Then the states decide with one vote each. As trump is almost guaranteed to win the most states he would win.. There are those who insist it goes to the house of representatives to vote on but this is not constitutionally true and it is decided on a state basis though a vote of each states Congress representatives.
So Utah negates California? Crikey...that is going to play well!
Never mind Utah - Wyoming (pop. 579,315) negates California (pop. 39,536,653)
I assume the Dems are likely to win the popular vote again in this scenario?
I am not sure that's a given. The electoral college reflects the population in each state, albeit with two extra reps for each state regardless of population.
If you add up the populations of the states based on that 269-269 split* it comes to about 159m for the Dem states versus 167m for the Rep states.
Ultimately, it will depend on how partisan each state is.
Has there ever been a case of a government seeking to challenge the validity of an Act passed by Parliament?
Anyone know?
Probably not. But on the other hand the way Paliament and the Speaker have been behaving is very unusual too...
MPs other than Ministers bringing in legislation is not at all unusual.
And in response to @Benpointer, the government being challenged by others on its interpretation or implementation of a law is also pretty common.
But I have never heard of a government being the one challenging the validity of an Act of Parliament. It does seem unprecedented to me but I don’t know whether this is my lack of knowledge hence the question.
Forgetting the immediate issues arising from the Benn Act, why would any third party - be it government, international institution, company or individual - trust anything this government says about anything if the Prime Minister goes round publicly saying that he won’t obey a law passed by Parliament?
I suspect it’s crap and the Government is simply trying to pressurise the EU to agree a deal at the 17th-18th October summit.
Who knows if it will fly.
The trouble is others will be hearing a British PM say that he intends to ignore a law passed by Parliament (and some of his MPs egging him on) and will wonder what on earth is happening in Britain that this should even be thought, let alone said.
It is hardly the best preamble, is it, to life as an “independent” country?
The Electoral College is an absolutely stupid system.
It is amusing to consider the theoretical minimum vote one could win on under it. Its pretty darn low, though in reality such a route is nigh impossible.
I think you are probably right, but it's appalling writing. And anyone reading it before it was published should have picked up on that. The Guardian should apologise.
It's really easy-peasy. Don't write about the death of someone's child in order to make a political point. I'm no journalist, but I think I could figure that one out for myself.
Has there ever been a case of a government seeking to challenge the validity of an Act passed by Parliament?
Anyone know?
Probably not. But on the other hand the way Paliament and the Speaker have been behaving is very unusual too...
MPs other than Ministers bringing in legislation is not at all unusual.
And in response to @Benpointer, the government being challenged by others on its interpretation or implementation of a law is also pretty common.
But I have never heard of a government being the one challenging the validity of an Act of Parliament. It does seem unprecedented to me but I don’t know whether this is my lack of knowledge hence the question.
Forgetting the immediate issues arising from the Benn Act, why would any third party - be it government, international institution, company or individual - trust anything this government says about anything if the Prime Minister goes round publicly saying that he won’t obey a law passed by Parliament?
I suspect it’s crap and the Government is simply trying to pressurise the EU to agree a deal at the 17th-18th October summit.
Who knows if it will fly.
The trouble is others will be hearing a British PM say that he intends to ignore a law passed by Parliament (and some of his MPs egging him on) and will wonder what on earth is happening in Britain that this should even be thought, let alone said.
It is hardly the best preamble, is it, to life as an “independent” country?
Have they said, in terms, that they intend to break or ignore a law?
It always looked like the Commons and the Speaker were over-reaching themselves with this law.
Interesting few weeks ahead.
Time to see if the drafters are as clever as they think. And how creative the speaker will need to be if they weren't. If there is s path around the law we are in for a real serious crisis, since the intent of parliament was clear and the wont sit quietly if they messed up.
I think you are probably right, but it's appalling writing. And anyone reading it before it was published should have picked up on that. The Guardian should apologise.
Yes, you had to work quite hard to see the non-offensive meaning. Which is not what you want in a broadsheet editorial.
They simply applied the @148grss/Graun template - "rich people have everything easier than poor people and hence their experiences aren't as valid" but crucially overlooked the fact that it was a personal tragedy they were describing, which is outwith that axiom.
This phrase from the Guardian is a good one when applied to one of the examples quoted in the editorial - the privations of early age boarding school. It works less well for the other example - the ordeal of watching the NHS try and ultimately fail to prolong the life of your sick child. However it is important to note with this second example that the reference is to the NHS experience. Specifically it is contrasting the well funded ('privileged') part of the system which tends to children with the underfunded horror of that which deals with social care for the elderly. This is a valid point. What it is NOT is a reference to the suffering or death of the child. It is NOT saying or inferring that the pain of this is in any way lessened by being rich. Nevertheless, given that the reading and comprehension skills of the average person are rather less developed than mine, I can totally understand the furore. Amending the wording was therefore the correct decision.
I think you are probably right, but it's appalling writing. And anyone reading it before it was published should have picked up on that. The Guardian should apologise.
They have, to Buzzfeed. Not to their readers however. They just state "this editorial was amended on 15 September 2019".
Not good enough. They should apologise to the Cameron family.
Has there ever been a case of a government seeking to challenge the validity of an Act passed by Parliament?
Anyone know?
Probably not. But on the other hand the way Paliament and the Speaker have been behaving is very unusual too...
MPs other than Ministers bringing in legislation is not at all unusual.
And in response to @Benpointer, the government being challenged by others on its interpretation or implementation of a law is also pretty common.
But I have never heard of a government being the one challenging the validity of an Act of Parliament. It does seem unprecedented to me but I don’t know whether this is my lack of knowledge hence the question.
Forgetting the immediate issues arising from the Benn Act, why would any third party - be it government, international institution, company or individual - trust anything this government says about anything if the Prime Minister goes round publicly saying that he won’t obey a law passed by Parliament?
I suspect it’s crap and the Government is simply trying to pressurise the EU to agree a deal at the 17th-18th October summit.
Who knows if it will fly.
The trouble is others will be hearing a British PM say that he intends to ignore a law passed by Parliament (and some of his MPs egging him on) and will wonder what on earth is happening in Britain that this should even be thought, let alone said.
It is hardly the best preamble, is it, to life as an “independent” country?
It's like 'Take back control'. It's aquired a whole new meaning.
This phrase from the Guardian is a good one when applied to one of the examples quoted in the editorial - the privations of early age boarding school. It works less well for the other example - the ordeal of watching the NHS try and ultimately fail to prolong the life of your sick child. However it is important to note with this second example that the reference is to the NHS experience. Specifically it is contrasting the well funded ('privileged') part of the system which tends to children with the underfunded horror of that which deals with social care for the elderly. This is a valid point. What it is NOT is a reference to the suffering or death of the child. It is NOT saying or inferring that the pain of this is in any way lessened by being rich. Nevertheless, given that the reading and comprehension skills of the average person are rather less developed than mine, I can totally understand the furore. Amending the wording was therefore the correct decision.
I think you are probably right, but it's appalling writing. And anyone reading it before it was published should have picked up on that. The Guardian should apologise.
They have, to Buzzfeed. Not to their readers however. They just state "this editorial was amended on 15 September 2019".
Not good enough. They should apologise to the Cameron family.
The Electoral College is an absolutely stupid system.
It is amusing to consider the theoretical minimum vote one could win on under it. Its pretty darn low, though in reality such a route is nigh impossible.
11 votes, 1 each from CA, TX, NY, FL, PA, IL, OH, GA, MI, NC.
In reality 2016 the GOP being 2.86% behind on a UNS in 2016 would still have won them the presidency.
