politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories are looking to Copeland for endorsement of Mrs. May’s plan for BREXIT
Last night a Copeland voter emailed the above copy of a personalised letter that had come to him from Theresa May. The contents are very revealing about what message the Tories are hoping will come from them taking the seat from LAB in 23 days time.
The problem is that Brexit is all they have to offer the people of Copeland, on all the other issues they are way behind, such as the downgrading and closure of local hospitals, and worsening pensions at the major employer.
It came as a surprise to be moved by a dart of pity at the sight of this world leader, a slight figure teetering up the steps of Government Buildings in her trademark kitten heels - gold this time - and which command breathless column inches in the British press.
Far from being the commanding, imperial captain of HMS Brexit, Mrs May had the miserable, gangly manner of a visitor who knows that she has come along with bad news and with a very poorly chosen gift, though is obliged to drop in anyway.
The expectations management has been dreadful. If they lose, which is by far the likeliest outcome, it will be impossible to see that as anything other than a major boost for Corbyn's leadership and securing him in post for the foreseeable future.
This may of course be the plan...
(And if Labour don't hold Stoke, Corbyn is finished anyway.)
If they don't win nothing happens. Nice expectations management Mike but governments shouldn't ever expect to wins seats or change their policies based on such expectations.
Best PM: +32 (+4) Immigration: +13 (+3) Laura Norder: +21 (+4) Taxation: +10 (+4) Economy: +20 (+4) Brexit: +19 (+4)
If anything, the most shocking thing about that poll is that they've reduced the gap on NHS from -11 to -7. That's despite the Red Cross, the negative headlines, and Jeremy Hunt being health sec.
Corbyn couldn't organise an orgy in a brothel even if Messalina was taking part.
I predict we'll see more Labour chaos after the article 50 Commons vote and they lose both seats. Libdems dead cat bouncing stealing enough Labour votes to let the others sneak through in both seats.
I predict we'll see more Labour chaos after the article 50 Commons vote and they lose both seats. Libdems dead cat bouncing stealing enough Labour votes to let the others sneak through in both seats.
Hard to see how things could be more chaotic than they are at present. Or do you think MPs will move from metaphorical knifing of Corbyn to the real thing? Their language has become somewhat intemperate recently but I can't quite see that happening.
I'll ask again the question I asked the other day and see if I get more answers today. What vote share does the pb brains trust think that the Conservatives will get in Copeland?
I predict we'll see more Labour chaos after the article 50 Commons vote and they lose both seats. Libdems dead cat bouncing stealing enough Labour votes to let the others sneak through in both seats.
Hard to see how things could be more chaotic than they are at present. Or do you think MPs will move from metaphorical knifing of Corbyn to the real thing? Their language has become somewhat intemperate recently but I can't quite see that happening.
Six or seven more resignations to start with. Public war of words but nobody challenging because they want to wait until after the May election massacre.
I'll ask again the question I asked the other day and see if I get more answers today. What vote share does the pb brains trust think that the Conservatives will get in Copeland?
Surely not worth predicting that until we know the turnout figures?
The big danger for Labour is that their supporters will be so disillusioned that they won't turn out at all, which is I think the only path to a Tory win.
I predict we'll see more Labour chaos after the article 50 Commons vote and they lose both seats. Libdems dead cat bouncing stealing enough Labour votes to let the others sneak through in both seats.
No! No! No!
It's the Tories that are hopelessly split and divided over Europe......at least that's what we've been told for the last 25 years......
I predict we'll see more Labour chaos after the article 50 Commons vote and they lose both seats. Libdems dead cat bouncing stealing enough Labour votes to let the others sneak through in both seats.
Hard to see how things could be more chaotic than they are at present. Or do you think MPs will move from metaphorical knifing of Corbyn to the real thing? Their language has become somewhat intemperate recently but I can't quite see that happening.
Six or seven more resignations to start with. Public war of words but nobody challenging because they want to wait until after the May election massacre.
Who's left to resign? He's on his C team already. Even I had never heard of Tulip Sadiq!
Would a resignation by say, Richard Burgon be fatal?
I predict we'll see more Labour chaos after the article 50 Commons vote and they lose both seats. Libdems dead cat bouncing stealing enough Labour votes to let the others sneak through in both seats.
Hard to see how things could be more chaotic than they are at present. Or do you think MPs will move from metaphorical knifing of Corbyn to the real thing? Their language has become somewhat intemperate recently but I can't quite see that happening.
Six or seven more resignations to start with. Public war of words but nobody challenging because they want to wait until after the May election massacre.
Who's left to resign? He's on his C team already. Even I had never heard of Tulip Sadiq!
Would a resignation by say, Richard Burgon be fatal?
It's not so much the people but that they're resigning over an issue the vast majority of the British public think is settled. I don't see it going down too well.
I'll ask again the question I asked the other day and see if I get more answers today. What vote share does the pb brains trust think that the Conservatives will get in Copeland?
Surely not worth predicting that until we know the turnout figures?
The big danger for Labour is that their supporters will be so disillusioned that they won't turn out at all, which is I think the only path to a Tory win.
Anything above 35% and Labour should hold.
We wont know the turnout figures till after the vote has closed. The weight of money suggests a Tory gain. I'm interested to know the vote share that such gamblers are expecting them to take as a par result.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
I'll ask again the question I asked the other day and see if I get more answers today. What vote share does the pb brains trust think that the Conservatives will get in Copeland?
Conservatives for the win with 43% of vote. Ukip way down.
I'll ask again the question I asked the other day and see if I get more answers today. What vote share does the pb brains trust think that the Conservatives will get in Copeland?
Surely not worth predicting that until we know the turnout figures?
