As I posted on the last thread, Theresa May does not speak for the United Kingdom. The First Lord of the Treasury does not have a mandate from her Cabinet. Can not get a mandate from her party on the emerging deal. Will not get a mandate from the Commons.
Yet despite this supposedly she has the authority to negotiate and secure a transition deal where the detail will get filled in later? Cobblers. Her authority has gone, the crisis is here. I look out the window at the howling gale and imagine I will be knocking doors very soon for a December election...
Up shit creek without the proverbial. I think she might actually be less competent than Liam Fox, so I can't say my heart would break if she threw herself on her sword.
To me, she is the epitome of the phrase "Empty suit".
When I have seen her interviewed she just repeats empty phrases and if asked to explain any of them, she appears to get a bit wild around the eyes like a mild panic is setting in.
As I posted on the last thread, Theresa May does not speak for the United Kingdom. The First Lord of the Treasury does not have a mandate from her Cabinet. Can not get a mandate from her party on the emerging deal. Will not get a mandate from the Commons.
Yet despite this supposedly she has the authority to negotiate and secure a transition deal where the detail will get filled in later? Cobblers. Her authority has gone, the crisis is here. I look out the window at the howling gale and imagine I will be knocking doors very soon for a December election...
Worse than that - she's not even in charge - her Sir Humphrey of the £20k bonus is in charge.
Up shit creek without the proverbial. I think she might actually be less competent than Liam Fox, so I can't say my heart would break if she threw herself on her sword.
To me, she is the epitome of the phrase "Empty suit".
When I have seen her interviewed she just repeats empty phrases and if asked to explain any of them, she appears to get a bit wild around the eyes like a mild panic is setting in.
Is Brexit currently fucked or probably going to be ok? I'm losing track.
Yes! No! Maybe!
That is you up to date. You now know as much as anyone else.
The contrast between political-nerd-world (on here) and real life (where I never hear Brexit - or even politics, for that matter - get mentioned), is quite funny. Posters on here (me included) live every vicissitude as if it's life or death when in reality hardly anyone gives us toss/feels affected by the changes.
I still think there'll be some fudged deal and 90% of the population will shrug blithely and move on, undeterred.
Is Brexit currently fucked or probably going to be ok? I'm losing track.
Yes! No! Maybe!
That is you up to date. You now know as much as anyone else.
The contrast between political-nerd-world (on here) and real life (where I never hear Brexit - or even politics, for that matter - get mentioned), is quite funny. Posters on here (me included) live every vicissitude as if it's life or death when in reality hardly anyone gives us toss/feels affected by the changes.
I still think there'll be some fudged deal and 90% of the population will shrug blithely and move on, undeterred.
Basically, if there is food in the shops and soaps on the telly and 9-5 jobs in the daytime then most people will not care.
As I posted on the last thread, Theresa May does not speak for the United Kingdom. The First Lord of the Treasury does not have a mandate from her Cabinet. Can not get a mandate from her party on the emerging deal. Will not get a mandate from the Commons.
Yet despite this supposedly she has the authority to negotiate and secure a transition deal where the detail will get filled in later? Cobblers. Her authority has gone, the crisis is here. I look out the window at the howling gale and imagine I will be knocking doors very soon for a December election...
She is Prime Minister and as such she is the person to negotiate with the EU until or unless she resigns or is replaced.
You are obviously upset by the position as are many others but in time the HOC will have their say and at that time anything could happen, but a December GE is unlikely
Is Brexit currently fucked or probably going to be ok? I'm losing track.
Yes! No! Maybe!
That is you up to date. You now know as much as anyone else.
The contrast between political-nerd-world (on here) and real life (where I never hear Brexit - or even politics, for that matter - get mentioned), is quite funny. Posters on here (me included) live every vicissitude as if it's life or death when in reality hardly anyone gives us toss/feels affected by the changes.
I still think there'll be some fudged deal and 90% of the population will shrug blithely and move on, undeterred.
I note my prediction yesterday morning has come to pass, albeit a few hours late. 9am R4 news bulletin saw Downing St spokesman confirm that any customs union would be time limited.
Good.
I'll offer you a further prediction, that the time limit will be hedged in interesting ways, essentially coming down to "can end by mutual agreement".
Then no deal. We cannot be tied into a customs union. That would be a humiliation for a sovereign nation.
What is humiliating about entering into a voluntary agreement? Governments have done it all the time throughout history.
UK will be licking EU boots, total capitulation , just as Tories planned so they can then have another vote to go back in.
Shiw us how to do it Makc. You've been.licking Nicola,'s boots forever
You stupid cretin, we don't lick anyone's boots up here , the people are sovereign , not grovelling subjects like halfwitted dullards such as yourself. She has only been there 5 minutes and if she does not do the business she will be out on her arse , no snivelling grovelling bunch of wobbly jellies like the Tories. Westminstrer Tories will stay at ground level with tongues extended.
You have boots up there? I thought you lot were too hard for boots? Just a tartan kilt and sandals made from kelp.
I have watched "Braveheart" so I know what it is like
I note my prediction yesterday morning has come to pass, albeit a few hours late. 9am R4 news bulletin saw Downing St spokesman confirm that any customs union would be time limited.
Good.
I'll offer you a further prediction, that the time limit will be hedged in interesting ways, essentially coming down to "can end by mutual agreement".
Then no deal. We cannot be tied into a customs union. That would be a humiliation for a sovereign nation.
What is humiliating about entering into a voluntary agreement? Governments have done it all the time throughout history.
UK will be licking EU boots, total capitulation , just as Tories planned so they can then have another vote to go back in.
Shiw us how to do it Makc. You've been.licking Nicola,'s boots forever
You stupid cretin, we don't lick anyone's boots up here , the people are sovereign , not grovelling subjects like halfwitted dullards such as yourself. She has only been there 5 minutes and if she does not do the business she will be out on her arse , no snivelling grovelling bunch of wobbly jellies like the Tories. Westminstrer Tories will stay at ground level with tongues extended.
You have boots up there? I thought you lot were too hard for boots? Just a tartan kilt and sandals made from kelp.
I have watched "Braveheart" so I know what it is like
And of course Braveheart is historically so accurate.
I note my prediction yesterday morning has come to pass, albeit a few hours late. 9am R4 news bulletin saw Downing St spokesman confirm that any customs union would be time limited.
Good.
I'll offer you a further prediction, that the time limit will be hedged in interesting ways, essentially coming down to "can end by mutual agreement".
Then no deal. We cannot be tied into a customs union. That would be a humiliation for a sovereign nation.
What is humiliating about entering into a voluntary agreement? Governments have done it all the time throughout history.
UK will be licking EU boots, total capitulation , just as Tories planned so they can then have another vote to go back in.
