I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
I think Warren is the easiest opponent for Trump of the big three. She is well known compared to many of the Democrat minnows, so why is her H2H polling vs Trump so poor ?
I tend to agree with that.
But I also wouldn't count Buttigieg out. He's the guy whose moving upwards in Iowa, while Harris and Sanders are floundering.
He could win the State, in which case all bets are off, or he could come second to Warren, and become the "moderate" option.
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
Bit early for such certainty, but it’s true she’s staged a remarkable comeback.
Warren was available at weirdly long odds for ages considering her inherent strength and organisation amongst the Democrat base.
Everyone wrote her off because... “Pocahontas”. People ascribe way too much power to Trump’s bullshit.
She has the mo. But it is very early days. And she can't beat Trump. Very happy to be proved wrong, but... seriously, an ideas, policy wonk and plans professor beats Trump?
"She can't beat Trump"
If the US economy is in recession, then it won't matter who the Democratic nominee is.
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
Bit early for such certainty, but it’s true she’s staged a remarkable comeback.
Warren was available at weirdly long odds for ages considering her inherent strength and organisation amongst the Democrat base.
Everyone wrote her off because... “Pocahontas”. People ascribe way too much power to Trump’s bullshit.
She has the mo. But it is very early days. And she can't beat Trump. Very happy to be proved wrong, but... seriously, an ideas, policy wonk and plans professor beats Trump?
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
Bit early for such certainty, but it’s true she’s staged a remarkable comeback.
Warren was available at weirdly long odds for ages considering her inherent strength and organisation amongst the Democrat base.
Everyone wrote her off because... “Pocahontas”. People ascribe way too much power to Trump’s bullshit.
She has the mo. But it is very early days. And she can't beat Trump. Very happy to be proved wrong, but... seriously, an ideas, policy wonk and plans professor beats Trump?
"She can't beat Trump"
If the US economy is in recession, then it won't matter who the Democratic nominee is.
See "Carter, Jimmy".
Good point. I am now hoping the US hits a massive recession!
I see Trump has hinted he may pull back from some of his more mad trade war things.
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
I think Warren is the easiest opponent for Trump of the big three. She is well known compared to many of the Democrat minnows, so why is her H2H polling vs Trump so poor ?
I tend to agree with that.
But I also wouldn't count Buttigieg out. He's the guy whose moving upwards in Iowa, while Harris and Sanders are floundering.
He could win the State, in which case all bets are off, or he could come second to Warren, and become the "moderate" option.
Loving the sound of this, as I am on at 100 for nominee and 200 for POTUS.
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
Bit early for such certainty, but it’s true she’s staged a remarkable comeback.
Warren was available at weirdly long odds for ages considering her inherent strength and organisation amongst the Democrat base.
Everyone wrote her off because... “Pocahontas”. People ascribe way too much power to Trump’s bullshit.
She has the mo. But it is very early days. And she can't beat Trump. Very happy to be proved wrong, but... seriously, an ideas, policy wonk and plans professor beats Trump?
" It would be a clash of opposites: the progressive firebrand against the establishment favorite; the cerebral candidate of big, bold plans vs. the elder statesman offering himself as a safe haven for people who simply want a return to pre-Trump normalcy."
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
Bit early for such certainty, but it’s true she’s staged a remarkable comeback.
Warren was available at weirdly long odds for ages considering her inherent strength and organisation amongst the Democrat base.
Everyone wrote her off because... “Pocahontas”. People ascribe way too much power to Trump’s bullshit.
She has the mo. But it is very early days. And she can't beat Trump. Very happy to be proved wrong, but... seriously, an ideas, policy wonk and plans professor beats Trump?
" It would be a clash of opposites: the progressive firebrand against the establishment favorite; the cerebral candidate of big, bold plans vs. the elder statesman offering himself as a safe haven for people who simply want a return to pre-Trump normalcy."
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
Bit early for such certainty, but it’s true she’s staged a remarkable comeback.
Warren was available at weirdly long odds for ages considering her inherent strength and organisation amongst the Democrat base.