The big danger for Labour is that their supporters will be so disillusioned that they won't turn out at all, which is I think the only path to a Tory win.
Anything above 35% and Labour should hold.
We wont know the turnout figures till after the vote has closed. The weight of money suggests a Tory gain. I'm interested to know the vote share that such gamblers are expecting them to take as a par result.
Labour with a 5% majority. This is a Local seat with local issues. UKIP and LDs both around 5%.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
I'd agree with that. The Conservatives are clearly targetting Copeland whereas Labour have to put effort into both seats. If there's not a narrowing of Labour's percentage lead, it'll be a poor result for the Conservatives in the context of current polling.
However, to take the seat would make it the largest opposition majority overturned by a government at a by-election since well before WWII. Consequently, to not take it would not be the greatest disaster for the Tories.
I'll ask again the question I asked the other day and see if I get more answers today. What vote share does the pb brains trust think that the Conservatives will get in Copeland?
Surely not worth predicting that until we know the turnout figures?
The big danger for Labour is that their supporters will be so disillusioned that they won't turn out at all, which is I think the only path to a Tory win.
Anything above 35% and Labour should hold.
We wont know the turnout figures till after the vote has closed. The weight of money suggests a Tory gain. I'm interested to know the vote share that such gamblers are expecting them to take as a par result.
True, which was sort of my point. I think anyone predicting vote share under these circumstances is being rather reckless. On the night, that maybe a different story.
I would agree with the good Dr @foxinsoxuk re a Labour hold. Or to put it another way, if the government can gain a seat despite the unfolding car crash that is Whitehaven Hospital then something has snapped in politics.
Of course the fact Corbyn has repeatedly threatened to throw everyone out of work may count against him somewhat. But that's not really a risk in this election, while humiliating the government just might make them back down on the other stuff.
Hence why I believe any turnout above 35% will see Labour hold.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
It also took getting on for a decade. The SNP's breakthrough came in 2007, when it formed its first (minority) government. Labour's collapse wasn't assured until 2015 (or possibly 2014 if you regard the GE result as inevitable after the SIndyRef swing). For those intervening years, split voting was common and loyalties were up for grabs. Blaming Miliband is a bit unfair: Scottish Labour's problems date back to late-stage Blair and also to Scottish Labour's woeful leadership from Wendy Alexander onwards.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
I'd agree with that. The Conservatives are clearly targetting Copeland whereas Labour have to put effort into both seats. If there's not a narrowing of Labour's percentage lead, it'll be a poor result for the Conservatives in the context of current polling.
However, to take the seat would make it the largest opposition majority overturned by a government at a by-election since well before WWII. Consequently, to not take it would not be the greatest disaster for the Tories.
A gain would be a catastrophe for the Tories. It would almost certainly end Corbyn's leadership.
A narrow defeat would serve their political interests far better - albeit not the country's.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
It also took getting on for a decade. The SNP's breakthrough came in 2007, when it formed its first (minority) government. Labour's collapse wasn't assured until 2015 (or possibly 2014 if you regard the GE result as inevitable after the SIndyRef swing). For those intervening years, split voting was common and loyalties were up for grabs. Blaming Miliband is a bit unfair: Scottish Labour's problems date back to late-stage Blair and also to Scottish Labour's woeful leadership from Wendy Alexander onwards.
It is certainly true that Wendy Alexander onwards, there have been a succession of disastrous leadership choices for SLAB.
The tipping point was 2011, when the SNP with a manifesto pledge of an IndyRef, took a majority in Holyrood. That was on Ed Miliband’s watch.
For sure, it had been building for some time. Decades really.
But, 2011 was when the spaceship crossed the event horizon with Hapless Ed in command.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
Miliband had little to do with Labour's wipeout in Scotland. He was in control when it happened, but the damage had occurred over the previous decade or more. The poison that caused events like Falkirk scandal had much deeper and older roots.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
I'd agree with that. The Conservatives are clearly targetting Copeland whereas Labour have to put effort into both seats. If there's not a narrowing of Labour's percentage lead, it'll be a poor result for the Conservatives in the context of current polling.
However, to take the seat would make it the largest opposition majority overturned by a government at a by-election since well before WWII. Consequently, to not take it would not be the greatest disaster for the Tories.
A gain would be a catastrophe for the Tories. It would almost certainly end Corbyn's leadership.
A narrow defeat would serve their political interests far better - albeit not the country's.
How would it end Corbyn leadership? They hold another leadership election less than six months after the last one?
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
Miliband had little to do with Labour's wipeout in Scotland. He was in control when it happened, but the damage had occurred over the previous decade or more. The poison that caused events like Falkirk scandal had much deeper and older roots.
A year before, Labour under Brown has held all their Scottish seats, even the most marginal.
I remember after Ed was elected, he went up to Scotland in 2011 and gave a radio interview when he couldn’t remember than names of the MSPs standing for leadership of SLAB.
I thought then that this braying North Londoner was likely to do a lot of damage in Scotland. So it turned out.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
It also took getting on for a decade. The SNP's breakthrough came in 2007, when it formed its first (minority) government. Labour's collapse wasn't assured until 2015 (or possibly 2014 if you regard the GE result as inevitable after the SIndyRef swing). For those intervening years, split voting was common and loyalties were up for grabs. Blaming Miliband is a bit unfair: Scottish Labour's problems date back to late-stage Blair and also to Scottish Labour's woeful leadership from Wendy Alexander onwards.
It is certainly true that Wendy Alexander onwards, there have been a succession of disastrous leadership choices for SLAB.
The tipping point was 2011, when the SNP with a manifesto pledge of an IndyRef, took a majority in Holyrood. That was on Ed Miliband’s watch.
For sure, it had been building for some time. Decades really.