Shiw us how to do it Makc. You've been.licking Nicola,'s boots forever
You stupid cretin, we don't lick anyone's boots up here , the people are sovereign , not grovelling subjects like halfwitted dullards such as yourself. She has only been there 5 minutes and if she does not do the business she will be out on her arse , no snivelling grovelling bunch of wobbly jellies like the Tories. Westminstrer Tories will stay at ground level with tongues extended.
You have boots up there? I thought you lot were too hard for boots? Just a tartan kilt and sandals made from kelp.
I have watched "Braveheart" so I know what it is like
And of course Braveheart is historically so accurate.
I thought it was an excellent documentary, up there with U-571's retelling of the way those brave Americans basically won the war for us.
Is Brexit currently fucked or probably going to be ok? I'm losing track.
Yes! No! Maybe!
That is you up to date. You now know as much as anyone else.
The contrast between political-nerd-world (on here) and real life (where I never hear Brexit - or even politics, for that matter - get mentioned), is quite funny. Posters on here (me included) live every vicissitude as if it's life or death when in reality hardly anyone gives us toss/feels affected by the changes.
I still think there'll be some fudged deal and 90% of the population will shrug blithely and move on, undeterred.
+1
The fudged deal will be OK so long as people can still go to the Canaries, Costa Brava or Majorca ‘without let or hindrance’. If not........
Is Brexit currently fucked or probably going to be ok? I'm losing track.
Yes! No! Maybe!
That is you up to date. You now know as much as anyone else.
The contrast between political-nerd-world (on here) and real life (where I never hear Brexit - or even politics, for that matter - get mentioned), is quite funny. Posters on here (me included) live every vicissitude as if it's life or death when in reality hardly anyone gives us toss/feels affected by the changes.
I still think there'll be some fudged deal and 90% of the population will shrug blithely and move on, undeterred.
I still enjoy current affairs, though Brexit will dominate for the forseeable, tedious though that might be on occasion. I did promise myself not to go full gammon with each twist and turn. My view is that as long as the UK is outside the treaty structures that encourage 'ever closer union', then Brexit does, indeed, mean Brexit. Whether that's as 'vassal state' or whatever...I don't much care, because our relationship with the EU is going to continue to evolve as long as both polities exist.
I will reiterate that if we ever do rejoin, then we should do so as 'proper' members - Euro, Schengen, Uncle Tom Cobley and all. The EU is, and should be, an increasingly Euro club and there's no long term future for a member that doesn't agree.
Is Brexit currently fucked or probably going to be ok? I'm losing track.
Yes! No! Maybe!
That is you up to date. You now know as much as anyone else.
For a Betting site, I recall very few actual tips in the last 6 months predicated on specific Brexit outcomes rather than on the general sense of it going badly. That in itself is instructive.
Wait and see has crept up on pretty much all of us one by one, Remainer or Leaver, Bettor or Political Wonk. The latest mouthful of popcorn is frozen in hand an inch away from the agape mouth. The point at which the tension shatters is going to be quite something, whatever it turns out to be.
I note my prediction yesterday morning has come to pass, albeit a few hours late. 9am R4 news bulletin saw Downing St spokesman confirm that any customs union would be time limited.
Good.
I'll offer you a further prediction, that the time limit will be hedged in interesting ways, essentially coming down to "can end by mutual agreement".
Then no deal. We cannot be tied into a customs union. That would be a humiliation for a sovereign nation.
What is humiliating about entering into a voluntary agreement? Governments have done it all the time throughout history.
UK will be licking EU boots, total capitulation , just as Tories planned so they can then have another vote to go back in.
Shiw us how to do it Makc. You've been.licking Nicola,'s boots forever
You stupid cretin, we don't lick anyone's boots up here , the people are sovereign , not grovelling subjects like halfwitted dullards such as yourself. She has only been there 5 minutes and if she does not do the business she will be out on her arse , no snivelling grovelling bunch of wobbly jellies like the Tories. Westminstrer Tories will stay at ground level with tongues extended.
You have boots up there? I thought you lot were too hard for boots? Just a tartan kilt and sandals made from kelp.
I have watched "Braveheart" so I know what it is like
And of course Braveheart is historically so accurate.
I thought it was an excellent documentary, up there with U-571's retelling of the way those brave Americans basically won the war for us.
I’ve never forgotten the poster (I think it was here) who said that the Americans had only come onto the field when we needed a substitute for the French, who’d been carried off injured.
Is Brexit currently fucked or probably going to be ok? I'm losing track.
Yes! No! Maybe!
That is you up to date. You now know as much as anyone else.
For a Betting site, I recall very few actual tips in the last 6 months predicated on specific Brexit outcomes rather than on the general sense of it going badly. That in itself is instructive.
Wait and see has crept up on pretty much all of us one by one, Remainer or Leaver, Bettor or Political Wonk. The latest mouthful of popcorn is frozen in hand an inch away from the agape mouth. The point at which the tension shatters is going to be quite something, whatever it turns out to be.
I hope the political theatre is worth it. The shambles could be immense.
With the latest polling out of Tennessee the senate is basically done now. 538 is only giving the Dems a plausible chance by somehow making North Dakota a viable win for them.
Is Brexit currently fucked or probably going to be ok? I'm losing track.
Yes! No! Maybe!
That is you up to date. You now know as much as anyone else.
For a Betting site, I recall very few actual tips in the last 6 months predicated on specific Brexit outcomes rather than on the general sense of it going badly. That in itself is instructive.
Wait and see has crept up on pretty much all of us one by one, Remainer or Leaver, Bettor or Political Wonk. The latest mouthful of popcorn is frozen in hand an inch away from the agape mouth. The point at which the tension shatters is going to be quite something, whatever it turns out to be.
I hope the political theatre is worth it. The shambles could be immense.
Indeed. Bread and Circuses. The word order is relevant.
There wil not be a second vote so his comment is pointless as for the rebate he can go and......
TBH, given the shambles we have created and the immense amount of time we have wasted (both ours and the EU's), giving up the rebate is a reasonable form of compensation.
With the latest polling out of Tennessee the senate is basically done now. 538 is only giving the Dems a plausible chance by somehow making North Dakota a viable win for them.
If Heitkamp does lose, she'll manage to lose against every historic precedent.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
May, a remainer, has salami sliced Brexit until there is nothing left. What political skill. Out thought the Leave team all the way.
Won't seem so clever when Jezza is walking into Number 10 as Prime Minister and the Tories are out of office for 20 years (assuming they don't split, in which case they'll be out of office forever)
With the latest polling out of Tennessee the senate is basically done now. 538 is only giving the Dems a plausible chance by somehow making North Dakota a viable win for them.
If Heitkamp does lose, she'll manage to lose against every historic precedent.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
As I posted on the last thread, Theresa May does not speak for the United Kingdom. The First Lord of the Treasury does not have a mandate from her Cabinet. Can not get a mandate from her party on the emerging deal. Will not get a mandate from the Commons.
