I would suggest taking a look at the State election results today in Louisiana including the "jungle primary" for Governor before writing off Donald Trump.From what I am hearing based on early results the Democrats are not doing too well.
I don't think anyone is writing Trump off. He's the incumbent President. And incumbents tend to be reelected.
But we oughtn't to ignore his challenges too.
The rust belt is probably back in recession. And he needs to win the rust belt if he's going to be reelected.
His unfavourable numbers are terrible.
And Hillary won't be his opponent next year.
Betfair currently has him at about 2.5 to win in 2020. Given the risk of health problems or impeachment, that looks about right.
I wouldn't trust most US polls .Their pro Democrat sampling is mad and they always swing back to correct their bias near election date. A lot of Democrats hate Pelosi and she is destroying their base and galvanising Republicans. There is a big swing to Trump amongst black voters whIch I think we may see evidenced in these Louisana results.
You are of course right about the rust belt states.Ohio looks safe for Trump though so he starts from a pretty strong position there.
I would suggest taking a look at the State election results today in Louisiana including the "jungle primary" for Governor before writing off Donald Trump.From what I am hearing based on early results the Democrats are not doing too well.
I don't think anyone is writing Trump off. He's the incumbent President. And incumbents tend to be reelected.
But we oughtn't to ignore his challenges too.
The rust belt is probably back in recession. And he needs to win the rust belt if he's going to be reelected.
His unfavourable numbers are terrible.
And Hillary won't be his opponent next year.
Betfair currently has him at about 2.5 to win in 2020. Given the risk of health problems or impeachment, that looks about right.
Most Labour seats voted Leave, it is about time Labour MPs respected their constituents views and voted for a Brexit Deal
Tell that to the ERG headbangers....
I still think we should at least consider the possibility that JRM is an EU plant.
The only reason I'm hesitating is I simply have trouble believing the EU is capable of pulling off a stroke of such brilliance.
Le Carre in NYT:
"Le Carré is furious that a similar “sleepwalk” of even more damaging proportions is being perpetrated with Brexit. “It began in the big landed houses of England ,” he says. “That’s where the Brexit fantasy, the nostalgia for the suspicion of your German and your Frenchman and those chaps who weren’t much use in the war, that’s where that was born.” "
Every single one of those three was born before the Soviet Union became a nuclear power.
Two of them were born during the Second World War.
That's how old they are.
Admittedly the fourth one is only slightly older than me, but...
It is an interesting contrast. We think of Corbyn as getting on a bit for a PM, but he’s a baby in US terms. And yet we used to do old PMs. Is it the need to be in Parliament and the fact that those who are going to make it to the top are going to do it younger, I wonder? Back in the day I guess it was usual for MPs to have had another career first, and be younger.
We haven't had too many PMs in their seventies. I think I'm right in saying there were three in the twentieth century - Salisbury, Chamberlain and Churchill. There were a few more in the nineteenth century, including Palmerston who was the only person to become PM for the first time when over 70.
Meanwhile, the USA have had three presidents only aged over 70 - Eisenhower, Reagan and Trump.
Changes in life expectancy over time surely imply that the age og 70 today is little different to being circa 60 back in the 1950s. When allowance is made for that , Corbyn is no older than Attlee and Macmillan - and a still a fair bit younger than Churchill and Chamberlain.
And to think I was shocked to find people drank Prosecco for Christmas lunch....
UK's best-selling albums (2000-2019) 1) Adele - 21 2) Amy Winehouse - Back To Black 3) Adele - 25 4) Ed Sheeran - x 5) Ed Sheeran - ÷ 6) James Blunt - Back To Bedlam 7) Leona Lewis - Spirit 8) Michael Buble - Crazy Love 9) Dido - No Angel 10) David Gray - White Ladder
Ed Sheeran appears in the top five twice too, while other artists in the top 20 include Coldplay, Kings of Leon, Lady Gaga and Scissor Sisters.
The really interesting thing is that the Prairie provinces and Québécois nationalists are trying to pull apart the unwritten parts of the Canadian constitutional settlement, basically around redistribution of resources and federal language policy. That particular result of seats would be almost intractable as one would need the support of either Conservatives or the Bloc. But a Conservative minority tolerated by the Bloc could work, at least in the sense of removing Trudeau and surviving.
Blanchet and Scheer can't stand each other so cannot see that happening
I see two men arguing, fairly mildly, over who is a stronger supporter of Legault (the CAQ premier of Québec) against Trudeau. The obvious answer is for the Bloc to throw out Trudeau but do nothing else to help Scheer.
I would suggest taking a look at the State election results today in Louisiana including the "jungle primary" for Governor before writing off Donald Trump.From what I am hearing based on early results the Democrats are not doing too well.
I don't think anyone is writing Trump off. He's the incumbent President. And incumbents tend to be reelected.
But we oughtn't to ignore his challenges too.
The rust belt is probably back in recession. And he needs to win the rust belt if he's going to be reelected.
His unfavourable numbers are terrible.
And Hillary won't be his opponent next year.
Betfair currently has him at about 2.5 to win in 2020. Given the risk of health problems or impeachment, that looks about right.
Could someone save me some time and tell me whether Johnson fans are still cock-a-hoop that this is all going to work - or not?
Anyone who says they know is whistling in the wind
No one has a clue at present, but lots of posturing
I prefer to wait and see how this next week pans out as it is reaches high noon next saturday
I know nobody knows. I'm just curious to know whether the Johnsonites are still feeling trumphalist.
It would be foolish for anyone to feel trumphalist or even triumphalist !!!!!
At the risk of repeating myself, I know it would be foolish, because no one knows what's going to happen.
But I am curious to know whether they are still that way.
Surely it's not that hard to understand!
No. I do understand your question but to be honest not sure any poster has been triumphalist but many hopes have been raised that a deal will emerge by the end of this next week
I would suggest taking a look at the State election results today in Louisiana including the "jungle primary" for Governor before writing off Donald Trump.From what I am hearing based on early results the Democrats are not doing too well.
