Hungarian voters get to choose their leaders. That this seems to be undesirable baffles me. While I appreciate that the A8 countries are, by and large, more racist, homophobic and transphobic than this sceptered isle, and that this is regrettable, I don't see it affects the ordinary crossdresser on the Clapham Omnibus. Hungary is a far off etc.
An interesting comparison is "what year are they in?" in terms of the timeline of Britain's liberalisation of social attitudes. You won't quite get a like-for-like comparison because different countries have different issues - e.g. we have had Windrush and before that at least 100 years of substantial, albeit smaller-scale, migration from the Empire; they have historic tensions with ethnic minorities and particularly severe social attitudes towards the Roma. Moreover liberalisation is not inevitable and different countries take their own paths.
But flip things around and say, 15 years ago, when Blair was PM. was he advocating for gay marriage? For changing the abortion law in NI? Self-identification for transgender people? Perhaps we shouldn't have been allowed to elect Blair, by some higher authority, on the grounds he was offensively socially conservative? Or maybe we should have been allowed, but only subject to the understanding we would be punished for our choice.
To flip things round another way, if we do start thinking it's a good idea to have some overarching authority penalising naughty European countries who elect unacceptably uneuropean leaders... well presumably such grand authority will rest upon Europe as whole. Is that such a great idea when you look at who the continent is electing these days, or the kind of instability that Europe could be in a few decades down the line if tension continues e.g. between nationalist and federalist tendencies; or between the economic and political aspects of the Project? (An arguable precis: a currency union requires fiscal union to function well, particularly in the face of shocks. The political and economic tracks of the Project have run at different paces. Places like Greece are paying the price.)
People who advocate the creation or expansion of a power tend to imagine that the people wielding it will be people like them. Good people. Cycles wax and wane, so at worst, one might imagine the kind of "acceptable" political opposition that one sees today taking control. Unpleasant, but there were checks and balances built into the system, right, and though you wouldn't vote for them, they're not evil. But even the variance of the cycle varies. Who is the most absolutely despicable foe you can imagine seizing the reins of that power, within the next 30 years say? Are you so confident in those checks and balances now?
Harris trails Biden, Warren and Sanders both nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Hickenhooper is likely to be too centrist for the Democrats who after Hillary lost to Trump in 2016 are unlikely to pick another centrist to take on Trump in 2020
Yes but if we exclude Biden, Warren and Sanders as being too old or otherwise unlikely runners, and make due allowance for name recognition, Harris and Hickenlooper are back in the frame.
I think it is extremely unlikely that Sanders will run again. He was really old last time. This time he'll be positively ancient. Joe Biden was rubbish on the primary campaign trail in 2008, so what makes anyone think he'll be any more exciting this time. Oh yeah, and he's too old. Elizabeth Warren. Bore fest. Would bomb in the debates.
Kamala Harris is a decent call. As is Hickenlooper. As is Beto O'Rourke. As is Mitch Landrieu, who'd be a shoe-in if he had more hair.
What rustbelt states is Harris going to win that Hillary did not?
In the UK, it is generally accepted that governments lose elections, rather than oppositions winning them. I think that is probably true of 1992, 1980 and 1976.
It may also be true of 2020 (or it may not).
I think that geographic determinism is oversold. Trump was a New York Real Estate Huckster, yet lost his home state massively but won Ohio. Obama was an Illenois social activist but won North Carolina.
If someone has the zeitgeist they stand a good chance, the geography is only a marginal effect.
The EU is "ready to improve" its offer on the Irish border, Michel Barnier has said as he warned the "moment of truth" was nearing for Brexit negotiations.
This won’t help at all. It still produces a backstop where NI is within the CU and the UK outside which means that British business cannot move items to NI without them complying with EU regulations.
May might be able to sell this if the EU had accepted her customs partnership because she can then claim we are bound by a common rulebook. But the whole point of the backstop is that the EU can reject her plan later and still force the split.
The DUP will never agree to this. The country will never accept it. The obvious question is why May is even discussing something that cannot be agreed at this late stage. Clearly the EU are not taking her seriously.
As we Leavers predicted, her climbdown on Chequers has just emboldened the EU to push for more concessions. Even if she managed to get this past the HoC on Labour votes, the DUP will no confidence the Government five seconds later.
