Sure, there have been some outliers, but far more polls that are unchanged. Only polls showing change are deemed newsworthy. Considering how the polls have remained neck and neck through 18 months of turmoil, I cannot see why a sudden shift now. People are pissed off with politicians generally and I sense no desire for a GE from the public, though the Politicians may want one for a displacement activity.
The polls are not wrong, but they are likely to read very differently once we have reached some kind of conclusion regarding Brexit.
A touching faith that Brexit will be concluded any time soon.
Imagine having May negotiate the FTA. She knows - and cares nothing - about business or services. She’s the last person who should be in charge. The idea that she should be given even more power to ignore everyone and go her own sweet way is horrific, frankly. She needs to go.
Wakey-wakey, Cyclefree. It's not like you to misread a post. :-)
'Some kind of conclusion' will be reached when we know whether we have No Deal, May Deal or Oops-Sorry-We-Didn't-Really-Mean-It-Can-We-Remain-Please? Yes of course the whole sorry business will drag on interminably in the event of any kind of Brexit, but by then the die will have been truly cast.
And in that sense we will have reached a conclusion.
In the same speech when May said she would stand down before the next election, she also said she would love to give it another go and (try to) expunge the stain of 2017. Having an election in a hurry is the only way she gets to live her dream.
A highly relevant observation.
I am convinced that calling a snap election is TM's backstop if she cannot get her deal through this parliament. There is massive personal upside for her if she wins it and her downside (losing) is negligible, since her other options (adopt Labour policy or give up on Brexit) lead to an ignominious exit from number 10 in very short order.
Question is, will the backstop be needed? I think probably not, but this I am less sure about.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
Put a motion to the House of Commons. It would need a substantial rebellion by the Tories to fail to get a 2/3 majority with Labour backing it.
He ran a lot of attack ads that branded his Republican opponent as a white nationalist in 2017. So, the Republicans are happy to put the boot in, while the Democrats find him an embarrassment.
It's evidence of something else, though, something we've discussed in the past. Given how easy it is to dig up youthful indiscretions a candidate, especially in the US, has to have none, or at least none where there's any evidence whatsoever of damn-foolery. Or even, as with Cameron and the pig business, 'sort of credible' allegations.
Which tends to mean squeaky clean apparatchiks.
And what’s going to happen a decade (or less) from now, when those seeking public office were routinely posting every university night out on social media for all to see?
People born in 2001 are now eligible to stand for Parliament, sorry to make everyone feel old.
Quite. Although Nick Clegg's admission of practicing free love, or something like it, didn't seem to affect him. I hope that we'll all return to a more tolerant 'you're allowed to be a bit daft when you're young' attitude.
It would be good to think so, but sadly all the evidence is pointing the other way.
Remember that last year we saw the spectacle of a nominee for the Supreme Court being questioned for days about how much he loved beer at college more than thirty years ago.
Hopefully, as it becomes more obvious that pretty much everyone did silly things as students, society will become somewhat more tolerant of these things provided no-one got hurt at the time.
Someone referred to Ed Balls and the Nazi uniform up thread, I wonder how that story would have gone down now, seven years later, with all that’s happened in the meantime. I suspect he’d not have get away with it as easily as he did back in 2012.
To be fair, the Supreme Court brouhaha, wasn't so much about the guy's beer drinking but sexual predation. If he'd said that he'd been silly, and on reflection sometimes rather unpleasant, in his youth, and apologised to the woman he might well have got away with it.
Brett Kavanaugh did "get away with it" and has duly planted his bottom on the SCOTUS bench.
Little snippet in the Sunday Times: 10 days ago, Hammond called in 15 Tory Vice-Chairman and Parliamentary aides to sound out a second referendum. "He was surprised by the amount of pushback he got."
Remarkable how the Tories seems to be populated by folk who have no ability to read the mood of their own party until they are smacked up side the head 15 times.
Hammond seems to be living in his own little world in the Treasury, he’s gone completely native. If the PM has any sense (yes, I know) she’d replace him with Gove.
Maybe Hammond has a better grasp of the figures and the realities of Britain’s economy than a PM who seems not to understand that her deal was defeated by the largest majority ever and that the EU has repeatedly made clear that a WA without a backstop is a non-starter.
How many times does she have to be smacked on the side of the head before these two realities penetrate her bone-headed brain?
Without for one moment leaping to the defence of May, one feels obliged to point out once again exactly how bone-headed the backstop itself is (assuming that one takes the reasons given for its existence at face value.)
If we contemplate a scenario in which the UK leaves the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement expressly because the one on the table contained the backstop, then only two scenarios can follow. Either the Irish Government is forced to try to impose customs checkpoints all the way along the NI border - in which case, the backstop will have defeated itself by becoming the entire cause of the problem that it was meant to prevent. Or it point-blank refuses to impose such restrictions, in which case why on Earth was the backstop included in the WA in the first place?
One is inevitably drawn to the conclusion that the backstop is positively counter-productive in terms of achieving its stated purpose, and that the Brexiteers may therefore be right when they suggest that it is really a device to compel the UK either to accept a permanent customs union by the back door, or to give Northern Ireland up.
Big "if" there. Mrs May is bluffing on No Deal. The EU knows she is bluffing on No Deal. She will do anything to avoid it because of the damage to the Tory party and the country. But she is willing to spend billions, cause businesses to spend billions, and frighten millions of citizens, to shore up her bluff.
If No Deal looms, she will extend A50 and the EU will agree. Kick the can - and in the meantime nothing has changed.
In the same speech when May said she would stand down before the next election, she also said she would love to give it another go and (try to) expunge the stain of 2017. Having an election in a hurry is the only way she gets to live her dream.
A highly relevant observation.
I am convinced that calling a snap election is TM's backstop if she cannot get her deal through this parliament. There is massive personal upside for her if she wins it and her downside (losing) is negligible, since her other options (adopt Labour policy or give up on Brexit) lead to an ignominious exit from number 10 in very short order.
Question is, will the backstop be needed? I think probably not, but this I am less sure about.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
She'd call for a vote on it and the Labour party could hardly resist. It's a replay of last time.
He ran a lot of attack ads that branded his Republican opponent as a white nationalist in 2017. So, the Republicans are happy to put the boot in, while the Democrats find him an embarrassment.
It's evidence of something else, though, something we've discussed in the past. Given how easy it is to dig up youthful indiscretions a candidate, especially in the US, has to have none, or at least none where there's any evidence whatsoever of damn-foolery. Or even, as with Cameron and the pig business, 'sort of credible' allegations.
Which tends to mean squeaky clean apparatchiks.
And what’s going to happen a decade (or less) from now, when those seeking public office were routinely posting every university night out on social media for all to see?
People born in 2001 are now eligible to stand for Parliament, sorry to make everyone feel old.
Quite. Although Nick Clegg's admission of practicing free love, or something like it, didn't seem to affect him. I hope that we'll all return to a more tolerant 'you're allowed to be a bit daft when you're young' attitude.
It would be good to think so, but sadly all the evidence is pointing the other way.
Remember that last year we saw the spectacle of a nominee for the Supreme Court being questioned for days about how much he loved beer at college more than thirty years ago.
me. I suspect he’d not have get away with it as easily as he did back in 2012.
To be fair, the Supreme Court brouhaha, wasn't so much about the guy's beer drinking but sexual predation. If he'd said that he'd been silly, and on reflection sometimes rather unpleasant, in his youth, and apologised to the woman he might well have got away with it.
He lied to the Supreme Court. That was the issue. Yes, if he'd said he'd been a wayward youth and had grown up since, fairy nuff. But he didn't. He lied serially, under oath.
He ran a lot of attack ads that branded his Republican opponent as a white nationalist in 2017. So, the Republicans are happy to put the boot in, while the Democrats find him an embarrassment.
It's evidence of something else, though, something we've discussed in the past. Given how easy it is to dig up youthful indiscretions a candidate, especially in the US, has to have none, or at least none where there's any evidence whatsoever of damn-foolery. Or even, as with Cameron and the pig business, 'sort of credible' allegations.
Which tends to mean squeaky clean apparatchiks.
People born in 2001 are now eligible to stand for Parliament, sorry to make everyone feel old.
Quite. Although Nick Clegg's admission of practicing free love, or something like it, didn't seem to affect him. I hope that we'll all return to a more tolerant 'you're allowed to be a bit daft when you're young' attitude.
It would be good to think so, but sadly all the evidence is pointing the other way.
Remember that last year we saw the spectacle of a nominee for the Supreme Court being questioned for days about how much he loved beer at college more than thirty years ago.
Hopefully, as it becomes more obvious that pretty much everyone did silly things as students, society will become somewhat more tolerant of these things provided no-one got hurt at the time.
Someone referred to Ed Balls and the Nazi uniform up thread, I wonder how that story would have gone down now, seven years later, with all that’s happened in the meantime. I suspect he’d not have get away with it as easily as he did back in 2012.
