Look at the Dublin Convention. Once you are in a safe country, that is where you should claim asylum. Refugees who have reached France are in a safe country. That is where they should make their asylum claim. If they don't then they have no basis for making an asylum claim to get into Britain. They may have some other basis for seeking to migrate to Britain and, if so, they can and, IMO, should apply in the normal way. Which they can do in France.
Under the current laws, "refugee" and "migrant" are not interchangeable but distinct categories. Though people smugglers and many migrants seek to blur the distinction.
The Convention is pretty unfair and was designed for a different era - there is no obvious reason why countries like Greece and Malta and Cyprus and indeed France should bear the main responsbility for people seeking to flee war zones (or indeed seeking to migrate for other reasons). So although legally we can say "ha, ha, that's not our problem, Euro-suckers" it's pretty immoral.
But there's also a practical factor. If you sign up with a people-smuggler it's not like a travel agent giving you a choice of destinations. He'll promise to get you out of your refugee camp and into a developed country. Where he chooses to dispatch you is a matter for him, and that depends on his connections, language etc. If he says "You'll go on this lorry, then we'll put you on this boat, and you'll end up at X", you are not in a position to argue the toss and debate international treaties, or to jump off and do your own thing along the way.
Labour will make massive gains in Scotland cos Justine 24 has a feeling it will happen. Forget the polls!
Labour may well make some gains in Scotland simply by standing still as the massive SNP balloon slowly deflates worn down by the cares of office. But the days of 40+ Scottish Labour MPs are not coming back any time soon. The party north of the border is in a terrible state, still bearing the horrific scars of Brown’s “leadership”.
Hard to see them even keeping what they have David, they are crap.
Labour will make massive gains in Scotland cos Justine 24 has a feeling it will happen. Forget the polls!
Labour may well make some gains in Scotland simply by standing still as the massive SNP balloon slowly deflates worn down by the cares of office. But the days of 40+ Scottish Labour MPs are not coming back any time soon. The party north of the border is in a terrible state, still bearing the horrific scars of Brown’s “leadership”.
Hard to see them even keeping what they have David, they are crap.
There are quite a number of Labour/SNP marginals Malcolm and most of them are held by the SNP. A tiny swing and up to 10 could change hands.
Con Home is not a representative sample of Tory voters.
A statement of the blindingly obvious to everyone except HYUFD it seems.
I wonder how many commenters on this site are Tory party members (I can think of a few) and whether they are or are not ConHome members.
ConHome is the only site that regularly surveys Tory members and as 2005 shows its record is spot on
ConHome makes no attempt or pretence to make its sample representative of the whole. The fact that it once got something correct nearly 14 years ago is more down to luck than skill. As they say, a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Look at the Dublin Convention. Once you are in a safe country, that is where you should claim asylum. Refugees who have reached France are in a safe country. That is where they should make their asylum claim. If they don't then they have no basis for making an asylum claim to get into Britain. They may have some other basis for seeking to migrate to Britain and, if so, they can and, IMO, should apply in the normal way. Which they can do in France.
Under the current laws, "refugee" and "migrant" are not interchangeable but distinct categories. Though people smugglers and many migrants seek to blur the distinction.
The Convention is pretty unfair and was designed for a different era - there is no obvious reason why countries like Greece and Malta and Cyprus and indeed France should bear the main responsbility for people seeking to flee war zones (or indeed seeking to migrate for other reasons). So although legally we can say "ha, ha, that's not our problem, Euro-suckers" it's pretty immoral.
But there's also a practical factor. If you sign up with a people-smuggler it's not like a travel agent giving you a choice of destinations. He'll promise to get you out of your refugee camp and into a developed country. Where he chooses to dispatch you is a matter for him, and that depends on his connections, language etc. If he says "You'll go on this lorry, then we'll put you on this boat, and you'll end up at X", you are not in a position to argue the toss and debate international treaties, or to jump off and do your own thing along the way.
You are right. The Convention was written for a different era and was initially restricted to people in Europe, I believe. It was then expanded to include people from anywhere. Which has put it under strain.
The whole issue needs looking at again and the various treaties need ripping up and starting again. No sign of that. So, do you just condone law-breaking?
Also, those who have reached camps in Calais do have a choice. They are not being forced to jump onto lorries or forced to go in boats. Nor are those who reach camps in Sicily or Italy being forced to refuse to make an asylum claim.
What is also immoral - but tends to get ignored - is rewarding law-breakers at the expense of those, who may well be more needy, who try and obey the law or who are not able to pay people smugglers.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
.
But in early May 2017 the polls had the Tories in the 47% - 49% range. Any strenghening of the LibDem vote share is just as likely to come from ex-Tories - as happened in the Liberal surges of 1964 and February 1974.
The original point was around Labour's performance across an election campaign. The fact that Theresa May initially oversaw an increase before settling back down to the low-to-mid 40s shouldn't overshadow the fact that ultimately the Tories got almost as many votes as they could have reasonably expected when the election was called.
On the Lib Dems - agreed, but given where the parties find themselves right now, it seems reasonable to assume that their best chance of a material advance is targeting disgruntled Labour Remainers fed up with their party's stance on Brexit.
But in early May 2017 the polls had the Tories in the 47% - 49% range. Any strenghening of the LibDem vote share is just as likely to come from ex-Tories - as happened in the Liberal surges of 1964 and February 1974.
The original point was around Labour's performance across an election campaign. The fact that Theresa May initially oversaw an increase before settling back down to the low-to-mid 40s shouldn't overshadow the fact that ultimately the Tories got almost as many votes as they could have reasonably expected when the election was called.
