I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
Yes indeed. It's the economy stupid. Certainly it gives Trump a fighting chance if it holds up. But no more than that.
I would be reasonably confident with Elizabeth Warren too. But I prefer Kamala and not just because she is my bet. The key difference for me is that I don't think Warren can win big - too niche - whereas Kamala I think can. And although my main concern is The Donald out, I do care about the margin. It matters a lot.
The one I don't want is Sanders. I can see him managing to lose.
I'm not at all confident Trump will lose against whoever his opponent is. Even if he does, it's very unlikely the Democrats will gain control of the gerrymandered Senate (if they do, it will only be with "Democrats" like Joe Manchin, who will still block sane policies), so the future of the planet still looks pretty shit.
How do you gerrymander the Senate?
First you get a Tardis, then you go back and redraw State lines ...
That was what I thought. Only Mr kamski said it had been.
Many of the electoral arrangements in the House seem to have been drawn using guidelines supplied by the N.Irish Orange Order but the Senate seems, more or less, OK.
I think its more recognising that Grieve, Gyimyah [sp?] and others already are working against the party and with Labour and Lib Dems - and others like Gauke repeatedly threatening to - so if there's a new election then replacing these MPs with those who will follow the party line is a priority.
Or something like that.
Leaving aside the fact that it was primarily the ERG, Boris etc who repeatedly broke three-line whips to vote with Labour to sabotage Conservative party policy and prevent Brexit on the 29th March, the key votes are likely to happen before a GE. Before voting for a GE or a VONC, MPs may well want to put in protection against crash-out.
Pretty sure Grieve et al broke the whip more than the ERG did. They broke the whip on all 3 MV's and broke the whip on the Brady Amendment, the compromise and only motion to actually pass the Commons this year on which the ERG et al voted for.
The difference is that Grieve has a brain, whereas most of the ERG share one or two cells between them, though Mark Francois gives the impression one brain cell would be an improvement.
Well he may have a brain but doesn't use it very well. Kowtowing to the Euro elite and drawing attention to yourself doing so does your cause no good at all. The elite we voted to leave. Tactically if you wanted to change the majority view over a period of time I can't think of much more wrongheaded myself.
Liberal democracy is the bulwark against evil despots like Putin. It is shame 52% of our population thought it was good to advance his objectives. 28% of the population might just as well take roubles from him, because if they get their way he will be chuffed to bits. And they claim to be patriots!
I recently had lunch with a friend who is an active member of the Tory party. Last week he had been at a social gathering of 15-20 Tory members, none of whom would vote for Boris. He's convinced Boris will not be elected. A small sample, probably a biased sample of sane Tory members. Nevertheless ...
Anyone who refers to remainers as "sane" has a strong bias.
The only sane way to negotiate is to be prepared to walk away empty handed. Anything else isn't negotiating it is grovelling.
1) @Barnesian was stating that (some) sane Tories were Remainers, not that all Remainers were sane. 2) The only way to be prepared to walk away empty handed is to be prepared to walk away empty handed. In all the kerfuffle surrounding this [REDACTED] situation, the one thing that is actually certain is that we are not prepared.
Liberal democracy is the bulwark against evil despots like Putin. It is shame 52% of our population thought it was good to advance his objectives. 28% of the population might just as well take roubles from him, because if they get their way he will be chuffed to bits. And they claim to be patriots!
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
Yes indeed. It's the economy stupid. Certainly it gives Trump a fighting chance if it holds up. But no more than that.
I would be reasonably confident with Elizabeth Warren too. But I prefer Kamala and not just because she is my bet. The key difference for me is that I don't think Warren can win big - too niche - whereas Kamala I think can. And although my main concern is The Donald out, I do care about the margin. It matters a lot.
The one I don't want is Sanders. I can see him managing to lose.
I'm not at all confident Trump will lose against whoever his opponent is. Even if he does, it's very unlikely the Democrats will gain control of the gerrymandered Senate (if they do, it will only be with "Democrats" like Joe Manchin, who will still block sane policies), so the future of the planet still looks pretty shit.
How do you gerrymander the Senate?
First you get a Tardis, then you go back and redraw State lines ...
I think its more recognising that Grieve, Gyimyah [sp?] and others already are working against the party and with Labour and Lib Dems - and others like Gauke repeatedly threatening to - so if there's a new election then replacing these MPs with those who will follow the party line is a priority.
Or something like that.
Leaving aside the fact that it was primarily the ERG, Boris etc who repeatedly broke three-line whips to vote with Labour to sabotage Conservative party policy and prevent Brexit on the 29th March, the key votes are likely to happen before a GE. Before voting for a GE or a VONC, MPs may well want to put in protection against crash-out.
Pretty sure Grieve et al broke the whip more than the ERG did. They broke the whip on all 3 MV's and broke the whip on the Brady Amendment, the compromise and only motion to actually pass the Commons this year on which the ERG et al voted for.
