What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
The erosion of our democracy that Johnson/Cummings clearly plan is a test for the credentials of all genuine Conservatives, if there are any left.
Any cabinet minister with designs on picking up the pieces after BoZo would do well to resign today
This is exactly what I'd be doing if I was, say, Gavin Williamson. I'd be resigning and then making a very high minded and dignified speech from the backbenches saying that with great sadness I had concluded that the small cabal of populist fanatics currently running the government, aided and abetted by their mascot "Boris" Johnson, were in the process of not only destroying British democracy itself but destroying something far more precious than that - the Conservative Party.
Then wait.
"High minded" "dignified"...Williamson. I think I may have spotted why it hasn't happened.
- Ok, Grant Shapps then.
Sunak. If he has the balls.
Also avoids the fall out of having to cut spending/raise taxes etc.
Go on, Rishi. Do it. It would be such fun. We haven’t had a proper Chancellor resignation - and accompanying speech - for ages. (Javid’s rather colourless one doesn’t count.)
He is the best thing about this government, better for the public to have him inside. And to be honest, its better for his career prospects too, sitting chancellors have a decent chance of taking over PM roles when the governing party has a good majority.
If Rishi resigns than Javid is no longer yesterday's man so Javid becomes competition in the battle as to who will next be PM. So Rishi needs to stay but this is a mess of Boris's making that is going to make this week's PMQs even more painful for Boris than last week's were.
We can argue Labour has moved away from representing the poor as well (good grounds to agree) but it is wrong to say the Tories are the party of anyone but the rich
Are you 13?
The Tories exist for people who work for their own money.
They don't represent me - and I work for my own money
I wonder if that is that another deadweight Remoaner being cleared out?
Appointed while that totally impartial individual Dominic Grieve was Attorney General I see.
Why do you find it so difficult to understand the concept that a legal officer would have difficulty with the Government ignoring the law? Some on the Leave side would do well to remember the mess the Government got itself into last time it tried to interpret the law against its own legal advice.
Because that's where populism gets you.
If there is a conflict between what the law allows and what the will of the people (embodied in the current government) demands, the law must be wrong.
An attractive doctrine if you are in power and can't imagine ever being out of power. Otherwise, madness.
If the law is wrong then if only an institution existed with the power to change the law.
As we said yesterday, the law is not wrong. This is exactly the same law as maintains our trading agreements with nations all around the world, our membership of NATO and the UN and our control of Gibraltar and the Falklands. The trouble is the Government wants to both scrap the law where they object to it and keep the same laws where they are in our favour.
In the words of 'Show of Hands' they are suffering from Ignorance, Arrogance and Greed.
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Parliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
We can argue Labour has moved away from representing the poor as well (good grounds to agree) but it is wrong to say the Tories are the party of anyone but the rich
Are you 13?
The Tories exist for people who work for their own money.
I wonder if that is that another deadweight Remoaner being cleared out?
Appointed while that totally impartial individual Dominic Grieve was Attorney General I see.
Why do you find it so difficult to understand the concept that a legal officer would have difficulty with the Government ignoring the law? Some on the Leave side would do well to remember the mess the Government got itself into last time it tried to interpret the law against its own legal advice.
Because that's where populism gets you.
If there is a conflict between what the law allows and what the will of the people (embodied in the current government) demands, the law must be wrong.
An attractive doctrine if you are in power and can't imagine ever being out of power. Otherwise, madness.
If the law is wrong then if only an institution existed with the power to change the law.
The law we are talking about (as was pointed out yesterday to me ) wasn't voted for in the last Parliament but was in fact the very first thing this Parliament voted on.
Now it's fine to say that no Parliament binds it's successor, it's another entirely to say you know the law we enacted 6 months ago well we didn't mean it.
We can argue Labour has moved away from representing the poor as well (good grounds to agree) but it is wrong to say the Tories are the party of anyone but the rich
The Conservtive Party exists for those that are ideologically conservative. Personal wealth shouldn`t come in to it. The fact is that the Labour Party relies on votes from conservatives. Blair managed it, Starmer may also - not sure yet.
