Before Mrs May called the election, he did a piece where his sources told him that the Crosby polling in the South West marginals was to do with worries over expense charges.
How many of these will result in prosecutions? And in how many of these prosecutions will a jury find there was intent? Very, very few is my assessment.
And yet it is routinely talked of on here as a massive scandal that was going to bring down the Government's majority.
I can see PtP's point and mostly I agree with it. I'm happy to let the government decide on, say, the building of a major new motorway, or making a deal with a foreign government. Where the people HAVE to make the decision is in questions of who governs them. Who I trust to govern me is a key factor in shaping my sense of the community that I belong to.
Thus, the Scottish people have to be the ones to decide if they remain part of the UK or opt for independence - NOT the Scottish parliament.
The people of Gibraltar have to decide whether they remain attached to the UK under the present constitutional arrangements, or join Spain.
And the people of the UK have to decide if they see their future as part of some sort of European Federation or not. (So that nobody gets wound up by this particular example, let me say that it is fair comment for any individual to prefer this option, just as it is understandable that other people will have reasons for preferring the opposite).
Just caught this on my way to bed, and yes, I agree.
Had the referendum been framed broadly in those terms, it would have been a lot more honest and the result far more authoritative.
Nite everybody.
The Leave campaign did at least try to address this a little. But the Remain campaign, not only did they decline to advocate the European federation that is the end game for the EU, they denied that such a thing even was the end game.
Good. With a bit of luck very long grass beckons.....
Britain will be bound by European human rights laws for another five years with the Conservatives expected to abandon a pledge to withdraw the UK from the ECHR.
Theresa May is expected to make no mention in the Tory election manifesto of pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I am going to stick my neck out on this one and say that they are calling this one wrong. While much publicity has been given to those many remainers who feel so strongly that they want to see another EU Referendum and the decision unturned, there are also many who have accepted the decision and have got behind team UKplc. For starters, the economic picture in the UK continues to outperform expectations, and no Brit likes the EU trying to brow beat the UK with the kind of threats we have been hearing. Especially when we have been paying through the nose to be a member of this organisation that has been taking away our sovereignty by stealth.
The tone of the rhetoric coming out of the EU is bound to see a fair few Remain voters now getting behind a Government prepared to stand up to the EU and get the best deal for UKplc. Lets face it, for many Remain voters like myself, there was always still a strong element of Eurosceptimism at the lack of democracy and often unfairness in some of the rules within this organisation. I am not one of Theresa May's biggest fans, and spotted early on that she and her inner circle were more Brown than Cameron/Blair when it came to holding on to petty grudges and then settling them at a later date despite a longer term political cost to the wider party. Lets face it, who would you prefer to be running the Foreign Office or Brexit negociations right now, Boris Johnson and David Davis or George Osborne and Michael Gove?
But Theresa May played a blinder when she announced this snap GE on the back of the intransigence of the Libdems, SNP, pockets of the Labour party and the House of Lords threatening to undermine and disrupt the UK's bargaining position. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in Bute House when May called the Sturgeon's bluff and upped her demand and claim of a mandate for another Independence Referendum on the back of the Brexit result with a GE to give her a stronger mandate on both fronts.
2 million voters don't change their mind about who the best PM is in a week (-6% May). This is clearly just a slightly left leaning/pro remain sample !
Maybe the previous one was slightly too Brexity. I am always a bit worried about converts. You know what they say about the zeal of the convert.
You are joking, seriously what were they thinking?!
I'm looking forward to Zac's campaign:
"Hi, my name is Zac and I'm opposed to Heathrow expansion. I realise my party is in favour, but rest assured, if the decision is taken to go forward with its expansion, then I'll resign. Again."
Tory - Independent - Tory. Depends on the season, I suppose.
Without a convincing economic plan, support for independence is likely to remain low. The problem for the pro-independence campaign is that formulating such a plan is even harder now than it was in 2014. In addition, there are now a number of new factors which both exacerbate preexisting concerns while creating new ones.
If the economic, constitutional, and electoral problems are so manifold, the question then is — why now? The SNP’s problem is that legislating a referendum requires a majority in the Scottish parliament, and the trends suggest they might not have this for long. While the SNP won an outright majority in 2011, it lost it in 2016, and now relies upon the Scottish Greens to pass its legislative program. The general election will provide a useful bellwether on support for the SNP and its cause. If support continues to drop, it is possible that by the 2021 Scottish parliamentary elections — by which time the SNP will have been in government for 14 years — the SNP will not be able to push the legislation required for a referendum. In such a scenario, independence could be off the table for another generation.
You are joking, seriously what were they thinking?!
I'm looking forward to Zac's campaign:
"Hi, my name is Zac and I'm opposed to Heathrow expansion. I realise my party is in favour, but rest assured, if the decision is taken to go forward with its expansion, then I'll resign. Again."
Tory - Independent - Tory. Depends on the season, I suppose.
I'm astonished that he is the PPC. Glad McVey for the nod in Tatton though!
You are joking, seriously what were they thinking?!
I'm looking forward to Zac's campaign:
"Hi, my name is Zac and I'm opposed to Heathrow expansion. I realise my party is in favour, but rest assured, if the decision is taken to go forward with its expansion, then I'll resign. Again."
Tory - Independent - Tory. Depends on the season, I suppose.
I'm astonished that he is the PPC. Glad McVey for the nod in Tatton though!
Same here. I hope the local party know what they're doing.......
Without a convincing economic plan, support for independence is likely to remain low. The problem for the pro-independence campaign is that formulating such a plan is even harder now than it was in 2014. In addition, there are now a number of new factors which both exacerbate preexisting concerns while creating new ones.
If the economic, constitutional, and electoral problems are so manifold, the question then is — why now? The SNP’s problem is that legislating a referendum requires a majority in the Scottish parliament, and the trends suggest they might not have this for long. While the SNP won an outright majority in 2011, it lost it in 2016, and now relies upon the Scottish Greens to pass its legislative program. The general election will provide a useful bellwether on support for the SNP and its cause. If support continues to drop, it is possible that by the 2021 Scottish parliamentary elections — by which time the SNP will have been in government for 14 years — the SNP will not be able to push the legislation required for a referendum. In such a scenario, independence could be off the table for another generation.
How?! Seriously, I'm not even a fan of May, and unlike others I've said Corbyn can appear genial, even authoritative and soothing at times, and I find it hard to fathom how so many people are 'not sure' on that question. One just looks and feels like a pm, the other...does not.
Night.
The figures tonight are in contrast with the other polls today including Theresa May the most popular Pm even above Thatcher. It does look to be out of the trend but we will just have to see
We'll see indeed. I'll be interested to see the crossbreaks of the YouGov poll in terms of whether Labour has started to claw back any of the party's 2015 Leave supporters. The poll was taken on the back of Starmer's speech, which gave a more coherent Labour position on Brexit including quite a bit of reporting that Labour had moved its position away from free movement. There's room for a bit of underlying movement in a 7 point net change even if the rest of the change is just an outlier.
I believe Starmer's speech - indeed, his persona - had a lot to do with it. A Remainer "coalition" is slowly forming. They are not thinking that we can be back in the EU but are certainly up for a soft Brexit which will keep a lot of the single market. I think Starmer's point about the customs union will be attractive to business and will slowly percolate about job security.
Grim news emanating from the City almost daily is not helping either. Some of my friends, all on minimum six-figures, are nervous. Two working with foreign banks are convinced that either they will have to move to Europe or find some other job.
Without a convincing economic plan, support for independence is likely to remain low. The problem for the pro-independence campaign is that formulating such a plan is even harder now than it was in 2014. In addition, there are now a number of new factors which both exacerbate preexisting concerns while creating new ones.
If the economic, constitutional, and electoral problems are so manifold, the question then is — why now? The SNP’s problem is that legislating a referendum requires a majority in the Scottish parliament, and the trends suggest they might not have this for long. While the SNP won an outright majority in 2011, it lost it in 2016, and now relies upon the Scottish Greens to pass its legislative program. The general election will provide a useful bellwether on support for the SNP and its cause. If support continues to drop, it is possible that by the 2021 Scottish parliamentary elections — by which time the SNP will have been in government for 14 years — the SNP will not be able to push the legislation required for a referendum. In such a scenario, independence could be off the table for another generation.
Without a convincing economic plan, support for independence is likely to remain low. The problem for the pro-independence campaign is that formulating such a plan is even harder now than it was in 2014. In addition, there are now a number of new factors which both exacerbate preexisting concerns while creating new ones.
