The latest poll by Ipsos, fieldwork conducted on Friday, Bayrou not on the list, gives Mélenchon and Macron 15% and 18% to Valls's 9%, and 20% and 13% to Hamon's 8%.
That reads as though in the case of Hamon making it through it is Melenchon 20%, Macron 13% and Hamon 8%.
Think you have the numbers for Melenchon and Macron transposed. Macron is on 20% and Melenchon 13% in that scenario in that poll.
If Macron, the centrist, former banker, EU fanatic and Hollande's former "vice-president" (that's four vote-losing attributes), overtakes Fillon - Sarkozy's former prime minister who promises to sack half a million workers in the public sector (how did increasing unemployment fare in the focus groups?) - there will be big smiles in the leadership of Le Pen's National Front. "Europe" is the issue she wants to fight the election on. Or at least it functions as the polite side of the immigration issue. Does that remind us of something?
The latest poll by Ipsos, fieldwork conducted on Friday, Bayrou not on the list, gives Mélenchon and Macron 15% and 18% to Valls's 9%, and 20% and 13% to Hamon's 8%.
The PCF-backed candidate Mélenchon is handing Valls's and Hamon's arses to them on a plate. As far as I know, no mainstream newspaper is reporting it like that.
Pre-first round TV debates may be forced to happen even if "establishment" candidates Macron and Fillon and the PS candidate don't want them. At which point Macron in a polarisation contest is toast.
Partly agree. Le Pen only has a chance of winning the Presidency if she is not facing Fillon in round 2 (Macron likewise). A Le Pen v Macron second round would be interesting, and probably close, whereas I think Fillon would be transfer friendly in either scenario and comfortably beat whichever of the two he faced.
Where I'm not so sure I agree is whether Le Pen really wants to fight the election on the EU. In France I don't feel that's a particularly strong message (could be wrong) and while Macron's fanaticism may not be entirely in sync with the French electorate, I doubt it's the voter repellent it would be in the UK.
If Macron, the centrist, former banker, EU fanatic and Hollande's former "vice-president" (that's four vote-losing attributes), overtakes Fillon - Sarkozy's former prime minister who promises to sack half a million workers in the public sector (how did increasing unemployment fare in the focus groups?) - there will be big smiles in the leadership of Le Pen's National Front. "Europe" is the issue she wants to fight the election on. Or at least it functions as the polite side of the immigration issue. Does that remind us of something?
The latest poll by Ipsos, fieldwork conducted on Friday, Bayrou not on the list, gives Mélenchon and Macron 15% and 18% to Valls's 9%, and 20% and 13% to Hamon's 8%.
The PCF-backed candidate Mélenchon is handing Valls's and Hamon's arses to them on a plate. As far as I know, no mainstream newspaper is reporting it like that.
Pre-first round TV debates may be forced to happen even if "establishment" candidates Macron and Fillon and the PS candidate don't want them. At which point Macron in a polarisation contest is toast.
Your Macron and Melenchon figures are the wrong way round
If Macron, the centrist, former banker, EU fanatic and Hollande's former "vice-president" (that's four vote-losing attributes), overtakes Fillon - Sarkozy's former prime minister who promises to sack half a million workers in the public sector (how did increasing unemployment fare in the focus groups?) - there will be big smiles in the leadership of Le Pen's National Front. "Europe" is the issue she wants to fight the election on. Or at least it functions as the polite side of the immigration issue. Does that remind us of something?
The latest poll by Ipsos, fieldwork conducted on Friday, Bayrou not on the list, gives Mélenchon and Macron 15% and 18% to Valls's 9%, and 20% and 13% to Hamon's 8%.
The PCF-backed candidate Mélenchon is handing Valls's and Hamon's arses to them on a plate. As far as I know, no mainstream newspaper is reporting it like that.
Pre-first round TV debates may be forced to happen even if "establishment" candidates Macron and Fillon and the PS candidate don't want them. At which point Macron in a polarisation contest is toast.
Partly agree. Le Pen only has a chance of winning the Presidency if she is not facing Fillon in round 2 (Macron likewise). A Le Pen v Macron second round would be interesting, and probably close, whereas I think Fillon would be transfer friendly in either scenario and comfortably beat whichever of the two he faced.
All the polls taken show Macron v Le Pen not even close. Latest poll show 64-36 to Macron.
If Macron, the centrist, former banker, EU fanatic and Hollande's former "vice-president" (that's four vote-losing attributes), overtakes Fillon - Sarkozy's former prime minister who promises to sack half a million workers in the public sector (how did increasing unemployment fare in the focus groups?) - there will be big smiles in the leadership of Le Pen's National Front. "Europe" is the issue she wants to fight the election on. Or at least it functions as the polite side of the immigration issue. Does that remind us of something?
The latest poll by Ipsos, fieldwork conducted on Friday, Bayrou not on the list, gives Mélenchon and Macron 15% and 18% to Valls's 9%, and 20% and 13% to Hamon's 8%.
The PCF-backed candidate Mélenchon is handing Valls's and Hamon's arses to them on a plate. As far as I know, no mainstream newspaper is reporting it like that.
Pre-first round TV debates may be forced to happen even if "establishment" candidates Macron and Fillon and the PS candidate don't want them. At which point Macron in a polarisation contest is toast.
Partly agree. Le Pen only has a chance of winning the Presidency if she is not facing Fillon in round 2 (Macron likewise). A Le Pen v Macron second round would be interesting, and probably close, whereas I think Fillon would be transfer friendly in either scenario and comfortably beat whichever of the two he faced.
All the polls taken show Macron v Le Pen not even close. Latest poll show 64-36 to Macron.
I know, but I also know how much weight I give to that. Not much.
If Macron, the centrist, former banker, EU fanatic and Hollande's former "vice-president" (that's four vote-losing attributes), overtakes Fillon - Sarkozy's former prime minister who promises to sack half a million workers in the public sector (how did increasing unemployment fare in the focus groups?) - there will be big smiles in the leadership of Le Pen's National Front. "Europe" is the issue she wants to fight the election on. Or at least it functions as the polite side of the immigration issue. Does that remind us of something?
The latest poll by Ipsos, fieldwork conducted on Friday, Bayrou not on the list, gives Mélenchon and Macron 15% and 18% to Valls's 9%, and 20% and 13% to Hamon's 8%.
The PCF-backed candidate Mélenchon is handing Valls's and Hamon's arses to them on a plate. As far as I know, no mainstream newspaper is reporting it like that.
Pre-first round TV debates may be forced to happen even if "establishment" candidates Macron and Fillon and the PS candidate don't want them. At which point Macron in a polarisation contest is toast.
Partly agree. Le Pen only has a chance of winning the Presidency if she is not facing Fillon in round 2 (Macron likewise). A Le Pen v Macron second round would be interesting, and probably close, whereas I think Fillon would be transfer friendly in either scenario and comfortably beat whichever of the two he faced.
Where I'm not so sure I agree is whether Le Pen really wants to fight the election on the EU. In France I don't feel that's a particularly strong message (could be wrong) and while Macron's fanaticism may not be entirely in sync with the French electorate, I doubt it's the voter repellent it would be in the UK.