To be fair, the Supreme Court brouhaha, wasn't so much about the guy's beer drinking but sexual predation. If he'd said that he'd been silly, and on reflection sometimes rather unpleasant, in his youth, and apologised to the woman he might well have got away with it.
Brett Kavanaugh did "get away with it" and has duly planted his bottom on the SCOTUS bench.
Of course, but it's all added to the general air of sleaze around Trump and the Republicans. At least that's what got looks like to me.
In the same speech when May said she would stand down before the next election, she also said she would love to give it another go and (try to) expunge the stain of 2017. Having an election in a hurry is the only way she gets to live her dream.
A highly relevant observation.
I am convinced that calling a snap election is TM's backstop if she cannot get her deal through this parliament. There is massive personal upside for her if she wins it and her downside (losing) is negligible, since her other options (adopt Labour policy or give up on Brexit) lead to an ignominious exit from number 10 in very short order.
Question is, will the backstop be needed? I think probably not, but this I am less sure about.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
She'd call for a vote on it and the Labour party could hardly resist. It's a replay of last time.
How does she get it past her own party this time, bearing in mind she promised not to lead them into the next election?
But I suspect even Warren, who is very unlikely to get the nomination, would beat Trump.
Was Northam the Klansman or the black and white minstrel in the photo?
It might be a minority view, but I don’t get this.
This was over 35 years ago when he was in his early 20s and mucking around with his mates.
If his political opponents have evidence of unchanged racist attitudes that are affecting his politics today, then fine, but I don’t see why he should resign just because this photo has been discovered.
It's his own side who have turned on him.
Yes, I don’t understand that either.
He ran a lot of attack ads that branded his Republican opponent as a white nationalist in 2017. So, the Republicans are happy to put the boot in, while the Democrats find him an embarrassment.
It's evidence of something else, though, something we've discussed in thendiscretions a candidate, especially in the US, has to have none, or at least none where there's any evidence whatsoever of damn-foolery. Or even, as with Cameron and the pig business, 'sort of credible' allegations.
Which tends to mean squeaky clean apparatchiks.
And what’s going to happen a decade (or less) from now, when those seeking public office were routinely posting every university night out on social media for all to see?
People born in 2001 are now eligible to stand for Parliament, sorry to make everyone feel old.
Quite. Although Nick Clegg's admission of practicing free love, or something like it, didn't seem to affect him. ...
Remember that last year we saw the spectacle of a nominee for the Supreme Court being questioned for days about how much he loved beer at college more than thirty years ago.
Yes, that's what it was all about. Beer. Definitely beer.
He loved beer, who doesn't love beer. So what if he drunk beer. He likes beer (please don't ask about hard liquor). Beer.
Little snippet in the Sunday Times: 10 days ago, Hammond called in 15 Tory Vice-Chairman and Parliamentary aides to sound out a second referendum. "He was surprised by the amount of pushback he got."
Remarkable how the Tories seems to be populated by folk who have no ability to read the mood of their own party until they are smacked up side the head 15 times.
Hammond seems to be living in his own little world in the Treasury, he’s gone completely native. If the PM has any sense (yes, I know) she’d replace him with Gove.
Maybe Hammond has a better grasp of the figures and the realities of Britain’s economy than a PM who seems not to understand that her deal was defeated by the largest majority ever and that the EU has repeatedly made clear that a WA without a backstop is a non-starter.
How many times does she have to be smacked on the side of the head before these two realities penetrate her bone-headed brain?
Without for one moment leaping to the defence of May, one feels obliged to point out once again exactly how bone-headed the backstop itself is (assuming that one takes the reasons given for its existence at face value.)
If we contr it point-blank refuses to impose such restrictions, in which case why on Earth was the backstop included in the WA in the first place?
One is inevitably drawn to the conclusion that the backstop is positively counter-productive in terms of achieving its stated purpose, and that the Brexiteers may therefore be right when they suggest that it is really a device to compel the UK either to accept a permanent customs union by the back door, or to give Northern Ireland up.
Big "if" there. Mrs May is bluffing on No Deal. The EU knows she is bluffing on No Deal. She will do anything to avoid it because of the damage to the Tory party and the country. But she is willing to spend billions, cause businesses to spend billions, and frighten millions of citizens, to shore up her bluff.
If No Deal looms, she will extend A50 and the EU will agree. Kick the can - and in the meantime nothing has changed.
I too think she's bluffing, but would it be wise to call her bluff?
Objectively I'd have to say it's a risk that shouldn't be taken. Emotionally, I'm inclined to say 'effit….No Deal if you like. It's no more than we deserve.'
To be fair, the Supreme Court brouhaha, wasn't so much about the guy's beer drinking but sexual predation. If he'd said that he'd been silly, and on reflection sometimes rather unpleasant, in his youth, and apologised to the woman he might well have got away with it.
He's a supreme court judge for life, all complaints against him lodged with the professional standards boards have been dismissed as they are no longer competent.
To be fair, the Supreme Court brouhaha, wasn't so much about the guy's beer drinking but sexual predation. If he'd said that he'd been silly, and on reflection sometimes rather unpleasant, in his youth, and apologised to the woman he might well have got away with it.
Brett Kavanaugh did "get away with it" and has duly planted his bottom on the SCOTUS bench.
Of course, but it's all added to the general air of sleaze around Trump and the Republicans. At least that's what got looks like to me.
The interesting thing about Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation is that Kamala Harris seemed to have him in her cross-hairs but then it just petered out.
But I suspect even Warren, who is very unlikely to get the nomination, would beat Trump.
Was Northam the Klansman or the black and white minstrel in the photo?
It might be a minority view, but I don’t get this.
This was over 35 years ago when he was in his early 20s and mucking around with his mates.
If his political opponents have evidence of unchanged racist attitudes that are affecting his politics today, then fine, but I don’t see why he should resign just because this photo has been discovered.
It's his own side who have turned on him.
Yes, I don’t understand that either.
He ran a lot of attack ads that branded his Republican opponent as a white nationalist in 2017. So, the Republicans are happy to put the boot in, while the Democrats find him an embarrassment.
Or even, as with Cameron and the pig business, 'sort of credible' allegations.
Which tends to mean squeaky clean apparatchiks.
And what’s going to happen a decade (or less) from now, when those seeking public office were routinely posting every university night out on social media for all to see?
People born in 2001 are now eligible to stand for Parliament, sorry to make everyone feel old.
Quite. Although Nick Clegg's admission of practicing free love, or something like it, didn't seem to affect him. ...
In the same speech when May said she would stand down before the next election, she also said she would love to give it another go and (try to) expunge the stain of 2017. Having an election in a hurry is the only way she gets to live her dream.
A highly relevant observation.
I am convinced that calling a snap election is TM's backstop if she cannot get her deal through this parliament. There is massive personal upside for her if she wins it and her downside (losing) is negligible, since her other options (adopt Labour policy or give up on Brexit) lead to an ignominious exit from number 10 in very short order.
Question is, will the backstop be needed? I think probably not, but this I am less sure about.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
She'd call for a vote on it and the Labour party could hardly resist. It's a replay of last time.
How does she get it past her own party this time, bearing in mind she promised not to lead them into the next election?
Not quite. She promised not to lead them into the next general election in 2022.
The DUP would undoubtedly vote against it as they risk losing their throttle hold. Perhaps some of the ERG for a similar reason? But not enough to avoid a 2/3rd majority if Labour vote for it.
But I suspect even Warren, who is very unlikely to get the nomination, would beat Trump.
Probably - I don't think Warren is a bad candidate, although obviously she's no KLOBUCHAR.
Their other problem is that there's a dynamic where the candidates are trying to out-compete each other on bold economic left-wingery. It's all very well to say you'll never vote for Trump now but if you think the other side will put your taxes up...
Do you think Klobuchar will even make it to the first debate?
Remember that last year we saw the spectacle of a nominee for the Supreme Court being questioned for days about how much he loved beer at college more than thirty years ago.
Yes, that's what it was all about. Beer. Definitely beer.
He loved beer, who doesn't love beer. So what if he drunk beer. He likes beer (please don't ask about hard liquor). Beer.
That's right. The rape and sodomy were merely incidental. Poor sod was victimised for just liking a beer.
Thousands of police officers and civilian staff have never undergone stricter criminal record and background checks, despite the fact that they were introduced in 2006, the BBC has found.
Data from 16 forces in England and Wales showed 5,966 officers and staff had not had the retrospective checks, which include credit and DNA records.
Big "if" there. Mrs May is bluffing on No Deal. The EU knows she is bluffing on No Deal. She will do anything to avoid it because of the damage to the Tory party and the country. But she is willing to spend billions, cause businesses to spend billions, and frighten millions of citizens, to shore up her bluff.
