A no deal Brexit is starting to feel like the build up to WWI. It's not that people want it, but rather more that people aren't willing to compromise to prevent it.
There is no Brexit that commands widespread support, but in reality the choice is one of three:
1) WTO Brexit
2) Withdrawal of A50
3) Whatever Barnier proposes, take it or leave it.
Brexiteers can rearrange cakes and customs as much as they like, but it ain't on offer. They might as well order the Duck ala Orange at the McDonalds drive in.
1) is of course the default, so always a likely outcome.
I think it unlikely we will accept Barnier's deal.
I think when you add in those who want no deal (which for now has significant public support over an apparently crappy deal), that consequences won't be felt by most immediately, how many react to scare tactics (be they true or not), and a general 'f*ck them' attitude when someone demands something, I think it very very probable that if it is a 'take it or leave it' from Barnier MPs might well leave it.
Yes. ERG headbangers are gagging to jump from the cliff and remainers now think their best chance of reversing Brexit altogether is to exclude all other options apart from WTO and staying in. So both groups will oppose any withdrawal deal. And Corbyn will oppose a deal because he thinks that is the best way to achieve a Labour government. This will lead to a major political and economic crisis the outcome of which is hard to predict but a complete volte face on Brexit is quite possible.
A complete volte-face is possible, as is an outcome that you'd hate.
It's better to go for a deal, if a reasonable deal is available.
Because the UK signed up to a UK backstop with a specific guarantee that NI wouldn't be treated differently unless NI wanted to be in accordance with the Good Friday Agreement.
The EU is trying to rip up the GFA by dividing East and West trade against both last December's agreement and the Good Friday Agreement.
Once again the miscomprehension, the EU don't really give a damn about the UK. It was the UK who voted to leave, it was the UK who over many years had become seriously semi detached from the organisation, and it is now after we decided to leave, we are demanding concessions that they are not willing to give us as it breaks the rules that the others have agreed to, work with and like.
Once again this there's one set of rules and can be no cherry picking or variances misapprehension.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Just the one. If you're incompetent you have to be honest, and if you're crooked you have to be clever. See, if you're honest, then when you make a pig's breakfast of things the chaps rally round and help you out.”
The rest of the quote is even better:
Humphrey: “So the ideal is a bank that ‘s honest and competent?”
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: “Yes. Let me know if you ever find one, won’t you.”
Everyone should watch it. My favourite program of all time. As a lowly administrator I aim one day to be a less deviously minded and motivated Sir Humphrey (sometimes his heart was in the right place).
One of the many clever things about Yes Minister which made it work was that all of the major characters were likeable, albeit rather self serving.
I knew Sir Patrick Nairne in passing, who was strongly rumoured to be the real-life Sir Humphrey (cited as such in the Times and Indy obits) and you could well believe it. Immensely likeable, yes, though steely with it. He was rather more concise than Sir Humphrey though...
A no deal Brexit is starting to feel like the build up to WWI. It's not that people want it, but rather more that people aren't willing to compromise to prevent it.
There is no Brexit that commands widespread support, but in reality the choice is one of three:
1) WTO Brexit
2) Withdrawal of A50
3) Whatever Barnier proposes, take it or leave it.
Brexiteers can rearrange cakes and customs as much as they like, but it ain't on offer. They might as well order the Duck ala Orange at the McDonalds drive in.
1) is of course the default, so always a likely outcome.
I think it unlikely we will accept Barnier's deal.
I think when you add in those who want no deal (which for now has significant public support over an apparently crappy deal), that consequences won't be felt by most immediately, how many react to scare tactics (be they true or not), and a general 'f*ck them' attitude when someone demands something, I think it very very probable that if it is a 'take it or leave it' from Barnier MPs might well leave it.
Yes. ERG headbangers are gagging to jump from the cliff and remainers now think their best chance of reversing Brexit altogether is to exclude all other options apart from WTO and staying in. So both groups will oppose any withdrawal deal. And Corbyn will oppose a deal because he thinks that is the best way to achieve a Labour government. This will lead to a major political and economic crisis the outcome of which is hard to predict but a complete volte face on Brexit is quite possible.
A complete volte-face is possible, as is an outcome that you'd hate.
It's better to go for a deal, if a reasonable deal is available.
There is no available deal that could command a majority in parliament.
What is it that Donald Trump thinks he (and the US) can get out of Russia?
I really don't understand his motivation, beyond a love of "strong men" dictators. Russia simply isn't going to buy a lot of US product. (Fact for the day: Russia's exports are the same size as Belgium's.) I guess some help in sorting out the Middle East, maybe. But then again, Trump doesn't seem to care about that.
Perhaps getting better access to the Russian energy market for US firms? But that doesn't seem *that* likely.
All of which makes it the more bewilderingly suspicious. Cui bono? Occam's Razor and all that.
It NOT small businesses who have been bemoaning Brexit day in day out since the referendum but big business leaders
El Capitano Ltd, which is decidedly a small business, would beg to differ given that its most rewarding contracts are with the UK division of a company owned by the French government, and with a UK company whose primary sales are to Italy.
'Labour’s Emily Thornberry has categorically ruled out backing a second Brexit referendum, declaring a Jeremy Corbyn government would have to “do as instructed” by the British people in the 2016 EU vote. In her strongest remarks yet on the issue, the Shadow Foreign Secretary told a private meeting in Islington that the party had to uphold the Leave vote “as much as it breaks our heart”. Thornberry also said she disagreed with former Cabinet minister Justine Greening, who this week called for a ‘People’s Vote’ with three options -approving the Government’s Chequers plan, a ‘no deal’ Brexit and staying in the EU.'
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Just the one. If you're incompetent you have to be honest, and if you're crooked you have to be clever. See, if you're honest, then when you make a pig's breakfast of things the chaps rally round and help you out.”
The rest of the quote is even better:
Humphrey: “So the ideal is a bank that ‘s honest and competent?”
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: “Yes. Let me know if you ever find one, won’t you.”
Everyone should watch it. My favourite program of all time. As a lowly administrator I aim one day to be a less deviously minded and motivated Sir Humphrey (sometimes his heart was in the right place).
One of the many clever things about Yes Minister which made it work was that all of the major characters were likeable, albeit rather self serving.
It's why I think it superior to works like The Thick of It or Veep. Most of the time there isn't a sympathetic or likable person in the whole bunch, people are almost inhuman. The satire is more cutting as a result, but I find a lot it unmemorable since it involved cardboard cutouts, not people.
Yes. And it is usually a cock-up and the subsequent cover-up attempts rather than any deliberate malice. More innocent times.
It NOT small businesses who have been bemoaning Brexit day in day out since the referendum but big business leaders
El Capitano Ltd, which is decidedly a small business, would beg to differ given that its most rewarding contracts are with the UK division of a company owned by the French government, and with a UK company whose primary sales are to Italy.