You have no idea how this will pan out or who will vote for a deal or not.
Your posts are entirely insular to your own perception and is an opinion that many will dismiss
The EU is "ready to improve" its offer on the Irish border, Michel Barnier has said as he warned the "moment of truth" was nearing for Brexit negotiations.
This won’t help at all. It still produces a backstop where NI is within the CU and the UK outside which means that British business cannot move items to NI without them complying with EU regulations.
May might be able to sell this if the EU had accepted her customs partnership because she can then claim we are bound by a common rulebook. But the whole point of the backstop is that the EU can reject her plan later and still force the split.
The DUP will never agree to this. The country will never accept it. The obvious question is why May is even discussing something that cannot be agreed at this late stage. Clearly the EU are not taking her seriously.
As we Leavers predicted, her climbdown on Chequers has just emboldened the EU to push for more concessions. Even if she managed to get this past the HoC on Labour votes, the DUP will no confidence the Government five seconds later.
May will likely agree the whole UK stays in the single market and customs union in all but name to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
The mooted transition period is no change. The withdrawal agreement will enable that.
I don’t see how she gets post transition SM/CU past Parliament.
Post transition SM/CU will not be an issue for May as we will likely be in transition for years effectively in SM/CU anyway while she tries and negotiates a FTA.
I’m really not sure you understand the current situation:
- the current negotiation is for the withdrawal agreement - which would also secure a standstill transition, where we remain part of SM/CU/VAT for a set period - the trade agreement will be arranged after we leave on March 29th
The EU is "ready to improve" its offer on the Irish border, Michel Barnier has said as he warned the "moment of truth" was nearing for Brexit negotiations.
This won’t help at all. It still produces a backstop where NI is within the CU and the UK outside which means that British business cannot move items to NI without them complying with EU regulations.
May might be able to sell this if the EU had accepted her customs partnership because she can then claim we are bound by a common rulebook. But the whole point of the backstop is that the EU can reject her plan later and still force the split.
The DUP will never agree to this. The country will never accept it. The obvious question is why May is even discussing something that cannot be agreed at this late stage. Clearly the EU are not taking her seriously.
As we Leavers predicted, her climbdown on Chequers has just emboldened the EU to push for more concessions. Even if she managed to get this past the HoC on Labour votes, the DUP will no confidence the Government five seconds later.
May will likely agree the whole UK stays in the single market and customs union in all but name to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
The mooted transition period is no change. The withdrawal agreement will enable that.
I don’t see how she gets post transition SM/CU past Parliament.
Post transition SM/CU will not be an issue for May as we will likely be in transition for years effectively in SM/CU anyway while she tries and negotiates a FTA.
I’m really not sure you understand the current situation:
- the current negotiation is for the withdrawal agreement - which would also secure a standstill transition, where we remain part of SM/CU/VAT for a set period - the trade agreement will be arranged after we leave on March 29th
I think that we will get such a Withdrawal Agreement, but as part of a Blind Brexit. There is no time for a detailed trading arrangement agreement, only a nonbinding general principles agreement. The real negotiations then begin.
And a month before general election she had an 18% lead with Survation.
She poops the bed when it comes to general election campaigns.
YouGov on 5/6 April just before May called the general election on 18th April had the Tories on 42% and Labour on 25% and the LDs and UKIP on 11%. Survation on 21-22 April had the Tories on 40% and Labour on 29% and the LDs on 11% and UKIP on 11%.
The Tories got 42% on election night, Labour got 40%, the LDs got 7% and UKIP got 2%.
The general election campaign did not really lose the Tories votes from where they started, it mainly saw minor parties voters move to Labour and Corbyn has already squeezed them as far as he can
The EU is "ready to improve" its offer on the Irish border, Michel Barnier has said as he warned the "moment of truth" was nearing for Brexit negotiations.
This won’t help at all. It still produces a backstop where NI is within the CU and the UK outside which means that British business cannot move items to NI without them complying with EU regulations.
May might be able to sell this if the EU had accepted her customs partnership because she can then claim we are bound by a common rulebook. But the whole point of the backstop is that the EU can reject her plan later and still force the split.
