I'm interested to see whether May says anything about Welsh devolution in her speech, or if her speechwriters have decided to outsource fact-checking to twitter and will modify it accordingly.
Trump's net disapproval rating has moved out to 14% which is worse than the previous 12 presidents at this point in their presidency according to fivethirtyeight.
It's a profoundly silly affair, but probably quite a good analysis of how personality politics works and the dangers of "false authenticity". I'm convinced that people don't much mind whether someone is like them - what they want to know is whether someone cares about them.
Actually, I think authenticity yptends to be the determining factor for successful politicians - whether it’s Thatcher or the new congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. Trump is an obvious counterexample, but even he is true to his appalling self (and nothing else).
I think that's right, and Trump seems perfectly credible in that sense. Jacob Rees-Mogg is perhaps an extreme test of the theory - he seems authentic enough, but authentically archaic. People like his generally polite manner but nurse doubts about his suitability for high office.
Mind you, Hillary was pretty credible as a remote, cerebral establishment liberal, with few attempts to be folksy, and she got criticised for that. As the article says, if people want to get you they'll find an angle.
Boris Johnson is basically the definition of false authenticity - yet remains very popular with his target audience.
Warren is seen as an elitist liberal professor (perhaps), but really was born in Oklahoma and actually has done a lot to 'look after the little guy'. Her problem is not false authenticity, but the perception of false authenticity.
Agreed. Being comfortable in your own skin is probably a better description. Bill Clinton is a good example; not the most honest of politicians - and with rather less integrity than Warren - but far more emotionally plausible.
Trump's net disapproval rating has moved out to 14% which is worse than the previous 12 presidents at this point in their presidency according to fivethirtyeight.
American politicians don't tend to soul-search very much, do they?
Just think how bad Hillary was as a candidate if she lost to Trump. Her campaign always felt like … "It's my turn to be President because I'm Bill's wife and I'm female." Nepotism worthy of a somewhere like Somalia.
Not exactly, given that she won the nomination by getting the most votes. Whether one likes her or not, and I don't particularly, it's arguably less nepotistic than the careers of some of our politicians' offspring.
Clinton was a senate for years and then Sec of State. Clearly a politician in her own right. iirc at one point she was most popular pol in US.
Turned out that she is not too great a campaigner and lacked a unifying vision or message.
Mr. Borough, it's almost as if insulting half the electorate in a tight contest, then sending campaigning resources to safe states instead of competitive ones is a stupid strategy.
It was hers to lose, and she duly put in a sterling effort to lose it.
Trump's authenticity was that he was a consummate deal maker and a businessman who got thing done. In fact he's a lousy deal maker. If he were any good, the wall would be half built by now.
Few cared one way or the other about walls until Trump made it into an issue. His other authenticity was that he told things as they are. Actually he's the biggest liar ever to occupy the White House
Turns out running the country is a little more complicated than doing a real estate deal. What a surprise.
Trump is, though, authentic in the sense that he doesn't try to mask his personality. He lets it all hang out there. You get a real sense of just what a revolting individual he is. That's refreshing.
If a hard Brexit happens and we're forced to. become Trumps poodle at least we know one politician who will fight it all the way. Corbyn is rapidly starting to look more appealing. Can you imagine a Johnson/ Trump alliance without the cushion of the EU?
Remind me please how much help the "cushion of the EU" was in preventing the Blair/Bush alliance from invading Iraq?
Blair was/is of course a Tory. The point has merit, actually. In my mind, I can see Corbyn telling Trump to eff off, should it be necessary to do so, far more easily and quickly than any Cons PM.
Corbyn may but the EU is immaterial to the discussion.
I think we have seen with recent pronouncements by eg. Merkel, that they are ready to stand up to the US.
Trump's net disapproval rating has moved out to 14% which is worse than the previous 12 presidents at this point in their presidency according to fivethirtyeight.
Interestingly, McMao was making much the same argument a little later on R4, claiming it was no bad thing that the balance between parliament and the executive is to an extent being redressed, after many years of executive power aggrandisement.
I find it disturbing when I fund him talking sense.
Mr. Borough, it's almost as if insulting half the electorate in a tight contest, then sending campaigning resources to safe states instead of competitive ones is a stupid strategy.
It was hers to lose, and she duly put in a sterling effort to lose it.
Don't remember the resources thing, but I'm sure you are right. I do recall she didn't campaign in places they assumed wouldn't flip in the Rust Belt.
Mr. Borough, it's almost as if insulting half the electorate in a tight contest, then sending campaigning resources to safe states instead of competitive ones is a stupid strategy.
It was hers to lose, and she duly put in a sterling effort to lose it.
It certainly looks like the Trump resources were far better targeted. We await the Mueller report to set out the full details in addition to what we can glean from the indictments so far.
He doesn't need a majority to support his wall. He'll ensure he doesn't alienate (and will indeed keep energised) the one-third who constitute his base.
Of the rest, he then needs about one in five to hold their nose and say, "I don't like him, I don't like his tweets, but I do like the economy just now, and worry about his opponent".
And he's a powerful campaigner who has an unrivalled ability to shape the debate around his latest dead cat. Democrats simply haven't worked out how to seize the agenda from him and develop a coherent alternative narrative. Whoever emerges from a very crowded field might - but they might equally be a dud.
If the economy stalls (and it may) he's in big trouble. But there's value in the current odds on re-election - for me, he remains favourite to remain President all the way to January 2025.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
It wouldn't. The only ones pretending it would are Corbyn and his supporters.
If Corbyn got his election the very last thing he would want to talk about during it would be Brexit.
Interestingly, McMao was making much the same argument a little later on R4, claiming it was no bad thing that the balance between parliament and the executive is to an extent being redressed, after many years of executive power aggrandisement.
I find it disturbing when I fund him talking sense.
Do you think he will have the same attitude when he is in 11 Downing Street?
Agreed. Being comfortable in your own skin is probably a better description. Bill Clinton is a good example; not the most honest of politicians - and with rather less integrity than Warren - but far more emotionally plausible.
Authenticity, like "likeability" a danger area, because it doesn't seem to be applied evenly (or in many cases at all) to men.
Gawd I bet the Dems are wishing so hard that AOC was old enough. Likable and authentic and a woman.
There is not a lot to admire about Trump but he means what he says and delivers, or tries to, on his campaign pledges, even the stupid ones like trade wars. He means what he says about the wall and he is not afraid to court unpopularity to deliver.U.K. politicians might have nicer table manners and be free of Trumps character flaws but they show nowhere near the same honesty of intent.