Macron narrowly beat Fillon in the latest second round poll and Le Pen is slightly closer to Fillon than Macron but most polls suggest a Le Pen v Fillon run off with Macron a strong third
If the devolved assemblies did have the right to block Brexit (and they don't, any judgement to that affect by the Supreme Court would be an outrage) May would simply have to pass a new Act that amends the legislation which set up the devolved assemblies to make it clear that they do not need to give permission. No Parliament can bind a future Parliament - May can add this to the A50 bill and pass it that way.
Would that give Theresa the excuse to have a general election?
If the devolved assemblies have the right to block Brexit, then a Westminster majority of 400 wouldn't help Theresa surely? Legally she would still need their approval. N.Ireland would likely be more pragmatic about it if concerns about the border were met, and Wales voted to leave so their politicians will be wary of blocking, but the Scottish parliament and the SNP would delight in blocking "Tory Brexit", unless their deliberately unrealistic demands are met.
The French socialist party has been caught by the press trying to artificially boost the primary turnout figure.
The primary's dedicated website published on Sunday night some partial results without saying how much polling stations were counted.
The last count published at 0h45 on Monday morning was around a total of 1.25 million. Then counting stopped until a new number appeared around 10:00 am. The total of votes was now 1.6 million.
The only problem: the vote share of each candidate was still exactly the same, with a precision of a hundredth of a percent.
It was of course statistically impossible to add 350 000 votes without any change in the shares but the farce went even further.
A journalist saw that there were 160 missing votes between the sum of candidates shares and the total published. 160, or exactly 0,01% of the vote. The reason: the published shares added up to 99.99 for reasons of rounding.
Thus it was perfectly clear that some guy in the socilist party's office chose a turnout number out of thin air and applied to it the shares published the night before.
As journalists started asking question, 161 votes mysteriously reappeared, added to one of the candidates.
But now there was one vote in excess of the total... so the total was adjusted a few minutes later.
The socialist party spent the whole day denying any problem, and refusing to answer questions from the press. Then they explained that there were "a series of computer bugs" from a third-party supplier.
And then they finally confessed a "human error", a mistake (une connerie) by a member of the orgnaization.
But the final results are still not published and nobody expects them to be true.
This could be funny but I actually feel sad for the (unknown number of) people that made the effort to vote on Sunday.
An organiser of the campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes has been handed a place at Oxford University – as a Rhodes scholar.
Joshua Nott, 23, was a key publicist behind South Africa's Rhodes Must Fall movement and was central in the battle by Cape Town University students to tear down a statue of the British mining magnate.
But the privately educated student, who likened the statue to 'a swastika in Jerusalem', will receive nearly £40,000 in Rhodes's name to study postgraduate law.
An organiser of the campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes has been handed a place at Oxford University – as a Rhodes scholar.
Joshua Nott, 23, was a key publicist behind South Africa's Rhodes Must Fall movement and was central in the battle by Cape Town University students to tear down a statue of the British mining magnate.
But the privately educated student, who likened the statue to 'a swastika in Jerusalem', will receive nearly £40,000 in Rhodes's name to study postgraduate law.
No Parliament can bind it's successor. If it's ruled the three devolved administration's needs to offer " legislative consent motions " to allow Westminster to legislate for Brexit then Westminster can simply amending the Devolution settlements by primary legislation.
What's at stake is ( a) that that would be slow. ( b ) constitutional dynamite. All three devolution settlements were ratified by referendums. Twice in Wales' case. In the Scots and Ulster cases they voted Remain as well. Westminster would be repatriating powers from Belfast and Edinburgh devolved by extant referenda in order to force through Brexit which both ' nations ' also voted against in referenda.
And of course in the Northern Irish case the devolution settlement was also approved by the Republic ( who amended their own constitution ) in a referendum.
By count you could argue Westminster would be repatriating powers countrary to 7 separate referendum results.
They could do it constitutionally but it would be slow and it would be dynamite.
As a non lawyer I doubt the Supreme Court will go that far in creating constitutional law and the " normally " in the Sewell Convention gives them a huge get out.
One other thing. The Good Friday Agreement isn't just UK law. It was put into international law as a UK/RoI Treaty as well.
On the Betting the Guardian saws lawyers for both sides will be given the judgement in secret at 8 am before it's read out in court at 0930. So Betfair may well move.
And this isn't moot. The Scotland Act 2016 makes a weak attempt at developing constitutional law and binding successor parliaments. It states the Scottish Parliament and Government are permanent and neither can be abolished without a referendum. Superficially this is nonsense as the Act could just be repealed as well as the SNP pointed out at the time. However only *last year* Parliament at least said it wanted to change the Constitution and bind it's successors in regards the devolution settlement. Which the EU is written into.
All roads lead to Rome. All post Brexit wrangling leads to no one thinking the referendum would be lost. The Referendum Act is a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast Act in constitutional terms. It beggars belief these issues weren't clarified in the Act it's self. Getting Supreme Court rulings on basic issues 7 months after the vote is ludicrous. The House of Lords in particular should be ashamed of it's self.
Of course if these issues had all been clarified the case for some sort of super majority being needed for Brexit would have been enormous.
No Parliament can bind it's successor. If it's ruled the three devolved administration's needs to offer " legislative consent motions " to allow Westminster to legislate for Brexit then Westminster can simply amending the Devolution settlements by primary legislation.
What's at stake is ( a) that that would be slow. ( b ) constitutional dynamite. All three devolution settlements were ratified by referendums. Twice in Wales' case. In the Scots and Ulster cases they voted Remain as well. Westminster would be repatriating powers from Belfast and Edinburgh devolved by extant referenda in order to force through Brexit which both ' nations ' also voted against in referenda.
And of course in the Northern Irish case the devolution settlement was also approved by the Republic ( who amended their own constitution ) in a referendum.
By count you could argue Westminster would be repatriating powers countrary to 7 separate referendum results.
They could do it constitutionally but it would be slow and it would be dynamite.
As a non lawyer I doubt the Supreme Court will go that far in creating constitutional law and the " normally " in the Sewell Convention gives them a huge get out.
One other thing. The Good Friday Agreement isn't just UK law. It was put into international law as a UK/RoI Treaty as well.
On your first paragraph, a future parliament could simply repeal the relevant bits of the Act.
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union;
Have agreed as follows:
It's hard to argue that leaving the EU doesn't undermine the foundation of this agreement. Ireland has been quite passive about Brexit so far and there are now more calls for them to be more assertive in insisting the UK sticks to its obligations.
Let it be plain that the Dublin government is openly determined to protect its most important diplomatic achievement since it won full sovereignty between 1922 and 1949. It must publicly tell its fellow EU member-states that it has a principled bottom-line, for which there are no acceptable pay-offs.
If that is what the North wants, let's give them full union with RoI. Then they won't have to leave the EU, nor suffer an imposed border.
If Macron, the centrist, former banker, EU fanatic and Hollande's former "vice-president" (that's four vote-losing attributes), overtakes Fillon - Sarkozy's former prime minister who promises to sack half a million workers in the public sector (how did increasing unemployment fare in the focus groups?) - there will be big smiles in the leadership of Le Pen's National Front. "Europe" is the issue she wants to fight the election on. Or at least it functions as the polite side of the immigration issue. Does that remind us of something?
The latest poll by Ipsos, fieldwork conducted on Friday, Bayrou not on the list, gives Mélenchon and Macron 15% and 18% to Valls's 9%, and 20% and 13% to Hamon's 8%.
The PCF-backed candidate Mélenchon is handing Valls's and Hamon's arses to them on a plate. As far as I know, no mainstream newspaper is reporting it like that.