I don't think anyone is writing Trump off. He's the incumbent President. And incumbents tend to be reelected.
But we oughtn't to ignore his challenges too.
The rust belt is probably back in recession. And he needs to win the rust belt if he's going to be reelected.
His unfavourable numbers are terrible.
And Hillary won't be his opponent next year.
Betfair currently has him at about 2.5 to win in 2020. Given the risk of health problems or impeachment, that looks about right.
I wouldn't trust most US polls .Their pro Democrat sampling is mad and they always swing back to correct their bias near election date. A lot of Democrats hate Pelosi and she is destroying their base and galvanising Republicans. There is a big swing to Trump amongst black voters whIch I think we may see evidenced in these Louisana results.
You are of course right about the rust belt states.Ohio looks safe for Trump though so he starts from a pretty strong position there.
How wrong were US polls in the midterms?
The only one I can think that was wildly wrong (R+1) was Rasmussen.
So I'm not sure the evidence backs up your assertion.
The really interesting thing is that the Prairie provinces and Québécois nationalists are trying to pull apart the unwritten parts of the Canadian constitutional settlement, basically around redistribution of resources and federal language policy. That particular result of seats would be almost intractable as one would need the support of either Conservatives or the Bloc. But a Conservative minority tolerated by the Bloc could work, at least in the sense of removing Trudeau and surviving.
Blanchet and Scheer can't stand each other so cannot see that happening
I see two men arguing, fairly mildly, over who is a stronger supporter of Legault (the CAQ premier of Québec) against Trudeau. The obvious answer is for the Bloc to throw out Trudeau but do nothing else to help Scheer.
I expect they would abstain at most which likely means Trudeau remains PM with NDP and Green support.
Of course Quebec plays a similar role in Canada as Scotland does in the UK, both elect plenty of nationalist MPs and without Quebec the Tories would tend to win majorities most of the time in Canada much as the Tories would win a majority most of the time in Britain if Scotland left the UK
Every single one of those three was born before the Soviet Union became a nuclear power.
Two of them were born during the Second World War.
That's how old they are.
Admittedly the fourth one is only slightly older than me, but...
It is an interesting contrast. We think of Corbyn as getting on a bit for a PM, but he’s a baby in US terms. And yet we used to do old PMs. Is it the need to be in Parliament and the fact that those who are going to make it to the top are going to do it younger, I wonder? Back in the day I guess it was usual for MPs to have had another career first, and be younger.
We haven't had too many PMs in their seventies. I think I'm right in saying there were three in the twentieth century - Salisbury, Chamberlain and Churchill. There were a few more in the nineteenth century, including Palmerston who was the only person to become PM for the first time when over 70.
Meanwhile, the USA have had three presidents only aged over 70 - Eisenhower, Reagan and Trump.
Changes in life expectancy over time surely imply that the age og 70 today is little different to being circa 60 back in the 1950s. When allowance is made for that , Corbyn is no older than Attlee and Macmillan - and a still a fair bit younger than Churchill and Chamberlain.
Has it occurred to you Justin that people living longer doesn't necessarily mean their metabolic rate has changed? It just means that common conditions that would have been fatal not that long ago - e.g. septicaemia, heart attacks, cancer - can now be cured.
While I appreciate there are many fit and active older people around now, that has always been true. Palmerston was perfectly mentally alert at 80 (Churchill was not, as it happens).
If you want to see what could be achieved by older people in former times, check out Patrick Curtis. Having forged a glittering career as Master of the Irish College in Spain, at the age of seventy he turned secret agent and was Wellington's most important spy in the Peninsular War. Aged 79 he became Archbishop of Armagh and was still very much in charge when he died of cholera aged 92.
But you also had elderly people - like Churchill, or Portland, to stick with the Napoleonic era - who just carried because they were too stubborn to admit they were past it.
Basically, your argument is hokum. Once people start getting beyond sixty their faculties are just as likely to fail as they ever were. The thing is they are now very much more likely to make it to sixty.
I'm starting to think Johnson intends to pivot to a second referendum. It was May's obvious way out at the beginning of the year, but she didn't have the political capital.
One of the most mystifying aspects of May's Premiership was her hostility to the notion of a second referendum. Apparently the suggestion was one of the few things that would make her angry.
Anybody know why? It always seemed to me one of the less disastrous outcomes, amogst the many.
She was probably of the view the first one has to enacted before going onto another.
As anyone who has an inch of democracy in them has to believe. You can't say a result will be implemented and then say it isn't enough after the side you dislike wins. Democracy requires being free and fair.
They have had 40 months to deliver the referendum result. It hasn't happened and maybe can’t what do you suggest. People go on about parliament telling us what they don’t want but what do people want? Don’t just say leave tell us how it can be done without fucking the UK
Who is this they? The people? We haven't even been consulted. If you want to know what type of leave they prefer, then offer a referendum with different kinds of leave having agreed all but no deal (to be included as a referendum option) with the EU in advance.
But don't include remain in your referendum options as that disrespects the first referendum result which the political class has yet to deliver upon despite the solemn promises on almost all sides to respect the result.
If you want the people to bear in mind P(UK fucked) under each scenario then no doubt you can provide analysis, but don't expect the people to take it any more seriously than the nonsense peddled by both sides in the referendum campaign.
I'm starting to think Johnson intends to pivot to a second referendum. It was May's obvious way out at the beginning of the year, but she didn't have the political capital.
One of the most mystifying aspects of May's Premiership was her hostility to the notion of a second referendum. Apparently the suggestion was one of the few things that would make her angry.
Anybody know why? It always seemed to me one of the less disastrous outcomes, amogst the many.
She was probably of the view the first one has to enacted before going onto another.
As anyone who has an inch of democracy in them has to believe. You can't say a result will be implemented and then say it isn't enough after the side you dislike wins. Democracy requires being free and fair.
