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.
Yeah, the exits look dubious, especially on the Hispanic point. Probably better to model vote changes by looking at the county-level returns and running some regressions.
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.
That's harsh. If the vote was 52:48 for Remain, would you have said 48% of the population should just be resigned to us staying in the EU.
Do you want an incredible new US Election Conspiracy theory that I just made up right now?
28 states had state level exit polling done for them.
Of the 10 states that most closely matched the exit poll 7 use paper or mail in only ballots, 2 Have a paper trail on their electronic voting machines and 1 (Texas) does not.
Of the 10 states that were most out on the Trump margin 2 Use paper ballots and the other 8 all use computer voting machines including 3 that Use computer voting machines with zero paper trail at all (New Jersey with that spectacular 11 point miss, the slightly crucial swing state of Pennsylvanian and South Carolina).
If it was a Rust Belt/Med West polling fail how could the exit polls nail Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois almost spot on and fail with Pennsylvanian.
Eh, eh. Could you start posting this in tweets and it will become stone cold fact pretty soon.
On topic, a nice list from Pulpstar and not too much to disagree with.
Honourable mentions for:
- Angela Eagle. Dithered. Stood. Lost. To a candidate with virtually no positives. - IDS. Resigned after a spat with Osborne only for Osborne to then go. As a Brexiteer, could easily still be in post had he stuck it out. - Zac. Losing the mayoral vote wasn't a disaster; a Tory was always going to be up against it. Losing it in the manner that he did, however, was a different matter. Compounded the error by a mixed-message by-election. Might get worse still yet. - The Liberal Establishment. "This is not our country any more" Paddy Ashdown said the day after the EURef. Arguments about the extent to which it ever was aside, he has a point. Not just this country either.
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!!
It's a great poll, shows the voters back the rule of law, not mob rule some Leavers advocate
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.
That's harsh. If the vote was 52:48 for Remain, would you have said 48% of the population should just be resigned to us staying in the EU.
I wouldn't have advocated that the PM triggers A50, against the will of the voters.
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!!
It's a great poll, shows the voters back the rule of law, not mob rule some Leavers advocate
I thought we'd already established that the poll shows half of Remainers favour mob rule?
Do you want an incredible new US Election Conspiracy theory that I just made up right now?
28 states had state level exit polling done for them.
Of the 10 states that most closely matched the exit poll 7 use paper or mail in only ballots, 2 Have a paper trail on their electronic voting machines and 1 (Texas) does not.
Of the 10 states that were most out on the Trump margin 2 Use paper ballots and the other 8 all use computer voting machines including 3 that Use computer voting machines with zero paper trail at all (New Jersey with that spectacular 11 point miss, the slightly crucial swing state of Pennsylvanian and South Carolina).
If it was a Rust Belt/Med West polling fail how could the exit polls nail Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois almost spot on and fail with Pennsylvanian.
Eh, eh. Could you start posting this in tweets and it will become stone cold fact pretty soon.
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.
On topic, a nice list from Pulpstar and not too much to disagree with.
Honourable mentions for:
- Angela Eagle. Dithered. Stood. Lost. To a candidate with virtually no positives. - IDS. Resigned after a spat with Osborne only for Osborne to then go. As a Brexiteer, could easily still be in post had he stuck it out. - Zac. Losing the mayoral vote wasn't a disaster; a Tory was always going to be up against it. Losing it in the manner that he did, however, was a different matter. Compounded the error by a mixed-message by-election. Might get worse still yet. - The Liberal Establishment. "This is not our country any more" Paddy Ashdown said the day after the EURef. Arguments about the extent to which it ever was aside, he has a point. Not just this country either.
Also,
Carney: put in place after personal begging by Osborne, lavishly rewarded, given full support in the job and then... Osborne gone, May openly denouncing his monetary policies, pressure to go early etc etc.
Will Hutton: dreams of joining the Euro shattered when UK (well England & Wales) votes to leave the whole caboodle.*
* although may yet live to see his dream if we have to apply to rejoin in 2020s due to economic depression.
Do you want an incredible new US Election Conspiracy theory that I just made up right now?
28 states had state level exit polling done for them.
Of the 10 states that most closely matched the exit poll 7 use paper or mail in only ballots, 2 Have a paper trail on their electronic voting machines and 1 (Texas) does not.
