politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The top ten political failures of 2016 – longstanding PBer & p
Comments
-
Yeah, the exits look dubious, especially on the Hispanic point. Probably better to model vote changes by looking at the county-level returns and running some regressions.nunu said:
he probably got more black voters but not more Hispanic votes, according to county level results. I'm sorry but their exit polls are rubbish, that exit also shows him getting 1% less white vote than Romney, er nope.Tissue_Price said:
Right, but that's as much a function of Obama as anything.Chelyabinsk said:Now the votes are in, and Trump got greater support from minorities than Romney or McCain before him.
(From Scott Alexander's You Are Still Crying Wolf)0 -
That's harsh. If the vote was 52:48 for Remain, would you have said 48% of the population should just be resigned to us staying in the EU.SandyRentool said:
So half of Remainers are not democrats. Now we know.TheScreamingEagles said:So before another inaccurate meme begins
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain0 -
Do you want an incredible new US Election Conspiracy theory that I just made up right now?
28 states had state level exit polling done for them.
Of the 10 states that most closely matched the exit poll 7 use paper or mail in only ballots, 2 Have a paper trail on their electronic voting machines and 1 (Texas) does not.
Of the 10 states that were most out on the Trump margin 2 Use paper ballots and the other 8 all use computer voting machines including 3 that Use computer voting machines with zero paper trail at all (New Jersey with that spectacular 11 point miss, the slightly crucial swing state of Pennsylvanian and South Carolina).
If it was a Rust Belt/Med West polling fail how could the exit polls nail Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois almost spot on and fail with Pennsylvanian.
Eh, eh. Could you start posting this in tweets and it will become stone cold fact pretty soon.0 -
On topic, a nice list from Pulpstar and not too much to disagree with.
Honourable mentions for:
- Angela Eagle. Dithered. Stood. Lost. To a candidate with virtually no positives.
- IDS. Resigned after a spat with Osborne only for Osborne to then go. As a Brexiteer, could easily still be in post had he stuck it out.
- Zac. Losing the mayoral vote wasn't a disaster; a Tory was always going to be up against it. Losing it in the manner that he did, however, was a different matter. Compounded the error by a mixed-message by-election. Might get worse still yet.
- The Liberal Establishment. "This is not our country any more" Paddy Ashdown said the day after the EURef. Arguments about the extent to which it ever was aside, he has a point. Not just this country either.0 -
It's a great poll, shows the voters back the rule of law, not mob rule some Leavers advocateSouthamObserver said:
On the previous thread, several posters were saying Sky was biased for not reporting that 68% of respondents to this YouGov poll favoured us leaving the EU. Surprise, surprise, it turns out that it's a bit more complicated than that!!TheScreamingEagles said:So before another inaccurate meme begins
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain0 -
I wouldn't have advocated that the PM triggers A50, against the will of the voters.rcs1000 said:
That's harsh. If the vote was 52:48 for Remain, would you have said 48% of the population should just be resigned to us staying in the EU.SandyRentool said:
So half of Remainers are not democrats. Now we know.TheScreamingEagles said:So before another inaccurate meme begins
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain0 -
I thought we'd already established that the poll shows half of Remainers favour mob rule?TheScreamingEagles said:
It's a great poll, shows the voters back the rule of law, not mob rule some Leavers advocateSouthamObserver said:
On the previous thread, several posters were saying Sky was biased for not reporting that 68% of respondents to this YouGov poll favoured us leaving the EU. Surprise, surprise, it turns out that it's a bit more complicated than that!!TheScreamingEagles said:So before another inaccurate meme begins
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain0 -
Lol. It was the Russian hackers wot won it.Alistair said:Do you want an incredible new US Election Conspiracy theory that I just made up right now?
28 states had state level exit polling done for them.
Of the 10 states that most closely matched the exit poll 7 use paper or mail in only ballots, 2 Have a paper trail on their electronic voting machines and 1 (Texas) does not.
Of the 10 states that were most out on the Trump margin 2 Use paper ballots and the other 8 all use computer voting machines including 3 that Use computer voting machines with zero paper trail at all (New Jersey with that spectacular 11 point miss, the slightly crucial swing state of Pennsylvanian and South Carolina).
If it was a Rust Belt/Med West polling fail how could the exit polls nail Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois almost spot on and fail with Pennsylvanian.
Eh, eh. Could you start posting this in tweets and it will become stone cold fact pretty soon.0 -
Given that Labour is trapped between its history and its base, this poll goes some way to vindicating the positioning the LDs are pursuing.Pro_Rata said:
Electoral calculus seat figures, shaving these percentages down to 94.5% (to account for Nats)RobD said:
What a delicious split of the vote on the left.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/jamin2g/status/799269000496574465Tissue_Price said:What do you think of their current positioning? Being the recognisably anti-Brexit party seems like a way to build a surer base. But the tension between social democracy & liberalism has not gone away.
Lab Pro-Brexit: Con 382, Lab 154, LD 32, UKIP 4 (Maj 114)
Lab Soft Brexit: Con 342, Lab 201, LD 26, UKIP 2 (Maj 34)
Lab 2nd Ref: Con 366, Lab 191, LD 11, UKIP 2 (Maj 82)0 -
Also,david_herdson said:On topic, a nice list from Pulpstar and not too much to disagree with.