Small Business may have concerns but it did not go in for the endless doom laden forecasts about Brexit before and after the Leave vote.
Indeed 'The majority of SMEs think their business will either be better off once the UK leaves the EU, or altogether unaffected (63 per cent). Those that trade with the USA are even more likely to see this as an opportunity – almost three quarters believe their business will be better off after Brexit (72 per cent).'
In her strongest remarks yet on the issue, the Shadow Foreign Secretary told a private meeting in Islington that the party had to uphold the Leave vote “as much as it breaks our heart”.
Interesting strategy. In fairness, backing it but acting unhappy about it has worked for them so far.
A no deal Brexit is starting to feel like the build up to WWI. It's not that people want it, but rather more that people aren't willing to compromise to prevent it.
There is no Brexit that commands widespread support, but in reality the choice is one of three:
1) WTO Brexit
2) Withdrawal of A50
3) Whatever Barnier proposes, take it or leave it.
Brexiteers can rearrange cakes and customs as much as they like, but it ain't on offer. They might as well order the Duck ala Orange at the McDonalds drive in.
1) is of course the default, so always a likely outcome.
I think it unlikely we will accept Barnier's deal.
I think when you add in those who want no deal (which for now has significant public support over an apparently crappy deal), that consequences won't be felt by most immediately, how many react to scare tactics (be they true or not), and a general 'f*ck them' attitude when someone demands something, I think it very very probable that if it is a 'take it or leave it' from Barnier MPs might well leave it.
Yes. ERG headbangers are gagging to jump from the cliff and remainers now think their best chance of reversing Brexit altogether is to exclude all other options apart from WTO and staying in. So both groups will oppose any withdrawal deal. And Corbyn will oppose a deal because he thinks that is the best way to achieve a Labour government. This will lead to a major political and economic crisis the outcome of which is hard to predict but a complete volte face on Brexit is quite possible.
My gut says that is a low chance compared to no deal, but far more likely than any other alternative. We'll see I guess!
'Labour’s Emily Thornberry has categorically ruled out backing a second Brexit referendum, declaring a Jeremy Corbyn government would have to “do as instructed” by the British people in the 2016 EU vote. In her strongest remarks yet on the issue, the Shadow Foreign Secretary told a private meeting in Islington that the party had to uphold the Leave vote “as much as it breaks our heart”. Thornberry also said she disagreed with former Cabinet minister Justine Greening, who this week called for a ‘People’s Vote’ with three options -approving the Government’s Chequers plan, a ‘no deal’ Brexit and staying in the EU.'
In her strongest remarks yet on the issue, the Shadow Foreign Secretary told a private meeting in Islington that the party had to uphold the Leave vote “as much as it breaks our heart”.
Interesting strategy. In fairness, backing it but acting unhappy about it has worked for them so far.
A no deal Brexit is starting to feel like the build up to WWI. It's not that people want it, but rather more that people aren't willing to compromise to prevent it.
There is no Brexit that commands widespread support, but in reality the choice is one of three:
1) WTO Brexit
2) Withdrawal of A50
3) Whatever Barnier proposes, take it or leave it.
Brexiteers can rearrange cakes and customs as much as they like, but it ain't on offer. They might as well order the Duck ala Orange at the McDonalds drive in.
1) is of course the default, so always a likely outcome.
I think it unlikely we will accept Barnier's deal.
I think when you add in those who want no deal (which for now has significant public support over an apparently crappy deal), that consequences won't be felt by most immediately, how many react to scare tactics (be they true or not), and a general 'f*ck them' attitude when someone demands something, I think it very very probable that if it is a 'take it or leave it' from Barnier MPs might well leave it.
Yes. ERG headbangers are gagging to jump from the cliff and remainers now think their best chance of reversing Brexit altogether is to exclude all other options apart from WTO and staying in. So both groups will oppose any withdrawal deal. And Corbyn will oppose a deal because he thinks that is the best way to achieve a Labour government. This will lead to a major political and economic crisis the outcome of which is hard to predict but a complete volte face on Brexit is quite possible.
My gut says that is a low chance compared to no deal, but far more likely than any other alternative. We'll see I guess!
They made gains in GE17 albeit failing to win by neutralising Brexit by essentially backing May's Brexit in all but name as Corbyn and the Labour leadership continues to do.
However clearly it is a policy infuriating pro EEA, pro 'people's vote' centrist backbenchers like Umunna as he made clear in an article this evening. On Brexit and increasingly much else they have far more in common with the LDs and pro EEA Tories like Soubry and Grieve and Greening than their own leadership
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Just the one. If you're incompetent you have to be honest, and if you're crooked you have to be clever. See, if you're honest, then when you make a pig's breakfast of things the chaps rally round and help you out.”
The rest of the quote is even better:
Humphrey: “So the ideal is a bank that ‘s honest and competent?”
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: “Yes. Let me know if you ever find one, won’t you.”
Everyone should watch it. My favourite program of all time. As a lowly administrator I aim one day to be a less deviously minded and motivated Sir Humphrey (sometimes his heart was in the right place).
One of the many clever things about Yes Minister which made it work was that all of the major characters were likeable, albeit rather self serving.
It's why I think it superior to works like The Thick of It or Veep. Most of the time there isn't a sympathetic or likable person in the whole bunch, people are almost inhuman. The satire is more cutting as a result, but I find a lot it unmemorable since it involved cardboard cutouts, not people.
Yes. And it is usually a cock-up and the subsequent cover-up attempts rather than any deliberate malice. More innocent times.
The sad thing is, the "Yes Minister" view of the competent civil service ameliorating the excesses of ministers and ensuring a degree of competence stopped being true around the 1980's. Civil servants started being advisory instead of persuaders, and the introduction of spads finished it off: ministers are now free to fuck things up virtually untrammelled, and frequently do (see "The Blunders of our Governments").
Unfortunately, people think it's still true. A lot of the safeguards that kept the country safe (or at least stable) just aren't there any more. One of my favorite anecdotes is Chernobyl: the accident happened because they wanted to see what would happen if they removed the failsafes, and - whoops -they found out. Brexit seems to be travelling the same path: "No deal? What's the worse that could happen?!"
'Labour’s Emily Thornberry has categorically ruled out backing a second Brexit referendum, declaring a Jeremy Corbyn government would have to “do as instructed” by the British people in the 2016 EU vote. In her strongest remarks yet on the issue, the Shadow Foreign Secretary told a private meeting in Islington that the party had to uphold the Leave vote “as much as it breaks our heart”. Thornberry also said she disagreed with former Cabinet minister Justine Greening, who this week called for a ‘People’s Vote’ with three options -approving the Government’s Chequers plan, a ‘no deal’ Brexit and staying in the EU.'
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
What is it that Donald Trump thinks he (and the US) can get out of Russia?