On the Lib Dems - agreed, but given where the parties find themselves right now, it seems reasonable to assume that their best chance of a material advance is targeting disgruntled Labour Remainers fed up with their party's stance on Brexit.
There could well be a strong 'Get the Tories Out' mood next time. That could lead to many disillusioned Tories deciding to vote LibDem rather than abstain.
Hmm. I've always quite liked her, but (to get my HYUFD mode on), her polling is terrible, and surely there must be a reason for that.
As un-PC as it is, I still feel the Democrats might need a white man to have a chance.
So she doesn't seem to have come out well from her twitter warring with Trump. Her polling against Trump is weak compared to other Dems, and when she tried to get ahead of the Pocahontas thing with a DNA test she got yelled at by Dems for causing a distraction before the mid-terms.
OTOH you could argue that Trump is really good on the attack and he'll do the same with whichever unlucky Democrat wins the nomination.
Look at the Dublin Convention. Once you are in a safe country, that is where you should claim asylum. Refugees who have reached France are in a safe country. That is where they should make their asylum claim. If they don't then they have no basis for making an asylum claim to get into Britain. They may have some other basis for seeking to migrate to Britain and, if so, they can and, IMO, should apply in the normal way. Which they can do in France.
Under the current laws, "refugee" and "migrant" are not interchangeable but distinct categories. Though people smugglers and many migrants seek to blur the distinction.
The Convention is pretty unfair and was designed for a different era - there is no obvious reason why countries like Greece and Malta and Cyprus and indeed France should bear the main responsbility for people seeking to flee war zones (or indeed seeking to migrate for other reasons). So although legally we can say "ha, ha, that's not our problem, Euro-suckers" it's pretty immoral.
But there's also a practical factor. If you sign up with a people-smuggler it's not like a travel agent giving you a choice of destinations. He'll promise to get you out of your refugee camp and into a developed country. Where he chooses to dispatch you is a matter for him, and that depends on his connections, language etc. If he says "You'll go on this lorry, then we'll put you on this boat, and you'll end up at X", you are not in a position to argue the toss and debate international treaties, or to jump off and do your own thing along the way.
Clearly, we need better regulation of people smugglers. Perhaps some league tables might help?
But I'm not quite sure I understand the (second) point you're making. We should accept asylum seekers in contravention of the Dublin Convention, purely because they thought they were paying to come to the UK and they instead found themselves in France?
OT, i’m spending NYE this year in Ulverston in Cumbria. Never been before and wasn’t impressed initially but the old town is lovely.
I am looking like I am spending it in hospital which is a bit of a bore. My view is of another bit of white concrete opposite. No doubt the nurses will have a good selection of spirits ready for the bells. Possibly water with the water.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
On a net basis there was actually almost no net movement of 2015 Tory voters to Labour in 2017, Corbyn lost almost as many 2015 Labour voters to the Tories as he gained 2015 Tory voters to Labour.
Almost all Labour's net gains in 2017 came from 2015 LD, Green, Plaid, SNP and UKIP voters and those who stayed home in 2015
Yes, there was movement from Labour to the Tories too. Which also shows that Theresa May was more of an asset to the Tories than people think.
But, nonetheless, it's still true that ~1m who voted Tory in 2015, switched over to Corbyn in 2017. Why was this, and why would he be incapable of doing the same again?
It was mostly remain-supporting Tories whose desire to punish the party for Brexit exceeded their reservations about Corbyn's Labour.
That was certainly true in parts of Greater London, although the number of Tory switchers was very small outside Greater London.
11% of the Tory vote defected to Labour - that is hardly going to be only London voters.
Fine, but to get more, Labour needs to do something different, or something more, since those who might be attracted by Corbyn doing the same thing again are already in the base.
Oh, I agree. It won't happen by itself, without any effort or tweaking in polices from Corbyn. If an election was suddenly announced for tomorrow, I doubt the result would be much different from last time.
But, theoretically, since Corbyn's shown he's capable of making deep inroads into the Tory vote before, he is capable of doing so again, no? (And, to be fair, by the same logic, May is surely capable of making further inroads into the Labour vote since she managed it in 2017.)
Corbyn was very much a marmite figure with white working class voters in 2017. From my own family, I am aware of five voters - all in their 50s -who switched from Labour to the Tories on account of him for the first time - nothing at all to do with Brexit. There is no doubt that he did boost the Tory vote in key areas - particularly in the Midlands and on the East Coast( from the North East down to Essex).
OT, i’m spending NYE this year in Ulverston in Cumbria. Never been before and wasn’t impressed initially but the old town is lovely.
I am looking like I am spending it in hospital which is a bit of a bore. My view is of another bit of white concrete opposite. No doubt the nurses will have a good selection of spirits ready for the bells. Possibly water with the water.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
.
But in early May 2017 the polls had the Tories in the 47% - 49% range. Any strenghening of the LibDem vote share is just as likely to come from ex-Tories - as happened in the Liberal surges of 1964 and February 1974.
The original point was around Labour's performance across an election campaign. The fact that Theresa May initially oversaw an increase before settling back down to the low-to-mid 40s shouldn't overshadow the fact that ultimately the Tories got almost as many votes as they could have reasonably expected when the election was called.
On the Lib Dems - agreed, but given where the parties find themselves right now, it seems reasonable to assume that their best chance of a material advance is targeting disgruntled Labour Remainers fed up with their party's stance on Brexit.
But in early May 2017 the polls had the Tories in the 47% - 49% range. Any strenghening of the LibDem vote share is just as likely to come from ex-Tories - as happened in the Liberal surges of 1964 and February 1974.
The original point was around Labour's performance across an election campaign. The fact that Theresa May initially oversaw an increase before settling back down to the low-to-mid 40s shouldn't overshadow the fact that ultimately the Tories got almost as many votes as they could have reasonably expected when the election was called.