I think you are probably right, but it's appalling writing. And anyone reading it before it was published should have picked up on that. The Guardian should apologise.
It's really easy-peasy. Don't write about the death of someone's child in order to make a political point. I'm no journalist, but I think I could figure that one out for myself.
Their though process was probably if they did not mention it others would to counter the point made, so they had to include it and dismiss it. Skewed priorities.
But I have never heard of a government being the one challenging the validity of an Act of Parliament. It does seem unprecedented to me but I don’t know whether this is my lack of knowledge hence the question.
But we are in unchartered territory of a legislature taking over the powers of the executive. The executive is always going to kick back against that.
This phrase from the Guardian is a good one when applied to one of the examples quoted in the editorial - the privations of early age boarding school. It works less well for the other example - the ordeal of watching the NHS try and ultimately fail to prolong the life of your sick child. However it is important to note with this second example that the reference is to the NHS experience. Specifically it is contrasting the well funded ('privileged') part of the system which tends to children with the underfunded horror of that which deals with social care for the elderly. This is a valid point. What it is NOT is a reference to the suffering or death of the child. It is NOT saying or inferring that the pain of this is in any way lessened by being rich. Nevertheless, given that the reading and comprehension skills of the average person are rather less developed than mine, I can totally understand the furore. Amending the wording was therefore the correct decision.
I think you are probably right, but it's appalling writing. And anyone reading it before it was published should have picked up on that. The Guardian should apologise.
They have, to Buzzfeed. Not to their readers however. They just state "this editorial was amended on 15 September 2019".
Not good enough. They should apologise to the Cameron family.
The Guardian has apologied on its website:
"This editorial was amended on 15 September 2019. The original version of this editorial posted online fell far short of our standards. It has now been amended, and we apologise completely."
In the latest Comres poll . 42% support revoking Article 50 if a deal can’t be done with the EU by the 31st October .
What if a deal can be done but parliament refuses to approve it because it wants to revoke? Kind of self fulfilling.
It would have to be an Andrex soft Brexit to get through Parliament while Johnson is in charge.
Not even then I imagine. But the point was 'a deal cant be done' is an odd way of putting it as if they simply want to avoid no deal a deal could be done as soon as parliament is back. So people supporting revoke in that situation is misleading.
The Electoral College is an absolutely stupid system.
It's currently working against the Democrats because of the shear margin of victory that is likely for them on the west coast. If Texas ever flips blue against the national grain then it may well work for them again. But for the moment it works bigly for the GOP.
Whoever it works for last any given time, it's a dumb system. One can argue the toss about whether its should just be done on the popular vote, but even if you maintain the EC, the number of 'points' ascribed to each state is out of whack, due to demographic lag and general inertia. The whole system is hopeless – arguably the worst of any developed presidential republic globally.
Has there ever been a case of a government seeking to challenge the validity of an Act passed by Parliament?
Anyone know?
Probably not. But on the other hand the way Paliament and the Speaker have been behaving is very unusual too...
MPs other than Ministers bringing in legislation is not at all unusual.
And in response to @Benpointer, the government being challenged by others on its interpretation or implementation of a law is also pretty common.
But I have never heard of a government being the one challenging the validity of an Act of Parliament. It does seem unprecedented to me but I don’t know whether this is my lack of knowledge hence the question.
Forgetting the immediate issues arising from the Benn Act, why would any third party - be it government, international institution, company or individual - trust anything this government says about anything if the Prime Minister goes round publicly saying that he won’t obey a law passed by Parliament?
I suspect it’s crap and the Government is simply trying to pressurise the EU to agree a deal at the 17th-18th October summit.
Who knows if it will fly.
The trouble is others will be hearing a British PM say that he intends to ignore a law passed by Parliament (and some of his MPs egging him on) and will wonder what on earth is happening in Britain that this should even be thought, let alone said.
It is hardly the best preamble, is it, to life as an “independent” country?
If theres a flaw in the Benn Act wont Bercow just let the Commons seize control again when they get back and pass some new bill? Surely Boris wont try to extend the prorogation past october? Even more of his cabinet were against that.
If theres a flaw in the Benn Act wont Bercow just let the Commons seize control again when they get back and pass some new bill? Surely Boris wont try to extend the prorogation past october? Even more of his cabinet were against that.
The Electoral College is an absolutely stupid system.
It's currently working against the Democrats because of the shear margin of victory that is likely for them on the west coast. If Texas ever flips blue against the national grain then it may well work for them again. But for the moment it works bigly for the GOP.
Whoever it works for last any given time, it's a dumb system. One can argue the toss about whether its should just be done on the popular vote, but even if you maintain the EC, the number of 'points' ascribed to each state is out of whack, due to demographic lag and general inertia. The whole system is hopeless – arguably the worst of any developed presidential republic globally.
The number of points ascribed to each state is really not the issue. Trump would have won 303-235 if points had been ascribed 'correctly' ! I've looked into this in some depth.
Jesus, that's unhinged. You see such sentiments all over within parties though .
The interesting thing here is that Geordie Greig as editor was supposed to hearld a less aggressive pro-Brexit stance than Dacre. I wonder if there is pressure coming from the top
I was thinking this morning how Raab's interview on R4 could have occurred at any time during the past two years and under May although with the Oct 31st deadline instead of the March 29th one.
If theres a flaw in the Benn Act wont Bercow just let the Commons seize control again when they get back and pass some new bill? Surely Boris wont try to extend the prorogation past october? Even more of his cabinet were against that.
No time to do that before the EU meeting which is where everything comes to a head. There is also some issue with continually allowing SO24 debates changing the very nature of the constitution of the UK. Bercow is enough of a self centred idiot to allow it but it is setting a precedent of making minority government a virtual impossibility
If theres a flaw in the Benn Act wont Bercow just let the Commons seize control again when they get back and pass some new bill? Surely Boris wont try to extend the prorogation past october? Even more of his cabinet were against that.
Even if it's futile I think he intends to make it as difficult as possible - though we saw with the Lords filibuster that there are limits.
He may be trying to force them to no confidence vote him, as even if that leads to an extension he won't have been directly responsible for it and there would possibly be an election soon for him to campaign against it, in the SNP-style position of privileged loser.
If theres a flaw in the Benn Act wont Bercow just let the Commons seize control again when they get back and pass some new bill? Surely Boris wont try to extend the prorogation past october? Even more of his cabinet were against that.
Unless they know what exactly is supposedly flawed and where the Government thinks is the weak point, it would be hard to fix?
If theres a flaw in the Benn Act wont Bercow just let the Commons seize control again when they get back and pass some new bill? Surely Boris wont try to extend the prorogation past october? Even more of his cabinet were against that.
Yup. But they've decided to stick to the line Renegotiate or No Deal, either because they can't think of an alternative line or because they don't want Leavers to think of Boris as a cuck.
Jesus, that's unhinged. You see such sentiments all over within parties though .
The interesting thing here is that Geordie Greig as editor was supposed to hearld a less aggressive pro-Brexit stance than Dacre. I wonder if there is pressure coming from the top
This phrase from the Guardian is a good one when applied to one of the examples quoted in the editorial - the privations of early age boarding school. It works less well for the other example - the ordeal of watching the NHS try and ultimately fail to prolong the life of your sick child. However it is important to note with this second example that the reference is to the NHS experience. Specifically it is contrasting the well funded ('privileged') part of the system which tends to children with the underfunded horror of that which deals with social care for the elderly. This is a valid point. What it is NOT is a reference to the suffering or death of the child. It is NOT saying or inferring that the pain of this is in any way lessened by being rich. Nevertheless, given that the reading and comprehension skills of the average person are rather less developed than mine, I can totally understand the furore. Amending the wording was therefore the correct decision.
