politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ComRes Indy/SMirror poll finds sharp rise in the economic trus

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

2 key points from this poll. First 1% more voters back hard Brexit than soft Brexit and second most think it will be easier to do a trade deal with President Trump even if they don't like him

I suspect 70% of people (rather than 43%) would agree with the statement "would you support a form of Brexit that curtailed low skilled immigration, but which gave British firms full access to the single market".

Yes but that will not be on offer

Of course it's on offer. The only question is what the price is.

Any form of free movement controls will not give full single market access as the EU made clear, only possibility limited access

foxinsoxuk said:

Moses_ said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:
» show previous quotes
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.

Ahh the good old PV meme again.

It's odd that if the voting system was so unfair you would have thought the democrats would have changed it in the last 8 years of Obama or even during the Clinton years. Of course they would have lost the mass of electoral college votes California always guarantees them.

It's a system they were all more than happy with when they were winning. Just like Labour during their GE wins, Remainers while they thought they would win and democrats while they thought they were shoo ins.

Hypocrites all of them.

Not really. Changing the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Ammendment passed by 2/3 of States, and both houses of Congress with a 2/3 majority.

Not possible.

logical_song said:

weejonnie said:

https://twitter.com/freep/status/796175021664325633/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

If that's true, it would take Trump down to 274, would it not?

YellowSubmarine said:

Congress will flush TPP down the toilet, White House concedes

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/12/tpp-trade-deal-congress-obama?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

foxinsoxuk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Y'all need to watch this.

https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/797526165338656768

Judging by the number of Lab retweets I'm getting, it's probably the first thing they've felt good about since Tony Blair appeared in a photo with Noel Gallagher.

I might join Labour if Ed Balls becomes leader.

Just imagine him threatening Mrs May with a dance-off at PMQs

He has gone up massively in my estimation, and In Public profile too.

Find him a safe seat!

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

2 key points from this poll. First 1% more voters back hard Brexit than soft Brexit and second most think it will be easier to do a trade deal with President Trump even if they don't like him

I suspect 70% of people (rather than 43%) would agree with the statement "would you support a form of Brexit that curtailed low skilled immigration, but which gave British firms full access to the single market".

Yes but that will not be on offer

Of course it's on offer. The only question is what the price is.

Any form of free movement controls will not give full single market access as the EU made clear, only possibility limited access

So, if we offered one trillion dollars a year, they would not accept?

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/797524123576582144

justin124 said:

MarkSenior said:

From what I can tell re Michigan from the State website , Trump leads by 13,107 with around 87,000 votes still to be included . No reason why these should be heavily in Clinton's favour ,

Might it get close enough to trigger a recount there?

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

2 key points from this poll. First 1% more voters back hard Brexit than soft Brexit and second most think it will be easier to do a trade deal with President Trump even if they don't like him

I suspect 70% of people (rather than 43%) would agree with the statement "would you support a form of Brexit that curtailed low skilled immigration, but which gave British firms full access to the single market".

Yes but that will not be on offer

Of course it's on offer. The only question is what the price is.

Any form of free movement controls will not give full single market access as the EU made clear, only possibility limited access

So, if we offered one trillion dollars a year, they would not accept?

MikeK said:

BREAKING!!!..........

Nigel meets Donald. BBC news

Jonathan said:

Larger than life reality TV stars leading their countries.

Ed Balls. Legend.

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

2 key points from this poll. First 1% more voters back hard Brexit than soft Brexit and second most think it will be easier to do a trade deal with President Trump even if they don't like him

I suspect 70% of people (rather than 43%) would agree with the statement "would you support a form of Brexit that curtailed low skilled immigration, but which gave British firms full access to the single market".

Yes but that will not be on offer

Of course it's on offer. The only question is what the price is.

Any form of free movement controls will not give full single market access as the EU made clear, only possibility limited access

Actually that is not strictly true. Liechtenstein has very severe controls but is still part of the single market.

I am not saying this in support of restrictions nor do I believe the Liechtenstein solution would work for us. But the idea that this is a rule set in stone is not true. The EU is quite happy to bend rules when it wants to to further its own aims.

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh dear...

Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director.

The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.

Trump election: Clinton blames defeat on FBI director
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37963965

Well if it makes her feel better

It was the defining event of the last fortnight. She is probably right.

MarkHopkins said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.

The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.

Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.

“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.


The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/12/brexit-article-50-parliament-eu-farron-may?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Farron is an idiot.

Liberal - "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas"

Democrat - "an advocate or supporter of democracy"

Huh.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.

The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.

Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.

“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.


The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/12/brexit-article-50-parliament-eu-farron-may?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh dear...

Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director.

The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.

Trump election: Clinton blames defeat on FBI director
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37963965

Well if it makes her feel better

It was the defining event of the last fortnight. She is probably right.

No it was anti immigration and anti globalisation feeling which cis the her the election as well as her failure to campaign enough in the battleground states. It was Hillary herself who failed to secure her emails properly anyway and of course Tru,p lost support through gropegate too

SquareRoot said:

TSE can you post the e mail I sent you on the site.. don't know how to do it. I thought it most amusing

TheScreamingEagles said:

Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.

