"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
All very fine but the mantra had its origin in the heyday of the old English country gentleman MP who stood for "Independence" at the hustings and then settled down to supporting the government of the day (usually Tory) in the House of Commons. They despised democracy and public opinion and usually opposed reform of all types.
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
- Government Deal - Nothing/hard exit - Return to former status quo.
seems perfectly valid, if you wanted to find out what people actually wanted.
I do not believe that Remainers are sincerely motivated by a desire to "find out what people actually wanted". I believe they hope to stop Brexit by fair means, or foul, and that if the boot was on the other foot they would reject the very same arguments that they are now making.
ECVs finally settled at Betfair. 1% free money still available on vote shares and Popular Vote winner. Turnout looks like the same @ 1.03 but DYOR on that.
How long now before @Shadsy pays out on the 0-5% pop vote lead for Hillary? There's no way any recounts are going to change a million votes one way or the other.
It is paid out.
Ah, thanks for that, must have missed it. Bet was by proxy in a shop, so will sent my mate around to collect the winnings - he was wondering why they turned him away last week as the election was ages ago in his mind!
Trump 0-5% might be the bet next time.
Once the illegal voters are removed, Trump 15-20%
Don't want to sound all Max-Trumpkin here, but is it possible that certain "economic migrants" will have been added to the California vote registers ?
Well here's the study, I think it's works out to 25% of 18m undocumented migrants that voted in 2008. Even assuming some level of error, that's still a huge number of potentially invalid votes. In the border states it will have been huge, I think in 2016 undocumented voters may have flipped Nevada if the study is correct and holds true. In fact the compulsion to vote among illegals will have been much higher given that on one side a candidate was proposing to deport them all and on the other side there was a candidate talking about amnesty for 11m illegal immigrants.
They took a large YouGov poll not intended for this purpose and extrapolated from 67 people who said they were illegal immigrants who voted.
Electoral registration records are public data, and there are lots of people with an agenda to look for this, so if it's really happening on this scale you should be able to get this many actual, identified voters. The fact that nobody is actually finding these people in reality suggests illegal immigrants aren't voting on any scale, which is obvious since it would be a felony committed in broad daylight.
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
As I said on the previous thread, no-one's accusing Trump of being daft. Stop creating strawmen.
2/ I don't think Trump actually believes millions of illegals voted. This is laying groundwork for voting rights attack 0 replies . 62 retweets 84 likes
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing behind that coalesces their former voters?
ECVs finally settled at Betfair. 1% free money still available on vote shares and Popular Vote winner. Turnout looks like the same @ 1.03 but DYOR on that.
How long now before @Shadsy pays out on the 0-5% pop vote lead for Hillary? There's no way any recounts are going to change a million votes one way or the other.
It is paid out.
Ah, thanks for that, must have missed it. Bet was by proxy in a shop, so will sent my mate around to collect the winnings - he was wondering why they turned him away last week as the election was ages ago in his mind!
Trump 0-5% might be the bet next time.
Once the illegal voters are removed, Trump 15-20%
Don't want to sound all Max-Trumpkin here, but is it possible that certain "economic migrants" will have been added to the California vote registers ?
Well here's the study, I think it's works out to 25% of 18m undocumented migrants that voted in 2008. Even assuming some level of error, that's still a huge number of potentially invalid votes. In the border states it will have been huge, I think in 2016 undocumented voters may have flipped Nevada if the study is correct and holds true. In fact the compulsion to vote among illegals will have been much higher given that on one side a candidate was proposing to deport them all and on the other side there was a candidate talking about amnesty for 11m illegal immigrants.
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
People who believe in the Constitution, especially the First Amendment.
Considering Trump is supposed to be swearing an oath soon to "protect and defend the constitution of the United States" ... that should include Trump.
The fact that nobody is actually finding these people in reality suggests illegal immigrants aren't voting on any scale, which is obvious since it would be a felony committed in broad daylight.
You'd have to be a pretty stupid illegal immigrant [which - as a rule - they're not] to go and vote. Especially in California.
But there are plenty who are voting without educational qualifications or property ownership...
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part B ) dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
ECVs finally settled at Betfair. 1% free money still available on vote shares and Popular Vote winner. Turnout looks like the same @ 1.03 but DYOR on that.
How long now before @Shadsy pays out on the 0-5% pop vote lead for Hillary? There's no way any recounts are going to change a million votes one way or the other.
It is paid out.
Ah, thanks for that, must have missed it. Bet was by proxy in a shop, so will sent my mate around to collect the winnings - he was wondering why they turned him away last week as the election was ages ago in his mind!
Trump 0-5% might be the bet next time.
Once the illegal voters are removed, Trump 15-20%
Don't want to sound all Max-Trumpkin here, but is it possible that certain "economic migrants" will have been added to the California vote registers ?
Well here's the study, I think it's works out to 25% of 18m undocumented migrants that voted in 2008. Even assuming some level of error, that's still a huge number of potentially invalid votes. In the border states it will have been huge, I think in 2016 undocumented voters may have flipped Nevada if the study is correct and holds true. In fact the compulsion to vote among illegals will have been much higher given that on one side a candidate was proposing to deport them all and on the other side there was a candidate talking about amnesty for 11m illegal immigrants.
2/ I don't think Trump actually believes millions of illegals voted. This is laying groundwork for voting rights attack 0 replies . 62 retweets 84 likes
It's going to be reregistration for all US citizens requiring citizenship documentation to do so, rather than proof of residency. Birth certificates, passports, certificates of naturalisation. Possibly valid ID to vote as well.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part B ) dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
But the next labour leader will be chosen under the same system that twice elected Jeremy Corbyn. What chance that a self-selecting electorate will decide that someone sensible and centrist is what Labour needs for a leader?
Why not? People are entitled to change their minds based on new information. It's why losing parties are allowed to stand again at the following General Election, after all. Simply re-running a referendum again and again until you get the result you want is certainly undemocratic, but this would not be such - it would be a meaningful choice on destination (and not "Vote for what we've handed you or nothing at all"): I'd prefer a three-choice referendum (under AV): - Government Deal - Nothing/hard exit - Return to former status quo.