Honourable mentions for:
- Angela Eagle. Dithered. Stood. Lost. To a candidate with virtually no positives.
- IDS. Resigned after a spat with Osborne only for Osborne to then go. As a Brexiteer, could easily still be in post had he stuck it out.
- Zac. Losing the mayoral vote wasn't a disaster; a Tory was always going to be up against it. Losing it in the manner that he did, however, was a different matter. Compounded the error by a mixed-message by-election. Might get worse still yet.
- The Liberal Establishment. "This is not our country any more" Paddy Ashdown said the day after the EURef. Arguments about the extent to which it ever was aside, he has a point. Not just this country either.
Carney: put in place after personal begging by Osborne, lavishly rewarded, given full support in the job and then... Osborne gone, May openly denouncing his monetary policies, pressure to go early etc etc.
Will Hutton: dreams of joining the Euro shattered when UK (well England & Wales) votes to leave the whole caboodle.*
* although may yet live to see his dream if we have to apply to rejoin in 2020s due to economic depression.0 -
Aren't normal polls and exit polls quite different?Alistair said:Do you want an incredible new US Election Conspiracy theory that I just made up right now?
28 states had state level exit polling done for them.
Of the 10 states that most closely matched the exit poll 7 use paper or mail in only ballots, 2 Have a paper trail on their electronic voting machines and 1 (Texas) does not.
Of the 10 states that were most out on the Trump margin 2 Use paper ballots and the other 8 all use computer voting machines including 3 that Use computer voting machines with zero paper trail at all (New Jersey with that spectacular 11 point miss, the slightly crucial swing state of Pennsylvanian and South Carolina).
If it was a Rust Belt/Med West polling fail how could the exit polls nail Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois almost spot on and fail with Pennsylvanian.
Eh, eh. Could you start posting this in tweets and it will become stone cold fact pretty soon.0 -
Is this the military might the EU member states will throw all kinds of concessions at us for?
https://twitter.com/uk__news/status/7991924372856504360 -
Ridiculous, yes, but at least it isn't a permanent situation! I think I read it was a gap of a few years? Maybe Hammond will sort this out in the Autumn Statement.SouthamObserver said:Is this the military might the EU member states will throw all kinds of concessions at us for?
https://twitter.com/uk__news/status/7991924372856504360 -
Umm, do we not already have the missiles? Are we using them up at an alarming rate?SouthamObserver said:Is this the military might the EU member states will throw all kinds of concessions at us for?
0 -
Meanwhile on military matters, the idea of an EU army has developed further momentum:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-defence-germany-idUSKBN13C1T0?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Feed:+Reuters/worldNews+(Reuters+World+News)0 -
Defence has been underfunded my whole adult life. It was practically the only department New Labour didn't splurge on, despite joyriding the military, and the Coalition didn't ringfence it when they should've (though that was more economically and politically difficult than Blair/Brown's choice not to improve the situation).0
-
How's that Rust Belt, Main Street first, angry changey thing coming along?
“There is a joke going around here [banking community] that if I’d have known how good Trump was going to be for Wall Street, I’d have campaigned for him,” said one Goldman Sachs executive who declined to be identified by name speaking about the incoming president."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-wall-street-bankers-2315240 -
As ever (well, at least since Denis Healey in the 1960s) it is Conservative defence ministers who have decimated our armed forces. Ships without missiles; carriers without planes; an army two thirds of its previous size. This from the party whose navy cuts gave us John Nott walking out on Sir Robin Day and, more seriously, the Argentine invasion of the Falklands (which by bitter irony secured the Tories in power for a generation).SouthamObserver said:Is this the military might the EU member states will throw all kinds of concessions at us for?
https://twitter.com/uk__news/status/7991924372856504360 -
That's absurd and you know it. It's very difficult for the third party to be in control of events and to try to anticipate how things will develop. After 1992, many thought the Conservatives would never lose again - after 2005, many thought the Conservatives could never win again.david_herdson said:All of which was foreseeable, which begs the question why they ever embarked on a strategy that was bound to end in disaster (answer: because it would be someone else's disaster and in the meantime there was lots of fun to be had).
In an FPTP system, it's regrettably not just about votes but where they are to produce bums on benches. The primary drive for LD strategy was to get as many MPs elected as possible which isn't an unreasonable strategy for any party.
The only alternative option was for one of the two major parties to schism again - I think the Conservatives came close to the abyss under IDS but removed him in time. The Labour schism of 1981 took place at a time of relative Liberal weakness and in any case the Falklands War came along to save both Margaret Thatcher and the Labour Party in different ways.