But, 2011 was when the spaceship crossed the event horizon with Hapless Ed in command.
2011 was certainly Ed Miliband's fault. Labour laid into the Lib Dems in England and into the Tories in Scotland that year. Unsurprisingly, their real opponents in each greatly profited from the absence of opposition.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
I'd agree with that. The Conservatives are clearly targetting Copeland whereas Labour have to put effort into both seats. If there's not a narrowing of Labour's percentage lead, it'll be a poor result for the Conservatives in the context of current polling.
However, to take the seat would make it the largest opposition majority overturned by a government at a by-election since well before WWII. Consequently, to not take it would not be the greatest disaster for the Tories.
A gain would be a catastrophe for the Tories. It would almost certainly end Corbyn's leadership.
A narrow defeat would serve their political interests far better - albeit not the country's.
How would it end Corbyn leadership? They hold another leadership election less than six months after the last one?
Quite possibly. I was thinking more that it would cause the egregious McCluskey to finally ditch him. Even the man nicknamed McCluster**** for his serial, mind blowing incompetence and hubris surely couldn't ignore the loss of a seat Labour have held continuously for 82 years.
My guess would be that the Tories take Copeland by a whisker, while Labour holds Stoke fairly easily.
Stoke is the really big one. If Labour loses that to UKIP there is no hiding place. Likewise, if UKIP does not take Stoke it's hard to see how it can ever win. By contrast, a Tory win in Copeland will merely confirm what we already know: as long as Corbyn leads Labour the Tories are guaranteed a huge majority at the GE. Stoke is existential for two parties. Copeland isn't.
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
This is deeply worrying. Even *if* Trump is right in this case, and the AG was wrong, he has set a precedent. He will feel free to do it again, and people will know that. Fewer people will stand up to him, including when they are definitely right.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
It also took getting on for a decade. The SNP's breakthrough came in 2007, when it formed its first (minority) government. Labour's collapse wasn't assured until 2015 (or possibly 2014 if you regard the GE result as inevitable after the SIndyRef swing). For those intervening years, split voting was common and loyalties were up for grabs. Blaming Miliband is a bit unfair: Scottish Labour's problems date back to late-stage Blair and also to Scottish Labour's woeful leadership from Wendy Alexander onwards.
It is certainly true that Wendy Alexander onwards, there have been a succession of disastrous leadership choices for SLAB.
The tipping point was 2011, when the SNP with a manifesto pledge of an IndyRef, took a majority in Holyrood. That was on Ed Miliband’s watch.
For sure, it had been building for some time. Decades really.
But, 2011 was when the spaceship crossed the event horizon with Hapless Ed in command.
2011 was certainly Ed Miliband's fault. Labour laid into the Lib Dems in England and into the Tories in Scotland that year. Unsurprisingly, their real opponents in each greatly profited from the absence of opposition.
As Theresa May is doing now.
The one thing that can excuse Corbyn's utter uselessness is that he is part of a process that has been going on for two decades - the hollowing out of Labour and its complete loss of touch with political reality.
Is he to prove Honorious, ignoring the collapse of the Empire as his supporters party (or in Gibbonian fiction, discuss the finer points of the Trinity)? Or is he Burnside? But if he is Burnside, who will emerge as Grant?
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
This is deeply worrying. Even *if* Trump is right in this case, and the AG was wrong, he has set a precedent. He will feel free to do it again, and people will know that. Fewer people will stand up to him, including when they are definitely right.
Didn't Nixon do something similar as part of the Saturday Night Massacre?
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
Miliband had little to do with Labour's wipeout in Scotland. He was in control when it happened, but the damage had occurred over the previous decade or more. The poison that caused events like Falkirk scandal had much deeper and older roots.
A year before, Labour under Brown has held all their Scottish seats, even the most marginal.
I remember after Ed was elected, he went up to Scotland in 2011 and gave a radio interview when he couldn’t remember than names of the MSPs standing for leadership of SLAB.
I thought then that this braying North Londoner was likely to do a lot of damage in Scotland. So it turned out.
The poison had infected Scottish Labour for years before Miliband, and was getting worse. The guy wasn't a good leader but there was no way he as *that* incompetent. Worse, I doubt even if he'd have had the skills of Blair, he'd have been able to counter that poison.
Just watched the BBC Storyville program on Stuxnet. Storyville is brilliant: documentaries from around the world. They are always compelling, even if the topic initially appears dull.
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
This is deeply worrying. Even *if* Trump is right in this case, and the AG was wrong, he has set a precedent. He will feel free to do it again, and people will know that. Fewer people will stand up to him, including when they are definitely right.
Didn't Nixon do something similar as part of the Saturday Night Massacre?
Apparently. Hardly a good precedent (or president).
I'll ask again the question I asked the other day and see if I get more answers today. What vote share does the pb brains trust think that the Conservatives will get in Copeland?
Surely not worth predicting that until we know the turnout figures?
The big danger for Labour is that their supporters will be so disillusioned that they won't turn out at all, which is I think the only path to a Tory win.
Anything above 35% and Labour should hold.
We wont know the turnout figures till after the vote has closed. The weight of money suggests a Tory gain. I'm interested to know the vote share that such gamblers are expecting them to take as a par result.
If the Tories do win, I expect them to be in the low-mid 30s just pipping Labour to it. It will be blamed on Labour (Corbyn) failure, not Tory success. Or, in other words, Tory voters turning out and Labour ones staying at home.
No, I'm not betting on it - just covering myself. Labour hold for me.
My guess would be that the Tories take Copeland by a whisker, while Labour holds Stoke fairly easily.