I have no problem with us having a second referendum providing that we can also have a third referendum should the second produce the "wrong result", but I expect Remainers would be dead against that, and that all their supposedly high principled arguments for a second would suddenly be forgotten.
Did you miss the part about "Simply re-running a referendum again and again until you get the result you want is certainly undemocratic", or did you just choose to ignore it because it spoilt your point?
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
Jarvis in shades might just do it
Would he be elected or seen as a murderous blairite war criminal by the corbanists
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part B ) dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
Jarvis looks good on paper, but every time I've heard him speak, e.g. yesterday on immigration, he's been incredibly anodyne & uninspiring. Not that that wouldn't necessarily be an improvement on Corbyn electorally of course.
2/ I don't think Trump actually believes millions of illegals voted. This is laying groundwork for voting rights attack 0 replies . 62 retweets 84 likes
It's going to be reregistration for all US citizens requiring citizenship documentation to do so, rather than proof of residency. Birth certificates, passports, certificates of naturalisation. Possibly valid ID to vote as well.
Yes and mysteriously there won't be enough resources to keep the offices open in minority precincts...
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
You don't think he might be a bit... Loopy?
Seriously - look at his stuff in Art of the Deal - it's all there - every tactic and play. And the MSM fall straight into his trap.
As Sherlock said, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
He didn't get this far and control the supposed media pundits and experts like this by accident.
If one stops assuming he's an idiot - who happens to have become a billionaire with a 14yr run as a reality star and now POTUS Elect - it all makes sense. Dump the prejudice and look at the evidence.
It's gobsmackingly obviously to me and has been for many months. Confirmation bias is a hugely strong pull for everyone - however Trump has shown a dozens times or more that he's playing a superior game - be it ground war, passion, policy, killing opponents off, driving the media narrative...
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part B ) dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
Why would Jarvis even run against Corbyn? He'd never be able to win.
A well-argued piece. And yes, it would be a brave move, but one perhaps made easier by Labour's ineffective opposition, especially as it somewhat tramples over their ground. Where would the opposition in parliament for the move come from? The SNP? UKIP?
2/ I don't think Trump actually believes millions of illegals voted. This is laying groundwork for voting rights attack 0 replies . 62 retweets 84 likes
It's going to be reregistration for all US citizens requiring citizenship documentation to do so, rather than proof of residency. Birth certificates, passports, certificates of naturalisation. Possibly valid ID to vote as well.
Yes and mysteriously there won't be enough resources to keep the offices open in minority precincts...
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part B ) dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
Jarvis looks good on paper, but every time I've heard him speak, e.g. yesterday on immigration, he's been incredibly anodyne & uninspiring. Not that that wouldn't necessarily be an improvement on Corbyn electorally of course.
It is the situation the Tories found themselves in late 2003. We knew winning power at GE2005 was a not happening, but we knew could use a goodish result in 2005 to win power back in 2010.
So IDS had to be toppled, even if his replacement had something of the night about him*. Had the Tories not gained those 30 odd seats in 2005, then in 2010 a Labour/Lib Dem coalition would been in power in 2010.
The UK would be a very different place today.
*Ann Widdecombe was misquoted, she was praising Michael Howard's chivalry, and said he has something of the Knight about him.
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
You don't think he might be a bit... Loopy?
Seriously - look at his stuff in Art of the Deal - it's all there - every tactic and play. And the MSM fall straight into his trap.
As Sherlock said, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
He didn't get this far and control the supposed media pundits and experts like this by accident.
If one stops assuming he's an idiot - who happens to have become a billionaire with a 14yr run as a reality star and now POTUS Elect - it all makes sense. Dump the prejudice and look at the evidence.
It's gobsmackingly obviously to me and has been for many months. Confirmation bias is a hugely strong pull for everyone - however Trump has shown a dozens times or more that he's playing a superior game - be it ground war, passion, policy, killing opponents off, driving the media narrative...
The question is not how he won; the question is whether the will be a good leader to America. Nothing you have spammed the site with points towards him being a success as president.
So, care to tell us why you think he'll be a successful president?
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
You don't think he might be a bit... Loopy?
Seriously - look at his stuff in Art of the Deal - it's all there - every tactic and play. And the MSM fall straight into his trap.
As Sherlock said, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
He didn't get this far and control the supposed media pundits and experts like this by accident.
If one stops assuming he's an idiot - who happens to have become a billionaire with a 14yr run as a reality star and now POTUS Elect - it all makes sense. Dump the prejudice and look at the evidence.
It's gobsmackingly obviously to me and has been for many months. Confirmation bias is a hugely strong pull for everyone - however Trump has shown a dozens times or more that he's playing a superior game - be it ground war, passion, policy, killing opponents off, driving the media narrative...
The most chilling aspect of that tweet is Trump's inference that the stripping of citizenship is a punishment equivalent to a year in prison. Followed though, that would lead to a lot of non-people.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part B ) dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
Why would Jarvis even run against Corbyn? He'd never be able to win.
My scenario is if Corbyn either stands down or is somehow unavailable.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part B ) dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
Jarvis as Labour leader requires the Labour membership to have a Damascene conversion on the defence of the realm.... Submarines with missiles in, stuff like that.
He might also have to take a much harder line on those who have sympathies with those who do not support our national interest. Indeed, those who would actively seek to undermine it. I would suggest there is a far larger proportion of people who sympathise with such people within Labour's membership than exists in the pool of floating voters in the UK....
That's, umm, brave, as Sir Humphrey might once have said.
Given the polling numbers and the completely ineffective opposition, would a Conservative government not be better off spending the limited political capital on addressing spending in the largest departments, rather than increasing taxes?
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
You don't think he might be a bit... Loopy?
Seriously - look at his stuff in Art of the Deal - it's all there - every tactic and play. And the MSM fall straight into his trap.