When the SDP failed it splintered and elements of the SDP took over both Labour (Blair) and the Conservatives (Cameron).0 -
Looking at thread photo, I presume this will be Raheem Kassam's last trip to US as Trump bans all Muslims from entering.0
-
Italians in the lead.AlastairMeeks said:Meanwhile on military matters, the idea of an EU army has developed further momentum:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-defence-germany-idUSKBN13C1T0?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Feed:+Reuters/worldNews+(Reuters+World+News)
0 -
MOD has expressed an interest in replacing ageing and less accurate Harpoons with LRASM in 2018. An off the shelf product from our American friends, which has just completed testing. Hence the noise emerging from the usual suspects over here, hacked off at not being able to charge over the odds for an inferior product. See Nimrod / P8 for further reference.RobD said:
Ridiculous, yes, but at least it isn't a permanent situation! I think I read it was a gap of a few years? Maybe Hammond will sort this out in the Autumn Statement.SouthamObserver said:Is this the military might the EU member states will throw all kinds of concessions at us for?
https://twitter.com/uk__news/status/7991924372856504360 -
I don't think Osborne faced the scale of government debt compared to GDP that Macmillan faced. Wasn't it roughly twice GDP?DecrepitJohnL said:
The irony is that Osborne probably did think "sod the government borrowing requirement," at least once he'd been Chancellor for more than five minutes and the Treasury had explained to him how the economy works. The problem is he kept the name, the targets and the slogans about a long term economic plan not because he intended to meet them but to embarrass and hem in the Labour Party.rural_voter said:
Cameron claimed to admire Macmillan but possibly he wasn't prepared to think the unthinkable; e.g.: 'sod the government borrowing requirement'. It's hard to construct capital assets without spending money now. Attempts to do otherwise lead to the negative consequences seen with PFI.TheScreamingEagles said:
For next month, I'm writing my review on David Cameron, I do toy with those thoughts you mention.rural_voter said:
Hello all, few recent posts from me because finishing some outside building work before winter arrives is top priority. But I took a break and found this famous quote with which I tend to disagree - I think some political careers were on balance quite successful.TheScreamingEagles said:
Pulpstar is very thorough when it comes to his bets.Richard_Nabavi said:A great read, Pulpstar!
Still, I'm worried about one thing. You watched two Owen Smith/Jeremy Corbyn debates? 'Obsessive' hardly covers it!
Harold Wilson combined a moral crusade with electoral success. Four victories, though only one a landslide (1966). He craftily neutralised Tory opposition and set up the Open University, having nicked the basic idea from the Soviet Union. Millions of mature students benefited.
So successful were some of Clem Attlee's policies that Harold Macmillan continued them. In hindsight, Attlee was one of the most successful PMs of all time, especially given that Britain was broke during the 1945-51 parliaments.
Harold Macmillan himself deserves credit for showing how to build 300,000-500,000 homes per year. People right now are claiming that 200,000 is a high figure. It's not; we need over 300,000 or even more to solve the crisis.
We have already seen that President-elect Trump is talking about stimulating the economy. As Dick Cheney said of another icon of the right: Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. So yes, once more Cameron and Osborne were too clever by half.
Wikpedia doesn't go back that far but debt repayments recently have been lower than in the 1950s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt#/media/File:UK_National_Debt_interest.png0 -
In that event would MPs be voting to trigger Article 40 to leave the EU?rcs1000 said:
That's harsh. If the vote was 52:48 for Remain, would you have said 48% of the population should just be resigned to us staying in the EU.SandyRentool said:
So half of Remainers are not democrats. Now we know.TheScreamingEagles said:So before another inaccurate meme begins
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
Because parliament (at least the Lords) may be about to stop Article 50 being triggered.
0 -
Mr. Jcesmond, interesting comment on the missile situation.0
-
Obama bigly praising Merkel and Germany.
But somewhat subdued.0 -
Using them at a disarming rate, it appears.Scott_P said:
Umm, do we not already have the missiles? Are we using them up at an alarming rate?SouthamObserver said:Is this the military might the EU member states will throw all kinds of concessions at us for?
0 -
I really don't think they are. And even if they asked to be consulted, once it's been submitted, it's been submitted.David_Evershed said:
In that event would MPs be voting to trigger Article 40 to leave the EU?rcs1000 said:
That's harsh. If the vote was 52:48 for Remain, would you have said 48% of the population should just be resigned to us staying in the EU.SandyRentool said:
So half of Remainers are not democrats. Now we know.TheScreamingEagles said:So before another inaccurate meme begins
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
Because parliament (at least the Lords) may be about to stop Article 50 being triggered.0 -
Fantastic thread header, Mr Pulpstar!0
-
Propellants have a finite lifespan, and electronic components decay in hostile marine environments. They're getting on a bit.philiph said:
Using them at a disarming rate, it appears.Scott_P said:
Umm, do we not already have the missiles? Are we using them up at an alarming rate?SouthamObserver said:Is this the military might the EU member states will throw all kinds of concessions at us for?
0 -
Except it's not absurd.stodge said:
That's absurd and you know it. It's very difficult for the third party to be in control of events and to try to anticipate how things will develop. After 1992, many thought the Conservatives would never lose again - after 2005, many thought the Conservatives could never win again.david_herdson said:All of which was foreseeable, which begs the question why they ever embarked on a strategy that was bound to end in disaster (answer: because it would be someone else's disaster and in the meantime there was lots of fun to be had).
In an FPTP system, it's regrettably not just about votes but where they are to produce bums on benches. The primary drive for LD strategy was to get as many MPs elected as possible which isn't an unreasonable strategy for any party.
The only alternative option was for one of the two major parties to schism again - I think the Conservatives came close to the abyss under IDS but removed him in time. The Labour schism of 1981 took place at a time of relative Liberal weakness and in any case the Falklands War came along to save both Margaret Thatcher and the Labour Party in different ways.
When the SDP failed it splintered and elements of the SDP took over both Labour (Blair) and the Conservatives (Cameron).
