I said last night that the source of the leak on Trump's Big I Am act with the Russians would be a potential indication of how much trouble the President was in.
The source who passed the info on Trump's blabbing is basically a Trump loyalist who concluded that they had to pass the info on. The leak to the media was not necessarily direct from that same person, however and there isn't yet evidence that they directly spoke to the newspaper.
As regards the 'who was the 3rd party intelligence service' whilst the finger is pointing to the Israelis, earlier it was the Jordanians but there is no detail on the collection method, the worry is that the nation source and collection method was deducable.
Few things to note that may help the uninitiated: -In terms of foreign intelligence gathered by Western agencies, 70-80% of actionable info is sourced electronically. Human intelligence, however, can provide urgency, shade and detail that technical gathering often cannot. -There is no guarantee that Israel was the absolute originator of the intelligence if it was human generated. -Its not the impact on IS security measures, which is one problem (find a door, close the door), its the fact that that inferences that can be drawn which will almost certainly go to agencies of nations hostile to the source -Some pointed out downthread media reports that the Israelis had been told by US officials not to pass intelligence to Trump. They generally don't anyway. Its a rare occurance that it comes direct from one PM or President to another and, if it does, its almost certainly has political purpose. What the warning was that there was no guarantee that US agencies, who are obliged to brief the president could ensure that the intelligence would not leak from Trump or his staff This is because US intelligence was aware that Trump and his coterie were linked to adversaries. The device in laptop intelligence happened before Trump got in. Its been a running intelligence operation for quite a while but hit an urgency a number of months back for a couple of reasons.
Law enforcement in the US appears to be using a ratchet of leaked hints and info at the moment. This is not uncommon if they are shaking a tree. The intelligence agencies are also quietly pushing out information to undermine Trump's position.
It isn't politically motivated. Its way bigger than that.
Thank you-thats a very interesting post
Going forwards how do you view the next few months panning out for Trump??
I said last night that the source of the leak on Trump's Big I Am act with the Russians would be a potential indication of how much trouble the President was in.
The source who passed the info on Trump's blabbing is basically a Trump loyalist who concluded that they had to pass the info on. The leak to the media was not necessarily direct from that same person, however and there isn't yet evidence that they directly spoke to the newspaper.
As regards the 'who was the 3rd party intelligence service' whilst the finger is pointing to the Israelis, earlier it was the Jordanians but there is no detail on the collection method, the worry is that the nation source and collection method was deducable.
Few things to note that may help the uninitiated: -In terms of foreign intelligence gathered by Western agencies, 70-80% of actionable info is sourced electronically. Human intelligence, however, can provide urgency, shade and detail that technical gathering often cannot. -There is no guarantee that Israel was the absolute originator of the intelligence if it was human generated. -Its not the impact on IS security measures, which is one problem (find a door, close the door), its the fact that that inferences that can be drawn which will almost certainly go to agencies of nations hostile to the source -Some pointed out downthread media reports that the Israelis had been told by US officials not to pass intelligence to Trump. They generally don't anyway. Its a rare occurance that it comes direct from one PM or President to another and, if it does, its almost certainly has political purpose. What the warning was that there was no guarantee that US agencies, who are obliged to brief the president could ensure that the intelligence would not leak from Trump or his staff This is because US intelligence was aware that Trump and his coterie were linked to adversaries. The device in laptop intelligence happened before Trump got in. Its been a running intelligence operation for quite a while but hit an urgency a number of months back for a couple of reasons.
Law enforcement in the US appears to be using a ratchet of leaked hints and info at the moment. This is not uncommon if they are shaking a tree. The intelligence agencies are also quietly pushing out information to undermine Trump's position.
It isn't politically motivated. Its way bigger than that.
Thank you-thats a very interesting post
Going forwards how do you view the next few months panning out for Trump??
While people will have doubts in the polls for understandable reasons in the face of such much anecdata, there seems a very simple explanation here, which is that people convinced of a huge Tory win (rather than merely a big Tory win), particularly on the Labour side, are essentially talking each other into believing there are bigger and bigger majorities at risk, more and more safe seats in danger of going blue. Yes it is possible, and even these tales usually only suggest they are at risk rather than seriously likely to shift, but I think there's a sort of morbid encouragement going on re some Labour expectations.