If No Deal looms, she will extend A50 and the EU will agree. Kick the can - and in the meantime nothing has changed.
There is no incentive for the EU27 to extend if (a) Parliament remains deadlocked and (b) there is no indication of any event on the horizon which will end this condition. All that would do is give enough time for the UK to further complicate the European Parliament elections, by sending several dozen Hard Brexiteers to join the expected Eurosceptic surge.
I know that the EU and Theresa May would make stiff competition for one another at the World Can-Kicking Championships, but they can't keep it going forever.
In the same speech when May said she would stand down before the next election, she also said she would love to give it another go and (try to) expunge the stain of 2017. Having an election in a hurry is the only way she gets to live her dream.
A highly relevant observation.
I am convinced that calling a snap election is TM's backstop if she cannot get her deal through this parliament. There is massive personal upside for her if she wins it and her downside (losing) is negligible, since her other options (adopt Labour policy or give up on Brexit) lead to an ignominious exit from number 10 in very short order.
Question is, will the backstop be needed? I think probably not, but this I am less sure about.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
She'd call for a vote on it and the Labour party could hardly resist. It's a replay of last time.
How does she get it past her own party this time, bearing in mind she promised not to lead them into the next election?
Ah but did she? Reports are contradictory but it looks as if Theresa May ruled out leading the Conservatives into the 2022 election. In other words, to parallel the Brexit CU debate, May ruled out "the" next election rather than "a" next election.
In the same speech when May said she would stand down before the next election, she also said she would love to give it another go and (try to) expunge the stain of 2017. Having an election in a hurry is the only way she gets to live her dream.
A highly relevant observation.
I am convinced that calling a snap election is TM's backstop if she cannot get her deal through this parliament. There is massive personal upside for her if she wins it and her downside (losing) is negligible, since her other options (adopt Labour policy or give up on Brexit) lead to an ignominious exit from number 10 in very short order.
Question is, will the backstop be needed? I think probably not, but this I am less sure about.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
She'd call for a vote on it and the Labour party could hardly resist. It's a replay of last time.
How does she get it past her own party this time, bearing in mind she promised not to lead them into the next election?
Ah but did she? Reports are contradictory but it looks as if Theresa May ruled out leading the Conservatives into the 2022 election. In other words, to parallel the Brexit CU debate, May ruled out "the" next election rather than "a" next election.
The reports of what was promised were reminiscent of Bercow's "friends" claims of when he was going to step down.
In the same speech when May said she would stand down before the next election, she also said she would love to give it another go and (try to) expunge the stain of 2017. Having an election in a hurry is the only way she gets to live her dream.
A highly relevant observation.
I am convinced that calling a snap election is TM's backstop if she cannot get her deal through this parliament. There is massive personal upside for her if she wins it and her downside (losing) is negligible, since her other options (adopt Labour policy or give up on Brexit) lead to an ignominious exit from number 10 in very short order.
Question is, will the backstop be needed? I think probably not, but this I am less sure about.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
She'd call for a vote on it and the Labour party could hardly resist. It's a replay of last time.
How does she get it past her own party this time, bearing in mind she promised not to lead them into the next election?
Not quite. She promised not to lead them into the next general election in 2022.
The DUP would undoubtedly vote against it as they risk losing their throttle hold. Perhaps some of the ERG for a similar reason? But not enough to avoid a 2/3rd majority if Labour vote for it.
But I suspect even Warren, who is very unlikely to get the nomination, would beat Trump.
Probably - I don't think Warren is a bad candidate, although obviously she's no KLOBUCHAR.
Their other problem is that there's a dynamic where the candidates are trying to out-compete each other on bold economic left-wingery. It's all very well to say you'll never vote for Trump now but if you think the other side will put your taxes up...
There aren’t enough billionaires even in the US to make the electoral difference...
.. although a couple more are tempted to run as a result.
In the same speech when May said she would stand down before the next election, she also said she would love to give it another go and (try to) expunge the stain of 2017. Having an election in a hurry is the only way she gets to live her dream.
A highly relevant observation.
I am convinced that calling a snap election is TM's backstop if she cannot get her deal through this parliament. There is massive personal upside for her if she wins it and her downside (losing) is negligible, since her other options (adopt Labour policy or give up on Brexit) lead to an ignominious exit from number 10 in very short order.
Question is, will the backstop be needed? I think probably not, but this I am less sure about.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
She'd call for a vote on it and the Labour party could hardly resist. It's a replay of last time.
How does she get it past her own party this time, bearing in mind she promised not to lead them into the next election?
Ah but did she? Reports are contradictory but it looks as if Theresa May ruled out leading the Conservatives into the 2022 election. In other words, to parallel the Brexit CU debate, May ruled out "the" next election rather than "a" next election.
She already has a track record of saying one thing and doing another. Wouldn't be a problem for her to do so again, would it?
Little snippet in the Sunday Times: 10 days ago, Hammond called in 15 Tory Vice-Chairman and Parliamentary aides to sound out a second referendum. "He was surprised by the amount of pushback he got."
Remarkable how the Tories seems to be populated by folk who have no ability to read the mood of their own party until they are smacked up side the head 15 times.
Hammond seems to be living in his own little world in the Treasury, he’s gone completely native. If the PM has any sense (yes, I know) she’d replace him with Gove.
Maybe Hammond has a better grasp of the figures and the realities of Britain’s economy than a PM who seems not to understand that her deal was defeated by the largest majority ever and that the EU has repeatedly made clear that a WA without a backstop is a non-starter.
How many times does she have to be smacked on the side of the head before these two realities penetrate her bone-headed brain?
Without for one moment leaping to the defence of May, one feels obliged to point out once again exactly how bone-headed the backstop itself is (assuming that one takes the reasons given for its existence at face value.)
If we contr it point-blank refuses to impose such restrictions, in which case why on Earth was the backstop included in the WA in the first place?
One is inevitably drawn to the conclusion that the backstop is positively counter-productive in terms of achieving its stated purpose, and that the Brexiteers may therefore be right when they suggest that it is really a device to compel the UK either to accept a permanent customs union by the back door, or to give Northern Ireland up.
Big "if" there. Mrs May is bluffing on No Deal. The EU knows she is bluffing on No Deal. She will do anything to avoid it because of the damage to the Tory party and the country. But she is willing to spend billions, cause businesses to spend billions, and frighten millions of citizens, to shore up her bluff.
If No Deal looms, she will extend A50 and the EU will agree. Kick the can - and in the meantime nothing has changed.
I too think she's bluffing, but would it be wise to call her bluff?
Objectively I'd have to say it's a risk that shouldn't be taken. Emotionally, I'm inclined to say 'effit….No Deal if you like. It's no more than we deserve.'
We can see her hand. We know she's bluffing. If she was emotionally unstable and prone to irrationality like Trump, then perhaps you wouldn't take the risk. But she's strong and stable, - and has Philip by her side. Her husband, not the other one.
To be fair, the Supreme Court brouhaha, wasn't so much about the guy's beer drinking but sexual predation. If he'd said that he'd been silly, and on reflection sometimes rather unpleasant, in his youth, and apologised to the woman he might well have got away with it.
Brett Kavanaugh did "get away with it" and has duly planted his bottom on the SCOTUS bench.
Of course, but it's all added to the general air of sleaze around Trump and the Republicans. At least that's what got looks like to me.
The interesting thing about Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation is that Kamala Harris seemed to have him in her cross-hairs but then it just petered out.
She didn't have the numbers in the Senate. It was the first time I saw her in action - and I was very impressed.
In the same speech when May said she would stand down before the next election, she also said she would love to give it another go and (try to) expunge the stain of 2017. Having an election in a hurry is the only way she gets to live her dream.
A highly relevant observation.
I am convinced that calling a snap election is TM's backstop if she cannot get her deal through this parliament. There is massive personal upside for her if she wins it and her downside (losing) is negligible, since her other options (adopt Labour policy or give up on Brexit) lead to an ignominious exit from number 10 in very short order.
Question is, will the backstop be needed? I think probably not, but this I am less sure about.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
She'd call for a vote on it and the Labour party could hardly resist. It's a replay of last time.
How does she get it past her own party this time, bearing in mind she promised not to lead them into the next election?
Ah but did she? Reports are contradictory but it looks as if Theresa May ruled out leading the Conservatives into the 2022 election. In other words, to parallel the Brexit CU debate, May ruled out "the" next election rather than "a" next election.
She already has a track record of saying one thing and doing another. Wouldn't be a problem for her to do so again, would it?
There isn't a politician alive who hasn't done that, so why should May be any different.
TSE, I really don't see any normal life scenario where these figures improve for Trump. Those who leave him are not coming back, and every month he comes up with a new way to test his base's loyalty to him - be they farmers or steelworkers or coalworkers.
Short of a spectacularly successful and necessary war, I don't see this turning around. Thank god.