The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.

Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.

“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.


The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/12/brexit-article-50-parliament-eu-farron-may?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

MarkSenior said:

MarkHopkins said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.

The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.

Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.

“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.


The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/12/brexit-article-50-parliament-eu-farron-may?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Farron is an idiot.

Liberal - "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas"

Democrat - "an advocate or supporter of democracy"

Huh.

It is you who is the idiot and undemocratic . You believe that the 52% who voted Brexit deserve the votes of every single MP and the 48% who voted Remain should not have their views represented .

rkrkrk said:

MarkSenior said:

justin124 said:

MarkSenior said:

From what I can tell re Michigan from the State website , Trump leads by 13,107 with around 87,000 votes still to be included . No reason why these should be heavily in Clinton's favour ,

Might it get close enough to trigger a recount there?

The margin is currently less than 0.5% but I believe state rules do not cater for an automatic recount which is only done if someone petitions for it .

I think if margin is small enough there is an auto recount... This article says 2000 vote margin... Thin I saw 0.2% quoted elsewhere. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/heavy.com/news/2016/11/michigan-new-hampshire-arizona-election-results-2016-called-calls-ap-cnn-have-they-been-called-why-havent-returns-votes-recount-trump-clinton-hillary-wisconsin/amp/

Charles said:

rkrkrk said:

Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...

Interesting approach to a smear.

I can imagine Corbyn annoucing plans to ritually sacrifice every Tory in the land. It doesn't mean he's going to do it.

Do you have any basis in fact to suggest that Republicans plan to strip African Americans of citizenship?

MarkHopkins said:

MarkSenior said:

MarkHopkins said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.

The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.

Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.

“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.


The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/12/brexit-article-50-parliament-eu-farron-may?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Farron is an idiot.

Liberal - "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas"

Democrat - "an advocate or supporter of democracy"

Huh.

It is you who is the idiot and undemocratic . You believe that the 52% who voted Brexit deserve the votes of every single MP and the 48% who voted Remain should not have their views represented .

We already have the votes of the MPs. They voted for a referendum to allow the public to decide. The public decided and advised the government to begin Brexit - which can only be started by activating A50. Now some un-liberal un-democratic MPs want to stop that.

You may not like what the public decided, but the decision is made.

I would prefer a soft Bexit. But if that is not available, then it will have to be a hard Brexit. Democracy means accepting the will of the people whether you like it or not.

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh dear...

Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director.

The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.

Trump election: Clinton blames defeat on FBI director
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37963965

Well if it makes her feel better

It was the defining event of the last fortnight. She is probably right.

No it was anti immigration and anti globalisation feeling which cis the her the election as well as her failure to campaign enough in the battleground states. It was Hillary herself who failed to secure her emails properly anyway and of course Tru,p lost support through gropegate too

If it hadn't been close it wouldn't have mattered, but it was, so it did.

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

2 key points from this poll. First 1% more voters back hard Brexit than soft Brexit and second most think it will be easier to do a trade deal with President Trump even if they don't like him

I suspect 70% of people (rather than 43%) would agree with the statement "would you support a form of Brexit that curtailed low skilled immigration, but which gave British firms full access to the single market".

Yes but that will not be on offer

Of course it's on offer. The only question is what the price is.

Any form of free movement controls will not give full single market access as the EU made clear, only possibility limited access

Actually that is not strictly true. Liechtenstein has very severe controls but is still part of the single market.

I am not saying this in support of restrictions nor do I believe the Liechtenstein solution would work for us. But the idea that this is a rule set in stone is not true. The EU is quite happy to bend rules when it wants to to further its own aims.

Liechtenstein has about the population of Canterbury and has never been in the EU It is also part of the Schengen area.. The EU elite and Merkel are clear they won't budge on free movement

All of which ignores the basic point I made. When it suits them the EU finds ways around even such basic principles as freedom of movement.

Even if they gave us the same controls as Liechtenstein we would still have to join the Schengen area as Liechtenstein has. Not that they will anyway of course

Nope there is no need to join Schengen as the Liechtenstein deal is unrelated Schengen membership.

MarkSenior said:

The key words you used are " advised the government " . It was not instructed or mandated .

ydoethur said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

Toms said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh dear...

Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.

Trump election: Clinton blames defeat on FBI director
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37963965

It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote.
Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.

He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression

But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.

No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.

It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.

Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?

What was he supposed to do then Dr? His options were:

1) To ignore the emails - in which case he might be done for whatever the US equivalent of perverting the course of justice is if there had been anything in them;

2) Try to keep it quiet and when it inevitably leaked look as though he was covering up something really dodgy;

3) To tell the truth, go through them as quickly as possible and hope that the scandal could be minimised.

He chose 3. So would I. So would any person with any sense, I think.

Let it not be forgotten that the only reasons he was involved at all were that Hilary had potentially breached both the amended Federal Records Act and theEspionage Act, and the husband of one of her aides had been accused of a child sex offence.