Pre-first round TV debates may be forced to happen even if "establishment" candidates Macron and Fillon and the PS candidate don't want them. At which point Macron in a polarisation contest is toast.
Your Macron and Melenchon figures are the wrong way round
Thanks for this correction. I swapped the second pair by mistake. The figures should be
Times implies that US navigation system was at fault.
We are paying £40bn for the horseshit!
Worked 160 times before, apparently!
Its clear the submarine did what it was supposed to do, the missile less so (although it actually did do what it was supposed to do under the circumstances) ....meanwhile its giving the hysterics a good chance for a bit of drama - Roger had us sending 'nuclear weapons towards Florida!'.
Next he'll be telling us there's nothing to the Saville allegations!
In short: Le Pen edges upwards, in both the first round (27% +1), and in the second round against Fillon (38% +2). Macron moves ahead of Fillon in the second round (54:46). And Farage's favoured candidate, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, drops to 2%.
The big question is now whether Bayrou will stand (which would practically ensure a Fillon vs Le Pen second round), or whether he does not and endorses one of Fillon or Macron.
Bayrou has announced that he will be launching a book (Résolution Française) at the beginning of February, and will then make a decision. According to the French press, Fillon has been smothering Bayrou with love, and some are reporting that a deal has already been agreed.
But we shall see. After having been an early backer, I think Macron looks marginally too short - unless Bayrou endorses him. I also don't see the value in Le Pen given that she's 24 points behind Fillon in the second round.
All roads lead to Rome. All post Brexit wrangling leads to no one thinking the referendum would be lost. The Referendum Act is a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast Act in constitutional terms. It beggars belief these issues weren't clarified in the Act it's self. Getting Supreme Court rulings on basic issues 7 months after the vote is ludicrous. The House of Lords in particular should be ashamed of it's self.
Of course if these issues had all been clarified the case for some sort of super majority being needed for Brexit would have been enormous.
No super majority was necessary for us to join the European Union.
All roads lead to Rome. All post Brexit wrangling leads to no one thinking the referendum would be lost. The Referendum Act is a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast Act in constitutional terms. It beggars belief these issues weren't clarified in the Act it's self. Getting Supreme Court rulings on basic issues 7 months after the vote is ludicrous. The House of Lords in particular should be ashamed of it's self.
Of course if these issues had all been clarified the case for some sort of super majority being needed for Brexit would have been enormous.
No super majority was necessary for us to join the European Union.
Nor for Scotland to end the Union.....
Which reminds me.
Scots who voted to stay in UK: 2,001,926 Scots who voted to stay in the EU: 1,661,191
All roads lead to Rome. All post Brexit wrangling leads to no one thinking the referendum would be lost. The Referendum Act is a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast Act in constitutional terms. It beggars belief these issues weren't clarified in the Act it's self. Getting Supreme Court rulings on basic issues 7 months after the vote is ludicrous. The House of Lords in particular should be ashamed of it's self.
Of course if these issues had all been clarified the case for some sort of super majority being needed for Brexit would have been enormous.
No super majority was necessary for us to join the European Union.
All referendums should require more than a simple majority to be valid and of course be more than advisory! Two thirds voting for a change should suffice.
Times implies that US navigation system was at fault.
We are paying £40bn for the horseshit!
Worked 160 times before, apparently!
Its clear the submarine did what it was supposed to do, the missile less so (although it actually did do what it was supposed to do under the circumstances) ....meanwhile its giving the hysterics a good chance for a bit of drama - Roger had us sending 'nuclear weapons towards Florida!'.
Next he'll be telling us there's nothing to the Saville allegations!
Oh wait, he has.....
I understand the zeal of a new convert but your unwavering loyalty would embarrass 'Wings over Scotland'
All roads lead to Rome. All post Brexit wrangling leads to no one thinking the referendum would be lost. The Referendum Act is a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast Act in constitutional terms. It beggars belief these issues weren't clarified in the Act it's self. Getting Supreme Court rulings on basic issues 7 months after the vote is ludicrous. The House of Lords in particular should be ashamed of it's self.
Of course if these issues had all been clarified the case for some sort of super majority being needed for Brexit would have been enormous.
No super majority was necessary for us to join the European Union.
Nor for Scotland to end the Union.....
Which reminds me.
Scots who voted to stay in UK: 2,001,926 Scots who voted to stay in the EU: 1,661,191
If you were Nicola Sturgeon you'd be hoping for two things from today: 1. That the Supreme Court rules that Brexit cannot proceed without the say-so of the devolved Parliaments of the UK. 2. That the Westminster government legislates to overturn this. It would be all her Christmases come at once. What an absolute joke the Cameron government was. We are where we are this morning as a direct consequence of its incompetence. All Tories railing against unelected judges after today's judgment would do well to remember that. The legislation that enacted the referendum, which they supported and which they voted for, did not have to be written in the way it was.
Times implies that US navigation system was at fault.
We are paying £40bn for the horseshit!
Worked 160 times before, apparently!
Its clear the submarine did what it was supposed to do, the missile less so (although it actually did do what it was supposed to do under the circumstances) ....meanwhile its giving the hysterics a good chance for a bit of drama - Roger had us sending 'nuclear weapons towards Florida!'.
Next he'll be telling us there's nothing to the Saville allegations!
Oh wait, he has.....
I understand the zeal of a new convert but your unwavering loyalty would embarrass 'Wings over Scotland'
New convert to what?
You do know that we test fire unarmed missiles, don't you?
And today the Times says it was the US that asked us to keep quiet about the result - but apparently yesterday's story was true but today's story false.....
An organiser of the campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes has been handed a place at Oxford University – as a Rhodes scholar.
Joshua Nott, 23, was a key publicist behind South Africa's Rhodes Must Fall movement and was central in the battle by Cape Town University students to tear down a statue of the British mining magnate.
But the privately educated student, who likened the statue to 'a swastika in Jerusalem', will receive nearly £40,000 in Rhodes's name to study postgraduate law.
Doesn’t one have to APPLY for these things? I know that dons will advise promising students to do so, but it’s still the individuals decision to sign the piece of paper.
A retreat from the TPP now gives Beijing, which has been negotiating its own trade blocs, a chance to fill a void. Since Trump's election, the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia have shifted toward China's proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which would also reduce tariffs — without many of the standards put in place by Obama's plan — and redirect Asian trade China's way. Other nations in the region are likely to follow suit.
"We don't have the choice America has. It's big enough that they can make a living selling things to themselves," said New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English on Monday. "We have to trade."
The view in South East Asia very much appears to be 'Pity, but lets do a deal with China instead' - China was excluded from the TPP, at America's insistence - now its going to replace America.
It makes you wonder what any deal TM makes with him is worth. Why would anyone believe a congenital liar?
Trump clearly can't be trusted. Any deal we do is bound to be limited as it would need to get through Congress. It is hard to see America First translating into something that improves our competitive advantage in the US if it reduces in any way existing home producer advantages there without considerable American gains here. Nothing that comes to fruition will come close to compensating for withdrawal from single market membership.
A retreat from the TPP now gives Beijing, which has been negotiating its own trade blocs, a chance to fill a void. Since Trump's election, the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia have shifted toward China's proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which would also reduce tariffs — without many of the standards put in place by Obama's plan — and redirect Asian trade China's way. Other nations in the region are likely to follow suit.