The difference is that Grieve has a brain, whereas most of the ERG share one or two cells between them, though Mark Francois gives the impression one brain cell would be an improvement.
Well he may have a brain but doesn't use it very well. Kowtowing to the Euro elite and drawing attention to yourself doing so does your cause no good at all. The elite we voted to leave. Tactically if you wanted to change the majority view over a period of time I can't think of much more wrongheaded myself.
So-called kowtowing to the Euro-elite (which he is not) is massively more defensible than sucking up to Vladimir Putin and doing his bidding either intentionally or by default.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
Corbyn has a big problem go second reffie and he risks losing the whole block of seats in the North East and most of Yorkshire, add that to Scotland and Labour just can't win. These WWC seats won't ever vote Conservative but they will vote BP. If Johnson works with Farage he can win an election with a Brexit platform.
No - go second ref and he loses a few votes there but gains a fair number of remain votes in those seats.
Go remain and he loses those seats but for any Brexiter there is a simple question to ask. If you are so certain we should leave why are you worried about a second referendum? What have you got to lose when you will win that second referendum and confirm the result....
That's why a second referendum is the safest option for Labour - it's not perfect but given where their votes come from they can't go for much else.
and they can't ask for a general election as they have got one...
The May/Merkel deal muddies the waters as regards a second referendum, straight leave/remain I don't think too many politicians on the ground would expect a different result.
The difference is that it won't be unicorn leave - it's leave with this deal or remain - take it or leave it - and I suspect a lot of people won't like an actual defined version of leave...
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
Yes indeed. It's the economy stupid. Certainly it gives Trump a fighting chance if it holds up. But no more than that.
I would be reasonably confident with Elizabeth Warren too. But I prefer Kamala and not just because she is my bet. The key difference for me is that I don't think Warren can win big - too niche - whereas Kamala I think can. And although my main concern is The Donald out, I do care about the margin. It matters a lot.
The one I don't want is Sanders. I can see him managing to lose.
I'm not at all confident Trump will lose against whoever his opponent is. Even if he does, it's very unlikely the Democrats will gain control of the gerrymandered Senate (if they do, it will only be with "Democrats" like Joe Manchin, who will still block sane policies), so the future of the planet still looks pretty shit.
How do you gerrymander the Senate?
First you get a Tardis, then you go back and redraw State lines ...
That was what I thought. Only Mr kamski said it had been.
Many of the electoral arrangements in the House seem to have been drawn using guidelines supplied by the N.Irish Orange Order but the Senate seems, more or less, OK.
Kowtowing to the Euro elite and drawing attention to yourself doing so does your cause no good at all. The elite we voted to leave.
What he is actually doing is allowing Parliament to Take Back Control.
Restoring Sovereignty.
All the things Brexiteers claim they wanted, and are now whining about.
Indeed, though most brexiters are too thick to understand irony or the out and out hypocrisy of their position, let alone have the capability to grasp how our parliamentary system is meant to work. That said, I think some of our MPs don't really understand its principles either. Step forward, Mark Francois!
Trump has very high approval ratings with Republicans partly because former Republicans dislike Trump so much that they no longer identify as Republicans. In any case only a quarter of American voters identify as Republican - it's probably not enough to win.
If you're confident it's a sure thing and willing to tie up the money you can back Trump to win at evens or better, but I'm not sure that represents value (I'm not sure laying at those odds is value either).
I backed him long ago when he was much longer than evens, from when the Mueller hysteria was at it's height. It was easy to see early that wasn't going to go the way planned. The problem looking at American politics is the MSM here led by the BBC merely regurgitates the biased big USA outlets. You have to look deeper to get a more realistic picture, if you do there is some easy money to be taken off the bookies.
That 25% becomes 40% of voters if they all vote and Trump gets them out. Dem tactics ensure they will be out again in 2020 for sure.
yep - super small sample but surprisingly uniform. And surely Boris supporters wouldn't be shy. Plus in any case it's that look in their eye when they talk of Boris.
Still, the BBC manages to wheel on the various chairmen of XYZ-shire Conservative Associations who seem as frothing and Boris-supporting as anyone. Just that 99% of the Cons members I have met despise or at least have given up on him.
This is the odd thing - my experience here in deepest true-blue Sussex is quite similar to yours. As I think I've mentioned before, I've been surprised by how many Tory members have gone out of their way to criticise Boris, even in meetings which were discussing local matters completely unrelated to national politics or the leadership.
Now, to be fair, I haven't been to any party events in the last few weeks, and it is possible that opinions have changed recently. The sentiment that 'yes, Boris will be an awful PM but we have to choose him to see off Farage' is one which gets reported quite a lot, and it may explain what is happening. If that is right, the Boris honeymoon within the party could be reversed very quickly.
Neither of you are one of the recent influx of entryists and I would hazard that you are unlikely to socialise with them. And much as I would like to believe that the Conservative Party will come to its senses and stop acting like an influencer on crack, it is this lump of entryists, unheard and uncounted, which will vote en masses for Boris and ensure his election.