Everyone wrote her off because... “Pocahontas”. People ascribe way too much power to Trump’s bullshit.
She has the mo. But it is very early days. And she can't beat Trump. Very happy to be proved wrong, but... seriously, an ideas, policy wonk and plans professor beats Trump?
" It would be a clash of opposites: the progressive firebrand against the establishment favorite; the cerebral candidate of big, bold plans vs. the elder statesman offering himself as a safe haven for people who simply want a return to pre-Trump normalcy."
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
I think Warren is the easiest opponent for Trump of the big three. She is well known compared to many of the Democrat minnows, so why is her H2H polling vs Trump so poor ?
I tend to agree with that.
But I also wouldn't count Buttigieg out. He's the guy whose moving upwards in Iowa, while Harris and Sanders are floundering.
He could win the State, in which case all bets are off, or he could come second to Warren, and become the "moderate" option.
Loving the sound of this, as I am on at 100 for nominee and 200 for POTUS.
I think Warren should be favourite, Biden second favourite and Buttigieg third favourite.
If Buttigieg gets ahead of Biden in Iowa (which is, what, a 30-35% chance), then he stands a real chance of being the guy with momentum. Above 8- or 9-1, I'd like to own Buttigieg.
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
Bit early for such certainty, but it’s true she’s staged a remarkable comeback.
Warren was available at weirdly long odds for ages considering her inherent strength and organisation amongst the Democrat base.
Everyone wrote her off because... “Pocahontas”. People ascribe way too much power to Trump’s bullshit.
She has the mo. But it is very early days. And she can't beat Trump. Very happy to be proved wrong, but... seriously, an ideas, policy wonk and plans professor beats Trump?
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
I think Warren is the easiest opponent for Trump of the big three. She is well known compared to many of the Democrat minnows, so why is her H2H polling vs Trump so poor ?
I tend to agree with that.
But I also wouldn't count Buttigieg out. He's the guy whose moving upwards in Iowa, while Harris and Sanders are floundering.
He could win the State, in which case all bets are off, or he could come second to Warren, and become the "moderate" option.
Loving the sound of this, as I am on at 100 for nominee and 200 for POTUS.
I think Warren should be favourite, Biden second favourite and Buttigieg third favourite.
If Buttigieg gets ahead of Biden in Iowa (which is, what, a 30-35% chance), then he stands a real chance of being the guy with momentum. Above 8- or 9-1, I'd like to own Buttigieg.
Would Warren pick Buttigieg as her VP? Young, male, Midwestern, more moderate.
Some people don't want a referendum and some just want to revoke because they are worried remain wouldn't win the referendum. It's pretty easy to grasp though.
That's not Labour's position.
Labour's position is:
Change of government (even though they don't have the numbers to do that or the ability to form a cabinet) Extend Article 50 (although that's already been done and may not be within our gift to extend again) Have a General Election (because that's far more important than all this brex-shit) Negotiate a new deal (which the EU have said they won't do) Once negotiated, hold a referendum on that deal or remain, with Labour campaigning against their own deal because they're sure it will be rubbish.
And this is done firmly in the interests of trying to hold the Labour Party together the country getting a say on what comes next.
And then they wonder why Jo Swinson seems to think this is a non-starter.
Seem to be mixing up a few things there. A change of government isn't policy it is what oppositions aim for in an election but not actual policy. A temp government was the policy for avoiding no deal in the short term rather than our policy in an election.
The EU have said multiple times they are happy to change the political declaration, lying about that doesn't really change what the EU have said.
An extension is obviously needed to avoid crashing out with no deal and holding s referndum if the Lib Dems wanted a referendum they would also need something to put up against it.
If the Lib Dem position was just revoke then the complications of an extension and a referendum wouldn't apply to them but it does. Considering the current government they also need a change of government for it to happen.
Basically if a referendum is an illogical policy then it is illogical whether it is the Lib Dems or Labour calling for one.
But a referendum is a simple position even if you don't like those calling for it.