The DUP will never agree to this. The country will never accept it. The obvious question is why May is even discussing something that cannot be agreed at this late stage. Clearly the EU are not taking her seriously.
As we Leavers predicted, her climbdown on Chequers has just emboldened the EU to push for more concessions. Even if she managed to get this past the HoC on Labour votes, the DUP will no confidence the Government five seconds later.
May will likely agree the whole UK stays in the single market and customs union in all but name to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
The mooted transition period is no change. The withdrawal agreement will enable that.
I don’t see how she gets post transition SM/CU past Parliament.
Post transition SM/CU will not be an issue for May as we will likely be in transition for years effectively in SM/CU anyway while she tries and negotiates a FTA.
I’m really not sure you understand the current situation:
- the current negotiation is for the withdrawal agreement - which would also secure a standstill transition, where we remain part of SM/CU/VAT for a set period - the trade agreement will be arranged after we leave on March 29th
I think that we will get such a Withdrawal Agreement, but as part of a Blind Brexit. There is no time for a detailed trading arrangement agreement, only a nonbinding general principles agreement. The real negotiations then begin.
The EU is "ready to improve" its offer on the Irish border, Michel Barnier has said as he warned the "moment of truth" was nearing for Brexit negotiations.
This won’t help at all. It still produces a backstop where NI is within the CU and the UK outside which means that British business cannot move items to NI without them complying with EU regulations.
May might be able to sell this if the EU had accepted her customs partnership because she can then claim we are bound by a common rulebook. But the whole point of the backstop is that the EU can reject her plan later and still force the split.
The DUP will never agree to this. The country will never accept it. The obvious question is why May is even discussing something that cannot be agreed at this late stage. Clearly the EU are not taking her seriously.
As we Leavers predicted, her climbdown on Chequers has just emboldened the EU to push for more concessions. Even if she managed to get this past the HoC on Labour votes, the DUP will no confidence the Government five seconds later.
May will likely agree the whole UK stays in the single market and customs union in all but name to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
The mooted transition period is no change. The withdrawal agreement will enable that.
I don’t see how she gets post transition SM/CU past Parliament.
Post transition SM/CU will not be an issue for May as we will likely be in transition for years effectively in SM/CU anyway while she tries and negotiates a FTA.
I’m really not sure you understand the current situation:
- the current negotiation is for the withdrawal agreement - which would also secure a standstill transition, where we remain part of SM/CU/VAT for a set period - the trade agreement will be arranged after we leave on March 29th
So what, May will simply have to extend that transition beyond December 2020 as it is almost certain no FTA will be agreed by then and Parliament will likely agree as currently constituted
The EU is "ready to improve" its offer on the Irish border, Michel Barnier has said as he warned the "moment of truth" was nearing for Brexit negotiations.
This won’t help at all. It still produces a backstop where NI is within the CU and the UK outside which means that British business cannot move items to NI without them complying with EU regulations.
May might be able to sell this if the EU had accepted her customs partnership because she can then claim we are bound by a common rulebook. But the whole point of the backstop is that the EU can reject her plan later and still force the split.
The DUP will never agree to this. The country will never accept it. The obvious question is why May is even discussing something that cannot be agreed at this late stage. Clearly the EU are not taking her seriously.
As we Leavers predicted, her climbdown on Chequers has just emboldened the EU to push for more concessions. Even if she managed to get this past the HoC on Labour votes, the DUP will no confidence the Government five seconds later.
May will likely agree the whole UK stays in the single market and customs union in all but name to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
The mooted transition period is no change. The withdrawal agreement will enable that.
I don’t see how she gets post transition SM/CU past Parliament.
Post transition SM/CU will not be an issue for May as we will likely be in transition for years effectively in SM/CU anyway while she tries and negotiates a FTA.
I’m really not sure you understand the current situation:
- the current negotiation is for the withdrawal agreement - which would also secure a standstill transition, where we remain part of SM/CU/VAT for a set period - the trade agreement will be arranged after we leave on March 29th
I think that we will get such a Withdrawal Agreement, but as part of a Blind Brexit. There is no time for a detailed trading arrangement agreement, only a nonbinding general principles agreement. The real negotiations then begin.