Yet despite this supposedly she has the authority to negotiate and secure a transition deal where the detail will get filled in later? Cobblers. Her authority has gone, the crisis is here. I look out the window at the howling gale and imagine I will be knocking doors very soon for a December election...
She is Prime Minister and as such she is the person to negotiate with the EU until or unless she resigns or is replaced.
You are obviously upset by the position as are many others but in time the HOC will have their say and at that time anything could happen, but a December GE is unlikely
We all need to wait and see
I agree re-December election. For that to occur Dissolution would need to take place before mid-November.
Indiana purged at least 20,000 voters in direct contravention of a federal Court order. Potential as many as 450,000.
I'm glad I live in Britain.
As I've posted before, the Cameron government's use of similar Republican-inspired ruses led directly to losing the EU referendum and ending the Cameroon hegemony. The reduction in seats is part of that which is still in play.
Purge the rolls (disproportionately purging Remainers, though this was not the intention, which was to make Labour areas seem smaller). Reduce House to 600 MPs so that every constituency must be redrawn. Redraw boundaries on the new, Labour-light rolls. Result: more seats in Conservative areas; fewer in Labour areas.
You may have posted it before, but that doesn't make it right ...
What is your non-partisan (ha!) alternative?
You are missing the point. It is history, not advocacy. Brexit may or may not be a good thing; likewise Conservative governments. That was the plan. Losing the referendum was the result.
It isn't 'history'; it's your opinion. The link you've made in the past between the changes and the Brexit referendum aren't that strong or convincing, at least to me.
Remember the voter recruitment drive and the last-minute extensions to the registration deadline? It is clear Number 10 had made the connection. The Leavers did too, since they opposed the extension.
Yes, I do. But that's not evidence, yet alone proof, of your claim.
Just because you want it to be true, doesn't make it true.
It is evidence, even if not proof. But suppose I am wrong -- surely that would just mean it was a different Cameroon wheeze that cost them victory because the registration drive recruited mainly Leavers. That sounds far less likely. I was right first time.
No, you were not.
For one thing, it's stupid to think that only one thing 'led directly' to the loss: the referendum was very multi-faceted, and the reasons people voted, yet alone the side they voted for, are complex.
You are just trying to make a political point using an (IMO) false conclusion.
Of course there were many different reasons people voted for Brexit or Remain. But to vote at all, they needed to be registered, and Number 10 had put its thumb on the scale. Two thumbs, in fact, first on one side then the other. Ironically, this cost them the referendum and power.
Let us go further. It might also explain where Theresa May mislaid her majority just a year later.
For a Betting site, I recall very few actual tips in the last 6 months predicated on specific Brexit outcomes rather than on the general sense of it going badly. That in itself is instructive.
For one thing, it's stupid to think that only one thing 'led directly' to the loss: the referendum was very multi-faceted, and the reasons people voted, yet alone the side they voted for, are complex.
You are just trying to make a political point using an (IMO) false conclusion.
Of course there were many different reasons people voted for Brexit or Remain. But to vote at all, they needed to be registered, and Number 10 had put its thumb on the scale. Two thumbs, in fact, first on one side then the other. Ironically, this cost them the referendum and power.
Let us go further. It might also explain where Theresa May mislaid her majority just a year later.
As I recall, there were also a number of people who voted "Leave" to kick the govt and then appeared on the BBC the next day saying "I want to change my vote. I didn't mean it!"
As I posted on the last thread, Theresa May does not speak for the United Kingdom. The First Lord of the Treasury does not have a mandate from her Cabinet. Can not get a mandate from her party on the emerging deal. Will not get a mandate from the Commons.
Yet despite this supposedly she has the authority to negotiate and secure a transition deal where the detail will get filled in later? Cobblers. Her authority has gone, the crisis is here. I look out the window at the howling gale and imagine I will be knocking doors very soon for a December election...
She is Prime Minister and as such she is the person to negotiate with the EU until or unless she resigns or is replaced.
You are obviously upset by the position as are many others but in time the HOC will have their say and at that time anything could happen, but a December GE is unlikely
We all need to wait and see
I agree re-December election. For that to occur Dissolution would need to take place before mid-November.
And the FTPA would need to be fixed. Corbyn MIGHT just fancy his chances of putting a majority together.
May, a remainer, has salami sliced Brexit until there is nothing left. What political skill. Out thought the Leave team all the way.
Won't seem so clever when Jezza is walking into Number 10 as Prime Minister and the Tories are out of office for 20 years (assuming they don't split, in which case they'll be out of office forever)
With the latest polling out of Tennessee the senate is basically done now. 538 is only giving the Dems a plausible chance by somehow making North Dakota a viable win for them.
If Heitkamp does lose, she'll manage to lose against every historic precedent.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
She's a conventional Democrat running in a state which Trump won by 36 points and still has a high approval rating in.
The other Senate seat in ND is currently held by the Republicans with a 62% majority. The GOP won the Govenorship by 57%.
She's well down in the polls against a well known and liked local candidate. Frankly she needs a scandal to fall in to her lap at this point.
I note my prediction yesterday morning has come to pass, albeit a few hours late. 9am R4 news bulletin saw Downing St spokesman confirm that any customs union would be time limited.
Good.
I'll offer you a further prediction, that the time limit will be hedged in interesting ways, essentially coming down to "can end by mutual agreement".
Then no deal. We cannot be tied into a customs union. That would be a humiliation for a sovereign nation.
What is humiliating about entering into a voluntary agreement? Governments have done it all the time throughout history.
But th UK could only leave with the agreement of the EU. The UK would be a Vasal state.
As we're often told, Parliament is sovereign, so we could quite easily abrogate any such agreement in the future. Of course there would be consequences - but there would likely be a set of very similar consequences if we simply exercised a unilateral option to leave a customs union arrangement.
It would be against the Vienna convention, to which the UK is a party, to unilaterally abrogate a treaty if the treaty does not allow for such an action.
There would be every chance that the UKSC would stop the Government from doing so, quite reasonably pointing out that they must have known this when they signed it.
Parliament is sovereign but may have to withdraw the UK from the convention to exercise this sovereignty.
So she is not an investment banker then? Who put it about that she was? Has she ever denied it?
Leadsom holds the Guiness book of records title for CV inflation. She claimed to be a senior member of the BoE, but was, apparently, a part time cleaner and shorthand typist. Something like that.
May, a remainer, has salami sliced Brexit until there is nothing left. What political skill. Out thought the Leave team all the way.
Won't seem so clever when Jezza is walking into Number 10 as Prime Minister and the Tories are out of office for 20 years (assuming they don't split, in which case they'll be out of office forever)
Good result if Leadsom goes. I'm brighter than her and I'm a knuckle-scraper.
Leadson - ex Investment banker.
How about you Fenster?
I'm thick as shit with zero education but wasn't she outed as some Walter Mitty figure? She is deeply unimpressive when she speaks and I'm pretty sure I read that colleagues have a giggle at her behind her back.