He didn't mean what he said about Mexico paying for the wall, or about a healthcare plan that would cover everybody with more benefits at lower cost. This was all bullshit.
Still slightly surprises me that in spite of all that there's a hard core that''ll stick with Trump whatever (& just the sort of folk who were & are energised by a Mexico funded wall). I guess this is where having an existing rep for blowhard bullshittery helps.
'Hey, these were Donald promises, if they come off well & good, if not so what; I'm sure he meant them at the time.'
Trump is a leader and his base are followers. Witness the way white evangelicals suddenly felt it was okay for the president to be unfaithful to his wife and lie once Trump became the nominee.
Yep, I had that in mind also. It's striking how those who claim loudly & publicly to have very strong moral principles let those principles evaporate quicker than snow aff a dyke at the first sniff of a culture war. If I weren't such an idealistic optimist, that sort of thing might turn me into a cynic.
The thing to remember is that most of these people believe that abortion is murder. If they're asked to choose between somebody who has some allegations about being unfaithful vs. somebody who, in their view, is committed to perpetuating mass murder of infants, it's going to be a pretty easy choice
Mr. Borough, apparently her husband advised her to send more resources to certain states (forget the specific ones) but she decided to side with those who thought it'd make it look like a contest there. Which is crazy.
Sir Norfolk, perhaps, but the novelty of Trump will be gone in 2020 and the reality will be known. And he barely scraped a victory against the most Establishment contender possibly of all time during a period of anti-Establishment Zeitgeist, *and* that still required her to make a number of dumb-as-a-post decisions to help him out.
He doesn't need a majority to support his wall. He'll ensure he doesn't alienate (and will indeed keep energised) the one-third who constitute his base.
Of the rest, he then needs about one in five to hold their nose and say, "I don't like him, I don't like his tweets, but I do like the economy just now, and worry about his opponent".
And he's a powerful campaigner who has an unrivalled ability to shape the debate around his latest dead cat. Democrats simply haven't worked out how to seize the agenda from him and develop a coherent alternative narrative. Whoever emerges from a very crowded field might - but they might equally be a dud.
If the economy stalls (and it may) he's in big trouble. But there's value in the current odds on re-election - for me, he remains favourite to remain President all the way to January 2025.
Pretty sure the US economy will have stalled by 2020.
Agreed. Being comfortable in your own skin is probably a better description. Bill Clinton is a good example; not the most honest of politicians - and with rather less integrity than Warren - but far more emotionally plausible.
Authenticity, like "likeability" a danger area, because it doesn't seem to be applied evenly (or in many cases at all) to men.
Gawd I bet the Dems are wishing so hard that AOC was old enough. Likable and authentic and a woman.
I think a majority are probably quite relieved she isn't old enough yet to contest the nomination.
And for her part, I suspect she is smart enough to think that for now she is better off influencing the direction of thinking in the party than trying for any such thing (her compromise with Pelosi is good evidence for that).
If a hard Brexit happens and we're forced to. become Trumps poodle at least we know one politician who will fight it all the way. Corbyn is rapidly starting to look more appealing. Can you imagine a Johnson/ Trump alliance without the cushion of the EU?
Remind me please how much help the "cushion of the EU" was in preventing the Blair/Bush alliance from invading Iraq?
Blair was/is of course a Tory. The point has merit, actually. In my mind, I can see Corbyn telling Trump to eff off, should it be necessary to do so, far more easily and quickly than any Cons PM.
Corbyn may but the EU is immaterial to the discussion.
I think we have seen with recent pronouncements by eg. Merkel, that they are ready to stand up to the US.
Because in 2003 Chirac and Schroeder were so supportive of Bush?
Interestingly, McMao was making much the same argument a little later on R4, claiming it was no bad thing that the balance between parliament and the executive is to an extent being redressed, after many years of executive power aggrandisement.
I find it disturbing when I fund him talking sense.
We'll see if he sticks to that argument when he's part of the Executive and Parliament is obstructing his plans to nationalise piggy banks.
The Mueller investigation is lapping ever higher around Donald Trump. He may want to keep the shutdown going for reasons that have nothing to do with the wall.
Interviewed this morning, Boles was quite clear about his preferred option being 'Norway', but equally clear his priority was to prevent a no deal Brexit, and the parliamentary manoeuvring was to allow parliamentary votes on all the alternatives (ie Ref2. Norway, or trying to attach permanent CU to the May deal).
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
Ironic. The outcome most say they don't want, which will be arrived at because they won't compromise.
You only have to look at the EU's behaviour to see that the UK crashing out without a deal is a long way from the outcome they don't want. Even at this late, late, LATE stage we're completely misreading the motivations of the EU and its major participants.
The EU27 (and by extension Donald Tusk) want to maintain solidarity over all, it's important to them that they not throw Ireland under a bus to show that EU solidarity means something.
The Commission wants to maintain the principles that underpin the EU, including the integrity of the single market and the four freedoms.
Leo Varadkar wants to maintain his coalition, which means opposing a hard border with Northern Ireland at any costs.
All of which means the the full might of the EU machinery is fully aligned behind the WA and the backstop.
Stopping the UK from committing absurd acts of self-harm is way, way, way, way, way, way waaaaay down the list.
The EU does not want the UK to crash out without a deal, but it won't lift a finger to help unless a way can be found that's compatible with the major motivations of its players.
The Mueller investigation is lapping ever higher around Donald Trump. He may want to keep the shutdown going for reasons that have nothing to do with the wall.
Mueller funding is completely outwith the shutdown I think. Obviously the 'golden' video will never be released by Putin, it's the sort of thing that has far more effect as a sword of damacles/blackmail tool.
NEW: Understand the clerk of the House of Commons David Natzler has instructed colleagues that it is in order for Nick Boles/MPs to put down an amendment to give them control of the order paper for a specific event
The Mueller investigation is lapping ever higher around Donald Trump. He may want to keep the shutdown going for reasons that have nothing to do with the wall.
Mueller funding is completely outwith the shutdown I think. Obviously the 'golden' video will never be released by Putin, it's the sort of thing that has far more effect as a sword of damacles/blackmail tool.
I don't think Alastair means funding. Shutdown simply keeps Mueller out of the news leads. Dead cat stuff.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
Unless May wins ~ a 200+ majority her deal is still dead.
The Mueller investigation is lapping ever higher around Donald Trump. He may want to keep the shutdown going for reasons that have nothing to do with the wall.
