Mr. Alistair, it was worse than that. "Little Englanders" was bloody stupid. Imagine if the pro-union side in Scotland had referred to "Little Scotlanders."
Up there with the 'basket of deplorables'. How to win voters and influence them - insult them.
It depends what you mean by failures. Some of these, George Osborne and Michael Gove for example, may yet have further and greater successes in the future. Two of those named are current Cabinet ministers. And the commentariat (and yes, to the extent that includes me, me) will continue completely unabashed. Cockroaches have nothing on them.
The manner in which Gove, Johnson and Leadsom blew their chances at the big prize is what got them included. Leadsom was always a longshot, but she was a brexiteer against a remainer in the final two. That was fundamentally a strong position given the Tory membership.
You don't subscribe to the Gove-as-suicide-bomber view, then? I think it's fairly plausible myself.
But behind the scenes both Gove and Nick Boles were desperate to make the final two and did a lot to ensure it and went to extraordinary levels (albeit it backfired)
Re: Jeb Bush. Never met him but just read an interview with Dana Bash the CNN head of politics where he says he is incredibly charismatic and personable when you meet him - it's just there are "little gremlins in the camera lenses" that kill him on screen (he also hated it, which is why he comes across as nervous)
I reckon when both your father and brother have been President there's an awful lot of pressure on Jeb to succeed.
Back in 2008 I read a piece that had Jeb won Florida in 1994 and George W Bush lost Texas in 1994, then Jeb would have been the GOP nominee in 2000, won, and the world would have been very different.
For me, the failure of Bush and Rubio to die on the betting markets (despite all the evidence) was by far the most amusing and profitable bets of the year.
Mr. Alistair, it was worse than that. "Little Englanders" was bloody stupid. Imagine if the pro-union side in Scotland had referred to "Little Scotlanders."
Up there with the 'basket of deplorables'. How to win voters and influence them - insult them.
I've heard people go on about 'little Englanders' on here but nowhere else. I don't think it actually registered much, not least because it has no novelty. 'Back of the queue' on the other hand really did put people's backs up.
I think @JackW and his ARSE deserve and honourable mention in the list. He's not good at gauging insurgent campaigns, he was out by 5 points on Brexit, the US election and SIndy. His ARSE needs recalibrating!
Sort of included in the #1, Jack was not alone in the way he saw things.
JackW had a terrific success last year, though, so is still one to listen to IMHO.
Rod Crosby isn't far off becoming a prophet for profit.
It depends what you mean by failures. Some of these, George Osborne and Michael Gove for example, may yet have further and greater successes in the future. Two of those named are current Cabinet ministers. And the commentariat (and yes, to the extent that includes me, me) will continue completely unabashed. Cockroaches have nothing on them.
The manner in which Gove, Johnson and Leadsom blew their chances at the big prize is what got them included. Leadsom was always a longshot, but she was a brexiteer against a remainer in the final two. That was fundamentally a strong position given the Tory membership.
You don't subscribe to the Gove-as-suicide-bomber view, then? I think it's fairly plausible myself.
But behind the scenes both Gove and Nick Boles were desperate to make the final two and did a lot to ensure it and went to extraordinary levels (albeit it backfired)
Well, once in the contest, making the final two was partly a matter of trying to stop Leadsom, which would have been another fine service to the country. The man's patriotism knows no bounds.
Mr. Alistair, it was worse than that. "Little Englanders" was bloody stupid. Imagine if the pro-union side in Scotland had referred to "Little Scotlanders."
Up there with the 'basket of deplorables'. How to win voters and influence them - insult them.
I suspect it will go down as one of the most misquoted out of context phrases in political history, up there with there's no such thing as society. The polling showed Farage was a voter repellent, which is why Vote Leave tried to hide Farage in a box, and Dave wanted to make Brexit = Farage's vision.
The full quote is
'We don’t want the Little England of Nigel Farage, we want to be Great Britain’
Mr. Alistair, it was worse than that. "Little Englanders" was bloody stupid. Imagine if the pro-union side in Scotland had referred to "Little Scotlanders."
Up there with the 'basket of deplorables'. How to win voters and influence them - insult them.
I suspect it will go down as one of the most misquoted out of context phrases in political history, up there with there's no such thing as society. The polling showed Farage was a voter repellent, which is why Vote Leave tried to hide Farage in a box, and Dave wanted to make Brexit = Farage's vision.
The full quote is
'We don’t want the Little England of Nigel Farage, we want to be Great Britain’
Implicitly what does that make the people who do want the England of Nigel Farage?
She seems to have spent a ridiculous amount of time in safe Democratic states. Fundraising I guess?
One virtue of the outcome is that it's shown that you can't buy American elections after all. Admittedly, the alternative, to say something so outrageous every day that the media give you free coverage, is not very appealing either.
