Ah, the mindset of the Corbynista, as revealed by the mystery Norfolk punter:
The man said he had previously placed smaller bets on football, but lost. However, he said he was “absolutely completely certain” Labour would win.
If his fortunes change and he wins then the UK will have the most left-wing government in the western world after this manifesto except perhaps for Greece and Brexit on top of that too
And they'll likely confiscate his winnings as he will have become a fat cat.
Pence and Ryan are expected to go down with the Trump ship, which leaves Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Twitter says he is already getting security briefings!
Oh no that's my wager blown,. Mind you I see Orrin is 83 so he would seem rather a geriatric alternative.
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Plus what he did is completely legal under US law, because the President is the final arbiter of what is "classfied information". So stupid, probably, treasonous, no way.
Colluding with Russia is NOT going to go down well with the GOP House.
Who are not going to commit suicide and get a dem president elected one second earlier than they have to.
The VP is Republican.
Just about every Dem sees Pence and much more dangerous that Trump, Trump is a buffoon, Pence is a calculating, experienced, well connected hard-right evangelical. In that circumstance I am not sure their support can be relied upon.
I have a potentially rather profitable private bet running with a Trumpite acquaintance that Pence will be POTUS before the end of 2018
Hmmm. I rather like the cut of Pence's jib, to give it a nautical ring. Trump has been unfairly attacked by the liberal/elite and the MSM. since the second he donned the presidential mantle. However, he hasn't helped himself by playing the clown from time to time.
Wether Trump goes or stays, Pence will be the growing power behind the throne.
Having said that, Trump's approval rating hasn't dropped much, if at all, staying at around 40%. As long as he can keep those, he's probably OK. If we see them dropping to the low thirties, he's in trouble. Usually, that's fatal, although Reagan pulled back from low approval. The net approval ratings don't matter as much, I believe. Trump as always had high negatives, but that didn't stop him being elected, nor the downticket Republicans either.
Plus given Sanders or Warren lead current 2020 polls of Democratic primary voters he will face a more left liberal opponent than Hillary in all likelihood
Bernie Sanders will be 79 on the day of the 2020 election, and Elizabeth Warren 71. Have they got no-one a decade or two younger?
Reagan was about Warren's age and there is nobody prominent left liberal enough for the Democratic base beyond those 2
Ah, the mindset of the Corbynista, as revealed by the mystery Norfolk punter:
The man said he had previously placed smaller bets on football, but lost. However, he said he was “absolutely completely certain” Labour would win.
If his fortunes change and he wins then the UK will have the most left-wing government in the western world after this manifesto except perhaps for Greece and Brexit on top of that too
And they'll likely confiscate his winnings as he will have become a fat cat.
Having said that, Trump's approval rating hasn't dropped much, if at all, staying at around 40%. As long as he can keep those, he's probably OK. If we see them dropping to the low thirties, he's in trouble. Usually, that's fatal, although Reagan pulled back from low approval. The net approval ratings don't matter as much, I believe. Trump as always had high negatives, but that didn't stop him being elected, nor the downticket Republicans either.
40 at this stage is pretty disastrous historically. But bad for re election. For impeachment by his own party I think the republican base has to abandon him and they think he is doing fine so far.
Taxing the rich harder - bloody great! Be proud of it! Put it through letterboxes and on posters. The rich are getting richer, the majority are getting poorer and living more precariously - hitting the rich should be a vote-winner. Sadly, as ever, people are susceptible to the idea that without all the poshies backing the government the day would soon come when men with beards who don't genuflect to "her majesty" would hand the country over to Russia. I'm talking about people who don't bump into many Russians at Ascot or in Mayfair.
Alternatively quite a lot of people noticed the number of rich French that came over to London when M. Flanby tried to soak the rich across the channel half a decade ago, and are not in a big hurry for lots of our rich to head in the opposite direction. Since we will still be in the EU at that time you would not be able to stop either them or their money from going either because of Free Movement of Capital.
Pence and Ryan are expected to go down with the Trump ship, which leaves Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Twitter says he is already getting security briefings!
Mind you that's not exclusive. The Russian foreign minister is getting presidential security briefings too.
Having said that, Trump's approval rating hasn't dropped much, if at all, staying at around 40%. As long as he can keep those, he's probably OK. If we see them dropping to the low thirties, he's in trouble. Usually, that's fatal, although Reagan pulled back from low approval. The net approval ratings don't matter as much, I believe. Trump as always had high negatives, but that didn't stop him being elected, nor the downticket Republicans either.
He can't rely on the Democrats nominating a competitively low-rated opponent again.
Pence and Ryan are expected to go down with the Trump ship, which leaves Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Twitter says he is already getting security briefings!