Stoke is the really big one. If Labour loses that to UKIP there is no hiding place. Likewise, if UKIP does not take Stoke it's hard to see how it can ever win. By contrast, a Tory win in Copeland will merely confirm what we already know: as long as Corbyn leads Labour the Tories are guaranteed a huge majority at the GE. Stoke is existential for two parties. Copeland isn't.
I expect Labour to lose both.
If there is one thing that could shake my belief that Labour will hold these seats, it is that prediction. You made both the big calls correctly last year even when everyone else (including, perhaps especially, me) thought you were merely being pessimistic because you hated the thought of those outcomes so much.
But - I don't know. I think Stoke is marginal more because of the poor qualities of Hunt than any other reason, and now Labour have a local candidate, I think that will trump the Uitlander Nuttall. And I would point out that that logic led me to predict a comfortable Tory hold in Gloucester by local Old Etonian and banker (and frankly, rather dull and not very intelligent) Richard Graham at a time everyone was swooning over the ex-wing commander, state-educated woman and all-round good thing Labour had put up, who had never been to Gloucester before selection.
The fact I believe both Copeland candidates are local does however somewhat negate that advantage there.
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
This is deeply worrying. Even *if* Trump is right in this case, and the AG was wrong, he has set a precedent. He will feel free to do it again, and people will know that. Fewer people will stand up to him, including when they are definitely right.
Didn't Nixon do something similar as part of the Saturday Night Massacre?
Apparently. Hardly a good precedent (or president).
Just trying to cheer everyone up by reminding them that the last time an AG was sacked this publicly, the president was toast in six months.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
I'm not sure. There's no doubt Corbyn is more toxic than Millibnd but I wonder how well Theresa May's popularity is holding up? . Trump has turned out to be more toxic than even Pinochet and May could hardly have chosen a less opportune moment to bed him. Listening to the vox pops there is a lot of anger out there much of which is being directed at the the British government.
I was hoing Labour would lose to the Tories in Copeland to hasten Corbyn's departure. Not anymore. Our shared values are with the Europeans not the Americans but irrespective of Brexit May can't see that. I'm filing her under 'Maggie'
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
The poison that caused events like Falkirk scandal had much deeper and older roots.
And yet, at the time, we were told 'Nothing to see! Look at the national polling numbers' - Jobabobajobabobajobabob was one frequent poster of such 'wisdom', IIRC, so no change there then.....
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
I'm filing her under 'Maggie'
So 11 years in Office then?
Personally I think she'll step down in 2023 or thereabouts.....
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
The AG is a Democratic Party member and was appointed by Obama, I am sure there is more than a hint of partisan politics on both sides.
I'll ask again the question I asked the other day and see if I get more answers today. What vote share does the pb brains trust think that the Conservatives will get in Copeland?
In the general they got 35.8%. I would guess they would get just under 40%, squeezing the UKIP vote a tad. It might be enough but I wouldn't quite make them favourites.
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
Shades of Henry VIII. Unfortunately May has chosen to be his Cromwell
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
The AG is a Democratic Party member and was appointed by Obama, I am sure there is more than a hint of partisan politics on both sides.
I despair how we now judge everyone's actions are now through some partisan prism. Is it really so unlikely that she sincerely believed this order (already being challenged in several courts) was unconstitutional?
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
The AG is a Democratic Party member and was appointed by Obama, I am sure there is more than a hint of partisan politics on both sides.
"Before this showdown, Yates was actually asked by the Trump Administration to stay on duty until Senator Jeff Sessions could be confirmed by the Senate. In fact, Yates has held leadership positions in both Democratic and Republican administrations throughout her career."
"Sen. Johnny Isaakson (R-Georgia) said, in part:
“Sally is a great hero of the state of Georgia for 25 years she’s been in the office of Northern District of Georgia prosecuting criminal on public integrity all kind of things like the Olympic Park bombing. For the last five years, she’s been the chief attorney, and she’s proved herself over and over and over again to be to be effective to be fair to be diligent and to be the kind of person that you would want representing you in the U.S. Attorney’s office.. She is a lady of impeccable taste, impeccable integrity and an impeccable record, and I’m proud to second her nomination..” "
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
I'd agree with that. The Conservatives are clearly targetting Copeland whereas Labour have to put effort into both seats. If there's not a narrowing of Labour's percentage lead, it'll be a poor result for the Conservatives in the context of current polling.
However, to take the seat would make it the largest opposition majority overturned by a government at a by-election since well before WWII. Consequently, to not take it would not be the greatest disaster for the Tories.
A gain would be a catastrophe for the Tories. It would almost certainly end Corbyn's leadership.
A narrow defeat would serve their political interests far better - albeit not the country's.
In the short term, yes. In the longer term, it's doing the Tories no favours facing an opposition that doesn't care about doing opposition properly. Because one day, one will and the Tories won't be match fit.
I seem to be just about the only person who thinks Labour will hold both quite comfortably.
Me too! and I think UKIP will do poorly in both. Shadsy's 8/1 on UKIP less than 20% in Stoke is my tip.
A PB NoJam on the pair would be interesting too.
Thukipides, “It is the habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire”.
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
The AG is a Democratic Party member and was appointed by Obama, I am sure there is more than a hint of partisan politics on both sides.
I despair how we now judge everyone's actions are now through some partisan prism. Is it really so unlikely that she sincerely believed this order (already being challenged in several courts) was unconstitutional?
The politicisation of the Legal system in the US is rather banana republic.
Surely the correct person for the SCOTUs or AG is someone who knows the law and applies it fairly?
My guess would be that the Tories take Copeland by a whisker, while Labour holds Stoke fairly easily.
