With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
I was referring to the absolute dearth of comment from Leavers on Farage's self promoted lynchpin status, several of whom also assured me & the wider public that Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of Brexit.
Commenting on Scottish politicos, who pretend to have levers when they don't, seems to have blinded to the reality that Farage merely visited Trump. He is not in government, nor even in any elected British office. His only position is as interim leader of a party and MEP, both of which are likely to disappear in the coming months and years.
Lots of hot air, whether from Sturgeon or Farage, don't equal levers of power within the British govt.
It isn't just hot air from Farage
Theresa May is facing a growing Cabinet backlash over her decision to dismiss Nigel Farage despite him being the only British politician to meet with Donald Trump since his victory.
The Telegraph understands a number of members of the Cabinet and other Government ministers believe the Prime Minister's allies have made a mistake by referring to Mr Farage as an “irrelevance”.
Neither is looking that likely, but I've got D Miliband red and Ed Balls Green in my Labour leadership betting.
Ed Balls should probably be shorter than David Miliband I reckon.
Nothing is ever going to prove a 100/1 shot poor value, but still, I think you're mad.
There's plenty that can prove 100/1 shots poor value. Constituency betting invariably does, where 'haven't a chance in hell' candidates get offered at only that sort of price. Across the country, six or so 100/1 candidates ought to come in at any given election, if the odds were 'true'. In fact, hardly any do (though some do who were 100/1 some time before the election, and when some do like that, quite a lot can, as with the SNP this last time).
I have not backed Ed Balls at all for the Labour leadership, but neither have I laid him. I have laid David Miliband.
Laying Ed Balls at 100-1 on Betfair doesn't tempt me. Laying David Miliband sub 10-1 is a big component of my long term book. A tiny bit rebacked at 17ish, so far but the only true liability.
Balls at 100/1 is a very decent bet and relatively easy to see how it comes off. I tipped him as Next Labour Leader over the summer (pre-Strictly) at a good deal less than that.
Interesting to note that Sterling is up against the Euro again today. The markets definitely see Trump as a huge negative for the EU. A less secure border, increased defence spending to pay for and a possible trade war to contend with. Juncker and Merkel have hardly helped matters either.
Trump will pull out of NATO f Germany doesn't commit to 2% defence spending. Unlike his domestic promises there's no political price for that one in the US.
It is also one of his earliest stated and most consistent stances on any policy issue. He has been banging that drum since the 80s. It will happen.
The EU's plans of playing hardball with the UK are going down the drain, unless we are so lily-livered we let them.
Not sure how the US pulling out of NATO will strengthen our negotiating position with the EU. We are a European country and if the US were to abandon its 70 year defence strategy it would be dumping on us just as much as the Germans. Indeed, it would make Trump the most anti-British US president for many a long year.
It would mean the EU would be even more reliant on our defence cooperation. I.e. it would be another bargaining chip for us in Brexit negotiations.
Hardly - without the US, our defence spend is essentially meaningless. It's like not having the US or China in global warming agreements. Without them what anyone else does is essentially irrelevant.
Neither is looking that likely, but I've got D Miliband red and Ed Balls Green in my Labour leadership betting.
Ed Balls should probably be shorter than David Miliband I reckon.
Nothing is ever going to prove a 100/1 shot poor value, but still, I think you're mad.
There's plenty that can prove 100/1 shots poor value. Constituency betting invariably does, where 'haven't a chance in hell' candidates get offered at only that sort of price. Across the country, six or so 100/1 candidates ought to come in at any given election, if the odds were 'true'. In fact, hardly any do (though some do who were 100/1 some time before the election, and when some do like that, quite a lot can, as with the SNP this last time).
I have not backed Ed Balls at all for the Labour leadership, but neither have I laid him. I have laid David Miliband.
Laying Ed Balls at 100-1 on Betfair doesn't tempt me. Laying David Miliband sub 10-1 is a big component of my long term book. A tiny bit rebacked at 17ish, so far but the only true liability.
Balls at 100/1 is a very decent bet and relatively easy to see how it comes off. I tipped him as Next Labour Leader over the summer (pre-Strictly) at a good deal less than that.