The current Tory Party abandoned any semblance of Conservatism in favour of right-wing nutty populism.
You're right about Labour needing to reach out - and I agree that Labour has lost its working class roots
The erosion of our democracy that Johnson/Cummings clearly plan is a test for the credentials of all genuine Conservatives, if there are any left.
Any cabinet minister with designs on picking up the pieces after BoZo would do well to resign today
This is exactly what I'd be doing if I was, say, Gavin Williamson. I'd be resigning and then making a very high minded and dignified speech from the backbenches saying that with great sadness I had concluded that the small cabal of populist fanatics currently running the government, aided and abetted by their mascot "Boris" Johnson, were in the process of not only destroying British democracy itself but destroying something far more precious than that - the Conservative Party.
Then wait.
"High minded" "dignified"...Williamson. I think I may have spotted why it hasn't happened.
- Ok, Grant Shapps then.
Sunak. If he has the balls.
Also avoids the fall out of having to cut spending/raise taxes etc.
Go on, Rishi. Do it. It would be such fun. We haven’t had a proper Chancellor resignation - and accompanying speech - for ages. (Javid’s rather colourless one doesn’t count.)
The trouble is that Rishi is ambitious. Whoever takes over now would be playing a Hail Mary pass; probably three years of misery sorting out the mess, being accused of stabbing poor brave Boris in the back, going down to an almost inevitable defeat in 2024. Rishi doesn't want that for himself, and I'm not sure I want that for him.
An immediate Boris successor would have to be someone with clean hands, nothing to prove, nothing to lose and a sense of duty to match BoJo's sense of entitlement.
Cometh the hour, cometh the kitten heels... (And yes, that's a stupid conclusion. Got a better one?)
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Parliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
Its the bunker mentality kicking in: soon even leavers won't have been pure enough in commitment and eventually they'll be screaming there equivalent of "Where is Schörner?!". Something along the lines of "Where is Hannan?!" or another risible faux economic philosopher.
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Parliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
Its the bunker mentality kicking in: soon even leavers won't have been pure enough in commitment and eventually they'll be screaming there equivalent of "Where is Schörner?!". Something along the lines of "Where is Hannan?!" or another risible faux economic philosopher.
Boris can't be looking forward to PMQs. If the story of the moment is law and legality then surely Sir Keir will tear him a new one.
Yes, I remember when being savaged by the Supreme Court and Lady Hale a year ago utterly destroyed Boris' premiership and was The Most Important Thing Ever.
Boris can't be looking forward to PMQs. If the story of the moment is law and legality then surely Sir Keir will tear him a new one.
Yes, I remember when being savaged by the Supreme Court and Lady Hale a year ago utterly destroyed Boris' premiership and was The Most Important Thing Ever.
Oh, wait a minute...
Who said it was the most important thing ever, apart from you?
If he spent even half as much time working in the genuine interests of the American people as he does scrolling around the world's media to check on what's being said about him just imagine what this man - if also transplanted with an intellect and a moral compass - could have achieved.
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
So what you are saying is you were wrong on an unarguable matter of fact?
The erosion of our democracy that Johnson/Cummings clearly plan is a test for the credentials of all genuine Conservatives, if there are any left.
Any cabinet minister with designs on picking up the pieces after BoZo would do well to resign today
This is exactly what I'd be doing if I was, say, Gavin Williamson. I'd be resigning and then making a very high minded and dignified speech from the backbenches saying that with great sadness I had concluded that the small cabal of populist fanatics currently running the government, aided and abetted by their mascot "Boris" Johnson, were in the process of not only destroying British democracy itself but destroying something far more precious than that - the Conservative Party.
Then wait.
"High minded" "dignified"...Williamson. I think I may have spotted why it hasn't happened.
- Ok, Grant Shapps then.
Sunak. If he has the balls.
Also avoids the fall out of having to cut spending/raise taxes etc.
