Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.
Interesting as far as Surrey is concerned, but I don't expect the situation there to be a particularly good guide to what happens in the rest of the country on this occasion.
I have heard similar reports from several different parts of England. I think it is in places where the LDs have one wards in the past
Too much was made of the Tory manifesto . The over 65s didn’t desert the party and they would keep voting for them even if they brought in euthanasia at 80 !
IIRC a change to the Conservative Party leadership rules is a constitutional change which requires the support of "not less than 66% of Members of Parliament voting"
Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.
Just be careful not to throw away all your good work with a Sheffield rally display of overconfidence.
Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.
Just be careful not to throw away all your good work with a Sheffield rally display of overconfidence.
Sounds a bit downbeat on Labour. It is not often a politician talks up a rival party.
Whatever those polls were reporting it surely wasn't voting intention. I refuse to believe that a) Theresa was ever that popular and b) such popularity could have been wiped out by a manifesto that no one read.
Bit of a coincidence that their polling nose dived at exactly the same time the manifesto came out.
The pollling nosedived once May - who said she would not call a snap election - called a snap election.
Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.
Just be careful not to throw away all your good work with a Sheffield rally display of overconfidence.
Sounds a bit downbeat on Labour. It is not often a politician talks up a rival party.
He's in Surrey. Claiming to have found a Labour voter at all is upbeat.
Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.
Just be careful not to throw away all your good work with a Sheffield rally display of overconfidence.
Sounds a bit downbeat on Labour. It is not often a politician talks up a rival party.
He's in Surrey. Claiming to have found a Labour voter at all is upbeat.
One of the interesting aspects of the 2017 was how well Corbyn did in some very blue Shire seats. 30% in my local seat of Harborough, and also Majors old Huntington seat.
In any sane country Tweets like this would be grounds for impeachment all on their own.
....big, fat, waste of time, energy and money - $30,000,000 to be exact. It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even Spying or Treason. This should never happen again!
For a man who says he was "Totally Exonerated" he sure as hell seems extremely angry about the redacted reported. What is he going to do or say when an unredacted copy comes out, or the report's authors testify in Congress?
Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.
Interesting as far as Surrey is concerned, but I don't expect the situation there to be a particularly good guide to what happens in the rest of the country on this occasion.
Down here in Dorset not a single person of the few hundred I have canvassed have mentioned the Libs. That’s unusual.
Yet they’re the second party in numbers of nominations. And are making a huge effort with deliveries in several wards.
Either they’re running the most underground, clever campaign ever, or LD non by-election over optimism has triumphed again.
Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.
Interesting as far as Surrey is concerned, but I don't expect the situation there to be a particularly good guide to what happens in the rest of the country on this occasion.
Down here in Dorset not a single person of the few hundred I have canvassed have mentioned the Libs. That’s unusual.
Yet they’re the second party in numbers of nominations. And are making a huge effort with deliveries in several wards.
Either they’re running the most underground, clever campaign ever, or LD non by-election over optimism has triumphed again.
Well in two weeks we will know who has been swimming with no trunks on!
Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.
Interesting as far as Surrey is concerned, but I don't expect the situation there to be a particularly good guide to what happens in the rest of the country on this occasion.
Down here in Dorset not a single person of the few hundred I have canvassed have mentioned the Libs. That’s unusual.
Yet they’re the second party in numbers of nominations. And are making a huge effort with deliveries in several wards.
Either they’re running the most underground, clever campaign ever, or LD non by-election over optimism has triumphed again.
I expect the LDs to do well, not because large numbers of voters will switch to them but because lots of Tories will stay home in protest at Brexit or vote for Independent candidates (or UKIP or Brexit Party candidates in the minority of wards where they are standing) and thus provided the LDs get their core vote out they will gain seats by default.
As London, Scotland and Wales are not holding elections and the seats being contested are mainly in the Shires the LDs will also more often than usual be the main opponents to the Tories in the wards contested rather than Labour
I would have thought the last thing a party wants during an election campaign is a poll putting them ahead by 50% to 25%, because almost by definition things can only get worse, (unless there are only a matter of hours to go to polling day). Your supporters become complacent and listless, and your opponents say whatever they feel like because they're expecting to lose anyway which counterintuitively can often be strangely popular with many voters. This is probably what happened with Corbyn in 2017.
It seems ridiculous saying this at 40/1 on BF, but Tuldi Gabbard is way too short. At some point (probably if she fails to make an impact at the first couple of debates) she'll swing out to the 100/1 or longer that she deserves.
Interesting. These is far too much boozing amongst our politicians, not a healthy lifestyle at all.
I'm not a fan of Abbott - but lifestyle choices aside this really isn't anything to pile in on her for.
She’s breaking the law.
Um, hold on there. Many people drink alcohol on trains. If you catch a late-night train there are usually several discarded cans. If there is a law against drinking alcohol on trains, it's widely ignored.
"Prominent Leavers including former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith face losing their seats at the next general election as Brexiteers prepare to punish the Conservatives at the ballot box with voters threatening to boycott the local and European elections over the UK’s delayed departure from the EU."
Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.
Interesting as far as Surrey is concerned, but I don't expect the situation there to be a particularly good guide to what happens in the rest of the country on this occasion.
Down here in Dorset not a single person of the few hundred I have canvassed have mentioned the Libs. That’s unusual.
Yet they’re the second party in numbers of nominations. And are making a huge effort with deliveries in several wards.
Either they’re running the most underground, clever campaign ever, or LD non by-election over optimism has triumphed again.
Despite it's hard-core Tory reputation, Remain did pretty well in Surrey compared to most places, so you'd expect the LDs to do much better there than elsewhere. That's why I said their strength in the county may not be a good guide to other places, like Dorset which voted more enthusiastically for Brexit.
Interesting. These is far too much boozing amongst our politicians, not a healthy lifestyle at all.
I'm not a fan of Abbott - but lifestyle choices aside this really isn't anything to pile in on her for.
She’s breaking the law.
Um, hold on there. Many people drink alcohol on trains. If you catch a late-night train there are usually several discarded cans. If there is a law against drinking alcohol on trains, it's widely ignored.
It’s banned on all TFL. She is too important for such bans apparently.
Interesting. These is far too much boozing amongst our politicians, not a healthy lifestyle at all.
Well there may still be too much boozing in politics but it is far less than it was in the past. Many politicians drank prodigious quantities - Churchill being an obvious example but there were many more. Lunch with a politician, or a political journalist, in the 1970s or 1980s generally involved aperitifs, wine with the meal and quite possibly brandy afterwards, and then everyone staggered back to work for the afternoon. Dinner would be the same, with more liberal quantities of wine. Drunkenness at Westminster was notorious before TV intruded - it would never be tolerated in today's more censorious times.
Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.
Interesting as far as Surrey is concerned, but I don't expect the situation there to be a particularly good guide to what happens in the rest of the country on this occasion.
Down here in Dorset not a single person of the few hundred I have canvassed have mentioned the Libs. That’s unusual.
Yet they’re the second party in numbers of nominations. And are making a huge effort with deliveries in several wards.
Either they’re running the most underground, clever campaign ever, or LD non by-election over optimism has triumphed again.
Despite it's hard-core Tory reputation, Remain did pretty well in Surrey compared to most places, so you'd expect the LDs to do much better there than elsewhere. That's why I said their strength in the county may not be a good guide to other places, like Dorset which voted more enthusiastically for Brexit.
Indeed.
SW Libs have generally been far more eurosceptic than their metropolitan pals. The campaign here has not mentioned the B word at all.
Interesting. These is far too much boozing amongst our politicians, not a healthy lifestyle at all.
I'm not a fan of Abbott - but lifestyle choices aside this really isn't anything to pile in on her for.
She’s breaking the law.
Um, hold on there. Many people drink alcohol on trains. If you catch a late-night train there are usually several discarded cans. If there is a law against drinking alcohol on trains, it's widely ignored.
Only in London, and also some Welsh Valley Lines also ban alcohol on certain journeys.
Biden has drifted in to 6 against Buttigieg's 6.6.
Change since I looked this am.
Could be this:
"Joe Biden is running. The former vice president will make his candidacy official with a video announcement next Wednesday, according to people familiar with the discussions who have been told about them by top aides."
It seems ridiculous saying this at 40/1 on BF, but Tuldi Gabbard is way too short. At some point (probably if she fails to make an impact at the first couple of debates) she'll swing out to the 100/1 or longer that she deserves.
From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?
I mean, the US is obviously number one.
But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;
- China Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- Russia Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- France About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.
- Japan Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.
And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).
I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.
From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?
I mean, the US is obviously number one.
But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;
- China Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- Russia Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- France About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.
- Japan Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.
And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).
I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.
Yes, I did wonder about that myself. Seems highly unlikely we are 3rd.
Interesting. These is far too much boozing amongst our politicians, not a healthy lifestyle at all.
Well there may still be too much boozing in politics but it is far less than it was in the past. Many politicians drank prodigious quantities - Churchill being an obvious example but there were many more. Lunch with a politician, or a political journalist, in the 1970s or 1980s generally involved aperitifs, wine with the meal and quite possibly brandy afterwards, and then everyone staggered back to work for the afternoon. Dinner would be the same, with more liberal quantities of wine. Drunkenness at Westminster was notorious before TV intruded - it would never be tolerated in today's more censorious times.
The obvious recent example that sprang to mind was Charlie Kennedy
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.
Just be careful not to throw away all your good work with a Sheffield rally display of overconfidence.
Sounds a bit downbeat on Labour. It is not often a politician talks up a rival party.
I try to give an accurate picture, even though it's just anecdata posted for mild interest. I think we're doing OK here, but not amazingly, and my impression is that the LDs will do better than most people expect. What I can't really judge is how large the Tory pissed-offedness is, since if you're canvassing for Labour in a Tory area, you can't easily distinguish between "No I'm not voting Labour" and "No I'm not voting for anyone, even my usual Tories".
From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?
I mean, the US is obviously number one.
But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;
- China Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- Russia Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- France About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.
- Japan Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.