I really don't understand his motivation, beyond a love of "strong men" dictators. Russia simply isn't going to buy a lot of US product. (Fact for the day: Russia's exports are the same size as Belgium's.) I guess some help in sorting out the Middle East, maybe. But then again, Trump doesn't seem to care about that.
Perhaps getting better access to the Russian energy market for US firms? But that doesn't seem *that* likely.
I hate to be That Guy, but he might actually, really, be a Russian agent.
'Labour’s Emily Thornberry has categorically ruled out backing a second Brexit referendum, declaring a Jeremy Corbyn government would have to “do as instructed” by the British people in the 2016 EU vote. In her strongest remarks yet on the issue, the Shadow Foreign Secretary told a private meeting in Islington that the party had to uphold the Leave vote “as much as it breaks our heart”. Thornberry also said she disagreed with former Cabinet minister Justine Greening, who this week called for a ‘People’s Vote’ with three options -approving the Government’s Chequers plan, a ‘no deal’ Brexit and staying in the EU.'
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
The real question is why is Newsnight interviewing Blair so much these days? IIRC he was interviewed by them fairly recently prior to tonight.
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Yep. It's a constant refrain based presumably on the fact that a lot of people voting for both don't actually like their leaderships, but I just don't see how it is supported - if people feel that way why do they not actually demonstrate it? I know, FPTP and all that, but come on.
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Not contradicted at all given the two parties are following very narrow, sectional agendas.
In her strongest remarks yet on the issue, the Shadow Foreign Secretary told a private meeting in Islington that the party had to uphold the Leave vote “as much as it breaks our heart”.
Interesting strategy. In fairness, backing it but acting unhappy about it has worked for them so far.
A no deal Brexit is starting to feel like the build up to WWI. It's not that people want it, but rather more that people aren't willing to compromise to prevent it.
There is no Brexit that commands widespread support, but in reality the choice is one of three:
1) WTO Brexit
2) Withdrawal of A50
3) Whatever Barnier proposes, take it or leave it.
Brexiteers can rearrange cakes and customs as much as they like, but it ain't on offer. They might as well order the Duck ala Orange at the McDonalds drive in.
1) is of course the default, so always a likely outcome.
I think it unlikely we will accept Barnier's deal.
I think when you add in those who want no deal (which for now has significant public support over an apparently crappy deal), that consequences won't be felt by most immediately, how many react to scare tactics (be they true or not), and a general 'f*ck them' attitude when someone demands something, I think it very very probable that if it is a 'take it or leave it' from Barnier MPs might well leave it.
Yes. ERG headbangers are gagging e.
My gut says that is a low chance compared to no deal, but far more likely than any other alternative. We'll see I guess!
They made gains in GE17 albeit failing to win by neutralising Brexit by essentially backing May's Brexit in all but name as Corbyn and the Labour leadership continues to do.
However clearly it is a policy infuriating pro EEA, pro 'people's vote' centrist backbenchers like Umunna as he made clear in an article this evening. On Brexit and increasingly much else they have far more in common with the LDs and pro EEA Tories like Soubry and Grieve and Greening than their own leadership
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Not contradicted at all given the two parties are following very narrow, sectional agendas.
But the evidence suggests that more of the public feel represented by atleast one of the main parties' agendas than they have in decades.
What is it that Donald Trump thinks he (and the US) can get out of Russia?
I really don't understand his motivation, beyond a love of "strong men" dictators. Russia simply isn't going to buy a lot of US product. (Fact for the day: Russia's exports are the same size as Belgium's.) I guess some help in sorting out the Middle East, maybe. But then again, Trump doesn't seem to care about that.
Perhaps getting better access to the Russian energy market for US firms? But that doesn't seem *that* likely.
I hate to be That Guy, but he might actually, really, be a Russian agent.
Unlikely. It’s quite probable that he’s financially compromised, and that as a result Putin/Russia has some sort of hold over him, but I seriously doubt it’s a formal arrangement like that.
On the other hand, he is doing his best to give the impression of being (to use a term beloved of the US right) Putin’s cuck.
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Not contradicted at all given the two parties are following very narrow, sectional agendas.
If that is what they are doing and people feel unrepresented by that they would not back the main two to the degree they do. They might not all be happy at the pursuit of those agendas, but clearly people don't feel unrepresented by the big two or they'd seek other representation.
So, in fact not only is Chequers deader than disco, on fire in a ditch, but May has reneged on one of the very few things that was agreed with the EU, the backstop.
Which means May has succeeded in un-negotiating us eight months back in time and further away from an agreement than we were before.
That's quite some talent. Her incompetence actually *bends time*.
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
The real question is why is Newsnight interviewing Blair so much these days? IIRC he was interviewed by them fairly recently prior to tonight.
90s nostalgia is all the rage these days in entertainment mediums.
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
No no, people do want a centrist party... just not that one
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Not contradicted at all given the two parties are following very narrow, sectional agendas.
If that is what they are doing and people feel unrepresented by that they would not back the main two to the degree they do. They might not all be happy at the pursuit of those agendas, but clearly people don't feel unrepresented by the big two or they'd seek other representation.
Not necessarily. Votes seem to be cast negatively. The big theme of the Tories is to keep Corbyn out. You might vote Tory to achieve that. Or vote Labour to undermine May.
How do these polls associate voters with parties? Do they ask them which party they identify with, or how they voted in the previous election?
Isn't it which party they're "registered" as? (Which isn't always reliable....I know that, until recently, some of the Appalachia states had a lot of people who were registered Democrats, but have reliably voted Republican in presidential elections for years now.)
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Not contradicted at all given the two parties are following very narrow, sectional agendas.
But the evidence suggests that more of the public feel represented by atleast one of the main parties' agendas than they have in decades.
So, in fact not only is Chequers deader than disco, on fire in a ditch, but May has reneged on one of the very few things that was agreed with the EU, the backstop.
Which means May has succeeded in un-negotiating us eight months back in time and further away from an agreement than we were before.
That's quite some talent. Her incompetence actually *bends time*.
The incompetence was agreeing it in the first place. The reaction of any half sane negotiator would have been "FUCK OFF!" At least we have said that now, albeit belatedly and amidst much confusion.
At least now we can be sure that the EU really really DOES want us to Fuck Off. They couldn't possibly want us back after this.....
Edit - damn! Even I wouldn't argue for a 3rd 4th EU ref
It's worth pointing out another referendum would be the third. 1975, 2016, 2019(?).
But a fourth would be getting silly.
Never underestimate the determination of Remainers to thwart democracy by, er, democray!
Let's have referendums on any mad old thing. If Democracy is the only thing that counts, then let's vote for some really genuinely good stuff. Not just Brexit, or free owls. I want a spaceship. If Democracy is what counts, we can all have one. Easy. No Problem. Spaceships for all.
Vote Labour.
The ideological - fuck business - right are the current market leaders in fantasy politics.
One Tory backbencher having said fuck business doesn't trump the lifetime of fantasy politics the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor have mastered.