You may be underestimating the Democrats' ability to bollocks this thing up
But I suspect even Warren, who is very unlikely to get the nomination, would beat Trump.
Was Northam the Klansman or the black and white minstrel in the photo?
He denies both - but as his mitigation plea included “Michael Jackson blackface”, and his denial is not a particularly convincing one, I think he’s on to a loser.
TSE, I really don't see any normal life scenario where these figures improve for Trump. Those who leave him are not coming back, and every month he comes up with a new way to test his base's loyalty to him - be they farmers or steelworkers or coalworkers.
Short of a spectacularly successful and necessary war, I don't see this turning around. Thank god.
You may be underestimating the Democrats' ability to bollocks this thing up
But I suspect even Warren, who is very unlikely to get the nomination, would beat Trump.
Was Northam the Klansman or the black and white minstrel in the photo?
He denies both - but as his mitigation plea included “Michael Jackson blackface”, and his denial is not a particularly convincing one, I think he’s on to a loser.
Its the fact he had to ask family to check it wasn't him.
I can say with 100% certainty there are no photos of me in either blackface or KKK outfit, as most people can.
In the same speech when May said she would stand down before the next election, she also said she would love to give it another go and (try to) expunge the stain of 2017. Having an election in a hurry is the only way she gets to live her dream.
A highly relevant observation.
I am convinced that calling a snap election is TM's backstop if she cannot get her deal through this parliament. There is massive personal upside for her if she wins it and her downside (losing) is negligible, since her other options (adopt Labour policy or give up on Brexit) lead to an ignominious exit from number 10 in very short order.
Question is, will the backstop be needed? I think probably not, but this I am less sure about.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
She'd call for a vote on it and the Labour party could hardly resist. It's a replay of last time.
How does she get it past her own party this time, bearing in mind she promised not to lead them into the next election?
Not quite. She promised not to lead them into the next general election in 2022.
The DUP would undoubtedly vote against it as they risk losing their throttle hold. Perhaps some of the ERG for a similar reason? But not enough to avoid a 2/3rd majority if Labour vote for it.
Regarding youthful antics, I went to a '1960s' fancy dress party about 25 years ago (it was good - might go to another one at some point) and there was a girl there who came as Jackie Kennedy post assassination, pink Chanel suit, fake bloodstains, the works. It split opinion IIRC. Many people were offended whereas some loved it.
If that girl was now Stella Creasy, would she (and should she) be in trouble?
I think on balance not - and no - but I'm sure not everybody would agree.
Sure, there have been some outliers, but far more polls that are unchanged. Only polls showing change are deemed newsworthy. Considering how the polls have remained neck and neck through 18 months of turmoil, I cannot see why a sudden shift now. People are pissed off with politicians generally and I sense no desire for a GE from the public, though the Politicians may want one for a displacement activity.
The polls are not wrong, but they are likely to read very differently once we have reached some kind of conclusion regarding Brexit.
Not quite sure what you mean, but certainly the retrospectoscope is very effective at interpreting data!
Theoretical questions on a GE, when hardly anyone expects one are quite misleading, as was well demonstrated 2 years ago. I remember the debate here was whether May would have a majority of 200 or just 100.
Very true , there was a lot of talk regarding Don Valley, Bolsover going blue. Even the City of York seat was under threat .
TSE, I really don't see any normal life scenario where these figures improve for Trump. Those who leave him are not coming back, and every month he comes up with a new way to test his base's loyalty to him - be they farmers or steelworkers or coalworkers.
Short of a spectacularly successful and necessary war, I don't see this turning around. Thank god.
You may be underestimating the Democrats' ability to bollocks this thing up
But I suspect even Warren, who is very unlikely to get the nomination, would beat Trump.
Was Northam the Klansman or the black and white minstrel in the photo?
He denies both - but as his mitigation plea included “Michael Jackson blackface”, and his denial is not a particularly convincing one, I think he’s on to a loser.
Its the fact he had to ask family to check it wasn't him.
I can say with 100% certainty there are no photos of me in either blackface or KKK outfit, as most people can.
Funnily enough, I have a picture of me as a Black&White Minstrel at a children's fancy dress competition. I drew the line at the KKK though.
In the same speech when May said she would stand down before the next election, she also said she would love to give it another go and (try to) expunge the stain of 2017. Having an election in a hurry is the only way she gets to live her dream.
A highly relevant observation.
I am convinced that calling a snap election is TM's backstop if she cannot get her deal through this parliament. There is massive personal upside for her if she wins it and her downside (losing) is negligible, since her other options (adopt Labour policy or give up on Brexit) lead to an ignominious exit from number 10 in very short order.
Question is, will the backstop be needed? I think probably not, but this I am less sure about.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
She'd call for a vote on it and the Labour party could hardly resist. It's a replay of last time.
How does she get it past her own party this time, bearing in mind she promised not to lead them into the next election?
Not quite. She promised not to lead them into the next general election in 2022.
The DUP would undoubtedly vote against it as they risk losing their throttle hold. Perhaps some of the ERG for a similar reason? But not enough to avoid a 2/3rd majority if Labour vote for it.
Listen to the clip. She makes clear she is referring to 2022. The BBC headline is misleading.
She says she is not fighting the next election. I really do not see how she can turn around and say that engineering an election now would be consistent with that.
In the same speech when May said she would stand down before the next election, she also said she would love to give it another go and (try to) expunge the stain of 2017. Having an election in a hurry is the only way she gets to live her dream.
A highly relevant observation.
I am convinced that calling a snap election is TM's backstop if she cannot get her deal through this parliament. There is massive personal upside for her if she wins it and her downside (losing) is negligible, since her other options (adopt Labour policy or give up on Brexit) lead to an ignominious exit from number 10 in very short order.
Question is, will the backstop be needed? I think probably not, but this I am less sure about.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
She'd call for a vote on it and the Labour party could hardly resist. It's a replay of last time.
How does she get it past her own party this time, bearing in mind she promised not to lead them into the next election?
Ah but did she? Reports are contradictory but it looks as if Theresa May ruled out leading the Conservatives into the 2022 election. In other words, to parallel the Brexit CU debate, May ruled out "the" next election rather than "a" next election.
She already has a track record of saying one thing and doing another. Wouldn't be a problem for her to do so again, would it?
There isn't a politician alive who hasn't done that, so why should May be any different.
Not sure that's true, SR, but even if it were, would condoning it be right?
Remember that last year we saw the spectacle of a nominee for the Supreme Court being questioned for days about how much he loved beer at college more than thirty years ago.
Yes, that's what it was all about. Beer. Definitely beer.
He loved beer, who doesn't love beer. So what if he drunk beer. He likes beer (please don't ask about hard liquor). Beer.
TSE, I really don't see any normal life scenario where these figures improve for Trump. Those who leave him are not coming back, and every month he comes up with a new way to test his base's loyalty to him - be they farmers or steelworkers or coalworkers.
Short of a spectacularly successful and necessary war, I don't see this turning around. Thank god.
You may be underestimating the Democrats' ability to bollocks this thing up
But I suspect even Warren, who is very unlikely to get the nomination, would beat Trump.
Was Northam the Klansman or the black and white minstrel in the photo?
It might be a minority view, but I don’t get this.
This was over 35 years ago when he was in his early 20s and mucking around with his mates.
If his political opponents have evidence of unchanged racist attitudes that are affecting his politics today, then fine, but I don’t see why he should resign just because this photo has been discovered.
It's his own side who have turned on him.
Yes, I don’t understand that either.
He ran a lot of attack ads that branded his Republican opponent as a white nationalist in 2017. So, the Republicans are happy to put the boot in, while the Democrats find him an embarrassment.
It's evidence of something else, though, something we've discussed in the past. Given how easy it is to dig up youthful indiscretions a candidate, especially in the US, has to have none, or at least none where there's any evidence whatsoever of damn-foolery. Or even, as with Cameron and the pig business, 'sort of credible' allegations.
Which tends to mean squeaky clean apparatchiks.
A lot depends on how it was dealt with, Ed Balls was not affected by his Nazi genital staring photos, because he acknowledged it and apologised.
TSE, I really don't see any normal life scenario where these figures improve for Trump. Those who leave him are not coming back, and every month he comes up with a new way to test his base's loyalty to him - be they farmers or steelworkers or coalworkers.
Short of a spectacularly successful and necessary war, I don't see this turning around. Thank god.
You may be underestimating the Democrats' ability to bollocks this thing up
But I suspect even Warren, who is very unlikely to get the nomination, would beat Trump.
Was Northam the Klansman or the black and white minstrel in the photo?
He denies both - but as his mitigation plea included “Michael Jackson blackface”, and his denial is not a particularly convincing one, I think he’s on to a loser.
Its the fact he had to ask family to check it wasn't him.