Maybe if UKIP weren't standing at all in that seat.
While people will have doubts in the polls for understandable reasons in the face of such much anecdata, there seems a very simple explanation here, which is that people convinced of a huge Tory win (rather than merely a big Tory win), particularly on the Labour side, are essentially talking each other into believing there are bigger and bigger majorities at risk, more and more safe seats in danger of going blue. Yes it is possible, and even these tales usually only suggest they are at risk rather than seriously likely to shift, but I think there's a sort of morbid encouragement going on re some Labour expectations.
Maybe if UKIP weren't standing at all in that seat.
If UKIP weren't standing at all in Bolsover I reckon it would help.... Labour ! There is evidence of Labour -> UKIP travel from the GE2015 Labour vote ! That can't happen without UKIP standing, and Bolsover is THE Labour heartland seat of the North-East midlands.
I said last night that the source of the leak on Trump's Big I Am act with the Russians would be a potential indication of how much trouble the President was in.
The source who passed the info on Trump's blabbing is basically a Trump loyalist who concluded that they had to pass the info on. The leak to the media was not necessarily direct from that same person, however and there isn't yet evidence that they directly spoke to the newspaper.
As regards the 'who was the 3rd party intelligence service' whilst the finger is pointing to the Israelis, earlier it was the Jordanians but there is no detail on the collection method, the worry is that the nation source and collection method was deducable.
Few things to note that may help the uninitiated: -In terms of foreign intelligence gathered by Western agencies, 70-80% of actionable info is sourced electronically. Human intelligence, however, can provide urgency, shade and detail that technical gathering often cannot. -There is no guarantee that Israel was the absolute originator of the intelligence if it was human generated. -Its not the impact on IS security measures, which is one problem (find a door, close the door), its the fact that that inferences that can be drawn which will almost certainly go to agencies of nations hostile to the source -Some pointed out downthread media reports that the Israelis had been told by US officials not to pass intelligence to Trump. They generally don't anyway. Its a rare occurance that it comes direct from one PM or President to another and, if it does, its almost certainly has political purpose. What the warning was that there was no guarantee that US agencies, who are obliged to brief the president could ensure that the intelligence would not leak from Trump or his staff This is because US intelligence was aware that Trump and his coterie were linked to adversaries. The device in laptop intelligence happened before Trump got in. Its been a running intelligence operation for quite a while but hit an urgency a number of months back for a couple of reasons.
Law enforcement in the US appears to be using a ratchet of leaked hints and info at the moment. This is not uncommon if they are shaking a tree. The intelligence agencies are also quietly pushing out information to undermine Trump's position.
It isn't politically motivated. Its way bigger than that.
Thank you-thats a very interesting post
Going forwards how do you view the next few months panning out for Trump??
Encirclement.
By whom?
Haven't you been given enough hints, RT?
Now stop wasting time and get over to Betfair and back Trump to go before his term is out.
I said last night that the source of the leak on Trump's Big I Am act with the Russians would be a potential indication of how much trouble the President was in.
The source who passed the info on Trump's blabbing is basically a Trump loyalist who concluded that they had to pass the info on. The leak to the media was not necessarily direct from that same person, however and there isn't yet evidence that they directly spoke to the newspaper.
As regards the 'who was the 3rd party intelligence service' whilst the finger is pointing to the Israelis, earlier it was the Jordanians but there is no detail on the collection method, the worry is that the nation source and collection method was deducable.