% chance Balls is eligible, % chance Balls stands, % chance he gets the nomination, % chance he wins.
He's a proven loser, I say that as a Norwich City fan.
'The French also refused to attend the emergency meeting as well. That's Europe's two major military powers effectively backing Trump over the EU on NATO. It's time for Germany and the rest to pay up. €117bn please.'
Without the UK & France Europe's defence capabilities would be a joke.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
He's not. HMG has made that very clear.
He's just a self-agrandising tit
Tory Leavers have enabled him, we're reaping what you have sown.
Trump is about to centralise it by withdrawing federal funding for any city with sanctuary status. It's a smart move.
It's possibly also a good example of why people who are hoping Trump won't be able to get anything done because he doesn't know how to use the levers of power will be disappointed.
True although the irony is that it is Republican voters who tend to be keenest on states' rights.
This is about federal funding though, not state level funding. The state could decide to plug the gap but it would require statewide tax rises or spending cuts to other programmes. Again, the fastest way to set the local population against illegal immigration is to force tax rises onto them, in areas of poverty it won't be Trump that will suffer, it will be the city legislature that refuses to dump sanctuary status that will take the hit. Trump is giving them a choice, after all.
Penalising Sanctuary Cities seems entirely reasonable to me. Immigration is a Federal issue, not a local government issue.
This is an interesting and rare example of US politics being to the Left of UK politics. In this country, enfranchising illegal immigrants is an idea restricted to the extreme Left. In the US, it's mainstream in the Democratic Party.
Rush for demographics. US politics is infected with it. If Trump does manage to reverse Mexican migration significantly it could change US politics forever as the Dems would not be able to rely on underlying demographic changes to help them.
It has already reversed. For the past two years there has been a net emigration of Mexicans from the US back to Mexico. Being driven mainly by economic factors.
Additionally Trump all but kills off any chance of another one off amnesty for the 11m illegals currently in the country. I do wonder whether the dynamics have already changed. If Trump wins a second term then the US could look very different electorally than it does now. The settled view on migration once the wall/fence is completed is probably going to be anti, even in liberal border states. The Dems are going to find it tough if whites become a block vote but they are unable to increase the size of their block vote by migration and amnesties.
Trump is about to centralise it by withdrawing federal funding for any city with sanctuary status. It's a smart move.
It's possibly also a good example of why people who are hoping Trump won't be able to get anything done because he doesn't know how to use the levers of power will be disappointed.
True although the irony is that it is Republican voters who tend to be keenest on states' rights.
This is about federal funding though, not state level funding. The state could decide to plug the gap but it would require statewide tax rises or spending cuts to other programmes. Again, the fastest way to set the local population against illegal immigration is to force tax rises onto them, in areas of poverty it won't be Trump that will suffer, it will be the city legislature that refuses to dump sanctuary status that will take the hit. Trump is giving them a choice, after all.
Penalising Sanctuary Cities seems entirely reasonable to me. Immigration is a Federal issue, not a local government issue.
This is an interesting and rare example of US politics being to the Left of UK politics. In this country, enfranchising illegal immigrants is an idea restricted to the extreme Left. In the US, it's mainstream in the Democratic Party.
Mainstream democrats also still seem to worship trade unions.
I find it hard to see how i'd be anything other than a western Republican were I a US citizen.
TC_Political Betting never says anything positive about the Lib Dems - it's well known to anyone who uses the site.
Ok, but there's a difference between not saying anything positive and deliberately giving a false impression by cherry picking results. Just give me the facts.
Trump is about to centralise it by withdrawing federal funding for any city with sanctuary status. It's a smart move.
It's possibly also a good example of why people who are hoping Trump won't be able to get anything done because he doesn't know how to use the levers of power will be disappointed.
True although the irony is that it is Republican voters who tend to be keenest on states' rights.
This is about federal funding though, not state level funding. The state could decide to plug the gap but it would require statewide tax rises or spending cuts to other programmes. Again, the fastest way to set the local population against illegal immigration is to force tax rises onto them, in areas of poverty it won't be Trump that will suffer, it will be the city legislature that refuses to dump sanctuary status that will take the hit. Trump is giving them a choice, after all.
