Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
Only if Pence suffers an incapacitating or fatal misfortune at roughly the same time.
Remember - impeach Trump, get Pence.
This is why Clinton despite being somewhat less corrupt and irresponsible would in practice have been in more danger than Trump of being removed. Tim Kaine may not be a great campaigner but he would make a half-decent president.
Yes, and I think for that reason, Ydoe, the Dems won't want him to go too soon.
Browsing the Guardian and I've noticed that their logo seems to omit the UKIP colors but includes the green colors, despite UKIP getting more votes than them at the last election. So much for fair and balanced..
You seem to be writing American. its COLOURS
Blame my iPhone.... I should set it to British. I do try to make the effort to spot the american spellings though.
Sky news vox pops in wells and Yeovil not very keen on lib dem policy of another vote.
Two friends of mine who were planning to vote Lib Dem switched to the Greens today over the 2nd referendum pledge. And they both detest Brexit.
I'm not joking. And, no, I don't understand it.
They just think Farron is a joke and not serious.
That'll be because Farron is a joke, and not serious.
If I were in North Norfolk, I think I'd vote Lamb. IIRC, he voted to serve the Article 50 notification.
He abstained.
Farron is wrong with his second referendum promise. Should have gone for EEA membership.
I agree. It would have satisfied the terms of the referendum. It would have enabled the LDs to say that they were putting safety first. And in Leave-y seats they could have said that Brexit is a process not a step function. It would also have enabled the LDs to pin the blame for the next recession (whatever the ultimate cause) on the government not going down the EEA route. Lamb fronting that message might have gotten the LDs into the mid to high teens.
Surely the crucial point about the 2nd referendum is that now Article 50 has been served whatever the result, even if the vote was to stay in, we are now leaving. It would require the unanimous agreement of all countries to reverse our application to leave and there would be bound to be an arch-federal figure in e.g. Luxembourg who would block it out of spite.
So it's utterly pointless and might actually lead to a no-deal Brexit.
Browsing the Guardian and I've noticed that their logo seems to omit the UKIP colors but includes the green colors, despite UKIP getting more votes than them at the last election. So much for fair and balanced..
You seem to be writing American. its COLOURS
Blame my iPhone.... I should set it to British. I do try to make the effort to spot the american spellings though.
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
Philip Hammond tells me that the Black Hole in Labour's Manifesto is £58 billion.
In a single year.
Boy, are the Tories going to have some fun with that document.....
Hammond is talking shite.
Surely, it's not MORE than £58 billion?
I don't think the $58 billion includes the pre-existing deficit or knock on effects of crashing the economy so yes it would be.
I'm certain Labour would find servicing its debt FAR more expensive than the current Chancellor. That hasn't been costed by Labour. They just blithely assume that Mr Market, despite being persona non grata to Labour, is just going to roll over and wait for its tummy to be tickled.
And now, as no-one asked for, some long rambling thoughts on the LD manifesto, section by section.
YOUR CHANCE TO CHANGE BRITAIN’S FUTURE BY CHANING THE OPPOSITION Simultaneously realistic and overly optimistic. Attacking May and Corbyn, recognising May is going to win, but also hoping the LDs are going to be able to make the LDs the official opposition. It’s not a bad opening, but seeing how things look to be going for them, its hopeful tone makes me sad for the party. Lots of manifesto does act like they will be in government though.
PROTECT BRITAIN’S PLACE IN EUROPE Forward says that campaigning to be the opposition, but then says here they LDs will a Brexit to deal to a vote, presuming they will be in government, or powerful enough to force that option (with a rejoin choice)?
Very clear on priorities, although obviously what they want is to stay.
SAVE OUR NHS AND SOCIAL CARE SERVICES Yet Labour and Conservative politicians refuse to be honest with the public about the scale of the crisis or the tough decisions which are needed to protect these vital services - Maybe, but they never reward you, do they?
Some funding stuff, which is better than none.
End public sector pay freeze for NHS workers? I presume not the rest of us then, diff from Labour.
Protect whistleblowers? Isn’t this already supposed to be the case?
Lots of points on mental health
Feels like a bigger emphasis on health than Labour’s even.
PUT CHILDREN FIRST Some bits I’m clear on the cost, some not.
Introduce a fairer national funding system with a protection for all schools, so that no school loses money – not a single one? Bold promise
Going after free schools – feels like less of an issue than a few years ago, but presumably still has some appeal
‘Slimmed down core national curriculum’ which they state includes PSHE – we hated PSHE when I was at school, a lot of it was useless nonsense.
Going heavy on LGBT + issues (incidentally, that’s a better acronym than LGBTIQA+, which I have seen)
Aim to meet all basic skills needs including literacy, numeracy and digital skills by 2030 – from the school of ‘who would object to that?’ policies
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
This was discussed at some length on an earlier thread.
Briefly, the legal side of it is almost an irrelevance. It's his popularity rating that matters. It's currently in the low fourties. That's bad but not critical. If it gets down to 35% or lower, he's in trouble. Or to put it another way, if he starts losing the Republican base, he's....well, toast!
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
Only if Pence suffers an incapacitating or fatal misfortune at roughly the same time.
Remember - impeach Trump, get Pence.
This is why Clinton despite being somewhat less corrupt and irresponsible would in practice have been in more danger than Trump of being removed. Tim Kaine may not be a great campaigner but he would make a half-decent president.
Yes, and I think for that reason, Ydoe, the Dems won't want him to go too soon.
For those in doubt - I know it does cause confusion - the correct spelling of my user name is 'Y Doethur' (pronounced, roughly, uh DOY theer).
On your substantive point, I can't see what the Democrats gain from trying to force Trump out. They look like sore losers, they don't have the numbers to do it, and if by some miracle they did manage it, they'd get someone far worse.