It depends what you mean by failures. Some of these, George Osborne and Michael Gove for example, may yet have further and greater successes in the future. Two of those named are current Cabinet ministers. And the commentariat (and yes, to the extent that includes me, me) will continue completely unabashed. Cockroaches have nothing on them.
The manner in which Gove, Johnson and Leadsom blew their chances at the big prize is what got them included. Leadsom was always a longshot, but she was a brexiteer against a remainer in the final two. That was fundamentally a strong position given the Tory membership.
You don't subscribe to the Gove-as-suicide-bomber view, then? I think it's fairly plausible myself.
Yep. My view is that Gove sacrificed himself to make sure Boris did not got the top spot. In doing so he did us all a huge service. And personally I think he knew exactly what he was doing and what the consequences would be.
Mr. Alistair, it was worse than that. "Little Englanders" was bloody stupid. Imagine if the pro-union side in Scotland had referred to "Little Scotlanders."
Up there with the 'basket of deplorables'. How to win voters and influence them - insult them.
I suspect it will go down as one of the most misquoted out of context phrases in political history, up there with there's no such thing as society. The polling showed Farage was a voter repellent, which is why Vote Leave tried to hide Farage in a box, and Dave wanted to make Brexit = Farage's vision.
The full quote is
'We don’t want the Little England of Nigel Farage, we want to be Great Britain’
The line about going to bed with Boris and waking up with Nigel was probably better if that was what was trying to be achieved. Calling people "little Englanders" in any sort of context was always bound to backfire. It's a line that Sir Lynton would never have approved of.
I'm not knocking any success, God knows we need it, but rivalling silicon valley is a long way off.
More broadly it's good that we have companies like ARM in the UK, with SoftBank paying top whack for them, and Apple and Google establishing major offices in London, but we still have a long way to go in building and sustaining more world class technology companies of our own.
It depends what you mean by failures. Some of these, George Osborne and Michael Gove for example, may yet have further and greater successes in the future. Two of those named are current Cabinet ministers. And the commentariat (and yes, to the extent that includes me, me) will continue completely unabashed. Cockroaches have nothing on them.
The manner in which Gove, Johnson and Leadsom blew their chances at the big prize is what got them included. Leadsom was always a longshot, but she was a brexiteer against a remainer in the final two. That was fundamentally a strong position given the Tory membership.
You don't subscribe to the Gove-as-suicide-bomber view, then? I think it's fairly plausible myself.
Osborne said something about not fumbling the next leadership election. Given that he did not stand himself, who was Osborne's fumbled champion last time? Did Osborne have a hand in Gove defenestrating Boris, for instance?
I'm not knocking any success, God knows we need it, but rivalling silicon valley is a long way off.
More broadly it's good that we have companies like ARM in the UK, with SoftBank paying top whack for them, and Apple and Google establishing major offices in London, but we still have a long way to go in building and sustaining more world class technology companies of our own.
As I lamented a couple of days ago, we're great at starting up innovative tech companies in the UK and in London, but invariably these all end up in the hands of overseas companies since there is no defence available for owners and directors who may not want to sell up.
Mr. Alistair, it was worse than that. "Little Englanders" was bloody stupid. Imagine if the pro-union side in Scotland had referred to "Little Scotlanders."
Didn't the actual quotation refer to 'the little England of Nigel Farage'? Not really that disparaging to the rest of us.
Although, interestingly, the phrase was used by Cameron in a rather different context several years before:
We're familiar with some of the arguments. Open your borders. National sovereignty is obsolete. Multilateral relationships are the only ones that matter, bilateral ones are so 20th century. And we're familiar, too, with their frankly patronising approach to those who may disagree. 'You're a Little Englander' they say. 'You don't get the modern world.' This approach - largely pursued under the last Government - didn't feel too good for ordinary people and frankly it didn't do too much for our competitiveness either.
You could cogently argue that US politics is not much more than a racial numbers game.
I read somewhere that when Trump said make America Great Again, what he meant was Make America White Again.
I don;t think that's too far from the truth.
Anecdote:
I was sat on the station the other morning reading Harper Lee's "Go Set a Watchman". A black guy saw what I was reading, came over and said "Nothing's changed, has it?" To me, that summed up Trump's win more than a thousand hours of TV punditry or a thousand pages of newspaper opinion pieces.
It depends what you mean by failures. Some of these, George Osborne and Michael Gove for example, may yet have further and greater successes in the future. Two of those named are current Cabinet ministers. And the commentariat (and yes, to the extent that includes me, me) will continue completely unabashed. Cockroaches have nothing on them.
The manner in which Gove, Johnson and Leadsom blew their chances at the big prize is what got them included. Leadsom was always a longshot, but she was a brexiteer against a remainer in the final two. That was fundamentally a strong position given the Tory membership.
You don't subscribe to the Gove-as-suicide-bomber view, then? I think it's fairly plausible myself.
Yep, Gove did the job he had to do, in saving us from PM Boris. He'll do a year on the back benches then will come back into government. Government needs brains like Gove.