Mueller funding is completely outwith the shutdown I think. Obviously the 'golden' video will never be released by Putin, it's the sort of thing that has far more effect as a sword of damacles/blackmail tool.
It is. Plus the House democrats will simply appoint him as an independent investigator if Trump tries to nobble the investigation by going after his funding.
The Mueller investigation is lapping ever higher around Donald Trump. He may want to keep the shutdown going for reasons that have nothing to do with the wall.
Mueller funding is completely outwith the shutdown I think. Obviously the 'golden' video will never be released by Putin, it's the sort of thing that has far more effect as a sword of damacles/blackmail tool.
The video is very likely an invention to discredit early efforts to investigate Trump. Trump is probably compromised in much more conventional ways.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
It's a plan but I suspect any resultant parliament would actually be even more hung than this one currently is.
I suspect Labour would end up with more seats at the expense of the Tories but without Scotland they won't get a majority and the SNP will keep enough seats that Labour won't be close to a majority...
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
Unless May wins ~ a 200+ majority her deal is still dead.
Even if she wins the MV her deal is still dead, because the DUP will pull the plug on her government.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
Unless May wins ~ a 200+ majority her deal is still dead.
Even if she wins the MV her deal is still dead, because the DUP will pull the plug on her government.
If Corbyn got his election the very last thing he would want to talk about during it would be Brexit.
Well, quite. But he won't be able to avoid it.
If Corbyn gets a general election, the first, and only, question will be "Do you support leaving the EU, Mr Corbyn?". If he answers yes, the young desert him. If he answers no, the WWC (are presumed to) desert him. If he attempts to continue with his policy of wait-and-see equivocation, people will, rightly, say "that was fine in opposition, but you want us to elect you to Government, and you won't even give us an answer as to whether we'll stay in the EU".
It would be manna for the smaller pro-EU parties, but I can't see how Corbyn navigates it.
Alex Wickham BUT government sources say the Boles amendment has a problem. MPs would have to write a bill that does not spend any money. This would mean they cannot use it to call a second referendum. And Brexiters say extending Article 50 requires spending money too.
Alex Wickham Brexiters say the Boles amendment therefore does not take control over Brexit away from the government. Govt source agrees but says it could still inflict serious damage that may make it impossible to govern.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
Unless May wins ~ a 200+ majority her deal is still dead.
Even if she wins the MV her deal is still dead, because the DUP will pull the plug on her government.
Not if she won a majority at the GE which was the hypothetical.
Ironic. The outcome most say they don't want, which will be arrived at because they won't compromise.
You only have to look at the EU's behaviour to see that the UK crashing out without a deal is a long way from the outcome they don't want. Even at this late, late, LATE stage we're completely misreading the motivations of the EU and its major participants.
The EU27 (and by extension Donald Tusk) want to maintain solidarity over all, it's important to them that they not throw Ireland under a bus to show that EU solidarity means something.
The Commission wants to maintain the principles that underpin the EU, including the integrity of the single market and the four freedoms.
Leo Varadkar wants to maintain his coalition, which means opposing a hard border with Northern Ireland at any costs.
All of which means the the full might of the EU machinery is fully aligned behind the WA and the backstop.
Stopping the UK from committing absurd acts of self-harm is way, way, way, way, way, way waaaaay down the list.
The EU does not want the UK to crash out without a deal, but it won't lift a finger to help unless a way can be found that's compatible with the major motivations of its players.
Someone will crack on the backstop. My view is that it will be the UK. However, there must be a 1-3% chance that it will be the EU. WTO terms for them invites the possibility of a hardened border and so to time limit it to a small number of years would solve the problem today and in the near term. Now, that would be can kicking of monumental and out of character proportions for them but as we all know, they/Eire can countenance WTO as little as we can.
Hugely unlikely, but 1-3% is probably about right.
Interestingly, McMao was making much the same argument a little later on R4, claiming it was no bad thing that the balance between parliament and the executive is to an extent being redressed, after many years of executive power aggrandisement.
I find it disturbing when I fund him talking sense.
We'll see if he sticks to that argument when he's part of the Executive and Parliament is obstructing his plans to nationalise piggy banks.
Of course not - he'll find reasons of principle to utterly condemn any such efforts.
NEW: Understand the clerk of the House of Commons David Natzler has instructed colleagues that it is in order for Nick Boles/MPs to put down an amendment to give them control of the order paper for a specific event
Everyone keeping up??
The Clerk of the House seems to have had a drastic change of heart since last week when he was apparently furious with Bercow.
I suppose he senses which way the wind is blowing.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
It's a plan but I suspect any resultant parliament would actually be even more hung than this one currently is.
I suspect Labour would end up with more seats at the expense of the Tories but without Scotland they won't get a majority and the SNP will keep enough seats that Labour won't be close to a majority...
On current polling, Lab+SNP would be able to construct a pretty sizable majority. Only question is what timbre a Lab/SNP government will have.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
Unless May wins ~ a 200+ majority her deal is still dead.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
Unless May wins ~ a 200+ majority her deal is still dead.
Even if she wins the MV her deal is still dead, because the DUP will pull the plug on her government.
Indeed - her deal is dead. All deals are dead until after 29th March.
There will be some Euroloons like Boles that will try but in the unlikely event they manage to pull off a majority in parliment they will get to enjoy travelling to Brussels to be told to do one by Barnier.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
It's a plan but I suspect any resultant parliament would actually be even more hung than this one currently is.
I suspect Labour would end up with more seats at the expense of the Tories but without Scotland they won't get a majority and the SNP will keep enough seats that Labour won't be close to a majority...
On current polling, Lab+SNP would be able to construct a pretty sizable majority. Only question is what timbre a Lab/SNP government will have.
i'm sure a vote Corbyn get Sturgeon poster will be drawn up as we speak....
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
Unless May wins ~ a 200+ majority her deal is still dead.
Perhaps 17 was her 23, and 19 will be her 24?
I don't get that but even Jack Bauer would struggle to solve this in the remaining 24 hours.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
It's a plan but I suspect any resultant parliament would actually be even more hung than this one currently is.
I suspect Labour would end up with more seats at the expense of the Tories but without Scotland they won't get a majority and the SNP will keep enough seats that Labour won't be close to a majority...
On current polling, Lab+SNP would be able to construct a pretty sizable majority. Only question is what timbre a Lab/SNP government will have.
Not on the current polling with the Tories 5% ahead they wouldn't.....
Sir Norfolk, perhaps, but the novelty of Trump will be gone in 2020 and the reality will be known. And he barely scraped a victory against the most Establishment contender possibly of all time during a period of anti-Establishment Zeitgeist, *and* that still required her to make a number of dumb-as-a-post decisions to help him out.