If the economic, constitutional, and electoral problems are so manifold, the question then is — why now? The SNP’s problem is that legislating a referendum requires a majority in the Scottish parliament, and the trends suggest they might not have this for long. While the SNP won an outright majority in 2011, it lost it in 2016, and now relies upon the Scottish Greens to pass its legislative program. The general election will provide a useful bellwether on support for the SNP and its cause. If support continues to drop, it is possible that by the 2021 Scottish parliamentary elections — by which time the SNP will have been in government for 14 years — the SNP will not be able to push the legislation required for a referendum. In such a scenario, independence could be off the table for another generation.
Theresa May was REALLY, REALLY weak at PMQs today on the Triple Lock question, an obvious one for her to be asked about and one she should have coped with 100% competently. In that regard she's hopelessly behind Cameron.
She is incredibly wooden. In fact, when she portrays synthetic anger, she looks completely out of depth.
Theresa May was REALLY, REALLY weak at PMQs today on the Triple Lock question, an obvious one for her to be asked about and one she should have coped with 100% competently. In that regard she's hopelessly behind Cameron.
She is incredibly wooden. In fact, when she portrays synthetic anger, she looks completely out of depth.
The bottom line is that despite polls giving her a good approval rating, May is actually wooden, uncomfortable and almost waspish in interview, perhaps we have become used to the slick Cameron/Blair act, but May is not smooth on camera - it'll be interesting if it marks a change in political appeal, away from the coiffured slickness of yesterday and into a more "human" (ie more personality-driven) approach, fortunately JC aint exactly a male model so its hard to see if it marks a change
Interesting - honesty - a brave new politician, or an inexperienced one?
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
(Big G: I do not understand your reference to idiots.)
Most people who voted in the referendum didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against - and that is true of both sides, although I suppose you could just about say that Remainers had a slightly better idea if only because we were actually in the EU already. Even on a fairly intellectual site like this the level of understanding was fairly shallow. I'm as good an example as any. I've followed politics all my life and even written about it, but even I didn't think about what leaving might mean for, say, Gibraltar, or Scottish Independence, or the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. So on voting day I took a reluctant stab at getting the answer right. I would have preferred to vote 'Remain, but.....'. It wasn't an option. Nor was 'Leave, but....' So, I did my best, and voted in accordance with the nearest approximation to my best judgement. S
The politicians who led us into our current situation shirked their responsibilities. Those who perceive their task now as merely to find some sort of majority are continuing in the same irresponsible vein.
Is that clear now, Big G? Hope so. I need some sleep.
I accept that is your view but to label a majority idiots is just unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to a view without being called an idiot
Well I'm sure nobody is offended, Big G, because it's clear that I mean when it comes to complicated matters of policy, international affairs, economics and the like, most people (including myself) are pretty ill-informed and not very well qualified to make a judgement. No, of course I'm not saying they're idiots in the sense of being generally stupid. That would be unpleasant as well as plainly wrong. But in relation to the kind of sophistication you need to make a decent call on matters like Remain/Leave, yes we're mostly desperately lacking and in that sense, a bunch idiots. Isn't that why we appoint representatives to make decisions on our behalf?
Anyway the substantive point was to explain why I didn't think 'suiting a majority' should be regarded as some sort of laudable objective, or at least not in the matter under discussion.
Thanks for your patience in reading what I wrote, and responding civily.
I think many of us are as intelligent and well-informed as the people we elect.
(Big G: I do not understand your reference to idiots.)
Most people who voted in the referendum didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against - and that is true of both sides, although I suppose you could just about say that Remainers had a slightly better idea if only because we were actually in the EU already. Even on a fairly intellectual site like this the level of understanding was fairly shallow. I'm as good an example as any. I've followed politics all my life and even written about it, but even I didn't think about what leaving might mean for, say, Gibraltar, or Scottish Independence, or the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. So on voting day I took a reluctant stab at getting the answer right. I would have preferred to vote 'Remain, but.....'. It wasn't an option. Nor was 'Leave, but....' So, I did my best, and voted in accordance with the nearest approximation to my best judgement. S
The politicians who led us into our current situation shirked their responsibilities. Those who perceive their task now as merely to find some sort of majority are continuing in the same irresponsible vein.
Is that clear now, Big G? Hope so. I need some sleep.
I accept that is your view but to label a majority idiots is just unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to a view without being called an idiot
Well I'm sure nobody is offended, Big G, because it's clear that I mean when it comes to complicated matters of policy, international affairs, economics and the like, most people (including myself) are pretty ill-informed and not very well qualified to make a judgement. No, of course I'm not saying they're idiots in the sense of being generally stupid. That would be unpleasant as well as plainly wrong. But in relation to the kind of sophistication you need to make a decent call on matters like Remain/Leave, yes we're mostly desperately lacking and in that sense, a bunch idiots. Isn't that why we appoint representatives to make decisions on our behalf?
Anyway the substantive point was to explain why I didn't think 'suiting a majority' should be regarded as some sort of laudable objective, or at least not in the matter under discussion.
Thanks for your patience in reading what I wrote, and responding civily.
I think many of us are as intelligent and well-informed as the people we elect.
Surely the problem is that however intelligent someone might be, they cannot be well-informed about every topic.
In fact, a big issue seems to be that many people think that, because they have good knowledge of one area, their views and opinions on another unrelated area must be correct.
(Big G: I do not understand your reference to idiots.)
Most people who voted in the referendum didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against - S
The politicians who led us into our current situation shirked their responsibilities. Those who perceive their task now as merely to find some sort of majority are continuing in the same irresponsible vein.
Is that clear now, Big G? Hope so. I need some sleep.
I accept that is your view but to label a majority idiots is just unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to a view without being called an idiot
Well I'm sure nobody is offended, Big G, because it's clear that I mean when it comes to complicated matters of policy, international affairs, economics and the like, most people (including myself) are pretty ill-informed and not very well qualified to make a judgement. No, of course I'm not saying they're idiots in the sense of being generally stupid. That would be unpleasant as well as plainly wrong. But in relation to the kind of sophistication you need to make a decent call on matters like Remain/Leave, yes we're mostly desperately lacking and in that sense, a bunch idiots. Isn't that why we appoint representatives to make decisions on our behalf?
Anyway the substantive point was to explain why I didn't think 'suiting a majority' should be regarded as some sort of laudable objective, or at least not in the matter under discussion.
Thanks for your patience in reading what I wrote, and responding civily.
I think many of us are as intelligent and well-informed as the people we elect.
Surely the problem is that however intelligent someone might be, they cannot be well-informed about every topic.
In fact, a big issue seems to be that many people think that, because they have good knowledge of one area, their views and opinions on another unrelated area must be correct.
I think that's correct. But, politics isn't like brain surgery or quantum physics, where you really do have to trust the experts, and hope they get it right. You don't need any particular qualification to get elected, nor is the average voter incompetent to decide great political questions.
Theresa May was REALLY, REALLY weak at PMQs today on the Triple Lock question, an obvious one for her to be asked about and one she should have coped with 100% competently. In that regard she's hopelessly behind Cameron.
She is incredibly wooden. In fact, when she portrays synthetic anger, she looks completely out of depth.
The bottom line is that despite polls giving her a good approval rating, May is actually wooden, uncomfortable and almost waspish in interview, perhaps we have become used to the slick Cameron/Blair act, but May is not smooth on camera - it'll be interesting if it marks a change in political appeal, away from the coiffured slickness of yesterday and into a more "human" (ie more personality-driven) approach, fortunately JC aint exactly a male model so its hard to see if it marks a change
I think one of Mrs May's attractions is : she is not David Cameron who enjoyed the limelight and was relaxed in it. she is not Ed Miliband who appeared lost in the limelight she is not Gordon Brown who was pugnacious in the limelight
and she is not J Corbyn who sounds like a rerun of Citizen Smith but with ham acting.
She appears human, down to earth and disinclined to grab airtime just for a soundbite (She may not be of course, but that is how she appears to me)
Interesting - honesty - a brave new politician, or an inexperienced one?
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
Imagine May actually engaging with voters in that way. She couldn't and wouldn't. The Facebook clip is well worth watching. Macron has got something about him.
Re the Yougov poll, I expect this is far closer to where we'll finish than some of the silly leads we've been seeing. That would see the Conservatives finishing level in Wales (still a historic achievement) rather than 10% ahead, which is unbelievable.
Surely the problem is that however intelligent someone might be, they cannot be well-informed about every topic.