@SkyNewsBreak: The U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has resigned
Is he someone who would have resigned on Jan 20th anyway, or does he have a long term contract?
I believe he was going whoever won. I am fairly sure he was quoted months ago as saying something like counting down the days left after 50 years of service.
It depends what you mean by failures. Some of these, George Osborne and Michael Gove for example, may yet have further and greater successes in the future. Two of those named are current Cabinet ministers. And the commentariat (and yes, to the extent that includes me, me) will continue completely unabashed. Cockroaches have nothing on them.
The manner in which Gove, Johnson and Leadsom blew their chances at the big prize is what got them included. Leadsom was always a longshot, but she was a brexiteer against a remainer in the final two. That was fundamentally a strong position given the Tory membership.
You don't subscribe to the Gove-as-suicide-bomber view, then? I think it's fairly plausible myself.
But behind the scenes both Gove and Nick Boles were desperate to make the final two and did a lot to ensure it and went to extraordinary levels (albeit it backfired)
Well, once in the contest, making the final two was partly a matter of trying to stop Leadsom, which would have been another fine service to the country. The man's patriotism knows no bounds.
Plus it would have kept him at the top table.
It was when he was offering to keep Osborne as Chancellor that made me think Gove really wants this.
That was an attempt to get team Osborne to switch from May to Gove.
You could argue that Dave changed the Tories, drove Labour mad, wiped out the Lib Dems to a near extinction level, brought the SNP and UKIP as major parties in the UK.
*They'll be saying he put party before country if Brexit turns out to be a disaster.
No, I'm going to call you out on this ludicrous nonsense. Cameron did not "wipe out" the LDs - the LDs did it to themselves. It was the inevitable result of the contradiction between the pursuit of influence and the nature of those who had voted for them.
The paradox was simple - many of those who voted LD from 1997-2010 did so not (regrettably) because they had genuine liberal sympathies but because they were either anti-Conservative, anti-Labour or anti-Both. The LDs were a safe repository for the registration of disillusionment and discontent and with the Iraq War, a cause of sorts.
The higher the LD spider climbed up the bowl of support the more likely would come the day when it would be faced with the very real possibility of power which would inevitably mean backing either a Conservative or Labour minority administration at which point the LD coalition would collapse since both sides would feel betrayed.
Cameron's failure to win a majority (and if it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else on either the Conservative or Labour side) put the LDs on the spot. Had they walked away from power to preserve their voting coalition, they would forever have been tarnished with the badge of cowardice and irrelevance. Backing a minority Government on a simple Supply & Confidence basis meant all risk and no reward and allegations of promoting political instability.
Faced with the inevitable, Nick Clegg in 2010 did the only thing he could do and the Party has paid for it ever since. Perversely, had Cameron won the majority the pre-election polls suggested he would in 2010, the LDs would be a much stronger force today.
It depends what you mean by failures. Some of these, George Osborne and Michael Gove for example, may yet have further and greater successes in the future. Two of those named are current Cabinet ministers. And the commentariat (and yes, to the extent that includes me, me) will continue completely unabashed. Cockroaches have nothing on them.
The manner in which Gove, Johnson and Leadsom blew their chances at the big prize is what got them included. Leadsom was always a longshot, but she was a brexiteer against a remainer in the final two. That was fundamentally a strong position given the Tory membership.
You don't subscribe to the Gove-as-suicide-bomber view, then? I think it's fairly plausible myself.
Yep, Gove did the job he had to do, in saving us from PM Boris. He'll do a year on the back benches then will come back into government. Government needs brains like Gove.
Gove and Osborne will be on the backbenches whilst Mrs May is PM.
What is defined as fake news? Does Drudge count? or National Enquirer? or Alex Jones? or Daily Mash? BBC lumped Daily Mash in as an example in an article the other day.
Mr. Eagles, bad graph. There's no third option for non-mainstream news that's true. Like Cologne, or Rotherham, before the Establishment caught up with reality.
You could cogently argue that US politics is not much more than a racial numbers game.
I read somewhere that when Trump said make America Great Again, what he meant was Make America White Again.
I don;t think that's too far from the truth.
Back in October 2015, I wrote that the picture of Trump as “the white power candidate” and “the first openly white supremacist candidate to have a shot at the Presidency in the modern era” was overblown. I said that “the media narrative that Trump is doing some kind of special appeal-to-white-voters voodoo is unsupported by any polling data”, and predicted that:
If Trump were the Republican nominee, he could probably count on equal or greater support from minorities as Romney or McCain before him.
Now the votes are in, and Trump got greater support from minorities than Romney or McCain before him. (From Scott Alexander's You Are Still Crying Wolf)
Is looking at 'engagement' at the top 20 stories a good metric? You would have thought there would be more activity closer to the election, so the activity may be more spread out as it were.
Still, a worrying decline for the mainstream news outlets if it is indeed accurate!