On the Lib Dems - agreed, but given where the parties find themselves right now, it seems reasonable to assume that their best chance of a material advance is targeting disgruntled Labour Remainers fed up with their party's stance on Brexit.
There could well be a strong 'Get the Tories Out' mood next time. That could lead to many disillusioned Tories deciding to vote LibDem rather than abstain.
People said the same about 1992 in the end people voted Tory to keep out Kinnock
Not at all. That poll was taken in July when ConHome like Yougov also had Rees Mogg ahead, just much of the Rees Mogg support has now switched back to Boris.
Even the Yougov poll had Boris beating Hunt, Williamson and Mourdaunt with Tory members
Which just goes to show how meaningless polls are then and why they shouldn't be held up as evidence of anything.
I believe the two most popular candidates here amongst Tory members here (not ConHome) are Gove and Javid. Both of which beat Boris in YouGov's out of date poll.
Both lost to Rees Mogg though.
Tory members here are also more likely to be Remainers or back May's Deal (myself included) than members as a whole.
Jeez and that YouGov survey was back in July before Davis resigned. Hardly recent!
Even then Tory members didn't have a good view of Boris and as far as Rees-Mogg is concerned he ranked badly on almost all characteristics except for some reason being viewed as competent. I somewhat doubt he's viewed as competent after his recent shenanigans and failure to count properly.
Rees Mogg beat every other contender with Tory members in that poll head to head, including Javid and Gove
Which goes to show how irrelevant polls taken outside of an actual election are. Like ConHome's meaningless 2015 polls that got the 2016 election completely wrong.
Rees Mogg won't make final 2 let alone be elected leader. Neither will Boris.
ConHome's meaningless 2015 polls? Tory members got no say in 2016 unlike 2005 when ConHome got the result spot on.
The 117 Tory MPs who voted against May would be more than enough to get Rees Mogg or Boris to the final 2
Hmm. I've always quite liked her, but (to get my HYUFD mode on), her polling is terrible, and surely there must be a reason for that.
As un-PC as it is, I still feel the Democrats might need a white man to have a chance.
To win the Electoral College the Democrats must win rustbelt states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Biden and to a lesser extent Sanders are their best chances of doing that
Not at all. That poll was taken in July when ConHome like Yougov also had Rees Mogg ahead, just much of the Rees Mogg support has now switched back to Boris.
Even the Yougov poll had Boris beating Hunt, Williamson and Mourdaunt with Tory members
Which just goes to show how meaningless polls are then and why they shouldn't be held up as evidence of anything.
I believe the two most popular candidates here amongst Tory members here (not ConHome) are Gove and Javid. Both of which beat Boris in YouGov's out of date poll.
Both lost to Rees Mogg though.
Tory members here are also more likely to be Remainers or back May's Deal (myself included) than members as a whole.
Lets see a survey of "members as a whole" [which obviously doesn't include ConHome unless you've still not figured that out] that shows how many members as a whole back May's Deal please?
Hmm. I've always quite liked her, but (to get my HYUFD mode on), her polling is terrible, and surely there must be a reason for that.
As un-PC as it is, I still feel the Democrats might need a white man to have a chance.
To win the Electoral College the Democrats must win rustbelt states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Biden and to a lesser extent Sanders are their best chances of doing that
Or Florida and Arizona, for which they'd need a somewhat different type of candidate...
Hmm. I've always quite liked her, but (to get my HYUFD mode on), her polling is terrible, and surely there must be a reason for that.
As un-PC as it is, I still feel the Democrats might need a white man to have a chance.
To win the Electoral College the Democrats must win rustbelt states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Biden and to a lesser extent Sanders are their best chances of doing that
Energetic and charismatic fresh/outsider Democrats like [Bill] Clinton and Obama have helped win those states.
The best chance Democrats have isn't to rehash 2016 with retreads like Biden or Sanders but to go for someone fresher of whom there are many candidates. Even Beto O'Rourke would do better in the rust belt.
Labour will make massive gains in Scotland cos Justine 24 has a feeling it will happen. Forget the polls!
Labour may well make some gains in Scotland simply by standing still as the massive SNP balloon slowly deflates worn down by the cares of office. But the days of 40+ Scottish Labour MPs are not coming back any time soon. The party north of the border is in a terrible state, still bearing the horrific scars of Brown’s “leadership”.
Hard to see them even keeping what they have David, they are crap.
There are quite a number of Labour/SNP marginals Malcolm and most of them are held by the SNP. A tiny swing and up to 10 could change hands.
Still hard to believe there are enough stupid enough people to do that though, even though I should know better.
It was mostly remain-supporting Tories whose desire to punish the party for Brexit exceeded their reservations about Corbyn's Labour.
That was certainly true in parts of Greater London, although the number of Tory switchers was very small outside Greater London.
11% of the Tory vote defected to Labour - that is hardly going to be only London voters.
Fine, but to get more, Labour needs to do something different, or something more, since those who might be attracted by Corbyn doing the same thing again are already in the base.
Oh, I agree. It won't happen by itself, without any effort or tweaking in polices from Corbyn. If an election was suddenly announced for tomorrow, I doubt the result would be much different from last time.
But, theoretically, since Corbyn's shown he's capable of making deep inroads into the Tory vote before, he is capable of doing so again, no? (And, to be fair, by the same logic, May is surely capable of making further inroads into the Labour vote since she managed it in 2017.)
Corbyn was very much a marmite figure with white working class voters in 2017. From my own family, I am aware of five voters - all in their 50s -who switched from Labour to the Tories on account of him for the first time - nothing at all to do with Brexit. There is no doubt that he did boost the Tory vote in key areas - particularly in the Midlands and on the East Coast( from the North East down to Essex).