If there is a move against him it will surely be from the Republicans (who do not have quite the same reasons to hate Pence although by all accounts they don't love him) and it will require something fairly substantial and unambiguously criminal.
BUILD AN ECONOMY THAT WORKS FOR YOU An acknowledgment ‘the coalition’ did good work that the conservatives are undermining.
Eliminate deficit on ‘day to day spending’ by 2020 – same as Labour policy just upped by 2 years
‘Responsible and realistic’ £100 billion package of infrastructure investment – surely Labour would argue their 250 billion is responsible and realistic too?
Hyperfast broadband rollout – didn’t Labour promise ‘ultrafast’? One is definitely different than the current superfast, is hyper the same as ultra?
Also commit to HS2
Awful lot of mention of this 1p rise in income tax, how much can this pay for?
Conduct a full-scale review into the burden of taxation and spending between generations to ensure that government policy promotes fairness between generations I don’t know what this means.
Stamp out ‘abuse’ of zero hour contracts, not just get rid of them – halfway measure, unlikely to appeal to many I’d think
‘1.7 million people without a bank account’ !!!!!
Northern powerhouse – I guess someone besides Osborne still cares about this
More devolution – if it is to be as scatter gun as the Tories and the coalition, no thanks
KEEP OUR COUNTRY GREEN Eighteen months ago, it seemed that the world had come to a consensus on the need to take the perils of climate change seriously Did it? You blame Brexit and trump for altering this, but all I remember is a lot of talk.
Five new laws on Green issues already listed too – sounds well thought out, no idea if it is, obvious play for, well, Green vote. Which rather presumes most Greens are most exercised by green issues rather than socialism.
Suspending neonicotinoids? Well you’ve lost my vote!
Trying for farmer and fisher vote.
charge on disposable coffe cups. Yeah, probably a good idea in fairness.
SUPPORT FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES Childcare extension – labour promising more?
balancing the books on the backs of the poor and disabled, and demonising people who claim benefits, is neither acceptable nor responsible - I’m sure that’s not what Tories think they are doing
Bedroom tax and two child policy seems fair to me, but most on the left hate them. Don’t recall if Labour mentioned the latter.
Triple lock, smart politics like Labour – but only Labour could be in government to protect it, so no reason to vote LD
Garden cities rather than ‘new towns’ from Labour. Still good idea
‘Dramatically’ reduce power of ministers to interfere in local government. How? What do they do now? Most people are confused by what their council provides and the government
While I was at the Lib Dem manifesto launch this evening I was pondering why Tim was not appearing to come over with appropriate gravitas to the public at large.
I think it is because he speaks with enthusiasm and passion but too quickly. A slightly more measured approach may allow him to come over more effectively.
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
If it looked like over 2/3 of the Senate would vote for impeachment, I'd assume he would walk rather than make them actually do it, which would accelerate the timeline.
@CarsonsCat: Kezia to Tories in ES: Please, please vote for Ian Murray. Kezia to Labour councillors: You're sacked if you go into coalition with Tories.
While I was at the Lib Dem manifesto launch this evening I was pondering why Tim was not appearing to come over with appropriate gravitas to the public at large.
I think it is because he speaks with enthusiasm and passion but too quickly. A slightly more measured approach may allow him to come over more effectively.
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
The Democrats are going to want to keep him in place until the mid terms, and the Republicans are going to want to concentrate on getting their agenda through before they may lose control of the House.
Neither wants the distraction of trying to upend the President, who only just got elected and, while rather unconventional in his methods (to put it mildly) still has the support of the majority of those who voted for him only six months ago.
The 25th Amendment route is unprecedented, and designed for a situation where the President is suddenly incapacitated. They'd need to have clear medical evidence of a mental illness to think about going there.
While I was at the Lib Dem manifesto launch this evening I was pondering why Tim was not appearing to come over with appropriate gravitas to the public at large.
I think it is because he speaks with enthusiasm and passion but too quickly. A slightly more measured approach may allow him to come over more effectively.
Where has his media training been these past two years?
DEFEND RIGHTS, PROMOTE JUSTICE AND QUALITIES Positive case for immigration – I doubt they’ll be rewarded for the stance, but it is differentiation.
At times the manifesto talks like the LDs will be in government, at other times not – ‘will vote against’ attempts to scrap Human Rights Act but ‘will strengthen’ the commitment to internal human rights law.
Decriminalise the sale and purchase of sex, and the management of sex work – easy to make fun of, but feels more liberal
Outlaw caste discrimination? Is that a thing here?
What is so flawed about the Prevent scheme? What about your proposed replacement will work better?
Notify innocent people placed under surveillance? Rather defeats the point doesn’t it, and isn’t everyone innocent until convicted?
Oppose attempts to undermine encryption
Remove students from migration stats – aren’t the Tories and Labour also now promising to do the same?
MAKE A BETTER WORLD Liberals have been challenged by the vote to leave the EU – so not caring about the third of LDs who voted Leave, huh? The decision must be illiberal.
Far less woolly on potential intervention
Quite a positive section, on attempts to help worldwide – realistic?
FIX A BROKEN SYSTEM Votes at 16 as well. Fine, but reduce driniking age etc
STV – no promise on referendum first, but if they can win a majority (ha), that’s fair
What do they mean by reform HoL to have a democratic mandate exactly?
Devolution on demand in England, eg erratic and a la carte devolution that makes no sense
Cancelling boundary review, but with new voting system makes sense I guess – they want great flexibility to deviate from equal boundaries though.
BAME and LGBT shortlists – I’m not a fan of shortlists, and as has been noted, our parliament is already the gayest in the world, with SNP, Labour and the Tories in the top 11 worldwide. It’s clearly not a problem for them.
Mandate leaders’ debates
MP job sharing arrangements? What on earth does that mean? If you’re elected to serve, you serve.