In fact, a big issue seems to be that many people think that, because they have good knowledge of one area, their views and opinions on another unrelated area must be correct.
I think that's correct. But, politics isn't like brain surgery or quantum physics, where you really do have to trust the experts, and hope they get it right. You don't need any particular qualification to get elected, nor is the average voter incompetent to decide great political questions.
"nor is the average voter incompetent to decide great political questions"
Okay, this may be controversial. Yes, they are.
That's why we have the ultra-low quality of political debate amongst the public, where someone's background, name, ethnicity or looks might matter as much as what they say or do. Why the 'Cameron and a pig' story was headline news, or David Miiband and the banana helped ruin his career. It's why we get large percentages of people who vote for the same party election after election, regardless of that party's competence.
As an example, I know f'all about economics. I could probably describe the Laffer curve (though I've no idea if I'd get it right), and so my judgement on economic questions basically come down to my existing bias. If you were to ask me, as an individual, to decide an economic policy I'd be worse than incompetent.
Yet I'd argue that democracy, where run well, works. Why? Because whilst the average voter is incompetent to decide great political questions, when you get a few thousand, or a few million, together, you mostly get a relatively sane answer. 'Wisdom of the crowds' writ large.
British car manufacturing enjoyed its best month in 17 years in March fuelled by demand for vehicles from abroad.
The number of cars to roll off UK production lines rose by 7.3% last month compared with a year earlier, to 170,691 - the highest number since March 2000.
(Big G: I do not understand your reference to idiots.)
Most people who voted in the referendum didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against - and that is true of both sides, although I suppose you could just about say that Remainers had a slightly better idea if only because we were actually in the EU already. Even on a fairly intellectual site like this the level of understanding was fairly shallow. I'm as good an example as any. I've followed politics all my life and even written about it, but even I didn't think about what leaving might mean for, say, Gibraltar, or Scottish Independence, or the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. So on voting day I took a reluctant stab at getting the answer right. I would have preferred to vote 'Remain, but.....'. It wasn't an option. Nor was 'Leave, but....' So, I did my best, and voted in accordance with the nearest approximation to my best judgement. S
The politicians who led us into our current situation shirked their responsibilities. Those who perceive their task now as merely to find some sort of majority are continuing in the same irresponsible vein.
Is that clear now, Big G? Hope so. I need some sleep.
I accept that is your view but to label a majority idiots is just unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to a view without being called an idiot
Well I'm sure nobody is offended, Big G, because it's clear that I mean when it comes to complicated matters of policy, international affairs, economics and the like, most people (including myself) are pretty ill-informed and not very well qualified to make a judgement. No, of course I'm not saying they're idiots in the sense of being generally stupid. That would be unpleasant as well as plainly wrong. But in relation to the kind of sophistication you need to make a decent call on matters like Remain/Leave, yes we're mostly desperately lacking and in that sense, a bunch idiots. Isn't that why we appoint representatives to make decisions on our behalf?
Anyway the substantive point was to explain why I didn't think 'suiting a majority' should be regarded as some sort of laudable objective, or at least not in the matter under discussion.
Thanks for your patience in reading what I wrote, and responding civily.
I think many of us are as intelligent and well-informed as the people we elect.
I agree. That is reinforced by personally knowing a handful of those who have been elected.
Of course, a few are tremendously clever and exceptionally well informed.
Interesting - honesty - a brave new politician, or an inexperienced one?
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
Imagine May actually engaging with voters in that way. She couldn't and wouldn't. The Facebook clip is well worth watching. Macron has got something about him.
Not really. He's like a dozen senior investment bankers (admitted the best at that particular job) that I know.
Anders Bergendahl, Carlo Calabria or definitely Andrea Orcel, for instance, could all knock him into a cocked hat. Freddie Wraneus would give him a run for his money, but he probably would outperform most of the Brits in the industry (someone like Simon Robey is technically better as a banker, but wouldn't be able to make the transition to the public world, while Bob Wiggly is just too Blairish)
Surely the problem is that however intelligent someone might be, they cannot be well-informed about every topic.
In fact, a big issue seems to be that many people think that, because they have good knowledge of one area, their views and opinions on another unrelated area must be correct.
I think that's correct. But, politics isn't like brain surgery or quantum physics, where you really do have to trust the experts, and hope they get it right. You don't need any particular qualification to get elected, nor is the average voter incompetent to decide great political questions.
"nor is the average voter incompetent to decide great political questions"
Okay, this may be controversial. Yes, they are.
That's why we have the ultra-low quality of political debate amongst the public, where someone's background, name, ethnicity or looks might matter as much as what they say or do. Why the 'Cameron and a pig' story was headline news, or David Miiband and the banana helped ruin his career. It's why we get large percentages of people who vote for the same party election after election, regardless of that party's competence.
As an example, I know f'all about economics. I could probably describe the Laffer curve (though I've no idea if I'd get it right), and so my judgement on economic questions basically come down to my existing bias. If you were to ask me, as an individual, to decide an economic policy I'd be worse than incompetent.
Yet I'd argue that democracy, where run well, works. Why? Because whilst the average voter is incompetent to decide great political questions, when you get a few thousand, or a few million, together, you mostly get a relatively sane answer. 'Wisdom of the crowds' writ large.
Cameron and the pig was funny. That's why it was news.
(Big G: I do not understand your reference to idiots.)
Most people who voted in the referendum didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against - and that is true of both sides, although I suppose you could just about say that Remainers had a slightly better idea if only because we were actually in the EU already. Even on a fairly intellectual site was fairly shallow. I'm as good an example as any. I've followed politics all my life and even written about it, but even I didn't think about what leaving might mean for, say, Gibraltar, or Scottish Independence, or the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. So on voting day I took a reluctant stab at getting the answer right. I would have preferred to vote 'Remain, but.....'. It wasn't an option. Nor was 'Leave, but....' So, I did my best, and voted in accordance with the nearest approximation to my best judgement. S
The politicians who led us into our current situation shirked their responsibilities. Those who perceive their task now as merely to find some sort of majority are continuing in the same irresponsible vein.
Is that clear now, Big G? Hope so. I need some sleep.
I accept that is your view but to label a majority idiots is just unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to a view without being called an idiot
Well I'm sure nobody is offended, Big G, because it's clear that I mean when it comes to complicated matters of policy, international affairs, economics and the like, most people (including myself) are pretty ill-informed and not very well qualified to make a judgement. No, of course I'm not saying they're idiots in the sense of being generally stupid. That would be unpleasant as well as plainly wrong. But in relation to the kind of sophistication you need to make a decent call on matters like Remain/Leave, yes we're mostly desperately lacking and in that sense, a bunch idiots. Isn't that why we appoint representatives to make decisions on our behalf?
Anyway the substantive point was to explain why I didn't think 'suiting a majority' should be regarded as some sort of laudable objective, or at least not in the matter under discussion.
Thanks for your patience in reading what I wrote, and responding civily.
I think many of us are as intelligent and well-informed as the people we elect.
I agree. That is reinforced by personally knowing a handful of those who have been elected.
Of course, a few are tremendously clever and exceptionally well informed.
The essence of democracy is to reject the notion of elites - however expert they may be - deciding everything for us plebeians.
Interesting - honesty - a brave new politician, or an inexperienced one?
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
Imagine May actually engaging with voters in that way. She couldn't and wouldn't. The Facebook clip is well worth watching. Macron has got something about him.
Impressive, compared with LePen's 10 min selfie stop.
Naive campaigning or brave?
Certainly a marked contrast to May's wooden performances with silent workers not allowed to speak to the press.
Interesting - honesty - a brave new politician, or an inexperienced one?
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
Imagine May actually engaging with voters in that way. She couldn't and wouldn't. The Facebook clip is well worth watching. Macron has got something about him.
Not really. He's like a dozen senior investment bankers (admitted the best at that particular job) that I know.
Anders Bergendahl, Carlo Calabria or definitely Andrea Orcel, for instance, could all knock him into a cocked hat. Freddie Wraneus would give him a run for his money, but he probably would outperform most of the Brits in the industry (someone like Simon Robey is technically better as a banker, but wouldn't be able to make the transition to the public world, while Bob Wiggly is just too Blairish)
Macron has been compared to Blair which says it all really. I think many Liberal/left pundits have lost all sense of rational judgement with regards to leadership in this country - this is what a few years of a Corbyn leadership has done, when any improvement requires little more than a pulse to qualify.