They have had 40 months to deliver the referendum result. It hasn't happened and maybe can’t what do you suggest. People go on about parliament telling us what they don’t want but what do people want? Don’t just say leave tell us how it can be done without fucking the UK
Parliament have had plenty of opportunities to deliver Brexit but have not done so because MPs are more interested in their own.petty politicking. There are many forms of Brexit that are deliverable. The problem is not Brexit, it is the scumbag MPs on all sides.
That is too harsh on the MPs - the problem really stems from the fact the we had a referendum in which the narrowly winning option was not defined.
In those circumstances everyone was quite entitled to lobby and vote for the form of Brexit they preferred. There was no obligation on Labour or the No Dealers or EFTA fans to accept the Brexit Mrs May was offering. They could all argue that their preferred Brexit was just as legitimate.
If Brexit had been defined before the vote there would have been a clear obligation on Parliament to deliver that version. Tactically the leave campaigns maximised their chances of victory by pretending all Brexit options were on the table and have subsequently paid the price for doing that
I would suggest taking a look at the State election results today in Louisiana including the "jungle primary" for Governor before writing off Donald Trump.From what I am hearing based on early results the Democrats are not doing too well.
I don't think anyone is writing Trump off. He's the incumbent President. And incumbents tend to be reelected.
But we oughtn't to ignore his challenges too.
The rust belt is probably back in recession. And he needs to win the rust belt if he's going to be reelected.
His unfavourable numbers are terrible.
And Hillary won't be his opponent next year.
Betfair currently has him at about 2.5 to win in 2020. Given the risk of health problems or impeachment, that looks about right.
I wouldn't trust most US polls .Their pro Democrat sampling is mad and they always swing back to correct their bias near election date. A lot of Democrats hate Pelosi and she is destroying their base and galvanising Republicans. There is a big swing to Trump amongst black voters whIch I think we may see evidenced in these Louisana results.
You are of course right about the rust belt states.Ohio looks safe for Trump though so he starts from a pretty strong position there.
How wrong were US polls in the midterms?
The only one I can think that was wildly wrong (R+1) was Rasmussen.
So I'm not sure the evidence backs up your assertion.
Many of the State polls before the 2016 elections were terrible. Eg they were forecasting Democrat gains in Texas and Georgia which were never happening and calling Ohio a toss up and most missed the other rust belt moves to Trump.
lol - the end of the last thread and benefits! Ones attitude changes when either yourself or a member of your family or someone you know is ground down by it! Work does not help people with mental health problems in my experience. It can make things worse! A stupid political mantra that the useless David Cameron used to trumpet!
Indeed. Though very unfair for the majority of Lab members who are not anti-Semites.
That must be why Boris has not yet launched the inquiry into Conservative Islamophobia and racism, as I'm sure no Labour adverts will remind voters come the election.
Me too. As Paul Mason correctly says Brexit is a project of the racist and xenophobic right and for that reason Labour should have nothing to do with it.
Me too. As Paul Mason correctly says Brexit is a project of the racist and xenophobic right and for that reason Labour should have nothing to do with it.
The 'British Jobs For British Workers' Labour Party ?
Every single one of those three was born before the Soviet Union became a nuclear power.
Two of them were born during the Second World War.
That's how old they are.
Admittedly the fourth one is only slightly older than me, but...
It is an interesting contrast. We think of Corbyn as getting on a bit for a PM, but
Meanwhile, the USA have had three presidents only aged over 70 - Eisenhower, Reagan and Trump.
Changes in life expectancy over time surely imply that the age og 70 today is little different to being circa 60 back in the 1950s. When allowance is made for that , Corbyn is no older than Attlee and Macmillan - and a still a fair bit younger than Churchill and Chamberlain.
Has it occurred to you Justin that people living longer doesn't necessarily mean their metabolic rate has changed? It just means that common conditions that would have been fatal not that long ago - e.g. septicaemia, heart attacks, cancer - can now be cured.
While I appreciate there are many fit and active older people around now, that has always been true. Palmerston was perfectly mentally alert at 80 (Churchill was not, as it happens).
If you want to see what could be achieved by older people in former times, check out Patrick Curtis. Having forged a glittering career as Master of the Irish College in Spain, at the age of seventy he turned secret agent and was Wellington's most important spy in the Peninsular War. Aged 79 he became Archbishop of Armagh and was still very much in charge when he died of cholera aged 92.
But you also had elderly people - like Churchill, or Portland, to stick with the Napoleonic era - who just carried because they were too stubborn to admit they were past it.
Basically, your argument is hokum. Once people start getting beyond sixty their faculties are just as likely to fail as they ever were. The thing is they are now very much more likely to make it to sixty.
I don't quite agree. I recall seeing Attlee on the 1964 election results programme. He was 81 and appeared so very frail - far more so than the likes of Heseltine and Hattersley today who are both in their late 80s and clearly in full command of their faculties - prima facie coping with the pressures of interviews etc every bit as effectively as they were able to do 30 years ago.
I would suggest taking a look at the State election results today in Louisiana including the "jungle primary" for Governor before writing off Donald Trump.From what I am hearing based on early results the Democrats are not doing too well.
I don't think anyone is writing Trump off. He's the incumbent President. And incumbents tend to be reelected.
But we oughtn't to ignore his challenges too.
The rust belt is probably back in recession. And he needs to win the rust belt if he's going to be reelected.
His unfavourable numbers are terrible.
And Hillary won't be his opponent next year.
Betfair currently has him at about 2.5 to win in 2020. Given the risk of health problems or impeachment, that looks about right.
That focuses on just approval, ignoring disapproval which is rather worse for Trump. Net approval takes into account both, so let's focus on that, using the 538 averages of all polls.