You could argue that Dave changed the Tories, drove Labour mad, wiped out the Lib Dems to a near extinction level, brought the SNP and UKIP as major parties in the UK.
*They'll be saying he put party before country if Brexit turns out to be a disaster.
No, I'm going to call you out on this ludicrous nonsense. Cameron did not "wipe out" the LDs - the LDs did it to themselves. It was the inevitable result of the contradiction between the pursuit of influence and the nature of those who had voted for them.
The paradox was simple - many of those who voted LD from 1997-2010 did so not (regrettably) because they had genuine liberal sympathies but because they were either anti-Conservative, anti-Labour or anti-Both. The LDs were a safe repository for the registration of disillusionment and discontent and with the Iraq War, a cause of sorts.
The higher the LD spider climbed up the bowl of support the more likely would come the day when it would be faced with the very real possibility of power which would inevitably mean backing either a Conservative or Labour minority administration at which point the LD coalition would collapse since both sides would feel betrayed.
Cameron's failure to win a majority (and if it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else on either the Conservative or Labour side) put the LDs on the spot. Had they walked away from power to preserve their voting coalition, they would forever have been tarnished with the badge of cowardice and irrelevance. Backing a minority Government on a simple Supply & Confidence basis meant all risk and no reward and allegations of promoting political instability.
Faced with the inevitable, Nick Clegg in 2010 did the only thing he could do and the Party has paid for it ever since. Perversely, had Cameron won the majority the pre-election polls suggested he would in 2010, the LDs would be a much stronger force today.
Read the book by Tim Ross, Cameron wiping out the Lib Dems is how Paddy Ashdown describes it, specifically the 27 seats the Tories gained from the Lib Dems.
Is looking at 'engagement' at the top 20 stories a good metric? You would have thought there would be more activity closer to the election, so the activity may be more spread out as it were.
Still, a worrying decline for the mainstream news outlets if it is indeed accurate!
You do have to wonder in view of Sky News You Gov Brexit poll today that quoted that 68% think Britain should leave the EU that the publicity around the election of Trump and the move away from the liberal consensus has actually increased those in the UK wanting to leave the EU.
Still, I'm worried about one thing. You watched two Owen Smith/Jeremy Corbyn debates? 'Obsessive' hardly covers it!
Pulpstar is very thorough when it comes to his bets.
Hello all, few recent posts from me because finishing some outside building work before winter arrives is top priority. But I took a break and found this famous quote with which I tend to disagree - I think some political careers were on balance quite successful.
Harold Wilson combined a moral crusade with electoral success. Four victories, though only one a landslide (1966). He craftily neutralised Tory opposition and set up the Open University, having nicked the basic idea from the Soviet Union. Millions of mature students benefited.
So successful were some of Clem Attlee's policies that Harold Macmillan continued them. In hindsight, Attlee was one of the most successful PMs of all time, especially given that Britain was broke during the 1945-51 parliaments.
Harold Macmillan himself deserves credit for showing how to build 300,000-500,000 homes per year. People right now are claiming that 200,000 is a high figure. It's not; we need over 300,000 or even more to solve the crisis.
For next month, I'm writing my review on David Cameron, I do toy with those thoughts you mention.
Cameron claimed to admire Macmillan but possibly he wasn't prepared to think the unthinkable; e.g.: 'sod the government borrowing requirement'. It's hard to construct capital assets without spending money now. Attempts to do otherwise lead to the negative consequences seen with PFI.
The irony is that Osborne probably did think "sod the government borrowing requirement," at least once he'd been Chancellor for more than five minutes and the Treasury had explained to him how the economy works. The problem is he kept the name, the targets and the slogans about a long term economic plan not because he intended to meet them but to embarrass and hem in the Labour Party.
We have already seen that President-elect Trump is talking about stimulating the economy. As Dick Cheney said of another icon of the right: Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. So yes, once more Cameron and Osborne were too clever by half.
The paradox was simple - many of those who voted LD from 1997-2010 did so not (regrettably) because they had genuine liberal sympathies but because they were either anti-Conservative, anti-Labour or anti-Both. The LDs were a safe repository for the registration of disillusionment and discontent and with the Iraq War, a cause of sorts.
The higher the LD spider climbed up the bowl of support the more likely would come the day when it would be faced with the very real possibility of power which would inevitably mean backing either a Conservative or Labour minority administration at which point the LD coalition would collapse since both sides would feel betrayed.
What do you think of their current positioning? Being the recognisably anti-Brexit party seems like a way to build a surer base. But the tension between social democracy & liberalism has not gone away.
I was sat on the station the other morning reading Harper Lee's "Go Set a Watchman". A black guy saw what I was reading, came over and said "Nothing's changed, has it?" To me, that summed up Trump's win more than a thousand hours of TV punditry or a thousand pages of newspaper opinion pieces.