Mind you that's not exclusive. The Russian foreign minister is getting presidential security briefings too.
You don't think that anyone is giving Trump actual classified information do you? They will just be giving him some waffle so that he cant do any harm!
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
TSE. You are a lawyer. How is this treason, legally? As President, he decides what is a state secret and what is not, and no-one legally can second-guess him.
The Labour party have split their election promises into two documents. One is their manifesto; the other is called "Funding Britain's Future". So I was mistaken to say that they haven't quantified income tax proposals or mentioned IHT. While this is true if we just consider their manifesto, in the other document (which is only eight pages long) they do give figures and mention IHT.
They seem to think reading is for posh people. More fool me (I haven't got TV) for thinking I could inform myself on a party's platform by reading its manifesto.
Rather than talking in their manifesto about IHT, they prefer to refer 11 times to transsexuals. Let's hope Eddie Izzard doesn't help Labour lose votes as he helped lose support for Remain. Most people don't want to accept advice on how things should be in society from a man who wears women's clothes and expects everyone to treat him as though he's not a nutter.
What Labour say about IHT is that they will reverse its reduction.
As for income tax, they give the figures in a footnote, in two lines printed in italics and a small font! They say the 45p rate will start at £80K and the rate will be 50p above £123K.
Taxing the rich harder - bloody great! Be proud of it! Put it through letterboxes and on posters. The rich are getting richer, the majority are getting poorer and living more precariously - hitting the rich should be a vote-winner. Sadly, as ever, people are susceptible to the idea that without all the poshies backing the government the day would soon come when men with beards who don't genuflect to "her majesty" would hand the country over to Russia. I'm talking about people who don't bump into many Russians at Ascot or in Mayfair.
Then again, there's nothing socialist about statements such as
"Labour understands that the creation of wealth is a collective endeavour between workers, entrepreneurs, investors and government. Each contributes and each must share fairly in the rewards."
Thanks - I think Labour will be quietly happy with this launch. Lots to fire their activists up, lots to sell on the doorsteps to different groups (you look young, free tuition fees? you look old, triple lock and low retirement age? you look sick, more for NHS? you look rich, join the socialist revolution!) and enthusiam will count for something.
My fear in all this analysis is that anyone seriously interested in whether Labour's sums add up has long jumped ship.
Doubt I can make it to the pubmeet sadly, my wife is not well so I can't just jump down to London for the sake of it anymore but hope you have a profitable time.
As for that bet: daylight robbery, were it not that he accosted Ladbrokes and thrust his money upon them!
Good afternoon Mr Dancer.
Still not seen the race yet, my weekend being rather rudely interrupted by a bunch of high-paying customers wanting advice on backups and security patches. Is it worth watching?
Pence and Ryan are expected to go down with the Trump ship, which leaves Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Twitter says he is already getting security briefings!
Mind you that's not exclusive. The Russian foreign minister is getting presidential security briefings too.
You don't think that anyone is giving Trump actual classified information do you? They will just be giving him some waffle so that he cant do any harm!
Whoever leaked the story clearly had an agenda, so it may not be as damaging in reality as it was made out to be. However, on the facts as far as we have been told them, it was a highly classified piece of intelligence. Also I don't think you can stop the president seeing classified information. Perhaps you can distract him a bit ...
Having said that, Trump's approval rating hasn't dropped much, if at all, staying at around 40%. As long as he can keep those, he's probably OK. If we see them dropping to the low thirties, he's in trouble. Usually, that's fatal, although Reagan pulled back from low approval. The net approval ratings don't matter as much, I believe. Trump as always had high negatives, but that didn't stop him being elected, nor the downticket Republicans either.
Plus given Sanders or Warren lead current 2020 polls of Democratic primary voters he will face a more left liberal opponent than Hillary in all likelihood
Bernie Sanders will be 79 on the day of the 2020 election, and Elizabeth Warren 71. Have they got no-one a decade or two younger?
Rep. Joe Kennedy, even htough he is only a House Rep.
Having said that, Trump's approval rating hasn't dropped much, if at all, staying at around 40%. As long as he can keep those, he's probably OK. If we see them dropping to the low thirties, he's in trouble. Usually, that's fatal, although Reagan pulled back from low approval. The net approval ratings don't matter as much, I believe. Trump as always had high negatives, but that didn't stop him being elected, nor the downticket Republicans either.
Plus given Sanders or Warren lead current 2020 polls of Democratic primary voters he will face a more left liberal opponent than Hillary in all likelihood
Bernie Sanders will be 79 on the day of the 2020 election, and Elizabeth Warren 71. Have they got no-one a decade or two younger?