Boris wasn't referring to most businesses anyway who are small businesses and much more pro Leave, he was referring to big business which is still anti Brexit on the whole and its endless prophecies of doom about how bad Brexit will be
How do you know?
As the comment was in response to a remark made to him about the fears of big business leaders over Brexit
Hmmm - IIRC he said 'fuck business' not 'fuck big business'.
It NOT small businesses who have been bemoaning Brexit day in day out since the referendum but big business leaders
"Small businesses" are not some homogeneous group.
That 9.3% lead for the Democrats if replicated in November would be bigger than the 8% lead they had when they took the House in 2006 and only just over 1% less than the 10.6% Democratic lead they had in 2008 when Pelosi's party had a majority of 79 over Boehner's Republicans. It is heading for landslide territory
'Labour’s Emily Thornberry has categorically ruled out backing a second Brexit referendum, declaring a Jeremy Corbyn government would have to “do as instructed” by the British people in the 2016 EU vote. In her strongest remarks yet on the issue, the Shadow Foreign Secretary told a private meeting in Islington that the party had to uphold the Leave vote “as much as it breaks our heart”. Thornberry also said she disagreed with former Cabinet minister Justine Greening, who this week called for a ‘People’s Vote’ with three options -approving the Government’s Chequers plan, a ‘no deal’ Brexit and staying in the EU.'
What is it that Donald Trump thinks he (and the US) can get out of Russia?
I really don't understand his motivation, beyond a love of "strong men" dictators. Russia simply isn't going to buy a lot of US product. (Fact for the day: Russia's exports are the same size as Belgium's.) I guess some help in sorting out the Middle East, maybe. But then again, Trump doesn't seem to care about that.
Perhaps getting better access to the Russian energy market for US firms? But that doesn't seem *that* likely.
I hate to be That Guy, but he might actually, really, be a Russian agent.
Unlikely. It’s quite probable that he’s financially compromised, and that as a result Putin/Russia has some sort of hold over him, but I seriously doubt it’s a formal arrangement like that.
On the other hand, he is doing his best to give the impression of being (to use a term beloved of the US right) Putin’s cuck.
If he was a Russian agent, how would his behavior be different?
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Not contradicted at all given the two parties are following very narrow, sectional agendas.
But the evidence suggests that more of the public feel represented by atleast one of the main parties' agendas than they have in decades.
Nope. It's polarised and predominantly negative.
What's the evidence for that? As of last year's election, relatively small numbers of people were citing "negative" reasons for their votes: YouGov has only 19% of Labour voters citing "anti-Tory" or "anti-May" motivations. Admittedly the negative factor is a bit higher for Tory voters, 30% cited "anti-Labour" or "anti-Corbyn" motivations.
What is it that Donald Trump thinks he (and the US) can get out of Russia?
I really don't understand his motivation, beyond a love of "strong men" dictators. Russia simply isn't going to buy a lot of US product. (Fact for the day: Russia's exports are the same size as Belgium's.) I guess some help in sorting out the Middle East, maybe. But then again, Trump doesn't seem to care about that.
Perhaps getting better access to the Russian energy market for US firms? But that doesn't seem *that* likely.
I hate to be That Guy, but he might actually, really, be a Russian agent.
Unlikely. It’s quite probable that he’s financially compromised, and that as a result Putin/Russia has some sort of hold over him, but I seriously doubt it’s a formal arrangement like that.
On the other hand, he is doing his best to give the impression of being (to use a term beloved of the US right) Putin’s cuck.
If he was a Russian agent, how would his behavior be different?
In her strongest remarks yet on the issue, the Shadow Foreign Secretary told a private meeting in Islington that the party had to uphold the Leave vote “as much as it breaks our heart”.
Interesting strategy. In fairness, backing it but acting unhappy about it has worked for them so far.
A no deal Brexit is starting to feel like the build up to WWI. It's not that people want it, but rather more that people aren't willing to compromise to prevent it.
There is no Brexit that commands widespread support, but in reality the choice is one of three:
1) WTO Brexit
2) Withdrawal of A50
3) Whatever Barnier proposes, take it or leave it.
Brexiteers can rearrange cakes and customs as much as they like, but it ain't on offer. They might as well order the Duck ala Orange at the McDonalds drive in.
1) is of course the default, so always a likely outcome.
I think it unlikely we will accept Barnier's deal.
I think when you add in those who want no deal (which for now has significant public support over an apparently crappy deal), that consequences won't be felt by most immediately, how many react to scare tactics (be they true or not), and a general 'f*ck them' attitude when someone demands something, I think it very very probable that if it is a 'take it or leave it' from Barnier MPs might well leave it.
Yes. ERG headbangers are gagging e.
My gut says that is a low chance compared to no deal, but far more likely than any other alternative. We'll see I guess!
They made gains in GE17 albeit failing to win by neutralising Brexit by essentially backing May's Brexit in all but name as Corbyn and the Labour leadership continues to do.
However clearly it is a policy infuriating pro EEA, pro 'people's vote' centrist backbenchers like Umunna as he made clear in an article this evening. On Brexit and increasingly much else they have far more in common with the LDs and pro EEA Tories like Soubry and Grieve and Greening than their own leadership
If that is what they are doing and people feel unrepresented by that they would not back the main two to the degree they do. They might not all be happy at the pursuit of those agendas, but clearly people don't feel unrepresented by the big two or they'd seek other representation.
The way to settle this is surely for Tone to stand at the next by-election. No?
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
He's probably right but then millions of people felt unrepresented by the main parties 5/10/15 years ago. His complaint would appear to be that it's now the wrong people who feel unrepresented. Did Davis challenge him on this/the massive growth in political disenfranchisement over the last 20 years? Probably not.
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Not contradicted at all given the two parties are following very narrow, sectional agendas.
But the evidence suggests that more of the public feel represented by atleast one of the main parties' agendas than they have in decades.
Nope. It's polarised and predominantly negative.
What's the evidence for that? As of last year's election, relatively small numbers of people were citing "negative" reasons for their votes: YouGov has only 19% of Labour voters citing "anti-Tory" or "anti-May" motivations. Admittedly the negative factor is a bit higher for Tory voters, 30% cited "anti-Labour" or "anti-Corbyn" motivations.
What is it that Donald Trump thinks he (and the US) can get out of Russia?
I really don't understand his motivation, beyond a love of "strong men" dictators. Russia simply isn't going to buy a lot of US product. (Fact for the day: Russia's exports are the same size as Belgium's.) I guess some help in sorting out the Middle East, maybe. But then again, Trump doesn't seem to care about that.
Perhaps getting better access to the Russian energy market for US firms? But that doesn't seem *that* likely.
I hate to be That Guy, but he might actually, really, be a Russian agent.
Unlikely. It’s quite probable that he’s financially compromised, and that as a result Putin/Russia has some sort of hold over him, but I seriously doubt it’s a formal arrangement like that.