Still, you are right, she probably is brighter than me
In the past the results of US Senate elections did not bear a particularly close relationship to a state's alleigance at Presidential elections. Texas elected the Democrats LBJ and Lloyd Bentsen - Tennessee was happy to be represented by Al Gore and his father before him - George McGovern was Senator for South Dakota for many years. Why has this changed?
For one thing, it's stupid to think that only one thing 'led directly' to the loss: the referendum was very multi-faceted, and the reasons people voted, yet alone the side they voted for, are complex.
You are just trying to make a political point using an (IMO) false conclusion.
Of course there were many different reasons people voted for Brexit or Remain. But to vote at all, they needed to be registered, and Number 10 had put its thumb on the scale. Two thumbs, in fact, first on one side then the other. Ironically, this cost them the referendum and power.
Let us go further. It might also explain where Theresa May mislaid her majority just a year later.
As I recall, there were also a number of people who voted "Leave" to kick the govt and then appeared on the BBC the next day saying "I want to change my vote. I didn't mean it!"
They will be the first ones squealing when we remain but without the rebate.
Which public services will be cut to pay for the extra contributions we have to make ?
May, a remainer, has salami sliced Brexit until there is nothing left. What political skill. Out thought the Leave team all the way.
Won't seem so clever when Jezza is walking into Number 10 as Prime Minister and the Tories are out of office for 20 years (assuming they don't split, in which case they'll be out of office forever)
On current polls Corbyn will only walk into office propped up by the LDs and SNP and with the Tories largest party and with a Tory majority in England and that is even with UKIP up post Chequers.
Less Blair landslide 1997 than scraping into Number 10 under the doormat by his fingernails!
So she is not an investment banker then? Who put it about that she was? Has she ever denied it?
Leadsom holds the Guiness book of records title for CV inflation. She claimed to be a senior member of the BoE, but was, apparently, a part time cleaner and shorthand typist. Something like that.
John Major just texted me to say that apparently Margaret Thatcher was belatedly surprised to find he'd not been director of a merchant bank, as she'd believed, but a glorified manager in an overseas branch.
So she is not an investment banker then? Who put it about that she was? Has she ever denied it?
Her supporters rather over egged that pudding and she was a bit slow in putting the record straight - I don’t think anyone ever caught her in a direct untruth, just (sic) remaining silent while others peddled them.
One thing that will need more thought the next time out in the USA is the implications of California voting early. Just by voting first those somewhat eccentric and atypical people of Iowa have had an absurd amount of influence on the process as have the independently minded liberals of New Hampshire. How long before candidates start to think about whether they can be bothered pretending to care about corn subsidies in Iowa and just focus on delegate rich California instead?
If they do a different sort of candidate will survive the initial winnowing.
In the past the results of US Senate elections did not bear a particularly close relationship to a state's alleigance at Presidential elections. Texas elected the Democrats LBJ and Lloyd Bentsen - Tennessee was happy to be represented by Al Gore and his father before him - George McGovern was Senator for South Dakota for many years. Why has this changed?
Manchin still leads in West Virginia, Susan Collins has a large buffer in Maine. The link is there in general, but it isn't so strong.
In the past the results of US Senate elections did not bear a particularly close relationship to a state's alleigance at Presidential elections. Texas elected the Democrats LBJ and Lloyd Bentsen - Tennessee was happy to be represented by Al Gore and his father before him - George McGovern was Senator for South Dakota for many years. Why has this changed?
2 of your 3 examples are 60 years old. If you go that far back the South was Democratic party home territory so hardly surprising a few hung on after the tide changed.
With the latest polling out of Tennessee the senate is basically done now. 538 is only giving the Dems a plausible chance by somehow making North Dakota a viable win for them.
If Heitkamp does lose, she'll manage to lose against every historic precedent.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
She's a conventional Democrat running in a state which Trump won by 36 points and still has a high approval rating in.
The other Senate seat in ND is currently held by the Republicans with a 62% majority. The GOP won the Govenorship by 57%.
She's well down in the polls against a well known and liked local candidate. Frankly she needs a scandal to fall in to her lap at this point.
I wouldn't call her a 'conventional Democrat' really. She voted for the Keystone pipeline and voted against stricter gun control laws. But yes I think the fact she's facing a 'generic' republican and not a Roy Moore/Todd Akin style candidate is what will be her undoing.
She's also a victim of 'straight ticket voting' which is much more common given how polarized the US electorate now is. If people vote Republican for President, they're far less likely to split the ticket and vote for Democrats for other federal and local races, and Visa Versa.
This is what will kill the Democrats in the senate eventually, given each state has 2 senators regardless of population size, and smaller states are disproportionately GOP leaning. It's going to make the Dems getting to 50 more and more difficult.
Of course there were many different reasons people voted for Brexit or Remain. But to vote at all, they needed to be registered, and Number 10 had put its thumb on the scale. Two thumbs, in fact, first on one side then the other. Ironically, this cost them the referendum and power.
Let us go further. It might also explain where Theresa May mislaid her majority just a year later.
Don't be a silly sausage. Your conclusions are bereft of evidence; you should remember that correlation does not imply causation.
You are obsessing on one small factor that suits a political point you want to make, and expanding it to a conclusion that backs that political point. That does not make it true ...
One thing that will need more thought the next time out in the USA is the implications of California voting early. Just by voting first those somewhat eccentric and atypical people of Iowa have had an absurd amount of influence on the process as have the independently minded liberals of New Hampshire. How long before candidates start to think about whether they can be bothered pretending to care about corn subsidies in Iowa and just focus on delegate rich California instead?
If they do a different sort of candidate will survive the initial winnowing.
Sanders, Biden and co are all spending time in CA.
In the past the results of US Senate elections did not bear a particularly close relationship to a state's alleigance at Presidential elections. Texas elected the Democrats LBJ and Lloyd Bentsen - Tennessee was happy to be represented by Al Gore and his father before him - George McGovern was Senator for South Dakota for many years. Why has this changed?
2 of your 3 examples are 60 years old. If you go that far back the South was Democratic party home territory so hardly surprising a few hung on after the tide changed.
Lloyd Bentsen was a Texas Senator until the early 1990s as was Al Gore for Tennessee. McGovern remained a Senator until 1981.
For one thing, it's stupid to think that only one thing 'led directly' to the loss: the referendum was very multi-faceted, and the reasons people voted, yet alone the side they voted for, are complex.
You are just trying to make a political point using an (IMO) false conclusion.
Of course there were many different reasons people voted for Brexit or Remain. But to vote at all, they needed to be registered, and Number 10 had put its thumb on the scale. Two thumbs, in fact, first on one side then the other. Ironically, this cost them the referendum and power.
Let us go further. It might also explain where Theresa May mislaid her majority just a year later.