The betting has him just under 50% chance of winning 2020, which is probably about right.
If the economy goes definitively south he won't have much chance, although he might start a war in which case who knows?
If the economy is good usually the incumbent has good chances, but Trump's approval ratings have been very consistently bad. I'm guessing there's enough people going to vote against him that he will anyway lose the popular vote (again). No idea how likely he is to repeat the trick of nevertheless winning in the electoral college, but there's an obvious path of Democrats winning Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan (where Clinton seemed particularly disliked in 2016), and keeping the other states Clinton won.
It probably depends a lot on how successful Republicans are in making the Dem candidate just as disliked as Trump is. Expect a very nasty campaign.
This popular vote is a red herring. The biggest state Trump didn't even campaign and Clinton stacked up votes, totally irrelevant to the real battlegrounds of which Trump won nearly all. Trump was a political unknown last time, now he has a track record and he will get his base out for sure.
I think some of the betting is as good as finding money off the pavement, such is the unreliability and probable bias in the American polls. Ours are not good, theirs are even worse. I don't think the campaign will be as nasty as last time, Trump will want to play a different way this time, maybe if Harris is the opponent but I don't see that.
Sure the popular vote is a red herring, in the same way as national vote shares in the UK are a red herring: the only thing that counts is the vote in the 650 constituencies
The comparison you can make between America and here is imagine Liverpool to be as big as London and apply the proportion of vote there to California. So yes the popular vote is irrelevant in the USA and not what was campaigned for.
who said it was what was campaigned for? i just find it interesting and relevant to an analysis of who won/might win and how. of course the analogy isn't exact, but it is annoying that anyone daring to mention the national vote margin in 2016 (which people have talked about extensively in every single US presidential election that I can remember, and I'm getting on a bit) always seems to trigger some people, whereas people are able to take about national vote share in the UK vs number of MPs for example without the same reaction.
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
Yes indeed. It's the economy stupid. Certainly it gives Trump a fighting chance if it holds up. But no more than that.
I would be reasonably confident with Elizabeth Warren too. But I prefer Kamala and not just because she is my bet. The key difference for me is that I don't think Warren can win big - too niche - whereas Kamala I think can. And although my main concern is The Donald out, I do care about the margin. It matters a lot.
The one I don't want is Sanders. I can see him managing to lose.
I'm not at all confident Trump will lose against whoever his opponent is. Even if he does, it's very unlikely the Democrats will gain control of the gerrymandered Senate (if they do, it will only be with "Democrats" like Joe Manchin, who will still block sane policies), so the future of the planet still looks pretty shit.
How do you gerrymander the Senate?
First you get a Tardis, then you go back and redraw State lines ...
While unquestionably interesting, and providing food for thought, you are making Mr Thompson's point.
well maybe we are talking at cross-purposes, I am trying to say the Senate was gerrymandered in the 19th century, as argued in that article. Hence "gerrymandered Senate"
The article also suggests the Democrats should split big Dem states into smaller states to redress the balance, which you also wouldn't need a time-machine to do.
Trump has very high approval ratings with Republicans partly because former Republicans dislike Trump so much that they no longer identify as Republicans. In any case only a quarter of American voters identify as Republican - it's probably not enough to win.
If you're confident it's a sure thing and willing to tie up the money you can back Trump to win at evens or better, but I'm not sure that represents value (I'm not sure laying at those odds is value either).
I backed him long ago when he was much longer than evens, from when the Mueller hysteria was at it's height. It was easy to see early that wasn't going to go the way planned. The problem looking at American politics is the MSM here led by the BBC merely regurgitates the biased big USA outlets. You have to look deeper to get a more realistic picture, if you do there is some easy money to be taken off the bookies.
That 25% becomes 40% of voters if they all vote and Trump gets them out. Dem tactics ensure they will be out again in 2020 for sure.
True, but on the other hand Trump does seem to motivate the voters who don't like him to vote, and probably more so than in 2016, so not sure if that will help him much.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
Corbyn has a big problem go second reffie and he risks losing the whole block of seats in the North East and most of Yorkshire, add that to Scotland and Labour just can't win. These WWC seats won't ever vote Conservative but they will vote BP. If Johnson works with Farage he can win an election with a Brexit platform.
No - go second ref and he loses a few votes there but gains a fair number of remain votes in those seats.
Go remain and he loses those seats but for any Brexiter there is a simple question to ask. If you are so certain we should leave why are you worried about a second referendum? What have you got to lose when you will win that second referendum and confirm the result....
That's why a second referendum is the safest option for Labour - it's not perfect but given where their votes come from they can't go for much else.
and they can't ask for a general election as they have got one...
The May/Merkel deal muddies the waters as regards a second referendum, straight leave/remain I don't think too many politicians on the ground would expect a different result.
The difference is that it won't be unicorn leave - it's leave with this deal or remain - take it or leave it - and I suspect a lot of people won't like an actual defined version of leave...