Of the 10 states that were most out on the Trump margin 2 Use paper ballots and the other 8 all use computer voting machines including 3 that Use computer voting machines with zero paper trail at all (New Jersey with that spectacular 11 point miss, the slightly crucial swing state of Pennsylvanian and South Carolina).
If it was a Rust Belt/Med West polling fail how could the exit polls nail Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois almost spot on and fail with Pennsylvanian.
Eh, eh. Could you start posting this in tweets and it will become stone cold fact pretty soon.
Aren't normal polls and exit polls quite different?
Ridiculous, yes, but at least it isn't a permanent situation! I think I read it was a gap of a few years? Maybe Hammond will sort this out in the Autumn Statement.
Defence has been underfunded my whole adult life. It was practically the only department New Labour didn't splurge on, despite joyriding the military, and the Coalition didn't ringfence it when they should've (though that was more economically and politically difficult than Blair/Brown's choice not to improve the situation).
How's that Rust Belt, Main Street first, angry changey thing coming along?
“There is a joke going around here [banking community] that if I’d have known how good Trump was going to be for Wall Street, I’d have campaigned for him,” said one Goldman Sachs executive who declined to be identified by name speaking about the incoming president."
As ever (well, at least since Denis Healey in the 1960s) it is Conservative defence ministers who have decimated our armed forces. Ships without missiles; carriers without planes; an army two thirds of its previous size. This from the party whose navy cuts gave us John Nott walking out on Sir Robin Day and, more seriously, the Argentine invasion of the Falklands (which by bitter irony secured the Tories in power for a generation).
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).
That's absurd and you know it. It's very difficult for the third party to be in control of events and to try to anticipate how things will develop. After 1992, many thought the Conservatives would never lose again - after 2005, many thought the Conservatives could never win again.
In an FPTP system, it's regrettably not just about votes but where they are to produce bums on benches. The primary drive for LD strategy was to get as many MPs elected as possible which isn't an unreasonable strategy for any party.
The only alternative option was for one of the two major parties to schism again - I think the Conservatives came close to the abyss under IDS but removed him in time. The Labour schism of 1981 took place at a time of relative Liberal weakness and in any case the Falklands War came along to save both Margaret Thatcher and the Labour Party in different ways.
When the SDP failed it splintered and elements of the SDP took over both Labour (Blair) and the Conservatives (Cameron).
Ridiculous, yes, but at least it isn't a permanent situation! I think I read it was a gap of a few years? Maybe Hammond will sort this out in the Autumn Statement.
MOD has expressed an interest in replacing ageing and less accurate Harpoons with LRASM in 2018. An off the shelf product from our American friends, which has just completed testing. Hence the noise emerging from the usual suspects over here, hacked off at not being able to charge over the odds for an inferior product. See Nimrod / P8 for further reference.
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.
I don't think Osborne faced the scale of government debt compared to GDP that Macmillan faced. Wasn't it roughly twice GDP?
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.
That's harsh. If the vote was 52:48 for Remain, would you have said 48% of the population should just be resigned to us staying in the EU.
In that event would MPs be voting to trigger Article 40 to leave the EU?
Because parliament (at least the Lords) may be about to stop Article 50 being triggered.
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.
That's harsh. If the vote was 52:48 for Remain, would you have said 48% of the population should just be resigned to us staying in the EU.
In that event would MPs be voting to trigger Article 40 to leave the EU?
Because parliament (at least the Lords) may be about to stop Article 50 being triggered.
I really don't think they are. And even if they asked to be consulted, once it's been submitted, it's been submitted.
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).
That's absurd and you know it. It's very difficult for the third party to be in control of events and to try to anticipate how things will develop. After 1992, many thought the Conservatives would never lose again - after 2005, many thought the Conservatives could never win again.
In an FPTP system, it's regrettably not just about votes but where they are to produce bums on benches. The primary drive for LD strategy was to get as many MPs elected as possible which isn't an unreasonable strategy for any party.
The only alternative option was for one of the two major parties to schism again - I think the Conservatives came close to the abyss under IDS but removed him in time. The Labour schism of 1981 took place at a time of relative Liberal weakness and in any case the Falklands War came along to save both Margaret Thatcher and the Labour Party in different ways.
When the SDP failed it splintered and elements of the SDP took over both Labour (Blair) and the Conservatives (Cameron).