Go on, Rishi. Do it. It would be such fun. We haven’t had a proper Chancellor resignation - and accompanying speech - for ages. (Javid’s rather colourless one doesn’t count.)
The trouble is that Rishi is ambitious. Whoever takes over now would be playing a Hail Mary pass; probably three years of misery sorting out the mess, being accused of stabbing poor brave Boris in the back, going down to an almost inevitable defeat in 2024. Rishi doesn't want that for himself, and I'm not sure I want that for him.
An immediate Boris successor would have to be someone with clean hands, nothing to prove, nothing to lose and a sense of duty to match BoJo's sense of entitlement.
Cometh the hour, cometh the kitten heels... (And yes, that's a stupid conclusion. Got a better one?)
Theresa May? No, there is one towering figure who shares Boris's and Cummings' views on central planning from war rooms with big tellies, and investment not austerity. Step forward the natural successor to Boris and Cummings; your country needs you, Gordon Brown!
Boris can't be looking forward to PMQs. If the story of the moment is law and legality then surely Sir Keir will tear him a new one.
Yes, I remember when being savaged by the Supreme Court and Lady Hale a year ago utterly destroyed Boris' premiership and was The Most Important Thing Ever.
Oh, wait a minute...
Who said it was the most important thing ever, apart from you?
All the same PB lawyers and Boris-haters currently going bonkers over this...
Boris can't be looking forward to PMQs. If the story of the moment is law and legality then surely Sir Keir will tear him a new one.
IMO he’d be well advised to stay away from this. For now. He can make the point - obliquely - about the government not keeping its promises by asking about other issues of more day to day relevance: Covid, the difficulties of getting tests, even the recommendations re Grenfell.
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
So what you are saying is you were wrong on an unarguable matter of fact?
No, I correctly pointed out Trafalgar Group's entire voting intention question was not based on how your neighbour will vote, it merely adjusted their standard answers to the question.
I am sticking to what they say and sticking to my prediction now Trump will win the EC 274 to 264 with Biden holding the Hillary states and picking up Arizona, Nebraska 02 and Pennsylvania where he was born and Trump holding all the other states he won in 2016 (though I think Biden will still win the popular vote, probably by even more than Hillary did).
If you are certain Biden will win a landslide that is up to you, we will see who is right in November
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
So what you are saying is you were wrong on an unarguable matter of fact?
No, I correctly pointed out Trafalgar Group's entire voting intention question was not based on how your neighbour will vote, it merely adjusted their standard answers to the question.
I am sticking to what they say and sticking to my prediction now Trump will win the EC 274 to 264 with Biden holding the Hillary states and picking up Arizona, Nebraska 02 and Pennsylvania and Trump holding all his other states (though I think Biden will still win the popular vote, probably by even more than Hillary did).
If you are certain Biden will win a landslide that is up to you, we will see who is right in November
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures,
Reposting from yesterday - I actually don't understand Johnson's game with the WA. This is the kind of stunt you expect from India or other countries that don't respect international treaty law which makes trading and investing impossible with them. They use the same stupid "yeah but parliament is sovereign" excuse to leverage retrospective taxes and renege on previously agreed deals. The idea that we want to be in that category of international player is absolutely shameful.
Any changes we want to the WA can probably be made via existing mechanisms within it, especially after a trade deal has been signed and bedded in for a few years. Ultimately both sides are completely lacking in trust of the other side (for good reason tbf) and the WA is lopsided but that won't hold forever, especially as the UK exits from the EU sphere of influence.
Boris can't be looking forward to PMQs. If the story of the moment is law and legality then surely Sir Keir will tear him a new one.
Yes, I remember when being savaged by the Supreme Court and Lady Hale a year ago utterly destroyed Boris' premiership and was The Most Important Thing Ever.
Oh, wait a minute...
Who said it was the most important thing ever, apart from you?
All the same PB lawyers and Boris-haters currently going bonkers over this...
No-one has said it is the most important thing ever. Just as the resignation of the FCO lawyer before the Iraq war made no difference to what the government did.