I think somebody said something about Labour losing a decent portion of their leave voters and my theory is that would be partially due to Corbyn (or perhaps Labour in general) rather than just Brexit.
As leave voters tend to be older with many of them over 50's which is a group that doesn't tend to like Corbyn anyway. Then younger voters which are generally more supportive of Corbyn tend to be remain voters.
I'm curious as to how the subcategories of older remainers and younger leavers breakdown in Tory and Labour voting.
Not at all. That poll was taken in July when ConHome like Yougov also had Rees Mogg ahead, just much of the Rees Mogg support has now switched back to Boris.
Even the Yougov poll had Boris beating Hunt, Williamson and Mourdaunt with Tory members
Which just goes to show how meaningless polls are then and why they shouldn't be held up as evidence of anything.
I believe the two most popular candidates here amongst Tory members here (not ConHome) are Gove and Javid. Both of which beat Boris in YouGov's out of date poll.
Both lost to Rees Mogg though.
Tory members here are also more likely to be Remainers or back May's Deal (myself included) than members as a whole.
Lets see a survey of "members as a whole" [which obviously doesn't include ConHome unless you've still not figured that out] that shows how many members as a whole back May's Deal please?
Even I back May's Deal but plenty of members do not.
The key for May and the Deal is to ensure she at least stays through this year past Brexit which the VONC ensured
It was mostly remain-supporting Tories whose desire to punish the party for Brexit exceeded their reservations about Corbyn's Labour.
That was certainly true in parts of Greater London, although the number of Tory switchers was very small outside Greater London.
11% of the Tory vote defected to Labour - that is hardly going to be only London voters.
Fine, but to get more, Labour needs to do something different, or something more, since those who might be attracted by Corbyn doing the same thing again are already in the base.
Oh, I agree. It won't happen by itself, without any effort or tweaking in polices from Corbyn. If an election was suddenly announced for tomorrow, I doubt the result would be much different from last time.
But, theoretically, since Corbyn's shown he's capable of making deep inroads into the Tory vote before, he is capable of doing so again, no? (And, to be fair, by the same logic, May is surely capable of making further inroads into the Labour vote since she managed it in 2017.)
Corbyn was very much a marmite figure with white working class voters in 2017. From my own family, I am aware of five voters - all in their 50s -who switched from Labour to the Tories on account of him for the first time - nothing at all to do with Brexit. There is no doubt that he did boost the Tory vote in key areas - particularly in the Midlands and on the East Coast( from the North East down to Essex).
I think somebody said something about Labour losing a decent portion of their leave voters and my theory is that would be partially due to Corbyn (or perhaps Labour in general) rather than just Brexit.
As leave voters tend to be older with many of them over 50's which is a group that doesn't tend to like Corbyn anyway. Then younger voters which are generally more supportive of Corbyn tend to be remain voters.
I'm curious as to how the subcategories of older remainers and younger leavers breakdown in Tory and Labour voting.
From my own family, at least two of those who voted Tory for the first time had voted Remain. I have long believed that attitudes to Corbyn were far more salient in 2017 - and this might well still be true - than Brexit.
Hmm. I've always quite liked her, but (to get my HYUFD mode on), her polling is terrible, and surely there must be a reason for that.
As un-PC as it is, I still feel the Democrats might need a white man to have a chance.
To win the Electoral College the Democrats must win rustbelt states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Biden and to a lesser extent Sanders are their best chances of doing that
Or Florida and Arizona, for which they'd need a somewhat different type of candidate...
Trump won Florida and Arizona by more than he won Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Arizona.
Trump could win Florida and Arizona in 2020 and still lose the Electoral College
Hmm. I've always quite liked her, but (to get my HYUFD mode on), her polling is terrible, and surely there must be a reason for that.
As un-PC as it is, I still feel the Democrats might need a white man to have a chance.
To win the Electoral College the Democrats must win rustbelt states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Biden and to a lesser extent Sanders are their best chances of doing that
Energetic and charismatic fresh/outsider Democrats like [Bill] Clinton and Obama have helped win those states.
The best chance Democrats have isn't to rehash 2016 with retreads like Biden or Sanders but to go for someone fresher of whom there are many candidates. Even Beto O'Rourke would do better in the rust belt.
Clinton and Obama won them after 8 years of their party out of the White House and against the likes of Bush Snr, Dole, McCain and Romney who had less rustbelt appeal than Trump.
Rustbelt politics is now anti globalisation, protectionist, pro tougher border controls and culturally socially conservative. O'Rourke polls worse than both Biden and Sanders against Trump
Not at all. That poll was taken in July when ConHome like Yougov also had Rees Mogg ahead, just much of the Rees Mogg support has now switched back to Boris.
Even the Yougov poll had Boris beating Hunt, Williamson and Mourdaunt with Tory members
Which just goes to show how meaningless polls are then and why they shouldn't be held up as evidence of anything.
I believe the two most popular candidates here amongst Tory members here (not ConHome) are Gove and Javid. Both of which beat Boris in YouGov's out of date poll.
Both lost to Rees Mogg though.
Tory members here are also more likely to be Remainers or back May's Deal (myself included) than members as a whole.
Lets see a survey of "members as a whole" [which obviously doesn't include ConHome unless you've still not figured that out] that shows how many members as a whole back May's Deal please?
Even I back May's Deal but plenty of members do not.
The key for May and the Deal is to ensure she at least stays through this year past Brexit which the VONC ensured
Evidence for members not backing the Deal?
Let me guess you don't have one, except maybe a ConHome poll which you'll pretend is a members poll?