Bit more stuff on Scotland, wales and NI than Labour, even accounting for separate manifestos
CONCLUSION Not a bad design. Easier to read even if very long, more summaries, headings and bullet points, priorities very clear.
COMPARISON It’s more focused in each section than Labour’s, better presented, though also with a wider focus overall rather than worker’s rights and investment. Less grandiose and rambling. Some attacks om the opening on labour, and sprinklings of criticism of tory policies throughout, but far less aggressive.
Is there final confirmation of who is on the ITV leaders debate tomorrow night?
Programme is still 2 hours - if it's just LD, UKIP, Green, SNP and PC that is going to be a long 2 hours.
Basically an immense borefest in which two leaders of regional parties that don't stand in over 90% of the country gang up with leaders of two more (weak and marginal) leftist parties, to lampoon the hapless leader of a dying right-wing party.
Of interest to none but a handful of really serious political anoraks. Don't know why they're bothering TBH.
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
The Democrats are going to want to keep him in place until the mid terms, and the Republicans are going to want to concentrate on getting their agenda through before they may lose control of the House.
Neither wants the distraction of trying to upend the President, who only just got elected and, while rather unconventional in his methods (to put it mildly) still has the support of the majority of those who voted for him six months ago.
I'm not sure the Democrats are going to want to get him replaced after the midterms either. Sure they may try but it will be halfhearted and for show. Once the midterms are out of the way Trump is likely to be the lamest of ducks and the Democrats will be concentrating on getting Trump replaced with one of their own at 2020 election, not getting Trump replaced by Pence in a 2019 impeachment.
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
If it looked like over 2/3 of the Senate would vote for impeachment, I'd assume he would walk rather than make them actually do it, which would accelerate the timeline.
With any other politician, of course. With Trump ..... who knows ? Even Nixon respected political conventions from time to time. Trump, not so much.
And now, as no-one asked for, some long rambling thoughts on the LD manifesto, section by section.
YOUR CHANCE TO CHANGE BRITAIN’S FUTURE BY CHANING THE OPPOSITION Simultaneously realistic and overly optimistic. Attacking May and Corbyn, recognising May is going to win, but also hoping the LDs are going to be able to make the LDs the official opposition. It’s not a bad opening, but seeing how things look to be going for them, its hopeful tone makes me sad for the party. Lots of manifesto does act like they will be in government though.
PROTECT BRITAIN’S PLACE IN EUROPE Forward says that campaigning to be the opposition, but then says here they LDs will a Brexit to deal to a vote, presuming they will be in government, or powerful enough to force that option (with a rejoin choice)?
Very clear on priorities, although obviously what they want is to stay.
SAVE OUR NHS AND SOCIAL CARE SERVICES Yet Labour and Conservative politicians refuse to be honest with the public about the scale of the crisis or the tough decisions which are needed to protect these vital services - Maybe, but they never reward you, do they?
Some funding stuff, which is better than none.
End public sector pay freeze for NHS workers? I presume not the rest of us then, diff from Labour.
Protect whistleblowers? Isn’t this already supposed to be the case?
Lots of points on mental health
Feels like a bigger emphasis on health than Labour’s even.
PUT CHILDREN FIRST Some bits I’m clear on the cost, some not.
Introduce a fairer national funding system with a protection for all schools, so that no school loses money – not a single one? Bold promise
Going after free schools – feels like less of an issue than a few years ago, but presumably still has some appeal
‘Slimmed down core national curriculum’ which they state includes PSHE – we hated PSHE when I was at school, a lot of it was useless nonsense.
Going heavy on LGBT + issues (incidentally, that’s a better acronym than LGBTIQA+, which I have seen)
Aim to meet all basic skills needs including literacy, numeracy and digital skills by 2030 – from the school of ‘who would object to that?’ policies
In fairness 1p on tax for the NHS is at least a step towards honesty with the electorate given an aging population.
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
This was discussed at some length on an earlier thread.
Briefly, the legal side of it is almost an irrelevance. It's his popularity rating that matters. It's currently in the low fourties. That's bad but not critical. If it gets down to 35% or lower, he's in trouble. Or to put it another way, if he starts losing the Republican base, he's....well, toast!
Interesting feature of Favourability ratings. As his general Favourability goes down it could well increase amongst Republicans as US Favourability polls use self identification rather than previous vote. So as Trump makes more and more Republicans identify as Independent instead his Favourability amongst Republicans will stay high and maybe gen increase.
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
Only if Pence suffers an incapacitating or fatal misfortune at roughly the same time.
Remember - impeach Trump, get Pence.
This is why Clinton despite being somewhat less corrupt and irresponsible would in practice have been in more danger than Trump of being removed. Tim Kaine may not be a great campaigner but he would make a half-decent president.
Yes, and I think for that reason, Ydoe, the Dems won't want him to go too soon.
For those in doubt - I know it does cause confusion - the correct spelling of my user name is 'Y Doethur' (pronounced, roughly, uh DOY theer).
On your substantive point, I can't see what the Democrats gain from trying to force Trump out. They look like sore losers, they don't have the numbers to do it, and if by some miracle they did manage it, they'd get someone far worse.
If there is a move against him it will surely be from the Republicans (who do not have quite the same reasons to hate Pence although by all accounts they don't love him) and it will require something fairly substantial and unambiguously criminal.
It's a habit of mine to play with people's usernames but if it caused offence I'm sorry and won't do it again....with you, anyway!
Yes, it's a cat-and-mouse game now. I think he will go, in due course, but the timing is crucial for the kind of reasons you give. The Dems would love him to hang around until the mid-terms. The GOP would like him to go either now or in about three years time. In view of their majorities, the GOP seem to me to have the greater control of the timetable, but if his popularity continues to plummet, that control will slip out of their hands and they will be forced to move.
All tricky stuff, but I think the betting angle is easy. Lay him on the 2020 market. I think he's bound to be gone before that.