I can say with 100% certainty there are no photos of me in either blackface or KKK outfit, as most people can.
He's admitted wearing blackface to a party during that period.
Which raises the question: is he suggesting he should resign if there's a photo of that, but not otherwise?
TSE, I really don't see any normal life scenario where these figures improve for Trump. Those who leave him are not coming back, and every month he comes up with a new way to test his base's loyalty to him - be they farmers or steelworkers or coalworkers.
Short of a spectacularly successful and necessary war, I don't see this turning around. Thank god.
You may be underestimating the Democrats' ability to bollocks this thing up
But I suspect even Warren, who is very unlikely to get the nomination, would beat Trump.
Was Northam the Klansman or the black and white minstrel in the photo?
It might be a minority view, but I don’t get this.
This was over 35 years ago when he was in his early 20s and mucking around with his mates.
If his political opponents have evidence of unchanged racist attitudes that are affecting his politics today, then fine, but I don’t see why he should resign just because this photo has been discovered.
It's his own side who have turned on him.
Yes, I don’t understand that either.
He ran a lot of attack ads that branded his Republican opponent as a white nationalist in 2017. So, the Republicans are happy to put the boot in, while the Democrats find him an embarrassment.
It's evidence of something else, though, something we've discussed in the past. Given how easy it is to dig up youthful indiscretions a candidate, especially in the US, has to have none, or at least none where there's any evidence whatsoever of damn-foolery. Or even, as with Cameron and the pig business, 'sort of credible' allegations.
Which tends to mean squeaky clean apparatchiks.
I don’t think it’s anything of the sort. As we’ve seen before, if politicians own their youthful indiscretions - whether they apologise for them or not - they often are not seriously affected by them. Keeping them hidden, particularly if such indiscretions are utterly at odds with their present political position, is what damages them. The public values authenticity.
In the same speech when May said she would stand down before the next election, she also said she would love to give it another go and (try to) expunge the stain of 2017. Having an election in a hurry is the only way she gets to live her dream.
A highly relevant observation.
I am convinced that calling a snap election is TM's backstop if she cannot get her deal through this parliament. There is massive personal upside for her if she wins it and her downside (losing) is negligible, since her other options (adopt Labour policy or give up on Brexit) lead to an ignominious exit from number 10 in very short order.
Question is, will the backstop be needed? I think probably not, but this I am less sure about.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
She'd call for a vote on it and the Labour party could hardly resist. It's a replay of last time.
How does she get it past her own party this time, bearing in mind she promised not to lead them into the next election?
Not quite. She promised not to lead them into the next general election in 2022.
The DUP would undoubtedly vote against it as they risk losing their throttle hold. Perhaps some of the ERG for a similar reason? But not enough to avoid a 2/3rd majority if Labour vote for it.
Listen to the clip. She makes clear she is referring to 2022. The BBC headline is misleading.
She says she is not fighting the next election. I really do not see how she can turn around and say that engineering an election now would be consistent with that.
Listen to the clip. She confirms that she is not fighting "the next General Election" and goes on to clarify "The next General Election is in 2022 and I think it is right that another leader leads us into that election". I don't think she has a problem with that. Boris and a few others might complain but they'll be in a small minority.
In the same speech when May said she would stand down before the next election, she also said she would love to give it another go and (try to) expunge the stain of 2017. Having an election in a hurry is the only way she gets to live her dream.
A highly relevant observation.
I am convinced that calling a snap election is TM's backstop if she cannot get her deal through this parliament. There is massive personal upside for her if she wins it and her downside (losing) is negligible, since her other options (adopt Labour policy or give up on Brexit) lead to an ignominious exit from number 10 in very short order.
Question is, will the backstop be needed? I think probably not, but this I am less sure about.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
She'd call for a vote on it and the Labour party could hardly resist. It's a replay of last time.
How does she get it past her own party this time, bearing in mind she promised not to lead them into the next election?
Not quite. She promised not to lead them into the next general election in 2022.
The DUP would undoubtedly vote against it as they risk losing their throttle hold. Perhaps some of the ERG for a similar reason? But not enough to avoid a 2/3rd majority if Labour vote for it.
Listen to the clip. She makes clear she is referring to 2022. The BBC headline is misleading.
She says she is not fighting the next election. I really do not see how she can turn around and say that engineering an election now would be consistent with that.
Listen to the clip. She confirms that she is not fighting "the next General Election" and goes on to clarify "The next General Election is in 2022 and I think it is right that another leader leads us into that election". I don't think she has a problem with that. Boris and a few others might complain but they'll be in a small minority.
Wrong. A huge majority of Tory MPs don't want her anywhere near the next election.
Oh Mike. OGH. It’s not a shock poll. What makes anyone think its a shock poll? Does it not tie perfectly with other klaxons, like leadership satisfaction ratings or best PM? Or Labour whip melting in the commons as power ebbs away from Corbyns nebulous brexit handling.
What gave Labour last GE result and kept them at high levels was the belief giving support to Labour would prevent / soften brexit. That bubble has burst. That’s the key bit.
Simultaneously voters have a different measure of Corbyn and the crew around him. Another bubble has burst, and can’t be reversed.
The Tories will now comfortably win the impending election with the same get Corbyn tactic that flopped last time. They could wallpaper the front of themselves so all you hear about their plans is some muffled battle for Britain sound bites. They can even include a dementia tax and still win.
There is always lots of irony in politics. We are now at a point the Labour moderates sat behind Corbyn happy to vote for that GE when May calls it, because the comfortable working majority May will win spears Corbyn and Team Corbyn.
Considering how stable the polling has been for 18 months, I wouldn't belive a single poll. Indeed despite being done on the same day, this poll was not deemed newsworthy:
Don’t need polls. Put your hand out the window and feel the change.
The People’s vote ship has been scuttled by team Corbyn. They are completely boxed in by their own sequencing to whatever route May wants out of the impasse.
voters have a different measure of Corbyn and the crew around him compared to two years ago. What gave Labour last GE result and kept them at high levels was a belief giving support to Labour would prevent / soften brexit. That bubble has burst.
IF brexit impasse continues, GE is number 10s preferred out, because they are rightly confident of a working majority. The coming election is not about May, nor governments performance not even Brexit. It’s is about Corbyn and his crew fit for office. In the crisis and the negotiation, who do you want to battle for Britain? That’s the coming election.
you are saying I don’t have enough evidence to support this? The whole point of a market, betting or otherwise is to be ahead of the game. its that easy to call it this morning, i can see it all lit up in bright colours.
Now why, I wonder, do the people of St Louis not like that nice Californian team? ;-)
I am curious as to what is going on in Louisiana.
It was the game two weeks ago. The New Orleans Saints got an absolutely terrible decision from the refs that meant LA Rams went through, when the Saints should have had a clear penalty and won the game.
No they've not been played and Jenkyns needs to STFU. They did say that the deal would be ratified if the backstop was dealt with that is literally what the amendment said.
Yes there are other issues with the deal but they're not deal breakers. The backstop is.
There is no incentive for the EU27 to extend if (a) Parliament remains deadlocked and (b) there is no indication of any event on the horizon which will end this condition. All that would do is give enough time for the UK to further complicate the European Parliament elections, by sending several dozen Hard Brexiteers to join the expected Eurosceptic surge.
I know that the EU and Theresa May would make stiff competition for one another at the World Can-Kicking Championships, but they can't keep it going forever.
Extend for a general election. That is May's backstop if she can't finesse/bludgeon her deal through this parliament.
The DUP would undoubtedly vote against it as they risk losing their throttle hold. Perhaps some of the ERG for a similar reason? But not enough to avoid a 2/3rd majority if Labour vote for it.
Listen to the clip. She makes clear she is referring to 2022. The BBC headline is misleading.
She says she is not fighting the next election. I really do not see how she can turn around and say that engineering an election now would be consistent with that.
Listen to the clip. She confirms that she is not fighting "the next General Election" and goes on to clarify "The next General Election is in 2022 and I think it is right that another leader leads us into that election". I don't think she has a problem with that. Boris and a few others might complain but they'll be in a small minority.
Erm, you’re talking about an election she is hypothetically going to engineer. It makes a straight untruth out of her own words on that clip. It’s not as though the Conservative party is brimful of Mayites appalled at the thought of losing her generalship. Just about the only thing that unites them all is that they think she sucks.
I believe they are second to Scotland at present, do you have Brexititis.
LOl Malc. We will revisit this at the end of the 6 Nations.
More Likely you will want to forget
England v Scotland... Its the final match of the 6 Nations.. at Twickenham... How often have the Jocks turned over England on their own turf? Last time at Twickers it was 62-21 IIRC
Always a first time and we will have won it by then so it will just be a training match
Regarding youthful antics, I went to a '1960s' fancy dress party about 25 years ago (it was good - might go to another one at some point) and there was a girl there who came as Jackie Kennedy post assassination, pink Chanel suit, fake bloodstains, the works. It split opinion IIRC. Many people were offended whereas some loved it.