And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).
I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.
I think we are third in military power, (and fifth in economic terms). Japan doesn't have freedom of action, Russia and France would both have problems exerting any sort of power outside the confines of their own territory IMO.
From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?
I mean, the US is obviously number one.
But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;
- China Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- Russia Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- France About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.
- Japan Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.
And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).
I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.
If we magically transport ourselves to a flat plain with untroubled oceans and did fantasy warfare, then
UK vs US: we'd lose UK vs Russia: we'd lose a land war, we might lose the sea war, I think we might win the submarine war. UK vs China: we'd lose UK vs India: I think we'd lose UK vs France: hmm. We'd win (probably) UK vs Germany: We'd win
Problem is, our armed forces are good but small, and quantity has a quality all its own. How would we cope against (say) Pakistan or Australia? And if we fought on other country's home soil, it gets worse really quickly: for example, would we win a war against a Scandinavian alliance? We can defend home turf and project a great deal of power abroad, but not enough to fight a big war for a long period.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Wrong, very wrong.
Sanders is the second choice for 32% of Biden voters, compared to just 11% for Harris and 10% for O'Rourke.
Sanders is also the second choice for 21% of O'Rourke voters, and 14% of Harris voters, only Buttigieg voters do not have Sanders in their top 3 second choices (preferring Biden, Harris and O'Rourke instead).
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Surely Biden wins a contested, especially as there are the super delegates (are there not?)?
From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?
I mean, the US is obviously number one.
But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;
- China Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- Russia Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- France About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.
- Japan Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.
And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).
I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.
I think we are third in military power, (and fifth in economic terms). Japan doesn't have freedom of action, Russia and France would both have problems exerting any sort of power outside the confines of their own territory IMO.
But we have problems exerting power beyond our territory.
France and India have working aircraft carriers (and we don't). Russia has a sort of, occasionally working aircraft carrier.
Russia is able to operate - due to its scale and its diplomatic agreements - in much of the world. Certainly more of the world than us.
From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?
I mean, the US is obviously number one.
But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;
- China Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- Russia Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- France About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.
- Japan Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.
And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).
I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.
If we magically transport ourselves to a flat plain with untroubled oceans and did fantasy warfare, then
UK vs US: we'd lose UK vs Russia: we'd lose a land war, we might lose the sea war, I think we might win the submarine war. UK vs China: we'd lose UK vs India: I think we'd lose UK vs France: hmm. We'd win (probably) UK vs Germany: We'd win
Problem is, our armed forces are good but small, and quantity has a quality all its own. How would we cope against (say) Pakistan or Australia? And if we fought on other country's home soil, it gets worse really quickly: for example, would we win a war against a Scandinavian alliance? We can defend home turf and project a great deal of power abroad, but not enough to fight a big war for a long period.
I'm pretty sure the military planning for us to fight a war alone in the 21st century consists of a single side of A4 saying 'not going to happen'.
From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?
I mean, the US is obviously number one.
But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;
- China Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- Russia Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- France About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.
- Japan Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.
And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).
I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.
Moreover, I think Young is (deliberately?) missing the point. If there are any sensible criteria by which we're the world's third military power, how many will continue to apply in 30 years' time - which is the kind of timescale the Brexit project is really about? (Even if in its current state it doesn't manage to last more than a few years.)
Beard is clearly correct about the bigger picture - Britain's search for a place in the world (the Commonwealth, Europe, the Atlantic, splendid isolation?) as its relative importance declines has been an important backdrop to the Leave/Remain debate, indeed to British politics since WW2 or even further.
From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?
I mean, the US is obviously number one.
But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;
- China Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- Russia Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- France About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.
- Japan Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.
And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).
I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.
I think to a certain extent, the facts don't matter. We cannot be a superpower, because we don't have the wherewithal or, as you point out, the population. We can chose to be an ordinary country - whatever that means - or we can choose to be influential as top end of the second tier country in pretty much every measure - economy, military, science, innovation, culture. In short, we don't have to be 'ordinary', but it is a legitimate choice.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
This is going to be a fascinating primary season. I hope that is just one, feisty, GOP challenger to Trump. Weld is not it though.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee
Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.
Just be careful not to throw away all your good work with a Sheffield rally display of overconfidence.
Sounds a bit downbeat on Labour. It is not often a politician talks up a rival party.
I try to give an accurate picture, even though it's just anecdata posted for mild interest. I think we're doing OK here, but not amazingly, and my impression is that the LDs will do better than most people expect. What I can't really judge is how large the Tory pissed-offedness is, since if you're canvassing for Labour in a Tory area, you can't easily distinguish between "No I'm not voting Labour" and "No I'm not voting for anyone, even my usual Tories".
It is a problem, one of our usual Tory poster displayers is not having one this year over Brexit and some Tories will not vote in protest, thus the LDs will benefit by default, even if few Tories actually switch to them
From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?
I mean, the US is obviously number one.
But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;
- China Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- Russia Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- France About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.
- Japan Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.
And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).
I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.