On the other hand, he is doing his best to give the impression of being (to use a term beloved of the US right) Putin’s cuck.
If he was a Russian agent, how would his behavior be different?
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Not contradicted at all given the two parties are following very narrow, sectional agendas.
But the evidence suggests that more of the public feel represented by atleast one of the main parties' agendas than they have in decades.
Nope. It's polarised and predominantly negative.
What's the evidence for that? As of last year's election, relatively small numbers of people were citing "negative" reasons for their votes: YouGov has only 19% of Labour voters citing "anti-Tory" or "anti-May" motivations. Admittedly the negative factor is a bit higher for Tory voters, 30% cited "anti-Labour" or "anti-Corbyn" motivations.
In that poll the second biggest reason was negative for both parties. And thats only what people say in public to pollsters.
Why does Corbyn go on about the Tories all the time? Because, it works.
But nonetheless, clear majorities of both Labour and Tory voters give positive reasons for voting the way they do, not negative reasons. So if combined support for the two main parties is at historic highs, and most voters of both parties are voting because they like one aspect or another of their party's agenda, then how is it possible to say that there's lots more "politically homeless" people than usual?
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Cherie still not able to believe that nobody else loves her beloved....
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Not contradicted at all given the two parties are following very narrow, sectional agendas.
But the evidence suggests that more of the public feel represented by atleast one of the main parties' agendas than they have in decades.
Nope. It's polarised and predominantly negative.
What's the evidence for that? As of last year's election, relatively small numbers of people were citing "negative" reasons for their votes: YouGov has only 19% of Labour voters citing "anti-Tory" or "anti-May" motivations. Admittedly the negative factor is a bit higher for Tory voters, 30% cited "anti-Labour" or "anti-Corbyn" motivations.
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Not contradicted at all given the two parties are following very narrow, sectional agendas.
But the evidence suggests that more of the public feel represented by atleast one of the main parties' agendas than they have in decades.
Nope. It's polarised and predominantly negative.
What's the evidence for that? As of last year's election, relatively small numbers of people were citing "negative" reasons for their votes: YouGov has only 19% of Labour voters citing "anti-Tory" or "anti-May" motivations. Admittedly the negative factor is a bit higher for Tory voters, 30% cited "anti-Labour" or "anti-Corbyn" motivations.
It's a fatuous argument. People aren't opposed to this things just to be negative, they're opposed to these things because they're perceived to stand in the way of something they are in favour of.
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Not contradicted at all given the two parties are following very narrow, sectional agendas.
But the evidence suggests that more of the public feel represented by atleast one of the main parties' agendas than they have in decades.
Nope. It's polarised and predominantly negative.
What's the evidence for that? As of last year's election, relatively small numbers of people were citing "negative" reasons for their votes: YouGov has only 19% of Labour voters citing "anti-Tory" or "anti-May" motivations. Admittedly the negative factor is a bit higher for Tory voters, 30% cited "anti-Labour" or "anti-Corbyn" motivations.
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Not contradicted at all given the two parties are following very narrow, sectional agendas.
But the evidence suggests that more of the public feel represented by atleast one of the main parties' agendas than they have in decades.
Nope. It's polarised and predominantly negative.
What's the evidence for that? As of last year's election, relatively small numbers of people were citing "negative" reasons for their votes: YouGov has only 19% of Labour voters citing "anti-Tory" or "anti-May" motivations. Admittedly the negative factor is a bit higher for Tory voters, 30% cited "anti-Labour" or "anti-Corbyn" motivations.
In that poll the second biggest reason was negative for both parties. And thats only what people say in public to pollsters.
Why does Corbyn go on about the Tories all the time? Because, it works.
But nonetheless, clear majorities of both Labour and Tory voters give positive reasons for voting the way they do, not negative reasons.
The so called positive votes are votes for inherently negative policies.
Anti EU, Anti Austerity, Anti Business. Anti Brexit. Anti immigration.
Negative politics rules UK. Pick someone or something to blame, rally against them.
Well, that's a different argument. It might be that the parties' agendas aren't very uplifting or edifying. But you seemed to be saying that both parties' supporters were primarily motivated by negative feelings towards the other party, but that's just not supported by the evidence.
So, in fact not only is Chequers deader than disco, on fire in a ditch, but May has reneged on one of the very few things that was agreed with the EU, the backstop.
Which means May has succeeded in un-negotiating us eight months back in time and further away from an agreement than we were before.
That's quite some talent. Her incompetence actually *bends time*.
The incompetence was agreeing it in the first place. The reaction of any half sane negotiator would have been "FUCK OFF!" At least we have said that now, albeit belatedly and amidst much confusion.
At least now we can be sure that the EU really really DOES want us to Fuck Off. They couldn't possibly want us back after this.....
This will probably sound strange, but the EU wants us to stay, but probably not for any of the reasons that most would think If the UK leaves, the common EU languages that would have to be used would be French and German - but, the lingua franca of all the trading nations is.... Dah! Dah! English!
Blair claiming again that lots of people supposedly feel "politically unrepresented" by the main two parties..... which is somewhat contradicted by the fact that polls still have the highest combined Tory+Labour support since the early 1970s.
Not contradicted at all given the two parties are following very narrow, sectional agendas.
But the evidence suggests that more of the public feel represented by atleast one of the main parties' agendas than they have in decades.
Nope. It's polarised and predominantly negative.
What's the evidence for that? As of last year's election, relatively small numbers of people were citing "negative" reasons for their votes: YouGov has only 19% of Labour voters citing "anti-Tory" or "anti-May" motivations. Admittedly the negative factor is a bit higher for Tory voters, 30% cited "anti-Labour" or "anti-Corbyn" motivations.
In that poll the second biggest reason was negative for both parties. And thats only what people say in public to pollsters.
Why does Corbyn go on about the Tories all the time? Because, it works.
But nonetheless, clear majorities of both Labour and Tory voters give positive reasons for voting the way they do, not negative reasons.
The so called positive votes are votes for inherently negative policies.
Anti EU, Anti Austerity, Anti Business. Anti Brexit. Anti immigration.
Negative politics rules UK. Pick someone or something to blame, rally against them.
Well, that's a different argument. It might be that the parties' agendas aren't very uplifting or edifying. But you seemed to be saying that both parties' supporters were primarily motivated by negative feelings towards the other party, but that's just not supported by the evidence.
No, I just disagreed with you that people felt represented by a party. You can align yourself with a party’s position especially a negative one, you may even vote for them tactically, without feeling positive or represented by that group.
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
I get some of this. The rust belt. The lost jobs. The coal mines gone. The opioids. The crap wages at the Walmart (if you are lucky to even get a job). Even the worry about Mexican migration.
But Russia? Russia is our new best friend? Russia is better than France or Germany or the UK? Better than NATO? Or even more, better than the FBI, the CIA and the US military?