Few things to note that may help the uninitiated: -In terms of foreign intelligence gathered by Western agencies, 70-80% of actionable info is sourced electronically. Human intelligence, however, can provide urgency, shade and detail that technical gathering often cannot. -There is no guarantee that Israel was the absolute originator of the intelligence if it was human generated. -Its not the impact on IS security measures, which is one problem (find a door, close the door), its the fact that that inferences that can be drawn which will almost certainly go to agencies of nations hostile to the source -Some pointed out downthread media reports that the Israelis had been told by US officials not to pass intelligence to Trump. They generally don't anyway. Its a rare occurance that it comes direct from one PM or President to another and, if it does, its almost certainly has political purpose. What the warning was that there was no guarantee that US agencies, who are obliged to brief the president could ensure that the intelligence would not leak from Trump or his staff This is because US intelligence was aware that Trump and his coterie were linked to adversaries. The device in laptop intelligence happened before Trump got in. Its been a running intelligence operation for quite a while but hit an urgency a number of months back for a couple of reasons.
Law enforcement in the US appears to be using a ratchet of leaked hints and info at the moment. This is not uncommon if they are shaking a tree. The intelligence agencies are also quietly pushing out information to undermine Trump's position.
It isn't politically motivated. Its way bigger than that.
Thank you-thats a very interesting post
Going forwards how do you view the next few months panning out for Trump??
Encirclement.
By whom?
There are many players in this at federal and state level, most of whom are just doing their job with the necessary seriousness.
I said last night that the source of the leak on Trump's Big I Am act with the Russians would be a potential indication of how much trouble the President was in.
The source who passed the info on Trump's blabbing is basically a Trump loyalist who concluded that they had to pass the info on. The leak to the media was not necessarily direct from that same person, however and there isn't yet evidence that they directly spoke to the newspaper.
As regards the 'who was the 3rd party intelligence service' whilst the finger is pointing to the Israelis, earlier it was the Jordanians but there is no detail on the collection method, the worry is that the nation source and collection method was deducable.
Few things to note that may help the uninitiated: -In terms of foreign intelligence gathered by Western agencies, 70-80% of actionable info is sourced electronically. Human intelligence, however, can provide urgency, shade and detail that technical gathering often cannot. -There is no guarantee that Israel was the absolute originator of the intelligence if it was human generated. -Its not the impact on IS security measures, which is one problem (find a door, close the door), its the fact that that inferences that can be drawn which will almost certainly go to agencies of nations hostile to the source -Some pointed out downthread media reports that the Israelis had been told by US officials not to pass intelligence to Trump. They generally don't anyway. Its a rare occurance that it cop got in. Its been a running intelligence operation for quite a while but hit an urgency a number of months back for a couple of reasons.
Law enforcement in the US appears to be using a ratchet of leaked hints and info at the moment. This is not uncommon if they are shaking a tree. The intelligence agencies are also quietly pushing out information to undermine Trump's position.
It isn't politically motivated. Its way bigger than that.
Thank you-thats a very interesting post
Going forwards how do you view the next few months panning out for Trump??
Encirclement.
By whom?
There are many players in this at federal and state level, most of whom are just doing their job with the necessary seriousness.
You are too generous with your hints, Yokes. You should charge commission.
I said last night that the source of the leak on Trump's Big I Am act with the Russians would be a potential indication of how much trouble the President was in.
The source who passed the info on Trump's blabbing is basically a Trump loyalist who concluded that they had to pass the info on. The leak to the media was not necessarily direct from that same person, however and there isn't yet evidence that they directly spoke to the newspaper.
As regards the 'who was the 3rd party intelligence service' whilst the finger is pointing to the Israelis, earlier it was the Jordanians but there is no detail on the collection method, the worry is that the nation source and collection method was deducable.
Few things to note that may help the uninitiated: -In terms of foreign intelligence gathered by Western agencies, 70-80% of actionable info is sourced electronically. Human intelligence, however, can provide urgency, shade and detail that technical gathering often cannot. -There is no guarantee that Israel was the absolute originator of the intelligence if it was human generated. -Its not the impact on IS security measures, which is one problem (find a door, close the door), its the fact that that inferences that can be drawn which will almost certainly go to agencies of nations hostile to the source -Some pointed out downthread media reports that the Israelis had been told by US officials not to pass intelligence to Trump. They generally don't anyway. Its a rare occurance that it cop got in. Its been a running intelligence operation for quite a while but hit an urgency a number of months back for a couple of reasons.