You can see it from two perspectives though. Firstly things haven't gotten worse overnight, so if you think progress has been made in the area of civil rights Trump's election doesn't wipe that out, or alternately if you think things are terrible now they were terrible before the election you just weren't aware of it.
As I've said before I think one potential positive of Trump's victory is that it might force both Republicans and Democrats to field better candidates in future who appeal to a wider part of the electorate. I certainly hope it won't be back to business as usual.
Now the votes are in, and Trump got greater support from minorities than Romney or McCain before him. (From Scott Alexander's You Are Still Crying Wolf)
Right, but that's as much a function of Obama as anything.
You do have to wonder in view of Sky News You Gov Brexit poll today that quoted that 68% think Britain should leave the EU that the publicity around the election of Trump and the move away from the liberal consensus has actually increased those in the UK wanting to leave the EU.
68% for leave seems higher than previous polls
Have you a link to the Sky News poll? I'm not seeing anything on their website, nor on YouGov's website and feed.
Found it, so it's not how would you vote in a future referendum question, more should June's result be implemented.
68% of people think that Britain should go ahead with Brexit, unchanged from when we asked the same question in October. People who voted to Remain in June are evenly divided between those who opposed Brexit, but think the government has a duty to implement the decision and leave, and those who would like to see the government ignore or overturn the referendum result.
By a narrow margin people think it is legitimate for the Courts to rule on whether or not the government has the power to invoke Article 50. 43% think it is legitimate for the Courts to rule on the issue, 39% think they are involving themselves in political matters they should leave alone.
68% of people think that Britain should go ahead with Brexit, unchanged from when we asked the same question in October. People who voted to Remain in June are evenly divided between those who opposed Brexit, but think the government has a duty to implement the decision and leave, and those who would like to see the government ignore or overturn the referendum result.
By a narrow margin people think it is legitimate for the Courts to rule on whether or not the government has the power to invoke Article 50. 43% think it is legitimate for the Courts to rule on the issue, 39% think they are involving themselves in political matters they should leave alone.
I'm with the rule of law and courts decide on points of law. If the politicians don't like the law as is, write and pass a new one.
By a narrow margin people think it is legitimate for the Courts to rule on whether or not the government has the power to invoke Article 50. 43% think it is legitimate for the Courts to rule on the issue, 39% think they are involving themselves in political matters they should leave alone.
Oh dear:
However, while they think it is legitimate for the judges to rule on the case, the public don’t agree with the outcome. By 47% to 36% respondents thought that the government should have the right to invoke Article 50 itself, without getting the permission of Parliament.
LOL...nope....Just like IoS after GE 2015. It was as if they were you know paid to post.
Its Bobajobabobajobabobajob I feel sorry for. All those anti 'Trump ramper' rants in vain......
Trump may have been elected but Jobabob might equally have had a point about the ludicrous ramping of Trump by some on pb -- posting all sorts of nonsense from tin-foil tweets and fake news sites. Only yesterday pb saw attacks on CNN for a "false" CBS story about security clearance for Trump's children -- yet within the hour it was confirmed a Trump staffer had made the enquiry. And I speak as a punter who did back Trump before the polls closed.
By a narrow margin people think it is legitimate for the Courts to rule on whether or not the government has the power to invoke Article 50. 43% think it is legitimate for the Courts to rule on the issue, 39% think they are involving themselves in political matters they should leave alone.
Oh dear:
However, while they think it is legitimate for the judges to rule on the case, the public don’t agree with the outcome. By 47% to 36% respondents thought that the government should have the right to invoke Article 50 itself, without getting the permission of Parliament.
And, they think the court is right to decide, but they don't like the result.
It would explain why Nigel's gone quiet on his million 100,000 man march on the Supreme Court.
What do you think of their current positioning? Being the recognisably anti-Brexit party seems like a way to build a surer base. But the tension between social democracy & liberalism has not gone away.
I am a happy punter as far as Strictly goes, thanks to an early bet on Balls I am now green on all dancers and still left with a handsome pay day on Ed.
What do you think of their current positioning? Being the recognisably anti-Brexit party seems like a way to build a surer base. But the tension between social democracy & liberalism has not gone away.
You do have to wonder in view of Sky News You Gov Brexit poll today that quoted that 68% think Britain should leave the EU that the publicity around the election of Trump and the move away from the liberal consensus has actually increased those in the UK wanting to leave the EU.
68% for leave seems higher than previous polls
Have you a link to the Sky News poll? I'm not seeing anything on their website, nor on YouGov's website and feed.
They announced it at lunchtime and my post at 12.29 was as follows
Sky now reporting You Gov Brexit poll:
52% think the government is doing badly
18% think the government is doing well
68% think Britain should leave the EU
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well
By a narrow margin people think it is legitimate for the Courts to rule on whether or not the government has the power to invoke Article 50. 43% think it is legitimate for the Courts to rule on the issue, 39% think they are involving themselves in political matters they should leave alone.