It isn't leave with this deal or remain at all. If this deal does not get amended it gets consigned to the dustbins of history and soon. All rational analysis suggests the EU rather needs our coin, so amendment is inevitable.
Kowtowing to the Euro elite and drawing attention to yourself doing so does your cause no good at all. The elite we voted to leave.
What he is actually doing is allowing Parliament to Take Back Control.
Restoring Sovereignty.
All the things Brexiteers claim they wanted, and are now whining about.
Actually he's trying to exercise control Parliament already has, to prevent Parliament getting control over the issues we voted to take back control over.
If we were to prorogue Parliament now until 1 November then when Parliament reconvenes it would have a lot more control over our laws.
Before I go back to my desk, I need to do a few questions. Can anybody point me to the sportsbook odds for the 1983 general election (eg Ladbrokes, Coral or William hill) and/or the Betfair odds for the 2001 and 2005 general elections? I would be ever so grateful if you could.
Kowtowing to the Euro elite and drawing attention to yourself doing so does your cause no good at all. The elite we voted to leave.
What he is actually doing is allowing Parliament to Take Back Control.
Restoring Sovereignty.
All the things Brexiteers claim they wanted, and are now whining about.
Actually he's trying to exercise control Parliament already has, to prevent Parliament getting control over the issues we voted to take back control over.
If we were to prorogue Parliament now until 1 November then when Parliament reconvenes it would have a lot more control over our laws.
Kowtowing to the Euro elite and drawing attention to yourself doing so does your cause no good at all. The elite we voted to leave.
What he is actually doing is allowing Parliament to Take Back Control.
Restoring Sovereignty.
All the things Brexiteers claim they wanted, and are now whining about.
Actually he's trying to exercise control Parliament already has, to prevent Parliament getting control over the issues we voted to take back control over.
If we were to prorogue Parliament now until 1 November then when Parliament reconvenes it would have a lot more control over our laws.
So in order to help them take control, you will take control away from them.
Thinks.
I'll remember that technique: it'll come in handy in future...
Kowtowing to the Euro elite and drawing attention to yourself doing so does your cause no good at all. The elite we voted to leave.
What he is actually doing is allowing Parliament to Take Back Control.
Restoring Sovereignty.
All the things Brexiteers claim they wanted, and are now whining about.
Actually he's trying to exercise control Parliament already has, to prevent Parliament getting control over the issues we voted to take back control over.
If we were to prorogue Parliament now until 1 November then when Parliament reconvenes it would have a lot more control over our laws.
So in order to help them take control, you will take control away from them.
Thinks.
I'll remember that technique: it'll come in handy in future...
The purpose of leaving isn't so that Dominic Grieve can prevent us from doing so.
The purpose of leaving is so that the voters can hold to account the people who set our laws going forwards.
It is for the voters that we need to take back control. Even if that means forcing Parliament to allow itself to take control, by preventing Parliament from preventing itself from doing so.
Actually he's trying to exercise control Parliament already has, to prevent Parliament getting control over the issues we voted to take back control over.
If we were to prorogue Parliament now until 1 November then when Parliament reconvenes it would have a lot more control over our laws.
Spectacularly and explicitly wrong. Again.
What the amendment says is our Sovereign parliament can vote for a deal.
Or our Sovereign Parliament can vote for No deal.
If it does neither of those things, it has forfeited the right to govern...
It isn't leave with this deal or remain at all. If this deal does not get amended it gets consigned to the dustbins of history and soon. All rational analysis suggests the EU rather needs our coin, so amendment is inevitable.
All rational analysis of No Deal suggests the EU will inevitably get what is owed regardless.
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
Yes indeed. It's the economy stupid. Certainly it gives Trump a fighting chance if it holds up. But no more than that.
I would be reasonably confident with Elizabeth Warren too. But I prefer Kamala and not just because she is my bet. The key difference for me is that I don't think Warren can win big - too niche - whereas Kamala I think can. And although my main concern is The Donald out, I do care about the margin. It matters a lot.
The one I don't want is Sanders. I can see him managing to lose.
I'm not at all confident Trump will lose against whoever his opponent is. Even if he does, it's very unlikely the Democrats will gain control of the gerrymandered Senate (if they do, it will only be with "Democrats" like Joe Manchin, who will still block sane policies), so the future of the planet still looks pretty shit.
How do you gerrymander the Senate?
First you get a Tardis, then you go back and redraw State lines ...
While unquestionably interesting, and providing food for thought, you are making Mr Thompson's point.
well maybe we are talking at cross-purposes, I am trying to say the Senate was gerrymandered in the 19th century, as argued in that article. Hence "gerrymandered Senate"
The article also suggests the Democrats should split big Dem states into smaller states to redress the balance, which you also wouldn't need a time-machine to do.
Southern California is adamant about its distinctness from the rest of the state, so there’s one split for a start. And New York City could easily be separated from the rest of the state.
It isn't leave with this deal or remain at all. If this deal does not get amended it gets consigned to the dustbins of history and soon. All rational analysis suggests the EU rather needs our coin, so amendment is inevitable.