But now the view of that war and the reputation of the PM who prosecuted it are in line with what that lawyer advised and that PM’s reputation has never recovered. Sometimes taking a view which is longer than the end of your nose is a wise course.
I wonder if that is that another deadweight Remoaner being cleared out?
Appointed while that totally impartial individual Dominic Grieve was Attorney General I see.
Why do you find it so difficult to understand the concept that a legal officer would have difficulty with the Government ignoring the law? Some on the Leave side would do well to remember the mess the Government got itself into last time it tried to interpret the law against its own legal advice.
Because that's where populism gets you.
If there is a conflict between what the law allows and what the will of the people (embodied in the current government) demands, the law must be wrong.
An attractive doctrine if you are in power and can't imagine ever being out of power. Otherwise, madness.
If the law is wrong then if only an institution existed with the power to change the law.
I've consulted our panel* of moderates, Philip, and it says - I use 'it' because it was unanimous - that you are dangerously wrong on all of this and are at risk of coming over as a zealot.
* Seems a shame not to use it on a regular basis given the trouble we both went to putting it together.
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
So what you are saying is you were wrong on an unarguable matter of fact?
No, I correctly pointed out Trafalgar Group's entire voting intention question was not based on how your neighbour will vote, it merely adjusted their standard answers to the question.
I am sticking to what they say and sticking to my prediction now Trump will win the EC 274 to 264 with Biden holding the Hillary states and picking up Arizona, Nebraska 02 and Pennsylvania and Trump holding all the other states he won in 2016 (though I think Biden will still win the popular vote, probably by even more than Hillary did).
If you are certain Biden will win a landslide that is up to you, we will see who is right in November
Reposting from yesterday - I actually don't understand Johnson's game with the WA. This is the kind of stunt you expect from India or other countries that don't respect international treaty law which makes trading and investing impossible with them. They use the same stupid "yeah but parliament is sovereign" excuse to leverage retrospective taxes and renege on previously agreed deals. The idea that we want to be in that category of international player is absolutely shameful.
It might just be a domestic political stunt that's gone off half-cocked. Another attempt to trigger the Remoaners and get the hard Brexiteers cheering them to the rafters, like proroguing parliament. Unfortunately for them, now that Brexit itself has already happened, a lot of the emotion has gone out of it and we're left to deal in realities.
Boris can't be looking forward to PMQs. If the story of the moment is law and legality then surely Sir Keir will tear him a new one.
IMO he’d be well advised to stay away from this. For now. He can make the point - obliquely - about the government not keeping its promises by asking about other issues of more day to day relevance: Covid, the difficulties of getting tests, even the recommendations re Grenfell.
Clearly you're right, which is a shame.
Because a question along the lines of "Given what you've just discovered about the WA, would it have been better to read it and give more than 3 days to debate it. In hindsight, perhaps?" would be delicious.
30 always seemed crazily high. 6 is much more sensible.
I think it was 30 to put an upper limit on the actual number but to avoid situations like criminalising the parents in a family of five whose kids are in bed having another couple over for dinner. Strictly speaking, if the limit was 6, that would be illegal, but it would be comparatively quite safe.
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
So what you are saying is you were wrong on an unarguable matter of fact?
No, I correctly pointed out Trafalgar Group's entire voting intention question was not based on how your neighbour will vote, it merely adjusted their standard answers to the question.
I am sticking to what they say and sticking to my prediction now Trump will win the EC 274 to 264 with Biden holding the Hillary states and picking up Arizona, Nebraska 02 and Pennsylvania and Trump holding all his other states (though I think Biden will still win the popular vote, probably by even more than Hillary did).
If you are certain Biden will win a landslide that is up to you, we will see who is right in November
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures,
Actual words you actually wrote.
And I was correct, they did not use them to determine their voting intention figures, merely to adjust the voting intention figures they got from their standard voting intention question
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
So what you are saying is you were wrong on an unarguable matter of fact?
No, I correctly pointed out Trafalgar Group's entire voting intention question was not based on how your neighbour will vote, it merely adjusted their standard answers to the question.