For the record I think it is legitimate for the Court to rule on whether Parliament has the right to pass A50 or the Executive
What do you think of their current positioning? Being the recognisably anti-Brexit party seems like a way to build a surer base. But the tension between social democracy & liberalism has not gone away.
It's not a positioning with which I am personally comfortable - the Party should be arguing for a liberal internationalist open economy with (it has to be said) an emphasis on skilled migration into the country. We should be looking to promote free trade while at the same time recognising global problems (pollution, resource depletion) need global rather than regional responses and championing the globalist (rather than globalised) approach.
Unfortunately, the tide of history and opinion seems to be running toward insularity and protectionism and that is to be regretted.
Politically, the Party has always done best when it has a single easily definable USP - a penny on tax for education under Paddy and opposition to the Iraq War under Charles Kennedy. Tim presumably feels the 23% who oppose Brexit under any circumstances and elements of the 32% who are holding fire until the terms of withdrawal are clear are the possible supporters and the 33% who want out at any price are lost to the LDs for now.
By a narrow margin people think it is legitimate for the Courts to rule on whether or not the government has the power to invoke Article 50. 43% think it is legitimate for the Courts to rule on the issue, 39% think they are involving themselves in political matters they should leave alone.
Oh dear:
However, while they think it is legitimate for the judges to rule on the case, the public don’t agree with the outcome. By 47% to 36% respondents thought that the government should have the right to invoke Article 50 itself, without getting the permission of Parliament.
And, they think the court is right to decide, but they don't like the result.
It would explain why Nigel's gone quiet on his million 100,000 man march on the Supreme Court.
I hope common sense has prevailed - the idea was stupid
You could argue that Dave changed the Tories, drove Labour mad, wiped out the Lib Dems to a near extinction level, brought the SNP and UKIP as major parties in the UK.
*They'll be saying he put party before country if Brexit turns out to be a disaster.
No, I'm going to call you out on this ludicrous nonsense. Cameron did not "wipe out" the LDs - the LDs did it to themselves. It was the inevitable result of the contradiction between the pursuit of influence and the nature of those who had voted for them.
The paradox was simple - many of those who voted LD from 1997-2010 did so not (regrettably) because they had genuine liberal sympathies but because they were either anti-Conservative, anti-Labour or anti-Both. The LDs were a safe repository for the registration of disillusionment and discontent and with the Iraq War, a cause of sorts.
The higher the LD spider climbed up the bowl of support the more likely would come the day when it would be faced with the very real possibility of power which would inevitably mean backing either a Conservative or Labour minority administration at which point the LD coalition would collapse since both sides would feel betrayed.
Cameron's failure to win a majority (and if it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else on either the Conservative or Labour side) put the LDs on the spot. Had they walked away from power to preserve their voting coalition, they would forever have been tarnished with the badge of cowardice and irrelevance. Backing a minority Government on a simple Supply & Confidence basis meant all risk and no reward and allegations of promoting political instability.
Faced with the inevitable, Nick Clegg in 2010 did the only thing he could do and the Party has paid for it ever since.
All of which was foreseeable, which begs the question why they ever embarked on a strategy that was bound to end in disaster (answer: because it would be someone else's disaster and in the meantime there was lots of fun to be had).
LOL...nope....Just like IoS after GE 2015. It was as if they were you know paid to post.
Its Bobajobabobajobabobajob I feel sorry for. All those anti 'Trump ramper' rants in vain......
Trump may have been elected but Jobabob might equally have had a point about the ludicrous ramping of Trump by some on pb -- posting all sorts of nonsense from tin-foil tweets and fake news sites. Only yesterday pb saw attacks on CNN for a "false" CBS story about security clearance for Trump's children -- yet within the hour it was confirmed a Trump staffer had made the enquiry. And I speak as a punter who did back Trump before the polls closed.
Yes. I found it strange how shameless and maniacal spamming for your preferred winner came to be regarded by some as 'insight'.
It depends what you mean by failures. Some of these, George Osborne and Michael Gove for example, may yet have further and greater successes in the future. Two of those named are current Cabinet ministers. And the commentariat (and yes, to the extent that includes me, me) will continue completely unabashed. Cockroaches have nothing on them.
The manner in which Gove, Johnson and Leadsom blew their chances at the big prize is what got them included. Leadsom was always a longshot, but she was a brexiteer against a remainer in the final two. That was fundamentally a strong position given the Tory membership.
You don't subscribe to the Gove-as-suicide-bomber view, then? I think it's fairly plausible myself.
Yep, Gove did the job he had to do, in saving us from PM Boris. He'll do a year on the back benches then will come back into government. Government needs brains like Gove.
Brains like Gove? It's a view. How about framing Gove as the Keith Joseph of Cameron's government. His grand plans for enlightened and liberal reform might have been laudable but Gove was hopeless at the bread and butter of service delivery. Gove as EdSec gave us a shortage of school places; at Justice to a shortage of prison officers.