Politicians, stop stop stop doing speeches in front of a crowd of people - no matter how great you are, there will be someone who looks bored, angry or insane.
@CarsonsCat: Kezia to Tories in ES: Please, please vote for Ian Murray. Kezia to Labour councillors: You're sacked if you go into coalition with Tories.
But the voters she has left are those would never vote Conservative so she is caught between a rock and a hard place.
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
This was discussed at some length on an earlier thread.
Briefly, the legal side of it is almost an irrelevance. It's his popularity rating that matters. It's currently in the low fourties. That's bad but not critical. If it gets down to 35% or lower, he's in trouble. Or to put it another way, if he starts losing the Republican base, he's....well, toast!
Interesting feature of Favourability ratings. As his general Favourability goes down it could well increase amongst Republicans as US Favourability polls use self identification rather than previous vote. So as Trump makes more and more Republicans identify as Independent instead his Favourability amongst Republicans will stay high and maybe gen increase.
But the GOP will still have to make a call as to when he has simply become too toxic, no?
Yes, it's a cat-and-mouse game now. I think he will go, in due course, but the timing is crucial for the kind of reasons you give. The Dems would love him to hang around until the mid-terms. The GOP would like him to go either now or in about three years time. In view of their majorities, the GOP seem to me to have the greater control of the timetable, but if his popularity continues to plummet, that control will slip out of their hands and they will be forced to move.
All tricky stuff, but I think the betting angle is easy. Lay him on the 2020 market. I think he's bound to be gone before that.
I certainly would be very surprised indeed if he is still in office on 1st February 2021. The question is whether a Republican will be elected after he withdraws or he is defeated by a Democrat. There isn't an obvious pathway for either at the moment.
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
This was discussed at some length on an earlier thread.
Briefly, the legal side of it is almost an irrelevance. It's his popularity rating that matters. It's currently in the low fourties. That's bad but not critical. If it gets down to 35% or lower, he's in trouble. Or to put it another way, if he starts losing the Republican base, he's....well, toast!
I knòw, I was there . :-) I don't agree that the legal aspect is irrelevant. The Senate in particular is not going to impeach a President without pretty solid grounds, however unpopular he might be. The unpopularity is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition, IMO.
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
The Democrats are going to want to keep him in place until the mid terms, and the Republicans are going to want to concentrate on getting their agenda through before they may lose control of the House.
Neither wants the distraction of trying to upend the President, who only just got elected and, while rather unconventional in his methods (to put it mildly) still has the support of the majority of those who voted for him six months ago.
I'm not sure the Democrats are going to want to get him replaced after the midterms either. Sure they may try but it will be halfhearted and for show. Once the midterms are out of the way Trump is likely to be the lamest of ducks and the Democrats will be concentrating on getting Trump replaced with one of their own at 2020 election, not getting Trump replaced by Pence in a 2019 impeachment.
Makes sense.
Maybe the GOP would impeach him to get Pence in by 2019.
Is there final confirmation of who is on the ITV leaders debate tomorrow night?
Programme is still 2 hours - if it's just LD, UKIP, Green, SNP and PC that is going to be a long 2 hours.
Basically an immense borefest in which two leaders of regional parties that don't stand in over 90% of the country gang up with leaders of two more (weak and marginal) leftist parties, to lampoon the hapless leader of a dying right-wing party.
Of interest to none but a handful of really serious political anoraks. Don't know why they're bothering TBH.
I wonder how big the viewership will be?
There may be some relatively low enjoyment voters who don't realise May and Corbyn are not going to appear.
Is there final confirmation of who is on the ITV leaders debate tomorrow night?
Programme is still 2 hours - if it's just LD, UKIP, Green, SNP and PC that is going to be a long 2 hours.
Basically an immense borefest in which two leaders of regional parties that don't stand in over 90% of the country gang up with leaders of two more (weak and marginal) leftist parties, to lampoon the hapless leader of a dying right-wing party.
Of interest to none but a handful of really serious political anoraks. Don't know why they're bothering TBH.
You're certainly not selling me on it, I hope they advertise it better than that!
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
This was discussed at some length on an earlier thread.
Briefly, the legal side of it is almost an irrelevance. It's his popularity rating that matters. It's currently in the low fourties. That's bad but not critical. If it gets down to 35% or lower, he's in trouble. Or to put it another way, if he starts losing the Republican base, he's....well, toast!
I knòw, I was there . :-) I don't agree that the legal aspect is irrelevant. The Senate in particular is not going to impeach a President without pretty solid grounds, however unpopular he might be. The unpopularity is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition, IMO.
Lol! So you were. Apologies, but I was trying to be brief. That's my excuse anyway.
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
This was discussed at some length on an earlier thread.
Briefly, the legal side of it is almost an irrelevance. It's his popularity rating that matters. It's currently in the low fourties. That's bad but not critical. If it gets down to 35% or lower, he's in trouble. Or to put it another way, if he starts losing the Republican base, he's....well, toast!
Interesting feature of Favourability ratings. As his general Favourability goes down it could well increase amongst Republicans as US Favourability polls use self identification rather than previous vote. So as Trump makes more and more Republicans identify as Independent instead his Favourability amongst Republicans will stay high and maybe gen increase.
But the GOP will still have to make a call as to when he has simply become too toxic, no?
Sure, Trump's popularity amongst the GOP is critical. But if he's actually eroding the base of then the headline Favourability figure is a false signal which is what we care about for betting purpoises. In a worst case situation Trump might have 100% Favourability amongst self identifying Republicans but there's only 4 of them left.
Is there final confirmation of who is on the ITV leaders debate tomorrow night?
Programme is still 2 hours - if it's just LD, UKIP, Green, SNP and PC that is going to be a long 2 hours.