The EU is "ready to improve" its offer on the Irish border, Michel Barnier has said as he warned the "moment of truth" was nearing for Brexit negotiations.
This won’t help at all. It still produces a backstop where NI is within the CU and the UK outside which means that British business cannot move items to NI without them complying with EU regulations.
May might be able to sell this if the EU had accepted her customs partnership because she can then claim we are bound by a common rulebook. But the whole point of the backstop is that the EU can reject her plan later and still force the split.
The DUP will never agree to this. The country will never accept it. The obvious question is why May is even discussing something that cannot be agreed at this late stage. Clearly the EU are not taking her seriously.
As we Leavers predicted, her climbdown on Chequers has just emboldened the EU to push for more concessions. Even if she managed to get this past the HoC on Labour votes, the DUP will no confidence the Government five seconds later.
May will likely agree the whole UK stays in the single market and customs union in all but name to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
The mooted transition period is no change. The withdrawal agreement will enable that.
I don’t see how she gets post transition SM/CU past Parliament.
Post transition SM/CU will not be an issue for May as we will likely be in transition for years effectively in SM/CU anyway while she tries and negotiates a FTA.
I’m really not sure you understand the current situation:
- the current negotiation is for the withdrawal agreement - which would also secure a standstill transition, where we remain part of SM/CU/VAT for a set period - the trade agreement will be arranged after we leave on March 29th
I think that we will get such a Withdrawal Agreement, but as part of a Blind Brexit. There is no time for a detailed trading arrangement agreement, only a nonbinding general principles agreement. The real negotiations then begin.
Entirely possible outcome, as far as I see it.
I cannot see that there is time left to do more than a broad brush approach, and that cannot be binding, as the devil is always in the detail.
We have at least a couple of years of Brexit Brexit Brexit to go. Quite possibly much longer.
The EU is "ready to improve" its offer on the Irish border, Michel Barnier has said as he warned the "moment of truth" was nearing for Brexit negotiations.
This won’t help at all. It still produces a backstop where NI is within the CU and the UK outside which means that British business cannot move items to NI without them complying with EU regulations.
May might be able to sell this if the EU had accepted her customs partnership because she can then claim we are bound by a common rulebook. But the whole point of the backstop is that the EU can reject her plan later and still force the split.
The DUP will never agree to this. The country will never accept it. The obvious question is why May is even discussing something that cannot be agreed at this late stage. Clearly the EU are not taking her seriously.
As we Leavers predicted, her climbdown on Chequers has just emboldened the EU to push for more concessions. Even if she managed to get this past the HoC on Labour votes, the DUP will no confidence the Government five seconds later.
May will likely agree the whole UK stays in the single market and customs union in all but name to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
The mooted transition period is no change. The withdrawal agreement will enable that.
I don’t see how she gets post transition SM/CU past Parliament.
Post transition SM/CU will not be an issue for May as we will likely be in transition for years effectively in SM/CU anyway while she tries and negotiates a FTA.
I’m really not sure you understand the current situation:
- the current negotiation is for the withdrawal agreement - which would also secure a standstill transition, where we remain part of SM/CU/VAT for a set period - the trade agreement will be arranged after we leave on March 29th
I think that we will get such a Withdrawal Agreement, but as part of a Blind Brexit. There is no time for a detailed trading arrangement agreement, only a nonbinding general principles agreement. The real negotiations then begin.
Entirely possible outcome, as far as I see it.
I cannot see that there is time left to do more than a broad brush approach, and that cannot be binding, as the devil is always in the detail.
We have at least a couple of years of Brexit Brexit Brexit to go. Quite possibly much longer.
I think it is extremely unlikely that Sanders will run again. He was really old last time. This time he'll be positively ancient. Joe Biden was rubbish on the primary campaign trail in 2008, so what makes anyone think he'll be any more exciting this time. Oh yeah, and he's too old. Elizabeth Warren. Bore fest. Would bomb in the debates.
Kamala Harris is a decent call. As is Hickenlooper. As is Beto O'Rourke. As is Mitch Landrieu, who'd be a shoe-in if he had more hair.
“Elizabeth Warren. Bore fest.”
Boring is what politics should be. After Trumps 4 years it will be like heaven. And I thought you didn’t rate her.