Reagan was about Warren's age and there is nobody prominent left liberal enough for the Democratic base beyond those 2
There's time yet. three years before he became President, Obama was a newly elected first term senator with limited profile beyond the conference speech. Kamala Harris would be similarly situated (arguably better as she was California AG)
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
TSE. You are a lawyer. How is this treason, legally? As President, he decides what is a state secret and what is not, and no-one legally can second-guess him.
Well it comes down to whether sharing classified information with the Russians is a high crime/misdemeanour. It comes down to what he shared, if I have read the story correctly he's shared information from another country (believed to be the UK) with the Russians, which limits his ability to declare it a state secret or not.
Coupled with his potential witness intimidation and suborning perjury, this makes for a big noisy mess.
I still want General Flynn prosecuted for violating the Logan Act
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
TSE. You are a lawyer. How is this treason, legally? As President, he decides what is a state secret and what is not, and no-one legally can second-guess him.
Well it comes down to whether sharing classified information with the Russians is a high crime/misdemeanour. It comes down to what he shared, if I have read the story correctly he's shared information from another country (believed to be the UK) with the Russians, which limits his ability to declare it a state secret or not.
Coupled with his potential witness intimidation and suborning perjury, this makes for a big noisy mess.
I still want General Flynn prosecuted for violating the Logan Act
But he isnt sharing classified information if he himself decides it isnt classified. The president has plenipotentiary powers to decide what is classified and what is not. He might be a fool for pissing off an ally, but he isnt breaking any law I am aware of.
They keep their jobs if they do and risk losing them to primary challengers if they don't, so yes.
It depends on whether the congressmen become the story. Why are they defending someone who is clearly a crook? The Dems will push for enquiries and sanctions and the Republicans will push back. The turning point happens when they no longer feel minded to resist.
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
TSE. You are a lawyer. How is this treason, legally? As President, he decides what is a state secret and what is not, and no-one legally can second-guess him.
Well it comes down to whether sharing classified information with the Russians is a high crime/misdemeanour. It comes down to what he shared, if I have read the story correctly he's shared information from another country (believed to be the UK) with the Russians, which limits his ability to declare it a state secret or not.
Coupled with his potential witness intimidation and suborning perjury, this makes for a big noisy mess.
I still want General Flynn prosecuted for violating the Logan Act
hahaha
Is there really a Logan Act ? I'd always taken it to be a "24" reference to the corrupt President. *beacon cheeks*
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
TSE. You are a lawyer. How is this treason, legally? As President, he decides what is a state secret and what is not, and no-one legally can second-guess him.
Well it comes down to whether sharing classified information with the Russians is a high crime/misdemeanour. It comes down to what he shared, if I have read the story correctly he's shared information from another country (believed to be the UK) with the Russians, which limits his ability to declare it a state secret or not.
Coupled with his potential witness intimidation and suborning perjury, this makes for a big noisy mess.
I still want General Flynn prosecuted for violating the Logan Act
But he isnt sharing classified information if he himself decides it isnt classified. The president has plenipotentiary powers to decide what is classified and what is not. He might be a fool for pissing off an ally, but he isnt breaking any law I am aware of.
Not if the supplying country has specified no sharing with other countries.
if I have read the story correctly he's shared information from another country (believed to be the UK) with the Russians, which limits his ability to declare it a state secret or not.
That only limit's his ability to declare it a UK (or Israeli) state secret, not a US one. It is not treason to share another country's secrets.
There are no legal grounds for impeaching a US President based on sharing classified information, because the President is the final arbiter of what is classified. The mere act of him sharing information is an act of declassification.
I am and have never been a Trump fan. And I hope he is impeached. But this particular issue is not the solid case many think it is.
Health warning: LibDem supporters should sit down and take any prescribed medications before clicking on the 'LD-held seats in E&W' filter under Marginal Constituencies. Admittedly, those figures are based on a very small sample.
Ah, the mindset of the Corbynista, as revealed by the mystery Norfolk punter:
The man said he had previously placed smaller bets on football, but lost. However, he said he was “absolutely completely certain” Labour would win.
If his fortunes change and he wins then the UK will have the most left-wing government in the western world after this manifesto except perhaps for Greece and Brexit on top of that too
And they'll likely confiscate his winnings as he will have become a fat cat.
As things stand Labour's plans could mean people earning between £100,000 and £123,000 will pay 73.2% in tax once employer and employee National Insurance contributions, as well as income tax, are factored in.
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
TSE. You are a lawyer. How is this treason, legally? As President, he decides what is a state secret and what is not, and no-one legally can second-guess him.
Well it comes down to whether sharing classified information with the Russians is a high crime/misdemeanour. It comes down to what he shared, if I have read the story correctly he's shared information from another country (believed to be the UK) with the Russians, which limits his ability to declare it a state secret or not.