Edit - damn! Even I wouldn't argue for a 3rd 4th EU ref
It's worth pointing out another referendum would be the third. 1975, 2016, 2019(?).
But a fourth would be getting silly.
Never underestimate the determination of Remainers to thwart democracy by, er, democray!
Let's have referendums on any mad old thing. If Democracy is the only thing that counts, then let's vote for some really genuinely good stuff. Not just Brexit, or free owls. I want a spaceship. If Democracy is what counts, we can all have one. Easy. No Problem. Spaceships for all.
Vote Labour.
The ideological - fuck business - right are the current market leaders in fantasy politics.
One Tory backbencher having said fuck business doesn't trump the lifetime of fantasy politics the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor have mastered.
Boris wasn't referring to most businesses anyway who are small businesses and much more pro Leave, he was referring to big business which is still anti Brexit on the whole and its endless prophecies of doom about how bad Brexit will be
How do you know?
As the comment was in response to a remark made to him about the fears of big business leaders over Brexit
Hmmm - IIRC he said 'fuck business' not 'fuck big business'.
It NOT small businesses who have been bemoaning Brexit day in day out since the referendum but big business leaders
Brexit might not be a problem for your butchers and bakers, but it risks being a complete disaster for very small businesses, such as mine, that rely on selling a niche service into a large market.
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
However, a large proportion of Trump's "base", is highly affluent. The richer you were, the more likely to vote for him. Don't tell me he won off the votes of the marginalised.
What is it that Donald Trump thinks he (and the US) can get out of Russia?
I really don't understand his motivation, beyond a love of "strong men" dictators. Russia simply isn't going to buy a lot of US product. (Fact for the day: Russia's exports are the same size as Belgium's.) I guess some help in sorting out the Middle East, maybe. But then again, Trump doesn't seem to care about that.
Perhaps getting better access to the Russian energy market for US firms? But that doesn't seem *that* likely.
I hate to be That Guy, but he might actually, really, be a Russian agent.
Unlikely. It’s quite probable that he’s financially compromised, and that as a result Putin/Russia has some sort of hold over him, but I seriously doubt it’s a formal arrangement like that.
On the other hand, he is doing his best to give the impression of being (to use a term beloved of the US right) Putin’s cuck.
If he was a Russian agent, how would his behavior be different?
He'd be more subtle?
Trump does subtle like May does decisiveness
One theory is that Bolton has persuaded Trump that Iran needs to be taken down. He would need Russia on board for that one.
Classic Trump, as he warbled on about pointless middle eastern wars when he was running.
The backstop document proposed that the whole of the UK would stay in the Customs Union and that there would be no border in the Irish Sea. Her Chequers paper reiterated that and so did Jolyon Maugham's "scoop" quote.
Juncker said that they would examine closely whether the backstop could apply to the whole of the UK and likewise he had been asked again by Chequers.
I can't see how this doesn't mean that Theresa really really wants the whole of the UK to stay in a/the Customs Union. And nothing substantially was altered by the amendments.
What is it that Donald Trump thinks he (and the US) can get out of Russia?
I really don't understand his motivation, beyond a love of "strong men" dictators. Russia simply isn't going to buy a lot of US product. (Fact for the day: Russia's exports are the same size as Belgium's.) I guess some help in sorting out the Middle East, maybe. But then again, Trump doesn't seem to care about that.
Perhaps getting better access to the Russian energy market for US firms? But that doesn't seem *that* likely.
I hate to be That Guy, but he might actually, really, be a Russian agent.
Unlikely. It’s quite probable that he’s financially compromised, and that as a result Putin/Russia has some sort of hold over him, but I seriously doubt it’s a formal arrangement like that.
On the other hand, he is doing his best to give the impression of being (to use a term beloved of the US right) Putin’s cuck.
If he was a Russian agent, how would his behavior be different?
He'd be more subtle?
Trump does subtle like May does decisiveness
One theory is that Bolton has persuaded Trump that Iran needs to be taken down. He would need Russia on board for that one.
Classic Trump, as he warbled on about pointless middle eastern wars when he was running.
You misheard. By pointless, he actually said important. Don’t misrepresent Trump.
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
However, a large proportion of Trump's "base", is highly affluent. The richer you were, the more likely to vote for him. Don't tell me he won off the votes of the marginalised.
What is it that Donald Trump thinks he (and the US) can get out of Russia?
I really don't understand his motivation, beyond a love of "strong men" dictators. Russia simply isn't going to buy a lot of US product. (Fact for the day: Russia's exports are the same size as Belgium's.) I guess some help in sorting out the Middle East, maybe. But then again, Trump doesn't seem to care about that.
Perhaps getting better access to the Russian energy market for US firms? But that doesn't seem *that* likely.
I hate to be That Guy, but he might actually, really, be a Russian agent.
Unlikely. It’s quite probable that he’s financially compromised, and that as a result Putin/Russia has some sort of hold over him, but I seriously doubt it’s a formal arrangement like that.
On the other hand, he is doing his best to give the impression of being (to use a term beloved of the US right) Putin’s cuck.
If he was a Russian agent, how would his behavior be different?
He'd be more subtle?
Trump does subtle like May does decisiveness
One theory is that Bolton has persuaded Trump that Iran needs to be taken down. He would need Russia on board for that one.
Classic Trump, as he warbled on about pointless middle eastern wars when he was running.
It's a theory. But he was pro-Russia before Bolton got onboard.
What is it that Donald Trump thinks he (and the US) can get out of Russia?
I really don't understand his motivation, beyond a love of "strong men" dictators. Russia simply isn't going to buy a lot of US product. (Fact for the day: Russia's exports are the same size as Belgium's.) I guess some help in sorting out the Middle East, maybe. But then again, Trump doesn't seem to care about that.
Perhaps getting better access to the Russian energy market for US firms? But that doesn't seem *that* likely.
The Russian government has the capacity to destroy him, not just his presidency but him, his wealth, his empire.
What is it that Donald Trump thinks he (and the US) can get out of Russia?
I really don't understand his motivation, beyond a love of "strong men" dictators. Russia simply isn't going to buy a lot of US product. (Fact for the day: Russia's exports are the same size as Belgium's.) I guess some help in sorting out the Middle East, maybe. But then again, Trump doesn't seem to care about that.
Perhaps getting better access to the Russian energy market for US firms? But that doesn't seem *that* likely.
I hate to be That Guy, but he might actually, really, be a Russian agent.
Unlikely. It’s quite probable that he’s financially compromised, and that as a result Putin/Russia has some sort of hold over him, but I seriously doubt it’s a formal arrangement like that.
On the other hand, he is doing his best to give the impression of being (to use a term beloved of the US right) Putin’s cuck.
If he was a Russian agent, how would his behavior be different?
He'd be more subtle?