Basically an immense borefest in which two leaders of regional parties that don't stand in over 90% of the country gang up with leaders of two more (weak and marginal) leftist parties, to lampoon the hapless leader of a dying right-wing party.
Of interest to none but a handful of really serious political anoraks. Don't know why they're bothering TBH.
Sounds like a potential contender for next year's Turner Prize.
Is there final confirmation of who is on the ITV leaders debate tomorrow night?
Programme is still 2 hours - if it's just LD, UKIP, Green, SNP and PC that is going to be a long 2 hours.
Basically an immense borefest in which two leaders of regional parties that don't stand in over 90% of the country gang up with leaders of two more (weak and marginal) leftist parties, to lampoon the hapless leader of a dying right-wing party.
Of interest to none but a handful of really serious political anoraks. Don't know why they're bothering TBH.
Sounds like a potential contender for next year's Turner Prize.
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
This was discussed at some length on an earlier thread.
Briefly, the legal side of it is almost an irrelevance. It's his popularity rating that matters. It's currently in the low fourties. That's bad but not critical. If it gets down to 35% or lower, he's in trouble. Or to put it another way, if he starts losing the Republican base, he's....well, toast!
I knòw, I was there . :-) I don't agree that the legal aspect is irrelevant. The Senate in particular is not going to impeach a President without pretty solid grounds, however unpopular he might be. The unpopularity is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition, IMO.
Lol! So you were. Apologies, but I was trying to be brief. That's my excuse anyway.
Is there final confirmation of who is on the ITV leaders debate tomorrow night?
Programme is still 2 hours - if it's just LD, UKIP, Green, SNP and PC that is going to be a long 2 hours.
Basically an immense borefest in which two leaders of regional parties that don't stand in over 90% of the country gang up with leaders of two more (weak and marginal) leftist parties, to lampoon the hapless leader of a dying right-wing party.
Of interest to none but a handful of really serious political anoraks. Don't know why they're bothering TBH.
You're certainly not selling me on it, I hope they advertise it better than that!
Nearly everything on ITV is dross. I expect this to be no exception.
Yes, it's a cat-and-mouse game now. I think he will go, in due course, but the timing is crucial for the kind of reasons you give. The Dems would love him to hang around until the mid-terms. The GOP would like him to go either now or in about three years time. In view of their majorities, the GOP seem to me to have the greater control of the timetable, but if his popularity continues to plummet, that control will slip out of their hands and they will be forced to move.
All tricky stuff, but I think the betting angle is easy. Lay him on the 2020 market. I think he's bound to be gone before that.
I certainly would be very surprised indeed if he is still in office on 1st February 2021. The question is whether a Republican will be elected after he withdraws or he is defeated by a Democrat. There isn't an obvious pathway for either at the moment.
Thanks. I have lived in Wales so have some idea of the language, but I'll do you the courtesy of the full moniker in future.
Very hard to predict anything to do with Trump. I only just about got my nuts out of the fire in time when he won the Presidency, so I wouldn't risk too much on his impeachment. I think he will go early one way or another though. The US surely can't cope with the instability, and maybe he can't either.
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
The Democrats are going to want to keep him in place until the mid terms, and the Republicans are going to want to concentrate on getting their agenda through before they may lose control of the House.
Neither wants the distraction of trying to upend the President, who only just got elected and, while rather unconventional in his methods (to put it mildly) still has the support of the majority of those who voted for him six months ago.
I'm not sure the Democrats are going to want to get him replaced after the midterms either. Sure they may try but it will be halfhearted and for show. Once the midterms are out of the way Trump is likely to be the lamest of ducks and the Democrats will be concentrating on getting Trump replaced with one of their own at 2020 election, not getting Trump replaced by Pence in a 2019 impeachment.
I'm not sure on this one. I think they'd rather face a conventional Republican such as Pence in 2020. Possibly they go hard to impeach Trump early in 2019, in an attempt to get him primaried.
One idea I've suggested before (not that they're listening to some random guy in the Middle East posting on a British blog), is that the Democrats run their primaries a year early, in 2019, so giving their candidate a "Leader of the Opposition" role for 12 months, competing directly against the President every night on the news. They also need to think hard among themselves who should stand - they need another Obama, not another Hillary, someone young and fresh. Who's a 15 years younger Elizabeth Warren?
Is there final confirmation of who is on the ITV leaders debate tomorrow night?
Programme is still 2 hours - if it's just LD, UKIP, Green, SNP and PC that is going to be a long 2 hours.
Basically an immense borefest in which two leaders of regional parties that don't stand in over 90% of the country gang up with leaders of two more (weak and marginal) leftist parties, to lampoon the hapless leader of a dying right-wing party.
Of interest to none but a handful of really serious political anoraks. Don't know why they're bothering TBH.
I don't suspect the 5 debating will attack each other that much, particularly as SNP, Plaid and Greens are quite chummy. More likely they will all turn their fire on May and Corbyn who won't be able to answer back.
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
Only if Pence suffers an incapacitating or fatal misfortune at roughly the same time.
Remember - impeach Trump, get Pence.
This is why Clinton despite being somewhat less corrupt and irresponsible would in practice have been in more danger than Trump of being removed. Tim Kaine may not be a great campaigner but he would make a half-decent president.
Yes, and I think for that reason, Ydoe, the Dems won't want him to go too soon.
For those in doubt - I know it does cause confusion - the correct spelling of my user name is 'Y Doethur' (pronounced, roughly, uh DOY theer).
On your substantive point, I can't see what the Democrats gain from trying to force Trump out. They look like sore losers, they don't have the numbers to do it, and if by some miracle they did manage it, they'd get someone far worse.
If there is a move against him it will surely be from the Republicans (who do not have quite the same reasons to hate Pence although by all accounts they don't love him) and it will require something fairly substantial and unambiguously criminal.