Not at all. That poll was taken in July when ConHome like Yougov also had Rees Mogg ahead, just much of the Rees Mogg support has now switched back to Boris.
Even the Yougov poll had Boris beating Hunt, Williamson and Mourdaunt with Tory members
Which just goes to show how meaningless polls are then and why they shouldn't be held up as evidence of anything.
I believe the two most popular candidates here amongst Tory members here (not ConHome) are Gove and Javid. Both of which beat Boris in YouGov's out of date poll.
Both lost to Rees Mogg though.
Tory members here are also more likely to be Remainers or back May's Deal (myself included) than members as a whole.
Lets see a survey of "members as a whole" [which obviously doesn't include ConHome unless you've still not figured that out] that shows how many members as a whole back May's Deal please?
Even I back May's Deal but plenty of members do not.
The key for May and the Deal is to ensure she at least stays through this year past Brexit which the VONC ensured
Evidence for members not backing the Deal?
Let me guess you don't have one, except maybe a ConHome poll which you'll pretend is a members poll?
There are barely any Tory members polls other than ConHome apart from Yougov where a plurality of Tory members, 45%, felt May would get a Deal with closer ties to the EU than they would like
Hmm. I've always quite liked her, but (to get my HYUFD mode on), her polling is terrible, and surely there must be a reason for that.
As un-PC as it is, I still feel the Democrats might need a white man to have a chance.
To win the Electoral College the Democrats must win rustbelt states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Biden and to a lesser extent Sanders are their best chances of doing that
Energetic and charismatic fresh/outsider Democrats like [Bill] Clinton and Obama have helped win those states.
The best chance Democrats have isn't to rehash 2016 with retreads like Biden or Sanders but to go for someone fresher of whom there are many candidates. Even Beto O'Rourke would do better in the rust belt.
Clinton and Obama won them after 8 years of their party out of the White House and against the likes of Bush Snr, Dole, McCain and Romney who had less rustbelt appeal than Trump.
Rustbelt politics is now anti globalisation, protectionist, pro tougher border controls and culturally socially conservative. O'Rourke polls worse than both Biden and Sanders against Trump
Not at all. That poll was taken in July when ConHome like Yougov also had Rees Mogg ahead, just much of the Rees Mogg support has now switched back to Boris.
Even the Yougov poll had Boris beating Hunt, Williamson and Mourdaunt with Tory members
Which just goes to show how meaningless polls are then and why they shouldn't be held up as evidence of anything.
I believe the two most popular candidates here amongst Tory members here (not ConHome) are Gove and Javid. Both of which beat Boris in YouGov's out of date poll.
Both lost to Rees Mogg though.
Tory members here are also more likely to be Remainers or back May's Deal (myself included) than members as a whole.
Lets see a survey of "members as a whole" [which obviously doesn't include ConHome unless you've still not figured that out] that shows how many members as a whole back May's Deal please?
Even I back May's Deal but plenty of members do not.
The key for May and the Deal is to ensure she at least stays through this year past Brexit which the VONC ensured
Evidence for members not backing the Deal?
Let me guess you don't have one, except maybe a ConHome poll which you'll pretend is a members poll?
There are barely any members polls other than ConHome apart from Yougov where a plurality of Tory members felt May would get a Deal with closer toes to the EU than they would like
ConHome isn't a members poll so scratch "other than". It is a poll of its own members and isn't scientifically weighted to represent Tory members.
So you have no evidence that Tory members oppose the Deal then?
Hmm. I've always quite liked her, but (to get my HYUFD mode on), her polling is terrible, and surely there must be a reason for that.
As un-PC as it is, I still feel the Democrats might need a white man to have a chance.
To win the Electoral College the Democrats must win rustbelt states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Biden and to a lesser extent Sanders are their best chances of doing that
Energetic and charismatic fresh/outsider Democrats like [Bill] Clinton and Obama have helped win those states.
The best chance Democrats have isn't to rehash 2016 with retreads like Biden or Sanders but to go for someone fresher of whom there are many candidates. Even Beto O'Rourke would do better in the rust belt.
Clinton and Obama won them after 8 years of their party out of the White House and against the likes of Bush Snr, Dole, McCain and Romney who had less rustbelt appeal than Trump.
Rustbelt politics is now anti globalisation, protectionist, pro tougher border controls and culturally socially conservative. O'Rourke polls worse than both Biden and Sanders against Trump
There was recently a prop bet in the poker world whereby one player bet the other they couldn’t stay on their own in a totally dark room with nothing but a bed and chair with food delivered every day for 30 days.
Somebody asked me for how much and how long do I think I could stay. At first I thought wow I bet it becomes increasingly mentally taxing, probably on a few days...then I thought oh wait, I wouldn’t have to hear about brexit every minute of every day...sign me up for 5 years!
Hmm. I've always quite liked her, but (to get my HYUFD mode on), her polling is terrible, and surely there must be a reason for that.
As un-PC as it is, I still feel the Democrats might need a white man to have a chance.
To win the Electoral College the Democrats must win rustbelt states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Biden and to a lesser extent Sanders are their best chances of doing that
Energetic and charismatic fresh/outsider Democrats like [Bill] Clinton and Obama have helped win those states.
The best chance Democrats have isn't to rehash 2016 with retreads like Biden or Sanders but to go for someone fresher of whom there are many candidates. Even Beto O'Rourke would do better in the rust belt.
Clinton and Obama won them after 8 years of their party out of the White House and against the likes of Bush Snr, Dole, McCain and Romney who had less rustbelt appeal than Trump.
Rustbelt politics is now anti globalisation, protectionist, pro tougher border controls and culturally socially conservative. O'Rourke polls worse than both Biden and Sanders against Trump
Not at all. That poll was taken in July when ConHome like Yougov also had Rees Mogg ahead, just much of the Rees Mogg support has now switched back to Boris.