If we magically transport ourselves to a flat plain with untroubled oceans and did fantasy warfare, then
UK vs US: we'd lose UK vs Russia: we'd lose a land war, we might lose the sea war, I think we might win the submarine war. UK vs China: we'd lose UK vs India: I think we'd lose UK vs France: hmm. We'd win (probably) UK vs Germany: We'd win
Problem is, our armed forces are good but small, and quantity has a quality all its own. How would we cope against (say) Pakistan or Australia? And if we fought on other country's home soil, it gets worse really quickly: for example, would we win a war against a Scandinavian alliance? We can defend home turf and project a great deal of power abroad, but not enough to fight a big war for a long period.
I'm pretty sure the military planning for us to fight a war alone in the 21st century consists of a single side of A4 saying 'not going to happen'.
The only wars we would fight alone potentially are against Spain over Gibraltar and Argentina over the Falklands, beyond that it is inconceivable we would fight any other wars unless alongside the USA, NATO or the UN
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
This is going to be a fascinating primary season. I hope that is just one, feisty, GOP challenger to Trump. Weld is not it though.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee
Then the Dems will lose.
WTF would O'Rourke delegates transfer to Sanders? And it'd be scant few of Biden's. Once again, I fear HYUFD is speaking with false certainty about a subject a little outside his chart room.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee
Then the Dems will lose.
So you consistently say, yet the polling evidence shows Harris, Warren and Buttigieg all poll worse against Trump than Sanders, only Biden and maybe O'Rourke poll better in the general election
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
This is going to be a fascinating primary season. I hope that is just one, feisty, GOP challenger to Trump. Weld is not it though.
romney?
i have a couple of quid on him
That could indeed be fun - Romney would certainly be more feisty than against Obama. But I am not sure I can see him beating Trump as the party has moved so far away from its old base.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
This is going to be a fascinating primary season. I hope that is just one, feisty, GOP challenger to Trump. Weld is not it though.
romney?
i have a couple of quid on him
That could indeed be fun - Romney would certainly be more feisty than against Obama. But I am not sure I can see him beating Trump as the party has moved so far away from its old base.
I would just love him to have a go though, just to see the Orange One explode all over twitter in rage.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee
Then the Dems will lose.
So you consistently say, yet the polling evidence shows Harris, Warren and Buttigieg all poll worse against Trump than Sanders, only Biden and maybe O'Rourke poll better in the general election
Early days, but personally, I think only Biden and Buttigieg can beat Trump. The latter as a completely refreshing, new era candidate who would make Trump look like yesterday's man. The former would wipe the floor as if it was an old town bar brawl between two NY Irish police officers.
From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?
I mean, the US is obviously number one.
But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;
- China Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- Russia Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- France About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.
- Japan Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.
And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).
I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.
Moreover, I think Young is (deliberately?) missing the point.
Well yes (it is Toby Young after all!) but his reply illustrates a problem. Let's invent a group called "Spectator Leavers": very wealthy London-based leavers who work in the media, the commentariat, and associated industries. They sincerely believe that the UK is very powerful and that its attributes will ensure victory almost without trying, and that those who think otherwise are doing the country down. But that attitude is repeatedly bashing up against reality and not achieving its goals, as three years of post-Ref negotiations show. Even worse, it is used for continual budget cutting against the military, to its detriment. Arrogance and complacency is a recipe for disaster.
There are some policy things UK governments could do if they wanted to keep Britain higher up in the pile - throw open the migration gates (Britain's still quite a pull), concrete over the green belt or whatever else it takes to solve the housing crisis, invest heavily in all the stuff that's good for long-run growth. It's feasible for Britain to be steered towards a long-run population of 100 million plus, at least in the sense of there being physical room here, and for the UK to stay above Japan's bracket in the power stakes, maybe surpass it economically too. If the EU doesn't end up as some federated US of E, then potentially Britain could be pre-eminent in Western Europe. I can't see how Britain can stay ahead of India or Indonesia or Brazil; in fact it would say something pretty rough about the world if in 100 years' time we're still several times richer per capita, and more powerful on aggregate, than them! But even in this most "ambitious" vision for Britain, what would be the point of all? It surely isn't to compete with the USA or China in the superpower stakes. Would it make us on an individual level happier or healthier or wealthier? The type of radical changes its creation would require might even undermine the extent to which this new kind of UK might be considered "British" in the sense we currently understand or feel it.
Beard's "ordinary" alternative suggests a kind of petering out or giving up. There are Remain supporters who have a rather negative outlook for any prospect of an independent Britain and many of them are in the camp that the UK's day is done, but at least some of them see the prospect of Britain becoming a more enthusiastically integrated EU member as a positive, proactive approach - forging something new and exciting and powerful. A USofE that again might not be a superpower but at least guarantees Europeans a top-table seat. But as well as the issue of whether that's merely replacing one outdated nationalism with an alternative, wider and less coherent one, I think it's also subject to the "what would be the point?" question. There are small and medium sized countries out there that do not claim to be global players, and are comfortable not even trying to be, but which on the level of the individual human being are doing very well for themselves indeed.