Law enforcement in the US appears to be using a ratchet of leaked hints and info at the moment. This is not uncommon if they are shaking a tree. The intelligence agencies are also quietly pushing out information to undermine Trump's position.
It isn't politically motivated. Its way bigger than that.
Thank you-thats a very interesting post
Going forwards how do you view the next few months panning out for Trump??
Encirclement.
By whom?
There are many players in this at federal and state level, most of whom are just doing their job with the necessary seriousness.
You are too generous with your hints, Yokes. You should charge commission.
How's the horses going?
Absolutely awful boss. Cut right back because time hasn't permitted me to keep the eye on the national hunt racing at such globally famous locations as Navan and Naas.
Thanks to PtP and of course to Yokel for the heads up on the developing POTUS situation. Having taken his advice and visited the Betfair market on "Trump to leave office before the end of his first term has been completed", it's somewhat scarey to note that the answer "Yes" to this scenario is the 1.85 odds-on favourite, whereas "No" is on offer at 2.12.
Yes I think it is too far a target. Still - Skinner has no personal vote, I'm reasonably convinced of that. Check the seat way back when before it was his.
Yes I think it is too far a target. Still - Skinner has no personal vote, I'm reasonably convinced of that. Check the seat way back when before it was his.
It should at least remind him of that but most likely scalp of the night for the Tories remains Angus Robertson in Moray
There's too much emphasis on what the combined Con + UKIP vote is in each seat.
What needs to be considered as well is the potential for a straight Lab to Con switch per seat.
And that's a lot higher in Bolsover than it is in, for example, Westminster North.
I disagree, the polls are showing little Lab to Con switching from 2015 now, Corbyn has largely shored up his core vote but they are showing big UKIP to Tory switching, hence the Tories are more likely to win Coventry North West and Birmingham Erdington in my view where the Tory + UKIP vote is more than the Labour vote than Westminster North or Wirral South where the Tory + UKIP vote is less than Labour got, what has really happened is UKIP acted as a gateway for pre 2015 Labour voters to become 2017 Tory voters
Yes I think it is too far a target. Still - Skinner has no personal vote, I'm reasonably convinced of that. Check the seat way back when before it was his.
It should at least remind him of that but most likely scalp of the night for the Tories remains Angus Robertson in Moray
Theresa May would certainly be thankful for his absence from PMQs in the next Parliament. To an extent that Corbyn never succeeded in doing, he was really able to get the better against her.
TM really needs to up her game at PMQs, she couldn't hold a candle to Cameron's performances.
There's too much emphasis on what the combined Con + UKIP vote is in each seat.
What needs to be considered as well is the potential for a straight Lab to Con switch per seat.
And that's a lot higher in Bolsover than it is in, for example, Westminster North.
I disagree, the polls are showing little Lab to Con switching from 2015 now, Corbyn has largely shored up his core vote but they are showing big UKIP to Tory switching, hence the Tories are more likely to win Coventry North West and Birmingham Erdington in my view where the Tory + UKIP vote is more than the Labour vote than Westminster North or Wirral South where the Tory + UKIP vote is less than Labour got, what has really happened is UKIP acted as a gateway for pre 2015 Labour voters to become 2017 Tory voters
Err there is definite straight switching going on - ICM transition matrix.
Yes I think it is too far a target. Still - Skinner has no personal vote, I'm reasonably convinced of that. Check the seat way back when before it was his.
It should at least remind him of that but most likely scalp of the night for the Tories remains Angus Robertson in Moray
Theresa May would certainly be thankful for his absence from PMQs in the next Parliament. To an extent that Corbyn never succeeded in doing, he was really able to get the better against her.
TM really needs to up her game at PMQs, she couldn't hold a candle to Cameron's performances.
Being better at PMQs than Corbyn was not that difficult but getting the scalp of the SNP Westminster leader combined with gains elsewhere would effectively enable May to ignore all SNP demands about indyref2 for the rest of the Parliament
There's too much emphasis on what the combined Con + UKIP vote is in each seat.
What needs to be considered as well is the potential for a straight Lab to Con switch per seat.