All rational analysis of No Deal suggests the EU will inevitably get what is owed regardless.
If you define "rational" as the same old irrational nonsense that suggested we'd never dare to leave in the first place.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
I could easily see Boris doing that. Risking everything in a GE will require the sort of fortitude he has never thus far demonstrated. Even a big polling lead won't soothe his fears as Corbo is a campaigning machine and Boris knows it.
They delay could be couched as unavoidable and necessary in order to achieve Proper British Brexit and everything is May's fault anyway.
On the other hand it only requires 1 more by-election and Boris's majority moves to 0 from 2. And any delay will result in Nigel at full throttle throughout the election.
Not quite - the current majority is 4 and will fall to 3 if Brecon & Radnor is lost.
I'm not at all confident Trump will lose against whoever his opponent is. Even if he does, it's very unlikely the Democrats will gain control of the gerrymandered Senate (if they do, it will only be with "Democrats" like Joe Manchin, who will still block sane policies), so the future of the planet still looks pretty shit.
I would not be confident with Sanders - but otherwise I am.
Funny you should mention "shit" because that figures strongly in my idea of what it will be like after he has lost in November next year.
It will be like emerging from a long period of having one's head immersed in a bucket of exactly that.
The overwhelming sensation will not be pleasure but relief. And the stink will linger long in the nostrils.
Neither of you are one of the recent influx of entryists and I would hazard that you are unlikely to socialise with them. And much as I would like to believe that the Conservative Party will come to its senses and stop acting like an influencer on crack, it is this lump of entryists, unheard and uncounted, which will vote en masses for Boris and ensure his election.
Yes, that's probably fair. Certainly there has been a big increase in party membership over the last year. I don't think they are 'entryists' as such, except in the particular constituencies Aaron Banks is targeting, but I think they are predominantly keen Leavers including quite a lot of former members who had previously drifted Kipperwards.
Quite what they see in Boris is unfathomable: in general positioning and on immigration he's slightly to the left of Cameron, and on Brexit as in his personal relationships he's hardly the most reliable of partners.
yep - super small sample but surprisingly uniform. And surely Boris supporters wouldn't be shy. Plus in any case it's that look in their eye when they talk of Boris.
Still, the BBC manages to wheel on the various chairmen of XYZ-shire Conservative Associations who seem as frothing and Boris-supporting as anyone. Just that 99% of the Cons members I have met despise or at least have given up on him.
This is the odd thing - my experience here in deepest true-blue Sussex is quite similar to yours. As I think I've mentioned before, I've been surprised by how many Tory members have gone out of their way to criticise Boris, even in meetings which were discussing local matters completely unrelated to national politics or the leadership.
Now, to be fair, I haven't been to any party events in the last few weeks, and it is possible that opinions have changed recently. The sentiment that 'yes, Boris will be an awful PM but we have to choose him to see off Farage' is one which gets reported quite a lot, and it may explain what is happening. If that is right, the Boris honeymoon within the party could be reversed very quickly.
Neither of you are one of the recent influx of entryists and I would hazard that you are unlikely to socialise with them. And much as I would like to believe that the Conservative Party will come to its senses and stop acting like an influencer on crack, it is this lump of entryists, unheard and uncounted, which will vote en masses for Boris and ensure his election.
It isn't leave with this deal or remain at all. If this deal does not get amended it gets consigned to the dustbins of history and soon. All rational analysis suggests the EU rather needs our coin, so amendment is inevitable.
All rational analysis of No Deal suggests the EU will inevitably get what is owed regardless.
If you define "rational" as the same old irrational nonsense that suggested we'd never dare to leave in the first place.
Neither of you are one of the recent influx of entryists and I would hazard that you are unlikely to socialise with them. And much as I would like to believe that the Conservative Party will come to its senses and stop acting like an influencer on crack, it is this lump of entryists, unheard and uncounted, which will vote en masses for Boris and ensure his election.
Yes, that's probably fair. Certainly there has been a big increase in party membership over the last year. I don't think they are 'entryists' as such, except in the particular constituencies Aaron Banks is targeting, but I think they are predominantly keen Leavers including quite a lot of former members who had previously drifted Kipperwards.
Quite what they see in Boris is unfathomable: in general positioning and on immigration he's slightly to the left of Cameron, and on Brexit as in his personal relationships he's hardly the most reliable of partners.
Indeed, I know [long-term] members who were very keen on Raab because they didn't trust Gove or Boris.
I don't know anyone who has joined recently who wasn't a longtime member, but I know many who had drifted away who have rejoined. Personally I drifted away [because May was too authoritarian for me, not Brexit] and was tempted to rejoin but never did. Boris being very liberal is an attraction to me not repellant.
yep - super small sample but surprisingly uniform. And surely Boris supporters wouldn't be shy. Plus in any case it's that look in their eye when they talk of Boris.