If she had had better judgment, there would have been no problem - but then equally she would not be Hilary. The real mistake was made by the Dems in the first place when they let her stand despite all this kerfuffle.

SquareRoot said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

Toms said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh dear...

Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.

Trump election: Clinton blames defeat on FBI director
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37963965

It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote.
Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.

He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression

But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.

No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.

It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.

Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?

Did you chat to HL about the NHS and did you see my comment?

ydoethur said:

Let it not be forgotten that the only reasons he was involved at all were that Hilary had potentially breached both the amended Federal Records Act and theEspionage Act, and the husband of one of her aides had been accused of a child sex offence.

Toms said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

Toms said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh dear...

Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.

Trump election: Clinton blames defeat on FBI director
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37963965

It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote.
Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.

He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression

But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.

No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.

It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.

Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?

Absolutely yes, and not a little. The "no smoke without fire" defence of Comey's behaviour is suggests that it's OK to meddle with the customary rendering of US Democracy.

foxinsoxuk said:

I appreciate he was in a difficult position, but it was the critical incident of the last fortnight.

And there was nothing in the emails.

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I do have high hopes for electoral reform in America.

On Tuesday the great state of Maine voted to adopt the finest voting system known to man, AV, instead of First Past The Post.

Where Maine leads hopefully the rest of the USA follows

https://leftfootforward.org/2016/11/116455/

Maine should be part of Canada right?

TheScreamingEagles said:

twitter.com/suttonnick/status/797556340617084928

foxinsoxuk said:

SquareRoot said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

Toms said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh dear...

Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.

Trump election: Clinton blames defeat on FBI director
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37963965

It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote.
Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.

He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression

But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.

No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.

It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.

Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?

Did you chat to HL about the NHS and did you see my comment?

No. What was it?

Toms said:

HYUFD said:

Toms said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

Toms said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh dear...

Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.

Trump election: Clinton blames defeat on FBI director
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37963965

It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote.
Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.

He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression

But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.

No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.

It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.

Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?

Absolutely yes, and not a little. The "no smoke without fire" defence of Comey's behaviour is suggests that it's OK to meddle with the customary rendering of US Democracy.

It was Hillary who left emails on Weiner's server not Comey. No complaints from Hillary supporters either when gropegate dominated the headlines

I'm curious. Is there a law that says her Maj cannot tell us how to vote? Or is it custom?

SquareRoot said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SquareRoot said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

Toms said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh dear...

Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.

Trump election: Clinton blames defeat on FBI director
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37963965

It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote.
Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.

He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression

But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.

No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.

It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.

Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?

Did you chat to HL about the NHS and did you see my comment?

No. What was it?

You were discussing the NHS.. have a look back to this am , its the NHS way to (not) treat my sister unless she has two strokes..

MarkSenior said:

MarkHopkins said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.

The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.

Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.

“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.


The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/12/brexit-article-50-parliament-eu-farron-may?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Farron is an idiot.

Liberal - "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas"

Democrat - "an advocate or supporter of democracy"

Huh.

It is you who is the idiot and undemocratic . You believe that the 52% who voted Brexit deserve the votes of every single MP and the 48% who voted Remain should not have their views represented .

ydoethur said:

glw said:

ydoethur said:

Let it not be forgotten that the only reasons he was involved at all were that Hilary had potentially breached both the amended Federal Records Act and theEspionage Act, and the husband of one of her aides had been accused of a child sex offence.

I thought that this was quite telling.

In a September 2015 interview with the FBI, a former agent who worked on the security details of both former secretaries of state Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton complained of a “stark difference” between Rice and Clinton in terms of their adherence to security and diplomatic protocols.

According to newly released documents by the FBI related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary, the former agent said that while Rice “observed strict adherence to State Department security and diplomatic protocols,” Clinton “frequently and ‘blatantly’ disregarded them.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-documents-former-agent-complained-hillary-clinton-flouted-protocol-while-secretary/

The key point is that after Powell's time the law was changed to ensure government business was properly sent on government servers so it could be secured, interrogated and archived properly.

Clinton apparently knew this, yet she deliberately ignored it. As Ghandi said in a somewhat different context, if you break a law you must be prepared to suffer the penalty.

In her case, she was fortunate that what she did did not meet the evidential threshold for prosecution. It has however ruined her career and wrecked her party. I think it's fair to say that's a considerable punishment on its own.

nielh said:

The practice of using private email servers is widespread in government as government issued IT systems are so clumsy and unreliable, particularly in the 2000's. In my own limited experience working in gov't (albeit in a very different situation) everyone was doing it on some level. The charges were always ridiculous for this reason

glw said:

nielh said:

The practice of using private email servers is widespread in government as government issued IT systems are so clumsy and unreliable, particularly in the 2000's. In my own limited experience working in gov't (albeit in a very different situation) everyone was doing it on some level. The charges were always ridiculous for this reason

She was the bloody Secretary of State, not the person in charge of the bin collection at your local council.

rkrkrk said:

weejonnie said:

rkrkrk said:

Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...

Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?

My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures.
Currently Republicans control 37.