I am not confusing anything. Labour's position is as I have stated it. A change in government is their policy and they have said they will negotiate a new deal, not a new political declaration. I'm sorry you can't understand it, but blame Corbyn rather than write rambling posts showcasing your bewilderment.
Labour's position is a referendum, your confusion is pretty much your own.
A different political declaration and thus a whole different end destination would be a different deal.
The "World Leaders" he refers to were a couple of waiters.
Are we sure they weren't voices in his head?
Trump is being pretty smart here. He's reinforcing this image as the media as his enemy. His supporters want to believe that journalists with critical coverage are the enemy. And this tells them what they want to here.
But this is a tough time for Trump and the media. Fox News hasn't gone all Trump-sceptic yet, but they certainly covering him with a bit less enthusiasm this time around. They've certainly not hesitated to make big stories of bad polls for him.
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
I think Warren is the easiest opponent for Trump of the big three. She is well known compared to many of the Democrat minnows, so why is her H2H polling vs Trump so poor ?
I tend to agree with that.
But I also wouldn't count Buttigieg out. He's the guy whose moving upwards in Iowa, while Harris and Sanders are floundering.
He could win the State, in which case all bets are off, or he could come second to Warren, and become the "moderate" option.
Loving the sound of this, as I am on at 100 for nominee and 200 for POTUS.
I think Warren should be favourite, Biden second favourite and Buttigieg third favourite.
If Buttigieg gets ahead of Biden in Iowa (which is, what, a 30-35% chance), then he stands a real chance of being the guy with momentum. Above 8- or 9-1, I'd like to own Buttigieg.
Would Warren pick Buttigieg as her VP? Young, male, Midwestern, more moderate.
It's a good question. But if I had to bet on someone, I think it'd be Beto O'Rourke. He's a bit less threatening, and he's genuinely popular in Texas. Not enough to win it for the Dems, sure, but probably enough to make the Republicans nervous about not spending enough time there.
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
I think Warren is the easiest opponent for Trump of the big three. She is well known compared to many of the Democrat minnows, so why is her H2H polling vs Trump so poor ?
I tend to agree with that.
But I also wouldn't count Buttigieg out. He's the guy whose moving upwards in Iowa, while Harris and Sanders are floundering.
He could win the State, in which case all bets are off, or he could come second to Warren, and become the "moderate" option.
Loving the sound of this, as I am on at 100 for nominee and 200 for POTUS.
I think Warren should be favourite, Biden second favourite and Buttigieg third favourite.
If Buttigieg gets ahead of Biden in Iowa (which is, what, a 30-35% chance), then he stands a real chance of being the guy with momentum. Above 8- or 9-1, I'd like to own Buttigieg.
Would Warren pick Buttigieg as her VP? Young, male, Midwestern, more moderate.
It's a good question. But if I had to bet on someone, I think it'd be Beto O'Rourke. He's a bit less threatening, and he's genuinely popular in Texas. Not enough to win it for the Dems, sure, but probably enough to make the Republicans nervous about not spending enough time there.
O'Rourke seems to have nailed his flag to a very liberal immigration policy mast. Think that would scare the Midwestern blue collar vote too much.
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
I think Warren is the easiest opponent for Trump of the big three. She is well known compared to many of the Democrat minnows, so why is her H2H polling vs Trump so poor ?
I tend to agree with that.
But I also wouldn't count Buttigieg out. He's the guy whose moving upwards in Iowa, while Harris and Sanders are floundering.
He could win the State, in which case all bets are off, or he could come second to Warren, and become the "moderate" option.
Loving the sound of this, as I am on at 100 for nominee and 200 for POTUS.
I think Warren should be favourite, Biden second favourite and Buttigieg third favourite.
If Buttigieg gets ahead of Biden in Iowa (which is, what, a 30-35% chance), then he stands a real chance of being the guy with momentum. Above 8- or 9-1, I'd like to own Buttigieg.
Would Warren pick Buttigieg as her VP? Young, male, Midwestern, more moderate.