As Sherlock said, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
He didn't get this far and control the supposed media pundits and experts like this by accident.
If one stops assuming he's an idiot - who happens to have become a billionaire with a 14yr run as a reality star and now POTUS Elect - it all makes sense. Dump the prejudice and look at the evidence.
It's gobsmackingly obviously to me and has been for many months. Confirmation bias is a hugely strong pull for everyone - however Trump has shown a dozens times or more that he's playing a superior game - be it ground war, passion, policy, killing opponents off, driving the media narrative...
The question is not how he won; the question is whether the will be a good leader to America. Nothing you have spammed the site with points towards him being a success as president.
So, care to tell us why you think he'll be a successful president?
For "spammed the site", read "tried to lead the wilfully blind to see what was going on in America"....
2/ I don't think Trump actually believes millions of illegals voted. This is laying groundwork for voting rights attack 0 replies . 62 retweets 84 likes
It's going to be reregistration for all US citizens requiring citizenship documentation to do so, rather than proof of residency. Birth certificates, passports, certificates of naturalisation. Possibly valid ID to vote as well.
Yes and mysteriously there won't be enough resources to keep the offices open in minority precincts...
Sanctuary cities especially.
I'm not following your logic here. Can you clarify?
IIRC, Sanctuary Cities are places where illegal immigrants can report crimes without fear of ICE agents turning up to deport them.
Trump isn't advocating changing that as he wants to get rid of illegal criminals first - and a long way ahead of everyone else [who still didn't follow the law]. The Mayors of places like Chicago are however going down another ideological route that any illegal immigrant will be offered sanctuary de facto - akin to hiding in a church here, but covering an entire city area.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part B ) dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
Why would Jarvis even run against Corbyn? He'd never be able to win.
My scenario is if Corbyn either stands down or is somehow unavailable.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part B ) dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
Why would Jarvis even run against Corbyn? He'd never be able to win.
My scenario is if Corbyn either stands down or is somehow unavailable.
If Corbyn stands down then McIRA wins.
He doesn't, when YouGov polled it, IIRC he only got 12% of the Corbyn votes, when the question was if Corbyn wasn't standing.
Remember, as it stands, it would be very unlikely that McDonnell or any hard left candidate would get enough nominations to stand as leader.
Labour MPs won't be giving out any sympathy nominations this time!
That's, umm, brave, as Sir Humphrey might once have said.
Given the polling numbers and the completely ineffective opposition, would a Conservative government not be better off spending the limited political capital on addressing spending in the largest departments, rather than increasing taxes?
Agreed, it doesn't even address the problem. If the problem is the deficit ballooning from [projected] £21bn to £68bn then a £10bn tax hike doesn't close the gap. Even assuming that a tax hike raises the projected amount of taxes rather than seeing investment, aspiration etc driven off.
To eliminate the deficit based on those numbers would require a 14 pence per pound increase in income tax. I think that would devastate the economy personally.
David I don't the UK economy's basic problem is that it is undertaxed! We are, despite the rhetoric, still overspending. I'd recommend we reconvene when DFiD and a few quangos have been taken behind the woodshed to have a more sensible tax vs spend conversation.
2/ I don't think Trump actually believes millions of illegals voted. This is laying groundwork for voting rights attack 0 replies . 62 retweets 84 likes
It's going to be reregistration for all US citizens requiring citizenship documentation to do so, rather than proof of residency. Birth certificates, passports, certificates of naturalisation. Possibly valid ID to vote as well.
Yes and mysteriously there won't be enough resources to keep the offices open in minority precincts...
Sanctuary cities especially.
I'm not following your logic here. Can you clarify?
IIRC, Sanctuary Cities are places where illegal immigrants can report crimes without fear of ICE agents turning up to deport them.
Trump isn't advocating changing that as he wants to get rid of illegal criminals first - and a long way ahead of everyone else [who still didn't follow the law]. The Mayors of places like Chicago are however going down another ideological route that any illegal immigrant will be offered sanctuary de facto - akin to hiding in a church here, but covering an entire city area.
Well the point is that Trump is said to be considering defunding federal programmes for cities that have sanctuary laws. Unsurprisingly most of these cities are poor Democratic controlled ones with high minority proportions who would be disproportionately affected. Not that I don't support the policy. Sanctuary laws are awful and need to be binned.
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
Should they resist it? it is a news story... President elect says x and it is controversial...
It sure would be nice though if they followed it with a rider saying "warning this man lies so frequently that it's best to disbelieve what he says until proven true"...
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part B ) dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
Jarvis looks good on paper, but every time I've heard him speak, e.g. yesterday on immigration, he's been incredibly anodyne & uninspiring. Not that that wouldn't necessarily be an improvement on Corbyn electorally of course.
It is the situation the Tories found themselves in late 2003. We knew winning power at GE2005 was a not happening, but we knew could use a goodish result in 2005 to win power back in 2010.
So IDS had to be toppled, even if his replacement had something of the night about him. Had the Tories not gained those 30 odd seats in 2005, then in 2010 a Labour/Lib Dem coalition would been in power in 2010.
The UK would be a very different place today.
Had IDS not been toppled, Cameron would very probably not have won the leadership given that Howard propelled him forward. In all probability, David Davis would have become leader and while the UK would be a different place from that which it is today, I think it would have set off down quite a different path well before 2010.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part B ) dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
Why would Jarvis even run against Corbyn? He'd never be able to win.
My scenario is if Corbyn either stands down or is somehow unavailable.
If Corbyn stands down then McIRA wins.
He doesn't, when YouGov polled it, IIRC he only got 12% of the Corbyn votes, when the question was if Corbyn wasn't standing.
Remember, as it stands, it would be very unlikely that McDonnell or any hard left candidate would get enough nominations to stand as leader.
Labour MPs won't be giving out any sympathy nominations this time!
Corbyn has a personal appeal. Labour members trust him and see him as honest. John McDonnell doesn't (is my sense)
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
You don't think he might be a bit... Loopy?