Even the Yougov poll had Boris beating Hunt, Williamson and Mourdaunt with Tory members
Which just goes to show how meaningless polls are then and why they shouldn't be held up as evidence of anything.
I believe the two most popular candidates here amongst Tory members here (not ConHome) are Gove and Javid. Both of which beat Boris in YouGov's out of date poll.
Both lost to Rees Mogg though.
Tory members here are also more likely to be Remainers or back May's Deal (myself included) than members as a whole.
Lets see a survey of "members as a whole" [which obviously doesn't include ConHome unless you've still not figured that out] that shows how many members as a whole back May's Deal please?
Even I back May's Deal but plenty of members do not.
The key for May and the Deal is to ensure she at least stays through this year past Brexit which the VONC ensured
Evidence for members not backing the Deal?
Let me guess you don't have one, except maybe a ConHome poll which you'll pretend is a members poll?
There are barely any members polls other than ConHome apart from Yougov where a plurality of Tory members felt May would get a Deal with closer toes to the EU than they would like
ConHome isn't a members poll so scratch "other than". It is a poll of its own members and isn't scientifically weighted to represent Tory members.
So you have no evidence that Tory members oppose the Deal then?
The Yougov Tory members poll I linked to had 54% of Tory members thinking a harder Brexit than the government wanted with less ties to the EU would be good for Britain but only 21% thought a softer Brexit with more ties to the EU than the government initially wanted would be good for Britain
Hmm. I've always quite liked her, but (to get my HYUFD mode on), her polling is terrible, and surely there must be a reason for that.
As un-PC as it is, I still feel the Democrats might need a white man to have a chance.
To win the Electoral College the Democrats must win rustbelt states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Biden and to a lesser extent Sanders are their best chances of doing that
Energetic and charismatic fresh/outsider Democrats like [Bill] Clinton and Obama have helped win those states.
The best chance Democrats have isn't to rehash 2016 with retreads like Biden or Sanders but to go for someone fresher of whom there are many candidates. Even Beto O'Rourke would do better in the rust belt.
Clinton and Obama won them after 8 years of their party out of the White House and against the likes of Bush Snr, Dole, McCain and Romney who had less rustbelt appeal than Trump.
Rustbelt politics is now anti globalisation, protectionist, pro tougher border controls and culturally socially conservative. O'Rourke polls worse than both Biden and Sanders against Trump
Hmm. I've always quite liked her, but (to get my HYUFD mode on), her polling is terrible, and surely there must be a reason for that.
As un-PC as it is, I still feel the Democrats might need a white man to have a chance.
To win the Electoral College the Democrats must win rustbelt states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Biden and to a lesser extent Sanders are their best chances of doing that
Or Florida and Arizona, for which they'd need a somewhat different type of candidate...
Trump won Florida and Arizona by more than he won Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Arizona.
Trump could win Florida and Arizona in 2020 and still lose the Electoral College
He could also win Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin in 2020 and lose the Electoral College. By losing Florida and Arizona.
The rustbelt is the most obvious route to a Democrat win, but it's not the only one.
Hmm. I've always quite liked her, but (to get my HYUFD mode on), her polling is terrible, and surely there must be a reason for that.
As un-PC as it is, I still feel the Democrats might need a white man to have a chance.
To win the Electoral College the Democrats must win rustbelt states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Biden and to a lesser extent Sanders are their best chances of doing that
Or Florida and Arizona, for which they'd need a somewhat different type of candidate...
Trump won Florida and Arizona by more than he won Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Arizona.
Trump could win Florida and Arizona in 2020 and still lose the Electoral College
He could also win Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin in 2020 and lose the Electoral College. By losing Florida and Arizona.
The rustbelt is the most obvious route to a Democrat win, but it's not the only one.
Florida in particular stayed Republican in the midterms at both Senatorial and Governor level even as the Democrats won Senate or Governors races across the Midwest and the Democrats gained lots of House seats in Pennsylvania.
Chasing Florida before the rustbelt is a lost cause for Democrats in my view
Not at all. That poll was taken in July when ConHome like Yougov also had Rees Mogg ahead, just much of the Rees Mogg support has now switched back to Boris.
Even the Yougov poll had Boris beating Hunt, Williamson and Mourdaunt with Tory members
Which just goes to show how meaningless polls are then and why they shouldn't be held up as evidence of anything.
I believe the two most popular candidates here amongst Tory members here (not ConHome) are Gove and Javid. Both of which beat Boris in YouGov's out of date poll.
Both lost to Rees Mogg though.
Tory members here are also more likely to be Remainers or back May's Deal (myself included) than members as a whole.
Lets see a survey of "members as a whole" [which obviously doesn't include ConHome unless you've still not figured that out] that shows how many members as a whole back May's Deal please?
Even I back May's Deal but plenty of members do not.
The key for May and the Deal is to ensure she at least stays through this year past Brexit which the VONC ensured
Evidence for members not backing the Deal?
Let me guess you don't have one, except maybe a ConHome poll which you'll pretend is a members poll?
There are barely any members polls other than ConHome apart from Yougov where a plurality of Tory members felt May would get a Deal with closer toes to the EU than they would like
ConHome isn't a members poll so scratch "other than". It is a poll of its own members and isn't scientifically weighted to represent Tory members.
So you have no evidence that Tory members oppose the Deal then?
The Yougov Tory members poll I linked to had 54% of Tory members thinking a harder Brexit than the government wanted with less ties to the EU would be good for Britain but only 21% thought a softer Brexit with more ties to the EU than the government initially wanted would be good for Britain
There was recently a prop bet in the poker world whereby one player bet the other they couldn’t stay on their own in a totally dark room with nothing but a bed and chair with food delivered every day for 30 days.