Coupled with his potential witness intimidation and suborning perjury, this makes for a big noisy mess.
I still want General Flynn prosecuted for violating the Logan Act
But he isnt sharing classified information if he himself decides it isnt classified. The president has plenipotentiary powers to decide what is classified and what is not. He might be a fool for pissing off an ally, but he isnt breaking any law I am aware of.
Not if the supplying country has specified no sharing with other countries.
But that is not treason. It is breach of trust with another country.
Very surprised that Lab apart from everything else (where do I start?) want to abolish tuition fees. It is indicative IMO of their general malaise. Get the general public, including those nurses who must go to the food bank, to pay for students to go to University. Almost as though they either think, or want people to think that if there are no tuition fees, then tuition will be "free".
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
They keep their jobs if they do and risk losing them to primary challengers if they don't, so yes.
It depends on whether the congressmen become the story. Why are they defending someone who is clearly a crook? The Dems will push for enquiries and sanctions and the Republicans will push back. The turning point happens when they no longer feel minded to resist.
Clearly a crook to who? The base are going to require a very very high standard of evidence to turn on Trump. Short of a video of him admitting he conspired to steal the election with the Russians because he has massive loans from Putin what would convince them?
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
The big thing that a sensible government should be doing is looking at way to encourage phased retirement. It is bonkers that is this day and age at 65 ot 68 etc you go from 40hrs a week to 0. It would be far more sensible to have it that throughout your 60's you start to reduce the number of hours, also better for people's health etc etc etc.
if I have read the story correctly he's shared information from another country (believed to be the UK) with the Russians, which limits his ability to declare it a state secret or not.
That only limit's his ability to declare it a UK (or Israeli) state secret, not a US one. It is not treason to share another country's secrets.
There are no legal grounds for impeaching a US President based on sharing classified information, because the President is the final arbiter of what is classified. The mere act of him sharing information is an act of declassification.
I am and have never been a Trump fan. And I hope he is impeached. But this particular issue is not the solid case many think it is.
I've said earlier his opponents will be on stronger ground if they go down the witness intimidation route.
One of the people I know from the ACLU has said one of the things in Trump's favour is that the US constitution and laws really never expected a President to act in such a reckless fashion.
Though they did leave the High Crimes and Misdemeanours option pretty open and vague.
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
Republicans in Congress support Trump because as a president from the same party he helps deliver their agenda - selection of judges, legislation and so on. The moment they think he is going to cost them their seats they will turn on him. That moment looks to be close.
For the majority I think the greater risk is a primary challenge not a Democrat. Even in a dem landslide something like 70% wouldn't lose their seats.
if I have read the story correctly he's shared information from another country (believed to be the UK) with the Russians, which limits his ability to declare it a state secret or not.
That only limit's his ability to declare it a UK (or Israeli) state secret, not a US one. It is not treason to share another country's secrets.
There are no legal grounds for impeaching a US President based on sharing classified information, because the President is the final arbiter of what is classified. The mere act of him sharing information is an act of declassification.
I am and have never been a Trump fan. And I hope he is impeached. But this particular issue is not the solid case many think it is.
True. The only comeback is to point out that if anyone else had done what Trump is alleged to have done they would end up behind bars. There is nothing to stop Congress bringing impeachment charges against Trump without proof of a crime being committed. It means the allegations get aired, which is largely the intent, and it sometimes leads to the defendant resigning.
Ah, the mindset of the Corbynista, as revealed by the mystery Norfolk punter:
The man said he had previously placed smaller bets on football, but lost. However, he said he was “absolutely completely certain” Labour would win.
If his fortunes change and he wins then the UK will have the most left-wing government in the western world after this manifesto except perhaps for Greece and Brexit on top of that too
And they'll likely confiscate his winnings as he will have become a fat cat.
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
The big thing that a sensible government should be doing is looking at way to encourage phased retirement. It is bonkers that is this day and age at 65 ot 68 etc you go from 40hrs a week to 0. It would be far more sensible to have it that throughout your 60's you start to reduce the number of hours, also better for people's health etc etc etc.
A genuinely radical progressive left-wing govnerment would propose something like that. Corbyn's manifesto is nothing like that, it's really quite simply a test, if you vote Labour at the general election you are a fool.
Trump in this case (as many) appears to be a fool, not a crook.
Department of the Navy v. Egan 484 U.S. 518 (1988)
The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.
Not if the supplying country has specified no sharing with other countries.
Not even then. That is covered under E.O 13292, which classifies documents obtained from foreign confidential sources, but as per Navy v Egan, the Presidential power to classify and declassify exists entirely outside the legislative framework, and derives from the Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13292
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
Yep. Like it or not we need to get the pension age up to 70 as soon as possible, certainly for white-collar workers. Maybe some sort of part-time phased retirement can be made to work, the current system of people having 15 or 20 years of healthy retirement is completely unsustainable.