My guess is that the general public's preferred course is somewhere in between "All-out Powerhouse UK" and "let's just give up and leave it to the big boys to sort the world's problems out". History seems to create some expectation that Britain should be doing something with itself, but people aren't massively up for Britain throwing its weight around with tangled wars far away, nor for the kind of demographic and environmental changes necessary to pursue greater long-term population and power.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee
From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?
I mean, the US is obviously number one.
But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;
- China Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- Russia Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- France About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.
- Japan Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.
And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).
I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.
I think to a certain extent, the facts don't matter. We cannot be a superpower, because we don't have the wherewithal or, as you point out, the population. We can chose to be an ordinary country - whatever that means - or we can choose to be influential as top end of the second tier country in pretty much every measure - economy, military, science, innovation, culture. In short, we don't have to be 'ordinary', but it is a legitimate choice.
More importantly, we no longer have the will to be a super power.
There is no enthusiasm for foreign interventions anymore in "pull up the drawbridge" Britain, so silly waving by Toby Young is just that.
Moreover, I think Young is (deliberately?) missing the point.
Well yes (it is Toby Young after all!) but his reply illustrates a problem. Let's invent a group called "Spectator Leavers": very wealthy London-based leavers who work in the media, the commentariat, and associated industries. They sincerely believe that the UK is very powerful and that its attributes will ensure victory almost without trying, and that those who think otherwise are doing the country down. But that attitude is repeatedly bashing up against reality and not achieving its goals, as three years of post-Ref negotiations show. Even worse, it is used for continual budget cutting against the military, to its detriment. Arrogance and complacency is a recipe for disaster.
Raises some interesting points. I don't know nearly enough about what is happening at the top-end of strategic decision making to guess what proportion of military cuts - back as far as the Peace Dividend / post-Cold War cuts and possibly rather further - fall under the heading of "sensible responses to reduced levels of risk", compared to "cutting our cloth" or "managed decline", and the extent to which "it's OK, our boys are the best in the business, we can take 'em all on anyway!" contributed either useful political cover or wishful, poor thinking. Part of my limited understanding is that "elite" units have become increasingly fetishised as part of military spending. Presumably on the grounds that "they're the ones who'll do most of the actual fighting, so so long as we keep them strong we'll be fine" but there are surely limits to that approach - both in terms of the support they can receive, and the extent to which they remain "elite" if they form a greater proportion of your forces.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Wrong, very wrong.
Sanders is the second choice for 32% of Biden voters, compared to just 11% for Harris and 10% for O'Rourke.
Sanders is also the second choice for 21% of O'Rourke voters, and 14% of Harris voters, only Buttigieg voters do not have Sanders in their top 3 second choices (preferring Biden, Harris and O'Rourke instead).
You also forget Sanders got 60% in the 2016 Democratic Party New Hampshire primary and 49.6% in Iowa.
There is also very little to distinguish Buttigieg's policies from Hillary's
Sanders got those vote shares because his opponent was Hillary Clinton. He was in a two horse race: don't like Hillary, there's... there's... there's...
Errr. Bernie.
Hillary was a dreadful candidate, who wasn't even liked by her own party. That's why Bernie did so well.
Those Biden voters who you think will break for Bernie, well they might. But most of them have never seen Buttigieg or Yang or Hickenlooper yet.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee
Then the Dems will lose.
WTF would O'Rourke delegates transfer to Sanders? And it'd be scant few of Biden's. Once again, I fear HYUFD is speaking with false certainty about a subject a little outside his chart room.
Sanders is the second choice of Biden voters and in the top 3 for O'Rourke voters but of course if Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire he will likely have the nomination all but locked up by the end of March through momentum alone
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Surely Biden wins a contested, especially as there are the super delegates (are there not?)?
Superdelegates aren't allowed to vote in the first round unless there is already a majority winner from the primaries.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee
Then the Dems will lose.
So you consistently say, yet the polling evidence shows Harris, Warren and Buttigieg all poll worse against Trump than Sanders, only Biden and maybe O'Rourke poll better in the general election
Early days, but personally, I think only Biden and Buttigieg can beat Trump. The latter as a completely refreshing, new era candidate who would make Trump look like yesterday's man. The former would wipe the floor as if it was an old town bar brawl between two NY Irish police officers.
I agree possibly about the former, Buttigieg has Hillary's policies and would not win the rustbelt against Trump
There are some policy things UK governments could do if they wanted to keep Britain higher up in the pile - throw open the migration gates (Britain's still quite a pull), concrete over the green belt or whatever else it takes to solve the housing crisis, invest heavily in all the stuff that's good for long-run growth. It's feasible for Britain to be steered towards a long-run population of 100 million plus, at least in the sense of there being physical room here, and for the UK to stay above Japan's of radical changes its creation would require might even undermine the extent to which this new kind of UK might be considered "British" in the sense we currently understand or feel it.