Trump has one big advantage in 2020 compared to 2016. He's the incumbent. This works for him in many ways.
First it means he has a track record. He has delivered many things for his supporters, most notably in Supreme Court appointments.
Second, his lack of experience can no longer be used against him. Some of the contenders for the Democratic nomination have a shorter career in US politics than Trump - and none will have had four years experience of being President.
Third, the sky has not fallen in. Given the apocalyptic rhetoric used by his opponents it will be a plus for Trump that the sun has still risen, Wal-Mart is still open, non-Federal employees are still paid, etc.
Fourth, it makes the narrative even more about Trump. This is a plus because Democrats have still not managed to find a way to criticise Trump without denigrating his supporters. It prevents Democrats from creating, let alone presenting, a positive alternative.
I think the baseline scenario is that Trump wins re-election. Something pretty special has to happen for the Democrats to win.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
It's a plan but I suspect any resultant parliament would actually be even more hung than this one currently is.
I suspect Labour would end up with more seats at the expense of the Tories but without Scotland they won't get a majority and the SNP will keep enough seats that Labour won't be close to a majority...
On current polling, Lab+SNP would be able to construct a pretty sizable majority. Only question is what timbre a Lab/SNP government will have.
i'm sure a vote Corbyn get Sturgeon poster will be drawn up as we speak....
Doubt it would work. Would reassure me if Corbyn was in Sturgeon's pocket.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
It's a plan but I suspect any resultant parliament would actually be even more hung than this one currently is.
I suspect Labour would end up with more seats at the expense of the Tories but without Scotland they won't get a majority and the SNP will keep enough seats that Labour won't be close to a majority...
On current polling, Lab+SNP would be able to construct a pretty sizable majority. Only question is what timbre a Lab/SNP government will have.
i'm sure a vote Corbyn get Sturgeon poster will be drawn up as we speak....
Doubt it would work. Would reassure me if Corbyn was in Sturgeon's pocket.
Fair point. The SNP would be a moderating influence on Labour, unlike in 2015..
Ironic. The outcome most say they don't want, which will be arrived at because they won't compromise.
You only have to look at the EU's behaviour to see that the UK crashing out without a deal is a long way from the outcome they don't want. Even at this late, late, LATE stage we're completely misreading the motivations of the EU and its major participants.
The EU27 (and by extension Donald Tusk) want to maintain solidarity over all, it's important to them that they not throw Ireland under a bus to show that EU solidarity means something.
The Commission wants to maintain the principles that underpin the EU, including the integrity of the single market and the four freedoms.
Leo Varadkar wants to maintain his coalition, which means opposing a hard border with Northern Ireland at any costs.
All of which means the the full might of the EU machinery is fully aligned behind the WA and the backstop.
Stopping the UK from committing absurd acts of self-harm is way, way, way, way, way, way waaaaay down the list.
The EU does not want the UK to crash out without a deal, but it won't lift a finger to help unless a way can be found that's compatible with the major motivations of its players.
Someone will crack on the backstop. My view is that it will be the UK. However, there must be a 1-3% chance that it will be the EU. WTO terms for them invites the possibility of a hardened border and so to time limit it to a small number of years would solve the problem today and in the near term. Now, that would be can kicking of monumental and out of character proportions for them but as we all know, they/Eire can countenance WTO as little as we can.
Hugely unlikely, but 1-3% is probably about right.
There was a Brussels official quoted in the past couple of days as saying "In the EU, nothing is black and white...."
Sir Norfolk, perhaps, but the novelty of Trump will be gone in 2020 and the reality will be known. And he barely scraped a victory against the most Establishment contender possibly of all time during a period of anti-Establishment Zeitgeist, *and* that still required her to make a number of dumb-as-a-post decisions to help him out.
Trump has one big advantage in 2020 compared to 2016. He's the incumbent. This works for him in many ways.
First it means he has a track record. He has delivered many things for his supporters, most notably in Supreme Court appointments.
Second, his lack of experience can no longer be used against him. Some of the contenders for the Democratic nomination have a shorter career in US politics than Trump - and none will have had four years experience of being President.
Third, the sky has not fallen in. Given the apocalyptic rhetoric used by his opponents it will be a plus for Trump that the sun has still risen, Wal-Mart is still open, non-Federal employees are still paid, etc.
Fourth, it makes the narrative even more about Trump. This is a plus because Democrats have still not managed to find a way to criticise Trump without denigrating his supporters. It prevents Democrats from creating, let alone presenting, a positive alternative.
I think the baseline scenario is that Trump wins re-election. Something pretty special has to happen for the Democrats to win.
I think it will come down to the state of the economy and whether its so bad that Trump ends up being blamed. I think this is very much not an election the Democrats will win, it's very much an election that Trump either wins loses..
He doesn't need a majority to support his wall. He'll ensure he doesn't alienate (and will indeed keep energised) the one-third who constitute his base.
Of the rest, he then needs about one in five to hold their nose and say, "I don't like him, I don't like his tweets, but I do like the economy just now, and worry about his opponent".
And he's a powerful campaigner who has an unrivalled ability to shape the debate around his latest dead cat. Democrats simply haven't worked out how to seize the agenda from him and develop a coherent alternative narrative. Whoever emerges from a very crowded field might - but they might equally be a dud.
If the economy stalls (and it may) he's in big trouble. But there's value in the current odds on re-election - for me, he remains favourite to remain President all the way to January 2025.
Thanks a bunch. Did I not want to read this. Especially since it is persuasive.
You mention a stalling economy as the biggest risk to Donald Trump and I agree with that, although I suspect that it needs to be rather more serious than just stalling.
A deep and prolonged recession with millions of ordinary blue collar Americans thrown out of work would surely do the trick. But is that too much to hope for?
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
It's a plan but I suspect any resultant parliament would actually be even more hung than this one currently is.
I suspect Labour would end up with more seats at the expense of the Tories but without Scotland they won't get a majority and the SNP will keep enough seats that Labour won't be close to a majority...
On current polling, Lab+SNP would be able to construct a pretty sizable majority. Only question is what timbre a Lab/SNP government will have.
i'm sure a vote Corbyn get Sturgeon poster will be drawn up as we speak....
Doubt it would work. Would reassure me if Corbyn was in Sturgeon's pocket.
+1 a partner would mean that the weirder Corbyn plans would be toned down / binned...