I think you are probably right, but it's appalling writing. And anyone reading it before it was published should have picked up on that. The Guardian should apologise.
They have, to Buzzfeed. Not to their readers however. They just state "this editorial was amended on 15 September 2019".
Not good enough. They should apologise to the Cameron family.
The Guardian has apologied on its website:
"This editorial was amended on 15 September 2019. The original version of this editorial posted online fell far short of our standards. It has now been amended, and we apologise completely."
If theres a flaw in the Benn Act wont Bercow just let the Commons seize control again when they get back and pass some new bill? Surely Boris wont try to extend the prorogation past october? Even more of his cabinet were against that.
Or the HoC could support a VONC as a last resort.
It's what they should have done rather than silly games. As obitussumme speculates that might be what hes trying to force them to do.
If I lived there I'd understand exactly what she means and I would have applauded her for saying it. So I trust will many of her more cerebral voters.
Lib Dems only 4k behind in North Devon. Will be a next to impossible task to win unless they ditch this candidate.
Hold that thought! I suspect it will age badly.
I think you may be wrong in that.. Whether you agree witj the sentiment or not its not a great look for a candidate... I suspect come the election the LDs will fall short in some 'easier' pickin g places like this yet romp home in some seemingly impossible places (particually those in London) so all is to play for and this candidate certainly doesnt make the job easier for the LDs
If theres a flaw in the Benn Act wont Bercow just let the Commons seize control again when they get back and pass some new bill? Surely Boris wont try to extend the prorogation past october? Even more of his cabinet were against that.
Even if it's futile I think he intends to make it as difficult as possible - though we saw with the Lords filibuster that there are limits.
He may be trying to force them to no confidence vote him, as even if that leads to an extension he won't have been directly responsible for it and there would possibly be an election soon for him to campaign against it, in the SNP-style position of privileged loser.
It was interesting that Boris called off the Lords filibuster. It seems it could have worked - but at the expense of putting the Lords in play against him. I did wonder at the time if he had been advised of another route, that let the Remainers think they had won...until they hadn't.
If theres a flaw in the Benn Act wont Bercow just let the Commons seize control again when they get back and pass some new bill? Surely Boris wont try to extend the prorogation past october? Even more of his cabinet were against that.
Even if it's futile I think he intends to make it as difficult as possible - though we saw with the Lords filibuster that there are limits.
He may be trying to force them to no confidence vote him, as even if that leads to an extension he won't have been directly responsible for it and there would possibly be an election soon for him to campaign against it, in the SNP-style position of privileged loser.
It was interesting that Boris called off the Lords filibuster. It seems it could have worked - but at the expense of putting the Lords in play against him. I did wonder at the time if he had been advised of another route, that let the Remainers think they had won...until they hadn't.
But I have never heard of a government being the one challenging the validity of an Act of Parliament. It does seem unprecedented to me but I don’t know whether this is my lack of knowledge hence the question.
But we are in unchartered territory of a legislature taking over the powers of the executive. The executive is always going to kick back against that.
Really? It’s the legislature doing what the legislature has always done: passing legislation and expecting the executive to comply with the law.
What is unprecedented is having the head of the executive thinking that a law should not apply to him because he does not like it or because it goes against what he wants to do.
They simply applied the @148grss/Graun template - "rich people have everything easier than poor people and hence their experiences aren't as valid" but crucially overlooked the fact that it was a personal tragedy they were describing, which is outwith that axiom.
Experiences not as 'valid'? No, I don't like that. That's a bit dehumanizing.
What IS true, however, is that money can cushion you to a certain extent from life's slings and arrows.
For example, a 'Richy Rich' who goes through wives like a knife through butter (what?) and has a kid or two or three with each of them, his money makes it much much easier to keep the show on the road, maintain relationships, mitigate distress and guilt etc than it would be for 'Broke Bloke'.
But I have never heard of a government being the one challenging the validity of an Act of Parliament. It does seem unprecedented to me but I don’t know whether this is my lack of knowledge hence the question.
But we are in unchartered territory of a legislature taking over the powers of the executive. The executive is always going to kick back against that.
Really? It’s the legislature doing what the legislature has always done: passing legislation and expecting the executive to comply with the law.
What is unprecedented is having the head of the executive thinking that a law should not apply to him because he does not like it or because it goes against what he wants to do.
What is to stop a legislature forcing a government to enact it's own budget and policy programme via continual so24s in a minority situation like this rather than the correct constitutional process of VONC?
They simply applied the @148grss/Graun template - "rich people have everything easier than poor people and hence their experiences aren't as valid" but crucially overlooked the fact that it was a personal tragedy they were describing, which is outwith that axiom.
Experiences not as 'valid'? No, I don't like that. That's a bit dehumanizing.
What IS true, however, is that money can cushion you to a certain extent from life's slings and arrows.
For example, a 'Richy Rich' who goes through wives like a knife through butter (what?) and has a kid or two or three with each of them, his money makes it much much easier to keep the show on the road, maintain relationships, mitigate distress and guilt etc than it would be for 'Broke Bloke'.
It's also a factor in voting patterns etc, the comfortably off demonize the poor for voting leave (in broad terms and for example) without having any clue as to the experience of living a breadline life and how that shapes views
Off thread, just happened to notice this headline in Friday's Jewish Chronicle:
' Liberal Democrats 'would not enter any Coalition' with Jeremy Corbyn
Exclusive: Party's newest MP Luciana Berger says leader Jo Swinson told her a deal would be 'impossible''
This may help in part to explain the LD's high risk Revoke strategy. The Jewish vote wouldn't be very significant but I guess every little bit helps.
Off to Hampstead now. My thanks for the sensitive response to my earlier remarks from many posters, notably Nigel B and Casino R.
Laters, folks.
Atb
PtP
Doesn't rule out an informal confidence and supply. Hopefully they are better than that.
Trouble is, at some point the LibDems will need to hold their noses and choose between normally unpalatable options. Right now, they must canvass support for themselves and their policies. The day after polling day, once the votes have been counted, hard choices will need to be made.
They simply applied the @148grss/Graun template - "rich people have everything easier than poor people and hence their experiences aren't as valid" but crucially overlooked the fact that it was a personal tragedy they were describing, which is outwith that axiom.
Experiences not as 'valid'? No, I don't like that. That's a bit dehumanizing.
What IS true, however, is that money can cushion you to a certain extent from life's slings and arrows.
For example, a 'Richy Rich' who goes through wives like a knife through butter (what?) and has a kid or two or three with each of them, his money makes it much much easier to keep the show on the road, maintain relationships, mitigate distress and guilt etc than it would be for 'Broke Bloke'.
It's also a factor in voting patterns etc, the comfortably off demonize the poor for voting leave (in broad terms and for example) without having any clue as to the experience of living a breadline life and how that shapes views
I mean the main, public, leading faces of leave could hardly be categorised as poor.
Off thread, just happened to notice this headline in Friday's Jewish Chronicle:
' Liberal Democrats 'would not enter any Coalition' with Jeremy Corbyn
Exclusive: Party's newest MP Luciana Berger says leader Jo Swinson told her a deal would be 'impossible''
This may help in part to explain the LD's high risk Revoke strategy. The Jewish vote wouldn't be very significant but I guess every little bit helps.
Off to Hampstead now. My thanks for the sensitive response to my earlier remarks from many posters, notably Nigel B and Casino R.
Laters, folks.
Atb
PtP
Doesn't rule out an informal confidence and supply. Hopefully they are better than that.