Seriously - look at his stuff in Art of the Deal - it's all there - every tactic and play. And the MSM fall straight into his trap.
As Sherlock said, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
He didn't get this far and control the supposed media pundits and experts like this by accident.
If one stops assuming he's an idiot - who happens to have become a billionaire with a 14yr run as a reality star and now POTUS Elect - it all makes sense. Dump the prejudice and look at the evidence.
It's gobsmackingly obviously to me and has been for many months. Confirmation bias is a hugely strong pull for everyone - however Trump has shown a dozens times or more that he's playing a superior game - be it ground war, passion, policy, killing opponents off, driving the media narrative...
The question is not how he won; the question is whether the will be a good leader to America. Nothing you have spammed the site with points towards him being a success as president.
So, care to tell us why you think he'll be a successful president?
For "spammed the site", read "tried to lead the wilfully blind to see what was going on in America"....
No, spamming the site, especially with stuff it was clear she hadn't read herself. And as it looks as though Clinton won the most votes, "what was going on in America" is not as clear as she thought.
Still, she's obviously an oracle, as PM Leadsom can attest.
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
You don't think he might be a bit... Loopy?
Seriously - look at his stuff in Art of the Deal - it's all there - every tactic and play. And the MSM fall straight into his trap.
As Sherlock said, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
He didn't get this far and control the supposed media pundits and experts like this by accident.
If one stops assuming he's an idiot - who happens to have become a billionaire with a 14yr run as a reality star and now POTUS Elect - it all makes sense. Dump the prejudice and look at the evidence.
It's gobsmackingly obviously to me and has been for many months. Confirmation bias is a hugely strong pull for everyone - however Trump has shown a dozens times or more that he's playing a superior game - be it ground war, passion, policy, killing opponents off, driving the media narrative...
The question is not how he won; the question is whether the will be a good leader to America. Nothing you have spammed the site with points towards him being a success as president.
So, care to tell us why you think he'll be a successful president?
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part B ) dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
Jarvis looks good on paper, but every time I've heard him speak, e.g. yesterday on immigration, he's been incredibly anodyne & uninspiring. Not that that wouldn't necessarily be an improvement on Corbyn electorally of course.
It is the situation the Tories found themselves in late 2003. We knew winning power at GE2005 was a not happening, but we knew could use a goodish result in 2005 to win power back in 2010.
So IDS had to be toppled, even if his replacement had something of the night about him. Had the Tories not gained those 30 odd seats in 2005, then in 2010 a Labour/Lib Dem coalition would been in power in 2010.
David I don't the UK economy's basic problem is that it is undertaxed! We are, despite the rhetoric, still overspending. I'd recommend we reconvene when DFiD and a few quangos have been taken behind the woodshed to have a more sensible tax vs spend conversation.
There is scope to cut DFID, though that would break an election promise (albeit one that few likely Con voters care about) - but it'd still be trimming at the edges. In reality, for what the electorate wants from public services, I'd say that yes, it is undertaxed: that's why there's a deficit.
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
You don't think he might be a bit... Loopy?
Seriously - look at his stuff in Art of the Deal - it's all there - every tactic and play. And the MSM fall straight into his trap.
As Sherlock said, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
He didn't get this far and control the supposed media pundits and experts like this by accident.
If one stops assuming he's an idiot - who happens to have become a billionaire with a 14yr run as a reality star and now POTUS Elect - it all makes sense. Dump the prejudice and look at the evidence.
It's gobsmackingly obviously to me and has been for many months. Confirmation bias is a hugely strong pull for everyone - however Trump has shown a dozens times or more that he's playing a superior game - be it ground war, passion, policy, killing opponents off, driving the media narrative...
The question is not how he won; the question is whether the will be a good leader to America. Nothing you have spammed the site with points towards him being a success as president.
So, care to tell us why you think he'll be a successful president?
For "spammed the site", read "tried to lead the wilfully blind to see what was going on in America"....
No, spamming the site, especially with stuff it was clear she hadn't read herself. And as it looks as though Clinton won the most votes, "what was going on in America" is not as clear as she thought.
Still, she's obviously an oracle, as PM Leadsom can attest.
And yet Plato tapped into the American psyche a lot better than the rest of us, especially in the "blue" flyover states that delivered the Trump victory. She's been right more often than you this year, I think it's time to put up or shut up.
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
You don't think he might be a bit... Loopy?
Seriously - look at his stuff in Art of the Deal - it's all there - every tactic and play. And the MSM fall straight into his trap.
As Sherlock said, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
He didn't get this far and control the supposed media pundits and experts like this by accident.
If one stops assuming he's an idiot - who happens to have become a billionaire with a 14yr run as a reality star and now POTUS Elect - it all makes sense. Dump the prejudice and look at the evidence.
It's gobsmackingly obviously to me and has been for many months. Confirmation bias is a hugely strong pull for everyone - however Trump has shown a dozens times or more that he's playing a superior game - be it ground war, passion, policy, killing opponents off, driving the media narrative...
The most chilling aspect of that tweet is Trump's inference that the stripping of citizenship is a punishment equivalent to a year in prison. Followed though, that would lead to a lot of non-people.
And if one looks as the 'taking it seriously, not literally' aspect - your point dissolves.
I'm getting to the point where explaining this repeatedly is just pointless. I've been at it for months and roundly rubbished - and still the prevailing attitude is that Trump is an idiot. When someone was right, does the groupthink of such a supposedly sophisticated readership stop and think? Like Hell it does. It carries on with it's blue blanket, rather than inspect itself.
What's the evidence that Trump is an idiot? I'm not seeing anything bar a load of prejudice masquerading as Acceptable Viewpoint amongst the vast majority of PBers reinforcing itself.
Urgh. I'm bored of trying to help others who haven't spent hundreds of hours trying to understand it. They aren't listening.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
A ) who would that be?
B ) what policies can they swing back that coalesces their former voters?
Say Dan Jarvis, at a stroke, you remove the risk to national security tag from Labour.