Health warning: LibDem supporters should sit down and take any prescribed medications before clicking on the 'LD-held seats in E&W' filter under Marginal Constituencies. Admittedly, those figures are based on a very small sample.
It suggests the general transition matrix of the last ICM :
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
The big thing that a sensible government should be doing is looking at way to encourage phased retirement. It is bonkers that into day and age at 65 ot 68 etc you go from 40hrs a week to 0. It would be far more sensible to have it that throughout your 60's you start to reduce the number of hours.
Yes, absolutely. To be fair, that it is already happening quite a lot.
It's not just about money either. There's plenty of evidence that keeping working, perhaps with shorter hours or in a different role, helps your mental and physical health, including reducing the risk of dementia The big statistic to watch isn't so much life expectancy, but disability-free life expectancy, which is rising more slowly than full life expectancy. Both figures vary dramatically according to area of the country, occupation and wealth.
But why no ball park figure for the cost of renationalising four major industries, he's asked.
"Because we don't know what the share price would be at the time that we do it," he replies.
Then why not just say ‘based on today’s share price’ the cost is (x), but subject to change.
As has been pointed out below, most of these figures have just been plucked from Googling.
A bit like how they arrived at the policing figure, average wage times the number of police is the cost. Missing out such minor things as equipment, transport, support, pensions etc.
if I have read the story correctly he's shared information from another country (believed to be the UK) with the Russians, which limits his ability to declare it a state secret or not.
That only limit's his ability to declare it a UK (or Israeli) state secret, not a US one. It is not treason to share another country's secrets.
There are no legal grounds for impeaching a US President based on sharing classified information, because the President is the final arbiter of what is classified. The mere act of him sharing information is an act of declassification.
I am and have never been a Trump fan. And I hope he is impeached. But this particular issue is not the solid case many think it is.
I've said earlier his opponents will be on stronger ground if they go down the witness intimidation route.
One of the people I know from the ACLU has said one of the things in Trump's favour is that the US constitution and laws really never expected a President to act in such a reckless fashion.
Though they did leave the High Crimes and Misdemeanours option pretty open and vague.
My own read is that witness intimidation is too much of a subjective call. I think it is his business dealings that one way or the other will eventually trip him up.
Very surprised that Lab apart from everything else (where do I start?) want to abolish tuition fees. It is indicative IMO of their general malaise. Get the general public, including those nurses who must go to the food bank, to pay for students to go to University. Almost as though they either think, or want people to think that if there are no tuition fees, then tuition will be "free".
And don't forget what's happened to Scotland - free tuition fees acting as a subsidy to middle class families, participation by the disadvantaged lower than in England.
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
There are alternative solutions. Why not phase the state pension and try to encourage older workers to go part-time? Putting the full pension age up higher and doing it more quickly would be much more palatable if people could afford to wind down for a number of years, rather than flog themselves for the full forty hours a week until 70. *EDIT* Have just seen that @FrancisUrquhart has beaten me to this idea!
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
The big thing that a sensible government should be doing is looking at way to encourage phased retirement. It is bonkers that into day and age at 65 ot 68 etc you go from 40hrs a week to 0. It would be far more sensible to have it that throughout your 60's you start to reduce the number of hours.
Yes, absolutely. To be fair, that it is already happening quite a lot.
It's not just about money either. There's plenty of evidence that keeping working, perhaps with shorter hours or in a different role, helps your mental and physical health, including reducing the risk of dementia The big statistic to watch isn't so much life expectancy, but disability-free life expectancy, which is rising more slowly than full life expectancy. Both figures vary dramatically according to area of the country, occupation and wealth.
I personally don't intend to stop working before at least 70 (health permitting). One because I enjoy what I do and be because the mental challenge is good for the mind.
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
The big thing that a sensible government should be doing is looking at way to encourage phased retirement. It is bonkers that is this day and age at 65 ot 68 etc you go from 40hrs a week to 0. It would be far more sensible to have it that throughout your 60's you start to reduce the number of hours, also better for people's health etc etc etc.
Actually I found going from 40+ hours a week to 0 to be enormously beneficial as have all my friends who are now retired (none of us can work out how we had the time to work given how busy we all are).
The idea of a sliding scale of hours worked down to full retirement is impractical. How the heck do employers plan for replacement?
if I have read the story correctly he's shared information from another country (believed to be the UK) with the Russians, which limits his ability to declare it a state secret or not.
That only limit's his ability to declare it a UK (or Israeli) state secret, not a US one. It is not treason to share another country's secrets.