What a sensible language, to distinguish doethurs from meddygs.
It does not mean kowtowing to foreign leaders, whose fear you can smell that we have rejected their set up and will sit off their coast as a "Plan B" example to any others that do not wish to see their national democracies mashed into a 21st Century Austria Hungary.
Those remaining EU member states must be looking on at our ideological battle between Ed Miliband's vision and Michael Foot's with envy...
Such core principles that Germany limited immigration from Poland and other Eastern European states despite them participating in the same internal market.
It's called a transition. We chose 'hard expansion' instead of an orderly adjustment.
Re envy: yes they soon will be. We'll be having elections with the ability to fire those with power over us. Theirs will slip away into a Kafkaeseque morass of bureaucrat led decisions (how do I fire the Swedish Commissioner through the ballot box- oh I can't can I?), unable to be held properly to account, not least because you can't have a proper media and political discourse across about 20 languages.
That was IIRC one of the Benn tests, was it not.
What power have you? How did you get it? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?
"Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system".
Question: any chance at all of Trump being declared unfit under the 25th Amendment?
QTWAIN. It would take the Vice President, the majority of Trump's own cabinet and if Trump objects, which he would, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
In contrast the impeachment route "only" takes a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.
Even then, it's extraordinarily unlikely unless Trump becomes more blatantly nuts than he was when elected. Impeachment on credible legal grounds would be far easier to sell to those who voted for him.
This was discussed at some length on an earlier thread.
Briefly, the legal side of it is almost an irrelevance. It's his popularity rating that matters. It's currently in the low fourties. That's bad but not critical. If it gets down to 35% or lower, he's in trouble. Or to put it another way, if he starts losing the Republican base, he's....well, toast!
Interesting feature of Favourability ratings. As his general Favourability goes down it could well increase amongst Republicans as US Favourability polls use self identification rather than previous vote. So as Trump makes more and more Republicans identify as Independent instead his Favourability amongst Republicans will stay high and maybe gen increase.
But the GOP will still have to make a call as to when he has simply become too toxic, no?
Sure, Trump's popularity amongst the GOP is critical. But if he's actually eroding the base of then the headline Favourability figure is a false signal which is what we care about for betting purpoises. In a worst case situation Trump might have 100% Favourability amongst self identifying Republicans but there's only 4 of them left.
I see what you mean, Alistair.
Four? I suspect he personally would consider that a sufficient mandate, but not sure about the GOP.
In the 2015 election the, electoral commission, published weekly fundraising totals, but I don't see them on their website, does anybody know when will that start? or have the rules changed?
And now, as no-one asked for, some long rambling thoughts on the LD manifesto, section by section.
YOUR CHANCE TO CHANGE BRITAIN’S FUTURE BY CHANING THE OPPOSITION Simultaneously realistic and overly optimistic. Attacking May and Corbyn, recognising May is going to win, but also hoping the LDs are going to be able to make the LDs the official opposition. It’s not a bad opening, but seeing how things look to be going for them, its hopeful tone makes me sad for the party. Lots of manifesto does act like they will be in government though.
PROTECT BRITAIN’S PLACE IN EUROPE Forward says that campaigning to be the opposition, but then says here they LDs will a Brexit to deal to a vote, presuming they will be in government, or powerful enough to force that option (with a rejoin choice)?
Very clear on priorities, although obviously what they want is to stay.
SAVE OUR NHS AND SOCIAL CARE SERVICES Yet Labour and Conservative politicians refuse to be honest with the public about the scale of the crisis or the tough decisions which are needed to protect these vital services - Maybe, but they never reward you, do they?
Some funding stuff, which is better than none.
End public sector pay freeze for NHS workers? I presume not the rest of us then, diff from Labour.
Protect whistleblowers? Isn’t this already supposed to be the case?
Lots of points on mental health
Feels like a bigger emphasis on health than Labour’s even.
PUT CHILDREN FIRST Some bits I’m clear on the cost, some not.
Introduce a fairer national funding system with a protection for all schools, so that no school loses money – not a single one? Bold promise
Going after free schools – feels like less of an issue than a few years ago, but presumably still has some appeal
‘Slimmed down core national curriculum’ which they state includes PSHE – we hated PSHE when I was at school, a lot of it was useless nonsense.
Going heavy on LGBT + issues (incidentally, that’s a better acronym than LGBTIQA+, which I have seen)
Aim to meet all basic skills needs including literacy, numeracy and digital skills by 2030 – from the school of ‘who would object to that?’ policies
In fairness 1p on tax for the NHS is at least a step towards honesty with the electorate given an aging population.
Yep. Funding specific extra spending by extra taxation is perfectly fine, politics should be about decisions like this. A bit of honesty from the LDs and it should be praised.
If that's true, what a masterful ruse they have managed.
Plus Mrs May and the Tories are believing the polls which we all know have been wrong before, and appointing that lose Crosby who lost the 2005 general election.
Tories are going to be crying in the early hours of June 9th.
Is there final confirmation of who is on the ITV leaders debate tomorrow night?
Programme is still 2 hours - if it's just LD, UKIP, Green, SNP and PC that is going to be a long 2 hours.
Basically an immense borefest in which two leaders of regional parties that don't stand in over 90% of the country gang up with leaders of two more (weak and marginal) leftist parties, to lampoon the hapless leader of a dying right-wing party.
Of interest to none but a handful of really serious political anoraks. Don't know why they're bothering TBH.
Sounds like a potential contender for next year's Turner Prize.
Chris Ofili's balls of elephant dung would probably provide more entertainment. Especially if everyone took turns to throw them at Nuttall.
I don't suspect the 5 debating will attack each other that much, particularly as SNP, Plaid and Greens are quite chummy. More likely they will all turn their fire on May and Corbyn who won't be able to answer back.
I'm sure that May and Corbyn will both be terrified.