There is not a lot to admire about Trump but he means what he says and delivers, or tries to, on his campaign pledges, even the stupid ones like trade wars. He means what he says about the wall and he is not afraid to court unpopularity to deliver.U.K. politicians might have nicer table manners and be free of Trumps character flaws but they show nowhere near the same honesty of intent.
He didn't mean what he said about Mexico paying for the wall, or about a healthcare plan that would cover everybody with more benefits at lower cost. This was all bullshit.
Still slightly surprises me that in spite of all that there's a hard core that''ll stick with Trump whatever (& just the sort of folk who were & are energised by a Mexico funded wall). I guess this is where having an existing rep for blowhard bullshittery helps.
'Hey, these were Donald promises, if they come off well & good, if not so what; I'm sure he meant them at the time.'
Trump is a leader and his base are followers. Witness the way white evangelicals suddenly felt it was okay for the president to be unfaithful to his wife and lie once Trump became the nominee.
Yep, I had that in mind also. It's striking how those who claim loudly & publicly to have very strong moral principles let those principles evaporate quicker than snow aff a dyke at the first sniff of a culture war. If I weren't such an idealistic optimist, that sort of thing might turn me into a cynic.
The thing to remember is that most of these people believe that abortion is murder. If they're asked to choose between somebody who has some allegations about being unfaithful vs. somebody who, in their view, is committed to perpetuating mass murder of infants, it's going to be a pretty easy choice
Sure, but there doesn't seem to have been much moral wrestling over supporting a pussy grabbing adulterer who pays off porn stars just because they've reversed their pro choice position for low electoral advantage. Trump doesn't even seem a slightly repentant sinner.
On checking what Trump has actually said on abortion, I'm ashamed to say I've only just discovered that Trump has a sister, Maryanne Trump Barr, who's a judge on the sensible centrist side of things (for the USA) & more or less pro choice. Every day's a school day.
Mr. Me, interesting counterpoints, but the Supreme Court cuts both ways. Republicans who want a conservative majority on the SC have it, they don't need Any Republican in the White House now to achieve that. Given a sensible Democrat versus Trump, they can more easily jump ship.
I do think your fourth point is important, though. "You idiot racists, vote for me instead" is not hugely persuasive.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
It's a plan but I suspect any resultant parliament would actually be even more hung than this one currently is.
I suspect Labour would end up with more seats at the expense of the Tories but without Scotland they won't get a majority and the SNP will keep enough seats that Labour won't be close to a majority...
On current polling, Lab+SNP would be able to construct a pretty sizable majority. Only question is what timbre a Lab/SNP government will have.
i'm sure a vote Corbyn get Sturgeon poster will be drawn up as we speak....
If you were looking to reassure a lot of people that at least somebody competent was keeping Corbyn on a leash sure, go for it.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
It's a plan but I suspect any resultant parliament would actually be even more hung than this one currently is.
I suspect Labour would end up with more seats at the expense of the Tories but without Scotland they won't get a majority and the SNP will keep enough seats that Labour won't be close to a majority...
On current polling, Lab+SNP would be able to construct a pretty sizable majority. Only question is what timbre a Lab/SNP government will have.
i'm sure a vote Corbyn get Sturgeon poster will be drawn up as we speak....
Doubt it would work. Would reassure me if Corbyn was in Sturgeon's pocket.
+1 a partner would mean that the weirder Corbyn plans would be toned down / binned...
An election featuring Nicla would have to happen pretty soon. She's about to be filleted by an angry Salmond.
The narrative that Clinton was a weak candidate and any Dem would be better in 2020 is also flawed.
She was certainly flawed, but those flaws came to the fore because they were ruthlessly exploited by Trump. After every election, a story is written to the effect that the loser had some fatal hole below the waterline that could easily be avoided next time - and you have to take that with a huge pinch of salt.
Clinton also had major strengths as well as flaws - she won the debates, attracted huge funds, plainly had ample experience, and left office as Secretary of State with very strong ratings.
All the key 2020 candidates also have flaws, and Trump will be utterly brutal on these. The tweets write themselves:
Warren - Patronising Pocahontas preaching to Joe Six Pack! Sad.
Sanders - Doddering liberal who lost bigly to Crooked Hillary (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Biden - Senile loser only there because Obama saved him from the scrapheap! Sad.
Harris - West coast liberal snowflake who doesn't speak for "real" Americans! Sad.
O'Rourke - Loser humiliated by Lyin' Ted Cruz (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Same for anyone you care to list. They also all have strengths - but can they make the campaign about the strengths not the flaws? That's the trick, and I'm not sure at all that they can.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), the whole thing smells fishy.
Hopefully the deluded from south of the border who think the SNP and the Sturgeon could run a whelk stall will have the scales falling from their eyes at last.
The only two party bloc that would command a majority is therefore Con+SNP with a healthy majority of 20, but I think we can rule that out on grounds of sanity and good taste.
After that we're looking at Lab+SNP+LD I guess, which comes to 332, a wobbly majority of 12.
The narrative that Clinton was a weak candidate and any Dem would be better in 2020 is also flawed.
She was certainly flawed, but those flaws came to the fore because they were ruthlessly exploited by Trump. After every election, a story is written to the effect that the loser had some fatal hole below the waterline that could easily be avoided next time - and you have to take that with a huge pinch of salt.
Clinton also had major strengths as well as flaws - she won the debates, attracted huge funds, plainly had ample experience, and left office as Secretary of State with very strong ratings.
All the key 2020 candidates also have flaws, and Trump will be utterly brutal on these. The tweets write themselves:
Warren - Patronising Pocahontas preaching to Joe Six Pack! Sad.
Sanders - Doddering liberal who lost bigly to Crooked Hillary (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Biden - Senile loser only there because Obama saved him from the scrapheap! Sad.
Harris - West coast liberal snowflake who doesn't speak for "real" Americans! Sad.
O'Rourke - Loser humiliated by Lyin' Ted Cruz (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Same for anyone you care to list. They also all have strengths - but can they make the campaign about the strengths not the flaws? That's the trick, and I'm not sure at all that they can.
Interestingly, your Harris attack is by far the weakest. Which suggests that she is the best candidate. It attacks her perceived political position rather than a negative event or personal flaw.
The only two party bloc that would command a majority is therefore Con+SNP with a healthy majority of 20, but I think we can rule that out on grounds of sanity and good taste.
After that we're looking at Lab+SNP+LD I guess, which comes to 332, a wobbly majority of 12.
LD 18?
So another marginal possibility could be an even more wobbly Lab+SNP at 314 with LD abstaining on confidence matters (in the interests of having a government) but not providing any active support.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), the whole thing smells fishy.