There are no legal grounds for impeaching a US President based on sharing classified information, because the President is the final arbiter of what is classified. The mere act of him sharing information is an act of declassification.
I am and have never been a Trump fan. And I hope he is impeached. But this particular issue is not the solid case many think it is.
I've said earlier his opponents will be on stronger ground if they go down the witness intimidation route.
One of the people I know from the ACLU has said one of the things in Trump's favour is that the US constitution and laws really never expected a President to act in such a reckless fashion.
Though they did leave the High Crimes and Misdemeanours option pretty open and vague.
My own read is that witness intimidation is too much of a subjective call. I think it is his business dealings that one way or the other will eventually trip him up.
It's not a legal question though? All that matters is what Congress thinks.
As things stand Labour's plans could mean people earning between £100,000 and £123,000 will pay 73.2% in tax once employer and employee National Insurance contributions, as well as income tax, are factored in.
Cheap as chips...
I never knew employers NIC was counted as a tax on the individual [ even accepting that EES NIC is tax for all practical purposes. ] What is the marginal rate now ?
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
Yep. Like it or not we need to get the pension age up to 70 as soon as possible, certainly for white-collar workers. Maybe some sort of part-time phased retirement can be made to work, the current system of people having 15 or 20 years of healthy retirement is completely unsustainable.
I'm glad you said white collar workers. a roofer acquaintance of mine who retired at 63 said he was physically knackered out, knees gone back gone etc. However how can you have differential state retirement ages?
As things stand Labour's plans could mean people earning between £100,000 and £123,000 will pay 73.2% in tax once employer and employee National Insurance contributions, as well as income tax, are factored in.
Cheap as chips...
I suspect there will be a number who decide to earn £99.99K and take Fridays off. If you're at that level you can probably afford to forgo £6.2K for 20% time off.
if I have read the story correctly he's shared information from another country (believed to be the UK) with the Russians, which limits his ability to declare it a state secret or not.
That only limit's his ability to declare it a UK (or Israeli) state secret, not a US one. It is not treason to share another country's secrets.
There are no legal grounds for impeaching a US President based on sharing classified information, because the President is the final arbiter of what is classified. The mere act of him sharing information is an act of declassification.
I am and have never been a Trump fan. And I hope he is impeached. But this particular issue is not the solid case many think it is.
True. The only comeback is to point out that if anyone else had done what Trump is alleged to have done they would end up behind bars. There is nothing to stop Congress bringing impeachment charges against Trump without proof of a crime being committed. It means the allegations get aired, which is largely the intent, and it sometimes leads to the defendant resigning.
Thanks. I was being careless in my use of the word impeach, using it in its popular usage, rather than in its strict political and legal usage. Congress can choose to impeach him regardless of the evidence, but they can only force him out of office based on evidence, unless they can pressure him into resigning (what is the phrase? Infinitesimally small?)
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
The big thing that a sensible government should be doing is looking at way to encourage phased retirement. It is bonkers that is this day and age at 65 ot 68 etc you go from 40hrs a week to 0. It would be far more sensible to have it that throughout your 60's you start to reduce the number of hours, also better for people's health etc etc etc.
Actually I found going from 40+ hours a week to 0 to be enormously beneficial as have all my friends who are now retired (none of us can work out how we had the time to work given how busy we all are).
The idea of a sliding scale of hours worked down to full retirement is impractical. How the heck do employers plan for replacement?
B&Q make it work....It isn't that hard, how do you plan anything if you know it coming...That's the crucial bit you know this is coming. Many companies already make job shares and people working 3-4 days a week absolutely fine.
if I have read the story correctly he's shared information from another country (believed to be the UK) with the Russians, which limits his ability to declare it a state secret or not.
That only limit's his ability to declare it a UK (or Israeli) state secret, not a US one. It is not treason to share another country's secrets.
There are no legal grounds for impeaching a US President based on sharing classified information, because the President is the final arbiter of what is classified. The mere act of him sharing information is an act of declassification.
I am and have never been a Trump fan. And I hope he is impeached. But this particular issue is not the solid case many think it is.
I've said earlier his opponents will be on stronger ground if they go down the witness intimidation route.
One of the people I know from the ACLU has said one of the things in Trump's favour is that the US constitution and laws really never expected a President to act in such a reckless fashion.
Though they did leave the High Crimes and Misdemeanours option pretty open and vague.
My own read is that witness intimidation is too much of a subjective call. I think it is his business dealings that one way or the other will eventually trip him up.
I wonder if he'll do the deal with Pence that many thought Nixon did with Ford*.
I'll resign now in exchange for a full pardon.
*I don't think Ford ever signed up for that deal, he genuinely thought it was best for the country to end the nightmare.
