next five years. If the cabinet is anything to go by the Tory talent pool is extremely shallow.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/11/heroin-addiction-epidemic-america-appalachians-overdose-deaths
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/24/white-working-class-issues-free-trade-american-south
'The price of everything and the value of nothing', perhaps ?
Mr. Eagles, the French system makes it very hard, I think, for Le Pen to win.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-canada-idUKKBN13B0T6?il=0
:-)
Tell me how that's not AV ?
Nothing like AV, much more like a simplified version of the Tory party leader MP election.
Grrr I have to go into a meeting now, just when we were discussing AV.
In practice of course you have greater knowledge when you cast your second vote in the French system, plus the opportunity of a week to change your mind entirely, and to hear the views of the candidates on the initial result.
In principle I'd suggest it's similar but in practice has significant differences. The principal difference in practice is that under AV less favoured candidates rarely risk undermining their own vote by recommending another candidate as their preferred second choice (it does sometimes happen - for example the Greens recommended putting Sadiq second for London Mayor) whereas under the second vote system the declared views of eliminated candidates on the final candidates can be critical in influencing their original supporters.
He's been preparing for this by election for years - are we seriously to believe that if he was completely unprepared and had no chance of winning, he would have resigned and jeopardised his political career ?
No, this has been long planned and well prepared. It may well not carry the Conservative Party stamp but it has the Party's approval and tacit support and to pretend otherwise is to be ridiculously politically naïve.
George Osborne is using the exact same attack lines as me when criticising Mrs May
George Osborne takes a new swipe at Theresa May by pointing out 'the country didn't get a vote' on her as PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3937860/George-Osborne-takes-new-swipe-Theresa-pointing-country-didn-t-vote-PM.html
Britain’s unemployment rate falls to 4.8% in the three months to September -- new 11-year low and down from 4.9% a month earlier.
Despite Brexit...
Mrs May is soaring beyond anywhere Osborne could ever imagine to be in the polls.
I want us to have tariff free trade with the EU. I do not want us to be in the Customs Union. I want us to continue to work together with the EU on a range of matters including security, mutual enforcement of judgments, law and order, patents and anything else someone can make a case for. I am not ideological about this. I would like the Single Passport arrangements to be kept in a mutual recognition of equivalent regulation. I would be open for that principle to be extended to other areas.
I want us to have better controls on our borders but also have a government that recognises that relatively free movement of people is an essential element of a successful economy.
I do think we will be better on our own. The direction of the EU does not suit us. It is inevitably focussed on the Euro bloc and its interests. This will inevitably drive centralisation because a single currency bloc cannot survive without better central control than they have at the moment. Over time it seemed highly likely to me that we would find ourselves being presented with fait accomplis that did not suit us and budgetary choices that were not to our advantage. I am willing to take the undoubted risk that things might have been better in the short term if we had not rocked the boat and left.
I think a package like this is achievable. It won't tick every box and politics will get in the way. I think we need to recognise that our article 50 deal will not be the end of the story but the start of a process that will continue indefinitely. I want smart, pragmatic politicians negotiating in our national interest with a clear view of what that is. Personally I would like our negotiators to be Osborne and Mandelson but clearly that is not going to happen. I am increasingly frustrated by the lack of vision or clarity of thought in our current government.
The 'economist's' model will assume that at the end of the campaign each voter has made his or her decision, whether it is "I like A but B is my second choice", "I only like D and don't care thereafter" or "I want anyone but C". If you model each voter (in their geographical locations as appropriate) and then run the election model using a whole variety of voting systems, the results of the AV and second stage voting models will always be the same, whereas the results of the FPTP, STV, AMS or List system may be different, depending on how the votes fall.
It is reasonable to conclude that two systems that give identical results from a model like this are quite similar, and not "nothing like" each other as someone concluded below.
Nevertheless, as we all know, economists' models rarely work in the real world, because human subjectivity doesn't lend itself to modelling like this, and in practice as per my earlier post the gap in time and the additional information you have in a staged voting system can influence the outcome significantly.
Key difference: in AV you vote once for all candidates in your preferred rank order, but are blind to the impact of your preferences. In exhaustive ballot you vote for one candidate only but can switch as you see the impact of the numbers and the elimination as the the vote proceeds round by round.
Anyone bothering to go and read he whole article will see that Goldsmith is not complaining at all about the Lack of Conservative support. He is highlighting it as an attempt to distance himself from the Tory party and emphasize his status as an independent.
1) Osborne said much and generally failed to meet his targets. His tenure being timed nicely with the economic cycle has, in my opinion, given a false impression of his ability.
2) I'm glad you consider giving Heathrow the green light, approving Hinckley Point and starting a green paper on Grammar schools nothing. You won't mind them all being implemented, presumably? She is also wrestling with the biggest constitutional issue in the post war era.