Stoke is the really big one. If Labour loses that to UKIP there is no hiding place. Likewise, if UKIP does not take Stoke it's hard to see how it can ever win. By contrast, a Tory win in Copeland will merely confirm what we already know: as long as Corbyn leads Labour the Tories are guaranteed a huge majority at the GE. Stoke is existential for two parties. Copeland isn't.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
It also took getting on for a decade. The SNP's breakthrough came in 2007, when it formed its first (minority) government. Labour's collapse wasn't assured until 2015 (or possibly 2014 if you regard the GE result as inevitable after the SIndyRef swing). For those intervening years, split voting was common and loyalties were up for grabs. Blaming Miliband is a bit unfair: Scottish Labour's problems date back to late-stage Blair and also to Scottish Labour's woeful leadership from Wendy Alexander onwards.
It is certainly true that Wendy Alexander onwards, there have been a succession of disastrous leadership choices for SLAB.
The tipping point was 2011, when the SNP with a manifesto pledge of an IndyRef, took a majority in Holyrood. That was on Ed Miliband’s watch.
For sure, it had been building for some time. Decades really.
But, 2011 was when the spaceship crossed the event horizon with Hapless Ed in command.
2011 was certainly Ed Miliband's fault. Labour laid into the Lib Dems in England and into the Tories in Scotland that year. Unsurprisingly, their real opponents in each greatly profited from the absence of opposition.
In fairness "keeping the Tories" out by letting Labour in had worked very well (if quite irrationally in most of the country) for the best part of a couple of decades in Scotland. They just failed to adapt when an alternative option came around. I remember getting a Labour leaflet in Dundee West in 2010 which contained 2 pages of invective against the Tories but didn't even mention the SNP who were the real challengers in the seat and the government in Scotland responsible for the NHS the state of which the Tories were being blasted for. It worked. They tried it again in 2015 but got slaughtered.
I seem to be just about the only person who thinks Labour will hold both quite comfortably.
Me too! and I think UKIP will do poorly in both. Shadsy's 8/1 on UKIP less than 20% in Stoke is my tip.
A PB NoJam on the pair would be interesting too.
Thukipides, “It is the habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire”.
More true of the Kippers hope in Stoke than Labour!
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
Trump has turned out to be more toxic than even Pinochet and May could hardly have chosen a less opportune moment to bed him. '
To reiterate my point from last weekend, it is absurd to compare Trump to Pinochet. Has he killed his predecessor? Did he come to power in a coup? Has he shot journalists filming events? Has he kidnapped foreigners, herded them into football stadiums, cut their hands off and then murdered them? Has he stolen land from everyone and interned anyone who protested? No he hasn't and nor will he.
Call him out for what he is - an unpleasant man with repellent views more out of his depth than a todddler in the Mindanao Deep. Comparisons like that merely look silly and weaken your case.
My guess would be that the Tories take Copeland by a whisker, while Labour holds Stoke fairly easily.
Stoke is the really big one. If Labour loses that to UKIP there is no hiding place. Likewise, if UKIP does not take Stoke it's hard to see how it can ever win. By contrast, a Tory win in Copeland will merely confirm what we already know: as long as Corbyn leads Labour the Tories are guaranteed a huge majority at the GE. Stoke is existential for two parties. Copeland isn't.
My guess would be that the Tories take Copeland by a whisker, while Labour holds Stoke fairly easily.
Stoke is the really big one. If Labour loses that to UKIP there is no hiding place. Likewise, if UKIP does not take Stoke it's hard to see how it can ever win. By contrast, a Tory win in Copeland will merely confirm what we already know: as long as Corbyn leads Labour the Tories are guaranteed a huge majority at the GE. Stoke is existential for two parties. Copeland isn't.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
I'd agree with that. The Conservatives are clearly targetting Copeland whereas Labour have to put effort into both seats. If there's not a narrowing of Labour's percentage lead, it'll be a poor result for the Conservatives in the context of current polling.
However, to take the seat would make it the largest opposition majority overturned by a government at a by-election since well before WWII. Consequently, to not take it would not be the greatest disaster for the Tories.
A gain would be a catastrophe for the Tories. It would almost certainly end Corbyn's leadership.
A narrow defeat would serve their political interests far better - albeit not the country's.
Corbyn will go at a time of his own choosing. 2019 is my guess. If there is one thing that he demonstrates it is resilience.
He is also quite keen on doorstep campaigning, and not as out of line with Labour voters as some on here would opine.
My guess would be that the Tories take Copeland by a whisker, while Labour holds Stoke fairly easily.
Stoke is the really big one. If Labour loses that to UKIP there is no hiding place. Likewise, if UKIP does not take Stoke it's hard to see how it can ever win. By contrast, a Tory win in Copeland will merely confirm what we already know: as long as Corbyn leads Labour the Tories are guaranteed a huge majority at the GE. Stoke is existential for two parties. Copeland isn't.
why bother quoting this rubbish? he's been a councillor their since 2010, at the very least. that seems fairly local to me
Since you didn't read the text:
He went to Keele University and lived in Newcastle where he was a councillor, double jobbing in Tristram Hunt’s constituency office as he waited to be parachuted in. As far back as five years ago the Stoke Sentinel ran a letter asking why outsider Snell was hanging round Stoke, suggesting he was sniffing for a seat. In a 2011 tweet to the Tory whip Therese Coffey that rather undermines his claims to be “local“, Snell admitted he is “still a Suffolk-boy at heart”.
Moral of story - don't pretend your candidate is something he isn't.
Nothing wrong with 'Having chosen to make my home in the Potteries'.....
I saw Ben Bradshaw on the BBC this morning. He's stated what I think is the position of a lot of remainer MPs. Initially said that his constituency voted remain but then said he was not voted in to represent his constituency but to take the best decision for the country. He's voting against article 50 as it's the last chance to stop exiting the EU.