Trouble is, at some point the LibDems will need to hold their noses and choose between normally unpalatable options. Right now, they must canvass support for themselves and their policies. The day after polling day, once the votes have been counted, hard choices will need to be made.
Perhaps, although abstention is always an option. For me, I can't see how putting as PM a man that supports terrorists, helps the propaganda outlets of Tehran and Moscow, and commemorates Jew-murderers, can be the better option.
They simply applied the @148grss/Graun template - "rich people have everything easier than poor people and hence their experiences aren't as valid" but crucially overlooked the fact that it was a personal tragedy they were describing, which is outwith that axiom.
Experiences not as 'valid'? No, I don't like that. That's a bit dehumanizing.
What IS true, however, is that money can cushion you to a certain extent from life's slings and arrows.
For example, a 'Richy Rich' who goes through wives like a knife through butter (what?) and has a kid or two or three with each of them, his money makes it much much easier to keep the show on the road, maintain relationships, mitigate distress and guilt etc than it would be for 'Broke Bloke'.
It's also a factor in voting patterns etc, the comfortably off demonize the poor for voting leave (in broad terms and for example) without having any clue as to the experience of living a breadline life and how that shapes views
I mean the main, public, leading faces of leave could hardly be categorised as poor.
No they couldn't but that's not what I'm talking about.
The legislation is flawed. The PM is right to ignore it until the Supreme Court declares that it is the law of the land. That will probably be after 31st October.
They simply applied the @148grss/Graun template - "rich people have everything easier than poor people and hence their experiences aren't as valid" but crucially overlooked the fact that it was a personal tragedy they were describing, which is outwith that axiom.
Experiences not as 'valid'? No, I don't like that. That's a bit dehumanizing.
What IS true, however, is that money can cushion you to a certain extent from life's slings and arrows.
For example, a 'Richy Rich' who goes through wives like a knife through butter (what?) and has a kid or two or three with each of them, his money makes it much much easier to keep the show on the road, maintain relationships, mitigate distress and guilt etc than it would be for 'Broke Bloke'.
It's also a factor in voting patterns etc, the comfortably off demonize the poor for voting leave (in broad terms and for example) without having any clue as to the experience of living a breadline life and how that shapes views
I mean the main, public, leading faces of leave could hardly be categorised as poor.
No they couldn't but that's not what I'm talking about.
The (very) comfortably off voted leave also so not sure how they can be accused of demonising those who voted leave.
It was interesting that Boris called off the Lords filibuster. It seems it could have worked - but at the expense of putting the Lords in play against him. I did wonder at the time if he had been advised of another route, that let the Remainers think they had won...until they hadn't.
If he really is planning to run on a PEOPLE vs ESTABLISHMENT QUISLINGS platform the very last people he wants on his side are a bunch of Tory Peers in the House of Lords.
The Electoral College is an absolutely stupid system.
It's currently working against the Democrats because of the shear margin of victory that is likely for them on the west coast. If Texas ever flips blue against the national grain then it may well work for them again. But for the moment it works bigly for the GOP.
Whoever it works for last any given time, it's a dumb system. One can argue the toss about whether its should just be done on the popular vote, but even if you maintain the EC, the number of 'points' ascribed to each state is out of whack, due to demographic lag and general inertia. The whole system is hopeless – arguably the worst of any developed presidential republic globally.
The number of points ascribed to each state is really not the issue. Trump would have won 303-235 if points had been ascribed 'correctly' ! I've looked into this in some depth.
To be clear, I'm not applying this critique through the prism of Trumpton's victory. I'm applying it generally.
Trump is unlikely to win reelection for many reasons.
His approval is the lowest of any President despite most voters think the economy is doing well. Usually we would expect approval numbers well above what he has (low 40s) based on this. So many who approve of the economy do not approve of Trump. If the economy slows or worsens, as it looks like it might, some of that support will decrease.
As noted below, Trump was viewed as a moderate in 2016. He is not viewed that way any longer.
Farmers, a big constituency for the GOP, do not agree with the tariffs and are feeling it in their pocket. Many will still vote GOP anyway, but when Trump only won the first time at the margins, he cannot afford to lose.
African American turnout was low in 2016, so was Latino turnout. Indeed, Democratic turnout in general was low. This was because Clinton was unpopular and many Dems didn't think Trump could possibly win. They won't take it for granted again (indeed, in current polling, beating Trump is the top priority of the Democratic primary electorate, hence why they are *sigh* going with Joe Biden).
I think Warren is a good bet. Joe is only polling in low to mid 30s in the primaries nationally. 538 and ex 538 member Harry Enten have mentioned often that based on history that makes them more likely than any other individual to get the nomination, but that they are still less likely to get the nomination than the field at large.
Tactically, I think more candidates who drop out will eventually back Warren. Biden is bad on the stump, the Biden camp is very much like the Clinton camp in that they feel this is owed them rather than they should fight for it, and the Democratic party is moving more towards the Warren / Bernie positions anyway.
Remember, Democratic primaries are not winner take all like the GOP, they are split proportionally between all candidates who get more than 15% in a state. At the moment, that realistically looks like only the top 3 in most states. As people drop out, they will resort. So Biden is likely to get a plurality of delegates, but Warren and Bernie between them might get a majority. Hence my view Bernie will defer.
Off thread, just happened to notice this headline in Friday's Jewish Chronicle:
' Liberal Democrats 'would not enter any Coalition' with Jeremy Corbyn
Exclusive: Party's newest MP Luciana Berger says leader Jo Swinson told her a deal would be 'impossible''
This may help in part to explain the LD's high risk Revoke strategy. The Jewish vote wouldn't be very significant but I guess every little bit helps.
Off to Hampstead now. My thanks for the sensitive response to my earlier remarks from many posters, notably Nigel B and Casino R.
Laters, folks.
Atb
PtP
Very smart positioning by Swinson. The implication being she will prop up Labour with someone else. That'll appeal to more than just Jewish Labour voters.
When I saw Corbyn walking into the TUC conference surrounded by beery old men it just reminded me of a Labour Party I thought we'd left behind. I like a lot about his foreign policy. He wouldn't cosy up to Trump Netanyahu or the Saudis which counts for a lot. But this is vastly outweighed by the rest. This'll be the first election I remember wher I wont have voted Labour. Let's go with Jo!
They simply applied the @148grss/Graun template - "rich people have everything easier than poor people and hence their experiences aren't as valid" but crucially overlooked the fact that it was a personal tragedy they were describing, which is outwith that axiom.
Experiences not as 'valid'? No, I don't like that. That's a bit dehumanizing.
What IS true, however, is that money can cushion you to a certain extent from life's slings and arrows.
For example, a 'Richy Rich' who goes through wives like a knife through butter (what?) and has a kid or two or three with each of them, his money makes it much much easier to keep the show on the road, maintain relationships, mitigate distress and guilt etc than it would be for 'Broke Bloke'.
It's also a factor in voting patterns etc, the comfortably off demonize the poor for voting leave (in broad terms and for example) without having any clue as to the experience of living a breadline life and how that shapes views
I mean the main, public, leading faces of leave could hardly be categorised as poor.
No they couldn't but that's not what I'm talking about.
The (very) comfortably off voted leave also so not sure how they can be accused of demonising those who voted leave.
I said in broad terms and as an example, not that everybody fits into a single category. If you really need me to qualify it with 'some' on top of the qualification of it being in broad terms and as an example then so be it. 'Some' comfortably off and 'some' poor
Off thread, just happened to notice this headline in Friday's Jewish Chronicle:
' Liberal Democrats 'would not enter any Coalition' with Jeremy Corbyn
Exclusive: Party's newest MP Luciana Berger says leader Jo Swinson told her a deal would be 'impossible''
This may help in part to explain the LD's high risk Revoke strategy. The Jewish vote wouldn't be very significant but I guess every little bit helps.