"We don't have the choice America has. It's big enough that they can make a living selling things to themselves," said New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English on Monday. "We have to trade."
The view in South East Asia very much appears to be 'Pity, but lets do a deal with China instead' - China was excluded from the TPP, at America's insistence - now its going to replace America.
Yep - it's great news for China. And American companies will find it tougher to do business in what could have been a rapidly expanding market for them. Now it'll be one in which China writes the rules. You'd also expect China and the EU to move closer together tradewise over the coming years. The danger is that we'll be on the outside looking in, tied to the coat-tails of a protectionist America. What is certain is that to a great extent we will be reliant on the largesse of others for our prosperity. They will tell us what trade deals they are prepared to give us.
All roads lead to Rome. All post Brexit wrangling leads to no one thinking the referendum would be lost. The Referendum Act is a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast Act in constitutional terms. It beggars belief these issues weren't clarified in the Act it's self. Getting Supreme Court rulings on basic issues 7 months after the vote is ludicrous. The House of Lords in particular should be ashamed of it's self.
Of course if these issues had all been clarified the case for some sort of super majority being needed for Brexit would have been enormous.
No super majority was necessary for us to join the European Union.
All referendums should require more than a simple majority to be valid and of course be more than advisory! Two thirds voting for a change should suffice.
Why stop there? The EU is so fundamental to our interests, I think it should be three quarters.
Times implies that US navigation system was at fault.
We are paying £40bn for the horseshit!
Worked 160 times before, apparently!
Its clear the submarine did what it was supposed to do, the missile less so (although it actually did do what it was supposed to do under the circumstances) ....meanwhile its giving the hysterics a good chance for a bit of drama - Roger had us sending 'nuclear weapons towards Florida!'.
Next he'll be telling us there's nothing to the Saville allegations!
Oh wait, he has.....
I understand the zeal of a new convert but your unwavering loyalty would embarrass 'Wings over Scotland'
New convert to what?
You do know that we test fire unarmed missiles, don't you?
And today the Times says it was the US that asked us to keep quiet about the result - but apparently yesterday's story was true but today's story false.....
Theresa May. The one who can do no wrong. To put your mind at rest I don't think anyone is blaming her for the mishap. The operation of a nuclear weapon is something even Sun Readers wouldn't expect a PM to supervise.
Her performance on Marr though is a different matter.
Times implies that US navigation system was at fault.
We are paying £40bn for the horseshit!
Worked 160 times before, apparently!
Its clear the submarine did what it was supposed to do, the missile less so (although it actually did do what it was supposed to do under the circumstances) ....meanwhile its giving the hysterics a good chance for a bit of drama - Roger had us sending 'nuclear weapons towards Florida!'.
Next he'll be telling us there's nothing to the Saville allegations!
Oh wait, he has.....
I understand the zeal of a new convert but your unwavering loyalty would embarrass 'Wings over Scotland'
New convert to what?
You do know that we test fire unarmed missiles, don't you?
And today the Times says it was the US that asked us to keep quiet about the result - but apparently yesterday's story was true but today's story false.....
Theresa May.
How can I be a 'new convert' to someone I've known for forty years?
As to May's Marr performance I thought it pretty decent stonewalling. Standard interview technique 'answer the question YOU want, not (necessarily) the one you were asked.
We'd been asked by an ally to keep quiet - so instead she bashed Corbyn.
You'd rather she trashed an ally?
'Yes, the missile went wrong, but it was American kit, not British'
There are many perfectly good reasons for objecting to Trident. Very high reliability isn't one of them....
What, wanting only Americans to be allowed to vote in the American election? Sounds pretty reasonable. As, by the way, do those other terribly repressive measures such as denying prisoners the vote, requiring I'D to ensure people can only vote once, and such fraud preventing measures.
Times implies that US navigation system was at fault.
We are paying £40bn for the horseshit!
Worked 160 times before, apparently!
Its clear the submarine did what it was supposed to do, the missile less so (although it actually did do what it was supposed to do under the circumstances) ....meanwhile its giving the hysterics a good chance for a bit of drama - Roger had us sending 'nuclear weapons towards Florida!'.
Next he'll be telling us there's nothing to the Saville allegations!
Oh wait, he has.....
I understand the zeal of a new convert but your unwavering loyalty would embarrass 'Wings over Scotland'
New convert to what?
You do know that we test fire unarmed missiles, don't you?
And today the Times says it was the US that asked us to keep quiet about the result - but apparently yesterday's story was true but today's story false.....
Theresa May.
How can I be a 'new convert' to someone I've known for forty years?
As to May's Marr performance I thought it pretty decent stonewalling. Standard interview technique 'answer the question YOU want, not (necessarily) the one you were asked.
We'd been asked by an ally to keep quiet - so instead she bashed Corbyn.
You'd rather she trashed an ally?
'Yes, the missile went wrong, but it was American kit, not British'
There are many perfectly good reasons for objecting to Trident. Very high reliability isn't one of them....
Oddly enough I was asked by the wife of a friend to write a one page message for his 60th birthday for a surprise book she was putting together. When I got to see the book TM was the entry before mine. I think they must have known each other at university. This was before she was PM but he said she was nice enough and her message was quite witty.
What, wanting only Americans to be allowed to vote in the American election? Sounds pretty reasonable. As, by the way, do those other terribly repressive measures such as denying prisoners the vote, requiring I'D to ensure people can only vote once, and such fraud preventing measures.
Fraud preventing measures designed to tackle widespread fraud that does not exist while preventing demographics that tend to vote for your opponents from casting ballots is suppression.
What, wanting only Americans to be allowed to vote in the American election? Sounds pretty reasonable. As, by the way, do those other terribly repressive measures such as denying prisoners the vote, requiring I'D to ensure people can only vote once, and such fraud preventing measures.
The specific measure they tend to take is to require people to show a government-issued ID to vote. See this in Wisconsin, for example. You generally have to get this ID from the driving license centre. I've never had to visit an American DMV, but it's a world-famous example of a horrible customer experience, generally advanced to show how bad the government is at running things.
This obviously depresses the vote among people who don't drive, because they would have to go through this experience just to be able to vote with no other upside, whereas drivers were going to suffer through it anyway to be allowed to drive.
A retreat from the TPP now gives Beijing, which has been negotiating its own trade blocs, a chance to fill a void. Since Trump's election, the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia have shifted toward China's proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which would also reduce tariffs — without many of the standards put in place by Obama's plan — and redirect Asian trade China's way. Other nations in the region are likely to follow suit.
"We don't have the choice America has. It's big enough that they can make a living selling things to themselves," said New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English on Monday. "We have to trade."
The view in South East Asia very much appears to be 'Pity, but lets do a deal with China instead' - China was excluded from the TPP, at America's insistence - now its going to replace America.
Considering China is in the same region as those nations unlike the U.S. hardly that surprising if it becomes another regional trading block. However given the criticism from the left of TPP including from the likes of George Monbiot as well as the protectionist right it was probably the most popular move Trump has made so far
What, wanting only Americans to be allowed to vote in the American election? Sounds pretty reasonable. As, by the way, do those other terribly repressive measures such as denying prisoners the vote, requiring I'D to ensure people can only vote once, and such fraud preventing measures.
Denying ex-prisoners the vote, as well as prisoners. Yes, it all sounds reasonable and yet by coincidence these various measures always seem to favour the party proposing them.