I can't comment on what Hammond may or may not have said today because I haven't seen the reports, though FWIW - in the context of this election campaign - it scarcely matters.
Firstly, the electorate have already made up their minds about May & Hammond vs Corbyn & McDonnell, and not to Labour's benefit. Secondly, the Labour manifesto basically promises a free herd of ponies for every reader except the rich, which is patently bollocks. And thirdly, McDonnell is a terrorist cheerleader who is unfit to sit on a parish council, let alone run the Treasury.
Comments
Programme is still 2 hours - if it's just LD, UKIP, Green, SNP and PC that is going to be a long 2 hours.
So it's utterly pointless and might actually lead to a no-deal Brexit.
Who ran Labour's number - Diane Abbot?
YOUR CHANCE TO CHANGE BRITAIN’S FUTURE BY CHANING THE OPPOSITION
Simultaneously realistic and overly optimistic. Attacking May and Corbyn, recognising May is going to win, but also hoping the LDs are going to be able to make the LDs the official opposition. It’s not a bad opening, but seeing how things look to be going for them, its hopeful tone makes me sad for the party. Lots of manifesto does act like they will be in government though.
PROTECT BRITAIN’S PLACE IN EUROPE
Forward says that campaigning to be the opposition, but then says here they LDs will a Brexit to deal to a vote, presuming they will be in government, or powerful enough to force that option (with a rejoin choice)?
Very clear on priorities, although obviously what they want is to stay.
SAVE OUR NHS AND SOCIAL CARE SERVICES
Yet Labour and Conservative politicians refuse to be honest with the public about the scale of the crisis or the tough decisions which are needed to protect these vital services - Maybe, but they never reward you, do they?
Some funding stuff, which is better than none.
End public sector pay freeze for NHS workers? I presume not the rest of us then, diff from Labour.
Protect whistleblowers? Isn’t this already supposed to be the case?
Lots of points on mental health
Feels like a bigger emphasis on health than Labour’s even.
PUT CHILDREN FIRST
Some bits I’m clear on the cost, some not.
Introduce a fairer national funding system with a protection for all schools, so that no school loses money – not a single one? Bold promise
Going after free schools – feels like less of an issue than a few years ago, but presumably still has some appeal
‘Slimmed down core national curriculum’ which they state includes PSHE – we hated PSHE when I was at school, a lot of it was useless nonsense.
Going heavy on LGBT + issues (incidentally, that’s a better acronym than LGBTIQA+, which I have seen)
Aim to meet all basic skills needs including literacy, numeracy and digital skills by 2030 – from the school of ‘who would object to that?’ policies
Briefly, the legal side of it is almost an irrelevance. It's his popularity rating that matters. It's currently in the low fourties. That's bad but not critical. If it gets down to 35% or lower, he's in trouble. Or to put it another way, if he starts losing the Republican base, he's....well, toast!
On your substantive point, I can't see what the Democrats gain from trying to force Trump out. They look like sore losers, they don't have the numbers to do it, and if by some miracle they did manage it, they'd get someone far worse.
If there is a move against him it will surely be from the Republicans (who do not have quite the same reasons to hate Pence although by all accounts they don't love him) and it will require something fairly substantial and unambiguously criminal.
An acknowledgment ‘the coalition’ did good work that the conservatives are undermining.
Eliminate deficit on ‘day to day spending’ by 2020 – same as Labour policy just upped by 2 years
‘Responsible and realistic’ £100 billion package of infrastructure investment – surely Labour would argue their 250 billion is responsible and realistic too?
Hyperfast broadband rollout – didn’t Labour promise ‘ultrafast’? One is definitely different than the current superfast, is hyper the same as ultra?
Also commit to HS2
Awful lot of mention of this 1p rise in income tax, how much can this pay for?
Conduct a full-scale review into the burden of taxation and spending between generations to ensure that government policy promotes fairness between generations I don’t know what this means.
Stamp out ‘abuse’ of zero hour contracts, not just get rid of them – halfway measure, unlikely to appeal to many I’d think
‘1.7 million people without a bank account’ !!!!!
Northern powerhouse – I guess someone besides Osborne still cares about this
More devolution – if it is to be as scatter gun as the Tories and the coalition, no thanks
KEEP OUR COUNTRY GREEN
Eighteen months ago, it seemed that the world had come to a consensus on the need to take the perils of climate change seriously Did it? You blame Brexit and trump for altering this, but all I remember is a lot of talk.
Five new laws on Green issues already listed too – sounds well thought out, no idea if it is, obvious play for, well, Green vote. Which rather presumes most Greens are most exercised by green issues rather than socialism.
Suspending neonicotinoids? Well you’ve lost my vote!
Trying for farmer and fisher vote.
charge on disposable coffe cups. Yeah, probably a good idea in fairness.
SUPPORT FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES
Childcare extension – labour promising more?
balancing the books on the backs of the poor and disabled, and demonising people who claim benefits, is neither acceptable nor responsible - I’m sure that’s not what Tories think they are doing
Bedroom tax and two child policy seems fair to me, but most on the left hate them. Don’t recall if Labour mentioned the latter.
Triple lock, smart politics like Labour – but only Labour could be in government to protect it, so no reason to vote LD
Garden cities rather than ‘new towns’ from Labour. Still good idea
‘Dramatically’ reduce power of ministers to interfere in local government. How? What do they do now? Most people are confused by what their council provides and the government
I think it is because he speaks with enthusiasm and passion but too quickly. A slightly more measured approach may allow him to come over more effectively.
@CarsonsCat: Kezia to Tories in ES: Please, please vote for Ian Murray. Kezia to Labour councillors: You're sacked if you go into coalition with Tories.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/17/trump_to_coast_guard_no_politician_in_history_has_been_treated_worse.html
Which implies that he believes Abe Lincoln, MLK, JFK etc had it coming ?