Off to Hampstead now. My thanks for the sensitive response to my earlier remarks from many posters, notably Nigel B and Casino R.
Laters, folks.
Atb
PtP
Doesn't rule out an informal confidence and supply. Hopefully they are better than that.
Trouble is, at some point the LibDems will need to hold their noses and choose between normally unpalatable options. Right now, they must canvass support for themselves and their policies. The day after polling day, once the votes have been counted, hard choices will need to be made.
Currently they only seem to have some indistinct back of the envelope thing with the Greens & Plaid; unless Swinson REALLY thinks she's going to be PM with a majority, she should probably be a bit more restrained with the lines in the sand e.g. letting her Holyrood sockpuppet pronounce on what types of 2nd referendums and unilateral declarations are and aren't allowed.
Hopefully they've learnt enough not to punt themselves out for a mess of AV pottage this time.
If I lived there I'd understand exactly what she means and I would have applauded her for saying it. So I trust will many of her more cerebral voters.
Lib Dems only 4k behind in North Devon. Will be a next to impossible task to win unless they ditch this candidate.
Hold that thought! I suspect it will age badly.
I think you may be wrong in that.. Whether you agree witj the sentiment or not its not a great look for a candidate... I suspect come the election the LDs will fall short in some 'easier' pickin g places like this yet romp home in some seemingly impossible places (particually those in London) so all is to play for and this candidate certainly doesnt make the job easier for the LDs
Doesn't every election have a few of these stories. Last time it was Kensington going to Labour but failing to take Southampton Itchen. It is the overall changes in the 150 marginals and semi-marginals that determines the election result.
Trump is unlikely to win reelection for many reasons.
His approval is the lowest of any President despite most voters think the economy is doing well. Usually we would expect approval numbers well above what he has (low 40s) based on this. So many who approve of the economy do not approve of Trump. If the economy slows or worsens, as it looks like it might, some of that support will decrease.
As noted below, Trump was viewed as a moderate in 2016. He is not viewed that way any longer.
Farmers, a big constituency for the GOP, do not agree with the tariffs and are feeling it in their pocket. Many will still vote GOP anyway, but when Trump only won the first time at the margins, he cannot afford to lose.
African American turnout was low in 2016, so was Latino turnout. Indeed, Democratic turnout in general was low. This was because Clinton was unpopular and many Dems didn't think Trump could possibly win. They won't take it for granted again (indeed, in current polling, beating Trump is the top priority of the Democratic primary electorate, hence why they are *sigh* going with Joe Biden).
I think Warren is a good bet. Joe is only polling in low to mid 30s in the primaries nationally. 538 and ex 538 member Harry Enten have mentioned often that based on history that makes them more likely than any other individual to get the nomination, but that they are still less likely to get the nomination than the field at large.
Tactically, I think more candidates who drop out will eventually back Warren. Biden is bad on the stump, the Biden camp is very much like the Clinton camp in that they feel this is owed them rather than they should fight for it, and the Democratic party is moving more towards the Warren / Bernie positions anyway.
Remember, Democratic primaries are not winner take all like the GOP, they are split proportionally between all candidates who get more than 15% in a state. At the moment, that realistically looks like only the top 3 in most states. As people drop out, they will resort. So Biden is likely to get a plurality of delegates, but Warren and Bernie between them might get a majority. Hence my view Bernie will defer.
I'd watch what unfolds over the next few weeks with the details of the investigation into the FISA requests to monitor Trump in the run up to the 2016 elections before staking any money on him not getting reelected. It already looks like Andrew McCabe might be indicted and that's before the details come out. A lot of former DoJ bigwigs are sweating right now.
They simply applied the @148grss/Graun template - "rich people have everything easier than poor people and hence their experiences aren't as valid" but crucially overlooked the fact that it was a personal tragedy they were describing, which is outwith that axiom.
Experiences not as 'valid'? No, I don't like that. That's a bit dehumanizing.
What IS true, however, is that money can cushion you to a certain extent from life's slings and arrows.
For example, a 'Richy Rich' who goes through wives like a knife through butter (what?) and has a kid or two or three with each of them, his money makes it much much easier to keep the show on the road, maintain relationships, mitigate distress and guilt etc than it would be for 'Broke Bloke'.
It's also a factor in voting patterns etc, the comfortably off demonize the poor for voting leave (in broad terms and for example) without having any clue as to the experience of living a breadline life and how that shapes views
I mean the main, public, leading faces of leave could hardly be categorised as poor.
No they couldn't but that's not what I'm talking about.
The (very) comfortably off voted leave also so not sure how they can be accused of demonising those who voted leave.
I said in broad terms and as an example, not that everybody fits into a single category. If you really need me to qualify it with 'some' on top of the qualification of it being in broad terms and as an example then so be it. 'Some' comfortably off and 'some' poor
ie so as to invalidate the point you first tried to make.
Some people like watching Coronation Street; some don't. Not sure what conclusions we can draw from that.
But I have never heard of a government being the one challenging the validity of an Act of Parliament. It does seem unprecedented to me but I don’t know whether this is my lack of knowledge hence the question.
But we are in unchartered territory of a legislature taking over the powers of the executive. The executive is always going to kick back against that.
Really? It’s the legislature doing what the legislature has always done: passing legislation and expecting the executive to comply with the law.
What is unprecedented is having the head of the executive thinking that a law should not apply to him because he does not like it or because it goes against what he wants to do.
What is to stop a legislature forcing a government to enact it's own budget and policy programme via continual so24s in a minority situation like this rather than the correct constitutional process of VONC?
That is what happens when conventions are torn up for short-term goals. Or when governments announce they will do whatever it takes to force through a policy regardless of what Parliament says. Others will equally try and stretch the system to its limits.
The whole situation ends up being a mess.
A pause, taking stock and trying to have some regard for the long-term health of our polity are what’s needed.
They simply applied the @148grss/Graun template - "rich people have everything easier than poor people and hence their experiences aren't as valid" but crucially overlooked the fact that it was a personal tragedy they were describing, which is outwith that axiom.
Experiences not as 'valid'? No, I don't like that. That's a bit dehumanizing.
What IS true, however, is that money can cushion you to a certain extent from life's slings and arrows.
For example, a 'Richy Rich' who goes through wives like a knife through butter (what?) and has a kid or two or three with each of them, his money makes it much much easier to keep the show on the road, maintain relationships, mitigate distress and guilt etc than it would be for 'Broke Bloke'.
It's also a factor in voting patterns etc, the comfortably off demonize the poor for voting leave (in broad terms and for example) without having any clue as to the experience of living a breadline life and how that shapes views
I mean the main, public, leading faces of leave could hardly be categorised as poor.
No they couldn't but that's not what I'm talking about.
The (very) comfortably off voted leave also so not sure how they can be accused of demonising those who voted leave.
I said in broad terms and as an example, not that everybody fits into a single category. If you really need me to qualify it with 'some' on top of the qualification of it being in broad terms and as an example then so be it. 'Some' comfortably off and 'some' poor
ie so as to invalidate the point you first tried to make.
Some people like watching Coronation Street; some don't. Not sure what conclusions we can draw from that.
The point was about people drawing conclusions about the validity of 'stuff' based on lived experiences and how a wealthier lifestyle protects you from factors that might inform the choices, voting or otherwise of a poorer person. That's not something that can ever be completely binary. As for CS, I'd probably draw the conclusion that coronation street is not universally enjoyed, and I'd be right.