So, we have the elite (1/650th) stating that he knows better that the democratically expressed will of the electorate
I will be phoning in Copeland on Thursday and every week until polling day so will report back on any dramatic news. However of course the Tories will fight the seat on Brexit, on national polls it should be neck and neck but with over 60% having voted Leave that could be the clincher. In Richmond of course it was the LDs fighting so hard against Brexit which helped them win such an overwhelmingly Remain seat. As no governing party has gained an opposition seat for over 30 years the Tories have nothing to lose if they fail to take it unlike Labour but everything to gain if they do. Of course the Tories gained over 20% in the last council by election too
if Trump is forced to step down, surely Mike Pence takes over. Trump may be barmy but he's less right-wing than Pence. Is that what the anti-democrat Democrats want. I assume they'll react by demanding a new election.
Is this the new Establishment? If you don't like the result of an election, scweam and scweam until you get another one, then keep on scweaming until you get the right result.
I blame some middle-class parents. Humour your children until they believe they have rights which over-ride all others. If you don't get your way, stamp your feet until you do.
Protest used to be on individual issues. Things that the government forgets about or is wrong on. I understand the protests about closing the borders to certain countries, and this is a specific issue.
Now it's really a protest about the result of democratic election or referendums. That way lies madness. What do they want? They want a self-appointed class to control things. When everyone is a fascist, it makes perverted sense to embrace fascist attitudes in response.
When minor changes are the epitome of horror, eleven out of ten on the unbearable scale. What happens when something major occurs? You've run out of hyperbole.
Hopefully it will settle down. It's a minority who run the full gamut of offence at the slightest flinch. You can remain committed to a cause without it completely taking over your life. After all, you might be dead tomorrow.
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
The AG is a Democratic Party member and was appointed by Obama, I am sure there is more than a hint of partisan politics on both sides.
I despair how we now judge everyone's actions are now through some partisan prism. Is it really so unlikely that she sincerely believed this order (already being challenged in several courts) was unconstitutional?
The politicisation of the Legal system in the US is rather banana republic.
Surely the correct person for the SCOTUs or AG is someone who knows the law and applies it fairly?
We had Starmer here with the CPS. Their and his behaviour at times was less than objective.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
I'd agree with that. The Conservatives are clearly targetting Copeland whereas Labour have to put effort into both seats. If there's not a narrowing of Labour's percentage lead, it'll be a poor result for the Conservatives in the context of current polling.
However, to take the seat would make it the largest opposition majority overturned by a government at a by-election since well before WWII. Consequently, to not take it would not be the greatest disaster for the Tories.
A gain would be a catastrophe for the Tories. It would almost certainly end Corbyn's leadership.
A narrow defeat would serve their political interests far better - albeit not the country's.
Corbyn will go at a time of his own choosing. 2019 is my guess. If there is one thing that he demonstrates it is resilience.
He is also quite keen on doorstep campaigning, and not as out of line with Labour voters as some on here would opine.
I backed Corbyn to go in 2019 (And 2020) with Ladbrokes at 5-4 and 8-1. The 8-1 would work well as a standalone bet as well, and is perhaps even better value than the 5-4 was.
2019 would be smart - give a fresh young leader *cough Lewis cough* a chance for the 2020 GE.
Trump has turned out to be more toxic than even Pinochet and May could hardly have chosen a less opportune moment to bed him. '
To reiterate my point from last weekend, it is absurd to compare Trump to Pinochet. Has he killed his predecessor? Did he come to power in a coup? Has he shot journalists filming events? Has he kidnapped foreigners, herded them into football stadiums, cut their hands off and then murdered them? Has he stolen land from everyone and interned anyone who protested? No he hasn't and nor will he.
Call him out for what he is - an unpleasant man with repellent views more out of his depth than a todddler in the Mindanao Deep. Comparisons like that merely look silly and weaken your case.
I wasn't comparing their actions but their toxicity. More people know about Trumps malevolence than Pinochet's
I saw Ben Bradshaw on the BBC this morning. He's stated what I think is the position of a lot of remainer MPs. Initially said that his constituency voted remain but then said he was not voted in to represent his constituency but to take the best decision for the country. He's voting against article 50 as it's the last chance to stop exiting the EU.
So, we have the elite (1/650th) stating that he knows better that the democratically expressed will of the electorate
I am really confused about this elite. Yesterday it was he entire population of London (10m). Today it's 650 MPs. Who is managing the membership list?
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
It also took getting on for a decade. The SNP's breakthrough came in 2007, when it formed its first (minority) government. Labour's collapse wasn't assured until 2015 (or possibly 2014 if you regard the GE result as inevitable after the SIndyRef swing). For those intervening years, split voting was common and loyalties were up for grabs. Blaming Miliband is a bit unfair: Scottish Labour's problems date back to late-stage Blair and also to Scottish Labour's woeful leadership from Wendy Alexander onwards.
It is certainly true that Wendy Alexander onwards, there have been a succession of disastrous leadership choices for SLAB.
The tipping point was 2011, when the SNP with a manifesto pledge of an IndyRef, took a majority in Holyrood. That was on Ed Miliband’s watch.
For sure, it had been building for some time. Decades really.
But, 2011 was when the spaceship crossed the event horizon with Hapless Ed in command.
I still think that's more than a bit unfair. Going in to the 2011 election, Labour was well clear. It was only during the campaign that a huge switcharound took place and that surely has to reflect on Iain Gray much more than Miliband? That's not to say he wasn't without blame entirely but I'd have thought that local factors predominated.
Mr. Rog, it'd take quite a lot for the vote to go against the referendum result in the Commons. If it happened, that does raise the interesting question of what happens next.