Politics should be about deciding what outcomes we want and then being evidence based about deciding the best way to get there.
Crime and punishment? Set up a series of trials and see what minimises offending and re-offending. I don't have the answers, but I do know that trying things and doing more of what works and less of what doesn't is a winning strategy.
Voters like politicians who say they have the answers. They like conviction. They are deluded.
What's incredible is how few successful business people or investors are "conviction". The ability to change your mind if you are wrong is the single most important attribute for success there is.
I realise this isn't a proper answer to your point. It's just important.
No worries. I understand what you are saying. The process of winning power is competitive. There’s a degree of risk management. Where I would disagree is really it’s delivering the outcomes we actually need as everything we want would take us back to the nature state.
The proper answer to my point is probably the discussion: divorcing what it takes to win to leave only what it takes to do good stuff with the power.
This site is hailed as Britain’s most read politics blog? But It’s name is political betting, that’s the slant each time US election gets thread article, that’s the filter set on the candidate list. But what if we ask the question differently as, rate the candidates not how they rate as a candidate, but do the right things and do them well as President. I suspect you don’t have to be interesting as a candidate, or even interesting whilst President to run a bloody brilliant Whitehouse for eight years.
I watch your videos read your posts with mounting respect, I am sure you will have something worthy to say answering the question in this different way. So go on, create me the different filter to apply to the candidate list namely if they ended up with the power, who would do the better things with it.
14th October could be the next big date as far as Mrs Merkel is concerned. That's the date of the Bavarian state election, when her CSU coalition parties could drop from 48% to around 35%.
Hopefully he won't win the next election, for the sake of the economy, free speech, the Jews, freedom of the press, the nuclear deterrent, defence, and anti-terrorism efforts.
A Corbyn government would be far better for defence than the current lot just because there would be a lot less foreign adventurism. Continuous deployments lead to retention problems which lead to a staffing crisis of the type we see unfolding before us now. According to the recent PAC report the MoD now has a 23% shortfall of pilots across all services. Due to the contractual restraints of the privatised training system there is no capacity to surge the pipeline with the result that pilot training is now running below replacement levels.
This marketing of the tories as the only true guardians of the nation's defence is either dishonest or ill informed.
In America, a judge has criticised Georgia's voting machines as insecure but said they can still be used for the mid-term elections because it is too late to find an alternative.
In America, a judge has criticised Georgia's voting machines as insecure but said they can still be used for the mid-term elections because it is too late to find an alternative.
In fairness working for the Mail I imagine there are many instances where reality and fantasy collide and produce confusing results.
Which part of the story do you think is fantasy?
It was a confused Dan Hodges I posted. Dan Hodges imagination is the fantasy part, the reality part is the real world colliding into it and leaving him confused. She didn't have clearance, it was reported she had been denied (which seems carefully worded) but now does have clearance.
The cause of Dan's confusion though is his own confused mail fantasy take which had seen one of the anti British security threat types Corbyn loves blocked from threatening the security of Parliament only to be allowed after it became a news story.
Once you understand his thinking you can understand his confusion, if you adopt the original irrationality his thinking becomes entirely rational.
In fairness working for the Mail I imagine there are many instances where reality and fantasy collide and produce confusing results.
Which part of the story do you think is fantasy?
It was a confused Dan Hodges I posted. Dan Hodges imagination is the fantasy part, the reality part is the real world colliding into it and leaving him confused. She didn't have clearance, it was reported she had been denied (which seems carefully worded) but now does have clearance.
The cause of Dan's confusion though is his own confused mail fantasy take which had seen one of the anti British security threat types Corbyn loves blocked from threatening the security of Parliament only to be allowed after it became a news story.
Once you understand his thinking you can understand his confusion, if you adopt the original irrationality his thinking becomes entirely rational.
In fairness working for the Mail I imagine there are many instances where reality and fantasy collide and produce confusing results.
Which part of the story do you think is fantasy?
It was a confused Dan Hodges I posted. Dan Hodges imagination is the fantasy part, the reality part is the real world colliding into it and leaving him confused. She didn't have clearance, it was reported she had been denied (which seems carefully worded) but now does have clearance.