Trump is unlikely to win reelection for many reasons.
Yet another reason is that he did get lucky in 2016.
Trump had a 30% chance of winning last time and rolled a five. *IF* everything goes well for him in the coming year he will still only be in the 30-40% range, and he will once again need to get a lucky die roll.
I know we've had something of a realignment, but I think it's potentially overcooked ... 5-4 on the Tories in Cities of London and Westminster looks a good price to me. One bet on all the major English parties near or in London now
6-4 Lab Streatham, 5-6 Lib Dems St Albans 5-4 Tories Cities of Westminster & London
If I lived there I'd understand exactly what she means and I would have applauded her for saying it. So I trust will many of her more cerebral voters.
Lib Dems only 4k behind in North Devon. Will be a next to impossible task to win unless they ditch this candidate.
Hold that thought! I suspect it will age badly.
I think you may be wrong in that.. Whether you agree witj the sentiment or not its not a great look for a candidate... I suspect come the election the LDs will fall short in some 'easier' pickin g places like this yet romp home in some seemingly impossible places (particually those in London) so all is to play for and this candidate certainly doesnt make the job easier for the LDs
Doesn't every election have a few of these stories. Last time it was Kensington going to Labour but failing to take Southampton Itchen. It is the overall changes in the 150 marginals and semi-marginals that determines the election result.
I totally agree but I think this time there will be some much bigger suprises and I wouldn't be suprised if most of them are in labour held seats in remain heartlands... Hornsey and Wood Green is, in majority terms a labour stronghold but with its history and high remain credentials it is not impossible to see the massive swing needed being achieved by the LDs.. I think there are a heck of a lot of London Labour seats which will fall on massive swings to the LDs yet they will miss out on some of the closer targets where the leave:remain split is not so pronounced.
As we spend inordinate time on here discussing an outstanding issue from 2016 may I raise another Does anyone know when the Standards Commissioner is likely to resolve the complaint about Keith Vaz? The complaint dates back to Sptember 2016. I know this Paliament does not like to take decisions but 3 years !!
Trump is unlikely to win reelection for many reasons.
Yet another reason is that he did get lucky in 2016.
Trump had a 30% chance of winning last time and rolled a five. *IF* everything goes well for him in the coming year he will still only be in the 30-40% range, and he will once again need to get a lucky die roll.
I don't see the logic of this - he is the incumbent, the economy is doing reasonably well, he has delivered on the immigration front and there is no reason for the religious right to abandon him. Look at his rallies and how many are turning up. Then look at his likely Democratic opponents. If he gets Warren, she will be dogged by "Pochahontas" and whether she lied or not about her heritage; the "Sleepy Joe" tag will likelwise be a killer for Biden while Sanders will come across as a crochety old Grandpa.
People who want to revoke without a referendum vote LibDem. People who want to revoke with a referendum vote Green. People who don't like Brexit but have always voted Labour and don't watch the news much vote Labour.
People who want to leave with a deal, leave without a deal, leave with a deal but not this one, and people who have always voted Conservative and don't watch the news much vote Conservative.
"People who don't like Brexit but have always voted Labour and don't watch the news much vote Labour."
This is an absolubtely massive vote block, and just a big a problem for Boris in the north as it is for the Lib Dems in the south. You could sell almost anything to these people with a red rosette on and they'd buy it.
People who want to revoke without a referendum vote LibDem. People who want to revoke with a referendum vote Green. People who don't like Brexit but have always voted Labour and don't watch the news much vote Labour.
People who want to leave with a deal, leave without a deal, leave with a deal but not this one, and people who have always voted Conservative and don't watch the news much vote Conservative.
What about people for whom Brexit is not the key issue and are far more concerned with other matters?
If I lived there I'd understand exactly what she means and I would have applauded her for saying it. So I trust will many of her more cerebral voters.
Lib Dems only 4k behind in North Devon. Will be a next to impossible task to win unless they ditch this candidate.
Hold that thought! I suspect it will age badly.
I think you may be wrong in that.. Whether you agree witj the sentiment or not its not a great look for a candidate... I suspect come the election the LDs will fall short in some 'easier' pickin g places like this yet romp home in some seemingly impossible places (particually those in London) so all is to play for and this candidate certainly doesnt make the job easier for the LDs
Doesn't every election have a few of these stories. Last time it was Kensington going to Labour but failing to take Southampton Itchen. It is the overall changes in the 150 marginals and semi-marginals that determines the election result.
I totally agree but I think this time there will be some much bigger suprises and I wouldn't be suprised if most of them are in labour held seats in remain heartlands... Hornsey and Wood Green is, in majority terms a labour stronghold but with its history and high remain credentials it is not impossible to see the massive swing needed being achieved by the LDs.. I think there are a heck of a lot of London Labour seats which will fall on massive swings to the LDs yet they will miss out on some of the closer targets where the leave:remain split is not so pronounced.
Just my thoughts though
H&WG was a LD held seat 2005-15 so it wouldn't be a huge surprise.
People who want to revoke without a referendum vote LibDem. People who want to revoke with a referendum vote Green. People who don't like Brexit but have always voted Labour and don't watch the news much vote Labour.
People who want to leave with a deal, leave without a deal, leave with a deal but not this one, and people who have always voted Conservative and don't watch the news much vote Conservative.
Agreed.
I am in now way a green voter or a fan of Lucas but she is totally correct in what she says.. Its one thing to cancel brexit through a referendum but a totally different one to just ignore the referendum..
I suspect this shift to revoke won't have the electoral advantage the LDs think it will.. It may solidify their vote in the remain heartlands of London, Bristol and Cambridge but will play badly in the shires and northern towns.. There are not that many ultra remain constituencies don't forget so they have really backed themselves into a corner with this policy
Great post. Supplies the broadsheet to my tabloid -
The American people will not sign up for 4 more years of this. It needed a fluke last time and that was when (i) he was a novelty and (ii) it was just possible to believe that - appearances notwithstanding - he would be up to the job.
Trump is unlikely to win reelection for many reasons.
Yet another reason is that he did get lucky in 2016.
Trump had a 30% chance of winning last time and rolled a five. *IF* everything goes well for him in the coming year he will still only be in the 30-40% range, and he will once again need to get a lucky die roll.
I don't see the logic of this - he is the incumbent, the economy is doing reasonably well, he has delivered on the immigration front and there is no reason for the religious right to abandon him. Look at his rallies and how many are turning up. Then look at his likely Democratic opponents. If he gets Warren, she will be dogged by "Pochahontas" and whether she lied or not about her heritage; the "Sleepy Joe" tag will likelwise be a killer for Biden while Sanders will come across as a crochety old Grandpa.
The 'pocahontas' thing is tired. Having already failed to destroy her, it will just make Trump look even older and out of ideas.
If I lived there I'd understand exactly what she means and I would have applauded her for saying it. So I trust will many of her more cerebral voters.
Lib Dems only 4k behind in North Devon. Will be a next to impossible task to win unless they ditch this candidate.
Hold that thought! I suspect it will age badly.
I think you may be wrong in that.. Whether you agree witj the sentiment or not its not a great look for a candidate... I suspect come the election the LDs will fall short in some 'easier' pickin g places like this yet romp home in some seemingly impossible places (particually those in London) so all is to play for and this candidate certainly doesnt make the job easier for the LDs
Doesn't every election have a few of these stories. Last time it was Kensington going to Labour but failing to take Southampton Itchen. It is the overall changes in the 150 marginals and semi-marginals that determines the election result.