Except it's not absurd.
The Lib Dems actively courted protest votes, based on simply being 'not the other'. That's what all the 'two-horse race' and 'X can't win here' is about.
Simple maths says that the more seats that were won, the more likely it was that there'd be a hung parliament with the Lib Dems being forced to make a choice of some nature putting or keeping one of the big parties in power.
As soon as they did that, a great many of those protest votes would inevitably fall off, as voters who'd voted one way locally to keep X out watched the Lib Dems put X into power nationally.
What's more, the likelihood was that it was the Tories that the Lib Dems would end up having to back. It's very rare for one party to win a working majority when, going into the election, another party has a working majority. Gaining seats is hard and the 'middle ground' kept growing (not least because of Lib Dem seats). Further, the Lib Dems had always given total votes won a high rating, as a consequence of their 'fair votes' stance. Pre-2015, that meant that in a hung parliament, the Tories would stand at an advantage. Also, after 1997, natural dynamics meant that it would be hard for the Lib Dems to prop up a Labour party that had lost seats in the election and was probably tired (as you say).
It was all foreseeable from the moment that Ashdown abandoned equidistance to cash in on Tory unpopularity in the 1990s.
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!!
It's a great poll, shows the voters back the rule of law, not mob rule some Leavers advocate
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.
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.
She holds grudges.
"There was a time when all my mind was Gove Now I find that most of the time Gove's not enough in itself."
I think it's behind a paywall, but I can include a few bits here:
"Speaking exclusively to Solicitors Journal today, Lady Hale said she would ‘absolutely not’ recuse herself, adding ‘I have exhibited no bias and those that suggested that I have are simply mistaken.’
The deputy president of the court said she had not expected her speech to be so quickly picked up by the press or that it would receive such a wave of criticism. ‘Part of the reason for that was I had been in the Far East for over a week and so was not familiar with what was going on in the press here, as I would normally be,’ she explained.
Asked whether, in hindsight, she would have given a different speech, Lady Hale explained that the topic had already been agreed with the organisers before the Divisional Court proceedings were decided.
‘It would have been peculiar in the extreme not to mention the case that illustrated some of the things that I was saying in the speech,’ she said. ‘I would probably have done the same, while realising that it might provoke comment. I was very anxious to be as neutral as possible and to simply explain what the case was about, not to express any view at all. It would have been discourteous to my hosts not to explain what [Miller] was about.’ "
Not sure I quite see the attraction in continuing to rub HRC's nose in the fact she lost but it seems that's all people want to do at the moment. So much easier to dwell on the past rather than consider the challenges of the future. Perhaps a tenet elements of Brexit and Trump supporters share...
As this is a betting site, 2017's list of political failures would have been much more helpful but there you go.
Those who support this right/left hybrid of populism haven't learned the lesson that you do not find the solutions to problems of the present in the past. One of the big lessons of the first fifty years of twentieth century is leaders selling grandiose visions based on past glories nearly always ends in disaster.
Meanwhile, I see that US voters who 'desperately wanted change', seemed to have swapped one entitled power-hungry elite, for another entitled power hungry elite if the shenanigans of those in the Trump team is anything to go by.
Excellent list and ranked correctly in sheer FUBARness of each "candidate" in my judgment. The one loser I would quibble with is Andrea Leadsom. She didn't have anything to lose and therefore didn't.
Edit and arguably Owen Smith didn't have anything to lose either, for the same reason. The real loser was the Labour Party who relied on such a feeble specimen for its salvation from Corbyn.
I think it's behind a paywall, but I can include a few bits here:
"Speaking exclusively to Solicitors Journal today, Lady Hale said she would ‘absolutely not’ recuse herself, adding ‘I have exhibited no bias and those that suggested that I have are simply mistaken.’
The deputy president of the court said she had not expected her speech to be so quickly picked up by the press or that it would receive such a wave of criticism. ‘Part of the reason for that was I had been in the Far East for over a week and so was not familiar with what was going on in the press here, as I would normally be,’ she explained.
Asked whether, in hindsight, she would have given a different speech, Lady Hale explained that the topic had already been agreed with the organisers before the Divisional Court proceedings were decided.