As for part B ) dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
Jarvis looks good on paper, but every time I've heard him speak, e.g. yesterday on immigration, he's been incredibly anodyne & uninspiring. Not that that wouldn't necessarily be an improvement on Corbyn electorally of course.
It is the situation the Tories found themselves in late 2003. We knew winning power at GE2005 was a not happening, but we knew could use a goodish result in 2005 to win power back in 2010.
So IDS had to be toppled, even if his replacement had something of the night about him*. Had the Tories not gained those 30 odd seats in 2005, then in 2010 a Labour/Lib Dem coalition would been in power in 2010.
The UK would be a very different place today.
*Ann Widdecombe was misquoted, she was praising Michael Howard's chivalry, and said he has something of the Knight about him.
That is the official version of history but IDS's Tories were actually doing well at the ballot box, and there was no boost from Michael Howard. A less kind way of putting it is that Tory backbenchers panicked when IDS got flattened at PMQs each Wednesday.
David I don't the UK economy's basic problem is that it is undertaxed! We are, despite the rhetoric, still overspending. I'd recommend we reconvene when DFiD and a few quangos have been taken behind the woodshed to have a more sensible tax vs spend conversation.
There is scope to cut DFID, though that would break an election promise (albeit one that few likely Con voters care about) - but it'd still be trimming at the edges. In reality, for what the electorate wants from public services, I'd say that yes, it is undertaxed: that's why there's a deficit.
Wouldn't it be possible to class any single market fees for the EU as international aid? Especially given that most of the money goes into the solidarity fund for poorer regions in Europe. Once we're out of the CAP any money paid to the EU would surely be used for development funding, which is aid by any other name. Kills two birds with one stone IMO. The ais budget is too big and the country expects savings from leaving.
Did you miss the part about "Simply re-running a referendum again and again until you get the result you want is certainly undemocratic", or did you just choose to ignore it because it spoilt your point?
No, I think the calls for a second referendum are simply de facto reruns with a coat of paint, I don't buy the "we must consult the people about the preferred outcome" BS.
2/ I don't think Trump actually believes millions of illegals voted. This is laying groundwork for voting rights attack 0 replies . 62 retweets 84 likes
It's going to be reregistration for all US citizens requiring citizenship documentation to do so, rather than proof of residency. Birth certificates, passports, certificates of naturalisation. Possibly valid ID to vote as well.
Yes and mysteriously there won't be enough resources to keep the offices open in minority precincts...
Sanctuary cities especially.
I'm not following your logic here. Can you clarify? pla IIRC, Sanctuary Cities are places where illegal immigrants can report crimes without fear of ICE agents turning up to deport them.
Trump isn't advocating changing that as he wants to get rid of illegal criminals first - and a long way ahead of everyone else [who still didn't follow the law]. The Mayors of places like Chicago are however going down another ideological route that any illegal immigrant will be offered sanctuary de facto - akin to hiding in a church here, but covering an entire city area.
Well the point is that Trump is said to be considering defunding federal programmes for cities that have sanctuary laws. Unsurprisingly most of these cities are poor Democratic controlled ones with high minority proportions who would be disproportionately affected. Not that I don't support the policy. Sanctuary laws are awful and need to be binned.
He's threatening places like Chicago re federal money because they're refusing to help State and Fed law enforcement officers from arresting criminals. It's a negotiation tactic. We all know that.
That's, umm, brave, as Sir Humphrey might once have said.
Given the polling numbers and the completely ineffective opposition, would a Conservative government not be better off spending the limited political capital on addressing spending in the largest departments, rather than increasing taxes?
No. The largest spending items are pensions, benefits and health. I think we're reaching a point on all benefits and health where they can't be cut / restrained much further. There is of course plenty of theoretical scope to cut pensions but it's not going to happen for political reasons.
I'm sceptical about the 'choking off growth' arguments (for a 2p rise anyway). Previous cuts in Income Tax don't look to have done much to boost growth in the quarters following their implementation.
And yet Plato tapped into the American psyche a lot better than the rest of us, especially in the "blue" flyover states that delivered the Trump victory. She's been right more often than you this year, I think it's time to put up or shut up.
"And yet Plato tapped into the American psyche a lot better than the rest of us, especially in the "blue" flyover states that delivered the Trump victory. "
How, pray, do you think she did that? By reading, thinking, and applying intelligence, or just following a few alt-right websites and spamming their contents without reading?
Now she's creating strawmen in every post to knock down.
Perhaps you ought to follow the advice you give in your last line.
I was only 18 at the time of the 2005 election so I didn't follow it all that closely, but to what extent were the Tories helped by the Lib Dems going from 18.8% of the vote to 22.7%? Did they take votes off the Tories while the Tories took votes off of Labour? Or did Labour to Lib Dem switchers help the Tories gain a few seats? If the latter happened I'd suggest that was in spite of Howard rather than because of him.
It is the situation the Tories found themselves in late 2003. We knew winning power at GE2005 was a not happening, but we knew could use a goodish result in 2005 to win power back in 2010.
So IDS had to be toppled, even if his replacement had something of the night about him*. Had the Tories not gained those 30 odd seats in 2005, then in 2010 a Labour/Lib Dem coalition would been in power in 2010.
The UK would be a very different place today.
*Ann Widdecombe was misquoted, she was praising Michael Howard's chivalry, and said he has something of the Knight about him.
That is the official version of history but IDS's Tories were actually doing well at the ballot box, and there was no boost from Michael Howard. A less kind way of putting it is that Tory backbenchers panicked when IDS got flattened at PMQs each Wednesday.
Nah, remember the Brent byelection.
One of the reasons less spoken about toppling IDS, the Tories thought the soon to be published Hutton report would give them enough ammo to topple Blair. They knew IDS wasn't up to the job, but they needed an eminent QC to do the job, step forward Michael Howard QC
Yeah the assumption that a new Labour leader will be better than the last seems dubious to me. Won't the hordes of Corbynites replace him with someone similar or worse?
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
You don't think he might be a bit... Loopy?