Hopefully the deluded from south of the border who think the SNP and the Sturgeon could run a whelk stall will have the scales falling from their eyes at last.
I haven't been paying that close attention to what's going on, but I assume the reason why Sturgeon and Salmond are beating seven shades of shit out of each other is really a proxy war over the future direction of the SNP.
Salmond wants it to be a populist ethnosocialist insurrection movement like those that are currently all the rage across Europe Sturgeon wants it to be a moderate social democratic party of government of the kind that seems to be going rapidly extinct.
The narrative that Clinton was a weak candidate and any Dem would be better in 2020 is also flawed.
She was certainly flawed, but those flaws came to the fore because they were ruthlessly exploited by Trump. After every election, a story is written to the effect that the loser had some fatal hole below the waterline that could easily be avoided next time - and you have to take that with a huge pinch of salt.
Clinton also had major strengths as well as flaws - she won the debates, attracted huge funds, plainly had ample experience, and left office as Secretary of State with very strong ratings.
All the key 2020 candidates also have flaws, and Trump will be utterly brutal on these. The tweets write themselves:
Warren - Patronising Pocahontas preaching to Joe Six Pack! Sad.
Sanders - Doddering liberal who lost bigly to Crooked Hillary (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Biden - Senile loser only there because Obama saved him from the scrapheap! Sad.
Harris - West coast liberal snowflake who doesn't speak for "real" Americans! Sad.
O'Rourke - Loser humiliated by Lyin' Ted Cruz (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Same for anyone you care to list. They also all have strengths - but can they make the campaign about the strengths not the flaws? That's the trick, and I'm not sure at all that they can.
These are all correct. And Beto has the DUI to boot. However,
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
The narrative that Clinton was a weak candidate and any Dem would be better in 2020 is also flawed.
She was certainly flawed, but those flaws came to the fore because they were ruthlessly exploited by Trump. After every election, a story is written to the effect that the loser had some fatal hole below the waterline that could easily be avoided next time - and you have to take that with a huge pinch of salt.
Clinton also had major strengths as well as flaws - she won the debates, attracted huge funds, plainly had ample experience, and left office as Secretary of State with very strong ratings.
All the key 2020 candidates also have flaws, and Trump will be utterly brutal on these. The tweets write themselves:
Warren - Patronising Pocahontas preaching to Joe Six Pack! Sad.
Sanders - Doddering liberal who lost bigly to Crooked Hillary (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Biden - Senile loser only there because Obama saved him from the scrapheap! Sad.
Harris - West coast liberal snowflake who doesn't speak for "real" Americans! Sad.
O'Rourke - Loser humiliated by Lyin' Ted Cruz (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Same for anyone you care to list. They also all have strengths - but can they make the campaign about the strengths not the flaws? That's the trick, and I'm not sure at all that they can.
Interestingly, your Harris attack is by far the weakest. Which suggests that she is the best candidate. It attacks her perceived political position rather than a negative event or personal flaw.
Hmm.
Harris has banking sleaze, specifically her failure to prosecute a bank owned by a crooked hedge fund manager who donated to her campaign. Most presidents would be deterred from pursuing this line of attack by the fact that they'd made the said crooked hedge fund manager their Treasury Secretary, but Trump has never been hobbled by a commitment to consistency.
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
She doesn't (yet) have cross-party support for a 2nd ref, as Labour aren't yet ready to back one.
The narrative that Clinton was a weak candidate and any Dem would be better in 2020 is also flawed.
She was certainly flawed, but those flaws came to the fore because they were ruthlessly exploited by Trump. After every election, a story is written to the effect that the loser had some fatal hole below the waterline that could easily be avoided next time - and you have to take that with a huge pinch of salt.
Clinton also had major strengths as well as flaws - she won the debates, attracted huge funds, plainly had ample experience, and left office as Secretary of State with very strong ratings.
All the key 2020 candidates also have flaws, and Trump will be utterly brutal on these. The tweets write themselves:
Warren - Patronising Pocahontas preaching to Joe Six Pack! Sad.
Sanders - Doddering liberal who lost bigly to Crooked Hillary (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Biden - Senile loser only there because Obama saved him from the scrapheap! Sad.
Harris - West coast liberal snowflake who doesn't speak for "real" Americans! Sad.
O'Rourke - Loser humiliated by Lyin' Ted Cruz (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Same for anyone you care to list. They also all have strengths - but can they make the campaign about the strengths not the flaws? That's the trick, and I'm not sure at all that they can.
And the attacks Trump write themselves - most of them provided by the man himself. Some of the potential Democratic candidates are weaker than others, but I suspect any of them would have a better than evens chance of beating the giant bag of gas.
Biden or Harris would likely humiliate him.
That is assuming, of course, that his own party hasn't ditched the disgraced one time president by then. Not sad at all.
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
She doesn't (yet) have cross-party support for a 2nd ref, as Labour aren't yet ready to back one.
Enough labour MPs would...and she might have the bonus of tearing the Labour party apart as well...
I have a feeling she might pull this vote, admit no majority for it, and go for a GE or 2nd referendum...
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
It's a plan but I suspect any resultant parliament would actually be even more hung than this one currently is.
I suspect Labour would end up with more seats at the expense of the Tories but without Scotland they won't get a majority and the SNP will keep enough seats that Labour won't be close to a majority...
On current polling, Lab+SNP would be able to construct a pretty sizable majority. Only question is what timbre a Lab/SNP government will have.
i'm sure a vote Corbyn get Sturgeon poster will be drawn up as we speak....
Doubt it would work. Would reassure me if Corbyn was in Sturgeon's pocket.
Fair point. The SNP would be a moderating influence on Labour, unlike in 2015..
Plus, Sturgeon is much less of a bogeyman to English voters than Salmond was.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), the whole thing smells fishy.
Hopefully the deluded from south of the border who think the SNP and the Sturgeon could run a whelk stall will have the scales falling from their eyes at last.
They would make a far better hash of it than the turkeys currently messing it up in Westminster.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), the whole thing smells fishy.
Hopefully the deluded from south of the border who think the SNP and the Sturgeon could run a whelk stall will have the scales falling from their eyes at last.
I haven't been paying that close attention to what's going on, but I assume the reason why Sturgeon and Salmond are beating seven shades of shit out of each other is really a proxy war over the future direction of the SNP.
Salmond wants it to be a populist ethnosocialist insurrection movement like those that are currently all the rage across Europe Sturgeon wants it to be a moderate social democratic party of government of the kind that seems to be going rapidly extinct.