Trump does subtle like May does decisiveness
One theory is that Bolton has persuaded Trump that Iran needs to be taken down. He would need Russia on board for that one.
Classic Trump, as he warbled on about pointless middle eastern wars when he was running.
You misheard. By pointless, he actually said important. Don’t misrepresent Trump.
The backstop document proposed that the whole of the UK would stay in the Customs Union and that there would be no border in the Irish Sea. Her Chequers paper reiterated that and so did Jolyon Maugham's "scoop" quote.
Juncker said that they would examine closely whether the backstop could apply to the whole of the UK and likewise he had been asked again by Chequers.
I can't see how this doesn't mean that Theresa really really wants the whole of the UK to stay in a/the Customs Union. And nothing substantially was altered by the amendments.
Theresa May has always hated the NI backstop. I think she thought she could finesse it away. Her problem, barring the EU climbing down, is that there are only two ways of getting rid of the backstop: agreeing a customs union and EEA, which were formally rejected in parliament this week, or No Deal, which is unworkable.
GOP voters are welcome to stay behind Trump, its the non aligned voters that matter in giving the party a kicking mid term which they may well do.
The lifting of Russian national Maria Butina just as Trump was brown nosing Putin in Helsinki is more significant for the Congressional GOP than many realise.
On reflection , I maybe wasn't explicit enough.
Maria Butina's penetration of the GOP within Washington was significant.
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
However, a large proportion of Trump's "base", is highly affluent. The richer you were, the more likely to vote for him. Don't tell me he won off the votes of the marginalised.
Not quite true. Trump won those who earnt $50 000 to $100 000 by 49% to 46% but only tied those who earnt $100 000+ 47% to 47% with Hillary.
Trump's base was the white lower middle and skilled working class not the upper middle class
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
However, a large proportion of Trump's "base", is highly affluent. The richer you were, the more likely to vote for him. Don't tell me he won off the votes of the marginalised.
She won those on under $50 000 by 53% to 41%, she lost middle income earners and she tied Trump with high earners. Hillary's voter base was shaped like an hourglass
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
However, a large proportion of Trump's "base", is highly affluent. The richer you were, the more likely to vote for him. Don't tell me he won off the votes of the marginalised.
Not quite true. Trump won those who earnt $50 000 to $100 000 by 49% to 46% but only tied those who earnt $100 000+ 47% to 47% with Hillary.
Trump's base was the white lower middle and skilled working class not the upper middle class
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
However, a large proportion of Trump's "base", is highly affluent. The richer you were, the more likely to vote for him. Don't tell me he won off the votes of the marginalised.
She won those on under $50 000 by 53% to 41%, she lost middle income earners and she tied Trump with high earners. Hillary's voter base was shaped like an hourglass
Hillary though did worse than Obama did with those on less than $50k a year. Obama won those by 60% to 38% for Romney in 2012
Seehofer has been disavowed by his party's PM in Bavaria, who says that arguing at national level is unhelpful and in future the party will concentrate on local issues. Contrary to some expectations, the AfD has not benefited from the controversy, with the (pro-immigration) Greens rather mysteriously the main beneficiary. The Chairman of the Catholic Bishops' Conference has said that nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity and implied that the CSU (Christian Social Union) is not living up to its name.
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
However, a large proportion of Trump's "base", is highly affluent. The richer you were, the more likely to vote for him. Don't tell me he won off the votes of the marginalised.
She won those on under $50 000 by 53% to 41%, she lost middle income earners and she tied Trump with high earners. Hillary's voter base was shaped like an hourglass
As I said, Trump does not speak for those "who have no voice". They voted for Hillary largely. The fact that she was not a great candidate who shed a vital %age of votes across all demographics does not change that.
GOP voters are welcome to stay behind Trump, its the non aligned voters that matter in giving the party a kicking mid term which they may well do.
The lifting of Russian national Maria Butina just as Trump was brown nosing Putin in Helsinki is more significant for the Congressional GOP than many realise.
On reflection , I maybe wasn't explicit enough.
Maria Butina's penetration of the GOP within Washington was significant.
It's interesting to see the Russian ministry of foreign affairs aping the #FreeTommy stuff on social media with a #FreeMariaButina campaign.
The amount of money traversing the NRA is staggering.
GOP voters are welcome to stay behind Trump, its the non aligned voters that matter in giving the party a kicking mid term which they may well do.
The lifting of Russian national Maria Butina just as Trump was brown nosing Putin in Helsinki is more significant for the Congressional GOP than many realise.
On reflection , I maybe wasn't explicit enough.
Maria Butina's penetration of the GOP within Washington was significant.
It's interesting to see the Russian ministry of foreign affairs aping the #FreeTommy stuff on social media with a #FreeMariaButina campaign.
The amount of money traversing the NRA is staggering.
Seehofer has been disavowed by his party's PM in Bavaria, who says that arguing at national level is unhelpful and in future the party will concentrate on local issues. Contrary to some expectations, the AfD has not benefited from the controversy, with the (pro-immigration) Greens rather mysteriously the main beneficiary. The Chairman of the Catholic Bishops' Conference has said that nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity and implied that the CSU (Christian Social Union) is not living up to its name.
Seehofer has been disavowed by his party's PM in Bavaria, who says that arguing at national level is unhelpful and in future the party will concentrate on local issues. Contrary to some expectations, the AfD has not benefited from the controversy, with the (pro-immigration) Greens rather mysteriously the main beneficiary. The Chairman of the Catholic Bishops' Conference has said that nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity and implied that the CSU (Christian Social Union) is not living up to its name.
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
However, a large proportion of Trump's "base", is highly affluent. The richer you were, the more likely to vote for him. Don't tell me he won off the votes of the marginalised.
She won those on under $50 000 by 53% to 41%, she lost middle income earners and she tied Trump with high earners. Hillary's voter base was shaped like an hourglass
As I said, Trump does not speak for those "who have no voice". They voted for Hillary largely. The fact that she was not a great candidate who shed a vital %age of votes across all demographics does not change that.
Plenty of voters who are middle income earners consider they 'have no voice' which is why they voted for Trump.
Hillary lost votes amongst low income earners compared to Obama and did not make any gains with middle income earners either. The only demographic Hillary did better than Obama in in terms of income was high income earners and the rich
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
However, a large proportion of Trump's "base", is highly affluent. The richer you were, the more likely to vote for him. Don't tell me he won off the votes of the marginalised.
She won those on under $50 000 by 53% to 41%, she lost middle income earners and she tied Trump with high earners. Hillary's voter base was shaped like an hourglass
As I said, Trump does not speak for those "who have no voice". They voted for Hillary largely. The fact that she was not a great candidate who shed a vital %age of votes across all demographics does not change that.
Plenty of voters who are middle income earners consider they 'have no voice' which is why they voted for Trump.