Still, the BBC manages to wheel on the various chairmen of XYZ-shire Conservative Associations who seem as frothing and Boris-supporting as anyone. Just that 99% of the Cons members I have met despise or at least have given up on him.
This is the odd thing - my experience here in deepest true-blue Sussex is quite similar to yours. As I think I've mentioned before, I've been surprised by how many Tory members have gone out of their way to criticise Boris, even in meetings which were discussing local matters completely unrelated to national politics or the leadership.
Now, to be fair, I haven't been to any party events in the last few weeks, and it is possible that opinions have changed recently. The sentiment that 'yes, Boris will be an awful PM but we have to choose him to see off Farage' is one which gets reported quite a lot, and it may explain what is happening. If that is right, the Boris honeymoon within the party could be reversed very quickly.
Neither of you are one of the recent influx of entryists and I would hazard that you are unlikely to socialise with them. And much as I would like to believe that the Conservative Party will come to its senses and stop acting like an influencer on crack, it is this lump of entryists, unheard and uncounted, which will vote en masses for Boris and ensure his election.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
I could easily see Boris doing that. Risking everything in a GE will require the sort of fortitude he has never thus far demonstrated. Even a big polling lead won't soothe his fears as Corbo is a campaigning machine and Boris knows it.
They delay could be couched as unavoidable and necessary in order to achieve Proper British Brexit and everything is May's fault anyway.
On the other hand it only requires 1 more by-election and Boris's majority moves to 0 from 2. And any delay will result in Nigel at full throttle throughout the election.
Not quite - the current majority is 4 and will fall to 3 if Brecon & Radnor is lost.
I thought it was 3 falling to 2 when the Tories lose the by-election.
yep - super small sample but surprisingly uniform. And surely Boris supporters wouldn't be shy. Plus in any case it's that look in their eye when they talk of Boris.
Still, the BBC manages to wheel on the various chairmen of XYZ-shire Conservative Associations who seem as frothing and Boris-supporting as anyone. Just that 99% of the Cons members I have met despise or at least have given up on him.
This is the odd thing - my experience here in deepest true-blue Sussex is quite similar to yours. As I think I've mentioned before, I've been surprised by how many Tory members have gone out of their way to criticise Boris, even in meetings which were discussing local matters completely unrelated to national politics or the leadership.
Now, to be fair, I haven't been to any party events in the last few weeks, and it is possible that opinions have changed recently. The sentiment that 'yes, Boris will be an awful PM but we have to choose him to see off Farage' is one which gets reported quite a lot, and it may explain what is happening. If that is right, the Boris honeymoon within the party could be reversed very quickly.
Neither of you are one of the recent influx of entryists and I would hazard that you are unlikely to socialise with them. And much as I would like to believe that the Conservative Party will come to its senses and stop acting like an influencer on crack, it is this lump of entryists, unheard and uncounted, which will vote en masses for Boris and ensure his election.
It isn't leave with this deal or remain at all. If this deal does not get amended it gets consigned to the dustbins of history and soon. All rational analysis suggests the EU rather needs our coin, so amendment is inevitable.
All rational analysis of No Deal suggests the EU will inevitably get what is owed regardless.
If you define "rational" as the same old irrational nonsense that suggested we'd never dare to leave in the first place.
So far, we haven't...
So far, we haven't had a Leaver as PM.
Hunt, like May, being in charge of Brexit is like putting the fox in charge of a chicken coop. Or Fox in charge of any department.
The article also suggests the Democrats should split big Dem states into smaller states to redress the balance, which you also wouldn't need a time-machine to do.
Southern California is adamant about its distinctness from the rest of the state, so there’s one split for a start. And New York City could easily be separated from the rest of the state.
Isn't the danger with splitting your party's safe states that in doing so, you end up with one safe state and one marginal state, which helps your opponents?
yep - super small sample but surprisingly uniform. And surely Boris supporters wouldn't be shy. Plus in any case it's that look in their eye when they talk of Boris.
Still, the BBC manages to wheel on the various chairmen of XYZ-shire Conservative Associations who seem as frothing and Boris-supporting as anyone. Just that 99% of the Cons members I have met despise or at least have given up on him.
This is the odd thing - my experience here in deepest true-blue Sussex is quite similar to yours. As I think I've mentioned before, I've been surprised by how many Tory members have gone out of their way to criticise Boris, even in meetings which were discussing local matters completely unrelated to national politics or the leadership.
Now, to be fair, I haven't been to any party events in the last few weeks, and it is possible that opinions have changed recently. The sentiment that 'yes, Boris will be an awful PM but we have to choose him to see off Farage' is one which gets reported quite a lot, and it may explain what is happening. If that is right, the Boris honeymoon within the party could be reversed very quickly.
Neither of you are one of the recent influx of entryists and I would hazard that you are unlikely to socialise with them. And much as I would like to believe that the Conservative Party will come to its senses and stop acting like an influencer on crack, it is this lump of entryists, unheard and uncounted, which will vote en masses for Boris and ensure his election.