Neither wants the distraction of trying to upend the President, who only just got elected and, while rather unconventional in his methods (to put it mildly) still has the support of the majority of those who voted for him only six months ago.
The 25th Amendment route is unprecedented, and designed for a situation where the President is suddenly incapacitated. They'd need to have clear medical evidence of a mental illness to think about going there.
Positive case for immigration – I doubt they’ll be rewarded for the stance, but it is differentiation.
At times the manifesto talks like the LDs will be in government, at other times not – ‘will vote against’ attempts to scrap Human Rights Act but ‘will strengthen’ the commitment to internal human rights law.
Decriminalise the sale and purchase of sex, and the management of sex work – easy to make fun of, but feels more liberal
Outlaw caste discrimination? Is that a thing here?
What is so flawed about the Prevent scheme? What about your proposed replacement will work better?
Notify innocent people placed under surveillance? Rather defeats the point doesn’t it, and isn’t everyone innocent until convicted?
Oppose attempts to undermine encryption
Remove students from migration stats – aren’t the Tories and Labour also now promising to do the same?
MAKE A BETTER WORLD
Liberals have been challenged by the vote to leave the EU – so not caring about the third of LDs who voted Leave, huh? The decision must be illiberal.
Far less woolly on potential intervention
Quite a positive section, on attempts to help worldwide – realistic?
FIX A BROKEN SYSTEM
Votes at 16 as well. Fine, but reduce driniking age etc
STV – no promise on referendum first, but if they can win a majority (ha), that’s fair
What do they mean by reform HoL to have a democratic mandate exactly?
Devolution on demand in England, eg erratic and a la carte devolution that makes no sense
Cancelling boundary review, but with new voting system makes sense I guess – they want great flexibility to deviate from equal boundaries though.
BAME and LGBT shortlists – I’m not a fan of shortlists, and as has been noted, our parliament is already the gayest in the world, with SNP, Labour and the Tories in the top 11 worldwide. It’s clearly not a problem for them.
Mandate leaders’ debates
MP job sharing arrangements? What on earth does that mean? If you’re elected to serve, you serve.
Bit more stuff on Scotland, wales and NI than Labour, even accounting for separate manifestos
Not a bad design. Easier to read even if very long, more summaries, headings and bullet points, priorities very clear.
COMPARISON
It’s more focused in each section than Labour’s, better presented, though also with a wider focus overall rather than worker’s rights and investment. Less grandiose and rambling. Some attacks om the opening on labour, and sprinklings of criticism of tory policies throughout, but far less aggressive.
That being said you could make a fairly good case that Trump isn't either!
Of interest to none but a handful of really serious political anoraks. Don't know why they're bothering TBH.
Only difference in Aberdeen is the nature of the deal.
Even Nixon respected political conventions from time to time. Trump, not so much.
Yes, it's a cat-and-mouse game now. I think he will go, in due course, but the timing is crucial for the kind of reasons you give. The Dems would love him to hang around until the mid-terms. The GOP would like him to go either now or in about three years time. In view of their majorities, the GOP seem to me to have the greater control of the timetable, but if his popularity continues to plummet, that control will slip out of their hands and they will be forced to move.
All tricky stuff, but I think the betting angle is easy. Lay him on the 2020 market. I think he's bound to be gone before that.
It's not just Diane who struggles with maths.
I don't agree that the legal aspect is irrelevant. The Senate in particular is not going to impeach a President without pretty solid grounds, however unpopular he might be. The unpopularity is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition, IMO.
Maybe the GOP would impeach him to get Pence in by 2019.
There may be some relatively low enjoyment voters who don't realise May and Corbyn are not going to appear.
Only for the PB Trumptons.
Only on PB.
Stevenage? Basingstoke? Huntingdon?
Wonder what Mrs BJ will do when the BBC contact her!!
Sometimes I doubt my own existence...
https://twitter.com/euanmccolm/status/864908124221841408
https://twitter.com/brianspanner1/status/864932513524920321
Audience member: "We're on 9 seats at the moment. The only way is up." I wouldn't be so sure.
Very hard to predict anything to do with Trump. I only just about got my nuts out of the fire in time when he won the Presidency, so I wouldn't risk too much on his impeachment. I think he will go early one way or another though. The US surely can't cope with the instability, and maybe he can't either.
One idea I've suggested before (not that they're listening to some random guy in the Middle East posting on a British blog), is that the Democrats run their primaries a year early, in 2019, so giving their candidate a "Leader of the Opposition" role for 12 months, competing directly against the President every night on the news. They also need to think hard among themselves who should stand - they need another Obama, not another Hillary, someone young and fresh. Who's a 15 years younger Elizabeth Warren?
Why do PBers rate him?
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/864935783228207104
What power have you?
How did you get it?
In whose interests do you exercise it?
To whom are you accountable?
How do we get rid of you?
"Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system".
Does the EU parliament have an Opposition?
Four? I suspect he personally would consider that a sufficient mandate, but not sure about the GOP.
Tories are going to be crying in the early hours of June 9th.
https://twitter.com/BBCAllieHB/status/864937135023022080
Brilliant, harsh, but fair – not even a thread today mentioning it.
All the polls with no Tories in them. If they had tories in them, they would be Tory Polls. Obvious really.
Firstly, the electorate have already made up their minds about May & Hammond vs Corbyn & McDonnell, and not to Labour's benefit. Secondly, the Labour manifesto basically promises a free herd of ponies for every reader except the rich, which is patently bollocks. And thirdly, McDonnell is a terrorist cheerleader who is unfit to sit on a parish council, let alone run the Treasury.
A few weeks ago the Tories were 25% ahead, now they are around 16% ahead.
By June 8th, Labour will be 10% ahead.
Trend is your friend.
Plus apart from me, everyone they know votes Labour or likes Corbyn.