I am sticking to what they say and sticking to my prediction now Trump will win the EC 274 to 264 with Biden holding the Hillary states and picking up Arizona, Nebraska 02 and Pennsylvania where he was born and Trump holding all the other states he won in 2016 (though I think Biden will still win the popular vote, probably by even more than Hillary did).
If you are certain Biden will win a landslide that is up to you, we will see who is right in November
Boris can't be looking forward to PMQs. If the story of the moment is law and legality then surely Sir Keir will tear him a new one.
Yes, I remember when being savaged by the Supreme Court and Lady Hale a year ago utterly destroyed Boris' premiership and was The Most Important Thing Ever.
Oh, wait a minute...
It remains very important, in fact, although not for the reasons a lot of people thought at the time.
It ensured that, when Johnson ultimately got his way he did so via a democratic election rather than an undemocratic and unlawful manoeuvre. That's an extremely important constitutional principle.
It also confirmed for future that prorogation of Parliament is a justiciable decision. We don't know when that will come up again, but it will. And for BluestBlue, it's worth noting that the situation is just as likely to be with a far left government trying to subvert democracy as with his preferred brand.
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
So what you are saying is you were wrong on an unarguable matter of fact?
No, I correctly pointed out Trafalgar Group's entire voting intention question was not based on how your neighbour will vote, it merely adjusted their standard answers to the question.
I am sticking to what they say and sticking to my prediction now Trump will win the EC 274 to 264 with Biden holding the Hillary states and picking up Arizona, Nebraska 02 and Pennsylvania and Trump holding all his other states (though I think Biden will still win the popular vote, probably by even more than Hillary did).
If you are certain Biden will win a landslide that is up to you, we will see who is right in November
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures,
Actual words you actually wrote.
And I was correct, they did not use them to determine their voting intention figures, merely to adjust the voting intention figures they got from their standard voting intention question
You posted that in response to me saying they did use the Neighbor question to adjust their figures.
I wonder if that is that another deadweight Remoaner being cleared out?
Appointed while that totally impartial individual Dominic Grieve was Attorney General I see.
Why do you find it so difficult to understand the concept that a legal officer would have difficulty with the Government ignoring the law? Some on the Leave side would do well to remember the mess the Government got itself into last time it tried to interpret the law against its own legal advice.
Because that's where populism gets you.
If there is a conflict between what the law allows and what the will of the people (embodied in the current government) demands, the law must be wrong.
An attractive doctrine if you are in power and can't imagine ever being out of power. Otherwise, madness.
If the law is wrong then if only an institution existed with the power to change the law.
As we said yesterday, the law is not wrong. This is exactly the same law as maintains our trading agreements with nations all around the world, our membership of NATO and the UN and our control of Gibraltar and the Falklands. The trouble is the Government wants to both scrap the law where they object to it and keep the same laws where they are in our favour.
In the words of 'Show of Hands' they are suffering from Ignorance, Arrogance and Greed.
The law doesn't ensure our control of the Falklands. Our control of the Falklands is because of HMS Hermes and the rest of the ships and men who fought to ensure that the Falklands stayed free, along with the fact that the Belgrano ended at the bottom of the ocean. It wasn't a court case that settled it.
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
So what you are saying is you were wrong on an unarguable matter of fact?
No, I correctly pointed out Trafalgar Group's entire voting intention question was not based on how your neighbour will vote, it merely adjusted their standard answers to the question.
I am sticking to what they say and sticking to my prediction now Trump will win the EC 274 to 264 with Biden holding the Hillary states and picking up Arizona, Nebraska 02 and Pennsylvania where he was born and Trump holding all the other states he won in 2016 (though I think Biden will still win the popular vote, probably by even more than Hillary did).
If you are certain Biden will win a landslide that is up to you, we will see who is right in November
Spare a thought for Tony Abbott. He's got to persuade a load of our former colonies in the TPP membership that we can be trusted.
Great point. I lived in Oz for a time and being seen as a "welsher" was absolute death over there.