As I recall, there were also a number of people who voted "Leave" to kick the govt and then appeared on the BBC the next day saying "I want to change my vote. I didn't mean it!"
They will be the first ones squealing when we remain but without the rebate.
Which public services will be cut to pay for the extra contributions we have to make ?
Which public services will benefit from EU people filling the jobs UK people do not want? And think of all the time (=> money) being wasted on Brexit that can be redirected into productive stuff like actually running the country.
Brexit has already cost us more than our payments. It is a complete waste of time and money.
In the past the results of US Senate elections did not bear a particularly close relationship to a state's alleigance at Presidential elections. Texas elected the Democrats LBJ and Lloyd Bentsen - Tennessee was happy to be represented by Al Gore and his father before him - George McGovern was Senator for South Dakota for many years. Why has this changed?
2 of your 3 examples are 60 years old. If you go that far back the South was Democratic party home territory so hardly surprising a few hung on after the tide changed.
Lloyd Bentsen was a Texas Senator until the early 1990s as was Al Gore for Tennessee. McGovern remained a Senator until 1981.
Yes, incumbency is real so more relevant is when the individual (or family) first dug in. Much harder to see long term stays against the wind starting nowadays, absent another big switch in the electoral map.
One thing that will need more thought the next time out in the USA is the implications of California voting early. Just by voting first those somewhat eccentric and atypical people of Iowa have had an absurd amount of influence on the process as have the independently minded liberals of New Hampshire. How long before candidates start to think about whether they can be bothered pretending to care about corn subsidies in Iowa and just focus on delegate rich California instead?
If they do a different sort of candidate will survive the initial winnowing.
Commenting on my own contribution since no one else is showing an interest the early voting of California will greatly favour better known candidates with deep pockets who can boost their profile in one of the most expensive TV markets in the US, who have a good base in the party so they can find enough activists and who are probably a lot more liberal than most of the rest of the US. I am not sure this is going to do the Democrats in particular any favours.
Edit sorry @rottenborough, didn’t see your comment in time.
Hammond seems to be clearing the decks for a rather expansive post-deal Budget: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45833907 Might an early election be on the cards, or it this just a plan to make the deal be seen to be a success prior to 2022 ?
I note my prediction yesterday morning has come to pass, albeit a few hours late. 9am R4 news bulletin saw Downing St spokesman confirm that any customs union would be time limited.
Good.
I'll offer you a further prediction, that the time limit will be hedged in interesting ways, essentially coming down to "can end by mutual agreement".
Then no deal. We cannot be tied into a customs union. That would be a humiliation for a sovereign nation.
What is humiliating about entering into a voluntary agreement? Governments have done it all the time throughout history.
But th UK could only leave with the agreement of the EU. The UK would be a Vasal state.
As we're often told, Parliament is sovereign, so we could quite easily abrogate any such agreement in the future. Of course there would be consequences - but there would likely be a set of very similar consequences if we simply exercised a unilateral option to leave a customs union arrangement.
It would be against the Vienna convention, to which the UK is a party, to unilaterally abrogate a treaty if the treaty does not allow for such an action.
There would be every chance that the UKSC would stop the Government from doing so, quite reasonably pointing out that they must have known this when they signed it.
Parliament is sovereign but may have to withdraw the UK from the convention to exercise this sovereignty.
The UK Supreme Court will not strike down any form of primary legislation that is passed by Parliament. And the EU is not a party to the Vienna Convention in any case.
One thing that will need more thought the next time out in the USA is the implications of California voting early. Just by voting first those somewhat eccentric and atypical people of Iowa have had an absurd amount of influence on the process as have the independently minded liberals of New Hampshire. How long before candidates start to think about whether they can be bothered pretending to care about corn subsidies in Iowa and just focus on delegate rich California instead?
If they do a different sort of candidate will survive the initial winnowing.
So from the politico piece someone posted a thread or two back it sounds like the CA ballots will go out basically on the day of the Iowa caucus. I wonder if this won't actually make Iowa *more* important; You still need to winnow the field to work out which candidates are viable, but a candidate who underperforms in Iowa won't be able to come back in NH or SC as candidates have in the past, because an important chunk of the electorate will have already voted on the back of the Iowa results.
I note my prediction yesterday morning has come to pass, albeit a few hours late. 9am R4 news bulletin saw Downing St spokesman confirm that any customs union would be time limited.
Good.
I'll offer you a further prediction, that the time limit will be hedged in interesting ways, essentially coming down to "can end by mutual agreement".
Then no deal. We cannot be tied into a customs union. That would be a humiliation for a sovereign nation.
What is humiliating about entering into a voluntary agreement? Governments have done it all the time throughout history.
But th UK could only leave with the agreement of the EU. The UK would be a Vasal state.
As we're often told, Parliament is sovereign, so we could quite easily abrogate any such agreement in the future. Of course there would be consequences - but there would likely be a set of very similar consequences if we simply exercised a unilateral option to leave a customs union arrangement.
It would be against the Vienna convention, to which the UK is a party, to unilaterally abrogate a treaty if the treaty does not allow for such an action.
There would be every chance that the UKSC would stop the Government from doing so, quite reasonably pointing out that they must have known this when they signed it.
Parliament is sovereign but may have to withdraw the UK from the convention to exercise this sovereignty.
Of course - but we are talking about the rather strange concept of ‘vassalage’, not anything real world.
With the latest polling out of Tennessee the senate is basically done now. 538 is only giving the Dems a plausible chance by somehow making North Dakota a viable win for them.
If Heitkamp does lose, she'll manage to lose against every historic precedent.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
She's a conventional Democrat running in a state which Trump won by 36 points and still has a high approval rating in.
The other Senate seat in ND is currently held by the Republicans with a 62% majority. The GOP won the Govenorship by 57%.
She's well down in the polls against a well known and liked local candidate. Frankly she needs a scandal to fall in to her lap at this point.
I wouldn't call her a 'conventional Democrat' really. She voted for the Keystone pipeline and voted against stricter gun control laws. But yes I think the fact she's facing a 'generic' republican and not a Roy Moore/Todd Akin style candidate is what will be her undoing.
She's also a victim of 'straight ticket voting' which is much more common given how polarized the US electorate now is. If people vote Republican for President, they're far less likely to split the ticket and vote for Democrats for other federal and local races, and Visa Versa.
This is what will kill the Democrats in the senate eventually, given each state has 2 senators regardless of population size, and smaller states are disproportionately GOP leaning. It's going to make the Dems getting to 50 more and more difficult.
Quite a few states appear to be trending to the Democrats though on a demographic basis - Texas - Arizona - Georgia - North Carolina - maybe Florida.
With the latest polling out of Tennessee the senate is basically done now. 538 is only giving the Dems a plausible chance by somehow making North Dakota a viable win for them.