Like Cameron, he had an AWFUL referendum campaign. Unlike Cameron, he didn't start from such a high point.
Still, with the Xmas sales approaching, his talents will be much in demand. Harrods need a towel folder in Bathroom Accessories.
In France it'll be Establishment versus Le Pen.
Mr. Royale, cheers
Electoral politics is necessarily zero sum. You have to take from the choice in front of you. Candidate A's negatives benefit Candidate B.
We've not triggered article 50 let alone left the EU yet.
Anyway, I think it is too early to say if the effect of leaving the EU will be "significant". There will be some changes to the flows of trade. There may be some reduction in inward investment (hopefully reflecting a better balance of payments). Much depends on the form of the deal. It is likely that over time the EU will form a smaller share of our trade. That has been a trend for some years already. Whether the impact with be significant, adverse or beneficial is still to be played for. Nissan and Google both indicate that at least some in the government get that but I see no overarching vision yet.
The Tories would be worried about their slim majority unless they had faith that his resignation was only cosmetic.
"Some will pursue the strategy of using social movements to elections while others go down the dark path of '70s guerrilla insurrection. I advocate winning elections.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/democrats-trump-protests-tea-party-231450
No idea if that will be a good thing or not but it could be the key to stop the Dems going down the path of introspective nut baggery
Who can say what that combination will produce.
Not to hard to work out what he's up to. He thinks May might fail and the economy could greatly suffer, in which case a grateful Tory party and nation will turn to him to clear up the mess, form the closest possible economic relationship with the EU, Brexit in name only, and then return him as PM at a GE.
Unlikely indeed, but not as long as a 200/1 shot.
Gove would probably be part of his team. Possible Chancellor. That's why I think May should on-board him to help in 2017.
But she probably won't.
Winning the case gets them a vote on a three-line bill that will probably sail through both houses and the only issue is whether the debate and any amendments puts the government on the spot and forces/reveals some choices.
A ruling that A50 can be dropped at any point before actual exit opens up a whole range of possibilities, depending on future events and future public opinion, over at least the next two years and potentially beyond.
“I was given $3,500 to protest Donald Trump’s rally in Fountain Hills,” said 37-year-old Paul Horner. “I answered a Craigslist ad about a group needing actors for a political event. I interviewed with them and got the part.”
“As for who these people were affiliated with that interviewed me, my guess would be Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” Horner said. “The actual check I received after I was done with the job was from a group called ‘Women Are The Future’. After I was hired, they told me if anyone asked any questions about who I was with or communicated with me in any way, I should start talking about how great Bernie Sanders is.”
http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-was-paid-to-protest/
Trump's presidency is likely to end in chaos.
OT, the verdict on "why Trump won" should be that he didn't, but that the US electoral system is set up to pretend that he did.
'A YouGov poll for The Times today shows that Corbyn would beat Osborne in a head-to-head race for Prime Minister. Corbyn got 34% of support, Osborne got just 21%'
https://politicalscrapbook.net/2016/04/if-jeremy-corbyn-ran-against-george-osborne-for-prime-minister-he-would-win-poll/
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-won-trump-election-not-just-fake-news/
Throughout the last year-and-a-half, stories about the imbalance between Clinton’s ad spending compared to Trump’s proliferated. They noted how Clinton spent more than $200 million on television ads in the final months of the election while Trump spent less than half that. Because Trump wasn’t spending as much on television all along, it seemed like his team wasn’t investing in changing anyone’s minds. But they were: they were just doing it online...
...Coby’s team took full advantage of the ability to perform massive tests with its ads. On any given day, Coby says, the campaign was running 40,000 to 50,000 variants of its ads, testing how they performed in different formats, with subtitles and without, and static versus video, among other small differences. On the day of the third presidential debate in October, the team ran 175,000 variations. Coby calls this approach “A/B testing on steroids.” The more variations the team was able to produce, Coby says, the higher the likelihood that its ads would actually be served to Facebook users…
Yet we're expected to believe a grateful Tory Party and then UK will eventually fall down at the feet of George Osborne and sweep him to victory...
Yeah right...
https://twitter.com/OwensDamien/status/798319397337178112
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/standing-ovation-donald-trump-new-york-night-except-sulking-reporters/
The key difference with AV is being able to change your vote as candidates are eliminated, which in theory prevents a less popular third candidate from being elected (although it didn't in 2001 because it was basically a three-way tie)
Sanders has consistently focused on economic issues and is the type of candidate that would perform well in the rust belt. His problem in the primaries was that he was unable to speak 'convincingly' on things like BLM and identity politics. Sanders is exactly the route the Dems need to take now.
Corbyn doesn't care about economics, he's interested in foreign policy and all sorts of minority causes that don't decide elections. under him labour have followed that identity politics route. That is the path the Dems need to avoid (but is the one they are currently on).
If anything, Clinton resembles Corbyn more in the focus /priorities assigned to campaign issues.