1. Trump's current net (dis)approval rating of -11.6 is significantly worse than any of the 9 presidents who got re-elected at a similar point before their re-election, including Obama who was the next closest of those 9 at this point. 2. Trump's current net rating is also worse than 2 of the 3 presidents who failed to get re-elected, all of whom lost heavily, so no comfort for him there. 3. Trump's net rating is also much the least volatile of any president, which means that people have very fixed views of him and are less likely to change their minds. The opportunity for him to turnaround his dismal rating is therefore also less. i.e. he may have a loyal minority base, but the majority of people gave up on him at the start of his presidency and have remained fixed in their utter contempt for him since. He's basically Marmite, and most don't like his version of Marmite.
As for Obama, this point in his presidency with a net rating of -6.7 just happened to be the abolute nadir in his net approval rating, after a steady decline to that point, followed by a steady recovery afterwards.
Indeed. Though very unfair for the majority of Lab members who are not anti-Semites.
That must be why Boris has not yet launched the inquiry into Conservative Islamophobia and racism, as I'm sure no Labour adverts will remind voters come the election.
It's remarkable the number of people on here who will rightly criticise Labour for its racism problems who will cheerlead vociferously for Boris Johnson. It's an unfillable chasm of hypocrisy.
The Scottish Government produced a Brexit Vulnerability Map this week. A posh residential datazone (now they have knocked down the school that was featured in Waterloo Road) near me with no industry is rated in the top 10% most vulnerable, whereas a nearby one with one of the biggest container ports in Scotland is in the 20% to 30% most vulnerable range. A pointless exercise?
Hmmm...will anyone take bets on how long it takes Facebook to ban her, her ads and her pet tortoise Alan?
Facebook's willingness to take any adverts (and the same is true of other platforms) is welcomed by our own political parties of whatever colour. The Conservatives were first to use this route past the restrictions on political advertising but Labour and the rest have caught up.
In 2010 we had spent £150,000 on all online campaigning, whereas in 2015 we spent £1.2 million on Facebook alone. -- David Cameron, For the Record.
It could be any number of people and groups. Nothing had really changed, we just moved further along the cycle, and now are returning to the 'it won't work' stage.
A deal means a technical extension to ratify it and no election till 2020. It sounds like No 10 is trying to blame Remainers for Boris' deal meaning Boris' deadline is broken.
So all the stuff about just wanting to avoid No Deal is bullshit after all? They just want to overturn the vote.
There are people who want to avoid no deal so badly they will take any action to avoid it. Those people voted for a deal, since that is clearly one way to avoid no deal, indeed the easiest way. So anyone who has voted for at least some kind of deal is capable of considering other options, even if they are now seeking to overturn the vote.
Me too. As Paul Mason correctly says Brexit is a project of the racist and xenophobic right and for that reason Labour should have nothing to do with it.
Why have they spent years saying they would pursue their own kind of Brexit then? You make no sense.
Me too. As Paul Mason correctly says Brexit is a project of the racist and xenophobic right and for that reason Labour should have nothing to do with it.
I cannot go as far as that - having voted Leave myself - but to acquiesce in the Hard Brexit terms contemplated by Johnson would not be compatible with the political outlook of those who claim to belong to the left of centre in our society.
Sounds as though dear Mr Mason is getting slightly worried.
Only if one subscribes to the view that people will only respond strongly if they fear something. I suspect plenty of people have always thought any Labour MP who backs a Tory deal should be kicked out, and thought that even when there was no prospect of a deal being approved (not that there is much hope of that now either, but we are in a brief hopeful pocket for the government).
Indeed. Though very unfair for the majority of Lab members who are not anti-Semites.
That must be why Boris has not yet launched the inquiry into Conservative Islamophobia and racism, as I'm sure no Labour adverts will remind voters come the election.
It's remarkable the number of people on here who will rightly criticise Labour for its racism problems who will cheerlead vociferously for Boris Johnson. It's an unfillable chasm of hypocrisy.
the thing is, Labour antisemitism is an objective fact recognised by everyone in the world, starting with Jeremy Corbyn, whereas Conservative islamophobia is pretty much unheard of except in the context of feeble tit for tat false equivalences.
Me too. As Paul Mason correctly says Brexit is a project of the racist and xenophobic right and for that reason Labour should have nothing to do with it.
I cannot go as far as that - having voted Leave myself - but to acquiesce in the Hard Brexit terms contemplated by Johnson would not be compatible with the political outlook of those who claim to belong to the left of centre in our society.
Nope, Roger and Paul Mason have spoken, you are a member of the racist and xenophobic right, congratulations. It will probably be a shock to you, being a committed member of the left, so it will take time to adjust.
Me too. As Paul Mason correctly says Brexit is a project of the racist and xenophobic right and for that reason Labour should have nothing to do with it.
Why have they spent years saying they would pursue their own kind of Brexit then? You make no sense.
Currying favour with the voters. Doesn't seem to have worked out well for them though.
So all the stuff about just wanting to avoid No Deal is bullshit after all? They just want to overturn the vote.
The Benn Act was another example. They knew full well that they were making it harder for Johnson to get a deal that might get through the HoC by removing his leverage. It didn't matter because they didn't want any deal worthy of the name of Brexit to get through, whatever lip service they may have given to respecting the result of the referendum in 2016.
And others were overtly working to overturn the result from the very start.
Why do people assume the investigation will return an outcome so bad that they face such a risk?
If even a tenth of what's been alleged is true the Labour Party is guilty of direct and indirect discrimination against a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act. If that's true the victims will take them to the cleaners and the legal expenses will be enormous. The Unions won't let them go bankrupt but it could be crippling.
Me too. As Paul Mason correctly says Brexit is a project of the racist and xenophobic right and for that reason Labour should have nothing to do with it.
I cannot go as far as that - having voted Leave myself - but to acquiesce in the Hard Brexit terms contemplated by Johnson would not be compatible with the political outlook of those who claim to belong to the left of centre in our society.
Nope, Roger and Paul Mason have spoken, you are a member of the racist and xenophobic right, congratulations. It will probably be a shock to you, being a committed member of the left, so it will take time to adjust.