It's a good question. But if I had to bet on someone, I think it'd be Beto O'Rourke. He's a bit less threatening, and he's genuinely popular in Texas. Not enough to win it for the Dems, sure, but probably enough to make the Republicans nervous about not spending enough time there.
O'Rourke seems to have nailed his flag to a very liberal immigration policy mast. Think that would scare the Midwestern blue collar vote too much.
The "World Leaders" he refers to were a couple of waiters.
Are we sure they weren't voices in his head?
Trump is being pretty smart here. He's reinforcing this image as the media as his enemy. His supporters want to believe that journalists with critical coverage are the enemy. And this tells them what they want to here.
But this is a tough time for Trump and the media. Fox News hasn't gone all Trump-sceptic yet, but they certainly covering him with a bit less enthusiasm this time around. They've certainly not hesitated to make big stories of bad polls for him.
Goes without saying. But nevertheless should be said repeatedly - if the deal or any deal is not worth voting for, fine, but don't stand there and say you'll do anything and then not vote for what was on the table, clearly there were limits.
Some people don't want a referendum and some just want to revoke because they are worried remain wouldn't win the referendum. It's pretty easy to grasp though.
That's not Labour's position.
Labour's position is:
Chang
And this is done firmly in the interests of trying to hold the Labour Party together the country getting a say on what comes next.
And then they wonder why Jo Swinson seems to think this is a non-starter.
Seem to be mixing up a few things there. A change of government isn't policy it is what oppositions aim for in an election but not actual policy. A temp government was the policy for avoiding no deal in the short term rather than our policy in an election.
The EU have said multiple times they are happy to change the political declaration, lying about that doesn't really change what the EU have said.
An extension is obviously needed to avoid crashing out with no deal and holding s referndum if the Lib Dems wanted a referendum they would also need something to put up against it.
If the Lib Dem position was just revoke then the complications of an extension and a referendum wouldn't apply to them but it does. Considering the current government they also need a change of government for it to happen.
Basically if a referendum is an illogical policy then it is illogical whether it is the Lib Dems or Labour calling for one.
But a referendum is a simple position even if you don't like those calling for it.
I am not confusing anything. Labour's position is as I have stated it. A change in government is their policy and they have said they will negotiate a new deal, not a new political declaration. I'm sorry you can't understand it, but blame Corbyn rather than write rambling posts showcasing your bewilderment.
A different political declaration and thus a whole different end destination would be a different deal.
That relies on a great deal of semantics, and rather suggests previous opposition to the WA was a pile of nonsense if what was in it was fine and the PD was all that was objectionable.
Did not Labour still vote against the WA sans the PD? How could they have, given your comments that a different PD (and thus in this case no PD, as an indication of support for the WA) is itself a different deal?
Seems overly convoluted but I think NickPalmer called this one right in that they will at least try it first. It avoids facing up to some unpalatable truths, and our MPs have shown that is key for them.
The "World Leaders" he refers to were a couple of waiters.
Nah, he meant himself, reference to 'fellow world leaders notwithstanding'. By caveating the world leaders in questions are ones who think the USA is doing great under him he helpfully ruled out everyone there but himself.
Seem to be mixing up a few things there. A change of government isn't policy it is what oppositions aim for in an election but not actual policy. A temp government was the policy for avoiding no deal in the short term rather than our policy in an election.
The EU have said multiple times they are happy to change the political declaration, lying about that doesn't really change what the EU have said.
An extension is obviously needed to avoid crashing out with no deal and holding s referndum if the Lib Dems wanted a referendum they would also need something to put up against it.
If the Lib Dem position was just revoke then the complications of an extension and a referendum wouldn't apply to them but it does. Considering the current government they also need a change of government for it to happen.
Basically if a referendum is an illogical policy then it is illogical whether it is the Lib Dems or Labour calling for one.
But a referendum is a simple position even if you don't like those calling for it.
I am not confusing anything. Labour's position is as I have stated it. A change in government is their policy and they have said they will negotiate a new deal, not a new political declaration. I'm sorry you can't understand it, but blame Corbyn rather than write rambling posts showcasing your bewilderment.