If that girl was now Stella Creasy, would she (and should she) be in trouble?
I think on balance not - and no - but I'm sure not everybody would agree.
Please tell me it was Creasy. Please let it be so.
TSE, I really don't see any normal life scenario where these figures improve for Trump. Those who leave him are not coming back, and every month he comes up with a new way to test his base's loyalty to him - be they farmers or steelworkers or coalworkers.
Short of a spectacularly successful and necessary war, I don't see this turning around. Thank god.
You may be underestimating the Democrats' ability to bollocks this thing up
But I suspect even Warren, who is very unlikely to get the nomination, would beat Trump.
Was Northam the Klansman or the black and white minstrel in the photo?
It might be a minority view, but I don’t get this.
This was over 35 years ago when he was in his early 20s and mucking around with his mates. discovered.
It's his own side who have turned on him.
Yes, I don’t understand that either.
He ran a lot of attack ads that branded his Republican opponent as a white nationalist in 2017. So, the Republicans are happy to put the boot in, while the Democrats find him an embarrassment.
It's evidence of something else, though, something we've discussed in the past. Given how easy it is to dig up youthful indiscretions a candidate, especially in the US, has to have none, or at least none where there's any evidence whatsoever of damn-foolery. Or even, as with Cameron and the pig business, 'sort of credible' allegations.
Which tends to mean squeaky clean apparatchiks.
I don’t think it means anything of the sort.
We’ve seen plenty of occasions when politicians have owned their youthful indiscretions and been unharmed by doing so. What the voters won’t tolerate is someone who campaigns as one thing, and then is presented with evidence of an earlier adulthood completely at odds with that which they have never admitted and still unconvincingly try to parse.
Amongst other qualities, the electorate values authenticity quite highly in politicians, and punishes inauthenticity.
(edit apologies for the almost duplicate post - Vanilla is doing funny things to me this morning.)
Regarding youthful antics, I went to a '1960s' fancy dress party about 25 years ago (it was good - might go to another one at some point) and there was a girl there who came as Jackie Kennedy post assassination, pink Chanel suit, fake bloodstains, the works. It split opinion IIRC. Many people were offended whereas some loved it.
If that girl was now Stella Creasy, would she (and should she) be in trouble?
I think on balance not - and no - but I'm sure not everybody would agree.
A couple of years ago, one Consrvative student group had a party with a Jimmy Saville theme.
Now why, I wonder, do the people of St Louis not like that nice Californian team? ;-)
I am curious as to what is going on in Louisiana.
It was the game two weeks ago. The New Orleans Saints got an absolutely terrible decision from the refs that meant LA Rams went through, when the Saints should have had a clear penalty and won the game.
It was one of the worst decisions I've ever seen - any sport, anywhere. You could understand Saints fans being peed off.
It's a shame not least because the standard of the officials in NFL is phenomenally high, generally. They just got that one wrong. It was a shocker though, and it made all the difference.
Regarding youthful antics, I went to a '1960s' fancy dress party about 25 years ago (it was good - might go to another one at some point) and there was a girl there who came as Jackie Kennedy post assassination, pink Chanel suit, fake bloodstains, the works. It split opinion IIRC. Many people were offended whereas some loved it.
If that girl was now Stella Creasy, would she (and should she) be in trouble?
I think on balance not - and no - but I'm sure not everybody would agree.
A couple of years ago, one Consrvative student group had a party with a Jimmy Saville theme.
I hope they had a 'Christmas with the Thatchers' tableau.
Now why, I wonder, do the people of St Louis not like that nice Californian team? ;-)
I am curious as to what is going on in Louisiana.
It was the game two weeks ago. The New Orleans Saints got an absolutely terrible decision from the refs that meant LA Rams went through, when the Saints should have had a clear penalty and won the game.
It was one of the worst decisions I've ever seen - any sport, anywhere. You could understand Saints fans being peed off.
It's a shame not least because the standard of the officials in NFL is phenomenally high, generally. They just got that one wrong. It was a shocker though, and it made all the difference.
What are you talking about? Man and ball.....well at least man, the ball was just a bit late arriving....
Not surprising with Corbyn leading the Party. On the subject of polls. Don't believe any of them. Even if ALL the Polls had the Tories 20% a head, I still wouldn't believe them. Comments such as "they got it right at the last election" prove nothing
Leonard is seriously worse than Corbyn, can you believe it.
Oh Mike. OGH. It’s not a shock poll. What makes anyone think its a shock poll? Does it not tie perfectly with other klaxons, like leadership satisfaction ratings or best PM? Or Labour whip melting in the commons as power ebbs away from Corbyns nebulous brexit handling.
What gave Labour last GE result and kept them at high levels was the belief giving support to Labour would prevent / soften brexit. That bubble has burst. That’s the key bit.
Simultaneously voters have a different measure of Corbyn and the crew around him. Another bubble has burst, and can’t be reversed.
The Tories will now comfortably
Conside9
Don’t need polls. Put your hand out the window and feel the change.
The People’s vote ship has been scuttled by team Corbyn. They are completely boxed in by their own sequencing to whatever route May wants out of the impasse.
voters have a different measure of Corbyn and the crew around him compared to two years ago. What gave Labour last GE result and kept them at high levels was a belief giving support to Labour would prevent / soften brexit. That bubble has burst.
IF brexit impasse continues, GE is number 10s preferred out, because they are rightly confident of a working majority. The coming election is not about May, nor governments performance not even Brexit. It’s is about Corbyn and his crew fit for office. In the crisis and the negotiation, who do you want to battle for Britain? That’s the coming election.
you are saying I don’t have enough evidence to support this? The whole point of a market, betting or otherwise is to be ahead of the game. its that easy to call it this morning, i can see it all lit up in bright colours.
I see no change. While Corbyn is equivocating, the vast majority of Labour MPs are anti Brexit, and open about it. Aggrieved Remainers may not turn out for a few, but are certain to vote against the Tories, and like the anti Trump voters in the header are very motivated. May will leave the next election as long as she can, so the current Brexistentialist shambles is as distant as possible.
The DUP would undoubtedly vote against it as they risk losing their throttle hold. Perhaps some of the ERG for a similar reason? But not enough to avoid a 2/3rd majority if Labour vote for it.
Yes, I think she could get the 2/3 for a GE. And she would lead the party into it. No time to select a replacement.
Question in my mind is, given that the ERG and the DUP would hate a GE, will simply the threat of it be sufficient to bring them behind the deal?
A part of TM will be disappointed, if so, because calling and winning a snap election is the dream scenario for her. Redemption!
(By the deal I mean THE deal - since I don't see the EU offering anything beyond cosmetics on the Irish Backstop.)
Remember that last year we saw the spectacle of a nominee for the Supreme Court being questioned for days about how much he loved beer at college more than thirty years ago.
Yes, that's what it was all about. Beer. Definitely beer.
He loved beer, who doesn't love beer. So what if he drunk beer. He likes beer (please don't ask about hard liquor). Beer.
Erm, you’re talking about an election she is hypothetically going to engineer. It makes a straight untruth out of her own words on that clip. It’s not as though the Conservative party is brimful of Mayites appalled at the thought of losing her generalship. Just about the only thing that unites them all is that they think she sucks.
All true but there is sod all that Conservative MPs can do about it, having ducked more than once chance to ditch the PM already. Every other party would vote for an election, so you'd need almost the entire parliamentary Conservative Party to defy the whip. It is more likely Philip May would persuade her during a long walk that the game is no longer worth the candle.
Now why, I wonder, do the people of St Louis not like that nice Californian team? ;-)
I am curious as to what is going on in Louisiana.
It was the game two weeks ago. The New Orleans Saints got an absolutely terrible decision from the refs that meant LA Rams went through, when the Saints should have had a clear penalty and won the game.
It was one of the worst decisions I've ever seen - any sport, anywhere. You could understand Saints fans being peed off.
It's a shame not least because the standard of the officials in NFL is phenomenally high, generally. They just got that one wrong. It was a shocker though, and it made all the difference.
What are you talking about? Man and ball.....well at least man, the ball was just a bit late arriving....
Lol! That would have been a foul in just about any sport you care to name - soccer, rugby, cage fighting, whatever. The irony is that if he had watched the ball he could have intercepted.
No axe to grind here either - my money was on the Rams, so I was a lucky winner. As regards tonite's match though, I think the Californians are the value at odds against with Betfair (about 2.2?) Their defence played super well against St Louis who have a better offense than N England. It should be a good, close game, but if I were betting, I'd have to take the outsider of the two.
But I suspect even Warren, who is very unlikely to get the nomination, would beat Trump.
Probably - I don't think Warren is a bad candidate, although obviously she's no KLOBUCHAR.