I would be surprised if Paul Mason holds such a view of - Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Barbara Castle, Peter Shore, John Silkin and Judith Hart!
Indeed. Though very unfair for the majority of Lab members who are not anti-Semites.
That must be why Boris has not yet launched the inquiry into Conservative Islamophobia and racism, as I'm sure no Labour adverts will remind voters come the election.
It's remarkable the number of people on here who will rightly criticise Labour for its racism problems who will cheerlead vociferously for Boris Johnson. It's an unfillable chasm of hypocrisy.
the thing is, Labour antisemitism is an objective fact recognised by everyone in the world, starting with Jeremy Corbyn, whereas Conservative islamophobia is pretty much unheard of except in the context of feeble tit for tat false equivalences.
You seem awfully confident of that - we might need to check back in a couple of years to be sure.
Good point on the Klobuchar interview. Tailoring it a bit, one thing that drives Trump isn’t Trump - and won’t inhibit him no matter how bad or mad he gets - it’s that obsessive identity politics is utterly repellent to so many people not already on the Democratic side of the ticket that they’ll vote for anyone who fights it no matter what their methods.
A very smart Democratic contender would lead their side to hugely tone it down, and moderate the language and the rhetoric, and only then would I expect a surge of soft Republican votes to come their way.
But, I doubt that’ll ever happen.
"Obsessive identify politics". The entire southern evangelical movement is based around segregation and racism. It is the ur-identity politics.
Both extreme sides fuel the other, and alienate those in the middle.
A smart and brave leader would realise this.
We're literally talking about people who teach that there were good things about slavery. Who think the confederate were the heroes. Who think whites shouldn't marry black people.
Dems are not going to get those votes as Dems treat the African American portion of the population is actual human beings with rights.
Me too. As Paul Mason correctly says Brexit is a project of the racist and xenophobic right and for that reason Labour should have nothing to do with it.
I cannot go as far as that - having voted Leave myself - but to acquiesce in the Hard Brexit terms contemplated by Johnson would not be compatible with the political outlook of those who claim to belong to the left of centre in our society.
Nope, Roger and Paul Mason have spoken, you are a member of the racist and xenophobic right, congratulations. It will probably be a shock to you, being a committed member of the left, so it will take time to adjust.
I would be surprised if Paul Mason holds such a view of - Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Barbara Castle, Peter Shore, John Silkin and Judith Hart!
Well in fairness it was Roger who claimed Paul Mason said Brexit itself was a project of the racist and xenophobic right, it may be that he was more nuanced and meant sub optimal Brexits only.
Me too. As Paul Mason correctly says Brexit is a project of the racist and xenophobic right and for that reason Labour should have nothing to do with it.
I cannot go as far as that - having voted Leave myself - but to acquiesce in the Hard Brexit terms contemplated by Johnson would not be compatible with the political outlook of those who claim to belong to the left of centre in our society.
Nope, Roger and Paul Mason have spoken, you are a member of the racist and xenophobic right, congratulations. It will probably be a shock to you, being a committed member of the left, so it will take time to adjust.
I would be surprised if Paul Mason holds such a view of - Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Barbara Castle, Peter Shore, John Silkin and Judith Hart!
Well in fairness it was Roger who claimed Paul Mason said Brexit itself was a project of the racist and xenophobic right, it may be that he was more nuanced and meant sub optimal Brexits only.
"Labour’s narrative has to be built around resistance to Brexit as a project of the racist and xenophobic right, and a story of communities revived by hope and solidarity."
I'm starting to think Johnson intends to pivot to a second referendum. It was May's obvious way out at the beginning of the year, but she didn't have the political capital.
One of the most mystifying aspects of May's Premiership was her hostility to the notion of a second referendum. Apparently the suggestion was one of the few things that would make her angry.
Anybody know why? It always seemed to me one of the less disastrous outcomes, amogst the many.
She was probably of the view the first one has to enacted before going onto another.
If she was confident of winning such a concern would have evaporated, the same way concerns about a GE evaporated when she thought she would win.
I suppose she could have held a referendum on her deal (Yes or No) without defining what would happen should she lose. But would there have been the votes in parliament for that?
No. Any confirmatory referendum would have to have a definite course of action for both options.
Incidentally, there is another problem. Her party would probably be quite happy with 'Deal or No Deal' but Parliament would insist on 'Deal or Revoke,' which would certainly be unacceptable to the grassroots.
And corrosive to democracy
Well, all paths now are corrosive to democracy. But in any case, that would I fear bother a party leader less than splits within their own party.
I think you're arguing for what you (and I) would like. We'd both like a free trade, centrist Democrat, who believed in NATO and the Western Alliance.
We'd like someone like Klobachar or Buttigieg.
But the issue with the US last time around was not really that Trump won over Democrats in the Mid-West. The issue was that Democrats didn't come out to vote.
Take Wisconsin. President Trump unexpected won it.
But he got fewer votes than Romney! Think about that for a second. Romney is derided by many on here as a terrible candidate. But he got more votes than Trump in Wisconsin, despite the US having actually grown its voting age population meaningfully between 2012 and 2016.
Hillary Clinton was a truly appalling candidate. And what the Democratic candidate needs to do is to persuade their supporters to come out and vote. So maybe a bit of appeal to the base matters.
Abso-friggin-lutely.
People on here actually need to understand what happened in 2016 before they start making pronouncements about 2020.
Dem voters stayed home. Especially Black Dem voters. A decent chunk of potential Republican voters voted 3rd party.
Impeaching Trump is a popular idea.
Trump won the rust belt on tiny increases in the Republican vote and giant decreases in the Dem vote.
A non Trump candidate would have annihilated Clinton in the rust belt as the same Dem voters staying home effect would have happened but 3rd party voters would have voted for the generic Republican.
I think you're arguing for what you (and I) would like. We'd both like a free trade, centrist Democrat, who believed in NATO and the Western Alliance.
