Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.
Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.
Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.
You are thinking about this the wrong way.
Assume Top Shop folds and all their business goes to Amazon.
Well, that means more money for Blue Origin, and therefore hastens the day when mankind will no longer be dependent on this little blue planet.
Although Blue Origin have access to too much money, if anything. It's intriguing to think of what else they're spending their new $1 billion a year on. Their new factory, ship, BE4 testing and development, and New Glenn construction cannot be taking that much up. Even adding in Blue Moon.
I'm fairly convinced they've got some major skumkworks developments going on. Although that's probably more hope than anything else. Certainly there are lots of expensive things aside from rockets that need to be developed for Bezos' dream to come to reality.
That's one area I criticise SpaceX on with the BFR: they're doing the bare minimum (and IMV skimping even on that).
Yes, but Musk is only doing what he is compelled to do, given he doesn’t have access to anything like Bezos’ cash resources. He has to chase commercial revenues - which he’s done very successfully so far. Yes, he’s taking unusual risks for space development, but BFR is a work in progress, which will no doubt evolve. And if he’s to fly astronauts for the government, there are a lot of hoops to jump through.
It's going to take a long time to repair the reputational damage done to that country after the stench of the Trump regime is removed
Come on Roger,Trump is just another problem of the damaged USA history,Christ sake we had segregation on buses just other 60 years ago and a president assassinated just other 50 years ago.
Everything wasn't rosy before Trump.
You probably was saying the same about Bush Jr.
Remember when Ronald Reagan was going to start WW3 ?
It was a close run thing between that and communism collapsing
Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.
Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.
Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.
I don't think I've ever seen a Top Shop, let alone shopped in one. Clearly I need to get out more, so that I can find places to boycott.
You are about 50 years above their target market. I used to go there with my kids. The music was incessant and hideous. After a couple of these visits I insisted on online shopping and, tbf, their service was pretty good. The clothes all looked like rags to me but teenagers don’t seem to care about their clothes being properly lined and lasting more than about 3 washes.
Three washes! Thats a couple of years!
I think Top Shop are the downmarket end of teenagers and fast fashion.
Therefore to blame, says Stacey forgettable of BBC3, for draining the Aral Sea. Nothing to do with the broken infrastructure put in 50 years ago that loses all the water.
Had the delight of moving the stuff around a house the other week in procession so that carpet could be laid in each room in sequence, as the floor was briefly exposed.
The 19 year old person of the household had some old Top Shop stuff, but has now gone to University and graduated to Michael Kors handbags and umpteen brands of shoes.They are all poverty-stricken, these students :-) .
She's got taste! I like Michael Kors handbags. Far more important than the cost. Just be thankful she grew out of Top Shop.
The SNP have been in power for longer than any party other than Welsh Labour. When looked at with a cold eye, their record is underwhelming. It consists of a series of botched public sector reorganisations, most disastrously of the police, a bill on childcare that was so intrusive and open to abuse that even their own supporters speculated on what they were smoking, and defeats in two referendums.
It is not surprising their support is dwindling. What is more significant is that, as with the even more hapless government in Cardiff Bay, they still remain far more popular than any alternatives.
They have no competition and are light years better than the craven useless no-mark opposition. God help us if Tories and their Labour muppet vote sharing , the hapless Libdems or the mentally deranged greens get more seats. The difference compared to previous Labour crooked halfwit governments is incredible. Far from perfect but head and shoulders abov eprevious rubbish.
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the nomination as is Warren but another elitist libetal Democratic candidate from coastal states like California or Massachusetts is probably not what the Democrats need to beat Trump in the rustbelt, Biden or Sanders would be better on that score in appealing to blue collar voters, indeed Biden comes from Scranton in the key state of Pennsylvania
It’s an interesting article, but I think it highly unlikely that O’Rourke will even run. His own declarations that he won’t run were noticeably lacking in the wiggle room politicians normally allow themselves. And he has no national apparatus, unlike all the front runners. He’s also young, and smart, and must figure his chances much better in 2024 or 2028 - by which time Texas might well vote for a home state Democratic candidate. Which would make him virtually unstoppable. An outside chance as VP pick, I guess.
As for laying the front runners, I’d be hesitant, particularly in Harris’ case (there were some on her saying lay her when she was recently 7/1 for the nomination....). Unless she self-destructs (a possibility for any candidate), the pattern of early primaries make her a formidable candidate. Cory Booker is probably her direct competitor. I’d dismissed him until recently, but this is quite a smart populist policy without glaring flaws: https://slate.com/business/2018/10/cory-booker-economic-plan-baby-bonds-reparations.html
Sanders is too old. Biden possibly as well (and though I think he would actually have made a fine president, undeniably prone to campaign missteps) - still has an outside shot, though. Warren, I’m not sure. I think she still has an outside shot too - and undoubted appeal to the progressive wing of the party - but has clear vulnerabilities in a fight with Trump.
Indeed, 2024 could see both Congressman Joseph P Kennedy III and Congressman Beta O'Rourke could be contenders in 2024 and if Trump is re elected in 2020 the odds will favour the Democratic candidate that year as US voters normally vote for a change after 8 years of one party in the White House. Beating an incumbent President in 2020 will be a much tougher asj
With the early Californian primary I think Harris is the one to beat. On Beto, I am not sure. Lincoln became a national figure because of his long and closely reported debates with Douglas that put him pole position in the nascent Republican party. I am not sure that Beto has an issue of even similar salience nor have I seen much to suggest that he is a particularly profound thinker. He might overcome this is he wins but this looks unlikely.
I could see Beto as a decent VP candidate to Harris. He has a folksy charm and someone from a red state would give some sort of balance to the ticket.
The Iowa and Nevada caucuses and the New Hampshire and South Carolina Democratic primaries will still be in February 2020 and the California primary in March. If a candidate wins most of the February contests they will be hard to beat for the nomination and will have all the momentum
I see the Orange windbag has been opining again on Twitter
One thing is for certain, Hain has damaged Parliamentary Privilege and the law should be changed to stop people like him circumventing the law. Likewise Green should not have been able to put an injunction in either so the law needs changing there too. So far Green has been convicted of nothing. In the Country its innocent until proved guilty, not the other way round. Green is odious but he has his rights too, Hain is just a pompous windbag.
Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.
Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.
Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.
I don't think I've ever seen a Top Shop, let alone shopped in one. Clearly I need to get out more, so that I can find places to boycott.
You are about 50 years above their target market. I used to go there with my kids. The music was incessant and hideous. After a couple of these visits I insisted on online shopping and, tbf, their service was pretty good. The clothes all looked like rags to me but teenagers don’t seem to care about their clothes being properly lined and lasting more than about 3 washes.
Three washes! Thats a couple of years!
You jest, but I understand that expensive £200-£300 plus selvedge jeans should never be washed for that full hipster look. The mind (and nose) boggles.
Ripped jeans were a great idea before designers started choosing how to rip them charging £300-400 for the service. I used to like seeing people with holed jeans covered in plaster wandering through Dolce and Gabbana not knowing whether they were extremely wealthy or there to paint the shop.
I see the Orange windbag has been opining again on Twitter
One thing is for certain, Hain has damaged Parliamentary Privilege and the law should be changed to stop people like him circumventing the law. Likewise Green should not have been able to put an injunction in either so the law needs changing there too. So far Green has been convicted of nothing. In the Country its innocent until proved guilty, not the other way round. Green is odious but he has his rights too, Hain is just a pompous windbag.
Privilege is already supposed to be exercised responsibly. The Lords, IIRC, has the ability to censure its members if they abuse their privilege. Or if they do not, perhaps they should - that way the privilege remains, as it does exist for legislators for a reason, but even if criminal sanction is still avoided those who abuse it are punished if they do. Certainly other privileges not relating to speech have resulted in internal or even criminal punishment despite the privilege existing, from a glance of Erskine the other day.
The arguments over fairness of electoral systems are well-rehearsed, e.g. FPTP versus AV, and each has advantages and disadvantages. But the process by which the system is implemented is vital, and in this the USA is world-leading in showing how it shouldn't be done.
I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not but you can make the argument that the US system is actually working in that the voting systems are a crazy patchwork of different rules and systems run by all kinds of different local people. That means that at any given time it may be quite easy to find breakage *somewhere*, and it may even be practical to exploit it to steal a close election, but it's probably quite hard to steal an election that you've convincingly lost, because you'd have to find a wide range of different holes.
I don’t think it is the individuals pushing this but the Telegraph. Two of them are reported to have supported the injunction.