‘It would have been peculiar in the extreme not to mention the case that illustrated some of the things that I was saying in the speech,’ she said. ‘I would probably have done the same, while realising that it might provoke comment. I was very anxious to be as neutral as possible and to simply explain what the case was about, not to express any view at all. It would have been discourteous to my hosts not to explain what [Miller] was about.’ "
Probably should have postponed/cancelled. Whether it was wrong or not is besides the point, it just looks bad.
Excellent list and ranked correctly in sheer FUBARness of each "candidate" in my judgment. The one loser I would quibble with is Andrea Leadsom. She didn't have anything to lose and therefore didn't
True. Like Johnson, she didn't get what she wanted, but ended up better off than when she started.
Mind you I agree it's an excellent list. I just think that 2016 being 2016 it may need revising before the year is out.
Excellent list and ranked correctly in sheer FUBARness of each "candidate" in my judgment. The one loser I would quibble with is Andrea Leadsom. She didn't have anything to lose and therefore didn't
True. Like Johnson, she didn't get what she wanted, but ended up better off than when she started.
Mind you I agree it's an excellent list. I just think that 2016 being 2016 it may need revising before the year is out.
Thanks. I am not sure Johnson is better off however. He went into the referendum as the heir apparent to Cameron who was expected to step down in a year or two. He now looks very tattered - or is that just my prejudice and he still reliably tickles Tory members' erogenous zones?
''One of the big lessons of the first fifty years of twentieth century is leaders selling grandiose visions based on past glories nearly always ends in disaster.''
Let's face it. There are no solutions. Globalisation is beggaring many in the western world, and there's nothing much anybody can do.
Thing is, Hillary didn;t even pretend to care. Trump did. He won.
@taffys In the long-term, what use is 'pretending to care'? Just means another set of voters are about to miserable and angry again in four years time.
The Lib Dems actively courted protest votes, based on simply being 'not the other'. That's what all the 'two-horse race' and 'X can't win here' is about.
(Snip)
As soon as they did that, a great many of those protest votes would inevitably fall off, as voters who'd voted one way locally to keep X out watched the Lib Dems put X into power nationally.
What's more, the likelihood was that it was the Tories that the Lib Dems would end up having to back. It's very rare for one party to win a working majority when, going into the election, another party has a working majority. Gaining seats is hard and the 'middle ground' kept growing (not least because of Lib Dem seats). Further, the Lib Dems had always given total votes won a high rating, as a consequence of their 'fair votes' stance. Pre-2015, that meant that in a hung parliament, the Tories would stand at an advantage. Also, after 1997, natural dynamics meant that it would be hard for the Lib Dems to prop up a Labour party that had lost seats in the election and was probably tired (as you say).
It was all foreseeable from the moment that Ashdown abandoned equidistance to cash in on Tory unpopularity in the 1990s.
All parties court votes based on 'not being the other'. Both the Tories and Labour are experts at it; there are times when it appears to be their core message.
Junior coalition partners invariably fare badly from the aftermath, and this has been true regardless of the extent to which the junior partner attracts support from its strong and distinctive ideology or for more tactical reasons.
Had the maths been different in 2010, the probability is that a deal with Labour, post-Brown, would have been the preferred option. But the combined majority needed to be big enough to survive the discontent of any 'no deal' rebels in the larger party. Which it wasn't; there was no majority to start with.
Also do not discount the extent to which the LibDems contain rather more politicians motivated by what they stand for and can achieve, rather than principally their own careers and power, since the most ambitious, least scrupulous and principled, will not have joined them in the first place, their not offering that much by way of prospects. And the extent to which the LibDems had a clear idea of what they would likely have to sacrifice (if perhaps not so much to the degree) but thought that the opportunity to do the right thing and exercise some influence was worth it. Commentators generally recognise and give credit to the LibDems for their resolve and the 'backbone' they brought to the government, when often the Tories were wobbling - which was the opposite of what everyone predicted.
@taffys In the long-term, what use is 'pretending to care'? Just means another set of voters are about to miserable and angry again in four years time.
Trump did more than pretend to care. He outlined some deliverable ways in which the process can be interrupted. He's been very consistent on the core issues of trade policy and America first foreign policy for several decades.
Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, is no friend of the British Conservative Party. Sup with an exceedingly long spoon. Hopefully, he will eventually be ejected because he is an unpleasant person.