So Trump beats Beto by a comfortable 7%, while Biden beats Trump by 6% and Sanders beats Trump by 1%
No, 7% with 33% undecided is not comfortable.
Which is all meaningless because its just name recognition and the campaigning hasn't began yet in earnest.
Believe what you want I go on the evidence as it is not what it might be.
O'Rourke has already lost the Texas Senate race, he needs to win to really be a general election contender, certainly for the top slot
The evidence as it is, is that it is too early to tell. As is quoted in your article *rolleyes*
Progressive strategist Ruy Teixeira said in an interview that aired Monday on "What America's Thinking," that while it's too early to start polling on 2020 contenders, it does not surprise that Biden matches up well against Trump.
"It's really early to be polling on this," Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told Hill.TV's Jamal Simmons.
"It doesn't surprise me that Biden runs relatively well against Trump. He's got 100 percent name recognition, he's a likable guy. I think he'd play well in different areas of the country that the Democrats haven't done so well in," he added.
There was recently a prop bet in the poker world whereby one player bet the other they couldn’t stay on their own in a totally dark room with nothing but a bed and chair with food delivered every day for 30 days.
How much was the bet for?
$100k...guy made it 20 days, before the other person offered him $60k to finish early, which he accepted.
There was recently a prop bet in the poker world whereby one player bet the other they couldn’t stay on their own in a totally dark room with nothing but a bed and chair with food delivered every day for 30 days.
How much was the bet for?
$100k...guy made it 20 days, before the other person offered him $60k to finish early, which he accepted.
Not at all. That poll was taken in July when ConHome like Yougov also had Rees Mogg ahead, just much of the Rees Mogg support has now switched back to Boris.
Even the Yougov poll had Boris beating Hunt, Williamson and Mourdaunt with Tory members
Which just goes to show how meaningless polls are then and why they shouldn't be held up as evidence of anything.
I believe the two most popular candidates here amongst Tory members here (not ConHome) are Gove and Javid. Both of which beat Boris in YouGov's out of date poll.
Both lost to Rees Mogg though.
Tory members here are also more likely to be Remainers or back May's Deal (myself included) than members as a whole.
Lets see a survey of "members as a whole" [which obviously doesn't include ConHome unless you've still not figured that out] that shows how many members as a whole back May's Deal please?
Even I back May's Deal but plenty of members do not.
The key for May and the Deal is to ensure she at least stays through this year past Brexit which the VONC ensured
Evidence for members not backing the Deal?
Let me guess you don't have one, except maybe a ConHome poll which you'll pretend is a members poll?
There are barely any members polls other than ConHome apart from Yougov where a plurality of Tory members felt May would get a Deal with closer toes to the EU than they would like
ConHome isn't a members poll so scratch "other than". It is a poll of its own members and isn't scientifically weighted to represent Tory members.
So you have no evidence that Tory members oppose the Deal then?
The Yougov Tory members poll I linked to had 54% of Tory members thinking a harder Brexit than the government wanted with less ties to the EU would be good for Britain but only 21% thought a softer Brexit with more ties to the EU than the government initially wanted would be good for Britain
That's before the Deal was agreed so scratch that too. Seems like you really have no real world evidence.
I have just given you real world evidence, unless you are suddenly going to completely overrule the poll findings and say May's Deal, which was a somewhat softer Brexit Deal than the government originally intended is going to be loved by the Tory membership as a whole?
So Trump beats Beto by a comfortable 7%, while Biden beats Trump by 6% and Sanders beats Trump by 1%
No, 7% with 33% undecided is not comfortable.
Which is all meaningless because its just name recognition and the campaigning hasn't began yet in earnest.
Believe what you want I go on the evidence as it is not what it might be.
O'Rourke has already lost the Texas Senate race, he needs to win to really be a general election contender, certainly for the top slot
The evidence as it is, is that it is too early to tell. As is quoted in your article *rolleyes*
Progressive strategist Ruy Teixeira said in an interview that aired Monday on "What America's Thinking," that while it's too early to start polling on 2020 contenders, it does not surprise that Biden matches up well against Trump.
"It's really early to be polling on this," Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told Hill.TV's Jamal Simmons.
"It doesn't surprise me that Biden runs relatively well against Trump. He's got 100 percent name recognition, he's a likable guy. I think he'd play well in different areas of the country that the Democrats haven't done so well in," he added.
The evidence as it is as even that commentator says is Biden polls best of all against Trump and clearly plays best in areas like the rustbelt too
There was recently a prop bet in the poker world whereby one player bet the other they couldn’t stay on their own in a totally dark room with nothing but a bed and chair with food delivered every day for 30 days.
How much was the bet for?
$100k...guy made it 20 days, before the other person offered him $60k to finish early, which he accepted.
Wow! I'd've taken it. I've lived in much worse...
I definitely wouldnt for a 1:1 bet, I would have wanted much better odds. Apparently the research shows that such situations are not only incredibly difficult, but can result in long term mental issues.
I would accept that bet, Mr. Urquhart. It's very hard, though, psychologically to be isolated. A chap kept in a cave with no natural light became very ratty. He was there for 2-3 months and got retrieved 'early' because his body clock had lengthened his perception of a day to about 25 hours.
Mr. Xenon, perhaps, but the incompetence of Grayling has been remarked upon here quite often.
I would accept that bet, Mr. Urquhart. It's very hard, though, psychologically to be isolated. A chap kept in a cave with no natural light became very ratty. He was there for 2-3 months and got retrieved 'early' because his body clock had lengthened his perception of a day to about 25 hours.