We'd like someone like Klobachar or Buttigieg.
But the issue with the US last time around was not really that Trump won over Democrats in the Mid-West. The issue was that Democrats didn't come out to vote.
Take Wisconsin. President Trump unexpected won it.
But he got fewer votes than Romney! Think about that for a second. Romney is derided by many on here as a terrible candidate. But he got more votes than Trump in Wisconsin, despite the US having actually grown its voting age population meaningfully between 2012 and 2016.
Hillary Clinton was a truly appalling candidate. And what the Democratic candidate needs to do is to persuade their supporters to come out and vote. So maybe a bit of appeal to the base matters.
Abso-friggin-lutely.
People on here actually need to understand what happened in 2016 before they start making pronouncements about 2020.
Understanding something before I make a pronouncement is against my religion.
Me too. As Paul Mason correctly says Brexit is a project of the racist and xenophobic right and for that reason Labour should have nothing to do with it.
I cannot go as far as that - having voted Leave myself - but to acquiesce in the Hard Brexit terms contemplated by Johnson would not be compatible with the political outlook of those who claim to belong to the left of centre in our society.
Nope, Roger and Paul Mason have spoken, you are a member of the racist and xenophobic right, congratulations. It will probably be a shock to you, being a committed member of the left, so it will take time to adjust.
I would be surprised if Paul Mason holds such a view of - Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Barbara Castle, Peter Shore, John Silkin and Judith Hart!
Well in fairness it was Roger who claimed Paul Mason said Brexit itself was a project of the racist and xenophobic right, it may be that he was more nuanced and meant sub optimal Brexits only.
"Labour’s narrative has to be built around resistance to Brexit as a project of the racist and xenophobic right, and a story of communities revived by hope and solidarity."
I would suggest taking a look at the State election results today in Louisiana including the "jungle primary" for Governor before writing off Donald Trump.From what I am hearing based on early results the Democrats are not doing too well.
I don't think anyone is writing Trump off. He's the incumbent President. And incumbents tend to be reelected.
But we oughtn't to ignore his challenges too.
The rust belt is probably back in recession. And he needs to win the rust belt if he's going to be reelected.
His unfavourable numbers are terrible.
And Hillary won't be his opponent next year.
Betfair currently has him at about 2.5 to win in 2020. Given the risk of health problems or impeachment, that looks about right.
That focuses on just approval, ignoring disapproval which is rather worse for Trump. Net approval takes into account both, so let's focus on that, using the 538 averages of all polls.
1. Trump's current net (dis)approval rating of -11.6 is significantly worse than any of the 9 presidents who got re-elected at a similar point before their re-election, including Obama who was the next closest of those 9 at this point. 2. Trump's current net rating is also worse than 2 of the 3 presidents who failed to get re-elected, all of whom lost heavily, so no comfort for him there. 3. Trump's net rating is also much the least volatile of any president, which means that people have very fixed views of him and are less likely to change their minds. The opportunity for him to turnaround his dismal rating is therefore also less. i.e. he may have a loyal minority base, but the majority of people gave up on him at the start of his presidency and have remained fixed in their utter contempt for him since. He's basically Marmite, and most don't like his version of Marmite.
As for Obama, this point in his presidency with a net rating of -6.7 just happened to be the abolute nadir in his net approval rating, after a steady decline to that point, followed by a steady recovery afterwards.
Except US Preaidential elections are won by candidates American voters want to vote for not candidates whose voters are mainly voting against the incumbent president.
I think you're arguing for what you (and I) would like. We'd both like a free trade, centrist Democrat, who believed in NATO and the Western Alliance.
We'd like someone like Klobachar or Buttigieg.
But the issue with the US last time around was not really that Trump won over Democrats in the Mid-West. The issue was that Democrats didn't come out to vote.
Take Wisconsin. President Trump unexpected won it.
But he got fewer votes than Romney! Think about that for a second. Romney is derided by many on here as a terrible candidate. But he got more votes than Trump in Wisconsin, despite the US having actually grown its voting age population meaningfully between 2012 and 2016.
Hillary Clinton was a truly appalling candidate. And what the Democratic candidate needs to do is to persuade their supporters to come out and vote. So maybe a bit of appeal to the base matters.
Abso-friggin-lutely.
People on here actually need to understand what happened in 2016 before they start making pronouncements about 2020.
Dem voters stayed home. Especially Black Dem voters. A decent chunk of potential Republican voters voted 3rd party.
Impeaching Trump is a popular idea.
Trump won the rust belt on tiny increases in the Republican vote and giant decreases in the Dem vote.
A non Trump candidate would have annihilated Clinton in the rust belt as the same Dem voters staying home effect would have happened but 3rd party voters would have voted for the generic Republican.
Trump got more votes than Romney in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida
Good point on the Klobuchar interview. Tailoring it a bit, one thing that drives Trump isn’t Trump - and won’t inhibit him no matter how bad or mad he gets - it’s that obsessive identity politics is utterly repellent to so many people not already on the Democratic side of the ticket that they’ll vote for anyone who fights it no matter what their methods.
A very smart Democratic contender would lead their side to hugely tone it down, and moderate the language and the rhetoric, and only then would I expect a surge of soft Republican votes to come their way.
But, I doubt that’ll ever happen.
"Obsessive identify politics". The entire southern evangelical movement is based around segregation and racism. It is the ur-identity politics.
Both extreme sides fuel the other, and alienate those in the middle.
A smart and brave leader would realise this.
We're literally talking about people who teach that there were good things about slavery. Who think the confederate were the heroes. Who think whites shouldn't marry black people.
Dems are not going to get those votes as Dems treat the African American portion of the population is actual human beings with rights.
I would suggest taking a look at the State election results today in Louisiana including the "jungle primary" for Governor before writing off Donald Trump.From what I am hearing based on early results the Democrats are not doing too well.