Excellent list and ranked correctly in sheer FUBARness of each "candidate" in my judgment. The one loser I would quibble with is Andrea Leadsom. She didn't have anything to lose and therefore didn't
True. Like Johnson, she didn't get what she wanted, but ended up better off than when she started.
Mind you I agree it's an excellent list. I just think that 2016 being 2016 it may need revising before the year is out.
Thanks. I am not sure Johnson is better off however. He went into the referendum as the heir apparent to Cameron who was expected to step down in a year or two. He now looks very tattered - or is that just my prejudice and he still reliably tickles Tory members' erogenous zones?
Thanks for the image of Johnson tickling Tory members' erogenous zones.
Defence has been underfunded my whole adult life. It was practically the only department New Labour didn't splurge on, despite joyriding the military, and the Coalition didn't ringfence it when they should've (though that was more economically and politically difficult than Blair/Brown's choice not to improve the situation).
Defence doesn't win votes, aside from those of the minority who work in it.
It's one of those things voters take for granted, but there will always be more immediately electorally rewarding options for politicians to spend public money on at its cost.
Mr. Meeks, I see you've been enjoying How To Win Friends And Influence People.
There was already a perception that the judiciary are rather EU-friendly. Then a senior judge comes out with comments about a case before hearing it. It might be lovely in lawyer-land, but the Great Unwashed it looks less than neutral.
@Morris_Dancer Those capable of reading will see that the words Lady Hale spoke were scrupulously neutral. Those incapable of reading will no doubt believe whatever they like.
The "perception that the judiciary are rather EU-friendly" seems to have taken hold only in the fevered imaginings of WTW Leavers who regard everything as subordinate to the idea of leaving the EU, even if they are incapable of articulating what they are for rather than against, and accordingly are suspicious of anything that might directly or indirectly result in that becoming more complicated.
Defence has been underfunded my whole adult life. It was practically the only department New Labour didn't splurge on, despite joyriding the military, and the Coalition didn't ringfence it when they should've (though that was more economically and politically difficult than Blair/Brown's choice not to improve the situation).
Defence doesn't win votes, aside from those of the minority who work in it.
It's one of those things voters take for granted, but there will always be more immediately electorally rewarding options for politicians to spend public money on at its cost.
Defence is like insurance. It's only when you need to make a claim that you start wishing you'd spent more and bought better cover.
Defence has been underfunded my whole adult life. It was practically the only department New Labour didn't splurge on, despite joyriding the military, and the Coalition didn't ringfence it when they should've (though that was more economically and politically difficult than Blair/Brown's choice not to improve the situation).
Defence doesn't win votes, aside from those of the minority who work in it.
It's one of those things voters take for granted, but there will always be more immediately electorally rewarding options for politicians to spend public money on at its cost.
Defence is only a public priority during war.
It's not a coincidence that historically countries splurge on the military only when there is a war on.
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Fucking.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Fucking.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!
Ground game 2.0.. where you don't actual campaign for fear of looking weak.
We should continue to block it all the way down the line until the EU gives us a serious deal, rather than threatening to make an example of us.
Nah, just ignore it whilst continuing to pressure those members of NATO to live up to their commitments.
The so called EU army is actually nothing of the sort. It is just displacement activity for politicians. If our European allies are serious about improving their defence capability then they must start spending some money on it, as indeed should the UK.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
So we can add to Kellyanne Conway's 'things that were true' list her earlier assertion that the Trump campaign was 'in their heads'.
Defence has been underfunded my whole adult life. It was practically the only department New Labour didn't splurge on, despite joyriding the military, and the Coalition didn't ringfence it when they should've (though that was more economically and politically difficult than Blair/Brown's choice not to improve the situation).
Defence doesn't win votes, aside from those of the minority who work in it.
It's one of those things voters take for granted, but there will always be more immediately electorally rewarding options for politicians to spend public money on at its cost.
Defence is only a public priority during war.
It's not a coincidence that historically countries splurge on the military only when there is a war on.
Though we had wars and other operations for almost all of the New Labour years. A brief period of peace, and I could understand talk in the nineties of a "peace dividend", then there was Kosovo and other minor operations and then 9/11 and we were at war twice in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So that's not an excuse. Blair should never have been more than 45 minutes away from properly funding the military.
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Fucking.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!
It is on par with Hitler refusing to give winter clothes to his soldiers in Russia because he didn't want them to think they will be fighting in the winter.