I totally agree but I think this time there will be some much bigger suprises and I wouldn't be suprised if most of them are in labour held seats in remain heartlands... Hornsey and Wood Green is, in majority terms a labour stronghold but with its history and high remain credentials it is not impossible to see the massive swing needed being achieved by the LDs.. I think there are a heck of a lot of London Labour seats which will fall on massive swings to the LDs yet they will miss out on some of the closer targets where the leave:remain split is not so pronounced.
Just my thoughts though
H&WG was a LD held seat 2005-15 so it wouldn't be a huge surprise.
I know it was but in terms of majority needed to be overturned it would be surprising and just one example of the seats in inner London which could throw up suprise results.. Corbyn is safe in his seat but I wouldn't be too suprised if the other Islington seat flipped and Thornbury was out of a job.
If I lived there I'd understand exactly what she means and I would have applauded her for saying it. So I trust will many of her more cerebral voters.
Lib Dems only 4k behind in North Devon. Will be a next to impossible task to win unless they ditch this candidate.
Hold that thought! I suspect it will age badly.
I think you may be wrong in that.. Whether you agree witj the sentiment or not its not a great look for a candidate... I suspect come the election the LDs will fall short in some 'easier' pickin g places like this yet romp home in some seemingly impossible places (particually those in London) so all is to play for and this candidate certainly doesnt make the job easier for the LDs
Doesn't every election have a few of these stories. Last time it was Kensington going to Labour but failing to take Southampton Itchen. It is the overall changes in the 150 marginals and semi-marginals that determines the election result.
I totally agree but I think this time there will be some much bigger suprises and I wouldn't be suprised if most of them are in labour held seats in remain heartlands... Hornsey and Wood Green is, in majority terms a labour stronghold but with its history and high remain credentials it is not impossible to see the massive swing needed being achieved by the LDs.. I think there are a heck of a lot of London Labour seats which will fall on massive swings to the LDs yet they will miss out on some of the closer targets where the leave:remain split is not so pronounced.
Just my thoughts though
H&WG was a LD held seat 2005-15 so it wouldn't be a huge surprise.
It is the type of seat where the 'Tories' Little Helpers' message will be deployed to great effect.
If I lived there I'd understand exactly what she means and I would have applauded her for saying it. So I trust will many of her more cerebral voters.
Lib Dems only 4k behind in North Devon. Will be a next to impossible task to win unless they ditch this candidate.
Hold that thought! I suspect it will age badly.
I think you may be wrong in that.. Whether you agree witj the sentiment or not its not a great look for a candidate... I suspect come the election the LDs will fall short in some 'easier' pickin g places like this yet romp home in some seemingly impossible places (particually those in London) so all is to play for and this candidate certainly doesnt make the job easier for the LDs
Doesn't every election have a few of these stories. Last time it was Kensington going to Labour but failing to take Southampton Itchen. It is the overall changes in the 150 marginals and semi-marginals that determines the election result.
I totally agree but I think this time there will be some much bigger suprises and I wouldn't be suprised if most of them are in labour held seats in remain heartlands... Hornsey and Wood Green is, in majority terms a labour stronghold but with its history and high remain credentials it is not impossible to see the massive swing needed being achieved by the LDs.. I think there are a heck of a lot of London Labour seats which will fall on massive swings to the LDs yet they will miss out on some of the closer targets where the leave:remain split is not so pronounced.
Just my thoughts though
Because the LibDems are second (and some close second) in way more Con seats than Lab seats they focus in the short term gain from Cons.
The long term electoral benefit for the LibDems of the current political situation is the possibility of replacing Lab as the main party of the left.
While it is a fine LibDem tradition to be all things to all people, they will find they are unable to achieve the long term ambition of becoming the largest party of the left while aiming to dislodge Cons where LibDems are in second place.
The offer (strategy and mindset) to the electorate for each of these is different. To be the main party of the left, you have to usurp the current occupant of the position, Lab. That requires a defined and specific approach.
LibDems have to decide which they think is the best route to the main party of the left, if that is the goal they have, and focus relentlessly on it.
If I lived there I'd understand exactly what she means and I would have applauded her for saying it. So I trust will many of her more cerebral voters.
Lib Dems only 4k behind in North Devon. Will be a next to impossible task to win unless they ditch this candidate.
Hold that thought! I suspect it will age badly.
I think you may be wrong in that.. Whether you agree witj the sentiment or not its not a great look for a candidate... I suspect come the election the LDs will fall short in some 'easier' pickin g places like this yet romp home in some seemingly impossible places (particually those in London) so all is to play for and this candidate certainly doesnt make the job easier for the LDs
Doesn't every election have a few of these stories. Last time it was Kensington going to Labour but failing to take Southampton Itchen. It is the overall changes in the 150 marginals and semi-marginals that determines the election result.
I totally agree but I think this time there will be some much bigger suprises and I wouldn't be suprised if most of them are in labour held seats in remain heartlands... Hornsey and Wood Green is, in majority terms a labour stronghold but with its history and high remain credentials it is not impossible to see the massive swing needed being achieved by the LDs.. I think there are a heck of a lot of London Labour seats which will fall on massive swings to the LDs yet they will miss out on some of the closer targets where the leave:remain split is not so pronounced.
Just my thoughts though
H&WG was a LD held seat 2005-15 so it wouldn't be a huge surprise.
I know it was but in terms of majority needed to be overturned it would be surprising and just one example of the seats in inner London which could throw up suprise results.. Corbyn is safe in his seat but I wouldn't be too suprised if the other Islington seat flipped and Thornbury was out of a job.
I do not expect Labour to lose any London seats to the LibDems.
People who want to revoke without a referendum vote LibDem. People who want to revoke with a referendum vote Green. People who don't like Brexit but have always voted Labour and don't watch the news much vote Labour.
People who want to leave with a deal, leave without a deal, leave with a deal but not this one, and people who have always voted Conservative and don't watch the news much vote Conservative.
Agreed.
I am in now way a green voter or a fan of Lucas but she is totally correct in what she says.. Its one thing to cancel brexit through a referendum but a totally different one to just ignore the referendum..
I suspect this shift to revoke won't have the electoral advantage the LDs think it will.. It may solidify their vote in the remain heartlands of London, Bristol and Cambridge but will play badly in the shires and northern towns.. There are not that many ultra remain constituencies don't forget so they have really backed themselves into a corner with this policy
This is about choreography though:
- Brexit needs to be separated from a GE - PV now to resolve - if no PV and a GE, campaign on revoke - if majority, revoke
Trump is unlikely to win reelection for many reasons.
Yet another reason is that he did get lucky in 2016.
Trump had a 30% chance of winning last time and rolled a five. *IF* everything goes well for him in the coming year he will still only be in the 30-40% range, and he will once again need to get a lucky die roll.
I don't see the logic of this - he is the incumbent, the economy is doing reasonably well, he has delivered on the immigration front and there is no reason for the religious right to abandon him. Look at his rallies and how many are turning up. Then look at his likely Democratic opponents. If he gets Warren, she will be dogged by "Pochahontas" and whether she lied or not about her heritage; the "Sleepy Joe" tag will likelwise be a killer for Biden while Sanders will come across as a crochety old Grandpa.
The 'pocahontas' thing is tired. Having already failed to destroy her, it will just make Trump look even older and out of ideas.
Because the LibDems are second (and some close second) in way more Con seats than Lab seats they focus in the short term gain from Cons.
The long term electoral benefit for the LibDems of the current political situation is the possibility of replacing Lab as the main party of the left.
While it is a fine LibDem tradition to be all things to all people, they will find they are unable to achieve the long term ambition of becoming the largest party of the left while aiming to dislodge Cons where LibDems are in second place.