The Lib Dems actively courted protest votes, based on simply being 'not the other'. That's what all the 'two-horse race' and 'X can't win here' is about.
Simple maths says that the more seats that were won, the more likely it was that there'd be a hung parliament with the Lib Dems being forced to make a choice of some nature putting or keeping one of the big parties in power.
As soon as they did that, a great many of those protest votes would inevitably fall off, as voters who'd voted one way locally to keep X out watched the Lib Dems put X into power nationally.
What's more, the likelihood was that it was the Tories that the Lib Dems would end up having to back. It's very rare for one party to win a working majority when, going into the election, another party has a working majority. Gaining seats is hard and the 'middle ground' kept growing (not least because of Lib Dem seats). Further, the Lib Dems had always given total votes won a high rating, as a consequence of their 'fair votes' stance. Pre-2015, that meant that in a hung parliament, the Tories would stand at an advantage. Also, after 1997, natural dynamics meant that it would be hard for the Lib Dems to prop up a Labour party that had lost seats in the election and was probably tired (as you say).
It was all foreseeable from the moment that Ashdown abandoned equidistance to cash in on Tory unpopularity in the 1990s.0 -
LEAVE 52%TheScreamingEagles said:
It's a great poll, shows the voters back the rule of law, not mob rule some Leavers advocateSouthamObserver said:
On the previous thread, several posters were saying Sky was biased for not reporting that 68% of respondents to this YouGov poll favoured us leaving the EU. Surprise, surprise, it turns out that it's a bit more complicated than that!!TheScreamingEagles said:So before another inaccurate meme begins
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain
REMAIN 48%
-1 -
Schizoid Embolism?RobD said:
False recall, I suppose.TheScreamingEagles said:
Look at the cross tabs, there's some Leavers that don't want us to Leave.SandyRentool said:
So half of Remainers are not democrats. Now we know.TheScreamingEagles said:So before another inaccurate meme begins
Thinking about the result of the EU referendum, which of the following best reflects your view?
I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU - 45%
I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave - 23%
I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum - 22%
IIRC - The last time YouGov asked a straight Remain/Leave question it was something like 45 Leave and 44% Remain0 -
"There was a time when all my mind was GoveTheScreamingEagles said:
Gove and Osborne will be on the backbenches whilst Mrs May is PM.Sandpit said:
Yep, Gove did the job he had to do, in saving us from PM Boris. He'll do a year on the back benches then will come back into government. Government needs brains like Gove.Tissue_Price said:
You don't subscribe to the Gove-as-suicide-bomber view, then? I think it's fairly plausible myself.Pulpstar said:
The manner in which Gove, Johnson and Leadsom blew their chances at the big prize is what got them included. Leadsom was always a longshot, but she was a brexiteer against a remainer in the final two. That was fundamentally a strong position given the Tory membership.AlastairMeeks said:It depends what you mean by failures. Some of these, George Osborne and Michael Gove for example, may yet have further and greater successes in the future. Two of those named are current Cabinet ministers. And the commentariat (and yes, to the extent that includes me, me) will continue completely unabashed. Cockroaches have nothing on them.
She holds grudges.
Now I find that most of the time
Gove's not enough in itself."0 -
Also bigly praising the EU.David_Evershed said:Obama bigly praising Merkel and Germany.
But somewhat subdued.0 -
Talking of bigly, Trump's Art of the Deal is from today available on Kindle.williamglenn said:
Also bigly praising the EU.David_Evershed said:Obama bigly praising Merkel and Germany.
But somewhat subdued.0 -
Apparently Diane Abbott is in charge of Labour's immigration policy.0
-
The Solicitors Journal has an update on Lady Hale, with her own account of her actions:
https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/201611/exclusive-lady-hale-will-‘absolutely-not’-recuse-herself-article-50-appeal
I think it's behind a paywall, but I can include a few bits here:
"Speaking exclusively to Solicitors Journal today, Lady Hale said she would ‘absolutely not’ recuse herself, adding ‘I have exhibited no bias and those that suggested that I have are simply mistaken.’
The deputy president of the court said she had not expected her speech to be so quickly picked up by the press or that it would receive such a wave of criticism. ‘Part of the reason for that was I had been in the Far East for over a week and so was not familiar with what was going on in the press here, as I would normally be,’ she explained.
Asked whether, in hindsight, she would have given a different speech, Lady Hale explained that the topic had already been agreed with the organisers before the Divisional Court proceedings were decided.
‘It would have been peculiar in the extreme not to mention the case that illustrated some of the things that I was saying in the speech,’ she said. ‘I would probably have done the same, while realising that it might provoke comment. I was very anxious to be as neutral as possible and to simply explain what the case was about, not to express any view at all. It would have been discourteous to my hosts not to explain what [Miller] was about.’ "0 -
Those who support this right/left hybrid of populism haven't learned the lesson that you do not find the solutions to problems of the present in the past. One of the big lessons of the first fifty years of twentieth century is leaders selling grandiose visions based on past glories nearly always ends in disaster.stodge said:Afternoon all
Not sure I quite see the attraction in continuing to rub HRC's nose in the fact she lost but it seems that's all people want to do at the moment. So much easier to dwell on the past rather than consider the challenges of the future. Perhaps a tenet elements of Brexit and Trump supporters share...