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Fucking. Morons. I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan. I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles. OMFG!
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Fucking.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!
It is on par with Hitler refusing to give winter clothes to his soldiers in Russia because he didn't want them to think they will be fighting in the winter.
It's on a par with Dave not prepping the Civil Service for the possibility of Brexit because he didn't want anyone to think he would lose EURef.
@Morris_Dancer Those capable of reading will see that the words Lady Hale spoke were scrupulously neutral. Those incapable of reading will no doubt believe whatever they like. The "perception that the judiciary are rather EU-friendly" seems to have taken hold only in the fevered imaginings of WTW Leavers who regard everything as subordinate to the idea of leaving the EU, even if they are incapable of articulating what they are for rather than against, and accordingly are suspicious of anything that might directly or indirectly result in that becoming more complicated.
Can we add this to all your many statements on what the LEAVE campaign was getting wrong and why they would lose?
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Fucking. Morons. I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan. I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles. OMFG!
A new D-GOTV strategy?
Not having the people there, one could sort of understand, since (insofar as they are mobile) there will always be somewhere else that they can make a difference. But keeping them there and then not working them fully does seem a bit lame.
Defence has been underfunded my whole adult life. It was practically the only department New Labour didn't splurge on, despite joyriding the military, and the Coalition didn't ringfence it when they should've (though that was more economically and politically difficult than Blair/Brown's choice not to improve the situation).
Defence doesn't win votes, aside from those of the minority who work in it.
It's one of those things voters take for granted, but there will always be more immediately electorally rewarding options for politicians to spend public money on at its cost.
Defence is only a public priority during war.
It's not a coincidence that historically countries splurge on the military only when there is a war on.
Though we had wars and other operations for almost all of the New Labour years. A brief period of peace, and I could understand talk in the nineties of a "peace dividend", then there was Kosovo and other minor operations and then 9/11 and we were at war twice in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So that's not an excuse. Blair should never have been more than 45 minutes away from properly funding the military.
There is a big difference between providing small contingents to wars in far off lands that do not directly threaten our peace in mainland Britain, and existential wars. There has been no threat of a hot war directly affecting Britain since the end of the hot part of the Cold War.
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Fucking.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!
It is on par with Hitler refusing to give winter clothes to his soldiers in Russia because he didn't want them to think they will be fighting in the winter.
Defence has been underfunded my whole adult life. It was practically the only department New Labour didn't splurge on, despite joyriding the military, and the Coalition didn't ringfence it when they should've (though that was more economically and politically difficult than Blair/Brown's choice not to improve the situation).
Defence doesn't win votes, aside from those of the minority who work in it.
It's one of those things voters take for granted, but there will always be more immediately electorally rewarding options for politicians to spend public money on at its cost.
Defence is only a public priority during war.
It's not a coincidence that historically countries splurge on the military only when there is a war on.
Though we had wars and other operations for almost all of the New Labour years. A brief period of peace, and I could understand talk in the nineties of a "peace dividend", then there was Kosovo and other minor operations and then 9/11 and we were at war twice in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So that's not an excuse. Blair should never have been more than 45 minutes away from properly funding the military.
There is a big difference between providing small contingents to wars in far off lands that do not directly threaten our peace in mainland Britain, and existential wars. There has been no threat of a hot war directly affecting Britain since the end of the hot part of the Cold War.
And there still isn't. But we need to be fully prepared to fund properly the equipment, training and staffing to cope with these wars in far off places that we've been engaging in.
I'm struggling to give a shit about the lead story on the Six O'Clock News.
Which story is that?
Housing crisis. Not the fact that a friend of mine has just bought a 3 bedroom semi for £350,000 with a deposit of £17,500 having been given £70,000 by the government. But because Barking and Dagenham can't house the poor.
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Fucking.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!
It is on par with Hitler refusing to give winter clothes to his soldiers in Russia because he didn't want them to think they will be fighting in the winter.
Is that serious?
Indeed Hitler did refuse to provide winter clothing for his soldiers invading the USSR in 1941 because he didn't want to give the impression that the war would last until the winter.
When winter finally arrived he dispatched Goebbels around Germany to collect fur coats in charity events.
Stupid political and psychological posturing lead to catastrophic defeat for both Hillary and Hitler.