All roads lead to Rome. All post Brexit wrangling leads to no one thinking the referendum would be lost. The Referendum Act is a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast Act in constitutional terms. It beggars belief these issues weren't clarified in the Act it's self. Getting Supreme Court rulings on basic issues 7 months after the vote is ludicrous. The House of Lords in particular should be ashamed of it's self.
Of course if these issues had all been clarified the case for some sort of super majority being needed for Brexit would have been enormous.
No super majority was necessary for us to join the European Union.
All referendums should require more than a simple majority to be valid and of course be more than advisory! Two thirds voting for a change should suffice.
Then, the easiest thing is not to have referendums at all. Fine, but don't fool yourself that you are a democrat.
One thing that the Remainers might consider is that the (Welsh) Tories lost the referendum on Welsh devolution 50.3 to 49.7, a truly minuscule amount.
To their credit, they accepted the result. They have not tried to reverse it.
Who would have thought we would live to see the day when Welsh Tories have more credibility than the LibDems & those in Labour who want to Overturn the Result?
In short: Le Pen edges upwards, in both the first round (27% +1), and in the second round against Fillon (38% +2). Macron moves ahead of Fillon in the second round (54:46). And Farage's favoured candidate, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, drops to 2%.
The big question is now whether Bayrou will stand (which would practically ensure a Fillon vs Le Pen second round), or whether he does not and endorses one of Fillon or Macron.
Bayrou has announced that he will be launching a book (Résolution Française) at the beginning of February, and will then make a decision. According to the French press, Fillon has been smothering Bayrou with love, and some are reporting that a deal has already been agreed.
But we shall see. After having been an early backer, I think Macron looks marginally too short - Pen unless Bayrou endorses him. I also don't see the value in Le Pen given that she's 24 points behind Fillon in the second round.
Even without Bayrou Macron is still 6% behind Fillon on that poll and 7% behind Le Pen
Times implies that US navigation system was at fault.
We are paying £40bn for the horseshit!
Worked 160 times before, apparently!
Its clear the submarine did what it was supposed to do, the missile less so (although it actually did do what it was supposed to do under the circumstances) ....meanwhile its giving the hysterics a good chance for a bit of drama - Roger had us sending 'nuclear weapons towards Florida!'.
Next he'll be telling us there's nothing to the Saville allegations!
Oh wait, he has.....
I understand the zeal of a new convert but your unwavering loyalty would embarrass 'Wings over Scotland'
New convert to what?
You do know that we test fire unarmed missiles, don't you?
And today the Times says it was the US that asked us to keep quiet about the result - but apparently yesterday's story was true but today's story false.....
Theresa May.
How can I be a 'new convert' to someone I've known for forty years?
As to May's Marr performance I thought it pretty decent stonewalling. Standard interview technique 'answer the question YOU want, not (necessarily) the one you were asked.
We'd been asked by an ally to keep quiet - so instead she bashed Corbyn.
You'd rather she trashed an ally?
'Yes, the missile went wrong, but it was American kit, not British'
There are many perfectly good reasons for objecting to Trident. Very high reliability isn't one of them....
Oddly enough I was asked by the wife of a friend to write a one page message for his 60th birthday for a surprise book she was putting together. When I got to see the book TM was the entry before mine. I think they must have known each other at university. This was before she was PM but he said she was nice enough and her message was quite witty.
An article which I think give a fair measure of May:
What, wanting only Americans to be allowed to vote in the American election? Sounds pretty reasonable. As, by the way, do those other terribly repressive measures such as denying prisoners the vote, requiring I'D to ensure people can only vote once, and such fraud preventing measures.
Denying ex-prisoners the vote, as well as prisoners. Yes, it all sounds reasonable and yet by coincidence these various measures always seem to favour the party proposing them.
Other tricks include fake flyers saying their voting location had changed, giving the wrong deadline for registering to vote, calling people and telling them their candidate has already won on polling day so no need to show up, using voter caging to wrongly remove people from the electoral roll etc.
A retreat from the TPP now gives Beijing, which has been negotiating its own trade blocs, a chance to fill a void. Since Trump's election, the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia have shifted toward China's proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which would also reduce tariffs — without many of the standards put in place by Obama's plan — and redirect Asian trade China's way. Other nations in the region are likely to follow suit.
"We don't have the choice America has. It's big enough that they can make a living selling things to themselves," said New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English on Monday. "We have to trade."
The view in South East Asia very much appears to be 'Pity, but lets do a deal with China instead' - China was excluded from the TPP, at America's insistence - now its going to replace America.
I think this is key. When you trade with someone, you become closer to them and you become - as a small country - dependent on them.
By departing the Pacific, New Zealand and other countries become closer to China. America loses its influence.
In short: Le Pen edges upwards, in both the first round (27% +1), and in the second round against Fillon (38% +2). Macron moves ahead of Fillon in the second round (54:46). And Farage's favoured candidate, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, drops to 2%.
The big question is now whether Bayrou will stand (which would practically ensure a Fillon vs Le Pen second round), or whether he does not and endorses one of Fillon or Macron.
Bayrou has announced that he will be launching a book (Résolution Française) at the beginning of February, and will then make a decision. According to the French press, Fillon has been smothering Bayrou with love, and some are reporting that a deal has already been agreed.
But we shall see. After having been an early backer, I think Macron looks marginally too short - Pen unless Bayrou endorses him. I also don't see the value in Le Pen given that she's 24 points behind Fillon in the second round.
Even without Bayrou Macron is still 6% behind Fillon on that poll and 7% behind Le Pen
I don't disagree. But I suspect a Bayrou endorsement would add 2% to Macron, probably at the expense of Fillon. Which makes it a pretty close race.
Times implies that US navigation system was at fault.
We are paying £40bn for the horseshit!
With Trump cuddling up to Putin a weapon that will nuke either Russia or America at random sounds like just the kind of deterrent Britain needs.
LOL! I can't think of a better deterrant than a nuclear weapon with a mind of its own. It would terrify everyone
The less LOL-worthy part is that governments are inevitably going to make weapons with minds of their own (admittedly on a fairly generous definition of "mind"). They'll have to make a trade off between the effectiveness of the weapon (which is greater if you give it more autonomy) and the risk of it working out sub-optimally for us monkeys.
This trade-off will be calculated independently by every military in the world, and some will be less conservative than others.
What, wanting only Americans to be allowed to vote in the American election? Sounds pretty reasonable. As, by the way, do those other terribly repressive measures such as denying prisoners the vote, requiring I'D to ensure people can only vote once, and such fraud preventing measures.
The specific measure they tend to take is to require people to show a government-issued ID to vote. See this in Wisconsin, for example. You generally have to get this ID from the driving license centre. I've never had to visit an American DMV, but it's a world-famous example of a horrible customer experience, generally advanced to show how bad the government is at running things.
This obviously depresses the vote among people who don't drive, because they would have to go through this experience just to be able to vote with no other upside, whereas drivers were going to suffer through it anyway to be allowed to drive.
What, wanting only Americans to be allowed to vote in the American election? Sounds pretty reasonable. As, by the way, do those other terribly repressive measures such as denying prisoners the vote, requiring I'D to ensure people can only vote once, and such fraud preventing measures.
Denying ex-prisoners the vote, as well as prisoners. Yes, it all sounds reasonable and yet by coincidence these various measures always seem to favour the party proposing them.