If Heitkamp does lose, she'll manage to lose against every historic precedent.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
But 1982 does show that the House and Senate can move in opposite directions, given that only one third of Senate seats are contested.
One thing that will need more thought the next time out in the USA is the implications of California voting early. Just by voting first those somewhat eccentric and atypical people of Iowa have had an absurd amount of influence on the process as have the independently minded liberals of New Hampshire. How long before candidates start to think about whether they can be bothered pretending to care about corn subsidies in Iowa and just focus on delegate rich California instead?
If they do a different sort of candidate will survive the initial winnowing.
Commenting on my own contribution since no one else is showing an interest the early voting of California will greatly favour better known candidates with deep pockets who can boost their profile in one of the most expensive TV markets in the US, who have a good base in the party so they can find enough activists and who are probably a lot more liberal than most of the rest of the US. I am not sure this is going to do the Democrats in particular any favours.
Edit sorry @rottenborough, didn’t see your comment in time.
The liberal element is key for me. Won't do them any favours to encourage the current inclination they have to play to the base. The traditional early primaries clearly nudges parties towards centrists. California is a dangerous place for Dems to message test. Probably a big help for Kamala next time
One thing that will need more thought the next time out in the USA is the implications of California voting early. Just by voting first those somewhat eccentric and atypical people of Iowa have had an absurd amount of influence on the process as have the independently minded liberals of New Hampshire. How long before candidates start to think about whether they can be bothered pretending to care about corn subsidies in Iowa and just focus on delegate rich California instead?
If they do a different sort of candidate will survive the initial winnowing.
So from the politico piece someone posted a thread or two back it sounds like the CA ballots will go out basically on the day of the Iowa caucus. I wonder if this won't actually make Iowa *more* important; You still need to winnow the field to work out which candidates are viable, but a candidate who underperforms in Iowa won't be able to come back in NH or SC as candidates have in the past, because an important chunk of the electorate will have already voted on the back of the Iowa results.
Unless you just don’t play there at all. Which a city oriented polly just might find attractive.
One thing that will need more thought the next time out in the USA is the implications of California voting early. Just by voting first those somewhat eccentric and atypical people of Iowa have had an absurd amount of influence on the process as have the independently minded liberals of New Hampshire. How long before candidates start to think about whether they can be bothered pretending to care about corn subsidies in Iowa and just focus on delegate rich California instead?
If they do a different sort of candidate will survive the initial winnowing.
So from the politico piece someone posted a thread or two back it sounds like the CA ballots will go out basically on the day of the Iowa caucus. I wonder if this won't actually make Iowa *more* important; You still need to winnow the field to work out which candidates are viable, but a candidate who underperforms in Iowa won't be able to come back in NH or SC as candidates have in the past, because an important chunk of the electorate will have already voted on the back of the Iowa results.
Unless you just don’t play there at all. Which a city oriented polly just might find attractive.
With the latest polling out of Tennessee the senate is basically done now. 538 is only giving the Dems a plausible chance by somehow making North Dakota a viable win for them.
If Heitkamp does lose, she'll manage to lose against every historic precedent.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
She's a conventional Democrat running in a state which Trump won by 36 points and still has a high approval rating in.
The other Senate seat in ND is currently held by the Republicans with a 62% majority. The GOP won the Govenorship by 57%.
She's well down in the polls against a well known and liked local candidate. Frankly she needs a scandal to fall in to her lap at this point.
I wouldn't call her a 'conventional Democrat' really. She voted for the Keystone pipeline and voted against stricter gun control laws. But yes I think the fact she's facing a 'generic' republican and not a Roy Moore/Todd Akin style candidate is what will be her undoing.
She's also a victim of 'straight ticket voting' which is much more common given how polarized the US electorate now is. If people vote Republican for President, they're far less likely to split the ticket and vote for Democrats for other federal and local races, and Visa Versa.
This is what will kill the Democrats in the senate eventually, given each state has 2 senators regardless of population size, and smaller states are disproportionately GOP leaning. It's going to make the Dems getting to 50 more and more difficult.
Quite a few states appear to be trending to the Democrats though on a demographic basis - Texas - Arizona - Georgia - North Carolina - maybe Florida.
Not really North Carolina or Florida, and the Democrats regularly punch below their demographic weight in Texas.
One thing that will need more thought the next time out in the USA is the implications of California voting early. Just by voting first those somewhat eccentric and atypical people of Iowa have had an absurd amount of influence on the process as have the independently minded liberals of New Hampshire. How long before candidates start to think about whether they can be bothered pretending to care about corn subsidies in Iowa and just focus on delegate rich California instead?
If they do a different sort of candidate will survive the initial winnowing.
Commenting on my own contribution since no one else is showing an interest the early voting of California will greatly favour better known candidates with deep pockets who can boost their profile in one of the most expensive TV markets in the US, who have a good base in the party so they can find enough activists and who are probably a lot more liberal than most of the rest of the US. I am not sure this is going to do the Democrats in particular any favours.
Edit sorry @rottenborough, didn’t see your comment in time.
The liberal element is key for me. Won't do them any favours to encourage the current inclination they have to play to the base. The traditional early primaries clearly nudges parties towards centrists. California is a dangerous place for Dems to message test. Probably a big help for Kamala next time
Kamala was my immediate thought. She’s pretty impressive anyway but this could make her almost unbeatable.
Hammond seems to be clearing the decks for a rather expansive post-deal Budget: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45833907 Might an early election be on the cards, or it this just a plan to make the deal be seen to be a success prior to 2022 ?
Of course the corollary is, no deal; no giveaway.
Another reason to vote for Jezza.
Austerity is ending and it's time to open the taps... So lets let Corbyn and Labour do what what they do best... Spend, spend, spend.
One thing that will need more thought the next time out in the USA is the implications of California voting early. Just by voting first those somewhat eccentric and atypical people of Iowa have had an absurd amount of influence on the process as have the independently minded liberals of New Hampshire. How long before candidates start to think about whether they can be bothered pretending to care about corn subsidies in Iowa and just focus on delegate rich California instead?
If they do a different sort of candidate will survive the initial winnowing.
So from the politico piece someone posted a thread or two back it sounds like the CA ballots will go out basically on the day of the Iowa caucus. I wonder if this won't actually make Iowa *more* important; You still need to winnow the field to work out which candidates are viable, but a candidate who underperforms in Iowa won't be able to come back in NH or SC as candidates have in the past, because an important chunk of the electorate will have already voted on the back of the Iowa results.
Unless you just don’t play there at all. Which a city oriented polly just might find attractive.
How does California allocate delegates?
Don’t know. If it’s winner takes all then it becomes even more decisive, obviously.
Of course there were many different reasons people voted for Brexit or Remain. But to vote at all, they needed to be registered, and Number 10 had put its thumb on the scale. Two thumbs, in fact, first on one side then the other. Ironically, this cost them the referendum and power.
Let us go further. It might also explain where Theresa May mislaid her majority just a year later.