As this is a betting site, 2017's list of political failures would have been much more helpful but there you go.
Meanwhile, I see that US voters who 'desperately wanted change', seemed to have swapped one entitled power-hungry elite, for another entitled power hungry elite if the shenanigans of those in the Trump team is anything to go by.0 -
Excellent list and ranked correctly in sheer FUBARness of each "candidate" in my judgment. The one loser I would quibble with is Andrea Leadsom. She didn't have anything to lose and therefore didn't.
Edit and arguably Owen Smith didn't have anything to lose either, for the same reason. The real loser was the Labour Party who relied on such a feeble specimen for its salvation from Corbyn.0 -
Probably should have postponed/cancelled. Whether it was wrong or not is besides the point, it just looks bad.AlastairMeeks said:The Solicitors Journal has an update on Lady Hale, with her own account of her actions:
https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/201611/exclusive-lady-hale-will-‘absolutely-not’-recuse-herself-article-50-appeal
I think it's behind a paywall, but I can include a few bits here:
"Speaking exclusively to Solicitors Journal today, Lady Hale said she would ‘absolutely not’ recuse herself, adding ‘I have exhibited no bias and those that suggested that I have are simply mistaken.’
The deputy president of the court said she had not expected her speech to be so quickly picked up by the press or that it would receive such a wave of criticism. ‘Part of the reason for that was I had been in the Far East for over a week and so was not familiar with what was going on in the press here, as I would normally be,’ she explained.
Asked whether, in hindsight, she would have given a different speech, Lady Hale explained that the topic had already been agreed with the organisers before the Divisional Court proceedings were decided.
‘It would have been peculiar in the extreme not to mention the case that illustrated some of the things that I was saying in the speech,’ she said. ‘I would probably have done the same, while realising that it might provoke comment. I was very anxious to be as neutral as possible and to simply explain what the case was about, not to express any view at all. It would have been discourteous to my hosts not to explain what [Miller] was about.’ "0 -
True. Like Johnson, she didn't get what she wanted, but ended up better off than when she started.FF43 said:Excellent list and ranked correctly in sheer FUBARness of each "candidate" in my judgment. The one loser I would quibble with is Andrea Leadsom. She didn't have anything to lose and therefore didn't
Mind you I agree it's an excellent list. I just think that 2016 being 2016 it may need revising before the year is out.0 -
Mr. D, it looks bad now. If the Supreme Court doesn't find in the Government's favour, it'll look like prejudice.0
-
Thanks. I am not sure Johnson is better off however. He went into the referendum as the heir apparent to Cameron who was expected to step down in a year or two. He now looks very tattered - or is that just my prejudice and he still reliably tickles Tory members' erogenous zones?Carolus_Rex said:
True. Like Johnson, she didn't get what she wanted, but ended up better off than when she started.FF43 said:Excellent list and ranked correctly in sheer FUBARness of each "candidate" in my judgment. The one loser I would quibble with is Andrea Leadsom. She didn't have anything to lose and therefore didn't
Mind you I agree it's an excellent list. I just think that 2016 being 2016 it may need revising before the year is out.0 -
''One of the big lessons of the first fifty years of twentieth century is leaders selling grandiose visions based on past glories nearly always ends in disaster.''
Let's face it. There are no solutions. Globalisation is beggaring many in the western world, and there's nothing much anybody can do.
Thing is, Hillary didn;t even pretend to care. Trump did. He won.0 -
@taffys In the long-term, what use is 'pretending to care'? Just means another set of voters are about to miserable and angry again in four years time.0
-
@Morris_Dancer Only to idiots who are unable to read.0
-
We all know you are quite a clever fellow, but there's no need to act like a lawyer, everyone already knows.AlastairMeeks said:@Morris_Dancer Only to idiots who are unable to read.
0 -
All parties court votes based on 'not being the other'. Both the Tories and Labour are experts at it; there are times when it appears to be their core message.david_herdson said:
The Lib Dems actively courted protest votes, based on simply being 'not the other'. That's what all the 'two-horse race' and 'X can't win here' is about.stodge said:
.david_herdson said:
(Snip)
As soon as they did that, a great many of those protest votes would inevitably fall off, as voters who'd voted one way locally to keep X out watched the Lib Dems put X into power nationally.
What's more, the likelihood was that it was the Tories that the Lib Dems would end up having to back. It's very rare for one party to win a working majority when, going into the election, another party has a working majority. Gaining seats is hard and the 'middle ground' kept growing (not least because of Lib Dem seats). Further, the Lib Dems had always given total votes won a high rating, as a consequence of their 'fair votes' stance. Pre-2015, that meant that in a hung parliament, the Tories would stand at an advantage. Also, after 1997, natural dynamics meant that it would be hard for the Lib Dems to prop up a Labour party that had lost seats in the election and was probably tired (as you say).
It was all foreseeable from the moment that Ashdown abandoned equidistance to cash in on Tory unpopularity in the 1990s.
Junior coalition partners invariably fare badly from the aftermath, and this has been true regardless of the extent to which the junior partner attracts support from its strong and distinctive ideology or for more tactical reasons.
Had the maths been different in 2010, the probability is that a deal with Labour, post-Brown, would have been the preferred option. But the combined majority needed to be big enough to survive the discontent of any 'no deal' rebels in the larger party. Which it wasn't; there was no majority to start with.