Seriously - look at his stuff in Art of the Deal - it's all there - every tactic and play. And the MSM fall straight into his trap.
As Sherlock said, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
He didn't get this far and control the supposed media pundits and experts like this by accident.
If one stops assuming he's an idiot - who happens to have become a billionaire with a 14yr run as a reality star and now POTUS Elect - it all makes sense. Dump the prejudice and look at the evidence.
It's gobsmackingly obviously to me and has been for many months. Confirmation bias is a hugely strong pull for everyone - however Trump has shown a dozens times or more that he's playing a superior game - be it ground war, passion, policy, killing opponents off, driving the media narrative...
The question is not how he won; the question is whether the will be a good leader to America. Nothing you have spammed the site with points towards him being a success as president.
So, care to tell us why you think he'll be a successful president?
For "spammed the site", read "tried to lead the wilfully blind to see what was going on in America"....
The more those who disapprove of me insult me for being right, the less credibility they accrue.
I don't mind. Their self-righteousness means nothing when they've lost the argument in a cultural war, as well as a political one.
And yet Plato tapped into the American psyche a lot better than the rest of us, especially in the "blue" flyover states that delivered the Trump victory. She's been right more often than you this year, I think it's time to put up or shut up.
"And yet Plato tapped into the American psyche a lot better than the rest of us, especially in the "blue" flyover states that delivered the Trump victory. "
How, pray, do you think she did that? By reading, thinking, and applying intelligence, or just following a few alt-right websites and spamming their contents without reading?
Now she's creating strawmen in every post to knock down.
Perhaps you ought to follow the advice you give in your last line.
Whatever it was, she understands how ignored Americans feel a lot better than you or I. You're just bitter that she was proved right after you tried so hard to discredit her before the election and have stupidly continued to since Trump won exactly where Plato was pointing out he would win for months.
As I said, it's put up or shut up time. I don't know what kind of President Mr Trump will be, but I'm not going to be blindsided in the same manner again, if posters can give me insight into a situation I find difficult to understand then I don't particularly want them silenced by bitter people.
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
Should they resist it? it is a news story... President elect says x and it is controversial...
It sure would be nice though if they followed it with a rider saying "warning this man lies so frequently that it's best to disbelieve what he says until proven true"...
They should act like grown-ups and not react to every tweet like it was some proclamation of literal intent.
He's been playing them for years and they still can't resist. It's beyond stupid Pavlovian Dog response. I can forgive some less knowledgable PBers falling for it - but news anchors in the US need a slap.
@PaulBrandITV: French ambassador's spokesperson: "The UK cannot pick and choose when it comes to European policy, keeping only the ones it can profit from"
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
Should they resist it? it is a news story... President elect says x and it is controversial...
It sure would be nice though if they followed it with a rider saying "warning this man lies so frequently that it's best to disbelieve what he says until proven true"...
would the supreme court allow such a law anyway? Wouldn't flag burning come under first amendment rigths?
The broadcast media has continued with a daily anti Brexit and Government onslaught for months but still today's poll gives a 16% conservative lead. I do not support UKIP at all but I do think Paul Nuttall will devastate labour in their heartlands with his scouse accent and appeal to the WWC vote.
Boulton said on Sky this morning that a poll showed that 65% dismiss the opinion of the MSM and it does make you think that they do need to re-calibrate their reporting if they want to be listened to at all
And yet Plato tapped into the American psyche a lot better than the rest of us, especially in the "blue" flyover states that delivered the Trump victory. She's been right more often than you this year, I think it's time to put up or shut up.
"And yet Plato tapped into the American psyche a lot better than the rest of us, especially in the "blue" flyover states that delivered the Trump victory. "
How, pray, do you think she did that? By reading, thinking, and applying intelligence, or just following a few alt-right websites and spamming their contents without reading?
Now she's creating strawmen in every post to knock down.
Perhaps you ought to follow the advice you give in your last line.
Whatever it was, she understands how ignored Americans feel a lot better than you or I. You're just bitter that she was proved right after you tried so hard to discredit her before the election and have stupidly continued to since Trump won exactly where Plato was pointing out he would win for months.
As I said, it's put up or shut up time. I don't know what kind of President Mr Trump will be, but I'm not going to be blindsided in the same manner again, if posters can give me insight into a situation I find difficult to understand then I don't particularly want them silenced by bitter people.
"Whatever it was, she understands how ignored Americans feel a lot better than you or I."
No, she doesn't. Picking a side and spamming about it does not imply knowledge or understanding.
"You're just bitter that she was proved right "
No. I think it's dangerous to take her as some form of sage when she hasn't shown any intelligence with her view. There was no insight, because often her spammed links did not back up the two or three word conclusion she'd give. She did the same over Leadsom.
You know computers, so you know the concept of GIGO. I'd say it applies in the case of her posts about the election.
I'm not bitter; far from, in fact. I haven't blocked anyone, and will continue to give my point of view on things. And I have no intention of silencing Plato, even if she blocks me and other who dare to give a contrary view.
As it happens, I find her jump to the right since the 2015 election funny. Then she was a Cameoronite, fighting for a Conservative victory. Now she's a UKIP donor and devout admirer of the alt-right. Quite a shift.
ICM in recent months has moved to Online polling , so care needs to be taken when making comparisons with its former telephone polls.ICM has had a tendency to understate Labour – even in 1997 it was the only pollster to give Labour a smaller lead than reflectef in the actual outcome. A few commentators also have suggested that they – together with other pollsters – may have overadjusted for their 2015 polling debacle.
ICM in recent months has moved to Online polling , so care needs to be taken when making comparisons with its former telephone polls.ICM has had a tendency to understate Labour – even in 1997 it was the only pollster to give Labour a smaller lead than reflectef in the actual outcome. A few commentators also have suggested that they – together with other pollsters – may have overadjusted for their 2015 polling debacle.
Who are these commentators and can you provide links please ?