What do you think of their current positioning? Being the recognisably anti-Brexit party seems like a way to build a surer base. But the tension between social democracy & liberalism has not gone away.
Now the votes are in, and Trump got greater support from minorities than Romney or McCain before him. (From Scott Alexander's You Are Still Crying Wolf)
Right, but that's as much a function of Obama as anything.
Yes, I wonder how it works out in absolute vote numbers rather than precentages from the dodgy dodgy exit poll.
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
23% of Remainers are patriotic upstanding members of society. 22% of them are quisling traitor EUphiles.
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
So half of Remainers are not democrats. Now we know.
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
So half of Remainers are not democrats. Now we know.
Look at the cross tabs, there's some Leavers that don't want us to Leave.
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
So half of Remainers are not democrats. Now we know.
Look at the cross tabs, there's some Leavers that don't want us to Leave.
UKIP supporters who don't want theit party to die.
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
23% of Remainers are patriotic upstanding members of society. 22% of them are quisling traitor EUphiles.
I am one of the 23% who voted remain and am considered a patriotic upstanding member of society. I like that
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
So half of Remainers are not democrats. Now we know.
Look at the cross tabs, there's some Leavers that don't want us to Leave.
What do you think of their current positioning? Being the recognisably anti-Brexit party seems like a way to build a surer base. But the tension between social democracy & liberalism has not gone away.
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
So half of Remainers are not democrats. Now we know.
Look at the cross tabs, there's some Leavers that don't want us to Leave.
False recall, I suppose.
Unlikely, a lot of the YouGov panel were asked shortly after June 23rd how they actually voted, so YouGov keep that on their profile to stop false recall.
You're more likely to get false recall in phone poll.
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
So half of Remainers are not democrats. Now we know.
Look at the cross tabs, there's some Leavers that don't want us to Leave.
False recall, I suppose.
Unlikely, a lot of the YouGov panel were asked shortly after June 23rd how they actually voted, so YouGov keep that on their profile to stop false recall.
You're more likely to get false recall in phone poll.
Hm, Then I suppose that 8% have changed their mind in the interim! Unless they forgot how they voted over the course of a few days!
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
23% of Remainers are patriotic upstanding members of society. 22% of them are quisling traitor EUphiles.
I am one of the 23% who voted remain and am considered a patriotic upstanding member of society. I like that
Don't be intimidated.
We voted to Leave so now I think we should leave but be absolutely clear, it is permissible to hold any damn political opinion you want about the matter.
When god help us a Labour government is elected I will absolutely work tooth and nail (not many of the former by then, I suspect/hope) to throw them out. And they will just have been democratically elected.
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
On the previous thread, several posters were saying Sky was biased for not reporting that 68% of respondents to this YouGov poll favoured us leaving the EU. Surprise, surprise, it turns out that it's a bit more complicated than that!!
Now the votes are in, and Trump got greater support from minorities than Romney or McCain before him. (From Scott Alexander's You Are Still Crying Wolf)
Right, but that's as much a function of Obama as anything.
he probably got more black voters but not more Hispanic votes, according to county level results. I'm sorry but their exit polls are rubbish, that exit also shows him getting 1% less white vote than Romney, er nope.
Everyone just be patient in trying to draw conclusions from who voted for who, the data is coming out slowly.
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
On the previous thread, several posters were saying Sky was biased for not reporting that 68% of respondents to this YouGov poll favoured us leaving the EU. Surprise, surprise, it turns out that it's a bit more complicated than that!!
I reported that Sky DID report the 68% IN FAVOUR of us leaving just after they had announced it. See my post 12.29
Comments
http://life.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/the-failure-of-londons-tech-city/
I laid so much Bush.
Rod Crosby isn't far off becoming a prophet for profit.
Plus it would have kept him at the top table.
The full quote is
'We don’t want the Little England of Nigel Farage, we want to be Great Britain’
You could cogently argue that US politics is not much more than a racial numbers game.
I read somewhere that when Trump said make America Great Again, what he meant was Make America White Again.
I don;t think that's too far from the truth.
More broadly it's good that we have companies like ARM in the UK, with SoftBank paying top whack for them, and Apple and Google establishing major offices in London, but we still have a long way to go in building and sustaining more world class technology companies of our own.
Although, interestingly, the phrase was used by Cameron in a rather different context several years before:
We're familiar with some of the arguments. Open your borders. National sovereignty is obsolete. Multilateral relationships are the only ones that matter, bilateral ones are so 20th century. And we're familiar, too, with their frankly patronising approach to those who may disagree. 'You're a Little Englander' they say. 'You don't get the modern world.' This approach - largely pursued under the last Government - didn't feel too good for ordinary people and frankly it didn't do too much for our competitiveness either.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10110200/David-Cameron-dont-patronise-little-Englanders-worried-by-immigration.html
I was sat on the station the other morning reading Harper Lee's "Go Set a Watchman". A black guy saw what I was reading, came over and said "Nothing's changed, has it?" To me, that summed up Trump's win more than a thousand hours of TV punditry or a thousand pages of newspaper opinion pieces.