No sources for those figures. How believable is it? Leave.EU is an incredible egotrip, I wouldn't trust anything they say.
You don't have to trust their figures to note that there's been a concerted campaign to encourage Brexiteers to join in order to influence the leadership election.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
I could easily see Boris doing that. Risking everything in a GE will require the sort of fortitude he has never thus far demonstrated. Even a big polling lead won't soothe his fears as Corbo is a campaigning machine and Boris knows it.
They delay could be couched as unavoidable and necessary in order to achieve Proper British Brexit and everything is May's fault anyway.
On the other hand it only requires 1 more by-election and Boris's majority moves to 0 from 2. And any delay will result in Nigel at full throttle throughout the election.
Not quite - the current majority is 4 and will fall to 3 if Brecon & Radnor is lost.
I thought it was 3 falling to 2 when the Tories lose the by-election.
The Tories have 312 MPs plus 10 DUP gives a total of 322. 8 MPs - SF and Speaker - don't vote. I vacant - B&R . Thay would give the Opposition 319 MPs - but Labour also supplies 2 Deputy Speakers with just 1 from Tories so effective majority now 4.
If you want an answer to a question, rather than a general impression, you do need to listen harder with Boris as he rambles about the place and interjects unnecessarily convoluted phrases.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
I could easily see Boris doing that. Risking everything in a GE will require the sort of fortitude he has never thus far demonstrated. Even a big polling lead won't soothe his fears as Corbo is a campaigning machine and Boris knows it.
They delay could be couched as unavoidable and necessary in order to achieve Proper British Brexit and everything is May's fault anyway.
On the other hand it only requires 1 more by-election and Boris's majority moves to 0 from 2. And any delay will result in Nigel at full throttle throughout the election.
Not quite - the current majority is 4 and will fall to 3 if Brecon & Radnor is lost.
I thought it was 3 falling to 2 when the Tories lose the by-election.
No, it's 4 falling to 3.
I've lost count of the number of times people get this wrong on here - normally because people don't understand Deputy Speakers.
The simplest way of looking at it is as follows:
1) Do what the BBC do on GE night - count Bercow as Conservative - because Lab supply an extra Deputy Speaker. So Con + DUP maj on GE night = 13 (328-315)
So, a few days before GE2017 while out canvassing (in what was then a super-marginal) it became obvious that something was going very wrong with the Cons vote. Erstwhile supporters, a lot of them, were particularly vituperative speaking out against the party. I didn't post anything here because we had been asked to keep any campaign news out of social media. Instead, @david_herdson posted his findings and people here saw just that view.
OK, so in my travels around my associates, friends, acquaintances, I have yet to find any Boris supporters. Now of course mine is by definition a self-selecting group but I can assure you it comprises mustard keen Brexiters, normal people, provincial Tories, county poshos, you name it. All against Boris. Some more in sorrow than in anger, others in anger. The letterbox comment in particular has made people angry, including those close to Party HQ. Whatever their feelings on the burka, they believe Boris set back the Cons reach out to the "Muslim vote" by years.
So, am I calling it against Boris? Only a madman would do that, but there is definitely that feeling out there. I am red on him as people may be aware but that is an emotional vote. Wonder how many others with a vote on it, that said, feel the same as me. We shall see.
Surely in terms of "calling it", the only ones that matter are the Tory members? (I'm assuming not all your friends are Tory members, both from common sense and because you mention they include some "normal people").
haha no this is amongst Tory members. The conversation is actually quite funny, not quite AA type enquiry but at some point, someone, sotto voce, will ask "do you have a vote?".
So exactly yes, I am talking about Tory members.
Edit: I do though have friends who are not Tory members also. I should have used an asterisk after "normal"
Yougov this week has Boris leading Hunt 74% to 26%, ConHome had a Tory members poll yesterday with Boris leading Hunt 66% to 30% so clearly the only Tory members you mix with live in Brussels
I don't know anyone who has joined recently who wasn't a longtime member, but I know many who had drifted away who have rejoined. Personally I drifted away [because May was too authoritarian for me, not Brexit] and was tempted to rejoin but never did. Boris being very liberal is an attraction to me not repellant.
Johnson is an ally of Steve Bannon. The words "very liberal" are about as badly chosen as it's possible to be.
Unless you assume he's just lying his arse off as usual, and will pivot to those liberal core principles he's concealing so well.
So, a few days before GE2017 while out canvassing (in what was then a super-marginal) it became obvious that something was going very wrong with the Cons vote. Erstwhile supporters, a lot of them, were particularly vituperative speaking out against the party. I didn't post anything here because we had been asked to keep any campaign news out of social media. Instead, @david_herdson posted his findings and people here saw just that view.
OK, so in my travels around my associates, friends, acquaintances, I have yet to find any Boris supporters. Now of course mine is by definition a self-selecting group but I can assure you it comprises mustard keen Brexiters, normal people, provincial Tories, county poshos, you name it. All against Boris. Some more in sorrow than in anger, others in anger. The letterbox comment in particular has made people angry, including those close to Party HQ. Whatever their feelings on the burka, they believe Boris set back the Cons reach out to the "Muslim vote" by years.