Mr. Xenon, perhaps, but the incompetence of Grayling has been remarked upon here quite often.
The lengths we would go to avoid daily discussions of brexit!
There was recently a prop bet in the poker world whereby one player bet the other they couldn’t stay on their own in a totally dark room with nothing but a bed and chair with food delivered every day for 30 days.
How much was the bet for?
$100k...guy made it 20 days, before the other person offered him $60k to finish early, which he accepted.
Wow! I'd've taken it. I've lived in much worse...
Worse can mean different things I guess but the totally dark room is a bit extreme. I mean I'd rather a dark room to a maggot infested one and plenty of other types of room but conditions have got to be pretty bad to be worse than complete darkness....
I suppose if you are blind it is just staying in a room for 30 days, bit boring but easy work for the money...
Comments
But no similar queues in Dover of people trying to escape England despite Brexit.
But there's also a practical factor. If you sign up with a people-smuggler it's not like a travel agent giving you a choice of destinations. He'll promise to get you out of your refugee camp and into a developed country. Where he chooses to dispatch you is a matter for him, and that depends on his connections, language etc. If he says "You'll go on this lorry, then we'll put you on this boat, and you'll end up at X", you are not in a position to argue the toss and debate international treaties, or to jump off and do your own thing along the way.
First firm runner?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rbH0RU4GcVo
As un-PC as it is, I still feel the Democrats might need a white man to have a chance.
The whole issue needs looking at again and the various treaties need ripping up and starting again. No sign of that. So, do you just condone law-breaking?
Also, those who have reached camps in Calais do have a choice. They are not being forced to jump onto lorries or forced to go in boats. Nor are those who reach camps in Sicily or Italy being forced to refuse to make an asylum claim.
What is also immoral - but tends to get ignored - is rewarding law-breakers at the expense of those, who may well be more needy, who try and obey the law or who are not able to pay people smugglers.
OTOH you could argue that Trump is really good on the attack and he'll do the same with whichever unlucky Democrat wins the nomination.
Also, she's raised a lot of money.
But I'm not quite sure I understand the (second) point you're making. We should accept asylum seekers in contravention of the Dublin Convention, purely because they thought they were paying to come to the UK and they instead found themselves in France?
Give it time though.
If you cut it down then you’ll never know.
Can’t wait.
From the tumescent joy that some folk were taking over the gilets jaune stooshie, one might almost think so.
However the (dumb) comparison was with people fleeing from such places to England & the dearth of people fleeing from England.
Tory members here are also more likely to be Remainers or back May's Deal (myself included) than members as a whole.
The 117 Tory MPs who voted against May would be more than enough to get Rees Mogg or Boris to the final 2
I note from the comments above that you are ill and in hospital. Good luck for your swift recovery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xWxyxsVAsQ
The best chance Democrats have isn't to rehash 2016 with retreads like Biden or Sanders but to go for someone fresher of whom there are many candidates. Even Beto O'Rourke would do better in the rust belt.
As leave voters tend to be older with many of them over 50's which is a group that doesn't tend to like Corbyn anyway. Then younger voters which are generally more supportive of Corbyn tend to be remain voters.
I'm curious as to how the subcategories of older remainers and younger leavers breakdown in Tory and Labour voting.
https://twitter.com/SheldanKeay/status/1079745872823574528
The key for May and the Deal is to ensure she at least stays through this year past Brexit which the VONC ensured
I have long believed that attitudes to Corbyn were far more salient in 2017 - and this might well still be true - than Brexit.
Trump could win Florida and Arizona in 2020 and still lose the Electoral College
Not even Grayling can be that useless.
Rustbelt politics is now anti globalisation, protectionist, pro tougher border controls and culturally socially conservative. O'Rourke polls worse than both Biden and Sanders against Trump
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/422735-trump-beats-beto-nearly-ties-bernie-but-loses-to-biden-in
Let me guess you don't have one, except maybe a ConHome poll which you'll pretend is a members poll?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/07/09/leave-voting-conservative-party-members-are-starti
For Trump-Beto it is 37 v 30 which leaves an incredible 33% (one in three) who haven't stated a preference.
So you have no evidence that Tory members oppose the Deal then?
Somebody asked me for how much and how long do I think I could stay. At first I thought wow I bet it becomes increasingly mentally taxing, probably on a few days...then I thought oh wait, I wouldn’t have to hear about brexit every minute of every day...sign me up for 5 years!
Which is all meaningless because its just name recognition and the campaigning hasn't began yet in earnest.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/07/09/leave-voting-conservative-party-members-are-starti
O'Rourke has already lost the Texas Senate race, he needs to win to really be a general election contender, certainly for the top slot
The rustbelt is the most obvious route to a Democrat win, but it's not the only one.
Chasing Florida before the rustbelt is a lost cause for Democrats in my view
Progressive strategist Ruy Teixeira said in an interview that aired Monday on "What America's Thinking," that while it's too early to start polling on 2020 contenders, it does not surprise that Biden matches up well against Trump.
"It's really early to be polling on this," Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told Hill.TV's Jamal Simmons.
"It doesn't surprise me that Biden runs relatively well against Trump. He's got 100 percent name recognition, he's a likable guy. I think he'd play well in different areas of the country that the Democrats haven't done so well in," he added.
I would accept that bet, Mr. Urquhart. It's very hard, though, psychologically to be isolated. A chap kept in a cave with no natural light became very ratty. He was there for 2-3 months and got retrieved 'early' because his body clock had lengthened his perception of a day to about 25 hours.
Mr. Xenon, perhaps, but the incompetence of Grayling has been remarked upon here quite often.
I suppose if you are blind it is just staying in a room for 30 days, bit boring but easy work for the money...