Also do not discount the extent to which the LibDems contain rather more politicians motivated by what they stand for and can achieve, rather than principally their own careers and power, since the most ambitious, least scrupulous and principled, will not have joined them in the first place, their not offering that much by way of prospects. And the extent to which the LibDems had a clear idea of what they would likely have to sacrifice (if perhaps not so much to the degree) but thought that the opportunity to do the right thing and exercise some influence was worth it. Commentators generally recognise and give credit to the LibDems for their resolve and the 'backbone' they brought to the government, when often the Tories were wobbling - which was the opposite of what everyone predicted.
0 -
Trump did more than pretend to care. He outlined some deliverable ways in which the process can be interrupted. He's been very consistent on the core issues of trade policy and America first foreign policy for several decades.The_Apocalypse said:@taffys In the long-term, what use is 'pretending to care'? Just means another set of voters are about to miserable and angry again in four years time.
0 -
Things have changed alright:
https://twitter.com/Hadas_Gold/status/7989795650288353410 -
Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, is no friend of the British Conservative Party. Sup with an exceedingly long spoon. Hopefully, he will eventually be ejected because he is an unpleasant person.0
-
CookPoliticalReport @CookPolitical Nov 15
The media has paid a lot of attention to rural America. But the story of the suburbs is just as important: http://bit.ly/2gcUQ5g0 -
Interesting piece Mr Pulpstar. Let's hope 2017 is just as interesting.0
-
We should continue to block it all the way down the line until the EU gives us a serious deal, rather than threatening to make an example of us.AlastairMeeks said:Meanwhile on military matters, the idea of an EU army has developed further momentum:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-defence-germany-idUSKBN13C1T0?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Feed:+Reuters/worldNews+(Reuters+World+News)0 -
Thanks for the image of Johnson tickling Tory members' erogenous zones.FF43 said:
Thanks. I am not sure Johnson is better off however. He went into the referendum as the heir apparent to Cameron who was expected to step down in a year or two. He now looks very tattered - or is that just my prejudice and he still reliably tickles Tory members' erogenous zones?Carolus_Rex said:
True. Like Johnson, she didn't get what she wanted, but ended up better off than when she started.FF43 said:Excellent list and ranked correctly in sheer FUBARness of each "candidate" in my judgment. The one loser I would quibble with is Andrea Leadsom. She didn't have anything to lose and therefore didn't
Mind you I agree it's an excellent list. I just think that 2016 being 2016 it may need revising before the year is out.0 -
Delaying until the other side will accept a serious deal? That sounds uncannily like Brussels' negotiating position too.Casino_Royale said:
We should continue to block it all the way down the line until the EU gives us a serious deal, rather than threatening to make an example of us.AlastairMeeks said:Meanwhile on military matters, the idea of an EU army has developed further momentum:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-defence-germany-idUSKBN13C1T0?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Feed:+Reuters/worldNews+(Reuters+World+News)0 -
Today's reminder of why Hillary lost:
https://twitter.com/dylanlscott/status/799063384192942080
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.0 -
Defence doesn't win votes, aside from those of the minority who work in it.Morris_Dancer said:Defence has been underfunded my whole adult life. It was practically the only department New Labour didn't splurge on, despite joyriding the military, and the Coalition didn't ringfence it when they should've (though that was more economically and politically difficult than Blair/Brown's choice not to improve the situation).
It's one of those things voters take for granted, but there will always be more immediately electorally rewarding options for politicians to spend public money on at its cost.0 -
Mr. Meeks, I see you've been enjoying How To Win Friends And Influence People.
There was already a perception that the judiciary are rather EU-friendly. Then a senior judge comes out with comments about a case before hearing it. It might be lovely in lawyer-land, but the Great Unwashed it looks less than neutral.0 -
Pulpstar you missed the comeback of Ed Balls.0
-
Mr. Royale, sadly, you're right about Defence.0
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-japan-idUSKBN13C0C8
Japanese PM wins the race to be the first foreign leader to meet Trump.0 -
@Morris_Dancer Those capable of reading will see that the words Lady Hale spoke were scrupulously neutral. Those incapable of reading will no doubt believe whatever they like.
The "perception that the judiciary are rather EU-friendly" seems to have taken hold only in the fevered imaginings of WTW Leavers who regard everything as subordinate to the idea of leaving the EU, even if they are incapable of articulating what they are for rather than against, and accordingly are suspicious of anything that might directly or indirectly result in that becoming more complicated.0 -
Defence is like insurance. It's only when you need to make a claim that you start wishing you'd spent more and bought better cover.Casino_Royale said:
Defence doesn't win votes, aside from those of the minority who work in it.Morris_Dancer said:Defence has been underfunded my whole adult life. It was practically the only department New Labour didn't splurge on, despite joyriding the military, and the Coalition didn't ringfence it when they should've (though that was more economically and politically difficult than Blair/Brown's choice not to improve the situation).