So, am I calling it against Boris? Only a madman would do that, but there is definitely that feeling out there. I am red on him as people may be aware but that is an emotional vote. Wonder how many others with a vote on it, that said, feel the same as me. We shall see.
Surely in terms of "calling it", the only ones that matter are the Tory members? (I'm assuming not all your friends are Tory members, both from common sense and because you mention they include some "normal people").
haha no this is amongst Tory members. The conversation is actually quite funny, not quite AA type enquiry but at some point, someone, sotto voce, will ask "do you have a vote?".
So exactly yes, I am talking about Tory members.
Edit: I do though have friends who are not Tory members also. I should have used an asterisk after "normal"
Yougov this week has Boris leading Hunt 74% to 26%, ConHome had a Tory members poll yesterday with Boris leading Hunt 66% to 30% so clearly the only Tory members you mix with live in Brussels
Yougov not the best barometer but Boris will win easy.
Comments
And do we think he has picked him because he is a Muslim?
Many of the electoral arrangements in the House seem to have been drawn using guidelines supplied by the N.Irish Orange Order but the Senate seems, more or less, OK.
Edit, five...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48795764
2) The only way to be prepared to walk away empty handed is to be prepared to walk away empty handed. In all the kerfuffle surrounding this [REDACTED] situation, the one thing that is actually certain is that we are not prepared.
Last night 1.16.
A few mins ago 1.13.
Now just gone 1.12.
The rest of his price is percentage chance of him accidentally withdrawing his nomination.
if you're interested. it goes back a bit. 19th century.
Restoring Sovereignty.
All the things Brexiteers claim they wanted, and are now whining about.
Trump has very high approval ratings with Republicans partly because former Republicans dislike Trump so much that they no longer identify as Republicans. In any case only a quarter of American voters identify as Republican - it's probably not enough to win.
If you're confident it's a sure thing and willing to tie up the money you can back Trump to win at evens or better, but I'm not sure that represents value (I'm not sure laying at those odds is value either).
I backed him long ago when he was much longer than evens, from when the Mueller hysteria was at it's height. It was easy to see early that wasn't going to go the way planned. The problem looking at American politics is the MSM here led by the BBC merely regurgitates the biased big USA outlets. You have to look deeper to get a more realistic picture, if you do there is some easy money to be taken off the bookies.
That 25% becomes 40% of voters if they all vote and Trump gets them out. Dem tactics ensure they will be out again in 2020 for sure.
The article also suggests the Democrats should split big Dem states into smaller states to redress the balance, which you also wouldn't need a time-machine to do.
That 25% becomes 40% of voters if they all vote and Trump gets them out. Dem tactics ensure they will be out again in 2020 for sure.
True, but on the other hand Trump does seem to motivate the voters who don't like him to vote, and probably more so than in 2016, so not sure if that will help him much.
If we were to prorogue Parliament now until 1 November then when Parliament reconvenes it would have a lot more control over our laws.
Thinks.
I'll remember that technique: it'll come in handy in future...
The purpose of leaving is so that the voters can hold to account the people who set our laws going forwards.
It is for the voters that we need to take back control. Even if that means forcing Parliament to allow itself to take control, by preventing Parliament from preventing itself from doing so.
Irony is great.
What the amendment says is our Sovereign parliament can vote for a deal.
Or our Sovereign Parliament can vote for No deal.
If it does neither of those things, it has forfeited the right to govern...
Funny you should mention "shit" because that figures strongly in my idea of what it will be like after he has lost in November next year.
It will be like emerging from a long period of having one's head immersed in a bucket of exactly that.
The overwhelming sensation will not be pleasure but relief. And the stink will linger long in the nostrils.
Quite what they see in Boris is unfathomable: in general positioning and on immigration he's slightly to the left of Cameron, and on Brexit as in his personal relationships he's hardly the most reliable of partners.
I don't know anyone who has joined recently who wasn't a longtime member, but I know many who had drifted away who have rejoined. Personally I drifted away [because May was too authoritarian for me, not Brexit] and was tempted to rejoin but never did. Boris being very liberal is an attraction to me not repellant.
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1029715605115547648
Hunt, like May, being in charge of Brexit is like putting the fox in charge of a chicken coop. Or Fox in charge of any department.
Clearly a great orator.
I've lost count of the number of times people get this wrong on here - normally because people don't understand Deputy Speakers.
The simplest way of looking at it is as follows:
1) Do what the BBC do on GE night - count Bercow as Conservative - because Lab supply an extra Deputy Speaker. So Con + DUP maj on GE night = 13 (328-315)
2) Three defections to TIG. Reduces maj to 7.
3) Boles leaves. Reduces maj to 5.
4) Lose Brecon. Reduces maj to 3.
Unless you assume he's just lying his arse off as usual, and will pivot to those liberal core principles he's concealing so well.