Penalising Sanctuary Cities seems entirely reasonable to me. Immigration is a Federal issue, not a local government issue.
This is an interesting and rare example of US politics being to the Left of UK politics. In this country, enfranchising illegal immigrants is an idea restricted to the extreme Left. In the US, it's mainstream in the Democratic Party.
Mainstream democrats also still seem to worship trade unions.
I find it hard to see how i'd be anything other than a western Republican were I a US citizen.
The problem is, to get rid of the unions, we increased the role of the state. It is not a trade many Americans would feel comfortable with.
''The Dems are going to find it tough if whites become a block vote but they are unable to increase the size of their block vote by migration and amnesties. ''
Politicians having to answer to a stable electorate as opposed to one they imported???
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
He's not. HMG has made that very clear.
He's just a self-agrandising tit
Tory Leavers have enabled him, we're reaping what you have sown.
How did we "enable" him FFS? We worked hard to keep him out of Westminster.
Interesting to note that Sterling is up against the Euro again today. The markets definitely see Trump as a huge negative for the EU. A less secure border, increased defence spending to pay for and a possible trade war to contend with. Juncker and Merkel have hardly helped matters either.
Trump will pull out of NATO f Germany doesn't commit to 2% defence spending. Unlike his domestic promises there's no political price for that one in the US.
It is also one of his earliest stated and most consistent stances on any policy issue. He has been banging that drum since the 80s. It will happen.
The EU's plans of playing hardball with the UK are going down the drain, unless we are so lily-livered we let them.
Not sure how the US pulling out of NATO will strengthen our negotiating position with the EU. We are a European country and if the US were to abandon its 70 year defence strategy it would be dumping on us just as much as the Germans. Indeed, it would make Trump the most anti-British US president for many a long year.
It would leave the putative EU army as the only international defence pact in place, However, I think Trump would find it difficult to dump NATO. The US is too heavily invested. In any case Trump's purpose is to get others to contribute more not to get rid of the outfit entirely. This is a spat between Germany mainly and the US and doesn't involve us one way or the other.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
He's not. HMG has made that very clear.
He's just a self-agrandising tit
Surely one of the levers of power is having Trump's ear. For the moment he seems to have it. People paid the Clinton Foundation hundreds of millions for the same privilege.
Does he? Or is he merely a court jester?
I imagine Farage is very marketable as a lobbyist selling access to Trump for patronage. The other stuff is mere trumpery
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
He's not. HMG has made that very clear.
He's just a self-agrandising tit
Tory Leavers have enabled him, we're reaping what you have sown.
Tory remainers like you created the conditions that allowed him.to thrive. He is your creature not ours. Grow a spine and take some responsibility for once.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
He's not. HMG has made that very clear.
He's just a self-agrandising tit
Tory Leavers have enabled him, we're reaping what you have sown.
Tory remainers like you created the conditions that allowed him.to thrive. He is your creature not ours. Grow a spine and take some responsibility for once.
So you want me to take responsibility for your party leader?
'It would leave the putative EU army as the only international defence pact in place, However, I think Trump would find it difficult to dump NATO. The US is too heavily invested. In any case Trump's purpose is to get others to contribute more not to get rid of the outfit entirely. This is a spat between Germany mainly and the US and doesn't involve us one way or the other.'
Easier still, if you don't pay the membership fee of the club you lose your membership.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
He's not. HMG has made that very clear.
He's just a self-agrandising tit
Tory Leavers have enabled him, we're reaping what you have sown.
Tory remainers like you created the conditions that allowed him.to thrive. He is your creature not ours. Grow a spine and take some responsibility for once.
So you want me to take responsibility for your party leader?
Well it is a view I suppose.
You tried to blame a section of your own party for him. It's a view I suppose. Hypocrite.
Mr. Max, Thatcher is to lefties as Hannibal was to Rome. Even generations down the road, they still scare their children with the words "Thatcher ad portas!"
TC_Political Betting never says anything positive about the Lib Dems - it's well known to anyone who uses the site.