I think it's a proxy war for whether Eck faces charges/public shaming for his alleged lewd behaviour.
Direction of travel is that the police investigation will crash and burn due to the FUBAR - result for Eck.
Mr. Borough, it's almost as if insulting half the electorate in a tight contest, then sending campaigning resources to safe states instead of competitive ones is a stupid strategy.
It was hers to lose, and she duly put in a sterling effort to lose it.
Don't remember the resources thing, but I'm sure you are right. I do recall she didn't campaign in places they assumed wouldn't flip in the Rust Belt.
It was worse she spent resources in states where they had no chance at the expense of knife edge rust belt states even though they knew the rust belt states were on a knife edge in an attempt to play 12 dimensional chess with the Trump campaign.
The super irony is tha A ) the Trump campaign kept plugging away at the rust belt as that was the only place they should campaign in if they were to have any chance - so regardless of what Clinton did they were not going to change their behaviour B ) Trump's data team thought they had lost the rust belt up until the results started coming in from Florida and they updated their models.
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
She doesn't (yet) have cross-party support for a 2nd ref, as Labour aren't yet ready to back one.
Enough labour MPs would...and she might have the bonus of tearing the Labour party apart as well...
I have a feeling she might pull this vote, admit no majority for it, and go for a GE or 2nd referendum...
Could the referendum question be : "Should the Uk agree to the proposed deal with the EU ?" simple binary question.
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
She doesn't (yet) have cross-party support for a 2nd ref, as Labour aren't yet ready to back one.
Enough labour MPs would...and she might have the bonus of tearing the Labour party apart as well...
I have a feeling she might pull this vote, admit no majority for it, and go for a GE or 2nd referendum...
If that's her aim (and I think it might be, I give it a 15% probability) then she loses nothing by holding the vote, if only to get the audit trail in place if she then calls for a second referendum, following a delay of A50 (which would likely be agreed by the EU given that a referendum would certainly constitute a meaningful development).
Lose the vote, survive a VONC, admit the HoC is in stasis and say the people must decide. Then go to them with deal/remain.
Unless May wins ~ a 200+ majority her deal is still dead.
I'd say an overall majority of around 50 would in practice give her the authority to get it through.
I also think if she could find a way to get the MV question out to the public - "The government has negotiated a treaty to leave the EU. Should parliament now ratify it? yes/no" - then she could well win that 'referendum'.
Yes, I know that parliament would almost certainly not approve such an exercise, but if it happened I think the public would vote for ratification. But the polls say that the deal is unpopular? Sure, but only in fantasy questions against unicorns such as Remain or No Deal.
If the public, free of party whipping, were given the MV question they would back the deal. I'm quite confident of that. I bet she would try this if she thought she could get away with it.
The only two party bloc that would command a majority is therefore Con+SNP with a healthy majority of 20, but I think we can rule that out on grounds of sanity and good taste.
After that we're looking at Lab+SNP+LD I guess, which comes to 332, a wobbly majority of 12.
There are some on PB who are absolutely convinced the SNP would vote to support a Conservative government.
Mr. Kinabalu, dreadful question, though. The 'No' option is almost 100% undefined. Hardline Remainers could vote for that, hoping for another referendum. Hardline Leavers could vote for it. Moderate Leavers unconvinced by the deal could for it. Moderate Remainers who want a closer relationship with the EU than May's deal could vote for it.
Comments
1.2 (Nom) & 2.67 re-election could perhaps be more correct than current prices.
I've bought Trump for the GOP nomination and sold him for the presidency.
Being comfortable in your own skin is probably a better description. Bill Clinton is a good example; not the most honest of politicians - and with rather less integrity than Warren - but far more emotionally plausible.
Turned out that she is not too great a campaigner and lacked a unifying vision or message.
Hard Brexit most likely outcome now - pushed by the EU who will veto anything that can pass parliament.
It was hers to lose, and she duly put in a sterling effort to lose it.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1084747585242492929
Trump is, though, authentic in the sense that he doesn't try to mask his personality. He lets it all hang out there. You get a real sense of just what a revolting individual he is. That's refreshing.
I find it disturbing when I fund him talking sense.
He doesn't need a majority to support his wall. He'll ensure he doesn't alienate (and will indeed keep energised) the one-third who constitute his base.
Of the rest, he then needs about one in five to hold their nose and say, "I don't like him, I don't like his tweets, but I do like the economy just now, and worry about his opponent".
And he's a powerful campaigner who has an unrivalled ability to shape the debate around his latest dead cat. Democrats simply haven't worked out how to seize the agenda from him and develop a coherent alternative narrative. Whoever emerges from a very crowded field might - but they might equally be a dud.
If the economy stalls (and it may) he's in big trouble. But there's value in the current odds on re-election - for me, he remains favourite to remain President all the way to January 2025.
If Corbyn got his election the very last thing he would want to talk about during it would be Brexit.
And yet, the ERG are supposedly the ones who have got us to this point because, er, they won't compromise......
Gawd I bet the Dems are wishing so hard that AOC was old enough. Likable and authentic and a woman.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/01/a-fact-amidst-the-rumours-may-is-failing-to-persuade-most-rebel-conservative-mps-to-switch-and-support-her-deal.html
ConHome, Buzzfeed still trailing a defeat in the 150-200 range.
Sir Norfolk, perhaps, but the novelty of Trump will be gone in 2020 and the reality will be known. And he barely scraped a victory against the most Establishment contender possibly of all time during a period of anti-Establishment Zeitgeist, *and* that still required her to make a number of dumb-as-a-post decisions to help him out.
And for her part, I suspect she is smart enough to think that for now she is better off influencing the direction of thinking in the party than trying for any such thing (her compromise with Pelosi is good evidence for that).
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
The EU27 (and by extension Donald Tusk) want to maintain solidarity over all, it's important to them that they not throw Ireland under a bus to show that EU solidarity means something.
The Commission wants to maintain the principles that underpin the EU, including the integrity of the single market and the four freedoms.
Leo Varadkar wants to maintain his coalition, which means opposing a hard border with Northern Ireland at any costs.
All of which means the the full might of the EU machinery is fully aligned behind the WA and the backstop.
Stopping the UK from committing absurd acts of self-harm is way, way, way, way, way, way waaaaay down the list.