Surely the problem is that however intelligent someone might be, they cannot be well-informed about every topic.
In fact, a big issue seems to be that many people think that, because they have good knowledge of one area, their views and opinions on another unrelated area must be correct.
I think that's correct. But, politics isn't like brain surgery or quantum physics, where you really do have to trust the experts, and hope they get it right. You don't need any particular qualification to get elected, nor is the average voter incompetent to decide great political questions.
"nor is the average voter incompetent to decide great political questions"
Okay, this may be controversial. Yes, they are.
That's why we have the ultra-low quality of political debate amongst the public, where someone's background, name, ethnicity or looks might matter as much as what they say or do. Why the 'Cameron and a pig' story was headline news, or David Miiband and the banana helped ruin his career. It's why we get large percentages of people who vote for the same party election after election, regardless of that party's competence.
As an example, I know f'all about economics. I could probably describe the Laffer curve (though I've no idea if I'd get it right), and so my judgement on economic questions basically come down to my existing bias. If you were to ask me, as an individual, to decide an economic policy I'd be worse than incompetent.
Yet I'd argue that democracy, where run well, works. Why? Because whilst the average voter is incompetent to decide great political questions, when you get a few thousand, or a few million, together, you mostly get a relatively sane answer. 'Wisdom of the crowds' writ large.
Democracy works because the process itself ensures that, more often than in other systems, people with power don't get overly greedy, complacent, power-abusive or corrupt, since they know that sooner or later they or their party will be removed from office. And to make system more responsive to public opinion between elections, because there is always half an eye on winning potential votes. It isn't really about getting to a "right" answer in any objective sense (in theory that is what officials are for).
Interesting - honesty - a brave new politician, or an inexperienced one?
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
Imagine May actually engaging with voters in that way. She couldn't and wouldn't. The Facebook clip is well worth watching. Macron has got something about him.
Impressive, compared with LePen's 10 min selfie stop.
Naive campaigning or brave?
Certainly a marked contrast to May's wooden performances with silent workers not allowed to speak to the press.
Surely the problem is that however intelligent someone might be, they cannot be well-informed about every topic.
In fact, a big issue seems to be that many people think that, because they have good knowledge of one area, their views and opinions on another unrelated area must be correct.
I think that's correct. But, politics isn't like brain surgery or quantum physics, where you really do have to trust the experts, and hope they get it right. You don't need any particular qualification to get elected, nor is the average voter incompetent to decide great political questions.
"nor is the average voter incompetent to decide great political questions"
Okay, this may be controversial. Yes, they are.
That's why we have the ultra-low quality of political debate amongst the public, where someone's background, name, ethnicity or looks might matter as much as what they say or do. Why the 'Cameron and a pig' story was headline news, or David Miiband and the banana helped ruin his career. It's why we get large percentages of people who vote for the same party election after election, regardless of that party's competence.
As an example, I know f'all about economics. I could probably describe the Laffer curve (though I've no idea if I'd get it right), and so my judgement on economic questions basically come down to my existing bias. If you were to ask me, as an individual, to decide an economic policy I'd be worse than incompetent.
Yet I'd argue that democracy, where run well, works. Why? Because whilst the average voter is incompetent to decide great political questions, when you get a few thousand, or a few million, together, you mostly get a relatively sane answer. 'Wisdom of the crowds' writ large.
Cameron and the pig was funny. That's why it was news.
It's still used elsewhere (and I think occasionally on here) with reference to him, in terms like: "What do you expect from someone who'd **** a pig."
The same with Miliband and the banana. Funny, yes. Important, no.
Before Mrs May called the election, he did a piece where his sources told him that the Crosby polling in the South West marginals was to do with worries over expense charges.
How many of these will result in prosecutions? And in how many of these prosecutions will a jury find there was intent? Very, very few is my assessment.
And yet it is routinely talked of on here as a massive scandal that was going to bring down the Government's majority.
I struggle with two issues around this:
A. The relentless leaking by the CPS. Their job is to make a decision not to tell the world thet they're going to make a decision. Their history is that they're lazy incompetents led by politically minded incompetents but I thought this was something they were trying to change; and
B. The time extensions. It's possible that these are usual but to double the time limit strikes me as a breach of natural justice - time limits are there for certainty and allowing a year's extension is the opposite of certainty. The extension surely is there if the police think they have almost all the evidence but just need a few more days. It just seems an excuse for leisurely investigations and hoping that the nominal accused will confess to something to make it all go away.
Interesting - honesty - a brave new politician, or an inexperienced one?
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
Imagine May actually engaging with voters in that way. She couldn't and wouldn't. The Facebook clip is well worth watching. Macron has got something about him.
Not really. He's like a dozen senior investment bankers (admitted the best at that particular job) that I know.
Anders Bergendahl, Carlo Calabria or definitely Andrea Orcel, for instance, could all knock him into a cocked hat. Freddie Wraneus would give him a run for his money, but he probably would outperform most of the Brits in the industry (someone like Simon Robey is technically better as a banker, but wouldn't be able to make the transition to the public world, while Bob Wiggly is just too Blairish)
I used to criticise Cameron on a similar basis. 'How could an account executive at an ad agency whose job was to sell the ideas of much more talented people possibly be qualified to be PM?'
It took me a while to accept he was no more born an account exec than he was a PM and infact the talents of an account exec (such as they are) are wasted in an ad agency. They'd be far better employed as a prime minister.
Interesting - honesty - a brave new politician, or an inexperienced one?
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
Imagine May actually engaging with voters in that way. She couldn't and wouldn't. The Facebook clip is well worth watching. Macron has got something about him.
Not really. He's like a dozen senior investment bankers (admitted the best at that particular job) that I know.
Anders Bergendahl, Carlo Calabria or definitely Andrea Orcel, for instance, could all knock him into a cocked hat. Freddie Wraneus would give him a run for his money, but he probably would outperform most of the Brits in the industry (someone like Simon Robey is technically better as a banker, but wouldn't be able to make the transition to the public world, while Bob Wiggly is just too Blairish)
Yep, that's right Charles: you find investment bankers down at the factory gates debating with hostile workers worried about losing their jobs every day of the week.
Very impressive you know some investment bankers btw.
Before Mrs May called the election, he did a piece where his sources told him that the Crosby polling in the South West marginals was to do with worries over expense charges.
How many of these will result in prosecutions? And in how many of these prosecutions will a jury find there was intent? Very, very few is my assessment.
And yet it is routinely talked of on here as a massive scandal that was going to bring down the Government's majority.
I struggle with two issues around this:
A. The relentless leaking by the CPS. Their job is to make a decision not to tell the world thet they're going to make a decision. Their history is that they're lazy incompetents led by politically minded incompetents but I thought this was something they were trying to change; and
B. The time extensions. It's possible that these are usual but to double the time limit strikes me as a breach of natural justice - time limits are there for certainty and allowing a year's extension is the opposite of certainty. The extension surely is there if the police think they have almost all the evidence but just need a few more days. It just seems an excuse for leisurely investigations and hoping that the nominal accused will confess to something to make it all go away.
The one I heard about is outrageously trivial. No overnight stay by battle bus, one single visit. Instructions from party to assign to national campaign. If included in local campaign still wouldn't have breached spending limits, yet local force has sent files to cps.
Surely the problem is that however intelligent someone might be, they cannot be well-informed about every topic.
In fact, a big issue seems to be that many people think that, because they have good knowledge of one area, their views and opinions on another unrelated area must be correct.
I think that's correct. But, politics isn't like brain surgery or quantum physics, where you really do have to trust the experts, and hope they get it right. You don't need any particular qualification to get elected, nor is the average voter incompetent to decide great political questions.
"nor is the average voter incompetent to decide great political questions"
Okay, this may be controversial. Yes, they are.
That's why we have the ultra-low quality of political debate amongst the public, where someone's background, name, ethnicity or looks might matter as much as what they say or do. Why the 'Cameron and a pig' story was headline news, or David Miiband and the banana helped ruin his career. It's why we get large percentages of people who vote for the same party election after election, regardless of that party's competence.
As an example, I know f'all about economics. I could probably describe the Laffer curve (though I've no idea if I'd get it right), and so my judgement on economic questions basically come down to my existing bias. If you were to ask me, as an individual, to decide an economic policy I'd be worse than incompetent.
Yet I'd argue that democracy, where run well, works. Why? Because whilst the average voter is incompetent to decide great political questions, when you get a few thousand, or a few million, together, you mostly get a relatively sane answer. 'Wisdom of the crowds' writ large.