A different political declaration and thus a whole different end destination would be a different deal.
That relies on a great deal of semantics, and rather suggests previous opposition to the WA was a pile of nonsense if what was in it was fine and the PD was all that was objectionable.
Did not Labour still vote against the WA sans the PD? How could they have, given your comments that a different PD (and thus in this case no PD, as an indication of support for the WA) is itself a different deal?
To give an example, fuse and the TNT it is attached to.
We both agreed to light the fuse but we wanted to chuck it at the Tree stump and they wanted to chuck it at the car.
You could say, well we both want the fuse lit, so let's do that part and sort out the next part when we come to it.
But some people, lets call them pessimists, might say we should agree where we are chucking it before we light it.
I don't buy that Corbyn wants no deal so much he will actively cause it, it's just right that he sees it as an opportunity if it occurs. But TheJezziah is right he will have to oppose it in practice, even if unsuccessfully, so it is pretty moot.
More important to him now is becoming PM - it was not what has driven him for his decades in parliament, but after 4 years in his current job he has become as willing to compromise to get that top job as any other standard politician.
Seem to be mixing up a few things there. A change of government isn't policy it is what oppositions aim for in an election but not actual policy. A temp government was the policy for avoiding no deal in the short term rather than our policy in an election.
The EU have said multiple times they are happy to change the political declaration, lying about that doesn't really change what the EU have said.
An extension is obviously needed to avoid crashing out with no deal and holding s referndum if the Lib Dems wanted a referendum they would also need something to put up against it.
If the Lib Dem position was just revoke then the complications of an extension and a referendum wouldn't apply to them but it does. Considering the current government they also need a change of government for it to happen.
Basically if a referendum is an illogical policy then it is illogical whether it is the Lib Dems or Labour calling for one.
But a referendum is a simple position even if you don't like those calling for it.
I am not confusing anything. Labour's position is as I have stated it. A change in government is their policy and they have said they will negotiate a new deal, not a new political declaration. I'm sorry you can't understand it, but blame Corbyn rather than write rambling posts showcasing your bewilderment.
A different political declaration and thus a whole different end destination would be a different deal.
That relies on a great deal of semantics, and rather suggests previous opposition to the WA was a pile of nonsense if what was in it was fine and the PD was all that was objectionable.
Did not Labour still vote against the WA sans the PD? How could they have, given your comments that a different PD (and thus in this case no PD, as an indication of support for the WA) is itself a different deal?
To give an example, fuse and the TNT it is attached to.
We both agreed to light the fuse but we wanted to chuck it at the Tree stump and they wanted to chuck it at the car.
You could say, well we both want the fuse lit, so let's do that part and sort out the next part when we come to it.
But some people, lets call them pessimists, might say we should agree where we are chucking it before we light it.
But to be clear your belief is that Labour, or Corbyn at least, is totally happy with the WA itself?
From last thread. Is the question facing Labour "Do we really fancy throwing ourselves under the LibDem bus for a project where the outcome could quite likely be far worse than making a lot of noise but doing nothing". The LibDem question is "We want REMAIN, but working with Corbyn to achieve that is not really possible unless we can castrate him without him knowing. But that will hurt and even he will surely notice."
The "World Leaders" he refers to were a couple of waiters.
Are we sure they weren't voices in his head?
Trump is being pretty smart here. He's reinforcing this image as the media as his enemy. His supporters want to believe that journalists with critical coverage are the enemy. And this tells them what they want to here.
But this is a tough time for Trump and the media. Fox News hasn't gone all Trump-sceptic yet, but they certainly covering him with a bit less enthusiasm this time around. They've certainly not hesitated to make big stories of bad polls for him.
Trump supporters will support Trump. There are nowhere near enough of them to re-elect him. He needs many, many more than just them.
Sorry, got distracted. Is there any evidence of him positively attempting to win anyone over? Not just Republicans, but Independents? Or will that come with purely negative attacks once a candidate is in place?