Don't be a silly sausage. Your conclusions are bereft of evidence; you should remember that correlation does not imply causation.
You are obsessing on one small factor that suits a political point you want to make, and expanding it to a conclusion that backs that political point. That does not make it true ...
Me, Number 10, Arron Banks, the official and unofficial Leave campaigns ... they all thought so. That's why it was controversial at the time. Hmm. I wonder if Dominic Cummings said anything about it.
And it is not even really a political point I am making, so much as the law of unintended consequences.
One thing that will need more thought the next time out in the USA is the implications of California voting early. Just by voting first those somewhat eccentric and atypical people of Iowa have had an absurd amount of influence on the process as have the independently minded liberals of New Hampshire. How long before candidates start to think about whether they can be bothered pretending to care about corn subsidies in Iowa and just focus on delegate rich California instead?
If they do a different sort of candidate will survive the initial winnowing.
So from the politico piece someone posted a thread or two back it sounds like the CA ballots will go out basically on the day of the Iowa caucus. I wonder if this won't actually make Iowa *more* important; You still need to winnow the field to work out which candidates are viable, but a candidate who underperforms in Iowa won't be able to come back in NH or SC as candidates have in the past, because an important chunk of the electorate will have already voted on the back of the Iowa results.
So California results in around 2 months after Iowa then ? California's election process is embarrassingly slow.
With the latest polling out of Tennessee the senate is basically done now. 538 is only giving the Dems a plausible chance by somehow making North Dakota a viable win for them.
If Heitkamp does lose, she'll manage to lose against every historic precedent.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
She's a conventional Democrat running in a state which Trump won by 36 points and still has a high approval rating in.
The other Senate seat in ND is currently held by the Republicans with a 62% majority. The GOP won the Govenorship by 57%.
She's well down in the polls against a well known and liked local candidate. Frankly she needs a scandal to fall in to her lap at this point.
I wouldn't call her a 'conventional Democrat' really. She voted for the Keystone pipeline and voted against stricter gun control laws. But yes I think the fact she's facing a 'generic' republican and not a Roy Moore/Todd Akin style candidate is what will be her undoing.
She's also a victim of 'straight ticket voting' which is much more common given how polarized the US electorate now is. If people vote Republican for President, they're far less likely to split the ticket and vote for Democrats for other federal and local races, and Visa Versa.
This is what will kill the Democrats in the senate eventually, given each state has 2 senators regardless of population size, and smaller states are disproportionately GOP leaning. It's going to make the Dems getting to 50 more and more difficult.
Quite a few states appear to be trending to the Democrats though on a demographic basis - Texas - Arizona - Georgia - North Carolina - maybe Florida.
Not really North Carolina or Florida, and the Democrats regularly punch below their demographic weight in Texas.
At Presidential elections the Democrats have become much more competitive in North Carolina and Florida compared with the 1980s and earlier. The former still leans Republican but Obama carried the state in 2008 and lost narrowly in 2012.Until the 1990s Florida had been a safe Republican state rather than the 'toss-up ' of recent elections.
I note my prediction yesterday morning has come to pass, albeit a few hours late. 9am R4 news bulletin saw Downing St spokesman confirm that any customs union would be time limited.
Good.
I'll offer you a further prediction, that the time limit will be hedged in interesting ways, essentially coming down to "can end by mutual agreement".
Then no deal. We cannot be tied into a customs union. That would be a humiliation for a sovereign nation.
What is humiliating about entering into a voluntary agreement? Governments have done it all the time throughout history.
UK will be licking EU boots, total capitulation , just as Tories planned so they can then have another vote to go back in.
Shiw us how to do it Makc. You've been.licking Nicola,'s boots forever
You stupid cretin, we don't lick anyone's boots up here , the people are sovereign , not grovelling subjects like halfwitted dullards such as yourself. She has only been there 5 minutes and if she does not do the business she will be out on her arse , no snivelling grovelling bunch of wobbly jellies like the Tories. Westminstrer Tories will stay at ground level with tongues extended.
Lie down dear. Have a nice cup of tea. You’ll soon feel better!
Long ago Malc and I made our peace, and I believe I am one tory that he seems to think is ok but of course being married to a Scots lass for 55 years does help
THere are a few good ones G, even if a bit misplaced. DavidL is a decent chap as well.
I note my prediction yesterday morning has come to pass, albeit a few hours late. 9am R4 news bulletin saw Downing St spokesman confirm that any customs union would be time limited.
Good.
I'll offer you a further prediction, that the time limit will be hedged in interesting ways, essentially coming down to "can end by mutual agreement".
Then no deal. We cannot be tied into a customs union. That would be a humiliation for a sovereign nation.
What is humiliating about entering into a voluntary agreement? Governments have done it all the time throughout history.
UK will be licking EU boots, total capitulation , just as Tories planned so they can then have another vote to go back in.
Shiw us how to do it Makc. You've been.licking Nicola,'s boots forever
You stupid cretin, we don't lick anyone's boots up here , the people are sovereign , not grovelling subjects like halfwitted dullards such as yourself. She has only been there 5 minutes and if she does not do the business she will be out on her arse , no snivelling grovelling bunch of wobbly jellies like the Tories. Westminstrer Tories will stay at ground level with tongues extended.
You have boots up there? I thought you lot were too hard for boots? Just a tartan kilt and sandals made from kelp.
I have watched "Braveheart" so I know what it is like
All 172 of California's delegates to the Republican National Convention are pledged to presidential contenders in today's California Presidential Primary. •159 district delegates are to be bound to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the 53 congressional districts: each congressional district is assigned 3 National Convention delegates and the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in that district will receive all 3 of that district's National Convention delegates. •13 at-large delegates (10 base at-large delegates plus 0 bonus delegates plus 3 RNC delegates) are to be bound to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary statewide.
Good result if Leadsom goes. I'm brighter than her and I'm a knuckle-scraper.
Leadson - ex Investment banker.
How about you Fenster?
I'm thick as shit with zero education but wasn't she outed as some Walter Mitty figure? She is deeply unimpressive when she speaks and I'm pretty sure I read that colleagues have a giggle at her behind her back.
Still, you are right, she probably is brighter than me
She is a Tory, so impossible unless you are like Patrick in Spongebob
I note my prediction yesterday morning has come to pass, albeit a few hours late. 9am R4 news bulletin saw Downing St spokesman confirm that any customs union would be time limited.
Good.
I'll offer you a further prediction, that the time limit will be hedged in interesting ways, essentially coming down to "can end by mutual agreement".
Then no deal. We cannot be tied into a customs union. That would be a humiliation for a sovereign nation.
What is humiliating about entering into a voluntary agreement? Governments have done it all the time throughout history.
But th UK could only leave with the agreement of the EU. The UK would be a Vasal state.