Democracy works because the process itself ensures that, more often than in other systems, people with power don't get overly greedy, complacent, power-abusive or corrupt, since they know that sooner or later they or their party will be removed from office. And to make system more responsive to public opinion between elections, because there is always half an eye on winning potential votes. It isn't really about getting to a "right" answer in any objective sense (in theory that is what officials are for).
That's a good point. Yet when one of the extremes is offered, the electorate mostly don't accept their promises (witness Corbyn).
British car manufacturing enjoyed its best month in 17 years in March fuelled by demand for vehicles from abroad.
The number of cars to roll off UK production lines rose by 7.3% last month compared with a year earlier, to 170,691 - the highest number since March 2000.
Does make one wonder why the fuck we're risking it all by leaving the EU...typical of this country just as things start looking up we clutch defeat from the jaws of victory
Before Mrs May called the election, he did a piece where his sources told him that the Crosby polling in the South West marginals was to do with worries over expense charges.
How many of these will result in prosecutions? And in how many of these prosecutions will a jury find there was intent? Very, very few is my assessment.
And yet it is routinely talked of on here as a massive scandal that was going to bring down the Government's majority.
I struggle with two issues around this:
A. The relentless leaking by the CPS. Their job is to make a decision not to tell the world thet they're going to make a decision. Their history is that they're lazy incompetents led by politically minded incompetents but I thought this was something they were trying to change; and
B. The time extensions. It's possible that these are usual but to double the time limit strikes me as a breach of natural justice - time limits are there for certainty and allowing a year's extension is the opposite of certainty. The extension surely is there if the police think they have almost all the evidence but just need a few more days. It just seems an excuse for leisurely investigations and hoping that the nominal accused will confess to something to make it all go away.
I can understand extensions if the cases are incredibly complex. But surely this cannot be the case here?
Before Mrs May called the election, he did a piece where his sources told him that the Crosby polling in the South West marginals was to do with worries over expense charges.
How many of these will result in prosecutions? And in how many of these prosecutions will a jury find there was intent? Very, very few is my assessment.
And yet it is routinely talked of on here as a massive scandal that was going to bring down the Government's majority.
I struggle with two issues around this:
A. The relentless leaking by the CPS. Their job is to make a decision not to tell the world thet they're going to make a decision. Their history is that they're lazy incompetents led by politically minded incompetents but I thought this was something they were trying to change; and
B. The time extensions. It's possible that these are usual but to double the time limit strikes me as a breach of natural justice - time limits are there for certainty and allowing a year's extension is the opposite of certainty. The extension surely is there if the police think they have almost all the evidence but just need a few more days. It just seems an excuse for leisurely investigations and hoping that the nominal accused will confess to something to make it all go away.
Whatever the CPS decide, it will be nigh on impossible to arrange any trials this side of the election; hence I struggle to see the matter having much impact.
Good. With a bit of luck very long grass beckons.....
Britain will be bound by European human rights laws for another five years with the Conservatives expected to abandon a pledge to withdraw the UK from the ECHR.
Theresa May is expected to make no mention in the Tory election manifesto of pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Macron is truly the wonder of our age - under 25% in a vote against a neo-fascist, an ageing communist, a corrupt right-winger.....etc, etc. What Theresa would give for that kind of charisma.
Meanwhile Marine LePen has put Jean Francois Jalkh (who has in the past been a holocaust denier) in charge of the FN during her absence. I await all the condemnation that PBers usually display to anti-semitism.
British car manufacturing enjoyed its best month in 17 years in March fuelled by demand for vehicles from abroad.
The number of cars to roll off UK production lines rose by 7.3% last month compared with a year earlier, to 170,691 - the highest number since March 2000.
Does make one wonder why the fuck we're risking it all by leaving the EU...typical of this country just as things start looking up we clutch defeat from the jaws of victory
Interesting - honesty - a brave new politician, or an inexperienced one?
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
Imagine May actually engaging with voters in that way. She couldn't and wouldn't. The Facebook clip is well worth watching. Macron has got something about him.
Not really. He's like a dozen senior investment bankers (admitted the best at that particular job) that I know.
Anders Bergendahl, Carlo Calabria or definitely Andrea Orcel, for instance, could all knock him into a cocked hat. Freddie Wraneus would give him a run for his money, but he probably would outperform most of the Brits in the industry (someone like Simon Robey is technically better as a banker, but wouldn't be able to make the transition to the public world, while Bob Wiggly is just too Blairish)
Macron has been compared to Blair which says it all really. I think many Liberal/left pundits have lost all sense of rational judgement with regards to leadership in this country - this is what a few years of a Corbyn leadership has done, when any improvement requires little more than a pulse to qualify.
If you don't think it's impressive Macron had enough respect for ordinary voters to spend time debating with them in an uncontrolled environment and to be honest with them about globalisation when he did, so be it. That approach seems a lot more authentic to me than choreographed strolls around factory floors under highly controlled conditions. I guess that's because I have lost all sense of rational judgement.
British car manufacturing enjoyed its best month in 17 years in March fuelled by demand for vehicles from abroad.
The number of cars to roll off UK production lines rose by 7.3% last month compared with a year earlier, to 170,691 - the highest number since March 2000.
Does make one wonder why the fuck we're risking it all by leaving the EU...typical of this country just as things start looking up we clutch defeat from the jaws of victory
Because our political aims are different from those of most EU leaders.
British car manufacturing enjoyed its best month in 17 years in March fuelled by demand for vehicles from abroad.
The number of cars to roll off UK production lines rose by 7.3% last month compared with a year earlier, to 170,691 - the highest number since March 2000.
Does make one wonder why the fuck we're risking it all by leaving the EU...typical of this country just as things start looking up we clutch defeat from the jaws of victory
British car manufacturing enjoyed its best month in 17 years in March fuelled by demand for vehicles from abroad.
Crucially, how much of that is from the EU is not mentioned. 10% tariff looms.
Macron is truly the wonder of our age - under 25% in a vote against a neo-fascist, an ageing communist, a corrupt right-winger.....etc, etc. What Theresa would give for that kind of charisma.
Good to see Macron being lionised already, not like the centre left/left have been very wrong about this in the recent past in Europe. Very little is known about him, he is still building a party and has a murky personal life. Give the man a chance eh?
British car manufacturing enjoyed its best month in 17 years in March fuelled by demand for vehicles from abroad.
The number of cars to roll off UK production lines rose by 7.3% last month compared with a year earlier, to 170,691 - the highest number since March 2000.
Does make one wonder why the fuck we're risking it all by leaving the EU...typical of this country just as things start looking up we clutch defeat from the jaws of victory
Exports up; most to Europe. Demand at home down. A tasty circle for Boris, Dave and Liam to square.
May's favourability ratings range from -36 among 18-24 reaching +40 among the 65+. Corbyn by contrast is least unpopular among the youngest (-10) and most among the oldest (-61) - so that's now over a 100 point difference between May & Corbyn among the 65+.
Sturgeon was also included - she's not popular in GB (-36) but is in Scotland (subsample) (+14) comfortably ahead of May (-22) and Corbyn (-33). SNP 2015 vote is not asked so its not possible to compare as with the others.
Interesting - honesty - a brave new politician, or an inexperienced one?
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
Imagine May actually engaging with voters in that way. She couldn't and wouldn't. The Facebook clip is well worth watching. Macron has got something about him.
Not really. He's like a dozen senior investment bankers (admitted the best at that particular job) that I know.
Anders Bergendahl, Carlo Calabria or definitely Andrea Orcel, for instance, could all knock him into a cocked hat. Freddie Wraneus would give him a run for his money, but he probably would outperform most of the Brits in the industry (someone like Simon Robey is technically better as a banker, but wouldn't be able to make the transition to the public world, while Bob Wiggly is just too Blairish)
Macron has been compared to Blair which says it all really. I think many Liberal/left pundits have lost all sense of rational judgement with regards to leadership in this country - this is what a few years of a Corbyn leadership has done, when any improvement requires little more than a pulse to qualify.
If you don't think it's impressive Macron had enough respect for ordinary voters to spend time debating with them in an uncontrolled environment and to be honest with them about globalisation when he did, so be it. That approach seems a lot more authentic to me than choreographed strolls around factory floors under highly controlled conditions. I guess that's because I have lost all sense of rational judgement.
Clearly Macron is no coward, and is a genuine believer in Liberal economics as well as Liberal social values.