And that's a lot higher in Bolsover than it is in, for example, Westminster North.
I disagree, the polls are showing little Lab to Con switching from 2015 now, Corbyn has largely shored up his core vote but they are showing big UKIP to Tory switching, hence the Tories are more likely to win Coventry North West and Birmingham Erdington in my view where the Tory + UKIP vote is more than the Labour vote than Westminster North or Wirral South where the Tory + UKIP vote is less than Labour got, what has really happened is UKIP acted as a gateway for pre 2015 Labour voters to become 2017 Tory voters
Err there is definite straight switching going on - ICM transition matrix.
Tory Lab Tory 0.9 0.12 Lab 0.04 0.75
That's a moderate Lab-Con straight swing
Dwarfed by the big UKIP to Tory swing which explains the vast majority of the expanded Tory lead since 2015
There's too much emphasis on what the combined Con + UKIP vote is in each seat.
What needs to be considered as well is the potential for a straight Lab to Con switch per seat.
And that's a lot higher in Bolsover than it is in, for example, Westminster North.
I disagree, the polls are showing little Lab to Con switching from 2015 now, Corbyn has largely shored up his core vote but they are showing big UKIP to Tory switching, hence the Tories are more likely to win Coventry North West and Birmingham Erdington in my view where the Tory + UKIP vote is more than the Labour vote than Westminster North or Wirral South where the Tory + UKIP vote is less than Labour got, what has really happened is UKIP acted as a gateway for pre 2015 Labour voters to become 2017 Tory voters
Err there is definite straight switching going on - ICM transition matrix.
Tory Lab Tory 0.9 0.12 Lab 0.04 0.75
That's a moderate Lab-Con straight swing
And that's a UNS swing.
Its going to be a lot higher in some places and a lot lower in others.
There's too much emphasis on what the combined Con + UKIP vote is in each seat.
What needs to be considered as well is the potential for a straight Lab to Con switch per seat.
And that's a lot higher in Bolsover than it is in, for example, Westminster North.
I disagree, the polls are showing little Lab to Con switching from 2015 now, Corbyn has largely shored up his core vote but they are showing big UKIP to Tory switching, hence the Tories are more likely to win Coventry North West and Birmingham Erdington in my view where the Tory + UKIP vote is more than the Labour vote than Westminster North or Wirral South where the Tory + UKIP vote is less than Labour got, what has really happened is UKIP acted as a gateway for pre 2015 Labour voters to become 2017 Tory voters
Err there is definite straight switching going on - ICM transition matrix.
Tory Lab Tory 0.9 0.12 Lab 0.04 0.75
That's a moderate Lab-Con straight swing
And that's a UNS swing.
Its going to be a lot higher in some places and a lot lower in others.
There's too much emphasis on what the combined Con + UKIP vote is in each seat.
What needs to be considered as well is the potential for a straight Lab to Con switch per seat.
And that's a lot higher in Bolsover than it is in, for example, Westminster North.
I disagree, the polls are showing little Lab to Con switching from 2015 now, Corbyn has largely shored up his core vote but they are showing big UKIP to Tory switching, hence the Tories are more likely to win Coventry North West and Birmingham Erdington in my view where the Tory + UKIP vote is more than the Labour vote than Westminster North or Wirral South where the Tory + UKIP vote is less than Labour got, what has really happened is UKIP acted as a gateway for pre 2015 Labour voters to become 2017 Tory voters
Err there is definite straight switching going on - ICM transition matrix.
Tory Lab Tory 0.9 0.12 Lab 0.04 0.75
That's a moderate Lab-Con straight swing
Dwarfed by the big UKIP to Tory swing which explains the vast majority of the expanded Tory lead since 2015
It is like a bonus on top in Labour leave seats which brings yet more into range
A few weeks ago I made some predictions for constituencies at the general election, and with most of them i assumed UKIP and the Greens would stand again if they stood in 2015. But in fact in a high percentage of those seats they aren't in fact standing, particularly UKIP. That means that in a lot of seats you have 15 to 20% of the vote up for grabs. Even if Labour does badly, they would still be expected to pick up some of those votes from previous UKIP and Green voters where one or neither are standing. That perhaps explains why Labour tends to be on 30% now rather than 25% a couple of weeks ago.