Comments
28 states had state level exit polling done for them.
Of the 10 states that most closely matched the exit poll 7 use paper or mail in only ballots, 2 Have a paper trail on their electronic voting machines and 1 (Texas) does not.
Of the 10 states that were most out on the Trump margin 2 Use paper ballots and the other 8 all use computer voting machines including 3 that Use computer voting machines with zero paper trail at all (New Jersey with that spectacular 11 point miss, the slightly crucial swing state of Pennsylvanian and South Carolina).
If it was a Rust Belt/Med West polling fail how could the exit polls nail Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois almost spot on and fail with Pennsylvanian.
Eh, eh. Could you start posting this in tweets and it will become stone cold fact pretty soon.
Honourable mentions for:
- Angela Eagle. Dithered. Stood. Lost. To a candidate with virtually no positives.
- IDS. Resigned after a spat with Osborne only for Osborne to then go. As a Brexiteer, could easily still be in post had he stuck it out.
- Zac. Losing the mayoral vote wasn't a disaster; a Tory was always going to be up against it. Losing it in the manner that he did, however, was a different matter. Compounded the error by a mixed-message by-election. Might get worse still yet.
- The Liberal Establishment. "This is not our country any more" Paddy Ashdown said the day after the EURef. Arguments about the extent to which it ever was aside, he has a point. Not just this country either.
Carney: put in place after personal begging by Osborne, lavishly rewarded, given full support in the job and then... Osborne gone, May openly denouncing his monetary policies, pressure to go early etc etc.
Will Hutton: dreams of joining the Euro shattered when UK (well England & Wales) votes to leave the whole caboodle.*
* although may yet live to see his dream if we have to apply to rejoin in 2020s due to economic depression.
https://twitter.com/uk__news/status/799192437285650436
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-defence-germany-idUSKBN13C1T0?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Feed:+Reuters/worldNews+(Reuters+World+News)
“There is a joke going around here [banking community] that if I’d have known how good Trump was going to be for Wall Street, I’d have campaigned for him,” said one Goldman Sachs executive who declined to be identified by name speaking about the incoming president."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-wall-street-bankers-231524
In an FPTP system, it's regrettably not just about votes but where they are to produce bums on benches. The primary drive for LD strategy was to get as many MPs elected as possible which isn't an unreasonable strategy for any party.
The only alternative option was for one of the two major parties to schism again - I think the Conservatives came close to the abyss under IDS but removed him in time. The Labour schism of 1981 took place at a time of relative Liberal weakness and in any case the Falklands War came along to save both Margaret Thatcher and the Labour Party in different ways.
When the SDP failed it splintered and elements of the SDP took over both Labour (Blair) and the Conservatives (Cameron).
Wikpedia doesn't go back that far but debt repayments recently have been lower than in the 1950s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt#/media/File:UK_National_Debt_interest.png
Because parliament (at least the Lords) may be about to stop Article 50 being triggered.
But somewhat subdued.
The Lib Dems actively courted protest votes, based on simply being 'not the other'. That's what all the 'two-horse race' and 'X can't win here' is about.
Simple maths says that the more seats that were won, the more likely it was that there'd be a hung parliament with the Lib Dems being forced to make a choice of some nature putting or keeping one of the big parties in power.
As soon as they did that, a great many of those protest votes would inevitably fall off, as voters who'd voted one way locally to keep X out watched the Lib Dems put X into power nationally.
What's more, the likelihood was that it was the Tories that the Lib Dems would end up having to back. It's very rare for one party to win a working majority when, going into the election, another party has a working majority. Gaining seats is hard and the 'middle ground' kept growing (not least because of Lib Dem seats). Further, the Lib Dems had always given total votes won a high rating, as a consequence of their 'fair votes' stance. Pre-2015, that meant that in a hung parliament, the Tories would stand at an advantage. Also, after 1997, natural dynamics meant that it would be hard for the Lib Dems to prop up a Labour party that had lost seats in the election and was probably tired (as you say).
It was all foreseeable from the moment that Ashdown abandoned equidistance to cash in on Tory unpopularity in the 1990s.
REMAIN 48%
Now I find that most of the time
Gove's not enough in itself."
https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/201611/exclusive-lady-hale-will-‘absolutely-not’-recuse-herself-article-50-appeal
I think it's behind a paywall, but I can include a few bits here:
"Speaking exclusively to Solicitors Journal today, Lady Hale said she would ‘absolutely not’ recuse herself, adding ‘I have exhibited no bias and those that suggested that I have are simply mistaken.’