That was an attempt to get team Osborne to switch from May to Gove.
https://twitter.com/CraigSilverman/status/799014510237458432
Interesting quote from further back. I wonder if Cameron had forgotten that.
The paradox was simple - many of those who voted LD from 1997-2010 did so not (regrettably) because they had genuine liberal sympathies but because they were either anti-Conservative, anti-Labour or anti-Both. The LDs were a safe repository for the registration of disillusionment and discontent and with the Iraq War, a cause of sorts.
The higher the LD spider climbed up the bowl of support the more likely would come the day when it would be faced with the very real possibility of power which would inevitably mean backing either a Conservative or Labour minority administration at which point the LD coalition would collapse since both sides would feel betrayed.
Cameron's failure to win a majority (and if it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else on either the Conservative or Labour side) put the LDs on the spot. Had they walked away from power to preserve their voting coalition, they would forever have been tarnished with the badge of cowardice and irrelevance. Backing a minority Government on a simple Supply & Confidence basis meant all risk and no reward and allegations of promoting political instability.
Faced with the inevitable, Nick Clegg in 2010 did the only thing he could do and the Party has paid for it ever since. Perversely, had Cameron won the majority the pre-election polls suggested he would in 2010, the LDs would be a much stronger force today.
She holds grudges.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/national-intelligence-chief-clapper-resigns-231547
If Trump were the Republican nominee, he could probably count on equal or greater support from minorities as Romney or McCain before him.
Now the votes are in, and Trump got greater support from minorities than Romney or McCain before him.
(From Scott Alexander's You Are Still Crying Wolf)
Still, a worrying decline for the mainstream news outlets if it is indeed accurate!
68% for leave seems higher than previous polls
We have already seen that President-elect Trump is talking about stimulating the economy. As Dick Cheney said of another icon of the right: Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. So yes, once more Cameron and Osborne were too clever by half.
As I've said before I think one potential positive of Trump's victory is that it might force both Republicans and Democrats to field better candidates in future who appeal to a wider part of the electorate. I certainly hope it won't be back to business as usual.
68% of people think that Britain should go ahead with Brexit, unchanged from when we asked the same question in October. People who voted to Remain in June are evenly divided between those who opposed Brexit, but think the government has a duty to implement the decision and leave, and those who would like to see the government ignore or overturn the referendum result.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/11/17/brexit-briefing/
Ed Balls:
"I think if you’ve got a bet on me, I’d cash out.”
Unfortunately for those betting on him being Lab leader, he is talking about Strictly:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ed-balls-strictly-come-dancing-trust-the-voters-let-the-public-decide-rope-today-programme_uk_582d7c9de4b0c6c8bc148a8f?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics
By a narrow margin people think it is legitimate for the Courts to rule on whether or not the government has the power to invoke Article 50. 43% think it is legitimate for the Courts to rule on the issue, 39% think they are involving themselves in political matters they should leave alone.
However, while they think it is legitimate for the judges to rule on the case, the public don’t agree with the outcome. By 47% to 36% respondents thought that the government should have the right to invoke Article 50 itself, without getting the permission of Parliament.
How can Trump administration be a 'white' administration if minorities voted for him?
Discuss. Some very awkward and difficult conclusions lie ahead.
It would explain why Nigel's gone quiet on his million 100,000 man march on the Supreme Court.
Sky now reporting You Gov Brexit poll:
52% think the government is doing badly
18% think the government is doing well
68% think Britain should leave the EU
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/799272601549934592
Unfortunately, the tide of history and opinion seems to be running toward insularity and protectionism and that is to be regretted.
Politically, the Party has always done best when it has a single easily definable USP - a penny on tax for education under Paddy and opposition to the Iraq War under Charles Kennedy. Tim presumably feels the 23% who oppose Brexit under any circumstances and elements of the 32% who are holding fire until the terms of withdrawal are clear are the possible supporters and the 33% who want out at any price are lost to the LDs for now.
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
Lab Pro-Brexit: Con 382, Lab 154, LD 32, UKIP 4 (Maj 114)
Lab Soft Brexit: Con 342, Lab 201, LD 26, UKIP 2 (Maj 34)
Lab 2nd Ref: Con 366, Lab 191, LD 11, UKIP 2 (Maj 82)
You're more likely to get false recall in phone poll.
We voted to Leave so now I think we should leave but be absolutely clear, it is permissible to hold any damn political opinion you want about the matter.
When god help us a Labour government is elected I will absolutely work tooth and nail (not many of the former by then, I suspect/hope) to throw them out. And they will just have been democratically elected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38014611
Everyone just be patient in trying to draw conclusions from who voted for who, the data is coming out slowly.