That's not capital expenditure, it's revenue expenditure. Trust a Lib.Dem to get it wrong.
It is expenditure. Don't understand why Capital expenditure is OK for goverments - in industry it is paid for over a number of years depending on the life of the asset (depreciation). Government capital expenditure doesn't appear to be paid for ever!
As things stand Labour's plans could mean people earning between £100,000 and £123,000 will pay 73.2% in tax once employer and employee National Insurance contributions, as well as income tax, are factored in.
Cheap as chips...
I suspect there will be a number who decide to earn £99.99K and take Fridays off. If you're at that level you can probably afford to forgo £6.2K for 20% time off.
If I wasn't self employed that is exactly what I would do.
@Richard_Nabavi These Lib Dem subsamples look utterly catastrophic to me
Jo Swinson might be a good bet for leader after the GE, as she could be one of two or three Lib Dem MPs all north of the border !
ICM's LD seat subsamples are vanishingly small (owing to the fact, of course, that less than 1.5% of the electorate lives in LD seats.) In the last poll published, it accounted for just 29 respondents.
Even read across a whole series of surveys, you would have to conclude that the findings for a group this small are meaningless.
It's not a legal question though? All that matters is what Congress thinks.
Congress thinks that without a smoking gun there is no way they are going to hand the Dems such a obvious noose to hang around the necks at the midterms and the next election. A bit of bitching about bad faith dealing in secrets of allies, especially when connected to attacking ISIS, is not going to be remotely as damaging as the Dems being able to prance around pointing at an impeached Republican President.
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
The big thing that a sensible government should be doing is looking at way to encourage phased retirement. It is bonkers that is this day and age at 65 ot 68 etc you go from 40hrs a week to 0. It would be far more sensible to have it that throughout your 60's you start to reduce the number of hours, also better for people's health etc etc etc.
Actually I found going from 40+ hours a week to 0 to be enormously beneficial as have all my friends who are now retired (none of us can work out how we had the time to work given how busy we all are).
The idea of a sliding scale of hours worked down to full retirement is impractical. How the heck do employers plan for replacement?
B&Q make it work....It isn't that hard, how do you plan anything if you know it coming...That's the crucial bit you know this is coming. Many companies already make job shares and people working 3-4 days a week absolutely fine.
B&Q can make having part time shop assistants work, as can just about everybody. Now lets us think about someone who has been managing a department of N people essential to the organisation's purpose. How does that manager gradually withdraw over a period of years and someone else gradually step up to the plate over a period of years? How, when it comes down to it, can anyone be a part-time leader?
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
Yep. Like it or not we need to get the pension age up to 70 as soon as possible, certainly for white-collar workers. Maybe some sort of part-time phased retirement can be made to work, the current system of people having 15 or 20 years of healthy retirement is completely unsustainable.
I'm glad you said white collar workers. a roofer acquaintance of mine who retired at 63 said he was physically knackered out, knees gone back gone etc. However how can you have differential state retirement ages?
Yes, it's a really tricky one to work out, the average tradesman can be physically drained by 65, whereas the average pen pusher can probably work happily until 70. I expect the answer is to allow people more flexibility in their retirement date, in exchange for differing levels of pension payment on retirement based on actuarial tables.
What's clear is that a radical solution to the time bomb is required, the problem is further exacerbated by the 1997 raid on private pensions, the closing of company schemes and that interest rates have now been on the floor for almost a decade.
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
The big thing that a sensible government should be doing is looking at way to encourage phased retirement. It is bonkers that is this day and age at 65 ot 68 etc you go from 40hrs a week to 0. It would be far more sensible to have it that throughout your 60's you start to reduce the number of hours, also better for people's health etc etc etc.
Actually I found going from 40+ hours a week to 0 to be enormously beneficial as have all my friends who are now retired (none of us can work out how we had the time to work given how busy we all are).
The idea of a sliding scale of hours worked down to full retirement is impractical. How the heck do employers plan for replacement?
B&Q make it work....It isn't that hard, how do you plan anything if you know it coming...That's the crucial bit you know this is coming. Many companies already make job shares and people working 3-4 days a week absolutely fine.
Its one thing for retail positions in which staff are more or less interchangable, and another to do it in a professional environment where the person relies on a lot of ongoing domain knowledge to do their job.
If the semi-retiree was any sort of engineer or designer it would be a complete nightmare, differences in style, differences in technique, and a massive transfer of knowledge required every time they swapped...
Imagine an architect trying to explain and justify the changing in a design for a substantial development that he had made in the past 3 days to his workshare colleague - and them doing that twice a week!