I am not confusing anything. Labour's position is as I have stated it. A change in government is their policy and they have said they will negotiate a new deal, not a new political declaration. I'm sorry you can't understand it, but blame Corbyn rather than write rambling posts showcasing your bewilderment.
A different political declaration and thus a whole different end destination would be a different deal.
That relies on a great deal of semantics, and rather suggests previous opposition to the WA was a pile of nonsense if what was in it was fine and the PD was all that was objectionable.
Did not Labour still vote against the WA sans the PD? How could they have, given your comments that a different PD (and thus in this case no PD, as an indication of support for the WA) is itself a different deal?
To give an example, fuse and the TNT it is attached to.
We both agreed to light the fuse but we wanted to chuck it at the Tree stump and they wanted to chuck it at the car.
You could say, well we both want the fuse lit, so let's do that part and sort out the next part when we come to it.
But some people, lets call them pessimists, might say we should agree where we are chucking it before we light it.
But to be clear your belief is that Labour, or Corbyn at least, is totally happy with the WA itself?
It isn't the position any longer but previously Labour/Corbyn were willing to vote for it with different destinations. In the indicative votes for example Labour/Corbyn voted/whipped for the Common Market 2 proposal, Corbyn's proposal and Ken Clarke's as well as the 2nd ref option.
Now I can't see Labour passing anything without a referendum attached.
Comments
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1165677808896507904
"Stand aside?"
"But I won't do that...."
A point that sits perfectly at ease with the more general point - my one - that Brexit is a Tory not a Labour thing.
But I also wouldn't count Buttigieg out. He's the guy whose moving upwards in Iowa, while Harris and Sanders are floundering.
He could win the State, in which case all bets are off, or he could come second to Warren, and become the "moderate" option.
If the US economy is in recession, then it won't matter who the Democratic nominee is.
See "Carter, Jimmy".
Surely the Pravda is in favour of No Deal chaos?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/26/elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-2020-1475220
I wouldn’t bet against it.
I see Trump has hinted he may pull back from some of his more mad trade war things.
I doubt he’d drop out before then.
Nevada will be in between, of course.
Guess who can beat Trump.
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1166107217554284547
Not this time guys, not this time. Button it and put a street fighter up against the clown.
If Buttigieg gets ahead of Biden in Iowa (which is, what, a 30-35% chance), then he stands a real chance of being the guy with momentum. Above 8- or 9-1, I'd like to own Buttigieg.
If he doesn't look like the winner, then what is he?
It’s not as though he’ll get another run at it.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/trump-england-united-kingdom-great-britain.html
Trump started his reply, “We have been with, I guess you would start off by saying ‘England,’ right? I asked Boris, ‘Where’s England? What’s happening with England? They don’t use it too much anymore.’ We talked about it. It was very interesting.”...
A different political declaration and thus a whole different end destination would be a different deal.
But this is a tough time for Trump and the media. Fox News hasn't gone all Trump-sceptic yet, but they certainly covering him with a bit less enthusiasm this time around. They've certainly not hesitated to make big stories of bad polls for him.
See: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/458743-trump-again-lashes-out-at-fox-news-over-polling-not-what-it-used-to-be
Did not Labour still vote against the WA sans the PD? How could they have, given your comments that a different PD (and thus in this case no PD, as an indication of support for the WA) is itself a different deal?
We both agreed to light the fuse but we wanted to chuck it at the Tree stump and they wanted to chuck it at the car.
You could say, well we both want the fuse lit, so let's do that part and sort out the next part when we come to it.
But some people, lets call them pessimists, might say we should agree where we are chucking it before we light it.
More important to him now is becoming PM - it was not what has driven him for his decades in parliament, but after 4 years in his current job he has become as willing to compromise to get that top job as any other standard politician.
Now I can't see Labour passing anything without a referendum attached.
3 way contest for the Democrat nomination, still a big ask but it might come down to Bernie vs Warren.
https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1166032564223717377
As I say - Brexit - it's a Tory thing.