I do have a problem with the media telling us that they're morally superior to politicians, businesspeople or anyone else. They might be, they might not - it varies. But my experience of the media is that many of them cut corners just as enthusiastically as anyone else in pursuit of a story that might sell papers (in particular they tend to select evidence to suit a story and ignore evidence that doesn't).
Mr. Roger, sounds like an idiot tax voluntarily paid by the foolish wealthy.
Speaking of which, although on a more philanthropic note, in the 17th century there were a couple of entirely voluntary taxes, whereby people were just asked to give something if they wanted to. Contrary to intuition, they actually raised rather a lot of money.
Having one of those a Parliament might not be a bad idea. Doubt it'll happen, of course.
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the nomination as is Warren but another elitist libetal Democratic candidate from coastal states like California or Massachusetts is probably not what the Democrats need to beat Trump in the rustbelt, Biden or Sanders would be better on that score in appealing to blue collar voters, indeed Biden comes from Scranton in the key state of Pennsylvania
I doubt O'Rourke will run either, but if you were engineering a 2020 Democrat candidate in a test tube he would be it. From the south or rustbelt, but progressive enough not to annoy that wing of the party - and crucially from Texas. It's no exaggeration to say that if Texas goes blue the Dems pretty much have a lock on the presidency. A bloke, which sadly matters, but a modern one, and with the obvious looks and charisma. I think the only way he runs is if the big contenders stumble and he gets the tap on the shoulder. Plus, has a great chance of being nominated as Vice President, especially if one of the less dazzling candidates emerges from the Democrat field to win.
I see the Orange windbag has been opining again on Twitter
One thing is for certain, Hain has damaged Parliamentary Privilege and the law should be changed to stop people like him circumventing the law. Likewise Green should not have been able to put an injunction in either so the law needs changing there too. So far Green has been convicted of nothing. In the Country its innocent until proved guilty, not the other way round. Green is odious but he has his rights too, Hain is just a pompous windbag.
He above all people should be aware of the dangers of being falsely accused. Wasn't he accused and prosecuted for stealing from Barclays?
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the nomination as is Warren but another elitist libetal Democratic candidate from coastal states like California or Massachusetts is probably not what the Democrats need to beat Trump in the rustbelt, Biden or Sanders would be better on that score in appealing to blue collar voters, indeed Biden comes from Scranton in the key state of Pennsylvania
I doubt O'Rourke will run either, but if you were engineering a 2020 Democrat candidate in a test tube he would be it. From the south or rustbelt, but progressive enough not to annoy that wing of the party - and crucially from Texas. It's no exaggeration to say that if Texas goes blue the Dems pretty much have a lock on the presidency. A bloke, which sadly matters, but a modern one, and with the obvious looks and charisma. I think the only way he runs is if the big contenders stumble and he gets the tap on the shoulder. Plus, has a great chance of being nominated as Vice President, especially if one of the less dazzling candidates emerges from the Democrat field to win.
What happened to Tim Kane? Any indications he will run?
The arguments over fairness of electoral systems are well-rehearsed, e.g. FPTP versus AV, and each has advantages and disadvantages. But the process by which the system is implemented is vital, and in this the USA is world-leading in showing how it shouldn't be done.
I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not but you can make the argument that the US system is actually working in that the voting systems are a crazy patchwork of different rules and systems run by all kinds of different local people. That means that at any given time it may be quite easy to find breakage *somewhere*, and it may even be practical to exploit it to steal a close election, but it's probably quite hard to steal an election that you've convincingly lost, because you'd have to find a wide range of different holes.
I don't agree with that argument. Too many of the voting processes are open to widescale attack.
To make matters worse, in many cases the attack vectors have been known about for years, and little, if anything, has been done to close them. Any sane country would force closure of such holes, and the fact they don't drives a coach and horses through any confidence someone might have in the entire system.
TL:DR: you cannot have confidence in the American electoral system because the authorities don't care about people having confidence in it.
An interesting poll. Given that the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings in recent years, it rather confirms my view that the party is unlikely to exceed 35% at the next Westminster election. Mildly encouraging for Labour on 26% - though I still expect them to reach circa 30% next time.
The arguments over fairness of electoral systems are well-rehearsed, e.g. FPTP versus AV, and each has advantages and disadvantages. But the process by which the system is implemented is vital, and in this the USA is world-leading in showing how it shouldn't be done.
I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not but you can make the argument that the US system is actually working in that the voting systems are a crazy patchwork of different rules and systems run by all kinds of different local people. That means that at any given time it may be quite easy to find breakage *somewhere*, and it may even be practical to exploit it to steal a close election, but it's probably quite hard to steal an election that you've convincingly lost, because you'd have to find a wide range of different holes.
The thorough gerrymandering of the house would seem to be a counterexample.
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the nomination as is Warren but another elitist libetal Democratic candidate from coastal states like California or Massachusetts is probably not what the Democrats need to beat Trump in the rustbelt, Biden or Sanders would be better on that score in appealing to blue collar voters, indeed Biden comes from Scranton in the key state of Pennsylvania
I doubt O'Rourke will run either, but if you were engineering a 2020 Democrat candidate in a test tube he would be it. From the south or rustbelt, but progressive enough not to annoy that wing of the party - and crucially from Texas. It's no exaggeration to say that if Texas goes blue the Dems pretty much have a lock on the presidency. A bloke, which sadly matters, but a modern one, and with the obvious looks and charisma. I think the only way he runs is if the big contenders stumble and he gets the tap on the shoulder. Plus, has a great chance of being nominated as Vice President, especially if one of the less dazzling candidates emerges from the Democrat field to win.
True but O'Rourke would probably be better placed to run in 2024 which will likely be a Democratic year with a mood for change than in 2020 when the odds will still favour Trump being re elected, if Trump is re elected he of course cannot run again in 2024.
Alternatively as you suggest if an older candidate like Biden or Sanders wins the 2020 nomination they may pledge to only serve one term if they beat Trump, thus if O'Rourke was their VP candidate he would also be ideally placed for a 2024 run
Because prosecutors accepted his claim that this haul of drugs was for “personal use” the judge did not jail him. If he had been taking the drugs to last year’s Bestival event in Dorset for profit he would have got for 4 years jail time. Guido doffs his cap to Ishmael who must have an incredible constitution that would put Keith Richards in his prime to shame. That much ketamine would knock out an elephant, 30 grammes of ecstasy would put a rugby team into rapture for a week and 7 grammes of cocaine is quite some pace for a weekend. Bestival had one drug related death last year...
Seriously, I'd be happy for someone like Osamor not to do prison time but only if they were prepared to tell the authorities who they got the drugs from.
An interesting poll. Given that the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings in recent years, it rather confirms my view that the party is unlikely to exceed 35% at the next Westminster election. Mildly encouraging for Labour on 26% - though I still expect them to reach circa 30% next time.
That poll gives a Unionist majority of 7 at Holyrood in 2021, so even if the SNP led another minority government there could be no indyref2 after that point.
Labour and the Tories both projected to get 29 MSPs and the SNP 52 MSPs
'Beto' O'Rourke? - if he was a Republican he would probably be accused of cultural appropriation! Robert Francis O'Rourke is as Irish in origin as Liam Neeson.
Sorry always a bit sceptical of an overhyped pretty face - reminds me of a young Tony Blair!
There are plenty of other interesting senate races which are on much more of a knife edge - like Missouri, Indiana, Arizona and Nevada for example. Maybe not so many pretty faces or as well funded - but they may have more significance on Tuesday week.
With the early Californian primary I think Harris is the one to beat. On Beto, I am not sure. Lincoln became a national figure because of his long and closely reported debates with Douglas that put him pole position in the nascent Republican party. I am not sure that Beto has an issue of even similar salience nor have I seen much to suggest that he is a particularly profound thinker. He might overcome this is he wins but this looks unlikely.
I could see Beto as a decent VP candidate to Harris. He has a folksy charm and someone from a red state would give some sort of balance to the ticket.
Seward was favourite to in 1860 but had too many people opposed. Lincoln was a more acceptable compromise candidate. A similar dynamic could help O'Rourke.
But in the debates with Douglas Lincoln articulated the position of those opposed to both slavery and secession with a clarity and logic that was absolutely compelling. Beto, not so much.
I see the Orange windbag has been opining again on Twitter
One thing is for certain, Hain has damaged Parliamentary Privilege and the law should be changed to stop people like him circumventing the law. Likewise Green should not have been able to put an injunction in either so the law needs changing there too. So far Green has been convicted of nothing. In the Country its innocent until proved guilty, not the other way round. Green is odious but he has his rights too, Hain is just a pompous windbag.