As we're often told, Parliament is sovereign, so we could quite easily abrogate any such agreement in the future. Of course there would be consequences - but there would likely be a set of very similar consequences if we simply exercised a unilateral option to leave a customs union arrangement.
It would be against the Vienna convention, to which the UK is a party, to unilaterally abrogate a treaty if the treaty does not allow for such an action.
There would be every chance that the UKSC would stop the Government from doing so, quite reasonably pointing out that they must have known this when they signed it.
Parliament is sovereign but may have to withdraw the UK from the convention to exercise this sovereignty.
The UK Supreme Court will not strike down any form of primary legislation that is passed by Parliament. And the EU is not a party to the Vienna Convention in any case.
You are correct that the EU is not party to the convention. Most but not all members states are - I have to admit I am not sure whether the provisions of the Convention would attach in these circumstances. It may be that the provisions bind the UK as a party regardless of whether the counterpart is a member.
The UKSC can strike down such a move if the UK were bound by the convention. International treaties (such as the convention) are held to be superior to other legislation. Parliament could revoke the Convention but if not, they cannot pass legislation inconsistent with it while it is in force.
The point being that entering into a permanent backstop and then getting out of it by revoking that treaty is fraught with problems and should never be a basis of action.
Of course there were many different reasons people voted for Brexit or Remain. But to vote at all, they needed to be registered, and Number 10 had put its thumb on the scale. Two thumbs, in fact, first on one side then the other. Ironically, this cost them the referendum and power.
Let us go further. It might also explain where Theresa May mislaid her majority just a year later.
Don't be a silly sausage. Your conclusions are bereft of evidence; you should remember that correlation does not imply causation.
You are obsessing on one small factor that suits a political point you want to make, and expanding it to a conclusion that backs that political point. That does not make it true ...
Me, Number 10, Arron Banks, the official and unofficial Leave campaigns ... they all thought so. That's why it was controversial at the time. Hmm. I wonder if Dominic Cummings said anything about it.
And it is not even really a political point I am making, so much as the law of unintended consequences.
As far as I'm aware they didn't think that remain lost because of that, which is your claim. I believe you are confusing (deliberately?) two different things.
And of course you're making a political point, since you're a poster who always screeches about gerrymandering whenever the Conservatives want to change the political process. Your intent is clear.
Comments
My opinion is that if May fails, we won't get Brexit at all.
Yet despite this supposedly she has the authority to negotiate and secure a transition deal where the detail will get filled in later? Cobblers. Her authority has gone, the crisis is here. I look out the window at the howling gale and imagine I will be knocking doors very soon for a December election...
When I have seen her interviewed she just repeats empty phrases and if asked to explain any of them, she appears to get a bit wild around the eyes like a mild panic is setting in.
Democracy is fecked.
I still think there'll be some fudged deal and 90% of the population will shrug blithely and move on, undeterred.
Either resign or STFU.
You are obviously upset by the position as are many others but in time the HOC will have their say and at that time anything could happen, but a December GE is unlikely
We all need to wait and see
I have watched "Braveheart" so I know what it is like
How about you Fenster?
If not........
I will reiterate that if we ever do rejoin, then we should do so as 'proper' members - Euro, Schengen, Uncle Tom Cobley and all. The EU is, and should be, an increasingly Euro club and there's no long term future for a member that doesn't agree.
Wait and see has crept up on pretty much all of us one by one, Remainer or Leaver, Bettor or Political Wonk. The latest mouthful of popcorn is frozen in hand an inch away from the agape mouth. The point at which the tension shatters is going to be quite something, whatever it turns out to be.
How bright are these geniuses?
https://metro.co.uk/2016/07/08/andrea-leadsom-was-part-time-assistant-not-banker-says-colleague-5994610/
Especially now Paul Dacre’s left the Mail.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
Let us go further. It might also explain where Theresa May mislaid her majority just a year later.
For a Betting site, I recall very few actual tips in the last 6 months predicated on specific Brexit outcomes rather than on the general sense of it going badly. That in itself is instructive.
Because it's like betting on the obstacle race
Bollocks to that
The other Senate seat in ND is currently held by the Republicans with a 62% majority. The GOP won the Govenorship by 57%.
She's well down in the polls against a well known and liked local candidate. Frankly she needs a scandal to fall in to her lap at this point.
There would be every chance that the UKSC would stop the Government from doing so, quite reasonably pointing out that they must have known this when they signed it.
Parliament is sovereign but may have to withdraw the UK from the convention to exercise this sovereignty.
And the DUP will do it. They aren't bluffing about this.
This is unreal. May wants to pretend there is a difference between ‘time limited’ and ‘temporary’? Sounds like something Bill Clinton would try.
This cannot end well. You really just can’t behave like this.
Still, you are right, she probably is brighter than me
Which public services will be cut to pay for the extra contributions we have to make ?
Less Blair landslide 1997 than scraping into Number 10 under the doormat by his fingernails!
If they do a different sort of candidate will survive the initial winnowing.
She's also a victim of 'straight ticket voting' which is much more common given how polarized the US electorate now is. If people vote Republican for President, they're far less likely to split the ticket and vote for Democrats for other federal and local races, and Visa Versa.
This is what will kill the Democrats in the senate eventually, given each state has 2 senators regardless of population size, and smaller states are disproportionately GOP leaning. It's going to make the Dems getting to 50 more and more difficult.
You are obsessing on one small factor that suits a political point you want to make, and expanding it to a conclusion that backs that political point. That does not make it true ...
Brexit has already cost us more than our payments. It is a complete waste of time and money.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-22/u-k-brexit-hit-already-exceeds-eu-budget-payments-study-shows
Edit sorry @rottenborough, didn’t see your comment in time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45833907
Might an early election be on the cards, or it this just a plan to make the deal be seen to be a success prior to 2022 ?
Of course the corollary is, no deal; no giveaway.
Austerity is ending and it's time to open the taps... So lets let Corbyn and Labour do what what they do best... Spend, spend, spend.
And it is not even really a political point I am making, so much as the law of unintended consequences.
All 172 of California's delegates to the Republican National Convention are pledged to presidential contenders in today's California Presidential Primary.
•159 district delegates are to be bound to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the 53 congressional districts: each congressional district is assigned 3 National Convention delegates and the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in that district will receive all 3 of that district's National Convention delegates.
•13 at-large delegates (10 base at-large delegates plus 0 bonus delegates plus 3 RNC delegates) are to be bound to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary statewide.
The UKSC can strike down such a move if the UK were bound by the convention. International treaties (such as the convention) are held to be superior to other legislation. Parliament could revoke the Convention but if not, they cannot pass legislation inconsistent with it while it is in force.
The point being that entering into a permanent backstop and then getting out of it by revoking that treaty is fraught with problems and should never be a basis of action.
And of course you're making a political point, since you're a poster who always screeches about gerrymandering whenever the Conservatives want to change the political process. Your intent is clear.