I was only 18 at the time of the 2005 election so I didn't follow it all that closely, but to what extent were the Tories helped by the Lib Dems going from 18.8% of the vote to 22.7%? Did they take votes off the Tories while the Tories took votes off of Labour? Or did Labour to Lib Dem switchers help the Tories gain a few seats? If the latter happened I'd suggest that was in spite of Howard rather than because of him.
@PaulBrandITV: French ambassador's spokesperson: "The UK cannot pick and choose when it comes to European policy, keeping only the ones it can profit from"
There is nothing surprising in that comment which has been repeated by many in the EU since Brexit.
Any deal is a compromise and a way will be found that works for both sides in due course but we need to get on with it
ICM in recent months has moved to Online polling , so care needs to be taken when making comparisons with its former telephone polls.ICM has had a tendency to understate Labour – even in 1997 it was the only pollster to give Labour a smaller lead than reflectef in the actual outcome. A few commentators also have suggested that they – together with other pollsters – may have overadjusted for their 2015 polling debacle.
Hear that? The sound of the world's tiniest straw being squeezed to death.....
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
Should they resist it? it is a news story... President elect says x and it is controversial...
It sure would be nice though if they followed it with a rider saying "warning this man lies so frequently that it's best to disbelieve what he says until proven true"...
would the supreme court allow such a law anyway? Wouldn't flag burning come under first amendment rigths?
Most likely you're right, probably comes under free speech. The media in the US are being played massively by Trump, they're dancing along to his tune as they have done pretty much every day for the past eighteen months. It's hillarious to watch, especially as they appear not to have noticed the game they're playing.
The fact that nobody is actually finding these people in reality suggests illegal immigrants aren't voting on any scale, which is obvious since it would be a felony committed in broad daylight.
You'd have to be a pretty stupid illegal immigrant [which - as a rule - they're not] to go and vote. Especially in California.
But there are plenty who are voting without educational qualifications or property ownership...
Saw in one of the debates that some illegal immigrants actually pay federal income taxes, which is interesting.
David I don't the UK economy's basic problem is that it is undertaxed! We are, despite the rhetoric, still overspending. I'd recommend we reconvene when DFiD and a few quangos have been taken behind the woodshed to have a more sensible tax vs spend conversation.
There is scope to cut DFID, though that would break an election promise (albeit one that few likely Con voters care about) - but it'd still be trimming at the edges. In reality, for what the electorate wants from public services, I'd say that yes, it is undertaxed: that's why there's a deficit.
Wouldn't it be possible to class any single market fees for the EU as international aid? Especially given that most of the money goes into the solidarity fund for poorer regions in Europe. Once we're out of the CAP any money paid to the EU would surely be used for development funding, which is aid by any other name. Kills two birds with one stone IMO. The ais budget is too big and the country expects savings from leaving.
Agreed. A great idea from whoever first suggested it on here.
"Whatever it was, she understands how ignored Americans feel a lot better than you or I."
No, she doesn't. Picking a side and spamming about it does not imply knowledge or understanding.
"You're just bitter that she was proved right "
No. I think it's dangerous to take her as some form of sage when she hasn't shown any intelligence with her view. There was no insight, because often her spammed links did not back up the two or three word conclusion she'd give. She did the same over Leadsom.
You know computers, so you know the concept of GIGO. I'd say it applies in the case of her posts about the election.
I'm not bitter; far from, in fact. I haven't blocked anyone, and will continue to give my point of view on things. And I have no intention of silencing Plato, even if she blocks me and other who dare to give a contrary view.
As it happens, I find her jump to the right since the 2015 election funny. Then she was a Cameoronite, fighting for a Conservative victory. Now she's a UKIP donor and devout admirer of the alt-right. Quite a shift.
Plato posted exactly why she thought Trump would win and exactly how Trump's missteps were playing in middle America. Everyone else dismissed it and in the old world of betting shops most of us woild have been properly buggered. It's only because we know how to interpret early results on PB that most of us came out on top for the night.
Which is what this all boils down to, betting. You've constantly been shitting on Plato since Trump won and it has been quite personal in some cases, if we have someone here with better insight into a situation we have a lesser understanding of then we shouldn't seek to silence them as you are clearly attempting to do, despite protestations of the opposite.
Whatever her political journey may be, it is irrelevant to me. No offence to Plato, it's just her personal choice who to vote for and donate to, I'm not going judge her on anything so trivial.
@Peston: Malta PM reiterates all EU government heads agree that Brexit deal must be worse for Britain than current EU membership
Given that no deal at all would still be better than current EU membership that strikes me as a deluded statement.
We could have a deal where we no longer enjoy the expert advice of the EU Commission and instead have to think for ourselves. A worse deal in the eyes of the EU?
Comments
instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
All very fine but the mantra had its origin in the heyday of the old English country gentleman MP who stood for "Independence" at the hustings and then settled down to supporting the government of the day (usually Tory) in the House of Commons. They despised democracy and public opinion and usually opposed reform of all types.
They took a large YouGov poll not intended for this purpose and extrapolated from 67 people who said they were illegal immigrants who voted.
Electoral registration records are public data, and there are lots of people with an agenda to look for this, so if it's really happening on this scale you should be able to get this many actual, identified voters. The fact that nobody is actually finding these people in reality suggests illegal immigrants aren't voting on any scale, which is obvious since it would be a felony committed in broad daylight.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/803569149091909632
Michael McDonald @ElectProject 22h22 hours ago
2/ I don't think Trump actually believes millions of illegals voted. This is laying groundwork for voting rights attack
0 replies . 62 retweets 84 likes
B ) what policies can they swing behind that coalesces their former voters?
Considering Trump is supposed to be swearing an oath soon to "protect and defend the constitution of the United States" ... that should include Trump.
But there are plenty who are voting without educational qualifications or property ownership...
As for part B ) dunno know.
But we've got a de facto presidential system, removing Corbyn from leadership gives Labour more of a hearing and thus a chance at the next general election.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/
Apparently a significant number of people clicked the wrong box on the form and said they were not us citizens...
http://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/opinion/david-herdson-time-right-income-tax-hike
And the Labour vote halves....