Their other problem is that there's a dynamic where the candidates are trying to out-compete each other on bold economic left-wingery. It's all very well to say you'll never vote for Trump now but if you think the other side will put your taxes up...
There aren’t enough billionaires even in the US to make the electoral difference...
.. although a couple more are tempted to run as a result.
Just taxing billionaires is popular, but: 1) A memetically gifted opponent like Trump will make other voters worried too 2) If you have a bunch of unfunded spending promises on top of the ones the billionaires are supposed to pay for they'll be right to worry
The correct attitude to student high jinks, fancy dress parties, thoughtlessness and antics is one of thankfulness.
Most (all?) students do something stupid or careless or immature during the years at University. It is part of growing up.
We’re just thankful we are lucky that our pasts are not trawled through in such fantastic detail by the professionally offended.
This applies to Cameron and pigs, Balls and Nazi uniform, Clegg and cacti, US pols and pictures in stupid yearbooks.
I think the problem comes if it doesn't appear that it was just a one-off youthful indiscretion.
That was my take on Jared O'Mara, he was said lots of pretty bad stuff on twitter, much of it years ago, but what really did for him was that fact he acted even worse in person only a few months before becoming an MP. There was little evidence he had changed.
Was Northam the Klansman or the black and white minstrel in the photo?
It might be a minority view, but I don’t get this.
This was over 35 years ago when he was in his early 20s and mucking around with his mates.
If his political opponents have evidence of unchanged racist attitudes that are affecting his politics today, then fine, but I don’t see why he should resign just because this photo has been discovered.
It's his own side who have turned on him.
Yes, I don’t understand that either.
He ran a lot of attack ads that branded his Republican opponent as a white nationalist in 2017. So, the Republicans are happy to put the boot in, while the Democrats find him an embarrassment.
Or even, as with Cameron and the pig business, 'sort of credible' allegations.
Which tends to mean squeaky clean apparatchiks.
And what’s going to happen a decade (or less) from now, when those seeking public office were routinely posting every university night out on social media for all to see?
People born in 2001 are now eligible to stand for Parliament, sorry to make everyone feel old.
Quite. Although Nick Clegg's admission of practicing free love, or something like it, didn't seem to affect him. ...
Now why, I wonder, do the people of St Louis not like that nice Californian team? ;-)
I am curious as to what is going on in Louisiana.
It was the game two weeks ago. The New Orleans Saints got an absolutely terrible decision from the refs that meant LA Rams went through, when the Saints should have had a clear penalty and won the game.
It was one of the worst decisions I've ever seen - any sport, anywhere. You could understand Saints fans being peed off.
It's a shame not least because the standard of the officials in NFL is phenomenally high, generally. They just got that one wrong. It was a shocker though, and it made all the difference.
What are you talking about? Man and ball.....well at least man, the ball was just a bit late arriving....
Lol! That would have been a foul in just about any sport you care to name - soccer, rugby, cage fighting, whatever. The irony is that if he had watched the ball he could have intercepted.
No axe to grind here either - my money was on the Rams, so I was a lucky winner. As regards tonite's match though, I think the Californians are the value at odds against with Betfair (about 2.2?) Their defence played super well against St Louis who have a better offense than N England. It should be a good, close game, but if I were betting, I'd have to take the outsider of the two.
For all the hate the Pats get, Belichick totally out-thought the Chiefs in the NFC game. Chiefs were the more talented team, but the genius of Belichick managed to nullify that advantage.
My concern however is the likes of Gronk. He is so important to the Pats, but he is absolutely broken body and they keep just patching him enough to make those few valuable plays.
The correct attitude to student high jinks, fancy dress parties, thoughtlessness and antics is one of thankfulness.
Most (all?) students do something stupid or careless or immature during the years at University. It is part of growing up.
We’re just thankful we are lucky that our pasts are not trawled through in such fantastic detail by the professionally offended.
This applies to Cameron and pigs, Balls and Nazi uniform, Clegg and cacti, US pols and pictures in stupid yearbooks.
I think the problem comes if it doesn't appear that it was just a one-off youthful indiscretion.
That was my take on Jared O'Mara, he was said lots of pretty bad stuff on twitter, much of it years ago, but what really did for him was that fact he acted even worse in person only a few months before becoming an MP. There was little evidence he had changed.
We were able to watch in great detail, and in real time how the outrage over the actions of someone is directly proportional to the tribe you are a member of. Those who would normall screech the loudest about such acts of misogyny sat beside him in parliament, and talked about “his journey”. If you are on the side of the angels, you can get away with an awful lot.
But I suspect even Warren, who is very unlikely to get the nomination, would beat Trump.
Probably - I don't think Warren is a bad candidate, although obviously she's no KLOBUCHAR.
Their other problem is that there's a dynamic where the candidates are trying to out-compete each other on bold economic left-wingery. It's all very well to say you'll never vote for Trump now but if you think the other side will put your taxes up...
There aren’t enough billionaires even in the US to make the electoral difference...
.. although a couple more are tempted to run as a result.
Just taxing billionaires is popular, but: 1) A memetically gifted opponent like Trump will make other voters worried too 2) If you have a bunch of unfunded spending promises on top of the ones the billionaires are supposed to pay for they'll be right to worry
I don’t think the latter will be a problem at the election - the Republicans have already abandoned any credibility on the deficit. The Democrats’ real problems will start once they are in government, particularly if there’s any recession. And people have adjusted to Trump’s schtick. It’s notable, for example, that Warren has pretty well shrugged off his attacks, if the head to head polling is anything to go by. It’s not going to shift opinions.
No they've not been played and Jenkyns needs to STFU. They did say that the deal would be ratified if the backstop was dealt with that is literally what the amendment said.
Yes there are other issues with the deal but they're not deal breakers. The backstop is.
Jenkyns and Baker are fools - I think there are a dozen or so at least who are angling solely for a No Deal scenarion. There may be up to 10 on the extreme right who may split off to the new party. This is why the final deal may well end up as a CU with a lot of cross-party support and recriminations in both of the main parties. After that who knows - we'll probably eventually settle back to a centre left and centre right party which will hoover up between them most voters. It's the way things tend to end up in most representative democracies becuase the alternatives are too Venezuela to contemplate.
No they've not been played and Jenkyns needs to STFU. They did say that the deal would be ratified if the backstop was dealt with that is literally what the amendment said.
Yes there are other issues with the deal but they're not deal breakers. The backstop is.
Jenkyns and Baker are fools - I think there are a dozen or so at least who are angling solely for a No Deal scenarion. There may be up to 10 on the extreme right who may split off to the new party. This is why the final deal may well end up as a CU with a lot of cross-party support and recriminations in both of the main parties. After that who knows - we'll probably eventually settle back to a centre left and centre right party which will hoover up between them most voters. It's the way things tend to end up in most representative democracies becuase the alternatives are too Venezuela to contemplate.
I'd honestly rather have Ed Balls in Parliament than Jenkyns.
Remember that last year we saw the spectacle of a nominee for the Supreme Court being questioned for days about how much he loved beer at college more than thirty years ago.
Yes, that's what it was all about. Beer. Definitely beer.
He loved beer, who doesn't love beer. So what if he drunk beer. He likes beer (please don't ask about hard liquor). Beer.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
I'm thinking the 2/3 route. But I'm also wondering whether just the threat of it might be sufficient incentive for the DUP and most of the ERG to end up, at the death and under severe pressure, supporting the deal - and thus with the help of some 'rebel' Labour MPs, that it will squeak over the line.
In which case, the parliamentary situation will remain highly unstable and there must be a good chance of a GE later in the year.
So, all in all, I quite like the 2.6 on Betfair for an election in 2019.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
I'm thinking the 2/3 route. But I'm also wondering whether just the threat of it might be sufficient incentive for the DUP and most of the ERG to end up, at the death and under severe pressure, supporting the deal - and thus with the help of some 'rebel' Labour MPs, that it will squeak over the line.
In which case, the parliamentary situation will remain highly unstable and there must be a good chance of a GE later in the year.
So, all in all, I quite like the 2.6 on Betfair for an election in 2019.
Remember that last year we saw the spectacle of a nominee for the Supreme Court being questioned for days about how much he loved beer at college more than thirty years ago.
Yes, that's what it was all about. Beer. Definitely beer.
He loved beer, who doesn't love beer. So what if he drunk beer. He likes beer (please don't ask about hard liquor). Beer.
Mechanically, how do you think she could call a general election?
I'm thinking the 2/3 route. But I'm also wondering whether just the threat of it might be sufficient incentive for the DUP and most of the ERG to end up, at the death and under severe pressure, supporting the deal - and thus with the help of some 'rebel' Labour MPs, that it will squeak over the line.
In which case, the parliamentary situation will remain highly unstable and there must be a good chance of a GE later in the year.