Call him out for what he is - an unpleasant man with repellent views more out of his depth than a todddler in the Mindanao Deep. Comparisons like that merely look silly and weaken your case.
I can see the Mindanao Deep out of my window, or the sea above it anyway, thankfully there are no toddlers in sight, just a few surfers
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
I'm not sure. There's no doubt Corbyn is more toxic than Millibnd but I wonder how well Theresa May's popularity is holding up? . Trump has turned out to be more toxic than even Pinochet and May could hardly have chosen a less opportune moment to bed him. Listening to the vox pops there is a lot of anger out there much of which is being directed at the the British government.
I was hoing Labour would lose to the Tories in Copeland to hasten Corbyn's departure. Not anymore. Our shared values are with the Europeans not the Americans but irrespective of Brexit May can't see that. I'm filing her under 'Maggie'
Was that the hugely electorally popular Maggie?
Yep, thought so.
On topic - I think Labour will lose Stoke to UKIP and just hang on to Copeland.
Finally, as I have to be off, in the real world, Trumps antics are met with bemusement rather than anger. And Brexit is thought to be on course.
That's why Stoke may not be a Ukip gain.
Trump is doing Labour a big favour in Stoke I think. UKIP are far too closely tied to him, stops Brexit counter-momentum picking up pace. Net result is low switching.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
My guess would be that the Tories take Copeland by a whisker, while Labour holds Stoke fairly easily.
Stoke is the really big one. If Labour loses that to UKIP there is no hiding place. Likewise, if UKIP does not take Stoke it's hard to see how it can ever win. By contrast, a Tory win in Copeland will merely confirm what we already know: as long as Corbyn leads Labour the Tories are guaranteed a huge majority at the GE. Stoke is existential for two parties. Copeland isn't.
why bother quoting this rubbish? he's been a councillor their since 2010, at the very least. that seems fairly local to me
Since you didn't read the text:
He went to Keele University and lived in Newcastle where he was a councillor, double jobbing in Tristram Hunt’s constituency office as he waited to be parachuted in. As far back as five years ago the Stoke Sentinel ran a letter asking why outsider Snell was hanging round Stoke, suggesting he was sniffing for a seat. In a 2011 tweet to the Tory whip Therese Coffey that rather undermines his claims to be “local“, Snell admitted he is “still a Suffolk-boy at heart”.
Moral of story - don't pretend your candidate is something he isn't.
Nothing wrong with 'Having chosen to make my home in the Potteries'.....
Sounds like he has been local since he went to University there. Nuttall meanwhile cannot name the six towns...
I seem to be just about the only person who thinks Labour will hold both quite comfortably.
Reading the comments section regularly I think the majority expect a comfy hold in Stoke and a close hold in Copeland so your view is not really that different from most.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
I'd agree with that. The Conservatives are clearly targetting Copeland whereas Labour have to put effort into both seats. If there's not a narrowing of Labour's percentage lead, it'll be a poor result for the Conservatives in the context of current polling.
However, to take the seat would make it the largest opposition majority overturned by a government at a by-election since well before WWII. Consequently, to not take it would not be the greatest disaster for the Tories.
A gain would be a catastrophe for the Tories. It would almost certainly end Corbyn's leadership.
A narrow defeat would serve their political interests far better - albeit not the country's.
Corbyn will go at a time of his own choosing. 2019 is my guess. If there is one thing that he demonstrates it is resilience.
He is also quite keen on doorstep campaigning, and not as out of line with Labour voters as some on here would opine.
I backed Corbyn to go in 2019 (And 2020) with Ladbrokes at 5-4 and 8-1. The 8-1 would work well as a standalone bet as well, and is perhaps even better value than the 5-4 was.
2019 would be smart - give a fresh young leader *cough Lewis cough* a chance for the 2020 GE.
Corbyn will not stand down for Lewis after he backed Trident
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
Comments
It came as a surprise to be moved by a dart of pity at the sight of this world leader, a slight figure teetering up the steps of Government Buildings in her trademark kitten heels - gold this time - and which command breathless column inches in the British press.
Far from being the commanding, imperial captain of HMS Brexit, Mrs May had the miserable, gangly manner of a visitor who knows that she has come along with bad news and with a very poorly chosen gift, though is obliged to drop in anyway.
Best PM: +32 (+4)
Immigration: +13 (+3)
Laura Norder: +21 (+4)
Taxation: +10 (+4)
Economy: +20 (+4)
Brexit: +19 (+4)
This may of course be the plan...
(And if Labour don't hold Stoke, Corbyn is finished anyway.)
Corbyn couldn't organise an orgy in a brothel even if Messalina was taking part.
The big danger for Labour is that their supporters will be so disillusioned that they won't turn out at all, which is I think the only path to a Tory win.
Anything above 35% and Labour should hold.
It's the Tories that are hopelessly split and divided over Europe......at least that's what we've been told for the last 25 years......
Would a resignation by say, Richard Burgon be fatal?
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
Ukip way down.
Level of confidence in this prediction... Low.
However, to take the seat would make it the largest opposition majority overturned by a government at a by-election since well before WWII. Consequently, to not take it would not be the greatest disaster for the Tories.
I would agree with the good Dr @foxinsoxuk re a Labour hold. Or to put it another way, if the government can gain a seat despite the unfolding car crash that is Whitehaven Hospital then something has snapped in politics.
Of course the fact Corbyn has repeatedly threatened to throw everyone out of work may count against him somewhat. But that's not really a risk in this election, while humiliating the government just might make them back down on the other stuff.
Hence why I believe any turnout above 35% will see Labour hold.
This rumour has been circulating locally for a while. Now the company has confirmed publically.
A narrow defeat would serve their political interests far better - albeit not the country's.