Debating angry workers suggests that he has the courage for the economic reforms needed in France, and real confidence in his ideas.
Worth noting that this took place in his hometown of Amiens.
Interesting - honesty - a brave new politician, or an inexperienced one?
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
Imagine May actually engaging with voters in that way. She couldn't and wouldn't. The Facebook clip is well worth watching. Macron has got something about him.
Not really. He's like a dozen senior investment bankers (admitted the best at that particular job) that I know.
Anders Bergendahl, Carlo Calabria or definitely Andrea Orcel, for instance, could all knock him into a cocked hat. Freddie Wraneus would give him a run for his money, but he probably would outperform most of the Brits in the industry (someone like Simon Robey is technically better as a banker, but wouldn't be able to make the transition to the public world, while Bob Wiggly is just too Blairish)
Macron has been compared to Blair which says it all really. I think many Liberal/left pundits have lost all sense of rational judgement with regards to leadership in this country - this is what a few years of a Corbyn leadership has done, when any improvement requires little more than a pulse to qualify.
If you don't think it's impressive Macron had enough respect for ordinary voters to spend time debating with them in an uncontrolled environment and to be honest with them about globalisation when he did, so be it. That approach seems a lot more authentic to me than choreographed strolls around factory floors under highly controlled conditions. I guess that's because I have lost all sense of rational judgement.
Clearly Macron is no coward, and is a genuine believer in Liberal economics as well as Liberal social values.
Debating angry workers suggests that he has the courage for the economic reforms needed in France, and real confidence in his ideas.
Worth noting that this took place in his hometown of Amiens.
Someone should ask him how many times in the last 10 months, did more people regret leaving as opposed to remaining and how many of those instances were in the last month.
I guess the Conservatives really don't want to win Richmond.
He's one of the three Conservative candidates who I simply could not vote for.
Who are the other two if I may ask ?
Sure, David Tredinnick is one. And someone who went to university with my wife is another.
Even David Tredinnick has his use.
He was able to upset our old friend tim with his medical opinions.
You know, most homeopathy believers and practicers are pretty harmless. I believe in evidence based medicine, science and government. And I get the fact that someone - who charges a relatively modest amount - and listens to your problems for half an hour probably isn't doing any harm.
But homeopathy is merely the most obvious of Tredinnick's divorcement from reality. He really believes in astrology and has pushed for its inclusion in the NHS. He's a fan of remote healing. That's proper bonkers, that is. And then there's the MMR vaccine.
There are many parts of science and policy that right thinking people can disagree about. We can talk about the extent to which equality of opportunity infringes on parent's rights. We can discuss whether global warming exists. We can argue about the best way to run a criminal justice system or what the correct rate of marginal tax is.
All these things are - passionately - debatable.
But astrology is not. Nor is remote healing. Nor homeopathy. Tredinnick is a fraud or an idiot. Whichever it is, he shouldn't be an elected official.
Unfortunately people are allowed to vote for idiots. It's the parties' faults for selecting them.
David Tredinnick's views on Homeopathy are extremely dangerous. There are instances where Cancer patients have forsaken their prescribed medication for homeopathic remedies. When I was asked to include homeopathy in the Medical Curriculum, I said - Sure, provide me with double blind control studies showing it works and I'll change the curriculum. Nobody ever contacted me.
There's a great line in Tim Minchin's polemic Storm:
Do you know what we call alternative medicine which has been proven to work?
Interesting - honesty - a brave new politician, or an inexperienced one?
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
Imagine May actually engaging with voters in that way. She couldn't and wouldn't. The Facebook clip is well worth watching. Macron has got something about him.
Not really. He's like a dozen senior investment bankers (admitted the best at that particular job) that I know.
Anders Bergendahl, Carlo Calabria or definitely Andrea Orcel, for instance, could all knock him into a cocked hat. Freddie Wraneus would give him a run for his money, but he probably would outperform most of the Brits in the industry (someone like Simon Robey is technically better as a banker, but wouldn't be able to make the transition to the public world, while Bob Wiggly is just too Blairish)
Macron has been compared to Blair which says it all really. I think many Liberal/left pundits have lost all sense of rational judgement with regards to leadership in this country - this is what a few years of a Corbyn leadership has done, when any improvement requires little more than a pulse to qualify.
If you don't think it's impressive Macron had enough respect for ordinary voters to spend time debating with them in an uncontrolled environment and to be honest with them about globalisation when he did, so be it. That approach seems a lot more authentic to me than choreographed strolls around factory floors under highly controlled conditions. I guess that's because I have lost all sense of rational judgement.
I think you have - the other day it was Yvette Cooper after one question in PMQs.
A. The relentless leaking by the CPS. Their job is to make a decision not to tell the world thet they're going to make a decision. Their history is that they're lazy incompetents led by politically minded incompetents but I thought this was something they were trying to change; and
B. The time extensions. It's possible that these are usual but to double the time limit strikes me as a breach of natural justice - time limits are there for certainty and allowing a year's extension is the opposite of certainty. The extension surely is there if the police think they have almost all the evidence but just need a few more days. It just seems an excuse for leisurely investigations and hoping that the nominal accused will confess to something to make it all go away.
The time extensions didn't surprise me. I think we have had 15 separate forces now reporting back to the CPS. None of those forces had any expertise in policing elections. They have all started from scratch, presumably having their own methodology on how to run the case. I heard yesterday of £1.5m being the cost for just one of these investigations.
And there won't be any "confessions". It is possible that there might be one or two that go to a jury. But I suspect that the CPS will decide - properly - that there is no chance of getting a conviction in most cases, because there was no intent to cheat the system. There are cases where, for example, if the "Battle Bus" cost for half a day HAD been included within constituency level expenses, then those expenses would still have been within limits. Hard to see how democracy was adversely impacted there.
Many of these allegations have been made by political opponents trying to garner some political advantage. That advantage is being played, in the interim period before the CPS have made their decisions on whether there is a case - by parties who, like the Tories, have already been fined for their less than whiter-than-white record. We see it here. We see it in Parliament, from Denis Skinner. That's where I have a problem.
Good to see Macron being lionised already, not like the centre left/left have been very wrong about this in the recent past in Europe. Very little is known about him, he is still building a party and has a murky personal life. Give the man a chance eh?
Macron is truly the wonder of our age - under 25% in a vote against a neo-fascist, an ageing communist, a corrupt right-winger.....etc, etc. What Theresa would give for that kind of charisma.
British car manufacturing enjoyed its best month in 17 years in March fuelled by demand for vehicles from abroad.
The number of cars to roll off UK production lines rose by 7.3% last month compared with a year earlier, to 170,691 - the highest number since March 2000.
Does make one wonder why the fuck we're risking it all by leaving the EU...typical of this country just as things start looking up we clutch defeat from the jaws of victory
I think it has a lot to do with the career trajectory of Boris Johnson and seventeen million largely uneducated followers.
Good to see Macron being lionised already, not like the centre left/left have been very wrong about this in the recent past in Europe. Very little is known about him, he is still building a party and has a murky personal life. Give the man a chance eh?
What's his personal life got to do with anything?
To me, nothing. To the press and his opponents, a field day.
Macron is truly the wonder of our age - under 25% in a vote against a neo-fascist, an ageing communist, a corrupt right-winger.....etc, etc. What Theresa would give for that kind of charisma.
Turn it around: a man with no party, and no history of political operations, manages to beat four parties who've historically got tens o millions of votes
British car manufacturing enjoyed its best month in 17 years in March fuelled by demand for vehicles from abroad.
The number of cars to roll off UK production lines rose by 7.3% last month compared with a year earlier, to 170,691 - the highest number since March 2000.
Does make one wonder why the fuck we're risking it all by leaving the EU...typical of this country just as things start looking up we clutch defeat from the jaws of victory
British car manufacturing enjoyed its best month in 17 years in March fuelled by demand for vehicles from abroad.
Crucially, how much of that is from the EU is not mentioned. 10% tariff looms.
The mooted tariff is pretty much negated by the depreciation of Sterling. The reverse would be the case with imported vehicles. British consumers are the fall guys.
The real damage of customs barriers would be on the supply chains, and perhaps to the brand image of British badged cars. Probably more significant for badges like Jaguar, Range Rover and Mini than "Japanese" badges like Nissan or Toyota.
Macron is truly the wonder of our age - under 25% in a vote against a neo-fascist, an ageing communist, a corrupt right-winger.....etc, etc. What Theresa would give for that kind of charisma.