Beard's "ordinary" alternative suggests a kind of petering out or giving up. There are Remain supporters who have a rather negative outlook for any prospect of an independent Britain and many of them are in the camp that the UK's day is done, but at least some of them see the prospect of Britain becoming a more enthusiastically integrated EU member as a positive, proactive approach - forging something new and exciting and powerful. A USofE that again might not be a superpower but at least guarantees Europeans a top-table seat. But as well as the issue of whether that's merely replacing one outdated nationalism with an alternative, wider and less coherent one, I think it's also subject to the "what would be the point?" question. There are small and medium sized countries out there that do not claim to be global players, and are comfortable not even trying to be, but which on the level of the individual human being are doing very well for themselves indeed.
My guess is that the general public's preferred course is somewhere in between "All-out Powerhouse UK" and "let's just give up and leave it to the big boys to sort the world's problems out". History seems to create some expectation that Britain should be doing something with itself, but people aren't massively up for Britain throwing its weight around with tangled wars far away, nor for the kind of demographic and environmental changes necessary to pursue greater long-term population and power.
Given our NATO and UN Security Council membership we cannot just sit out global affairs even if we wanted to
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee
LOL!
Sanders IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. This means there will be enormous pressure from the DNC for delegates not to switch to Sanders. So, sure, if he's on 45% of the delegate count he *might* win a contested convention. But on 20% of them, not a chance.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Wrong, very wrong.
Sanders is the second choice for 32% of Biden voters, compared to just 11% for Harris and 10% for O'Rourke.
Sanders is also the second choice for 21% of O'Rourke voters, and 14% of Harris voters, only Buttigieg voters do not have Sanders in their top 3 second choices (preferring Biden, Harris and O'Rourke instead).
You also forget Sanders got 60% in the 2016 Democratic Party New Hampshire primary and 49.6% in Iowa.
There is also very little to distinguish Buttigieg's policies from Hillary's
Sanders got those vote shares because his opponent was Hillary Clinton. He was in a two horse race: don't like Hillary, there's... there's... there's...
Errr. Bernie.
Hillary was a dreadful candidate, who wasn't even liked by her own party. That's why Bernie did so well.
Those Biden voters who you think will break for Bernie, well they might. But most of them have never seen Buttigieg or Yang or Hickenlooper yet.
Look at the Ashcroft polling last week, 57% of Democratic voters want more liberal, progressive candidates, only 28% want more moderate, centrist candidates. Democrats picked a centrist last time and lost, they are not going to pick a candidate rehashing Hillary's policies, they want their own Corbyn and they will vote for Sanders to get it.
Hickelooper or Buttigieg ie Hillary 2.0 in policy terms are not what the Democratic base wants at the moment, indeed Hickenlooper is just a Democratic version of Kasich in 2016
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee
LOL!
Sanders IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. This means there will be enormous pressure from the DNC for delegates not to switch to Sanders. So, sure, if he's on 45% of the delegate count he *might* win a contested convention. But on 20% of them, not a chance.
Sanders already got 43% of the Democratic vote in 2016 and 1865 delegates out of 4763
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee
LOL!
Sanders IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. This means there will be enormous pressure from the DNC for delegates not to switch to Sanders. So, sure, if he's on 45% of the delegate count he *might* win a contested convention. But on 20% of them, not a chance.
Sanders already got 43% of the Democratic vote in 2016 and 1865 delegates out of 4763
Yes. Because he was in a two horse race with Hillary Clinton.
- France About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.
The French carrier capability only exists due to substantial support from the US. All of the LSOs and aircrew and trained and deck qualified by the USN. Ditto India.
You'd also have to rank Turkey above the UK in terms of conventional forces.
Also, the numbers don't tell the whole story. The UK forces have almost zero appetite for taking casualties so what capability does exist it always castrated by making force protection the first and overwhelming priority.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Wrong, very wrong.
Sanders is the second choice for 32% of Biden voters, compared to just 11% for Harris and 10% for O'Rourke.
Sanders is also the second choice for 21% of O'Rourke voters, and 14% of Harris voters, only Buttigieg voters do not have Sanders in their top 3 second choices (preferring Biden, Harris and O'Rourke instead).
You also forget Sanders got 60% in the 2016 Democratic Party New Hampshire primary and 49.6% in Iowa.
There is also very little to distinguish Buttigieg's policies from Hillary's
Sanders got those vote shares because his opponent was Hillary Clinton. He was in a two horse race: don't like Hillary, there's... there's... there's...
Errr. Bernie.
Hillary was a dreadful candidate, who wasn't even liked by her own party. That's why Bernie did so well.
Those Biden voters who you think will break for Bernie, well they might. But most of them have never seen Buttigieg or Yang or Hickenlooper yet.
Look at the Ashcroft polling last week, 57% of Democratic voters want more liberal, progressive candidates, only 28% want more moderate, centrist candidates. Democrats picked a centrist last time and lost, they are not going to pick a candidate rehashing Hillary's policies, they want their own Corbyn and they will vote for Sanders to get it.
Hickelooper or Buttigieg ie Hillary 2.0 in policy terms are not what the Democratic base wants at the moment, indeed Hickenlooper is just a Democratic version of Kasich in 2016
You've decided that Buttigieg has Clinton policies based on... errr.. errr...