It's one of those things voters take for granted, but there will always be more immediately electorally rewarding options for politicians to spend public money on at its cost.0 -
The EU moves at a glacial pace & has time on its side. 2.5 years waiting is nothing to them.Casino_Royale said:
We should continue to block it all the way down the line until the EU gives us a serious deal, rather than threatening to make an example of us.AlastairMeeks said:Meanwhile on military matters, the idea of an EU army has developed further momentum:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-defence-germany-idUSKBN13C1T0?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Feed:+Reuters/worldNews+(Reuters+World+News)0 -
Defence is only a public priority during war.Casino_Royale said:
Defence doesn't win votes, aside from those of the minority who work in it.Morris_Dancer said:Defence has been underfunded my whole adult life. It was practically the only department New Labour didn't splurge on, despite joyriding the military, and the Coalition didn't ringfence it when they should've (though that was more economically and politically difficult than Blair/Brown's choice not to improve the situation).
It's one of those things voters take for granted, but there will always be more immediately electorally rewarding options for politicians to spend public money on at its cost.
It's not a coincidence that historically countries splurge on the military only when there is a war on.0 -
Fucking.Speedy said:Today's reminder of why Hillary lost:
https://twitter.com/dylanlscott/status/799063384192942080
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!0 -
Ground game 2.0.. where you don't actual campaign for fear of looking weak.Alistair said:
Fucking.Speedy said:Today's reminder of why Hillary lost:
https://twitter.com/dylanlscott/status/799063384192942080
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!0 -
Mr. Alistair, it's Ed Balls not campaigning in his own constituency, writ extremely large.
Anyway, I'm off.0 -
0
-
Nah, just ignore it whilst continuing to pressure those members of NATO to live up to their commitments.Casino_Royale said:
We should continue to block it all the way down the line until the EU gives us a serious deal, rather than threatening to make an example of us.AlastairMeeks said:Meanwhile on military matters, the idea of an EU army has developed further momentum:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-defence-germany-idUSKBN13C1T0?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Feed:+Reuters/worldNews+(Reuters+World+News)
The so called EU army is actually nothing of the sort. It is just displacement activity for politicians. If our European allies are serious about improving their defence capability then they must start spending some money on it, as indeed should the UK.0 -
So we can add to Kellyanne Conway's 'things that were true' list her earlier assertion that the Trump campaign was 'in their heads'.Alistair said:
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
https://twitter.com/KellyannePolls/status/7962379050899292170 -
Though we had wars and other operations for almost all of the New Labour years. A brief period of peace, and I could understand talk in the nineties of a "peace dividend", then there was Kosovo and other minor operations and then 9/11 and we were at war twice in Afghanistan and Iraq.Speedy said:
Defence is only a public priority during war.Casino_Royale said:
Defence doesn't win votes, aside from those of the minority who work in it.Morris_Dancer said:Defence has been underfunded my whole adult life. It was practically the only department New Labour didn't splurge on, despite joyriding the military, and the Coalition didn't ringfence it when they should've (though that was more economically and politically difficult than Blair/Brown's choice not to improve the situation).
It's one of those things voters take for granted, but there will always be more immediately electorally rewarding options for politicians to spend public money on at its cost.
It's not a coincidence that historically countries splurge on the military only when there is a war on.
So that's not an excuse. Blair should never have been more than 45 minutes away from properly funding the military.0 -
It is on par with Hitler refusing to give winter clothes to his soldiers in Russia because he didn't want them to think they will be fighting in the winter.Alistair said:
Fucking.Speedy said:Today's reminder of why Hillary lost:
https://twitter.com/dylanlscott/status/799063384192942080
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!0 -
Any different from giving speeches to the police federation after speaking out against them?AlastairMeeks said:#awkward indeed:
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/7993076195212820490 -
-
A new D-GOTV strategy?Alistair said:
Fucking. Morons. I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.Speedy said:Today's reminder of why Hillary lost:
https://twitter.com/dylanlscott/status/799063384192942080
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles. OMFG!
0 -
It's on a par with Dave not prepping the Civil Service for the possibility of Brexit because he didn't want anyone to think he would lose EURef.Speedy said:
It is on par with Hitler refusing to give winter clothes to his soldiers in Russia because he didn't want them to think they will be fighting in the winter.Alistair said:
Fucking.Speedy said:Today's reminder of why Hillary lost:
https://twitter.com/dylanlscott/status/799063384192942080
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!0 -
Can we add this to all your many statements on what the LEAVE campaign was getting wrong and why they would lose?AlastairMeeks said:@Morris_Dancer Those capable of reading will see that the words Lady Hale spoke were scrupulously neutral. Those incapable of reading will no doubt believe whatever they like.
The "perception that the judiciary are rather EU-friendly" seems to have taken hold only in the fevered imaginings of WTW Leavers who regard everything as subordinate to the idea of leaving the EU, even if they are incapable of articulating what they are for rather than against, and accordingly are suspicious of anything that might directly or indirectly result in that becoming more complicated.