The cause of Dan's confusion though is his own confused mail fantasy take which had seen one of the anti British security threat types Corbyn loves blocked from threatening the security of Parliament only to be allowed after it became a news story.
Once you understand his thinking you can understand his confusion, if you adopt the original irrationality his thinking becomes entirely rational.
I think he was questioning the timing.
Aside from some deeper conspiracy it would seem likely that the news story sped up the process if it had any effect, it would seem more likely that they would make sure the rules are followed correctly under the public glare. Although the likely conclusion doesn't suit his alternative view of things hence the confusion and grasping for something more.
Comments
But flip things around and say, 15 years ago, when Blair was PM. was he advocating for gay marriage? For changing the abortion law in NI? Self-identification for transgender people? Perhaps we shouldn't have been allowed to elect Blair, by some higher authority, on the grounds he was offensively socially conservative? Or maybe we should have been allowed, but only subject to the understanding we would be punished for our choice.
To flip things round another way, if we do start thinking it's a good idea to have some overarching authority penalising naughty European countries who elect unacceptably uneuropean leaders... well presumably such grand authority will rest upon Europe as whole. Is that such a great idea when you look at who the continent is electing these days, or the kind of instability that Europe could be in a few decades down the line if tension continues e.g. between nationalist and federalist tendencies; or between the economic and political aspects of the Project? (An arguable precis: a currency union requires fiscal union to function well, particularly in the face of shocks. The political and economic tracks of the Project have run at different paces. Places like Greece are paying the price.)
People who advocate the creation or expansion of a power tend to imagine that the people wielding it will be people like them. Good people. Cycles wax and wane, so at worst, one might imagine the kind of "acceptable" political opposition that one sees today taking control. Unpleasant, but there were checks and balances built into the system, right, and though you wouldn't vote for them, they're not evil. But even the variance of the cycle varies. Who is the most absolutely despicable foe you can imagine seizing the reins of that power, within the next 30 years say? Are you so confident in those checks and balances now?
If someone has the zeitgeist they stand a good chance, the geography is only a marginal effect.
She poops the bed when it comes to general election campaigns.
Your posts are entirely insular to your own perception and is an opinion that many will dismiss
- the current negotiation is for the withdrawal agreement
- which would also secure a standstill transition, where we remain part of SM/CU/VAT for a set period
- the trade agreement will be arranged after we leave on March 29th
The Tories got 42% on election night, Labour got 40%, the LDs got 7% and UKIP got 2%.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x4597y9nuj/TimesResults_170406_VI_Trackers_W.pdf
https://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MOS-GE-Tables-I-2c0d7h2-2004SWCH.pdf
The general election campaign did not really lose the Tories votes from where they started, it mainly saw minor parties voters move to Labour and Corbyn has already squeezed them as far as he can
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/876894066478329857
I wish everyone a good night's rest
Good night folks
We have at least a couple of years of Brexit Brexit Brexit to go. Quite possibly much longer.
The proper answer to my point is probably the discussion: divorcing what it takes to win to leave only what it takes to do good stuff with the power.
This site is hailed as Britain’s most read politics blog? But It’s name is political betting, that’s the slant each time US election gets thread article, that’s the filter set on the candidate list. But what if we ask the question differently as, rate the candidates not how they rate as a candidate, but do the right things and do them well as President. I suspect you don’t have to be interesting as a candidate, or even interesting whilst President to run a bloody brilliant Whitehouse for eight years.
I watch your videos read your posts with mounting respect, I am sure you will have something worthy to say answering the question in this different way. So go on, create me the different filter to apply to the candidate list namely if they ended up with the power, who would do the better things with it.
This marketing of the tories as the only true guardians of the nation's defence is either dishonest or ill informed.
In fairness working for the Mail I imagine there are many instances where reality and fantasy collide and produce confusing results.
(The Register story includes a link to the judgement.)
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/18/us_georgia_paperless_voting_security/
The cause of Dan's confusion though is his own confused mail fantasy take which had seen one of the anti British security threat types Corbyn loves blocked from threatening the security of Parliament only to be allowed after it became a news story.
Once you understand his thinking you can understand his confusion, if you adopt the original irrationality his thinking becomes entirely rational.