The current Australian PM, Scott Morrison, comes from the same party as Abbott and is a personal friend of his and also gets on well with Boris so Australia is sorted.
As for other nations I really think they will not greatly care about the UK trying to minimise customs checks between GB and NI given they are all part of the UK whatever the EU thinks about it
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
Amazing the number of conservatives who seem to be newly convinced of the acceptability of being a scofflaw. Arguing that laws don't matter is a very dangerous road to go down.
Boris can't be looking forward to PMQs. If the story of the moment is law and legality then surely Sir Keir will tear him a new one.
IMO he’d be well advised to stay away from this. For now. He can make the point - obliquely - about the government not keeping its promises by asking about other issues of more day to day relevance: Covid, the difficulties of getting tests, even the recommendations re Grenfell.
Clearly you're right, which is a shame.
Because a question along the lines of "Given what you've just discovered about the WA, would it have been better to read it and give more than 3 days to debate it. In hindsight, perhaps?" would be delicious.
There’ll be time enough to use something like this.
Let the government stew in its own mess. Not rescue it by allowing Boris to make it all about wicked Remoaner lawyers.
Spare a thought for Tony Abbott. He's got to persuade a load of our former colonies in the TPP membership that we can be trusted.
Great point. I lived in Oz for a time and being seen as a "welsher" was absolute death over there.
The current Australian PM, Scott Morrison, comes from the same party as Abbott and is a personal friend of his and also gets on well with Boris so Australia is sorted.
As for other nations I really think they will not greatly care about the UK trying to minimise customs checks between GB and NI given they are all part of the UK whatever the EU thinks about it
Other countries care mightily about having reliable trustworthy partners.
Spare a thought for Tony Abbott. He's got to persuade a load of our former colonies in the TPP membership that we can be trusted.
Great point. I lived in Oz for a time and being seen as a "welsher" was absolute death over there.
The current Australian PM, Scott Morrison, comes from the same party as Abbott and is a personal friend of his and also gets on well with Boris so Australia is sorted.
The UK is about to fuck Australia by sanctioning the sale of the Austrian Eurofighter fleet to Indonesia.
30 always seemed crazily high. 6 is much more sensible.
When did 30 people be allowed to gather in a home? I struggle to follow the mess that is the comms on all this, but I thought it was still 6. Who the hell thought 30 was a good idea?
Reposting from yesterday - I actually don't understand Johnson's game with the WA. This is the kind of stunt you expect from India or other countries that don't respect international treaty law which makes trading and investing impossible with them. They use the same stupid "yeah but parliament is sovereign" excuse to leverage retrospective taxes and renege on previously agreed deals. The idea that we want to be in that category of international player is absolutely shameful.
It might just be a domestic political stunt that's gone off half-cocked. Another attempt to trigger the Remoaners and get the hard Brexiteers cheering them to the rafters, like proroguing parliament. Unfortunately for them, now that Brexit itself has already happened, a lot of the emotion has gone out of it and we're left to deal in realities.
On Brexit and the WA, I am not sure there is not something else going on. There may be a chasm between what Boris and Cummings want from Brexit, and what the headbanger wing of the ERG expects.
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
So what you are saying is you were wrong on an unarguable matter of fact?
No, I correctly pointed out Trafalgar Group's entire voting intention question was not based on how your neighbour will vote, it merely adjusted their standard answers to the question.
I am sticking to what they say and sticking to my prediction now Trump will win the EC 274 to 264 with Biden holding the Hillary states and picking up Arizona, Nebraska 02 and Pennsylvania where he was born and Trump holding all the other states he won in 2016 (though I think Biden will still win the popular vote, probably by even more than Hillary did).
If you are certain Biden will win a landslide that is up to you, we will see who is right in November
You think Trump will hold Wisconsin and Michigan?
I disagree with HYFUD's reliance solely on a pollster that did well in 2016 but poorly in 2018. I've said before and I'll say again that, in a 'surprise' election the pollster which is an outlier for the winning party will look good in some respects... but consistency is king and they don't have it.