So, all in all, I quite like the 2.6 on Betfair for an election in 2019.
The DUP are not going to support the Deal with the backstop and indeed it is the fact they have promised to VONC the government and force a general election if the Deal with the backstop is passed which is making May think she may have to call a general election in a few months time if her Deal passes, which almost certainly would be due to Labour rebel votes with those same Labour rebels then backing a VONC in the government
Remember that last year we saw the spectacle of a nominee for the Supreme Court being questioned for days about how much he loved beer at college more than thirty years ago.
Yes, that's what it was all about. Beer. Definitely beer.
He loved beer, who doesn't love beer. So what if he drunk beer. He likes beer (please don't ask about hard liquor). Beer.
No they've not been played and Jenkyns needs to STFU. They did say that the deal would be ratified if the backstop was dealt with that is literally what the amendment said.
Yes there are other issues with the deal but they're not deal breakers. The backstop is.
Jenkyns and Baker are fools - I think there are a dozen or so at least who are angling solely for a No Deal scenarion. There may be up to 10 on the extreme right who may split off to the new party. This is why the final deal may well end up as a CU with a lot of cross-party support and recriminations in both of the main parties. After that who knows - we'll probably eventually settle back to a centre left and centre right party which will hoover up between them most voters. It's the way things tend to end up in most representative democracies becuase the alternatives are too Venezuela to contemplate.
I'd honestly rather have Ed Balls in Parliament than Jenkyns.
He would have the advantage of occupying two seats instead of one
A technical point. Apparently even if the deal (or any deal) passes, there still needs to be a chunk of legislation passed before Brexit day.
What happens in the hypothetical scenario that May's deal (or version of) passes against the wishes of the DUP and Corbyn calls a VoNC the next day, which passes. That then either results in a General Election, or a Govt that doesn't support the deal and won't enact the legislation.
Comments
"I had to do penance, I had to do a form of community service.
“I was digging up flowerbeds in a suburb of Munich.
“I’m not proud of it, it’s terrible."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/nick-clegg-i-set-fire-to-a-cacti-collection-and-im-not-proud-of-it-9375806.html
https://twitter.com/stevebakerhw/status/1091978006883635200?s=21
'Some kind of conclusion' will be reached when we know whether we have No Deal, May Deal or Oops-Sorry-We-Didn't-Really-Mean-It-Can-We-Remain-Please? Yes of course the whole sorry business will drag on interminably in the event of any kind of Brexit, but by then the die will have been truly cast.
And in that sense we will have reached a conclusion.
If No Deal looms, she will extend A50 and the EU will agree. Kick the can - and in the meantime nothing has changed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7003100.stm
I see elsewhere he denied that he was actually convicted of arson. Maybe that's true.
Still, he denied having been a member of the Cambridge University Conservative Association too, despite his name being on a membership list.
Objectively I'd have to say it's a risk that shouldn't be taken. Emotionally, I'm inclined to say 'effit….No Deal if you like. It's no more than we deserve.'
He got away with it.
Wasn't true!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/12/theresa-may-signals-she-will-step-down-before-2022-election
The DUP would undoubtedly vote against it as they risk losing their throttle hold. Perhaps some of the ERG for a similar reason? But not enough to avoid a 2/3rd majority if Labour vote for it.
Yer aving a larf, no?
Data from 16 forces in England and Wales showed 5,966 officers and staff had not had the retrospective checks, which include credit and DNA records.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47073883
I know that the EU and Theresa May would make stiff competition for one another at the World Can-Kicking Championships, but they can't keep it going forever.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46555865/theresa-may-confirms-she-will-not-fight-another-general-election
.. although a couple more are tempted to run as a result.
https://twitter.com/NFL_Memes/status/1087204155486363649
I can say with 100% certainty there are no photos of me in either blackface or KKK outfit, as most people can.
If that girl was now Stella Creasy, would she (and should she) be in trouble?
I think on balance not - and no - but I'm sure not everybody would agree.
Even the City of York seat was under threat .
Even as a small child, I had standards.
https://youtu.be/gDumWOjmQfI
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-super-bowls-best-matchup-is-gladys-knight-vs-the-clock/
https://www.racingpost.com/sport/super-bowl-liii/five-novelty-tips-to-consider-for-super-bowl-liii/364113
Which raises the question: is he suggesting he should resign if there's a photo of that, but not otherwise?
As we’ve seen before, if politicians own their youthful indiscretions - whether they apologise for them or not - they often are not seriously affected by them. Keeping them hidden, particularly if such indiscretions are utterly at odds with their present political position, is what damages them.
The public values authenticity.
https://twitter.com/andreajenkyns/status/1091983264087183361?s=21
The People’s vote ship has been scuttled by team Corbyn. They are completely boxed in by their own sequencing to whatever route May wants out of the impasse.
voters have a different measure of Corbyn and the crew around him compared to two years ago. What gave Labour last GE result and kept them at high levels was a belief giving support to Labour would prevent / soften brexit. That bubble has burst.
IF brexit impasse continues, GE is number 10s preferred out, because they are rightly confident of a working majority. The coming election is not about May, nor governments performance not even Brexit. It’s is about Corbyn and his crew fit for office. In the crisis and the negotiation, who do you want to battle for Britain? That’s the coming election.
you are saying I don’t have enough evidence to support this? The whole point of a market, betting or otherwise is to be ahead of the game. its that easy to call it this morning, i can see it all lit up in bright colours.
https://twitter.com/benjohnson_2010/status/1091788409662668800
Yes there are other issues with the deal but they're not deal breakers. The backstop is.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2019/feb/02/groundhog-day-2019-punxsutawney-phils-big-day-in-pictures
Listen to the clip. She confirms that she is not fighting "the next General Election" and goes on to clarify "The next General Election is in 2022 and I think it is right that another leader leads us into that election". I don't think she has a problem with that. Boris and a few others might complain but they'll be in a small minority.
Erm, you’re talking about an election she is hypothetically going to engineer. It makes a straight untruth out of her own words on that clip. It’s not as though the Conservative party is brimful of Mayites appalled at the thought of losing her generalship. Just about the only thing that unites them all is that they think she sucks.
We’ve seen plenty of occasions when politicians have owned their youthful indiscretions and been unharmed by doing so. What the voters won’t tolerate is someone who campaigns as one thing, and then is presented with evidence of an earlier adulthood completely at odds with that which they have never admitted and still unconvincingly try to parse.
Amongst other qualities, the electorate values authenticity quite highly in politicians, and punishes inauthenticity.
(edit apologies for the almost duplicate post - Vanilla is doing funny things to me this morning.)
It's a shame not least because the standard of the officials in NFL is phenomenally high, generally. They just got that one wrong. It was a shocker though, and it made all the difference.
https://youtu.be/xjvZHMod_3E?t=16
Question in my mind is, given that the ERG and the DUP would hate a GE, will simply the threat of it be sufficient to bring them behind the deal?
A part of TM will be disappointed, if so, because calling and winning a snap election is the dream scenario for her. Redemption!
(By the deal I mean THE deal - since I don't see the EU offering anything beyond cosmetics on the Irish Backstop.)
Most (all?) students do something stupid or careless or immature during the years at University. It is part of growing up.
We’re just thankful we are lucky that our pasts are not trawled through in such fantastic detail by the professionally offended.
This applies to Cameron and pigs, Balls and Nazi uniform, Clegg and cacti, US pols and pictures in stupid yearbooks.
No axe to grind here either - my money was on the Rams, so I was a lucky winner. As regards tonite's match though, I think the Californians are the value at odds against with Betfair (about 2.2?) Their defence played super well against St Louis who have a better offense than N England. It should be a good, close game, but if I were betting, I'd have to take the outsider of the two.
1) A memetically gifted opponent like Trump will make other voters worried too
2) If you have a bunch of unfunded spending promises on top of the ones the billionaires are supposed to pay for they'll be right to worry
That was my take on Jared O'Mara, he was said lots of pretty bad stuff on twitter, much of it years ago, but what really did for him was that fact he acted even worse in person only a few months before becoming an MP. There was little evidence he had changed.
My concern however is the likes of Gronk. He is so important to the Pats, but he is absolutely broken body and they keep just patching him enough to make those few valuable plays.
And people have adjusted to Trump’s schtick. It’s notable, for example, that Warren has pretty well shrugged off his attacks, if the head to head polling is anything to go by. It’s not going to shift opinions.
Political parties contain insincere people who fake outrage at actions of their opponents.
In which case, the parliamentary situation will remain highly unstable and there must be a good chance of a GE later in the year.
So, all in all, I quite like the 2.6 on Betfair for an election in 2019.
What happens in the hypothetical scenario that May's deal (or version of) passes against the wishes of the DUP and Corbyn calls a VoNC the next day, which passes. That then either results in a General Election, or a Govt that doesn't support the deal and won't enact the legislation.
What then???