He above all people should be aware of the dangers of being falsely accused. Wasn't he accused and prosecuted for stealing from Barclays?
Set up by the South African Secret Police, during the apartheid years.
Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.
Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.
Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.
I don't think I've ever seen a Top Shop, let alone shopped in one. Clearly I need to get out more, so that I can find places to boycott.
You are about 50 years above their target market. I used to go there with my kids. The music was incessant and hideous. After a couple of these visits I insisted on online shopping and, tbf, their service was pretty good. The clothes all looked like rags to me but teenagers don’t seem to care about their clothes being properly lined and lasting more than about 3 washes.
Three washes! Thats a couple of years!
I think Top Shop are the downmarket end of teenagers and fast fashion.
Therefore to blame, says Stacey forgettable of BBC3, for draining the Aral Sea. Nothing to do with the broken infrastructure put in 50 years ago that loses all the water.
Had the delight of moving the stuff around a house the other week in procession so that carpet could be laid in each room in sequence, as the floor was briefly exposed.
The 19 year old person of the household had some old Top Shop stuff, but has now gone to University and graduated to Michael Kors handbags and umpteen brands of shoes.They are all poverty-stricken, these students :-) .
She's got taste! I like Michael Kors handbags. Far more important than the cost. Just be thankful she grew out of Top Shop.
I'm sure they suit you really well.
What it does mean, however, is that future arguments about student poverty will attract a serious amount of scepticism. A mortgage will be proposed on the handbag portfolio.
I see the Orange windbag has been opining again on Twitter
One thing is for certain, Hain has damaged Parliamentary Privilege and the law should be changed to stop people like him circumventing the law. Likewise Green should not have been able to put an injunction in either so the law needs changing there too. So far Green has been convicted of nothing. In the Country its innocent until proved guilty, not the other way round. Green is odious but he has his rights too, Hain is just a pompous windbag.
He above all people should be aware of the dangers of being falsely accused. Wasn't he accused and prosecuted for stealing from Barclays?
Set up by the South African Secret Police, during the apartheid years.
The link below seems a reasonable summary. He claimed the SA authorities set him up; was there any other evidence of their culpability?
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the nomination as is Warren but another elitist libetal Democratic candidate from coastal states like California or Massachusetts is probably not what the Democrats need to beat Trump in the rustbelt, Biden or Sanders would be better on that score in appealing to blue collar voters, indeed Biden comes from Scranton in the key state of Pennsylvania
I doubt O'Rourke will run either, but if you were engineering a 2020 Democrat candidate in a test tube he would be it. From the south or rustbelt, but progressive enough not to annoy that wing of the party - and crucially from Texas. It's no exaggeration to say that if Texas goes blue the Dems pretty much have a lock on the presidency. A bloke, which sadly matters, but a modern one, and with the obvious looks and charisma. I think the only way he runs is if the big contenders stumble and he gets the tap on the shoulder. Plus, has a great chance of being nominated as Vice President, especially if one of the less dazzling candidates emerges from the Democrat field to win.
True but O'Rourke would probably be better placed to run in 2024 which will likely be a Democratic year with a mood for change than in 2020 when the odds will still favour Trump being re elected, if Trump is re elected he of course cannot run again in 2024.
Alternatively as you suggest if an older candidate like Biden or Sanders wins the 2020 nomination they may pledge to only serve one term if they beat Trump, thus if O'Rourke was their VP candidate he would also be ideally placed for a 2024 run
Of course if/when Harris runs and wins, such consideration are moot, of course.
And 2028 is probably a more realistic timeframe to pick O’Rourke in order to guarantee Texas for the Democrats.
An interesting poll. Given that the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings in recent years, it rather confirms my view that the party is unlikely to exceed 35% at the next Westminster election. Mildly encouraging for Labour on 26% - though I still expect them to reach circa 30% next time.
That poll gives a Unionist majority of 7 at Holyrood in 2021, so even if the SNP led another minority government there could be no indyref2 after that point.
Labour and the Tories both projected to get 29 MSPs and the SNP 52 MSPs
Indeed so. A Westminster election which sees the SNP on 33% - 35% and Labour on circa 30% would imply substantial Labour gains in Scotland.
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the nomination as is Warren but another elitist libetal Democratic candidate from coastal states like California or Massachusetts is probably not what the Democrats need to beat Trump in the rustbelt, Biden or Sanders would be better on that score in appealing to blue collar voters, indeed Biden comes from Scranton in the key state of Pennsylvania
I doubt O'Rourke will run either, but if you were engineering a 2020 Democrat candidate in a test tube he would be it. From the south or rustbelt, but progressive enough not to annoy that wing of the party - and crucially from Texas. It's no exaggeration to say that if Texas goes blue the Dems pretty much have a lock on the presidency. A bloke, which sadly matters, but a modern one, and with the obvious looks and charisma. I think the only way he runs is if the big contenders stumble and he gets the tap on the shoulder. Plus, has a great chance of being nominated as Vice President, especially if one of the less dazzling candidates emerges from the Democrat field to win.
True but O'Rourke would probably be better placed to run in 2024 which will likely be a Democratic year with a mood for change than in 2020 when the odds will still favour Trump being re elected, if Trump is re elected he of course cannot run again in 2024.
Alternatively as you suggest if an older candidate like Biden or Sanders wins the 2020 nomination they may pledge to only serve one term if they beat Trump, thus if O'Rourke was their VP candidate he would also be ideally placed for a 2024 run
Of course if/when Harris runs and wins, such consideration are moot, of course.
And 2028 is probably a more realistic timeframe to pick O’Rourke in order to guarantee Texas for the Democrats.
A more plausible theory is if he puts up a very strong showing he might be picked as a running mate.
Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.
Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.
Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.
I don't think I've ever seen a Top Shop, let alone shopped in one. Clearly I need to get out more, so that I can find places to boycott.
You are about 50 years above their target market. I used to go there with my kids. The music was incessant and hideous. After a couple of these visits I insisted on online shopping and, tbf, their service was pretty good. The clothes all looked like rags to me but teenagers don’t seem to care about their clothes being properly lined and lasting more than about 3 washes.
Three washes! Thats a couple of years!
I think Top Shop are the downmarket end of teenagers and fast fashion.
Therefore to blame, says Stacey forgettable of BBC3, for draining the Aral Sea. Nothing to do with the broken infrastructure put in 50 years ago that loses all the water.
Had the delight of moving the stuff around a house the other week in procession so that carpet could be laid in each room in sequence, as the floor was briefly exposed.
The 19 year old person of the household had some old Top Shop stuff, but has now gone to University and graduated to Michael Kors handbags and umpteen brands of shoes.They are all poverty-stricken, these students :-) .
All about the likes of boohoo these days. TBH, even before all this boycott nonsense, surprised topshop isn’t in the same sort of trouble as lots of the other well known high street staples.
I still struggling with this story in that the tales of green and his behaviour have been widely reported before both in the newspapers and in a book. Green didn’t (manage) to get the Times or the book gagged.
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the nomination as is Warren but another elitist libetal Democratic candidate from coastal states like California or Massachusetts is probably not what the Democrats need to beat Trump in the rustbelt, Biden or Sanders would be better on that score in appealing to blue collar voters, indeed Biden comes from Scranton in the key state of Pennsylvania
I doubt O'Rourke will run either, but if you were engineering a 2020 Democrat candidate in a test tube he would be it. From the south or rustbelt, but progressive enough not to annoy that wing of the party - and crucially from Texas. It's no exaggeration to say that if Texas goes blue the Dems pretty much have a lock on the presidency. A bloke, which sadly matters, but a modern one, and with the obvious looks and charisma. I think the only way he runs is if the big contenders stumble and he gets the tap on the shoulder. Plus, has a great chance of being nominated as Vice President, especially if one of the less dazzling candidates emerges from the Democrat field to win.
True but O'Rourke would probably be better placed to run in 2024 which will likely be a Democratic year with a mood for change than in 2020 when the odds will still favour Trump being re elected, if Trump is re elected he of course cannot run again in 2024.
Alternatively as you suggest if an older candidate like Biden or Sanders wins the 2020 nomination they may pledge to only serve one term if they beat Trump, thus if O'Rourke was their VP candidate he would also be ideally placed for a 2024 run
Of course if/when Harris runs and wins, such consideration are moot, of course.
And 2028 is probably a more realistic timeframe to pick O’Rourke in order to guarantee Texas for the Democrats.