Not that that wouldn't necessarily be an improvement on Corbyn electorally of course.
As Sherlock said, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
He didn't get this far and control the supposed media pundits and experts like this by accident.
If one stops assuming he's an idiot - who happens to have become a billionaire with a 14yr run as a reality star and now POTUS Elect - it all makes sense. Dump the prejudice and look at the evidence.
It's gobsmackingly obviously to me and has been for many months. Confirmation bias is a hugely strong pull for everyone - however Trump has shown a dozens times or more that he's playing a superior game - be it ground war, passion, policy, killing opponents off, driving the media narrative...
So IDS had to be toppled, even if his replacement had something of the night about him*. Had the Tories not gained those 30 odd seats in 2005, then in 2010 a Labour/Lib Dem coalition would been in power in 2010.
The UK would be a very different place today.
*Ann Widdecombe was misquoted, she was praising Michael Howard's chivalry, and said he has something of the Knight about him.
So, care to tell us why you think he'll be a successful president?
He might also have to take a much harder line on those who have sympathies with those who do not support our national interest. Indeed, those who would actively seek to undermine it. I would suggest there is a far larger proportion of people who sympathise with such people within Labour's membership than exists in the pool of floating voters in the UK....
!
Given the polling numbers and the completely ineffective opposition, would a Conservative government not be better off spending the limited political capital on addressing spending in the largest departments, rather than increasing taxes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s
IIRC, Sanctuary Cities are places where illegal immigrants can report crimes without fear of ICE agents turning up to deport them.
Trump isn't advocating changing that as he wants to get rid of illegal criminals first - and a long way ahead of everyone else [who still didn't follow the law]. The Mayors of places like Chicago are however going down another ideological route that any illegal immigrant will be offered sanctuary de facto - akin to hiding in a church here, but covering an entire city area.
Re 2007, yes you're right, without Howard becoming leader, he would not have given Cameron the patronage to help him become leader.
Remember, as it stands, it would be very unlikely that McDonnell or any hard left candidate would get enough nominations to stand as leader.
Labour MPs won't be giving out any sympathy nominations this time!
To eliminate the deficit based on those numbers would require a 14 pence per pound increase in income tax. I think that would devastate the economy personally.
It sure would be nice though if they followed it with a rider saying "warning this man lies so frequently that it's best to disbelieve what he says until proven true"...
Still, she's obviously an oracle, as PM Leadsom can attest.
I'm getting to the point where explaining this repeatedly is just pointless. I've been at it for months and roundly rubbished - and still the prevailing attitude is that Trump is an idiot. When someone was right, does the groupthink of such a supposedly sophisticated readership stop and think? Like Hell it does. It carries on with it's blue blanket, rather than inspect itself.
What's the evidence that Trump is an idiot? I'm not seeing anything bar a load of prejudice masquerading as Acceptable Viewpoint amongst the vast majority of PBers reinforcing itself.
Urgh. I'm bored of trying to help others who haven't spent hundreds of hours trying to understand it. They aren't listening.
I approve of it entirely.
I'm sceptical about the 'choking off growth' arguments (for a 2p rise anyway). Previous cuts in Income Tax don't look to have done much to boost growth in the quarters following their implementation.
How, pray, do you think she did that? By reading, thinking, and applying intelligence, or just following a few alt-right websites and spamming their contents without reading?
Now she's creating strawmen in every post to knock down.
Perhaps you ought to follow the advice you give in your last line.
One of the reasons less spoken about toppling IDS, the Tories thought the soon to be published Hutton report would give them enough ammo to topple Blair. They knew IDS wasn't up to the job, but they needed an eminent QC to do the job, step forward Michael Howard QC
I don't mind. Their self-righteousness means nothing when they've lost the argument in a cultural war, as well as a political one.
As I said, it's put up or shut up time. I don't know what kind of President Mr Trump will be, but I'm not going to be blindsided in the same manner again, if posters can give me insight into a situation I find difficult to understand then I don't particularly want them silenced by bitter people.
I mean David, why didn't you blackball him when you had the chance and spare all us from him becoming an MP?
Test matches, stakes of £100; NB {fav, 2fav, dog} includes the draw as one of the options.
https://twitter.com/FrogCrunchy/status/803581624852029440
He's been playing them for years and they still can't resist. It's beyond stupid Pavlovian Dog response. I can forgive some less knowledgable PBers falling for it - but news anchors in the US need a slap.
When following a Test for five days, it's now pretty difficult to end up losing money on Betfair - but someone obviously must be!
Boulton said on Sky this morning that a poll showed that 65% dismiss the opinion of the MSM and it does make you think that they do need to re-calibrate their reporting if they want to be listened to at all
No, she doesn't. Picking a side and spamming about it does not imply knowledge or understanding.
"You're just bitter that she was proved right "
No. I think it's dangerous to take her as some form of sage when she hasn't shown any intelligence with her view. There was no insight, because often her spammed links did not back up the two or three word conclusion she'd give. She did the same over Leadsom.
You know computers, so you know the concept of GIGO. I'd say it applies in the case of her posts about the election.
I'm not bitter; far from, in fact. I haven't blocked anyone, and will continue to give my point of view on things. And I have no intention of silencing Plato, even if she blocks me and other who dare to give a contrary view.
As it happens, I find her jump to the right since the 2015 election funny. Then she was a Cameoronite, fighting for a Conservative victory. Now she's a UKIP donor and devout admirer of the alt-right. Quite a shift.
Any deal is a compromise and a way will be found that works for both sides in due course but we need to get on with it
The let's see who blinks first.
Which is what this all boils down to, betting. You've constantly been shitting on Plato since Trump won and it has been quite personal in some cases, if we have someone here with better insight into a situation we have a lesser understanding of then we shouldn't seek to silence them as you are clearly attempting to do, despite protestations of the opposite.
Whatever her political journey may be, it is irrelevant to me. No offence to Plato, it's just her personal choice who to vote for and donate to, I'm not going judge her on anything so trivial.