However, the argument that Trump could hold Michigan and Wisconsin while losing other states is sound.
These are predominantly white non-hispanic states (76% and 83%) with historic heavy industry, where Trump's US-first message resonates strongly. Pennsylvania is similar but Biden may benefit from local ties, while Arizona is only 58% white non-hispanic, and has been trending Democrat in recent statewide elections (GOP also look in trouble in the Senate race which may help Biden a little).
Although I'd suggest Florida and North Carolina are also in play as not "core" Trump (albeit neither was that good for Democrats in 2018).
It's funny how PB Tories hate the term gammon yet happily call people Remoaners at every turn. I happen to think both terms are as pathetic as each other
It's funny how PB Tories hate the term gammon yet happily call people Remoaners at every turn. I happen to think both terms are as pathetic as each other
He goes into some detail according to the quote I've seen about precedence for treaty overrides.
There are clear precedents for the UK, and indeed other countries, needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change. And I would say to honourable members here, many of whom would have been in this house when we passed the Finance Act in 2013 which contains an example of treaty override. It contains provisions that expressly disapply international tax treaties to the extent that these conflicted with the general anti-abuse rule.
I don't remember in 2013 us all getting bent out of shape about international law with regards to the Finance Act. What is different?
It's funny how PB Tories hate the term gammon yet happily call people Remoaners at every turn. I happen to think both terms are as pathetic as each other
Although he may have to resign for not sticking to the line, it isn't a Ministerial Code violation. That refers to breaches of the law by the minister individually - what he's doing is truthfully stating the legal status of the Government bill.
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
I answered this question in my header yesterday where I said that (a) the government could pass a new law specifically and expressly disallowing certain provisions in the Act; and (b) that this would set for the stage for some complicated litigation.
The outcome of that litigation will depend on interpretations of English law and international law and the inter-relationship of the two. It will also depend on which of the various dispute resolution mechanisms contained in the WA and Act are used. For a more detailed explanation on this I suggest you read this - https://twitter.com/antonspisak/status/1303018435081908224?s=21.
A lawyer will strive mightily to try and do the best for his client and find a way for him to do it lawfully. From my personal experience, a mere disagreement over interpretation of complex legal issues is rarely the trigger for something like a career ending resignation. Lawyers disagree all the time. There is usually something more - usually related to the client’s motivation and good faith and intentions.
One time I was in such a position: the issue was not a complex one but the choice was between doing something one way - which would have been lawful - and the other, which would have required me to make an untrue statement. Had the client insisted on the latter, I would have resigned my job: no question.
We all have a breaking point as professionals. Clearly Jones has reached his. I respect him for that because I know how hard it is to be in such a position.
Has Lewis actually said we will break int'l law on the floor of the commons or has he used words which could be interpreted that way. There's a big difference.
Has Lewis actually said we will break int'l law on the floor of the commons or has he used words which could be interpreted that way. There's a big difference.
Has Lewis actually said we will break int'l law on the floor of the commons or has he used words which could be interpreted that way. There's a big difference.
Have to say on some basic spreadsheet work if Trump does get up to 46% by November I probably rate his chances of winning higher than the 538 model does.
Comments
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
In the words of 'Show of Hands' they are suffering from Ignorance, Arrogance and Greed.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
Now it's fine to say that no Parliament binds it's successor, it's another entirely to say you know the law we enacted 6 months ago well we didn't mean it.
You're right about Labour needing to reach out - and I agree that Labour has lost its working class roots
An immediate Boris successor would have to be someone with clean hands, nothing to prove, nothing to lose and a sense of duty to match BoJo's sense of entitlement.
Cometh the hour, cometh the kitten heels... (And yes, that's a stupid conclusion. Got a better one?)
Or was it buy a pogo stick, I forget
May is fuming
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
Oh, wait a minute...
Correct.
Who could have imagined this would happen from a serial liar who has literally been sacked for lying.