A more plausible theory is if he puts up a very strong showing he might be picked as a running mate.
It’s certainly possible, but I seriously doubt that Texas is deliverable this cycle, and other considerations are likely to be more important.
I see the Orange windbag has been opining again on Twitter
One thing is for certain, Hain has damaged Parliamentary Privilege and the law should be changed to stop people like him circumventing the law. Likewise Green should not have been able to put an injunction in either so the law needs changing there too. So far Green has been convicted of nothing. In the Country its innocent until proved guilty, not the other way round. Green is odious but he has his rights too, Hain is just a pompous windbag.
Once the Telegraph let the cat out of the bag by saying that a top business man had got an injunction, then it was only a matter of time before the name was disclosed. My previous gag about the London black cab drivers knowing the name already was only half in jest, while the name was probably already being shared round the watering holes of "Fleet Street" and Westminster. There was a good betting chance on who was going to break the news first and when...
It’s an interesting article, but I think it highly unlikely that O’Rourke will even run. His own declarations that he won’t run were noticeably lacking in the wiggle room politicians normally allow themselves. And he has no national apparatus, unlike all the front runners. He’s also young, and smart, and must figure his chances much better in 2024 or 2028 - by which time Texas might well vote for a home state Democratic candidate. Which would make him virtually unstoppable. An outside chance as VP pick, I guess.
As for laying the front runners, I’d be hesitant, particularly in Harris’ case (there were some on her saying lay her when she was recently 7/1 for the nomination....). Unless she self-destructs (a possibility for any candidate), the pattern of early primaries make her a formidable candidate. Cory Booker is probably her direct competitor. I’d dismissed him until recently, but this is quite a smart populist policy without glaring flaws: https://slate.com/business/2018/10/cory-booker-economic-plan-baby-bonds-reparations.html
Sanders is too old. Biden possibly as well (and though I think he would actually have made a fine president, undeniably prone to campaign missteps) - still has an outside shot, though. Warren, I’m not sure. I think she still has an outside shot too - and undoubted appeal to the progressive wing of the party - but has clear vulnerabilities in a fight with Trump.
Indeed, 2024 could see both Congressman Joseph P Kennedy III and Congressman Beta O'Rourke...
I think it will need to be Alpha O’Rourke before he’s a real contender....
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the nomination as is Warren but another elitist libetal Democratic candidate from coastal states like California or Massachusetts is probably not what the Democrats need to beat Trump in the rustbelt, Biden or Sanders would be better on that score in appealing to blue collar voters, indeed Biden comes from Scranton in the key state of Pennsylvania
I doubt O'Rourke will run either, but if you were engineering a 2020 Democrat candidate in a test tube he would be it. From the south or rustbelt, but progressive enough not to annoy that wing of the party - and crucially from Texas. It's no exaggeration to say that if Texas goes blue the Dems pretty much have a lock on the presidency. A bloke, which sadly matters, but a modern one, and with the obvious looks and charisma. I think the only way he runs is if the big contenders stumble and he gets the tap on the shoulder. Plus, has a great chance of being nominated as Vice President, especially if one of the less dazzling candidates emerges from the Democrat field to win.
True but O'Rourke would probably be better placed to run in 2024 which will likely be a Democratic year with a mood for change than in 2020 when the odds will still favour Trump being re elected, if Trump is re elected he of course cannot run again in 2024.
Alternatively as you suggest if an older candidate like Biden or Sanders wins the 2020 nomination they may pledge to only serve one term if they beat Trump, thus if O'Rourke was their VP candidate he would also be ideally placed for a 2024 run
Of course if/when Harris runs and wins, such consideration are moot, of course.
And 2028 is probably a more realistic timeframe to pick O’Rourke in order to guarantee Texas for the Democrats.
A more plausible theory is if he puts up a very strong showing he might be picked as a running mate.
It’s certainly possible, but I seriously doubt that Texas is deliverable this cycle, and other considerations are likely to be more important.
I agree about Texas but the Dems need a clean sweep of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada and I suspect he could help there. Possibly in Florida as well.
'Beto' O'Rourke? - if he was a Republican he would probably be accused of cultural appropriation! Robert Francis O'Rourke is as Irish in origin as Liam Neeson.
Sorry always a bit sceptical of an overhyped pretty face - reminds me of a young Tony Blair! ....
To be fair to him, his rise to prominence is down to his own considerably energetic efforts, and the funding has followed that, rather than enabling it. I think the reason he’s popular with Democrats is that he hasn’t run the kind of cringing centrist campaign that red state candidates usually do, and has been more competitive than previous candidates in Texas because of that.
It’s an interesting article, but I think it highly unlikely that O’Rourke will even run. His own declarations that he won’t run were noticeably lacking in the wiggle room politicians normally allow themselves. And he has no national apparatus, unlike all the front runners. He’s also young, and smart, and must figure his chances much better in 2024 or 2028 - by which time Texas might well vote for a home state Democratic candidate. Which would make him virtually unstoppable. An outside chance as VP pick, I guess.
As for laying the front runners, I’d be hesitant, particularly in Harris’ case (there were some on her saying lay her when she was recently 7/1 for the nomination....). Unless she self-destructs (a possibility for any candidate), the pattern of early primaries make her a formidable candidate. Cory Booker is probably her direct competitor. I’d dismissed him until recently, but this is quite a smart populist policy without glaring flaws: https://slate.com/business/2018/10/cory-booker-economic-plan-baby-bonds-reparations.html
Sanders is too old. Biden possibly as well (and though I think he would actually have made a fine president, undeniably prone to campaign missteps) - still has an outside shot, though. Warren, I’m not sure. I think she still has an outside shot too - and undoubted appeal to the progressive wing of the party - but has clear vulnerabilities in a fight with Trump.
Indeed, 2024 could see both Congressman Joseph P Kennedy III and Congressman Beta O'Rourke...
I think it will need to be Alpha O’Rourke before he’s a real contender....
I suspect Trump has beaten you to the punchline on that
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the nomination as is Warren but another elitist libetal Democratic candidate from coastal states like California or Massachusetts is probably not what the Democrats need to beat Trump in the rustbelt, Biden or Sanders would be better on that score in appealing to blue collar voters, indeed Biden comes from Scranton in the key state of Pennsylvania
I doubt O'Rourke will run either, but if you were engineering a 2020 Democrat candidate in a test tube he would be it. From the south or rustbelt, but progressive enough not to annoy that wing of the party - and crucially from Texas. It's no exaggeration to say that if Texas goes blue the Dems pretty much have a lock on the presidency. A bloke, which sadly matters, but a modern one, and with the obvious looks and charisma. I think the only way he runs is if the big contenders stumble and he gets the tap on the shoulder. Plus, has a great chance of being nominated as Vice President, especially if one of the less dazzling candidates emerges from the Democrat field to win.
True but O'Rourke would probably be better placed to run in 2024 which will likely be a Democratic year with a mood for change than in 2020 when the odds will still favour Trump being re elected, if Trump is re elected he of course cannot run again in 2024.
Alternatively as you suggest if an older candidate like Biden or Sanders wins the 2020 nomination they may pledge to only serve one term if they beat Trump, thus if O'Rourke was their VP candidate he would also be ideally placed for a 2024 run
Of course if/when Harris runs and wins, such consideration are moot, of course.
And 2028 is probably a more realistic timeframe to pick O’Rourke in order to guarantee Texas for the Democrats.
A more plausible theory is if he puts up a very strong showing he might be picked as a running mate.
It’s certainly possible, but I seriously doubt that Texas is deliverable this cycle, and other considerations are likely to be more important.
I agree about Texas but the Dems need a clean sweep of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada and I suspect he could help there. Possibly in Florida as well.
Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are rather more important than that list ....
It’s an interesting article, but I think it highly unlikely that O’Rourke will even run. His own declarations that he won’t run were noticeably lacking in the wiggle room politicians normally allow themselves. And he has no national apparatus, unlike all the front runners. He’s also young, and smart, and must figure his chances much better in 2024 or 2028 - by which time Texas might well vote for a home state Democratic candidate. Which would make him virtually unstoppable. An outside chance as VP pick, I guess.