I don't think anyone is writing Trump off. He's the incumbent President. And incumbents tend to be reelected.
But we oughtn't to ignore his challenges too.
The rust belt is probably back in recession. And he needs to win the rust belt if he's going to be reelected.
His unfavourable numbers are terrible.
And Hillary won't be his opponent next year.
Betfair currently has him at about 2.5 to win in 2020. Given the risk of health problems or impeachment, that looks about right.
That focuses on just approval, ignoring disapproval which is rather worse for Trump. Net approval takes into account both, so let's focus on that, using the 538 averages of all polls.
1. Trump's current net (dis)approval rating of -11.6 is significantly worse than any of the 9 presidents who got re-elected at a similar point before their re-election, including Obama who was the next closest of those 9 at this point. 2. Trump's current net rating is also worse than 2 of the 3 presidents who failed to get re-elected, all of whom lost heavily, so no comfort for him there. 3. Trump's net rating is also much the least volatile of any president, which means that people have very fixed views of him and are less likely to change their minds. The opportunity for him to turnaround his dismal rating is therefore also less. i.e. he may have a loyal minority base, but the majority of people gave up on him at the start of his presidency and have remained fixed in their utter contempt for him since. He's basically Marmite, and most don't like his version of Marmite.
As for Obama, this point in his presidency with a net rating of -6.7 just happened to be the abolute nadir in his net approval rating, after a steady decline to that point, followed by a steady recovery afterwards.
Except US Preaidential elections are won by candidates American voters want to vote for not candidates whose voters are mainly voting against the incumbent president.
Forgive me for thinking that by your posting something on Trump's own approval ratings you considered those to be relevant to his chances.
Your point now is a completely different one. Since you are trying to shift the argument rather than engage in my points, then I'm not going to waste my time with you further. Goodnight.
I think you're arguing for what you (and I) would like. We'd both like a free trade, centrist Democrat, who believed in NATO and the Western Alliance.
We'd like someone like Klobachar or Buttigieg.
But the issue with the US last time around was not really that Trump won over Democrats in the Mid-West. The issue was that Democrats didn't come out to vote.
Take Wisconsin. President Trump unexpected won it.
But he got fewer votes than Romney! Think about that for a second. Romney is derided by many on here as a terrible candidate. But he got more votes than Trump in Wisconsin, despite the US having actually grown its voting age population meaningfully between 2012 and 2016.
Hillary Clinton was a truly appalling candidate. And what the Democratic candidate needs to do is to persuade their supporters to come out and vote. So maybe a bit of appeal to the base matters.
Abso-friggin-lutely.
People on here actually need to understand what happened in 2016 before they start making pronouncements about 2020.
Dem voters stayed home. Especially Black Dem voters. A decent chunk of potential Republican voters voted 3rd party.
Impeaching Trump is a popular idea.
Trump won the rust belt on tiny increases in the Republican vote and giant decreases in the Dem vote.
A non Trump candidate would have annihilated Clinton in the rust belt as the same Dem voters staying home effect would have happened but 3rd party voters would have voted for the generic Republican.
Trump got more votes than Romney in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida
As a proportion of voters, he got almost 4% less than Romney. Don't forget the number of voting aged Americans increased.
Yep, predictable and the reason why i treated the optimism of a breakthrough yesterday with derision. I still think an extension is likley before the end of the month!
Why not just have a UK wide customs union? Dodds is right on this.
I think you're arguing for what you (and I) would like. We'd both like a free trade, centrist Democrat, who believed in NATO and the Western Alliance.
We'd like someone like Klobachar or Buttigieg.
But the issue with the US last time around was not really that Trump won over Democrats in the Mid-West. The issue was that Democrats didn't come out to vote.
Take Wisconsin. President Trump unexpected won it.
But he got fewer votes than Romney! Think about that for a second. Romney is derided by many on here as a terrible candidate. But he got more votes than Trump in Wisconsin, despite the US having actually grown its voting age population meaningfully between 2012 and 2016.
Hillary Clinton was a truly appalling candidate. And what the Democratic candidate needs to do is to persuade their supporters to come out and vote. So maybe a bit of appeal to the base matters.
Abso-friggin-lutely.
People on here actually need to understand what happened in 2016 before they start making pronouncements about 2020.
Dem voters stayed home. Especially Black Dem voters. A decent chunk of potential Republican voters voted 3rd party.
Impeaching Trump is a popular idea.
Trump won the rust belt on tiny increases in the Republican vote and giant decreases in the Dem vote.
A non Trump candidate would have annihilated Clinton in the rust belt as the same Dem voters staying home effect would have happened but 3rd party voters would have voted for the generic Republican.
Trump got more votes than Romney in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida
Hillary got more votes than Trump right across America.
Yep, predictable and the reason why i treated the optimism of a breakthrough yesterday with derision. I still think an extension is likley before the end of the month!
Why not just have a UK wide customs union? Dodds is right on this.
Go EEA. See if EFTA will allow a special fast track application and bend the rules so that EU membership is not an issue. Then set it all up so that we leave the EU on (say) 31st May and on 1st June we are in EEA.
It cannot happen under the current rules, but with pressure and persausion from the UK and EU, maybe the rules can be bent?
Unless there is something I don't know about that 1/2 looks like free money.
Think that's Benyon's seat. He wants to be back in Conservative fold but I suppose he could stand as an Indie and upset the maths somewhat.
I also think their logic is any seat where the LDs got 20%+ and a 2nd place in 2017 is a viable target seat. They are polling triple what they got nationally and are the big wildcards. It could be a damp squib, but if the LDs do make 50 gains (as some models project) this sort of seat could be one, albeit only a 51:49 referendum vote so not ideal territory.