A few weeks ago I made some predictions for constituencies at the general election, and with most of them i assumed UKIP and the Greens would stand again if they stood in 2015. But in fact in a high percentage of those seats they aren't in fact standing, particularly UKIP. That means that in a lot of seats you have 15 to 20% of the vote up for grabs. Even if Labour does badly, they would still be expected to pick up some of those votes from previous UKIP and Green voters where one or neither are standing. That perhaps explains why Labour tends to be on 30% now rather than 25% a couple of weeks ago.
but most people wont know who are standing in their constituncies, and the ground game by those two parties wouldn't really make much difference either.
A few weeks ago I made some predictions for constituencies at the general election, and with most of them i assumed UKIP and the Greens would stand again if they stood in 2015. But in fact in a high percentage of those seats they aren't in fact standing, particularly UKIP. That means that in a lot of seats you have 15 to 20% of the vote up for grabs. Even if Labour does badly, they would still be expected to pick up some of those votes from previous UKIP and Green voters where one or neither are standing. That perhaps explains why Labour tends to be on 30% now rather than 25% a couple of weeks ago.
but most people wont know who are standing in their constituncies, and the ground game by those two parties wouldn't really make much difference either.
Most people may not know who is standing but will have seen leaflets etc from those who ARE standing which could tempt some on the margins to change (its why so many dead trees are used up during an election afterall).
If someone was thinking probably UKIP/Green a few weeks ago but only just and then hasn't heard anything from them but has seen a lot of activity from Labour/Tories then its quite possible they'll have changed their minds subconsciously without even realising that it was the lack of a ground game that did it.
A few weeks ago I made some predictions for constituencies at the general election, and with most of them i assumed UKIP and the Greens would stand again if they stood in 2015. But in fact in a high percentage of those seats they aren't in fact standing, particularly UKIP. That means that in a lot of seats you have 15 to 20% of the vote up for grabs. Even if Labour does badly, they would still be expected to pick up some of those votes from previous UKIP and Green voters where one or neither are standing. That perhaps explains why Labour tends to be on 30% now rather than 25% a couple of weeks ago.
Wouldn't you expect the Tories' share of the vote to have also increased somewhat, although admittedly probably not in relation to the Greens deciding not to contest certain seats? In fact in some polls the Tories' share of the vote has actually declined albeit very modestly.
A few weeks ago I made some predictions for constituencies at the general election, and with most of them i assumed UKIP and the Greens would stand again if they stood in 2015. But in fact in a high percentage of those seats they aren't in fact standing, particularly UKIP. That means that in a lot of seats you have 15 to 20% of the vote up for grabs. Even if Labour does badly, they would still be expected to pick up some of those votes from previous UKIP and Green voters where one or neither are standing. That perhaps explains why Labour tends to be on 30% now rather than 25% a couple of weeks ago.
Wouldn't you expect the Tories' share of the vote to have also increased somewhat, although admittedly probably not in relation to the Greens deciding not to contest certain seats? In fact in some polls the Tories' share of the vote has actually declined albeit very modestly.
There is a reversion to mean effect (sort of like when a football team sacks its Manager).
The election was called after three incredible 20 point poll leads and caused some euphoria and followed with more 20 point poll leads. Since then the Tory share has indeed edged back a bit modestly - but it is still well ahead of where it was in polls at least a week before the election was called.
The bulk of employed people voted Remain, those protected financially (or believing themselves so) voted Leave. Of course there are exceptions, but Leavers are disproportionally protected from the economic consequences of their votes.
I am working, and in an economically protected job, so pretty safe economically and an exception too.