The tipping point was 2011, when the SNP with a manifesto pledge of an IndyRef, took a majority in Holyrood. That was on Ed Miliband’s watch.
For sure, it had been building for some time. Decades really.
But, 2011 was when the spaceship crossed the event horizon with Hapless Ed in command.
They hold another leadership election less than six months after the last one?
I remember after Ed was elected, he went up to Scotland in 2011 and gave a radio interview when he couldn’t remember than names of the MSPs standing for leadership of SLAB.
I thought then that this braying North Londoner was likely to do a lot of damage in Scotland. So it turned out.
I expect Labour to lose both.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
This is deeply worrying. Even *if* Trump is right in this case, and the AG was wrong, he has set a precedent. He will feel free to do it again, and people will know that. Fewer people will stand up to him, including when they are definitely right.
The one thing that can excuse Corbyn's utter uselessness is that he is part of a process that has been going on for two decades - the hollowing out of Labour and its complete loss of touch with political reality.
Is he to prove Honorious, ignoring the collapse of the Empire as his supporters party (or in Gibbonian fiction, discuss the finer points of the Trinity)? Or is he Burnside? But if he is Burnside, who will emerge as Grant?
Just watched the BBC Storyville program on Stuxnet. Storyville is brilliant: documentaries from around the world. They are always compelling, even if the topic initially appears dull.
No, I'm not betting on it - just covering myself. Labour hold for me.
But - I don't know. I think Stoke is marginal more because of the poor qualities of Hunt than any other reason, and now Labour have a local candidate, I think that will trump the Uitlander Nuttall. And I would point out that that logic led me to predict a comfortable Tory hold in Gloucester by local Old Etonian and banker (and frankly, rather dull and not very intelligent) Richard Graham at a time everyone was swooning over the ex-wing commander, state-educated woman and all-round good thing Labour had put up, who had never been to Gloucester before selection.
The fact I believe both Copeland candidates are local does however somewhat negate that advantage there.
We might quickly get President Mike Pen...ah.
I was hoing Labour would lose to the Tories in Copeland to hasten Corbyn's departure. Not anymore. Our shared values are with the Europeans not the Americans but irrespective of Brexit May can't see that. I'm filing her under 'Maggie'
A PB NoJam on the pair would be interesting too.
You're fired.
Personally I think she'll step down in 2023 or thereabouts.....
"Before this showdown, Yates was actually asked by the Trump Administration to stay on duty until Senator Jeff Sessions could be confirmed by the Senate. In fact, Yates has held leadership positions in both Democratic and Republican administrations throughout her career."
"Sen. Johnny Isaakson (R-Georgia) said, in part:
“Sally is a great hero of the state of Georgia for 25 years she’s been in the office of Northern District of Georgia prosecuting criminal on public integrity all kind of things like the Olympic Park bombing. For the last five years, she’s been the chief attorney, and she’s proved herself over and over and over again to be to be effective to be fair to be diligent and to be the kind of person that you would want representing you in the U.S. Attorney’s office.. She is a lady of impeccable taste, impeccable integrity and an impeccable record, and I’m proud to second her nomination..”
"
After five years there will be a much more significant dent. People won't so easily be able to pick up and move on as an effective centre-left party*.
*Or as NPXMPX2 might say, a hard-right party.
Surely the correct person for the SCOTUs or AG is someone who knows the law and applies it fairly?
If the Conservatives win, Corbyn will be blamed. If they lose, some will raise this as a rejection of the EU situation.
http://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/ygJUlbfgkpo/mqdefault.jpg
Call him out for what he is - an unpleasant man with repellent views more out of his depth than a todddler in the Mindanao Deep. Comparisons like that merely look silly and weaken your case.
He is also quite keen on doorstep campaigning, and not as out of line with Labour voters as some on here would opine.
He went to Keele University and lived in Newcastle where he was a councillor, double jobbing in Tristram Hunt’s constituency office as he waited to be parachuted in. As far back as five years ago the Stoke Sentinel ran a letter asking why outsider Snell was hanging round Stoke, suggesting he was sniffing for a seat. In a 2011 tweet to the Tory whip Therese Coffey that rather undermines his claims to be “local“, Snell admitted he is “still a Suffolk-boy at heart”.
Moral of story - don't pretend your candidate is something he isn't.
Nothing wrong with 'Having chosen to make my home in the Potteries'.....
So, we have the elite (1/650th) stating that he knows better that the democratically expressed will of the electorate
Is this the new Establishment? If you don't like the result of an election, scweam and scweam until you get another one, then keep on scweaming until you get the right result.
I blame some middle-class parents. Humour your children until they believe they have rights which over-ride all others. If you don't get your way, stamp your feet until you do.
Protest used to be on individual issues. Things that the government forgets about or is wrong on. I understand the protests about closing the borders to certain countries, and this is a specific issue.
Now it's really a protest about the result of democratic election or referendums. That way lies madness. What do they want? They want a self-appointed class to control things. When everyone is a fascist, it makes perverted sense to embrace fascist attitudes in response.
When minor changes are the epitome of horror, eleven out of ten on the unbearable scale. What happens when something major occurs? You've run out of hyperbole.
Hopefully it will settle down. It's a minority who run the full gamut of offence at the slightest flinch. You can remain committed to a cause without it completely taking over your life. After all, you might be dead tomorrow.
Yes, I know I'm getting old.
PS define, "fair".
2019 would be smart - give a fresh young leader *cough Lewis cough* a chance for the 2020 GE.
That's why Stoke may not be a Ukip gain.
I wonder if we'd have a General Election.
Yep, thought so.
On topic - I think Labour will lose Stoke to UKIP and just hang on to Copeland.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/178844