As for laying the front runners, I’d be hesitant, particularly in Harris’ case (there were some on her saying lay her when she was recently 7/1 for the nomination....). Unless she self-destructs (a possibility for any candidate), the pattern of early primaries make her a formidable candidate. Cory Booker is probably her direct competitor. I’d dismissed him until recently, but this is quite a smart populist policy without glaring flaws: https://slate.com/business/2018/10/cory-booker-economic-plan-baby-bonds-reparations.html
Sanders is too old. Biden possibly as well (and though I think he would actually have made a fine president, undeniably prone to campaign missteps) - still has an outside shot, though. Warren, I’m not sure. I think she still has an outside shot too - and undoubted appeal to the progressive wing of the party - but has clear vulnerabilities in a fight with Trump.
Indeed, 2024 could see both Congressman Joseph P Kennedy III and Congressman Beta O'Rourke...
I think it will need to be Alpha O’Rourke before he’s a real contender....
I suspect Trump has beaten you to the punchline on that
It’s an interesting article, but I think it highly unlikely that O’Rourke will even run. His own declarations that he won’t run were noticeably lacking in the wiggle room politicians normally allow themselves. And he has no national apparatus, unlike all the front runners. He’s also young, and smart, and must figure his chances much better in 2024 or 2028 - by which time Texas might well vote for a home state Democratic candidate. Which would make him virtually unstoppable. An outside chance as VP pick, I guess.
As for laying the front runners, I’d be hesitant, particularly in Harris’ case (there were some on her saying lay her when she was recently 7/1 for the nomination....). Unless she self-destructs (a possibility for any candidate), the pattern of early primaries make her a formidable candidate. Cory Booker is probably her direct competitor. I’d dismissed him until recently, but this is quite a smart populist policy without glaring flaws: https://slate.com/business/2018/10/cory-booker-economic-plan-baby-bonds-reparations.html
Sanders is too old. Biden possibly as well (and though I think he would actually have made a fine president, undeniably prone to campaign missteps) - still has an outside shot, though. Warren, I’m not sure. I think she still has an outside shot too - and undoubted appeal to the progressive wing of the party - but has clear vulnerabilities in a fight with Trump.
Indeed, 2024 could see both Congressman Joseph P Kennedy III and Congressman Beta O'Rourke...
I think it will need to be Alpha O’Rourke before he’s a real contender....
I suspect Trump has beaten you to the punchline on that
Another ordinary performance so far from England. Not reviewing an LBW which wasn't and now a really stupid run out. On the positive side there should be some overs for Denly after all.
I think that was what the sagacious Richard Nabavi was saying the other day. Back to the drawing board then.
As I said to @HYUFD the other day. Who came back with some newspaper articles from 2017 or some such garbage.
I do not support such a temporary EEA arrangement as it still does not solve the Irish backstop which Barnier has said requires NI stays in both the single market AND customs union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border and without the backstop there can be no Withdrawal Agreement and move to FTA talks and nor will the EU allow the UK into the EFTA pillar of the EEA.
Though EEA may eventually be an option if a technical solution is found to the Irish border
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the nomination as is Warren but another elitist libetal Democratic candidate from coastal states like California or Massachusetts is probably not what the Democrats need to beat Trump in the rustbelt, Biden or Sanders would be better on that score in appealing to blue collar voters, indeed Biden comes from Scranton in the key state of Pennsylvania
I doubt O'Rourke will run either, but if you were engineering a 2020 Democrat candidate in a test tube he would be it. From the south or rustbelt, but progressive enough not to annoy that wing of the party - and crucially from Texas. It's no exaggeration to say that if Texas goes blue the Dems pretty much have a lock on the presidency. A bloke, which sadly matters, but a modern one, and with the obvious looks and charisma. I think the only way he runs is if the big contenders stumble and he gets the tap on the shoulder. Plus, has a great chance of being nominated as Vice President, especially if one of the less dazzling candidates emerges from the Democrat field to win.
True but O'Rourke would probably be better placed to run in 2024 which will likely be a Democratic year with a mood for change than in 2020 when the odds will still favour Trump being re elected, if Trump is re elected he of course cannot run again in 2024.
Alternatively as you suggest if an older candidate like Biden or Sanders wins the 2020 nomination they may pledge to only serve one term if they beat Trump, thus if O'Rourke was their VP candidate he would also be ideally placed for a 2024 run
Of course if/when Harris runs and wins, such consideration are moot, of course.
And 2028 is probably a more realistic timeframe to pick O’Rourke in order to guarantee Texas for the Democrats.
That assumes Harris not only runs in 2020 but wins the Democratic nomination and beats Trump in the general election, even if she does the former I think the latter unlikely, as a liberal California Senator I fail to see how Harris is going to beat Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania which she will have to do to win the Electoral College.
By 2028 O'Rourke might well be President or Democratic nominee himself (though Joseph P Kennedy III might also his fancies by then as well)
An interesting poll. Given that the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings in recent years, it rather confirms my view that the party is unlikely to exceed 35% at the next Westminster election. Mildly encouraging for Labour on 26% - though I still expect them to reach circa 30% next time.
That poll gives a Unionist majority of 7 at Holyrood in 2021, so even if the SNP led another minority government there could be no indyref2 after that point.
Labour and the Tories both projected to get 29 MSPs and the SNP 52 MSPs
Indeed so. A Westminster election which sees the SNP on 33% - 35% and Labour on circa 30% would imply substantial Labour gains in Scotland.
Though even then Corbyn would still likely need SNP confidence and supply to become PM as the SNP would still have most seats in Scotland
I think that was what the sagacious Richard Nabavi was saying the other day. Back to the drawing board then.
As I said to @HYUFD the other day. Who came back with some newspaper articles from 2017 or some such garbage.
I do not support such a temporary EEA arrangement as it still does not solve the Irish backstop which Barnier has said requires NI stays in both the single market AND customs union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border and without the backstop there can be no Withdrawal Agreement and move to FTA talks and nor will the EU allow the UK into the EFTA pillar of the EEA.
Though EEA may eventually be an option if a technical solution is found to the Irish border
If we agreed to stay in the single market a magical solution will appear, have no doubt about that. NI is as difficult to solve as is required by the EU negotiation team.
I think that was what the sagacious Richard Nabavi was saying the other day. Back to the drawing board then.
As I said to @HYUFD the other day. Who came back with some newspaper articles from 2017 or some such garbage.
I do not support such a temporary EEA arrangement as it still does not solve the Irish backstop which Barnier has said requires NI stays in both the single market AND customs union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border and without the backstop there can be no Withdrawal Agreement and move to FTA talks and nor will the EU allow the UK into the EFTA pillar of the EEA.
Though EEA may eventually be an option if a technical solution is found to the Irish border
Barnier has said it but that doesn't make it so, Barnier is not God.
There is no "technical solution" unless both sides make it work. Hence why the last Taoiseach was working on it and the backstop wasn't part of the opening gambit by the EU. It was only when the last Taoiseach was replaced by the hardline Varadkar that work on a technical solution got stopped and the backstop was introduced.
This is purely politics, no more and no less. If it becomes politically expedient for Ireland and the EU to want a technical solution then one would be found. It is as simple as that.
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the
I doubt O'Rourke will run either, but if you were engineering a 2020 Democrat candidate in a test tube he would be it. From the south or rustbelt, but progressive enough not to annoy that wing of the party - and crucially from Texas. It's no exaggeration to say that if Texas goes blue the Dems pretty much have a lock on the presidency. A bloke, which sadly matters, but a modern one, and with the obvious looks and charisma. I think the only way he runs is if the big contenders stumble and he gets the tap on the shoulder. Plus, has a great chance of being nominated as Vice President, especially if one of the less dazzling candidates emerges from the Democrat field to win.
True but O'Rourke would probably be better placed to run in 2024 which will likely be a Democratic year with a mood for change than in 2020 when the odds will still favour Trump being re elected, if Trump is re elected he of course cannot run again in 2024.
Alternatively as you suggest if an older candidate like Biden or Sanders wins the 2020 nomination they may pledge to only serve one term if they beat Trump, thus if O'Rourke was their VP candidate he would also be ideally placed for a 2024 run
Of course if/when Harris runs and wins, such consideration are moot, of course.
And 2028 is probably a more realistic timeframe to pick O’Rourke in order to guarantee Texas for the Democrats.
That assumes Harris not only runs in 2020 but wins the Democratic nomination and beats Trump in the general election, even if she does the former I think the latter unlikely, as a liberal California Senator I fail to see how Harris is going to beat Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania which she will have to do to win the Electoral College.
By 2028 O'Rourke might well be President or Democratic nominee himself (though Joseph P Kennedy III might also his fancies by then as well)
Harris was in Iowa last week. A strange place for a Californian Senator, unless she has presidential aspirations. I think she is nailed on to run, and should be favourite for the nomination. She would be great against Trump in the debates.