The offer (strategy and mindset) to the electorate for each of these is different. To be the main party of the left, you have to usurp the current occupant of the position, Lab. That requires a defined and specific approach.
LibDems have to decide which they think is the best route to the main party of the left, if that is the goal they have, and focus relentlessly on it.
Replacing Labour as the long-term party of the left would be a long-term project, and it's unlikely Corbyn will stick around for long enough to let them do it.
The centre is much more promising, since it's being vacated from both ends. If anything the Tory end feels more like a permanent abandonment of the centre than the Labour end.
People who want to revoke without a referendum vote LibDem. People who want to revoke with a referendum vote Green. People who don't like Brexit but have always voted Labour and don't watch the news much vote Labour.
People who want to leave with a deal, leave without a deal, leave with a deal but not this one, and people who have always voted Conservative and don't watch the news much vote Conservative.
Interesting. Caroline Lucas can feel the surge. She'd be a loss to the coalition of the Remainers though
Comments
It is hardly the best preamble, is it, to life as an “independent” country?
In reality 2016 the GOP being 2.86% behind on a UNS in 2016 would still have won them the presidency.
Each scenario yields 270-268.
"This editorial was amended on 15 September 2019. The original version of this editorial posted online fell far short of our standards. It has now been amended, and we apologise completely."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/15/the-guardian-view-on-david-cameron-the-boy-in-the-bubble
My (west country, so probably later edition) copy of the paper today has the amended editiorial printed but no apology.
He may be trying to force them to no confidence vote him, as even if that leads to an extension he won't have been directly responsible for it and there would possibly be an election soon for him to campaign against it, in the SNP-style position of privileged loser.
' Liberal Democrats 'would not enter any Coalition' with Jeremy Corbyn
Exclusive: Party's newest MP Luciana Berger says leader Jo Swinson told her a deal would be 'impossible''
This may help in part to explain the LD's high risk Revoke strategy. The Jewish vote wouldn't be very significant but I guess every little bit helps.
Off to Hampstead now. My thanks for the sensitive response to my earlier remarks from many posters, notably Nigel B and Casino R.
Laters, folks.
Atb
PtP
What is unprecedented is having the head of the executive thinking that a law should not apply to him because he does not like it or because it goes against what he wants to do.
What IS true, however, is that money can cushion you to a certain extent from life's slings and arrows.
For example, a 'Richy Rich' who goes through wives like a knife through butter (what?) and has a kid or two or three with each of them, his money makes it much much easier to keep the show on the road, maintain relationships, mitigate distress and guilt etc than it would be for 'Broke Bloke'.
It's a pony system.
His approval is the lowest of any President despite most voters think the economy is doing well. Usually we would expect approval numbers well above what he has (low 40s) based on this. So many who approve of the economy do not approve of Trump. If the economy slows or worsens, as it looks like it might, some of that support will decrease.
As noted below, Trump was viewed as a moderate in 2016. He is not viewed that way any longer.
Farmers, a big constituency for the GOP, do not agree with the tariffs and are feeling it in their pocket. Many will still vote GOP anyway, but when Trump only won the first time at the margins, he cannot afford to lose.
African American turnout was low in 2016, so was Latino turnout. Indeed, Democratic turnout in general was low. This was because Clinton was unpopular and many Dems didn't think Trump could possibly win. They won't take it for granted again (indeed, in current polling, beating Trump is the top priority of the Democratic primary electorate, hence why they are *sigh* going with Joe Biden).
I think Warren is a good bet. Joe is only polling in low to mid 30s in the primaries nationally. 538 and ex 538 member Harry Enten have mentioned often that based on history that makes them more likely than any other individual to get the nomination, but that they are still less likely to get the nomination than the field at large.
Tactically, I think more candidates who drop out will eventually back Warren. Biden is bad on the stump, the Biden camp is very much like the Clinton camp in that they feel this is owed them rather than they should fight for it, and the Democratic party is moving more towards the Warren / Bernie positions anyway.
Remember, Democratic primaries are not winner take all like the GOP, they are split proportionally between all candidates who get more than 15% in a state. At the moment, that realistically looks like only the top 3 in most states. As people drop out, they will resort. So Biden is likely to get a plurality of delegates, but Warren and Bernie between them might get a majority. Hence my view Bernie will defer.
When I saw Corbyn walking into the TUC conference surrounded by beery old men it just reminded me of a Labour Party I thought we'd left behind. I like a lot about his foreign policy. He wouldn't cosy up to Trump Netanyahu or the Saudis which counts for a lot. But this is vastly outweighed by the rest. This'll be the first election I remember wher I wont have voted Labour. Let's go with Jo!
Hopefully they've learnt enough not to punt themselves out for a mess of AV pottage this time.
Some people like watching Coronation Street; some don't. Not sure what conclusions we can draw from that.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/16/100-best-tv-shows-of-the-21st-century
The whole situation ends up being a mess.
A pause, taking stock and trying to have some regard for the long-term health of our polity are what’s needed.
As for CS, I'd probably draw the conclusion that coronation street is not universally enjoyed, and I'd be right.
Trump had a 30% chance of winning last time and rolled a five. *IF* everything goes well for him in the coming year he will still only be in the 30-40% range, and he will once again need to get a lucky die roll.
6-4 Lab Streatham,
5-6 Lib Dems St Albans
5-4 Tories Cities of Westminster & London
Just my thoughts though
https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1173553598405459970
People who want to revoke without a referendum vote LibDem.
People who want to revoke with a referendum vote Green.
People who don't like Brexit but have always voted Labour and don't watch the news much vote Labour.
People who want to leave with a deal, leave without a deal, leave with a deal but not this one, and people who have always voted Conservative and don't watch the news much vote Conservative.
don't like Brexit buthave always voted Labour and don't watch the news much vote Labour."This is an absolubtely massive vote block, and just a big a problem for Boris in the north as it is for the Lib Dems in the south.
You could sell almost anything to these people with a red rosette on and they'd buy it.
It doesn’t however ask the straight out revoke question .
I am in now way a green voter or a fan of Lucas but she is totally correct in what she says.. Its one thing to cancel brexit through a referendum but a totally different one to just ignore the referendum..
I suspect this shift to revoke won't have the electoral advantage the LDs think it will.. It may solidify their vote in the remain heartlands of London, Bristol and Cambridge but will play badly in the shires and northern towns.. There are not that many ultra remain constituencies don't forget so they have really backed themselves into a corner with this policy
Great post. Supplies the broadsheet to my tabloid -
The American people will not sign up for 4 more years of this. It needed a fluke last time and that was when (i) he was a novelty and (ii) it was just possible to believe that - appearances notwithstanding - he would be up to the job.
The long term electoral benefit for the LibDems of the current political situation is the possibility of replacing Lab as the main party of the left.
While it is a fine LibDem tradition to be all things to all people, they will find they are unable to achieve the long term ambition of becoming the largest party of the left while aiming to dislodge Cons where LibDems are in second place.
The offer (strategy and mindset) to the electorate for each of these is different. To be the main party of the left, you have to usurp the current occupant of the position, Lab. That requires a defined and specific approach.
LibDems have to decide which they think is the best route to the main party of the left, if that is the goal they have, and focus relentlessly on it.
I think the Lib Dem policy is likely to work better in the former than the latter .
Until we have some new polling then we’re not really going to see whether it was a misjudged change of policy .
- Brexit needs to be separated from a GE
- PV now to resolve
- if no PV and a GE, campaign on revoke
- if majority, revoke
The centre is much more promising, since it's being vacated from both ends. If anything the Tory end feels more like a permanent abandonment of the centre than the Labour end.