"
I disagree, I voted leave, i have my own business and have no protection of the state, but i despise everything that the EU is - anti-democratic, a club of Elites who are unelected gravy train slurping tossers, who despise the small folk, and see themselves as the ruling classes who know whats best for the plebs. And they want to screw England, they hate us and are jealous of our freedom and nationhood and influence in the world. I voted leave even if it meant some loss to our economy and even to my family because I love England and cherish freedom more than any economic benefit of being in the club
Bravo
Well said. I have a small business and would eat grass rather than see Britain a province in a European Superstate. Britain's independence as a soverign state is more precious than gold. Even if I believed Project Fear it would make not a whit of difference. The remainiat search for an explanation for the Leave vote in mumbo jumbo about globalisation and the Left Behind. The plain fact is that millions of people have a deep love of Britain and a deep loathing of the EU.
Those who are on a fixed wage of any sort tended strongly to vote remain.
Those who have to get off their fat arses actually to do work voted leave. Thus if I sit here all day then I don't bring any money in - end of.
Comments
@MrHarryCole: 9k ukip votes in the seat.... twitter.com/samfr/status/8…
But the Tories had a decent swing from 2013 - not enough to take the seat though (From GE2015 start point).
But then again those were locals. Bolsover going would be utterly astonishing though.
If the positions were reversed then President Trump would have the power to ... oh ... and Mr Snowden wouldn't ...oh ...
https://twitter.com/SimonDanczuk/status/864513106185158657
Maybe if UKIP weren't standing at all in that seat.
There is evidence of Labour -> UKIP travel from the GE2015 Labour vote
That can't happen without UKIP standing, and Bolsover is THE Labour heartland seat of the North-East midlands.
Now stop wasting time and get over to Betfair and back Trump to go before his term is out.
And thank Yokel for being so helpful.
Honestly.
How's the horses going?
I don't mind saying that I miss it.
Anyway, better be off. I hear Matron stalking the wards.
Thanks for the heads up on the US scene. I always follow, even if I don't always comment.
May your God go with you. (Now who used to sign off like that.....?! ;-) )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsover_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/what-connects-brexit-the-dup-dark-money-and-a-saudi-prince-1.3083586
Edit: looks as though they haven't stated who was responsible for the donation, which is odd.
Having taken his advice and visited the Betfair market on "Trump to leave office before the end of his first term has been completed", it's somewhat scarey to note that the answer "Yes" to this scenario is the 1.85 odds-on favourite, whereas "No" is on offer at 2.12.
What needs to be considered as well is the potential for a straight Lab to Con switch per seat.
And that's a lot higher in Bolsover than it is in, for example, Westminster North.
TM really needs to up her game at PMQs, she couldn't hold a candle to Cameron's performances.
Tory Lab
Tory 0.9 0.12
Lab 0.04 0.75
That's a moderate Lab-Con straight swing
Its going to be a lot higher in some places and a lot lower in others.
Bigger in more brexit seats.
If someone was thinking probably UKIP/Green a few weeks ago but only just and then hasn't heard anything from them but has seen a lot of activity from Labour/Tories then its quite possible they'll have changed their minds subconsciously without even realising that it was the lack of a ground game that did it.
In fact in some polls the Tories' share of the vote has actually declined albeit very modestly.
The election was called after three incredible 20 point poll leads and caused some euphoria and followed with more 20 point poll leads. Since then the Tory share has indeed edged back a bit modestly - but it is still well ahead of where it was in polls at least a week before the election was called.
However the lead has edged back - because the Lab share has increased by a greater amount.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I8s2PaGt5Tv6jHgXBRqqZsqU1Qh28CaOdiBDok6Ty5c/edit#gid=1573382235
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017
Edit: Ah, I'm repeating what you are saying. Sorry
Well said. I have a small business and would eat grass rather than see Britain a province in a European Superstate. Britain's independence as a soverign state is more precious than gold. Even if I believed Project Fear it would make not a whit of difference. The remainiat search for an explanation for the Leave vote in mumbo jumbo about globalisation and the Left Behind. The plain fact is that millions of people have a deep love of Britain and a deep loathing of the EU.
Those who are on a fixed wage of any sort tended strongly to vote remain.
Those who have to get off their fat arses actually to do work voted leave. Thus if I sit here all day then I don't bring any money in - end of.
Be LEAVE!