I like her style, and I think that the homestate issue is overcooked. Trump is a New York huckster who cared nothing about the Rustbelt or Deep South until he won there.
An interesting poll. Given that the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings in recent years, it rather confirms my view that the party is unlikely to exceed 35% at the next Westminster election. Mildly encouraging for Labour on 26% - though I still expect them to reach circa 30% next time.
That poll gives a Unionist majority of 7 at Holyrood in 2021, so even if the SNP led another minority government there could be no indyref2 after that point.
Labour and the Tories both projected to get 29 MSPs and the SNP 52 MSPs
Indeed so. A Westminster election which sees the SNP on 33% - 35% and Labour on circa 30% would imply substantial Labour gains in Scotland.
Though even then Corbyn would still likely need SNP confidence and supply to become PM as the SNP would still have most seats in Scotland
I agree that Labour would need SNP confidence & supply though it is far from clear that the SNP would remain the largest party in terms of Westminster seats. With a 3% lead in vote share the SNP could lose 15 seats to Labour giving the latter circa 22 seats with the SNP at a similar level.
I think that was what the sagacious Richard Nabavi was saying the other day. Back to the drawing board then.
As I said to @HYUFD the other day. Who came back with some newspaper articles from 2017 or some such garbage.
I do not support such a temporary EEA arrangement as it still does not solve the Irish backstop which Barnier has said requires NI stays in both the single market AND customs union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border and without the backstop there can be no Withdrawal Agreement and move to FTA talks and nor will the EU allow the UK into the EFTA pillar of the EEA.
Though EEA may eventually be an option if a technical solution is found to the Irish border
If we agreed to stay in the single market a magical solution will appear, have no doubt about that. NI is as difficult to solve as is required by the EU negotiation team.
Not without the customs union for NI too, Barnier has been quite clear on that
I think that was what the sagacious Richard Nabavi was saying the other day. Back to the drawing board then.
As I said to @HYUFD the other day. Who came back with some newspaper articles from 2017 or some such garbage.
I do not support such a temporary EEA arrangement as it still does not solve the Irish backstop which Barnier has said requires NI stays in both the single market AND customs union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border and without the backstop there can be no Withdrawal Agreement and move to FTA talks and nor will the EU allow the UK into the EFTA pillar of the EEA.
Though EEA may eventually be an option if a technical solution is found to the Irish border
Barnier has said it but that doesn't make it so, Barnier is not God.
There is no "technical solution" unless both sides make it work. Hence why the last Taoiseach was working on it and the backstop wasn't part of the opening gambit by the EU. It was only when the last Taoiseach was replaced by the hardline Varadkar that work on a technical solution got stopped and the backstop was introduced.
This is purely politics, no more and no less. If it becomes politically expedient for Ireland and the EU to want a technical solution then one would be found. It is as simple as that.
In terms of the EU negotiations he effectively is and the European Parliament is also clear it will not pass the Withdrawal Agreement without an agreed backstop.
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the
I doubt O'Rourke will run either, but if you were engineering a 2020 Democrat candidate in a test tube he would be it. From the south or rustbelt, but progressive enough not to annoy that wing of the party - and crucially from Texas. It's no exaggeration to say that if Texas goes blue the Dems pretty much have a lock on the presidency. A bloke, which sadly matters, but a modern one, and with the obvious looks and charisma. I think the only way he runs is if the big contenders stumble and he gets the tap on the shoulder. Plus, has a great chance of being nominated as Vice President, especially if one of the less dazzling candidates emerges from the Democrat field to win.
True but O'Rourke would probably be better placed to run in 2024 which will likely be a Democratic year with a mood for change than in 2020 when the odds will still favour Trump being re elected, if Trump is re elected he of course cannot run again in 2024.
Alternatively as you suggest if an older candidate like Biden or Sanders wins the 2020 nomination they may pledge to only serve one term if they beat Trump, thus if O'Rourke was their VP candidate he would also be ideally placed for a 2024 run
Of course if/when Harris runs and wins, such consideration are moot, of course.
And 2028 is probably a more realistic timeframe to pick O’Rourke in order to guarantee Texas for the Democrats.
That assumes Harris not only runs in hen as well)
Harris was in Iowa last week. A strange place for a Californian Senator, unless she has presidential aspirations. I think she is nailed on to run, and should be favourite for the nomination. She would be great against Trump in the debates.
I like her style, and I think that the homestate issue is overcooked. Trump is a New York huckster who cared nothing about the Rustbelt or Deep South until he won there.
Trump connected with bluecollar workers though from his days on New York building sites, Harris is culturally Hillary 2 just even more liberal.
Of the other main contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination Biden or Sanders would be far better fits for the rustbelt than Harris or indeed Warren
I think that was what the sagacious Richard Nabavi was saying the other day. Back to the drawing board then.
As I said to @HYUFD the other day. Who came back with some newspaper articles from 2017 or some such garbage.
I do not support such a temporary EEA arrangement as it still does not solve the Irish backstop which Barnier has said requires NI stays in both the single market AND customs union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border and without the backstop there can be no Withdrawal Agreement and move to FTA talks and nor will the EU allow the UK into the EFTA pillar of the EEA.
Though EEA may eventually be an option if a technical solution is found to the Irish border
If we agreed to stay in the single market a magical solution will appear, have no doubt about that. NI is as difficult to solve as is required by the EU negotiation team.
Not without the customs union for NI too, Barnier has been quite clear on that
He is not a god. The UK staying in the Single Market is the EU's pound of flesh. If May offers that and it gets thrown in her face. It becomes a case of "bring it on" with a no deal, and the calamity that brings, for both sides, though more for us.
In these circumstance we will leave, but not as friends and allies. There will be no future within any kind of european project.
An interesting poll. Given that the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings in recent years, it rather confirms my view that the party is unlikely to exceed 35% at the next Westminster election. Mildly encouraging for Labour on 26% - though I still expect them to reach circa 30% next time.
That poll gives a Unionist majority of 7 at Holyrood in 2021, so even if the SNP led another minority government there could be no indyref2 after that point.
Labour and the Tories both projected to get 29 MSPs and the SNP 52 MSPs
Indeed so. A Westminster election which sees the SNP on 33% - 35% and Labour on circa 30% would imply substantial Labour gains in Scotland.
Though even then Corbyn would still likely need SNP confidence and supply to become PM as the SNP would still have most seats in Scotland
I agree that Labour would need SNP confidence & supply though it is far from clear that the SNP would remain the largest party in terms of Westminster seats. With a 3% lead in vote share the SNP could lose 15 seats to Labour giving the latter circa 22 seats with the SNP at a similar level.
Regardless that makes little difference to the arithmetic even if Labour scraped most seats in Scotland he will have to negotiate with Ian Blackford, the SNP's Westminster leader, if he wants to become PM
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the
I doubt O'Rourke will run either, but if you were engineering a 2020 Democrat candidate in a test tube he would be it. From the south or rustbelt, but progressive enough not to annoy that wing of the party - and crucially from Texas. It's no exaggeration to say that if Texas goes blue the Dems pretty much have a lock on the presidency. A bloke, which sadly matters, but a modern one, and with the obvious looks and charisma. I think the only way he runs is if the big contenders stumble and he gets the tap on the shoulder. Plus, has a great chance of being nominated as Vice President, especially if one of the less dazzling candidates emerges from the Democrat field to win.
True but O'Rourke would probably be better placed to run in 2024 which will likely be a Democratic year with a mood for change than in 2020 when the odds will still favour Trump being re elected, if Trump is re elected he of course cannot run again in 2024.
Alternatively as you suggest if an older candidate like Biden or Sanders wins the 2020 nomination they may pledge to only serve one term if they beat Trump, thus if O'Rourke was their VP candidate he would also be ideally placed for a 2024 run
Of course if/when Harris runs and wins, such consideration are moot, of course.
And 2028 is probably a more realistic timeframe to pick O’Rourke in order to guarantee Texas for the Democrats.
That assumes Harris not only runs in hen as well)
Harris was in Iowa last week. A strange place for a Californian Senator, unless she has presidential aspirations. I think she is nailed on to run, and should be favourite for the nomination. She would be great against Trump in the debates.
I like her style, and I think that the homestate issue is overcooked. Trump is a New York huckster who cared nothing about the Rustbelt or Deep South until he won there.
Trump connected with bluecollar workers though from his days on New York building sites, Harris is culturally Hillary 2 just even more liberal.