Comments
"Le Carré is furious that a similar “sleepwalk” of even more damaging proportions is being perpetrated with Brexit. “It began in the big landed houses of England ,” he says. “That’s where the Brexit fantasy, the nostalgia for the suspicion of your German and your Frenchman and those chaps who weren’t much use in the war, that’s where that was born.” "
https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1183103303208652802?s=20
https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1183028674569703426?s=20
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-bankruptcy-antisemitism-investigation-corbyn-executive-a9153561.html
But I am curious to know whether they are still that way.
Surely it's not that hard to understand!
The only one I can think that was wildly wrong (R+1) was Rasmussen.
So I'm not sure the evidence backs up your assertion.
Of course Quebec plays a similar role in Canada as Scotland does in the UK, both elect plenty of nationalist MPs and without Quebec the Tories would tend to win majorities most of the time in Canada much as the Tories would win a majority most of the time in Britain if Scotland left the UK
While I appreciate there are many fit and active older people around now, that has always been true. Palmerston was perfectly mentally alert at 80 (Churchill was not, as it happens).
If you want to see what could be achieved by older people in former times, check out Patrick Curtis. Having forged a glittering career as Master of the Irish College in Spain, at the age of seventy he turned secret agent and was Wellington's most important spy in the Peninsular War. Aged 79 he became Archbishop of Armagh and was still very much in charge when he died of cholera aged 92.
But you also had elderly people - like Churchill, or Portland, to stick with the Napoleonic era - who just carried because they were too stubborn to admit they were past it.
Basically, your argument is hokum. Once people start getting beyond sixty their faculties are just as likely to fail as they ever were. The thing is they are now very much more likely to make it to sixty.
But don't include remain in your referendum options as that disrespects the first referendum result which the political class has yet to deliver upon despite the solemn promises on almost all sides to respect the result.
If you want the people to bear in mind P(UK fucked) under each scenario then no doubt you can provide analysis, but don't expect the people to take it any more seriously than the nonsense peddled by both sides in the referendum campaign.
https://nypost.com/2019/10/11/elizabeth-warrens-way-of-winning-2020-nomination-risks-re-electing-trump/
Playing right into Trump's hands.
In those circumstances everyone was quite entitled to lobby and vote for the form of Brexit they preferred. There was no obligation on Labour or the No Dealers or EFTA fans to accept the Brexit Mrs May was offering. They could all argue that their preferred Brexit was just as legitimate.
If Brexit had been defined before the vote there would have been a clear obligation on Parliament to deliver that version. Tactically the leave campaigns maximised their chances of victory by pretending all Brexit options were on the table and have subsequently paid the price for doing that
https://twitter.com/HamishH1931/status/1182650932296851458?s=20
2019: "interminable nightmare"
Brexit has failed on its own terms.
1. Trump's current net (dis)approval rating of -11.6 is significantly worse than any of the 9 presidents who got re-elected at a similar point before their re-election, including Obama who was the next closest of those 9 at this point.
2. Trump's current net rating is also worse than 2 of the 3 presidents who failed to get re-elected, all of whom lost heavily, so no comfort for him there.
3. Trump's net rating is also much the least volatile of any president, which means that people have very fixed views of him and are less likely to change their minds. The opportunity for him to turnaround his dismal rating is therefore also less. i.e. he may have a loyal minority base, but the majority of people gave up on him at the start of his presidency and have remained fixed in their utter contempt for him since. He's basically Marmite, and most don't like his version of Marmite.
As for Obama, this point in his presidency with a net rating of -6.7 just happened to be the abolute nadir in his net approval rating, after a steady decline to that point, followed by a steady recovery afterwards.
http://scotgov.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/35590be803944353a244cccd0d8f78e0
In 2010 we had spent £150,000 on all online campaigning, whereas in 2015 we spent £1.2 million on Facebook alone. -- David Cameron, For the Record.
Have the Ground Game
Lead in Early Primary States
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/12/us/politics/democratic-candidates-campaigns.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
And others were overtly working to overturn the result from the very start.
https://unherd.com/2019/10/how-tony-blair-destroyed-the-centre-ground/
Dems are not going to get those votes as Dems treat the African American portion of the population is actual human beings with rights.
Ladbrokes have the Conservatives 1/2 to win Newbury constituency:
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/uk/uk-politics/general-election-constituency-betting/227804290/
In 2017 the Conservative majority in Newbury was 24,380:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbury_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Unless there is something I don't know about that 1/2 looks like free money.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/27/corbynism-crisis-oppose-brexit-jeremy-corbyn-labour
People on here actually need to understand what happened in 2016 before they start making pronouncements about 2020.
Dem voters stayed home.
Especially Black Dem voters.
A decent chunk of potential Republican voters voted 3rd party.
Impeaching Trump is a popular idea.
Trump won the rust belt on tiny increases in the Republican vote and giant decreases in the Dem vote.
A non Trump candidate would have annihilated Clinton in the rust belt as the same Dem voters staying home effect would have happened but 3rd party voters would have voted for the generic Republican.
For the same reason, ERG MPs are safe enough. They would have the option of the Brexit party if Number 10 tries to enforce discipline on them too.
Ask 'President' Romney, 'President' Kerry, 'President' McGovern etc
Thursday: "Boris has a deal!"
Saturday: "The Benn Act has prevented Boris getting a deal!"
I don't mind the Brexist frothers being in cloud cuckoo land, I just wish I couldn't hear them all the way down here.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1189701/brexit-latest-news-boris-johnson-conservative-tory-majority-election-poll-labour
Maybe a Sunday Times YouGov to come?
Your point now is a completely different one. Since you are trying to shift the argument rather than engage in my points, then I'm not going to waste my time with you further. Goodnight.
The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) currently hold thousands of suspected IS prisoners.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50029540
Well done Donald you absolute tool.
Anne Sacoolas, the wife of a US diplomat, returned to the States after she was involved in a crash that killed a teenager."
https://news.sky.com/story/diplomats-wife-devastated-and-wants-to-meet-harry-dunns-parents-11833917
It cannot happen under the current rules, but with pressure and persausion from the UK and EU, maybe the rules can be bent?