A profoundly rational post :-)
Don't like the figures - try sneering.
I have absolutely no problem with the figures. Macron was fighting a group of machine politicians all backed by long-established, national party organisations. He beat them all. That impresses me. Another example of me losing all rational judgement, I guess.
Macron is truly the wonder of our age - under 25% in a vote against a neo-fascist, an ageing communist, a corrupt right-winger.....etc, etc. What Theresa would give for that kind of charisma.
Turn it around: a man with no party, and no history of political operations, manages to beat four parties who've historically got tens o millions of votes
Says a lot about the state of France - rather less about Macron. Of course I will stand corrected if France has reformed 5 years down the road - don't hold your breath.
I guess the Conservatives really don't want to win Richmond.
He's one of the three Conservative candidates who I simply could not vote for.
Who are the other two if I may ask ?
Sure, David Tredinnick is one. And someone who went to university with my wife is another.
Even David Tredinnick has his use.
He was able to upset our old friend tim with his medical opinions.
You know, most homeopathy believers and practicers are pretty harmless. I believe in evidence based medicine, science and government. And I get the fact that someone - who charges a relatively modest amount - and listens to your problems for half an hour probably isn't doing any harm.
But homeopathy is merely the most obvious of Tredinnick's divorcement from reality. He really believes in astrology and has pushed for its inclusion in the NHS. He's a fan of remote healing. That's proper bonkers, that is. And then there's the MMR vaccine.
There are many parts of science and policy that right thinking people can disagree about. We can talk about the extent to which equality of opportunity infringes on parent's rights. We can discuss whether global warming exists. We can argue about the best way to run a criminal justice system or what the correct rate of marginal tax is.
All these things are - passionately - debatable.
But astrology is not. Nor is remote healing. Nor homeopathy. Tredinnick is a fraud or an idiot. Whichever it is, he shouldn't be an elected official.
Unfortunately people are allowed to vote for idiots. It's the parties' faults for selecting them.
David Tredinnick's views on Homeopathy are extremely dangerous. There are instances where Cancer patients have forsaken their prescribed medication for homeopathic remedies. When I was asked to include homeopathy in the Medical Curriculum, I said - Sure, provide me with double blind control studies showing it works and I'll change the curriculum. Nobody ever contacted me.
There's a great line in Tim Minchin's polemic Storm:
Do you know what we call alternative medicine which has been proven to work?
Medicine.
David Tredinnick wants to return medicine to the 16th century.
Macron is truly the wonder of our age - under 25% in a vote against a neo-fascist, an ageing communist, a corrupt right-winger.....etc, etc. What Theresa would give for that kind of charisma.
Turn it around: a man with no party, and no history of political operations, manages to beat four parties who've historically got tens o millions of votes
Says a lot about the state of France - rather less about Macron. Of course I will stand corrected if France has reformed 5 years down the road - don't hold your breath.
Yup. It tells you how bad things are in France not how good Macron is.
Interesting - honesty - a brave new politician, or an inexperienced one?
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
Imagine May actually engaging with voters in that way. She couldn't and wouldn't. The Facebook clip is well worth watching. Macron has got something about him.
Not really. He's like a dozen senior investment bankers (admitted the best at that particular job) that I know.
Anders Bergendahl, Carlo Calabria or definitely Andrea Orcel, for instance, could all knock him into a cocked hat. Freddie Wraneus would give him a run for his money, but he probably would outperform most of the Brits in the industry (someone like Simon Robey is technically better as a banker, but wouldn't be able to make the transition to the public world, while Bob Wiggly is just too Blairish)
Macron has been compared to Blair which says it all really. I think many Liberal/left pundits have lost all sense of rational judgement with regards to leadership in this country - this is what a few years of a Corbyn leadership has done, when any improvement requires little more than a pulse to qualify.
If you don't think it's impressive Macron had enough respect for ordinary voters to spend time debating with them in an uncontrolled environment and to be honest with them about globalisation when he did, so be it. That approach seems a lot more authentic to me than choreographed strolls around factory floors under highly controlled conditions. I guess that's because I have lost all sense of rational judgement.
I think you have - the other day it was Yvette Cooper after one question in PMQs.
That is the argument of a man with no argument, I'm afraid.
Yes, I think Cooper would be a much better Labour leader than Corbyn. I imagine I'm not alone in that.
British car manufacturing enjoyed its best month in 17 years in March fuelled by demand for vehicles from abroad.
The number of cars to roll off UK production lines rose by 7.3% last month compared with a year earlier, to 170,691 - the highest number since March 2000.
Does make one wonder why the fuck we're risking it all by leaving the EU...typical of this country just as things start looking up we clutch defeat from the jaws of victory
I think it has a lot to do with the career trajectory of Boris Johnson and seventeen million largely uneducated followers.
I know many people who voted leave. Some are (relatively) uneducated, but most are educated. And I can say exactly the same about the remain voters I know.
Education, or lack thereof, had little to do with the way people voted in the referendum, and to couch it in those terms loses you the argument. Leave won because they tried to appeal to as large an electorate as possible, with many different arguments.
Interesting - honesty - a brave new politician, or an inexperienced one?
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
Imagine May actually engaging with voters in that way. She couldn't and wouldn't. The Facebook clip is well worth watching. Macron has got something about him.
Not really. He's like a dozen senior investment bankers (admitted the best at that particular job) that I know.
Anders Bergendahl, Carlo Calabria or definitely Andrea Orcel, for instance, could all knock him into a cocked hat. Freddie Wraneus would give him a run for his money, but he probably would outperform most of the Brits in the industry (someone like Simon Robey is technically better as a banker, but wouldn't be able to make the transition to the public world, while Bob Wiggly is just too Blairish)
Macron has been compared to Blair which says it all really. I think many Liberal/left pundits have lost all sense of rational judgement with regards to leadership in this country - this is what a few years of a Corbyn leadership has done, when any improvement requires little more than a pulse to qualify.
If you don't think it's impressive Macron had enough respect for ordinary voters to spend time debating with them in an uncontrolled environment and to be honest with them about globalisation when he did, so be it. That approach seems a lot more authentic to me than choreographed strolls around factory floors under highly controlled conditions. I guess that's because I have lost all sense of rational judgement.
Clearly Macron is no coward, and is a genuine believer in Liberal economics as well as Liberal social values.
Debating angry workers suggests that he has the courage for the economic reforms needed in France, and real confidence in his ideas.
Worth noting that this took place in his hometown of Amiens.
You can see why the right hates him.
Some of the right. I suspect Libertarians are quite positive about him. Macron is going to be a major positive for a free trading Europe. Meanwhile we retreat into British LePenism.
For the first time in my life I am jealous of the French.
I don't know if this has already been posted, but those betting on the Tories in Ynys Mon will be interested to know that Plaid have picked their Ieuan Wyn Jones as their candidate. He is an ex-leader of Plaid and "Mr Jones was the constituency's MP from 1987 to 2001 and its assembly member between 1999 and 2013."
At risk of upsetting SO's breakfast (although he knows all this already), this is an interesting read and summary of the Labour left's perspective on this election:
Comments
UKIP up - when all the narrative is of UKIP falling and they've had a poor news cycle as well over the last couple of days.
LD down - when surely the LDs should be gaining during the campaign with increased publicity etc.
If UKIP and LD movements are wrong then every chance Con and Lab may be wrong too.
Also note that the recent Survation 11% lead had an unusually high UKIP figure.
Seventeen student bodies have endorsed the BDS movement - which calls for an international boycott of Israel over the way it treats Palestinians.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39719314
And yet it is routinely talked of on here as a massive scandal that was going to bring down the Government's majority.
The reason they did so is obvious, of course.
Night all.
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/857351074319138816
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/857349358815240192
Britain will be bound by European human rights laws for another five years with the Conservatives expected to abandon a pledge to withdraw the UK from the ECHR.
Theresa May is expected to make no mention in the Tory election manifesto of pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/26/britain-likely-bound-european-convention-human-rights-2022/
Cue lots of confusion over ECJ vs ECHR.....
The tone of the rhetoric coming out of the EU is bound to see a fair few Remain voters now getting behind a Government prepared to stand up to the EU and get the best deal for UKplc. Lets face it, for many Remain voters like myself, there was always still a strong element of Eurosceptimism at the lack of democracy and often unfairness in some of the rules within this organisation. I am not one of Theresa May's biggest fans, and spotted early on that she and her inner circle were more Brown than Cameron/Blair when it came to holding on to petty grudges and then settling them at a later date despite a longer term political cost to the wider party. Lets face it, who would you prefer to be running the Foreign Office or Brexit negociations right now, Boris Johnson and David Davis or George Osborne and Michael Gove?