Of the other main contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination Biden or Sanders would be far better fits for the rustbelt than Harris or indeed Warren
Neither Biden nor Sanders will run. They are too old.
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the
I doubt O'Rourke will run either, but if you were engineering a 2020 Democrat candidate in a test tube he would be it. From the south or rustbelt, but progressive enough not to annoy that wing of the party - and crucially from Texas. It's no exaggeration to say that if Texas goes blue the Dems pretty much have a lock on the presidency. A bloke, which sadly matters, but a modern one, and with the obvious looks and charisma. I think the only way he runs is if the big contenders stumble and he gets the tap on the shoulder. Plus, has a great chance of being nominated as Vice President, especially if one of the less dazzling candidates emerges from the Democrat field to win.
True but O'Rourke would probably be better placed to run in 2024 which will likely be a Democratic year with a mood for change than in 2020 when the odds will still favour Trump being re elected, if Trump is re elected he of course cannot run again in 2024.
Alternatively as you suggest if an older candidate like Biden or Sanders wins the 2020 nomination they may pledge to only serve one term if they beat Trump, thus if O'Rourke was their VP candidate he would also be ideally placed for a 2024 run
Of course if/when Harris runs and wins, such consideration are moot, of course.
And 2028 is probably a more realistic timeframe to pick O’Rourke in order to guarantee Texas for the Democrats.
That assumes Harris not only runs in hen as well)
Harris was in Iowa lnothing about the Rustbelt or Deep South until he won there.
Trump connected with bluecollar workers though from his days on New York building sites, Harris is culturally Hillary 2 just even more liberal.
Of the other main contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination Biden or Sanders would be far better fits for the rustbelt than Harris or indeed Warren
Neither Biden nor Sanders will run. They are too old.
Both look likely to run but if they don't and Warren or Harris end up with the Democratic nomination I would then expect Trump to be re elected as neither Warren or Harris would be able to beat Trump in the rustbelt swing states
An interesting poll. Given that the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings in recent years, it rather confirms my view that the party is unlikely to exceed 35% at the next Westminster election. Mildly encouraging for Labour on 26% - though I still expect them to reach circa 30% next time.
That poll gives a Unionist majority of 7 at Holyrood in 2021, so even if the SNP led another minority government there could be no indyref2 after that point.
Labour and the Tories both projected to get 29 MSPs and the SNP 52 MSPs
Indeed so. A Westminster election which sees the SNP on 33% - 35% and Labour on circa 30% would imply substantial Labour gains in Scotland.
Though even then Corbyn would still likely need SNP confidence and supply to become PM as the SNP would still have most seats in Scotland
I agree that Labour would need SNP confidence & supply though it is far from clear that the SNP would remain the largest party in terms of Westminster seats. With a 3% lead in vote share the SNP could lose 15 seats to Labour giving the latter circa 22 seats with the SNP at a similar level.
Regardless that makes little difference to the arithmetic even if Labour scraped most seats in Scotland he will have to negotiate with Ian Blackford, the SNP's Westminster leader, if he wants to become PM
I don't disagree re-the arithmetic but would not expect negotiation with the SNP. Labour would simply defy them to bring its minority Government down.
People seem obsessed with chlorinated chicken. Surely it would be (if sold over here) labelled as such and if it impacted the taste, once again it wouldnt sell.
There's one thing about America, they are fussy about their meat. A weird amalgamation of people with totally different aims, some dont like americans, some dont like anybody eating any kind of meat and some want to sell us the meat without competition from somewhere that manages to grow it for a lower cost.
An interesting poll. Given that the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings in recent years, it rather confirms my view that the party is unlikely to exceed 35% at the next Westminster election. Mildly encouraging for Labour on 26% - though I still expect them to reach circa 30% next time.
That poll gives a Unionist majority of 7 at Holyrood in 2021, so even if the SNP led another minority government there could be no indyref2 after that point.
Labour and the Tories both projected to get 29 MSPs and the SNP 52 MSPs
Indeed so. A Westminster election which sees the SNP on 33% - 35% and Labour on circa 30% would imply substantial Labour gains in Scotland.
Though even then Corbyn would still likely need SNP confidence and supply to become PM as the SNP would still have most seats in Scotland
I agree that Labour would need SNP confidence & supply though it is far from clear that the SNP would remain the largest party in terms of Westminster seats. With a 3% lead in vote share the SNP could lose 15 seats to Labour giving the latter circa 22 seats with the SNP at a similar level.
Regardless that makes little difference to the arithmetic even if Labour scraped most seats in Scotland he will have to negotiate with Ian Blackford, the SNP's Westminster leader, if he wants to become PM
I don't disagree re-the arithmetic but would not expect negotiation with the SNP. Labour would simply defy them to bring its minority Government down.
Which it is not impossible they would not do without significant concessions to Scotland, in any case Corbyn would need support from both the SNP and probably the LDs too to get any legislation passed through the Commons on current polls
A narrow O'Rourke loss will put him in contention for a future run for Texas Governor or another Senate race but he needs to win to really be in contention for the presidency in 2020. After all even Sanders was a Senator when he challenged Hillary in 2016.
Harris is a contender for the
I doubt O'Rourke will run either, but if you were engineering a 2020 Democrat candidate in a test tube he would be it. From the south or rustbelt, but progressive enough not to annoy that wing of the party - and crucially from Texas. It's no exaggeration to say that if Texas goes blue the Dems pretty much have a lock on the presidency. A bloke, which sadly matters, but a modern one, and with the obvious looks and charisma. I think the only way he runs is if the big contenders stumble and he gets the tap on the shoulder. Plus, has a great chance of being nominated as Vice President, especially if one of the less dazzling candidates emerges from the Democrat field to win.
True but O'Rourke would probably be better placed to run in 2024 which will likely be a Democratic year with a mood for change than in 2020 when the odds will still favour Trump being re elected, if Trump is re elected he of course cannot run again in 2024.
Alternatively as you suggest if an older candidate like Biden or Sanders wins the 2020 nomination they may pledge to only serve one term if they beat Trump, thus if O'Rourke was their VP candidate he would also be ideally placed for a 2024 run
Of course if/when Harris runs and wins, such consideration are moot, of course.
And 2028 is probably a more realistic timeframe to pick O’Rourke in order to guarantee Texas for the Democrats.
That assumes Harris not only runs in hen as well)
Harris was in Iowa lnothing about the Rustbelt or Deep South until he won there.
Trump connected with bluecollar workers though from his days on New York building sites, Harris is culturally Hillary 2 just even more liberal.
Of the other main contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination Biden or Sanders would be far better fits for the rustbelt than Harris or indeed Warren
Neither Biden nor Sanders will run. They are too old.
Both look likely to run but if they don't and Warren or Harris end up with the Democratic nomination I would then expect Trump to be re elected as neither Warren or Harris would be able to beat Trump in the rustbelt swing states
That headline makes no sense when you listen to the words he says. He is no way calling for violence like it claims.
No but it is nonsensical nonetheless. There is no majority in the Democrat Party of the kind of action supported by Antifa - there's no parallel with Momentum and Labour.
Yes, Democrat majorities in the House AND Senate might seek to redress some of the Trump legislation from 2017-18 but Trump has a veto he can use.
So, yes, the CNN interpretation is misleading but the original comments are deliberately skewed at motivating the evangelical voter base and are also nonsensical and misleading.
We just popped out to the shops and noticed a cop car parked by the local synagogue, guess that’s why, just in case there’s some other crazies about. Awful.
People seem obsessed with chlorinated chicken. Surely it would be (if sold over here) labelled as such and if it impacted the taste, once again it wouldnt sell.
There's one thing about America, they are fussy about their meat. A weird amalgamation of people with totally different aims, some dont like americans, some dont like anybody eating any kind of meat and some want to sell us the meat without competition from somewhere that manages to grow it for a lower cost.
We've discussed this before, but you may not have seen it. There is nothing especially worrying about the chlorine. What is worrying is the conditions which the chlorine tries to address - intense stocking densities, to the point that infection is rife, so they address it by heavy doses of antibiotics and chlorine. There isn't any dispute that the welfare of the animals is much worse; there are also health risks and environmental impacts from the overcrowding.
Which is not to say that all meat from everywhere else is wonderful, of course. But it's systematically worse in some of the US (some companies ae trying to do better, with some success, but the near-absence of relevant federal regulation makes it unreliable).
People seem obsessed with chlorinated chicken. Surely it would be (if sold over here) labelled as such and if it impacted the taste, once again it wouldnt sell.