Other tricks include fake flyers saying their voting location had changed, giving the wrong deadline for registering to vote, calling people and telling them their candidate has already won on polling day so no need to show up, using voter caging to wrongly remove people from the electoral roll etc.
You missed out dodgy bar charts from this rollcall of LibDem tactics.
All roads lead to Rome. All post Brexit wrangling leads to no one thinking the referendum would be lost. The Referendum Act is a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast Act in constitutional terms. It beggars belief these issues weren't clarified in the Act it's self. Getting Supreme Court rulings on basic issues 7 months after the vote is ludicrous. The House of Lords in particular should be ashamed of it's self.
Of course if these issues had all been clarified the case for some sort of super majority being needed for Brexit would have been enormous.
No super majority was necessary for us to join the European Union.
All referendums should require more than a simple majority to be valid and of course be more than advisory! Two thirds voting for a change should suffice.
The only way that would fly is if there was compulsory voting. Do we really want to go down that route?
A retreat from the TPP now gives Beijing, which has been negotiating its own trade blocs, a chance to fill a void. Since Trump's election, the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia have shifted toward China's proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which would also reduce tariffs — without many of the standards put in place by Obama's plan — and redirect Asian trade China's way. Other nations in the region are likely to follow suit.
"We don't have the choice America has. It's big enough that they can make a living selling things to themselves," said New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English on Monday. "We have to trade."
The view in South East Asia very much appears to be 'Pity, but lets do a deal with China instead' - China was excluded from the TPP, at America's insistence - now its going to replace America.
I think this is key. When you trade with someone, you become closer to them and you become - as a small country - dependent on them.
By departing the Pacific, New Zealand and other countries become closer to China. America loses its influence.
Perhaps the UK should join the TPP as well as NAFTA. After all, what matters now is people's perception of geography rather than all that latitude and longitude factual nonsense.
A retreat from the TPP now gives Beijing, which has been negotiating its own trade blocs, a chance to fill a void. Since Trump's election, the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia have shifted toward China's proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which would also reduce tariffs — without many of the standards put in place by Obama's plan — and redirect Asian trade China's way. Other nations in the region are likely to follow suit.
"We don't have the choice America has. It's big enough that they can make a living selling things to themselves," said New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English on Monday. "We have to trade."
The view in South East Asia very much appears to be 'Pity, but lets do a deal with China instead' - China was excluded from the TPP, at America's insistence - now its going to replace America.
I think this is key. When you trade with someone, you become closer to them and you become - as a small country - dependent on them.
By departing the Pacific, New Zealand and other countries become closer to China. America loses its influence.
It strikes me as a short term tactical win among the electorate (lets not forget the Democrats were against it too) and a long term strategic blunder.
In Indonesia Japan is helping build Jakarta's metro, China high speed rail, Korea sells TVs & washing machines. The US? Mineral exploitation.....Twenty years ago the US was looked up to. Not so much now.
All roads lead to Rome. All post Brexit wrangling leads to no one thinking the referendum would be lost. The Referendum Act is a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast Act in constitutional terms. It beggars belief these issues weren't clarified in the Act it's self. Getting Supreme Court rulings on basic issues 7 months after the vote is ludicrous. The House of Lords in particular should be ashamed of it's self.
Of course if these issues had all been clarified the case for some sort of super majority being needed for Brexit would have been enormous.
No super majority was necessary for us to join the European Union.
All referendums should require more than a simple majority to be valid and of course be more than advisory! Two thirds voting for a change should suffice.
Why stop there? The EU is so fundamental to our interests, I think it should be three quarters.
If we were ever in future to vote to rejoin the EU......
What, wanting only Americans to be allowed to vote in the American election? Sounds pretty reasonable. As, by the way, do those other terribly repressive measures such as denying prisoners the vote, requiring I'D to ensure people can only vote once, and such fraud preventing measures.
The specific measure they tend to take is to require people to show a government-issued ID to vote. See this in Wisconsin, for example. You generally have to get this ID from the driving license centre. I've never had to visit an American DMV, but it's a world-famous example of a horrible customer experience, generally advanced to show how bad the government is at running things.
This obviously depresses the vote among people who don't drive, because they would have to go through this experience just to be able to vote with no other upside, whereas drivers were going to suffer through it anyway to be allowed to drive.
Or you can get them by post.
I find the patronising tone of many white liberals extraordinary. This exposes it rather well.
What, wanting only Americans to be allowed to vote in the American election? Sounds pretty reasonable. As, by the way, do those other terribly repressive measures such as denying prisoners the vote, requiring I'D to ensure people can only vote once, and such fraud preventing measures.
The specific measure they tend to take is to require people to show a government-issued ID to vote. See this in Wisconsin, for example. You generally have to get this ID from the driving license centre. I've never had to visit an American DMV, but it's a world-famous example of a horrible customer experience, generally advanced to show how bad the government is at running things.
This obviously depresses the vote among people who don't drive, because they would have to go through this experience just to be able to vote with no other upside, whereas drivers were going to suffer through it anyway to be allowed to drive.
Or you can get them by post.
This doesn't seem to be true in Wisconsin, for example. Feel free to provide a link showing otherwise if you think I'm wrong.
What, wanting only Americans to be allowed to vote in the American election? Sounds pretty reasonable. As, by the way, do those other terribly repressive measures such as denying prisoners the vote, requiring I'D to ensure people can only vote once, and such fraud preventing measures.
The specific measure they tend to take is to require people to show a government-issued ID to vote. See this in Wisconsin, for example. You generally have to get this ID from the driving license centre. I've never had to visit an American DMV, but it's a world-famous example of a horrible customer experience, generally advanced to show how bad the government is at running things.
This obviously depresses the vote among people who don't drive, because they would have to go through this experience just to be able to vote with no other upside, whereas drivers were going to suffer through it anyway to be allowed to drive.
Or you can get them by post.
You can get a US driving license by post? Isn't that a recipe for ID fraud?
What, wanting only Americans to be allowed to vote in the American election? Sounds pretty reasonable. As, by the way, do those other terribly repressive measures such as denying prisoners the vote, requiring I'D to ensure people can only vote once, and such fraud preventing measures.
Denying ex-prisoners the vote, as well as prisoners. Yes, it all sounds reasonable and yet by coincidence these various measures always seem to favour the party proposing them.
Other tricks include fake flyers saying their voting location had changed, giving the wrong deadline for registering to vote, calling people and telling them their candidate has already won on polling day so no need to show up, using voter caging to wrongly remove people from the electoral roll etc.
You missed out dodgy bar charts from this rollcall of LibDem tactics.
Not an exhaustive list... And I have no doubt Republicans will be ingenious in future. My personal theory is they will try to limit number of polling stations in cities... Maybe argue rural voters have to travel really far t vote to resources should go there....
I also don't understand the reference to the bar chartabd lib Dems.. I think it's an in joke I am too new for.
Looks like Angela will be 'biding her time' for quite a lot longer:
Angela Merkel has been left out in the cold by President Trump, who may not meet Europe’s most prominent leader until a G7 summit in May.
The German leader’s office has tried to set up a meeting and is struggling to establish links at other levels after being caught “completely by surprise” by Mr Trump’s victory in November.
All roads lead to Rome. All post Brexit wrangling leads to no one thinking the referendum would be lost. The Referendum Act is a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast Act in constitutional terms. It beggars belief these issues weren't clarified in the Act it's self. Getting Supreme Court rulings on basic issues 7 months after the vote is ludicrous. The House of Lords in particular should be ashamed of it's self.