I was being positive and generous when I predicted 1 Lib Dem MEP in 2014. One PB chap suggested it was a wet dream. Most unkind.
Seriously, I have said that I expect some LD councillor gains over the next few years but that this will be at a rate that will take them >30 years to get back to where they once were. After losing 3,000 councillors from their peak, adding 30 councillors is a recovery rate of 1%!
Mr. Max, Thatcher is to lefties as Hannibal was to Rome. Even generations down the road, they still scare their children with the words "Thatcher ad portas!"
Mr. Eagles, Hannibal marauding in Italy was more impressive than anything Thatcher achieved, but both made a severe psychological imprint on their foes.
Additionally Trump all but kills off any chance of another one off amnesty for the 11m illegals currently in the country. I do wonder whether the dynamics have already changed. If Trump wins a second term then the US could look very different electorally than it does now. The settled view on migration once the wall/fence is completed is probably going to be anti, even in liberal border states. The Dems are going to find it tough if whites become a block vote but they are unable to increase the size of their block vote by migration and amnesties.
For the time being at least, I think you are right that any potential manifesto based on inclusiveness is killed off. The long term trend amongst the college educated whites, which is the most important voting demographic, and a growing one, is a slow drift from somewhat Republican to half and half Democrat and Republican. That trend continued in the latest election.
Democrats get the bulk of support from non Whites and Hispanics (representing 40% of the population but a much smaller percentage of voters). That party is better set up for the long term than the Republicans, even if they have had the stuffing knocked out of them just now.
Comments
What you need as an informal channel is someone who can be relied on to keep any message back channel. Farage likes the limelight too much.
He's a proven loser, I say that as a Norwich City fan.
'The French also refused to attend the emergency meeting as well. That's Europe's two major military powers effectively backing Trump over the EU on NATO. It's time for Germany and the rest to pay up. €117bn please.'
Without the UK & France Europe's defence capabilities would be a joke.
I find it hard to see how i'd be anything other than a western Republican were I a US citizen.
Just give me the facts.
Corbyn could be around a long time.
Politicians having to answer to a stable electorate as opposed to one they imported???
Whatever next?
Some users prevented from accessing email system after IT contractor at Croydon NHS messages all 1.2 million employees
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/14/186m-needless-emails-nhs-wide-test-message-and-replies-to-all-crash-system
Corbyn will be out on his ear if his soundly thrashed at 2020 (Or before) you'll collect at that point.
Don't forget you can lay others too.
This time round they hated Clinton apparently.
They're Toledo, Ohio based so the anecdata might be very useful.
Moonbat blaming, guess who?
MAGGIE!
Well it is a view I suppose.
In any event, Cook is Captain Cautious, not Courageous... and is possibly not unconcerned with his test average.
'It would leave the putative EU army as the only international defence pact in place, However, I think Trump would find it difficult to dump NATO. The US is too heavily invested. In any case Trump's purpose is to get others to contribute more not to get rid of the outfit entirely. This is a spat between Germany mainly and the US and doesn't involve us one way or the other.'
Easier still, if you don't pay the membership fee of the club you lose your membership.
This sort of thing:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/860267.html
@thomasknox: If America is now "the new Vietnam" then that makes Donald Trump: Agent Orange. Thankyou. I'll be in Australia all week.
The main issue now is how do you get Jimmy Anderson into the team now that he's fit?
We need all three spinners, so you'll have to drop a seamer.
So you're going to have to drop one of Stokes, Woakes, or Broad.
Stokes ain't getting dropped, Woakes has been our player of 2016, so it is either don't play Jimmy or drop Broad
Miliband is the British Rubio.
(Or British Bush)
Seriously, I have said that I expect some LD councillor gains over the next few years but that this will be at a rate that will take them >30 years to get back to where they once were. After losing 3,000 councillors from their peak, adding 30 councillors is a recovery rate of 1%!
new thread
NEW THREAD
Democrats get the bulk of support from non Whites and Hispanics (representing 40% of the population but a much smaller percentage of voters). That party is better set up for the long term than the Republicans, even if they have had the stuffing knocked out of them just now.