There's one thing about America, they are fussy about their meat. A weird amalgamation of people with totally different aims, some dont like americans, some dont like anybody eating any kind of meat and some want to sell us the meat without competition from somewhere that manages to grow it for a lower cost.
I don't like the chap but there is something very endearing about him actually taking the time to talk to and debate with these people. It was the same with the guy protesting when he was with his children.
People seem obsessed with chlorinated chicken. Surely it would be (if sold over here) labelled as such and if it impacted the taste, once again it wouldnt sell.
There's one thing about America, they are fussy about their meat. A weird amalgamation of people with totally different aims, some dont like americans, some dont like anybody eating any kind of meat and some want to sell us the meat without competition from somewhere that manages to grow it for a lower cost.
We've discussed this before, but you may not have seen it. There is nothing especially worrying about the chlorine. What is worrying is the conditions which the chlorine tries to address - intense stocking densities, to the point that infection is rife, so they address it by heavy doses of antibiotics and chlorine. There isn't any dispute that the welfare of the animals is much worse; there are also health risks and environmental impacts from the overcrowding.
Which is not to say that all meat from everywhere else is wonderful, of course. But it's systematically worse in some of the US (some companies ae trying to do better, with some success, but the near-absence of relevant federal regulation makes it unreliable).
Federal Regulations arent really the thing in america. Things like this would be a state matter, except for maybe an agreed protocol for cross border trade. ie a base minimum.
A free trade agreement with the US would i guess be very resistant to us imposing our higher minimum welfare standards as a condition of export.
No no no. You are slipping into "yeah but, maybe this time they were caught lying their arses off but..." like fitting a criminal up because, though he didnt do this one we 'know' hes probably done it in the past.
We just popped out to the shops and noticed a cop car parked by the local synagogue, guess that’s why, just in case there’s some other crazies about. Awful.
Sadly, it was just a matter of time. Let's hope it is a one off crazy.
We just popped out to the shops and noticed a cop car parked by the local synagogue, guess that’s why, just in case there’s some other crazies about. Awful.
Sadly, it was just a matter of time. Let's hope it is a one off crazy.
It's 2 crazies in less than a week, so one off it aint.
Comments
Yes, he’s taking unusual risks for space development, but BFR is a work in progress, which will no doubt evolve. And if he’s to fly astronauts for the government, there are a lot of hoops to jump through.
Harris is a contender for the nomination as is Warren but another elitist libetal Democratic candidate from coastal states like California or Massachusetts is probably not what the Democrats need to beat Trump in the rustbelt, Biden or Sanders would be better on that score in appealing to blue collar voters, indeed Biden comes from Scranton in the key state of Pennsylvania
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2020-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/amp/
One thing is for certain, Hain has damaged Parliamentary Privilege and the law should be changed to stop people like him circumventing the law. Likewise Green should not have been able to put an injunction in either so the law needs changing there too. So far Green has been convicted of nothing. In the Country its innocent until proved guilty, not the other way round. Green is odious but he has his rights too, Hain is just a pompous windbag.
Speaking of which, although on a more philanthropic note, in the 17th century there were a couple of entirely voluntary taxes, whereby people were just asked to give something if they wanted to. Contrary to intuition, they actually raised rather a lot of money.
Having one of those a Parliament might not be a bad idea. Doubt it'll happen, of course.
To make matters worse, in many cases the attack vectors have been known about for years, and little, if anything, has been done to close them. Any sane country would force closure of such holes, and the fact they don't drives a coach and horses through any confidence someone might have in the entire system.
TL:DR: you cannot have confidence in the American electoral system because the authorities don't care about people having confidence in it.
Alternatively as you suggest if an older candidate like Biden or Sanders wins the 2020 nomination they may pledge to only serve one term if they beat Trump, thus if O'Rourke was their VP candidate he would also be ideally placed for a 2024 run
https://tinyurl.com/yaqxfoe2
Because prosecutors accepted his claim that this haul of drugs was for “personal use” the judge did not jail him. If he had been taking the drugs to last year’s Bestival event in Dorset for profit he would have got for 4 years jail time. Guido doffs his cap to Ishmael who must have an incredible constitution that would put Keith Richards in his prime to shame. That much ketamine would knock out an elephant, 30 grammes of ecstasy would put a rugby team into rapture for a week and 7 grammes of cocaine is quite some pace for a weekend. Bestival had one drug related death last year...
Labour and the Tories both projected to get 29 MSPs and the SNP 52 MSPs
Sorry always a bit sceptical of an overhyped pretty face - reminds me of a young Tony Blair!
There are plenty of other interesting senate races which are on much more of a knife edge - like Missouri, Indiana, Arizona and Nevada for example. Maybe not so many pretty faces or as well funded - but they may have more significance on Tuesday week.
What it does mean, however, is that future arguments about student poverty will attract a serious amount of scepticism. A mortgage will be proposed on the handbag portfolio.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/9/newsid_2523000/2523609.stm
And 2028 is probably a more realistic timeframe to pick O’Rourke in order to guarantee Texas for the Democrats.
I still struggling with this story in that the tales of green and his behaviour have been widely reported before both in the newspapers and in a book. Green didn’t (manage) to get the Times or the book gagged.
I think the reason he’s popular with Democrats is that he hasn’t run the kind of cringing centrist campaign that red state candidates usually do, and has been more competitive than previous candidates in Texas because of that.
Whatever he is, he’s not a Blair.
https://twitter.com/MarcusFysh/status/1056141949781053440?s=20
Though EEA may eventually be an option if a technical solution is found to the Irish border
By 2028 O'Rourke might well be President or Democratic nominee himself (though Joseph P Kennedy III might also his fancies by then as well)
There is no "technical solution" unless both sides make it work. Hence why the last Taoiseach was working on it and the backstop wasn't part of the opening gambit by the EU. It was only when the last Taoiseach was replaced by the hardline Varadkar that work on a technical solution got stopped and the backstop was introduced.
This is purely politics, no more and no less. If it becomes politically expedient for Ireland and the EU to want a technical solution then one would be found. It is as simple as that.
https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1056184836900175874?s=20
Now, where's a Finknottle?
I like her style, and I think that the homestate issue is overcooked. Trump is a New York huckster who cared nothing about the Rustbelt or Deep South until he won there.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/27/tommy-robinson-edl-stands-to-make-1-million-pounds-on-us-speaking-tour?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9785724/EDL-leader-jailed-for-being-illegal-immigrant-after-entering-US-on-friends-passport.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46002549
Of the other main contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination Biden or Sanders would be far better fits for the rustbelt than Harris or indeed Warren
In these circumstance we will leave, but not as friends and allies. There will be no future within any kind of european project.
https://twitter.com/andrew_adonis/status/1056118220816596992?s=21
There's one thing about America, they are fussy about their meat. A weird amalgamation of people with totally different aims, some dont like americans, some dont like anybody eating any kind of meat and some want to sell us the meat without competition from somewhere that manages to grow it for a lower cost.
You need to actually watch that video
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/28/donald-trump-warns-of-violence-midterms-sot-tsr-vpx.cnn
CNN utter #fakenews
That headline makes no sense when you listen to the words he says. He is no way calling for violence like it claims.
Chlorinated salad = sensible health protection
Chlorinated Chicken= an abomination.
Add to that there are more infections in the EU from contaminated chicken than the US, and you really start to wonder...
Yes, Democrat majorities in the House AND Senate might seek to redress some of the Trump legislation from 2017-18 but Trump has a veto he can use.
So, yes, the CNN interpretation is misleading but the original comments are deliberately skewed at motivating the evangelical voter base and are also nonsensical and misleading.
I will be pretty surprised if Warren doesn't run, based on that newstatesman article I mentioned this morning.
https://youtu.be/WIs2L2nUL-0
Or
From a pig to a country.
It should not be necessary to add this surely and are people who do, suggesting they are not being honest at other times?
Which is not to say that all meat from everywhere else is wonderful, of course. But it's systematically worse in some of the US (some companies ae trying to do better, with some success, but the near-absence of relevant federal regulation makes it unreliable).
It doesn't make faux outrage that anyone might suggest that Trump has encouraged violence among his supporters any less faux.
A free trade agreement with the US would i guess be very resistant to us imposing our higher minimum welfare standards as a condition of export.
CNN showing themselves up with #fakenews
In the end, "His vehicle, a white van plastered with right-wing slogans, came to resemble a Facebook feed on wheels."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/27/technology/cesar-sayoc-facebook-twitter.html
Nick Clegg starts his Facebook job on Monday, iirc.