Of course if these issues had all been clarified the case for some sort of super majority being needed for Brexit would have been enormous.
No super majority was necessary for us to join the European Union.
All referendums should require more than a simple majority to be valid and of course be more than advisory! Two thirds voting for a change should suffice.
Why stop there? The EU is so fundamental to our interests, I think it should be three quarters.
If we were ever in future to vote to rejoin the EU......
Very interesting point. All these legal shenanigans by the remainers certainly resets the bar if we ever considered rejoining after we leave. That's always assuming that the legal shenanigans don't prevent us leaving of course.
Why extraordinary? Today we saw a nuclear warhead go backwards potentially blowing up our bosom allies so the bar is high.
No we did not see a nuclear warhead go backwards. The missile you saw, like the missile that failed, was unarmed. It had no warhead, nuclear or conventional.
You seem to think that the Trident missile you saw looping the loop was the UK one. It wasn't. That was footage of the first submarine test launch in 1988. The footage has been available on YouTube for years.
Why extraordinary? Today we saw a nuclear warhead go backwards potentially blowing up our bosom allies so the bar is high.
No we did not see a nuclear warhead go backwards. The missile you saw, like the missile that failed, was unarmed. It had no warhead, nuclear or conventional.
You seem to think that the Trident missile you saw looping the loop was the UK one. It wasn't. That was footage of the first submarine test launch in 1988. The footage has been available on YouTube for years.
And just for clarity, that was the first submarine test launch by the US Navy.
What, wanting only Americans to be allowed to vote in the American election? Sounds pretty reasonable. As, by the way, do those other terribly repressive measures such as denying prisoners the vote, requiring I'D to ensure people can only vote once, and such fraud preventing measures.
The specific measure they tend to take is to require people to show a government-issued ID to vote. See this in Wisconsin, for example. You generally have to get this ID from the driving license centre. I've never had to visit an American DMV, but it's a world-famous example of a horrible customer experience, generally advanced to show how bad the government is at running things.
This obviously depresses the vote among people who don't drive, because they would have to go through this experience just to be able to vote with no other upside, whereas drivers were going to suffer through it anyway to be allowed to drive.
Or you can get them by post.
I find the patronising tone of many white liberals extraordinary. This exposes it rather well.
Looks like Angela will be 'biding her time' for quite a lot longer:
Angela Merkel has been left out in the cold by President Trump, who may not meet Europe’s most prominent leader until a G7 summit in May.
The German leader’s office has tried to set up a meeting and is struggling to establish links at other levels after being caught “completely by surprise” by Mr Trump’s victory in November.
All roads lead to Rome. All post Brexit wrangling leads to no one thinking the referendum would be lost. The Referendum Act is a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast Act in constitutional terms. It beggars belief these issues weren't clarified in the Act it's self. Getting Supreme Court rulings on basic issues 7 months after the vote is ludicrous. The House of Lords in particular should be ashamed of it's self.
Of course if these issues had all been clarified the case for some sort of super majority being needed for Brexit would have been enormous.
No super majority was necessary for us to join the European Union.
All referendums should require more than a simple majority to be valid and of course be more than advisory! Two thirds voting for a change should suffice.
Funnily enough I don't recall you suggesting a switch in voting from First Past the Post should require a two-thirds majority to endorse a change. Good to know you're suggesting we'll never get rid of our cherished FPTP unless two thirds want rid of it in future though right?
All roads lead to Rome. All post Brexit wrangling leads to no one thinking the referendum would be lost. The Referendum Act is a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast Act in constitutional terms. It beggars belief these issues weren't clarified in the Act it's self. Getting Supreme Court rulings on basic issues 7 months after the vote is ludicrous. The House of Lords in particular should be ashamed of it's self.
Of course if these issues had all been clarified the case for some sort of super majority being needed for Brexit would have been enormous.
No super majority was necessary for us to join the European Union.
All referendums should require more than a simple majority to be valid and of course be more than advisory! Two thirds voting for a change should suffice.
Why stop there? The EU is so fundamental to our interests, I think it should be three quarters.
If we were ever in future to vote to rejoin the EU......
Very interesting point. All these legal shenanigans by the remainers certainly resets the bar if we ever considered rejoining after we leave. That's always assuming that the legal shenanigans don't prevent us leaving of course.
Quite.
In the event of a Govt. deciding to rejoin, they could almost certainly not give away in one go the sovereignty that has been eroded over many decades without serious, serious legal fights.
Looks like Angela will be 'biding her time' for quite a lot longer:
Angela Merkel has been left out in the cold by President Trump, who may not meet Europe’s most prominent leader until a G7 summit in May.
The German leader’s office has tried to set up a meeting and is struggling to establish links at other levels after being caught “completely by surprise” by Mr Trump’s victory in November.
Looks like Angela will be 'biding her time' for quite a lot longer:
Angela Merkel has been left out in the cold by President Trump, who may not meet Europe’s most prominent leader until a G7 summit in May.
The German leader’s office has tried to set up a meeting and is struggling to establish links at other levels after being caught “completely by surprise” by Mr Trump’s victory in November.
There's opportunity for May here, she just needs to get the tone right to be seen as a moderating influence on Trump and a 'friendly voice of reason' for him.
Looks like Angela will be 'biding her time' for quite a lot longer:
Angela Merkel has been left out in the cold by President Trump, who may not meet Europe’s most prominent leader until a G7 summit in May.
The German leader’s office has tried to set up a meeting and is struggling to establish links at other levels after being caught “completely by surprise” by Mr Trump’s victory in November.
Awesome. Twiddling your thumps until you get a phone call is now called “strategic patience”
Merkel is very much out in the cold now. Doubted within her own country, failing in leadership of Europe and now snubbed by her previously cherished ally.
Looks like Angela will be 'biding her time' for quite a lot longer:
Angela Merkel has been left out in the cold by President Trump, who may not meet Europe’s most prominent leader until a G7 summit in May.
The German leader’s office has tried to set up a meeting and is struggling to establish links at other levels after being caught “completely by surprise” by Mr Trump’s victory in November.
Awesome. Twiddling your thumps until you get a phone call is now called “strategic patience”
Merkel is very much out in the cold now. Doubted within her own country, failing in leadership of Europe and now snubbed by her previously cherished ally.
Time for her to go?
I think you're over-pitching it. She's doing decently well in the polls and she's essentially the undisputed hegemon of Europe - Trump is making her job easier, not harder. In the light of US threats, she'll be able to press for 'More Europe' with other EZ countries.
Comments
Think you have the numbers for Melenchon and Macron transposed. Macron is on 20% and Melenchon 13% in that scenario in that poll.
Where I'm not so sure I agree is whether Le Pen really wants to fight the election on the EU. In France I don't feel that's a particularly strong message (could be wrong) and while Macron's fanaticism may not be entirely in sync with the French electorate, I doubt it's the voter repellent it would be in the UK.
Look back towards the Washington Monument - what do you see?
The primary's dedicated website published on Sunday night some partial results without saying how much polling stations were counted.
The last count published at 0h45 on Monday morning was around a total of 1.25 million.
Then counting stopped until a new number appeared around 10:00 am. The total of votes was now 1.6 million.
The only problem: the vote share of each candidate was still exactly the same, with a precision of a hundredth of a percent.