But Theresa May played a blinder when she announced this snap GE on the back of the intransigence of the Libdems, SNP, pockets of the Labour party and the House of Lords threatening to undermine and disrupt the UK's bargaining position. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in Bute House when May called the Sturgeon's bluff and upped her demand and claim of a mandate for another Independence Referendum on the back of the Brexit result with a GE to give her a stronger mandate on both fronts.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-26/trump-aides-in-raging-debate-over-how-quickly-to-move-on-nafta
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/796949/nicola-sturgeon-scotland-needs-democratic-mandate-rejoin-EU
So, after SindyRef2 EURef2 (and 3 & 4, if Scots give the wrong answer...)?
The Remainer to Leaver convert.
N.B. Buyers remorse. Retail Prices.
If the economic, constitutional, and electoral problems are so manifold, the question then is — why now? The SNP’s problem is that legislating a referendum requires a majority in the Scottish parliament, and the trends suggest they might not have this for long. While the SNP won an outright majority in 2011, it lost it in 2016, and now relies upon the Scottish Greens to pass its legislative program. The general election will provide a useful bellwether on support for the SNP and its cause. If support continues to drop, it is possible that by the 2021 Scottish parliamentary elections — by which time the SNP will have been in government for 14 years — the SNP will not be able to push the legislation required for a referendum. In such a scenario, independence could be off the table for another generation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/04/26/scotlands-leaders-want-another-independence-referendum-scottish-voters-dont/?utm_term=.5c3e778a0d67
And this time 'a generation' would mean 'a generation'
Added to this - if Scotland sees a similar demographic shift as Wales, independence could be off the table for a very long time.
Grim news emanating from the City almost daily is not helping either. Some of my friends, all on minimum six-figures, are nervous. Two working with foreign banks are convinced that either they will have to move to Europe or find some other job.
https://www.cjr.org/covering_trump/trump-photography.php
https://scontent-sit4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18156891_1422739941112605_671898648072673588_n.jpg?oh=c8614673e0140e573229522b5044f36e&oe=598E2F86
Confronted by mechanics angry that their factory will be closed next year as production moves to Poland, Macron said: 'I'm not telling you that I'm going to save your jobs, because nobody can do it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4447882/Le-Pen-upstages-French-rival-Macron-factory-visit.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4447230/Davis-insists-election-NOT-slow-Brexit-work.html
In fact, a big issue seems to be that many people think that, because they have good knowledge of one area, their views and opinions on another unrelated area must be correct.
I think one of Mrs May's attractions is :
she is not David Cameron who enjoyed the limelight and was relaxed in it.
she is not Ed Miliband who appeared lost in the limelight
she is not Gordon Brown who was pugnacious in the limelight
and she is not J Corbyn who sounds like a rerun of Citizen Smith but with ham acting.
She appears human, down to earth and disinclined to grab airtime just for a soundbite (She may not be of course, but that is how she appears to me)
Okay, this may be controversial. Yes, they are.
That's why we have the ultra-low quality of political debate amongst the public, where someone's background, name, ethnicity or looks might matter as much as what they say or do. Why the 'Cameron and a pig' story was headline news, or David Miiband and the banana helped ruin his career. It's why we get large percentages of people who vote for the same party election after election, regardless of that party's competence.
As an example, I know f'all about economics. I could probably describe the Laffer curve (though I've no idea if I'd get it right), and so my judgement on economic questions basically come down to my existing bias. If you were to ask me, as an individual, to decide an economic policy I'd be worse than incompetent.
Yet I'd argue that democracy, where run well, works. Why? Because whilst the average voter is incompetent to decide great political questions, when you get a few thousand, or a few million, together, you mostly get a relatively sane answer. 'Wisdom of the crowds' writ large.
British car manufacturing enjoyed its best month in 17 years in March fuelled by demand for vehicles from abroad.
The number of cars to roll off UK production lines rose by 7.3% last month compared with a year earlier, to 170,691 - the highest number since March 2000.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/27/uk-car-industry-has-its-best-month-in-17-years
Why can't they both lose?
Of course, a few are tremendously clever and exceptionally well informed.
Anders Bergendahl, Carlo Calabria or definitely Andrea Orcel, for instance, could all knock him into a cocked hat. Freddie Wraneus would give him a run for his money, but he probably would outperform most of the Brits in the industry (someone like Simon Robey is technically better as a banker, but wouldn't be able to make the transition to the public world, while Bob Wiggly is just too Blairish)
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/857466418417291264
As someone else said, you subconsciously know you are going to lose your parents but there’s always a sense of being suddenly bereft.
https://twitter.com/chrishanretty/status/857470140782436352
Naive campaigning or brave?
Certainly a marked contrast to May's wooden performances with silent workers not allowed to speak to the press.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/857253927363981312
The same with Miliband and the banana. Funny, yes. Important, no.
A. The relentless leaking by the CPS. Their job is to make a decision not to tell the world thet they're going to make a decision. Their history is that they're lazy incompetents led by politically minded incompetents but I thought this was something they were trying to change; and
B. The time extensions. It's possible that these are usual but to double the time limit strikes me as a breach of natural justice - time limits are there for certainty and allowing a year's extension is the opposite of certainty. The extension surely is there if the police think they have almost all the evidence but just need a few more days. It just seems an excuse for leisurely investigations and hoping that the nominal accused will confess to something to make it all go away.
It took me a while to accept he was no more born an account exec than he was a PM and infact the talents of an account exec (such as they are) are wasted in an ad agency. They'd be far better employed as a prime minister.
Net Favourability OA (2015 Voters)
Con: -2 (+80)
Lab: -27 (+41)
LibD: -35 (+62)
UKIP: -43 (+44)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ny1kfo8x0u/InternalResults_170420_Favourability_W.pdf
Very impressive you know some investment bankers btw.
Net Favourability OA (2015 Voters)
May: +10 (+73)
Corbyn: -42 (-10)
Farron: -26 (+18)
Nuttall: -43 (-25)
Meanwhile Marine LePen has put Jean Francois Jalkh (who has in the past been a holocaust denier) in charge of the FN during her absence. I await all the condemnation that PBers usually display to anti-semitism.
Crucially, how much of that is from the EU is not mentioned. 10% tariff looms.
Very little is known about him, he is still building a party and has a murky personal life. Give the man a chance eh?
Sturgeon was also included - she's not popular in GB (-36) but is in Scotland (subsample) (+14) comfortably ahead of May (-22) and Corbyn (-33). SNP 2015 vote is not asked so its not possible to compare as with the others.
Debating angry workers suggests that he has the courage for the economic reforms needed in France, and real confidence in his ideas.
Worth noting that this took place in his hometown of Amiens.
Do you know what we call alternative medicine which has been proven to work?
Medicine.
And there won't be any "confessions". It is possible that there might be one or two that go to a jury. But I suspect that the CPS will decide - properly - that there is no chance of getting a conviction in most cases, because there was no intent to cheat the system. There are cases where, for example, if the "Battle Bus" cost for half a day HAD been included within constituency level expenses, then those expenses would still have been within limits. Hard to see how democracy was adversely impacted there.
Many of these allegations have been made by political opponents trying to garner some political advantage. That advantage is being played, in the interim period before the CPS have made their decisions on whether there is a case - by parties who, like the Tories, have already been fined for their less than whiter-than-white record. We see it here. We see it in Parliament, from Denis Skinner. That's where I have a problem.
The real damage of customs barriers would be on the supply chains, and perhaps to the brand image of British badged cars. Probably more significant for badges like Jaguar, Range Rover and Mini than "Japanese" badges like Nissan or Toyota.
Yes, I think Cooper would be a much better Labour leader than Corbyn. I imagine I'm not alone in that.
Education, or lack thereof, had little to do with the way people voted in the referendum, and to couch it in those terms loses you the argument. Leave won because they tried to appeal to as large an electorate as possible, with many different arguments.
For the first time in my life I am jealous of the French.
He is an ex-leader of Plaid and "Mr Jones was the constituency's MP from 1987 to 2001 and its assembly member between 1999 and 2013."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-39720045
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-theresa-may-snap-election/
It's pretty obvious that the least known candidate would attract the most tactical votes.
Don't worry about Macron. You're allowed not to hate him. Theresa May wants him to beat the far right Le Pen. I promise.