Hillary lost votes amongst low income earners compared to Obama and did not make any gains with middle income earners either. The only demographic Hillary did better than Obama in in terms of income was high income earners and the rich
Thinking you have no voice and having no voice does not necessarily correlate,
The people who voted for Trump wanted a Disruptor. His history with women, his elastic relationship with the truth, his frequent hyperbole and misstatement - it was all baked in by those who voted for him. They understood that Trump was a man to be taken seriously, but not literally. He is a New York City real estate mogul and wheeler dealer. That's who he is. Subsequent revelations as to his activities just reinforce why they voted for him in the first place. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. Most of those who voted for him would do so again. That's just the way it is.
The people who voted for Trump wanted a Disruptor. His history with women, his elastic relationship with the truth, his frequent hyperbole and misstatement - it was all baked in by those who voted for him. They understood that Trump was a man to be taken seriously, but not literally. He is a New York City real estate mogul and wheeler dealer. That's who he is. Subsequent revelations as to his activities just reinforce why they voted for him in the first place. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. Most of those who voted for him would do so again. That's just the way it is.
At the same time, only a few thousand out of 130 million would have to change their vote next time for him to lose.
Comments
It's better to go for a deal, if a reasonable deal is available.
They do have an incentive to agree to requests if they think they are serious the problem is we haven't come across as serious yet.
Cui bono?
Occam's Razor and all that.
But you know, only 94% of SME owners think they're being listened to over Brexit (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-sme-small-businesses-government-ignoring-concerns-leaving-eu-a8225836.html), and I believe in modern PB-speak that means they're "unanimously" content.
In her strongest remarks yet on the issue, the Shadow Foreign Secretary told a private meeting in Islington that the party had to uphold the Leave vote “as much as it breaks our heart”.
Thornberry also said she disagreed with former Cabinet minister Justine Greening, who this week called for a ‘People’s Vote’ with three options -approving the Government’s Chequers plan, a ‘no deal’ Brexit and staying in the EU.'
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/emily-thornberry-brexit-referendum_uk_5b50d08ce4b0b15aba8cc08f
More innocent times.
Indeed 'The majority of SMEs think their business will either be better off once the UK leaves the EU, or altogether unaffected (63 per cent).
Those that trade with the USA are even more likely to see this as an opportunity – almost three quarters believe their business will be better off after Brexit (72 per cent).'
http://smallbusiness.co.uk/smes-see-brexit-opportunity-trade-rises-2540071/
The case for a second Brexit referendum
If Parliament cannot agree on a Brexit plan, the decision must go back to the people"
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/07/19/the-case-for-a-second-brexit-referendum
However clearly it is a policy infuriating pro EEA, pro 'people's vote' centrist backbenchers like Umunna as he made clear in an article this evening. On Brexit and increasingly much else they have far more in common with the LDs and pro EEA Tories like Soubry and Grieve and Greening than their own leadership
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/we-must-be-brave-enough-to-give-the-people-a-final-say-on-any-brexit-deal-a3891246.html
Unfortunately, people think it's still true. A lot of the safeguards that kept the country safe (or at least stable) just aren't there any more. One of my favorite anecdotes is Chernobyl: the accident happened because they wanted to see what would happen if they removed the failsafes, and - whoops -they found out. Brexit seems to be travelling the same path: "No deal? What's the worse that could happen?!"
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blunders-Our-Governments-Anthony-King/dp/1780742665
It’s quite probable that he’s financially compromised, and that as a result Putin/Russia has some sort of hold over him, but I seriously doubt it’s a formal arrangement like that.
On the other hand, he is doing his best to give the impression of being (to use a term beloved of the US right) Putin’s cuck.
Which means May has succeeded in un-negotiating us eight months back in time and further away from an agreement than we were before.
That's quite some talent. Her incompetence actually *bends time*.
That doesn't mean you are happy or represented.
At least now we can be sure that the EU really really DOES want us to Fuck Off. They couldn't possibly want us back after this.....
LDEM: 60.9% (+1.2)
LAB: 26.9% (+3.2)
CON: 8.0% (-1.4)
GRN: 4.3% (-3.0)
Liberal Democrat HOLD.
11:16 PM - Jul 19, 2018"
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/07/11/why-people-voted-labour-or-conservative-2017-gener/
If that is what they are doing and people feel unrepresented by that they would not back the main two to the degree they do. They might not all be happy at the pursuit of those agendas, but clearly people don't feel unrepresented by the big two or they'd seek other representation.
The way to settle this is surely for Tone to stand at the next by-election.
No?
Why does Corbyn go on about the Tories all the time? Because, it works.
Anti EU, Anti Austerity, Anti Business. Anti Brexit. Anti immigration.
Negative politics rules UK. Pick someone or something to blame, rally against them.
It's a fatuous argument. People aren't opposed to this things just to be negative, they're opposed to these things because they're perceived to stand in the way of something they are in favour of.
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
The word is grenadier.
Tsk.
But Russia? Russia is our new best friend? Russia is better than France or Germany or the UK? Better than NATO? Or even more, better than the FBI, the CIA and the US military?
What the actually f***?
Classic Trump, as he warbled on about pointless middle eastern wars when he was running.
The backstop document proposed that the whole of the UK would stay in the Customs Union and that there would be no border in the Irish Sea. Her Chequers paper reiterated that and so did Jolyon Maugham's "scoop" quote.
Juncker said that they would examine closely whether the backstop could apply to the whole of the UK and likewise he had been asked again by Chequers.
I can't see how this doesn't mean that Theresa really really wants the whole of the UK to stay in a/the Customs Union. And nothing substantially was altered by the amendments.
http://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11?r=UK&IR=T#more-young-people-voted-for-clinton-but-that-bloc-did-not-include-as-many-voters-as-those-over-40-who-as-a-majority-voted-for-trump-2
Maria Butina's penetration of the GOP within Washington was significant.
Trump's base was the white lower middle and skilled working class not the upper middle class
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-pollsI
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
https://www.br.de/br-fernsehen/sendungen/kontrovers/bayerntrend-juli-2018-kontrovers-presse-100.html?utm_source=EURACTIV&utm_campaign=1dd9ca4468-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_05_25_02_56_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c59e2fd7a9-1dd9ca4468-114478043
Seehofer has been disavowed by his party's PM in Bavaria, who says that arguing at national level is unhelpful and in future the party will concentrate on local issues. Contrary to some expectations, the AfD has not benefited from the controversy, with the (pro-immigration) Greens rather mysteriously the main beneficiary. The Chairman of the Catholic Bishops' Conference has said that nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity and implied that the CSU (Christian Social Union) is not living up to its name.
The fact that she was not a great candidate who shed a vital %age of votes across all demographics does not change that.
The amount of money traversing the NRA is staggering.
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/landtage/bayern.htm
Hillary lost votes amongst low income earners compared to Obama and did not make any gains with middle income earners either. The only demographic Hillary did better than Obama in in terms of income was high income earners and the rich