It was of course statistically impossible to add 350 000 votes without any change in the shares but the farce went even further.
A journalist saw that there were 160 missing votes between the sum of candidates shares and the total published. 160, or exactly 0,01% of the vote.
The reason: the published shares added up to 99.99 for reasons of rounding.
Thus it was perfectly clear that some guy in the socilist party's office chose a turnout number out of thin air and applied to it the shares published the night before.
As journalists started asking question, 161 votes mysteriously reappeared, added to one of the candidates.
But now there was one vote in excess of the total... so the total was adjusted a few minutes later.
The socialist party spent the whole day denying any problem, and refusing to answer questions from the press.
Then they explained that there were "a series of computer bugs" from a third-party supplier.
And then they finally confessed a "human error", a mistake (une connerie) by a member of the orgnaization.
But the final results are still not published and nobody expects them to be true.
This could be funny but I actually feel sad for the (unknown number of) people that made the effort to vote on Sunday.
An organiser of the campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes has been handed a place at Oxford University – as a Rhodes scholar.
Joshua Nott, 23, was a key publicist behind South Africa's Rhodes Must Fall movement and was central in the battle by Cape Town University students to tear down a statue of the British mining magnate.
But the privately educated student, who likened the statue to 'a swastika in Jerusalem', will receive nearly £40,000 in Rhodes's name to study postgraduate law.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4146390/Anti-Rhodes-activist-accepts-40k-Rhodes-scholarship.html
What's at stake is ( a) that that would be slow. ( b ) constitutional dynamite. All three devolution settlements were ratified by referendums. Twice in Wales' case. In the Scots and Ulster cases they voted Remain as well. Westminster would be repatriating powers from Belfast and Edinburgh devolved by extant referenda in order to force through Brexit which both ' nations ' also voted against in referenda.
And of course in the Northern Irish case the devolution settlement was also approved by the Republic ( who amended their own constitution ) in a referendum.
By count you could argue Westminster would be repatriating powers countrary to 7 separate referendum results.
They could do it constitutionally but it would be slow and it would be dynamite.
As a non lawyer I doubt the Supreme Court will go that far in creating constitutional law and the " normally " in the Sewell Convention gives them a huge get out.
One other thing. The Good Friday Agreement isn't just UK law. It was put into international law as a UK/RoI Treaty as well.
Of course if these issues had all been clarified the case for some sort of super majority being needed for Brexit would have been enormous.
Mélenchon 15%, Macron 18%, Valls 9%
Mélenchon 13%, Macron 20%, Hamon 8%.
Next he'll be telling us there's nothing to the Saville allegations!
Oh wait, he has.....
On the subject of France, there's an Ipsos poll (http://www.ipsos.fr/sites/default/files/doc_associe/notice_technique_enquete_gauche_-_ipsos_france_2_janvier_2017.pdf) that makes interesting reading.
In short: Le Pen edges upwards, in both the first round (27% +1), and in the second round against Fillon (38% +2). Macron moves ahead of Fillon in the second round (54:46). And Farage's favoured candidate, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, drops to 2%.
The big question is now whether Bayrou will stand (which would practically ensure a Fillon vs Le Pen second round), or whether he does not and endorses one of Fillon or Macron.
Bayrou has announced that he will be launching a book (Résolution Française) at the beginning of February, and will then make a decision. According to the French press, Fillon has been smothering Bayrou with love, and some are reporting that a deal has already been agreed.
But we shall see. After having been an early backer, I think Macron looks marginally too short - unless Bayrou endorses him. I also don't see the value in Le Pen given that she's 24 points behind Fillon in the second round.
Which reminds me.
Scots who voted to stay in UK: 2,001,926
Scots who voted to stay in the EU: 1,661,191
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/24/uk-tech-industry-not-immune-to-brexit-trade-group-warns?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/donald-trump-congress-democrats.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&referer=
1. That the Supreme Court rules that Brexit cannot proceed without the say-so of the devolved Parliaments of the UK.
2. That the Westminster government legislates to overturn this.
It would be all her Christmases come at once.
What an absolute joke the Cameron government was. We are where we are this morning as a direct consequence of its incompetence. All Tories railing against unelected judges after today's judgment would do well to remember that. The legislation that enacted the referendum, which they supported and which they voted for, did not have to be written in the way it was.
You do know that we test fire unarmed missiles, don't you?
And today the Times says it was the US that asked us to keep quiet about the result - but apparently yesterday's story was true but today's story false.....
"We don't have the choice America has. It's big enough that they can make a living selling things to themselves," said New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English on Monday. "We have to trade."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/24/trump-kills-tpp-giving-china-its-first-big-win/?utm_term=.7b2f067f66d2
The view in South East Asia very much appears to be 'Pity, but lets do a deal with China instead' - China was excluded from the TPP, at America's insistence - now its going to replace America.
Her performance on Marr though is a different matter.
As to May's Marr performance I thought it pretty decent stonewalling. Standard interview technique 'answer the question YOU want, not (necessarily) the one you were asked.
We'd been asked by an ally to keep quiet - so instead she bashed Corbyn.
You'd rather she trashed an ally?
'Yes, the missile went wrong, but it was American kit, not British'
There are many perfectly good reasons for objecting to Trident. Very high reliability isn't one of them....
Can we rely on Congress or the courts to step in to stop this?
I think the answer has to be no.
How far down this line do you go before the US isn't a democracy any more?
This obviously depresses the vote among people who don't drive, because they would have to go through this experience just to be able to vote with no other upside, whereas drivers were going to suffer through it anyway to be allowed to drive.
One thing that the Remainers might consider is that the (Welsh) Tories lost the referendum on Welsh devolution 50.3 to 49.7, a truly minuscule amount.
To their credit, they accepted the result. They have not tried to reverse it.
Who would have thought we would live to see the day when Welsh Tories have more credibility than the LibDems & those in Labour who want to Overturn the Result?
That day has come.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/theresa-may-thinking-womans-woman/
By departing the Pacific, New Zealand and other countries become closer to China. America loses its influence.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/four-uncomfortable-truths-about-quick-deal-uk-us-trade
This trade-off will be calculated independently by every military in the world, and some will be less conservative than others.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.128049829
I'm surprised it's not 1.01 yet.
In Indonesia Japan is helping build Jakarta's metro, China high speed rail, Korea sells TVs & washing machines. The US? Mineral exploitation.....Twenty years ago the US was looked up to. Not so much now.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jan/24/supreme-court-article-50-judgement-announces-its-article-50-judgment-politics-live
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZCVHB68cuY
I also don't understand the reference to the bar chartabd lib Dems.. I think it's an in joke I am too new for.
Angela Merkel has been left out in the cold by President Trump, who may not meet Europe’s most prominent leader until a G7 summit in May.
The German leader’s office has tried to set up a meeting and is struggling to establish links at other levels after being caught “completely by surprise” by Mr Trump’s victory in November.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/merkel-faces-long-wait-for-first-meeting-7pqthqdf0
You seem to think that the Trident missile you saw looping the loop was the UK one. It wasn't. That was footage of the first submarine test launch in 1988. The footage has been available on YouTube for years.
At those odds, they're value, although I think the Conservative Party would be better off Rudderless.
In the event of a Govt. deciding to rejoin, they could almost certainly not give away in one go the sovereignty that has been eroded over many decades without serious, serious legal fights.
Time for her to go?
The poison dwarf has frolicked away from the races:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38723001