The deputy president of the court said she had not expected her speech to be so quickly picked up by the press or that it would receive such a wave of criticism. ‘Part of the reason for that was I had been in the Far East for over a week and so was not familiar with what was going on in the press here, as I would normally be,’ she explained.
Asked whether, in hindsight, she would have given a different speech, Lady Hale explained that the topic had already been agreed with the organisers before the Divisional Court proceedings were decided.
‘It would have been peculiar in the extreme not to mention the case that illustrated some of the things that I was saying in the speech,’ she said. ‘I would probably have done the same, while realising that it might provoke comment. I was very anxious to be as neutral as possible and to simply explain what the case was about, not to express any view at all. It would have been discourteous to my hosts not to explain what [Miller] was about.’ "
Meanwhile, I see that US voters who 'desperately wanted change', seemed to have swapped one entitled power-hungry elite, for another entitled power hungry elite if the shenanigans of those in the Trump team is anything to go by.
Edit and arguably Owen Smith didn't have anything to lose either, for the same reason. The real loser was the Labour Party who relied on such a feeble specimen for its salvation from Corbyn.
Mind you I agree it's an excellent list. I just think that 2016 being 2016 it may need revising before the year is out.
Let's face it. There are no solutions. Globalisation is beggaring many in the western world, and there's nothing much anybody can do.
Thing is, Hillary didn;t even pretend to care. Trump did. He won.
Junior coalition partners invariably fare badly from the aftermath, and this has been true regardless of the extent to which the junior partner attracts support from its strong and distinctive ideology or for more tactical reasons.
Had the maths been different in 2010, the probability is that a deal with Labour, post-Brown, would have been the preferred option. But the combined majority needed to be big enough to survive the discontent of any 'no deal' rebels in the larger party. Which it wasn't; there was no majority to start with.
Also do not discount the extent to which the LibDems contain rather more politicians motivated by what they stand for and can achieve, rather than principally their own careers and power, since the most ambitious, least scrupulous and principled, will not have joined them in the first place, their not offering that much by way of prospects. And the extent to which the LibDems had a clear idea of what they would likely have to sacrifice (if perhaps not so much to the degree) but thought that the opportunity to do the right thing and exercise some influence was worth it. Commentators generally recognise and give credit to the LibDems for their resolve and the 'backbone' they brought to the government, when often the Tories were wobbling - which was the opposite of what everyone predicted.
https://twitter.com/Hadas_Gold/status/798979565028835341
The media has paid a lot of attention to rural America. But the story of the suburbs is just as important: http://bit.ly/2gcUQ5g
https://twitter.com/dylanlscott/status/799063384192942080
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
It's one of those things voters take for granted, but there will always be more immediately electorally rewarding options for politicians to spend public money on at its cost.
There was already a perception that the judiciary are rather EU-friendly. Then a senior judge comes out with comments about a case before hearing it. It might be lovely in lawyer-land, but the Great Unwashed it looks less than neutral.
Japanese PM wins the race to be the first foreign leader to meet Trump.
The "perception that the judiciary are rather EU-friendly" seems to have taken hold only in the fevered imaginings of WTW Leavers who regard everything as subordinate to the idea of leaving the EU, even if they are incapable of articulating what they are for rather than against, and accordingly are suspicious of anything that might directly or indirectly result in that becoming more complicated.
It's not a coincidence that historically countries splurge on the military only when there is a war on.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!
Anyway, I'm off.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/799307619521282049
The so called EU army is actually nothing of the sort. It is just displacement activity for politicians. If our European allies are serious about improving their defence capability then they must start spending some money on it, as indeed should the UK.
https://twitter.com/KellyannePolls/status/796237905089929217
So that's not an excuse. Blair should never have been more than 45 minutes away from properly funding the military.
Having an A.I. called ADA ordering Hillary around.
Having General Melchett as campaign strategist.
http://www.ruseducation.in/Crimea-Federal-University.html
When winter finally arrived he dispatched Goebbels around Germany to collect fur coats in charity events.
Stupid political and psychological posturing lead to catastrophic defeat for both Hillary and Hitler.