0 -
Not having the people there, one could sort of understand, since (insofar as they are mobile) there will always be somewhere else that they can make a difference. But keeping them there and then not working them fully does seem a bit lame.TCPoliticalBetting said:
A new D-GOTV strategy?Alistair said:
Fucking. Morons. I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.Speedy said:Today's reminder of why Hillary lost:
https://twitter.com/dylanlscott/status/799063384192942080
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles. OMFG!0 -
I'm struggling to give a shit about the lead story on the Six O'Clock News.0
-
There is a big difference between providing small contingents to wars in far off lands that do not directly threaten our peace in mainland Britain, and existential wars. There has been no threat of a hot war directly affecting Britain since the end of the hot part of the Cold War.Philip_Thompson said:
Though we had wars and other operations for almost all of the New Labour years. A brief period of peace, and I could understand talk in the nineties of a "peace dividend", then there was Kosovo and other minor operations and then 9/11 and we were at war twice in Afghanistan and Iraq.Speedy said:
Defence is only a public priority during war.Casino_Royale said:
Defence doesn't win votes, aside from those of the minority who work in it.Morris_Dancer said:Defence has been underfunded my whole adult life. It was practically the only department New Labour didn't splurge on, despite joyriding the military, and the Coalition didn't ringfence it when they should've (though that was more economically and politically difficult than Blair/Brown's choice not to improve the situation).
It's one of those things voters take for granted, but there will always be more immediately electorally rewarding options for politicians to spend public money on at its cost.
It's not a coincidence that historically countries splurge on the military only when there is a war on.
So that's not an excuse. Blair should never have been more than 45 minutes away from properly funding the military.0 -
Is that serious?Speedy said:
It is on par with Hitler refusing to give winter clothes to his soldiers in Russia because he didn't want them to think they will be fighting in the winter.Alistair said:
Fucking.Speedy said:Today's reminder of why Hillary lost:
https://twitter.com/dylanlscott/status/799063384192942080
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!0 -
And there still isn't. But we need to be fully prepared to fund properly the equipment, training and staffing to cope with these wars in far off places that we've been engaging in.MTimT said:
There is a big difference between providing small contingents to wars in far off lands that do not directly threaten our peace in mainland Britain, and existential wars. There has been no threat of a hot war directly affecting Britain since the end of the hot part of the Cold War.Philip_Thompson said:
Though we had wars and other operations for almost all of the New Labour years. A brief period of peace, and I could understand talk in the nineties of a "peace dividend", then there was Kosovo and other minor operations and then 9/11 and we were at war twice in Afghanistan and Iraq.Speedy said:
Defence is only a public priority during war.Casino_Royale said:
Defence doesn't win votes, aside from those of the minority who work in it.Morris_Dancer said:Defence has been underfunded my whole adult life. It was practically the only department New Labour didn't splurge on, despite joyriding the military, and the Coalition didn't ringfence it when they should've (though that was more economically and politically difficult than Blair/Brown's choice not to improve the situation).
It's one of those things voters take for granted, but there will always be more immediately electorally rewarding options for politicians to spend public money on at its cost.
It's not a coincidence that historically countries splurge on the military only when there is a war on.
So that's not an excuse. Blair should never have been more than 45 minutes away from properly funding the military.0 -
Looks like Mrs Kellner is soon to be the new Chancellor at Warwick!0
-
So we can now add 2 things on the very long list of what went wrong for the Hillary campaign:
Having an A.I. called ADA ordering Hillary around.
Having General Melchett as campaign strategist.0 -
Permission for lip to wobble, sir!Speedy said:So we can now add 2 things on the very long list of what went wrong for the Hillary campaign:
Having an A.I. called ADA ordering Hillary around.
Having General Melchett as campaign strategist.0 -
So, the Supreme Court can only be neutral if it agrees with the government ?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. D, it looks bad now. If the Supreme Court doesn't find in the Government's favour, it'll look like prejudice.
0 -
Should be living in the land of one of her foreign follies.Sunil_Prasannan said:Looks like Mrs Kellner is soon to be the new Chancellor at Warwick!
http://www.ruseducation.in/Crimea-Federal-University.html0 -
This whole thing is about optics.surbiton said:
So, the Supreme Court can only be neutral if it agrees with the government ?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. D, it looks bad now. If the Supreme Court doesn't find in the Government's favour, it'll look like prejudice.
0 -
You really do not understand humans, do you? You are a robot and I claim my $5.AlastairMeeks said:@Morris_Dancer Only to idiots who are unable to read.
0 -
Housing crisis. Not the fact that a friend of mine has just bought a 3 bedroom semi for £350,000 with a deposit of £17,500 having been given £70,000 by the government. But because Barking and Dagenham can't house the poor.RobD said:
Which story is that?tlg86 said:I'm struggling to give a shit about the lead story on the Six O'Clock News.
0 -
Indeed Hitler did refuse to provide winter clothing for his soldiers invading the USSR in 1941 because he didn't want to give the impression that the war would last until the winter.Philip_Thompson said:
Is that serious?Speedy said:
It is on par with Hitler refusing to give winter clothes to his soldiers in Russia because he didn't want them to think they will be fighting in the winter.Alistair said:
Fucking.Speedy said:Today's reminder of why Hillary lost:
https://twitter.com/dylanlscott/status/799063384192942080
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!
When winter finally arrived he dispatched Goebbels around Germany to collect fur coats in charity events.
Stupid political and psychological posturing lead to catastrophic defeat for both Hillary and Hitler.0 -
We've had enough of the Police getting involved in media manipulation and spin in recent years. Let's not extend that to the judiciary.RobD said:
This whole thing is about optics.surbiton said:
So, the Supreme Court can only be neutral if it agrees with the government ?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. D, it looks bad now. If the Supreme Court doesn't find in the Government's favour, it'll look like prejudice.
0