Buttigieg has - like almost all political winners in history - avoided detailing his exact policies. Winners are those are a blank slate, onto which voters can project their own policies. Being likeable and vague wins more votes than being dislikeable and specific*.
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?
Nope. It's all proportional.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee
LOL!
Sanders IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. This means there will be enormous pressure from the DNC for delegates not to switch to Sanders. So, sure, if he's on 45% of the delegate count he *might* win a contested convention. But on 20% of them, not a chance.
Sanders already got 43% of the Democratic vote in 2016 and 1865 delegates out of 4763
Yes. Because he was in a two horse race with Hillary Clinton.
In 1976 Ronald Reagan got 45% in a two horse race with Gerald Ford, 4 years later Reagan got 59% in a multi candidate race and won the GOP nomination
Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.
Biden-Buttigieg?
Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
Wrong, very wrong.
Sanders is the second choice for 32% of Biden voters, compared to just 11% es from Hillary's
Sanders got those vote shares because his opponent was Hillary Clinton. He was in a two horse race: don't like Hillary, there's... there's... there's...
Errr. Bernie.
Hillary was a dreadful candidate, who wasn't even liked by her own party. That's why Bernie did so well.
Those Biden voters who you think will break for Bernie, well they might. But most of them have never seen Buttigieg or Yang or Hickenlooper yet.
Look at the Ashcroft polling last week, 57% of Democratic voters want more liberal, progressive candidates, only 28% want more moderate, centrist candidates. Democrats picked a centrist last time and lost, they are not going to pick a candidate rehashing Hillary's policies, they want their own Corbyn and they will vote for Sanders to get it.
Hickelooper or Buttigieg ie Hillary 2.0 in policy terms are not what the Democratic base wants at the moment, indeed Hickenlooper is just a Democratic version of Kasich in 2016
You've decided that Buttigieg has Clinton policies based on... errr.. errr...
Buttigieg has - like almost all political winners in history - avoided detailing his exact policies. Winners are those are a blank slate, onto which voters can project their own policies. Being likeable and vague wins more votes than being dislikeable and specific*.
* Hillary was dislikeable and specific.
Buttigieg is not going to win over the blue collar voters the Democrats need in the swing states to beat Trump, as a VP prospect or in 5 years time once Trump has left the scene he might be worth looking at but not now if the Democrats want to try and win in 2020
France and India have working aircraft carriers (and we don't). Russia has a sort of, occasionally working aircraft carrier.
The Kuznetsov is dead and Russian carrier capability has gone with it. Some drunk bastard sunk the floating dry dock it was in at Murmansk which damaged the ship badly. The Russian Navy does not have the funds to repair what was already a floating shit box and have given up on it.
France and India have working aircraft carriers (and we don't). Russia has a sort of, occasionally working aircraft carrier.
The Kuznetsov is dead and Russian carrier capability has gone with it. Some drunk bastard sunk the floating dry dock it was in at Murmansk which damaged the ship badly. The Russian Navy does not have the funds to repair what was already a floating shit box and have given up on it.
Comments
Good night.
Nos da.
For a man who says he was "Totally Exonerated" he sure as hell seems extremely angry about the redacted reported. What is he going to do or say when an unredacted copy comes out, or the report's authors testify in Congress?
Yet they’re the second party in numbers of nominations. And are making a huge effort with deliveries in several wards.
Either they’re running the most underground, clever campaign ever, or LD non by-election over optimism has triumphed again.
As London, Scotland and Wales are not holding elections and the seats being contested are mainly in the Shires the LDs will also more often than usual be the main opponents to the Tories in the wards contested rather than Labour
She should be fined by TFL.
"The outspoken Labour MP stunned fellow passengers by swigging a £2 can of Marks and Spencer mojito on an Overground service."
"Prominent Leavers including former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith face losing their seats at the next general election as Brexiteers prepare to punish the Conservatives at the ballot box with voters threatening to boycott the local and European elections over the UK’s delayed departure from the EU."
It would take a heart of stone etc etc...
Pay up the fine fatso.
SW Libs have generally been far more eurosceptic than their metropolitan pals. The campaign here has not mentioned the B word at all.
Change since I looked this am.
Could be this:
"Joe Biden is running. The former vice president will make his candidacy official with a video announcement next Wednesday, according to people familiar with the discussions who have been told about them by top aides."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/04/joe-biden-running-president/587560/
She should be more like 5,000-1
https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1119349139731570688?s=21
Biden-Buttigieg?
I mean, the US is obviously number one.
But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;
- China
Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- Russia
Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.
- France
About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.
- Japan
Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.
And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).
I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/439701-five-former-obama-ambassadors-back-buttigieg
Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.
UK vs US: we'd lose
UK vs Russia: we'd lose a land war, we might lose the sea war, I think we might win the submarine war.
UK vs China: we'd lose
UK vs India: I think we'd lose
UK vs France: hmm. We'd win (probably)
UK vs Germany: We'd win
Problem is, our armed forces are good but small, and quantity has a quality all its own. How would we cope against (say) Pakistan or Australia? And if we fought on other country's home soil, it gets worse really quickly: for example, would we win a war against a Scandinavian alliance? We can defend home turf and project a great deal of power abroad, but not enough to fight a big war for a long period.
Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.
Sanders is the second choice for 32% of Biden voters, compared to just 11% for Harris and 10% for O'Rourke.
Sanders is also the second choice for 21% of O'Rourke voters, and 14% of Harris voters, only Buttigieg voters do not have Sanders in their top 3 second choices (preferring Biden, Harris and O'Rourke instead).
https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/
You also forget Sanders got 60% in the 2016 Democratic Party New Hampshire primary and 49.6% in Iowa.
There is also very little to distinguish Buttigieg's policies from Hillary's
Which, incidentally, will help sales of Goodwin's book
France and India have working aircraft carriers (and we don't). Russia has a sort of, occasionally working aircraft carrier.
Russia is able to operate - due to its scale and its diplomatic agreements - in much of the world. Certainly more of the world than us.
I think we probably place fifth.
Beard is clearly correct about the bigger picture - Britain's search for a place in the world (the Commonwealth, Europe, the Atlantic, splendid isolation?) as its relative importance declines has been an important backdrop to the Leave/Remain debate, indeed to British politics since WW2 or even further.
i have a couple of quid on him
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/#!
Leading Corbynista, Bastani, salutes the work of Brown's government (on climate collapse):
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1119191881316012033
So, it wasn't all Blairite red-tory, neo-liberal, plant burning, middle east wasting crap after all.
https://twitter.com/bigdogKeKhard/status/1118984753200414720
https://twitter.com/PeoplesMomentum/status/1119372407683334144
There are some policy things UK governments could do if they wanted to keep Britain higher up in the pile - throw open the migration gates (Britain's still quite a pull), concrete over the green belt or whatever else it takes to solve the housing crisis, invest heavily in all the stuff that's good for long-run growth. It's feasible for Britain to be steered towards a long-run population of 100 million plus, at least in the sense of there being physical room here, and for the UK to stay above Japan's bracket in the power stakes, maybe surpass it economically too. If the EU doesn't end up as some federated US of E, then potentially Britain could be pre-eminent in Western Europe. I can't see how Britain can stay ahead of India or Indonesia or Brazil; in fact it would say something pretty rough about the world if in 100 years' time we're still several times richer per capita, and more powerful on aggregate, than them! But even in this most "ambitious" vision for Britain, what would be the point of all? It surely isn't to compete with the USA or China in the superpower stakes. Would it make us on an individual level happier or healthier or wealthier? The type of radical changes its creation would require might even undermine the extent to which this new kind of UK might be considered "British" in the sense we currently understand or feel it.
Beard's "ordinary" alternative suggests a kind of petering out or giving up. There are Remain supporters who have a rather negative outlook for any prospect of an independent Britain and many of them are in the camp that the UK's day is done, but at least some of them see the prospect of Britain becoming a more enthusiastically integrated EU member as a positive, proactive approach - forging something new and exciting and powerful. A USofE that again might not be a superpower but at least guarantees Europeans a top-table seat. But as well as the issue of whether that's merely replacing one outdated nationalism with an alternative, wider and less coherent one, I think it's also subject to the "what would be the point?" question. There are small and medium sized countries out there that do not claim to be global players, and are comfortable not even trying to be, but which on the level of the individual human being are doing very well for themselves indeed.
My guess is that the general public's preferred course is somewhere in between "All-out Powerhouse UK" and "let's just give up and leave it to the big boys to sort the world's problems out". History seems to create some expectation that Britain should be doing something with itself, but people aren't massively up for Britain throwing its weight around with tangled wars far away, nor for the kind of demographic and environmental changes necessary to pursue greater long-term population and power.
There is no enthusiasm for foreign interventions anymore in "pull up the drawbridge" Britain, so silly waving by Toby Young is just that.
Errr. Bernie.
Hillary was a dreadful candidate, who wasn't even liked by her own party. That's why Bernie did so well.
Those Biden voters who you think will break for Bernie, well they might. But most of them have never seen Buttigieg or Yang or Hickenlooper yet.
It works against Sanders.
See: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/25/17781964/democrats-superdelegates-bernie-sanders-2020-clinton
Sanders IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. This means there will be enormous pressure from the DNC for delegates not to switch to Sanders. So, sure, if he's on 45% of the delegate count he *might* win a contested convention. But on 20% of them, not a chance.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/04/the-battle-lines-for-2020-what-my-polling-says-about-the-next-presidential-election/
Hickelooper or Buttigieg ie Hillary 2.0 in policy terms are not what the Democratic base wants at the moment, indeed Hickenlooper is just a Democratic version of Kasich in 2016
You'd also have to rank Turkey above the UK in terms of conventional forces.
Also, the numbers don't tell the whole story. The UK forces have almost zero appetite for taking casualties so what capability does exist it always castrated by making force protection the first and overwhelming priority.
Buttigieg has - like almost all political winners in history - avoided detailing his exact policies. Winners are those are a blank slate, onto which voters can project their own policies. Being likeable and vague wins more votes than being dislikeable and specific*.
* Hillary was dislikeable and specific.