The EU does not want the UK to crash out without a deal, but it won't lift a finger to help unless a way can be found that's compatible with the major motivations of its players.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/paloma/the-trailer/2019/01/13/the-trailer-will-sanders-s-2016-supporters-rally-behind-him-this-time/5c3954241b326b66fc5a1c2e/
...reaching out to Democrats who liked much of Sanders's agenda and could be sold on a new candidate would not be easy.
“I hear people say: 'I love Bernie, but he’s too old now,'” Butterworth said. “He’s ‘an old white man.’ That is the phrase I keep hearing.”
Alex Wickham
Verified account @alexwickham
NEW: Understand the clerk of the House of Commons David Natzler has instructed colleagues that it is in order for Nick Boles/MPs to put down an amendment to give them control of the order paper for a specific event
Everyone keeping up??
I suspect Labour would end up with more seats at the expense of the Tories but without Scotland they won't get a majority and the SNP will keep enough seats that Labour won't be close to a majority...
If Corbyn gets a general election, the first, and only, question will be "Do you support leaving the EU, Mr Corbyn?". If he answers yes, the young desert him. If he answers no, the WWC (are presumed to) desert him. If he attempts to continue with his policy of wait-and-see equivocation, people will, rightly, say "that was fine in opposition, but you want us to elect you to Government, and you won't even give us an answer as to whether we'll stay in the EU".
It would be manna for the smaller pro-EU parties, but I can't see how Corbyn navigates it.
Alex Wickham
BUT government sources say the Boles amendment has a problem. MPs would have to write a bill that does not spend any money. This would mean they cannot use it to call a second referendum. And Brexiters say extending Article 50 requires spending money too.
Alex Wickham
Brexiters say the Boles amendment therefore does not take control over Brexit away from the government. Govt source agrees but says it could still inflict serious damage that may make it impossible to govern.
Hugely unlikely, but 1-3% is probably about right.
I suppose he senses which way the wind is blowing.
There will be some Euroloons like Boles that will try but in the unlikely event they manage to pull off a majority in parliment they will get to enjoy travelling to Brussels to be told to do one by Barnier.
"She'd have told me.... We haven't been for a hike. "
First it means he has a track record. He has delivered many things for his supporters, most notably in Supreme Court appointments.
Second, his lack of experience can no longer be used against him. Some of the contenders for the Democratic nomination have a shorter career in US politics than Trump - and none will have had four years experience of being President.
Third, the sky has not fallen in. Given the apocalyptic rhetoric used by his opponents it will be a plus for Trump that the sun has still risen, Wal-Mart is still open, non-Federal employees are still paid, etc.
Fourth, it makes the narrative even more about Trump. This is a plus because Democrats have still not managed to find a way to criticise Trump without denigrating his supporters. It prevents Democrats from creating, let alone presenting, a positive alternative.
I think the baseline scenario is that Trump wins re-election. Something pretty special has to happen for the Democrats to win.
*zebras look worried....*
You mention a stalling economy as the biggest risk to Donald Trump and I agree with that, although I suspect that it needs to be rather more serious than just stalling.
A deep and prolonged recession with millions of ordinary blue collar Americans thrown out of work would surely do the trick. But is that too much to hope for?
On checking what Trump has actually said on abortion, I'm ashamed to say I've only just discovered that Trump has a sister, Maryanne Trump Barr, who's a judge on the sensible centrist side of things (for the USA) & more or less pro choice. Every day's a school day.
I do think your fourth point is important, though. "You idiot racists, vote for me instead" is not hugely persuasive.
She was certainly flawed, but those flaws came to the fore because they were ruthlessly exploited by Trump. After every election, a story is written to the effect that the loser had some fatal hole below the waterline that could easily be avoided next time - and you have to take that with a huge pinch of salt.
Clinton also had major strengths as well as flaws - she won the debates, attracted huge funds, plainly had ample experience, and left office as Secretary of State with very strong ratings.
All the key 2020 candidates also have flaws, and Trump will be utterly brutal on these. The tweets write themselves:
Warren - Patronising Pocahontas preaching to Joe Six Pack! Sad.
Sanders - Doddering liberal who lost bigly to Crooked Hillary (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Biden - Senile loser only there because Obama saved him from the scrapheap! Sad.
Harris - West coast liberal snowflake who doesn't speak for "real" Americans! Sad.
O'Rourke - Loser humiliated by Lyin' Ted Cruz (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Same for anyone you care to list. They also all have strengths - but can they make the campaign about the strengths not the flaws? That's the trick, and I'm not sure at all that they can.
L38 C38 LD9
Which in Electoral Calculus gives
CON 296
LAB 274
DUP 10
SNP 40
The only two party bloc that would command a majority is therefore Con+SNP with a healthy majority of 20, but I think we can rule that out on grounds of sanity and good taste.
After that we're looking at Lab+SNP+LD I guess, which comes to 332, a wobbly majority of 12.
Hmm.
So another marginal possibility could be an even more wobbly Lab+SNP at 314 with LD abstaining on confidence matters (in the interests of having a government) but not providing any active support.
Salmond wants it to be a populist ethnosocialist insurrection movement like those that are currently all the rage across Europe
Sturgeon wants it to be a moderate social democratic party of government of the kind that seems to be going rapidly extinct.
KLOBUCHAR: Checkmate
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
Some of the potential Democratic candidates are weaker than others, but I suspect any of them would have a better than evens chance of beating the giant bag of gas.
Biden or Harris would likely humiliate him.
That is assuming, of course, that his own party hasn't ditched the disgraced one time president by then. Not sad at all.
I have a feeling she might pull this vote, admit no majority for it, and go for a GE or 2nd referendum...
Direction of travel is that the police investigation will crash and burn due to the FUBAR - result for Eck.
The super irony is tha
A ) the Trump campaign kept plugging away at the rust belt as that was the only place they should campaign in if they were to have any chance - so regardless of what Clinton did they were not going to change their behaviour
B ) Trump's data team thought they had lost the rust belt up until the results started coming in from Florida and they updated their models.
Lose the vote, survive a VONC, admit the HoC is in stasis and say the people must decide. Then go to them with deal/remain.
I also think if she could find a way to get the MV question out to the public - "The government has negotiated a treaty to leave the EU. Should parliament now ratify it? yes/no" - then she could well win that 'referendum'.
Yes, I know that parliament would almost certainly not approve such an exercise, but if it happened I think the public would vote for ratification. But the polls say that the deal is unpopular? Sure, but only in fantasy questions against unicorns such as Remain or No Deal.
If the public, free of party whipping, were given the MV question they would back the deal. I'm quite confident of that. I bet she would try this if she thought she could get away with it.
They are, of course, complete mentalists.