I am sticking to what they say and sticking to my prediction now Trump will win the EC 274 to 264 with Biden holding the Hillary states and picking up Arizona, Nebraska 02 and Pennsylvania where he was born and Trump holding all the other states he won in 2016 (though I think Biden will still win the popular vote, probably by even more than Hillary did).
If you are certain Biden will win a landslide that is up to you, we will see who is right in November
Actual words you actually wrote.
Any changes we want to the WA can probably be made via existing mechanisms within it, especially after a trade deal has been signed and bedded in for a few years. Ultimately both sides are completely lacking in trust of the other side (for good reason tbf) and the WA is lopsided but that won't hold forever, especially as the UK exits from the EU sphere of influence.
But now the view of that war and the reputation of the PM who prosecuted it are in line with what that lawyer advised and that PM’s reputation has never recovered. Sometimes taking a view which is longer than the end of your nose is a wise course.
* Seems a shame not to use it on a regular basis given the trouble we both went to putting it together.
Because a question along the lines of "Given what you've just discovered about the WA, would it have been better to read it and give more than 3 days to debate it. In hindsight, perhaps?" would be delicious.
It ensured that, when Johnson ultimately got his way he did so via a democratic election rather than an undemocratic and unlawful manoeuvre. That's an extremely important constitutional principle.
It also confirmed for future that prorogation of Parliament is a justiciable decision. We don't know when that will come up again, but it will. And for BluestBlue, it's worth noting that the situation is just as likely to be with a far left government trying to subvert democracy as with his preferred brand.
As for other nations I really think they will not greatly care about the UK trying to minimise customs checks between GB and NI given they are all part of the UK whatever the EU thinks about it
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
Arguing that laws don't matter is a very dangerous road to go down.
Let the government stew in its own mess. Not rescue it by allowing Boris to make it all about wicked Remoaner lawyers.
Even if you and the party you support do not.
The polls are still relatively close, but this long read from Slate makes me think she could lose heavily.
It's a good example of how Trump's divisiveness works against his adopted party:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/maine-turned-on-susan-collins.html
However, the argument that Trump could hold Michigan and Wisconsin while losing other states is sound.
These are predominantly white non-hispanic states (76% and 83%) with historic heavy industry, where Trump's US-first message resonates strongly. Pennsylvania is similar but Biden may benefit from local ties, while Arizona is only 58% white non-hispanic, and has been trending Democrat in recent statewide elections (GOP also look in trouble in the Senate race which may help Biden a little).
Although I'd suggest Florida and North Carolina are also in play as not "core" Trump (albeit neither was that good for Democrats in 2018).
There are clear precedents for the UK, and indeed other countries, needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change. And I would say to honourable members here, many of whom would have been in this house when we passed the Finance Act in 2013 which contains an example of treaty override. It contains provisions that expressly disapply international tax treaties to the extent that these conflicted with the general anti-abuse rule.
I don't remember in 2013 us all getting bent out of shape about international law with regards to the Finance Act. What is different?
Is "Remoaner" racial?
(I'm joking! He's not going anywhere.)
The outcome of that litigation will depend on interpretations of English law and international law and the inter-relationship of the two. It will also depend on which of the various dispute resolution mechanisms contained in the WA and Act are used. For a more detailed explanation on this I suggest you read this - https://twitter.com/antonspisak/status/1303018435081908224?s=21.
A lawyer will strive mightily to try and do the best for his client and find a way for him to do it lawfully. From my personal experience, a mere disagreement over interpretation of complex legal issues is rarely the trigger for something like a career ending resignation. Lawyers disagree all the time. There is usually something more - usually related to the client’s motivation and good faith and intentions.
One time I was in such a position: the issue was not a complex one but the choice was between doing something one way - which would have been lawful - and the other, which would have required me to make an untrue statement. Had the client insisted on the latter, I would have resigned my job: no question.
We all have a breaking point as professionals. Clearly Jones has reached his. I respect him for that because I know how hard it is to be in such a position.
Here Lewis saying he is breaking a law that was only voted into law earlier this year...
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1303313054281666584