I expect I'm missing something, but I can't get excited about the Trump information-sharing thingy. If he'd shared information with N. Korea, that's one thing. But sharing information with Russia about marmalising ISIS looks like a good idea. Or is that not cricket?
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
The big thing that a sensible government should be doing is looking at way to encourage phased retirement. It is bonkers that is this day and age at 65 ot 68 etc you go from 40hrs a week to 0. It would be far more sensible to have it that throughout your 60's you start to reduce the number of hours, also better for people's health etc etc etc.
Actually I found going from 40+ hours a week to 0 to be enormously beneficial as have all my friends who are now retired (none of us can work out how we had the time to work given how busy we all are).
The idea of a sliding scale of hours worked down to full retirement is impractical. How the heck do employers plan for replacement?
B&Q make it work....It isn't that hard, how do you plan anything if you know it coming...That's the crucial bit you know this is coming. Many companies already make job shares and people working 3-4 days a week absolutely fine.
B&Q can make having part time shop assistants work, as can just about everybody. Now lets us think about someone who has been managing a department of N people essential to the organisation's purpose. How does that manager gradually withdraw over a period of years and someone else gradually step up to the plate over a period of years? How, when it comes down to it, can anyone be a part-time leader?
They keep their jobs if they do and risk losing them to primary challengers if they don't, so yes.
It depends on whether the congressmen become the story. Why are they defending someone who is clearly a crook? The Dems will push for enquiries and sanctions and the Republicans will push back. The turning point happens when they no longer feel minded to resist.
Clearly a crook to who? The base are going to require a very very high standard of evidence to turn on Trump. Short of a video of him admitting he conspired to steal the election with the Russians because he has massive loans from Putin what would convince them?
Vocalising the potential criticisms of voters towards their representative. At the moment Republican congressmen are content to defend Trump, but I think some are close to giving up on him. It only takes a handful to go neutral and the Dems will carry the day on special investigations.
The other thing to bear in mind with Trump is that he was elected DESPITE the efforts of the GOP establishment. A number don't like him and don't think they owe him any favours.
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
The big thing that a sensible government should be doing is looking at way to encourage phased retirement. It is bonkers that is this day and age at 65 ot 68 etc you go from 40hrs a week to 0. It would be far more sensible to have it that throughout your 60's you start to reduce the number of hours, also better for people's health etc etc etc.
Actually I found going from 40+ hours a week to 0 to be enormously beneficial as have all my friends who are now retired (none of us can work out how we had the time to work given how busy we all are).
The idea of a sliding scale of hours worked down to full retirement is impractical. How the heck do employers plan for replacement?
B&Q make it work....It isn't that hard, how do you plan anything if you know it coming...That's the crucial bit you know this is coming. Many companies already make job shares and people working 3-4 days a week absolutely fine.
B&Q can make having part time shop assistants work, as can just about everybody. Now lets us think about someone who has been managing a department of N people essential to the organisation's purpose. How does that manager gradually withdraw over a period of years and someone else gradually step up to the plate over a period of years? How, when it comes down to it, can anyone be a part-time leader?
@Richard_Nabavi These Lib Dem subsamples look utterly catastrophic to me
Jo Swinson might be a good bet for leader after the GE, as she could be one of two or three Lib Dem MPs all north of the border !
ICM's LD seat subsamples are vanishingly small (owing to the fact, of course, that less than 1.5% of the electorate lives in LD seats.) In the last poll published, it accounted for just 29 respondents.
Even read across a whole series of surveys, you would have to conclude that the findings for a group this small are meaningless.
LD Held seats in England and Wales, look at the general picture. n = 118.
It's still a very small sample but look at the lines. Those are terrible news
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
The big thing that a sensible government should be doing is looking at way to encourage phased retirement. It is bonkers that is this day and age at 65 ot 68 etc you go from 40hrs a week to 0. It would be far more sensible to have it that throughout your 60's you start to reduce the number of hours, also better for people's health etc etc etc.
Actually I found going from 40+ hours a week to 0 to be enormously beneficial as have all my friends who are now retired (none of us can work out how we had the time to work given how busy we all are).
The idea of a sliding scale of hours worked down to full retirement is impractical. How the heck do employers plan for replacement?
B&Q make it work....It isn't that hard, how do you plan anything if you know it coming...That's the crucial bit you know this is coming. Many companies already make job shares and people working 3-4 days a week absolutely fine.
Its one thing for retail positions in which staff are more or less interchangable, and another to do it in a professional environment where the person relies on a lot of ongoing domain knowledge to do their job.
If the semi-retiree was any sort of engineer or designer it would be a complete nightmare, differences in style, differences in technique, and a massive transfer of knowledge required every time they swapped...
Imagine an architect trying to explain and justify the changing in a design for a substantial development that he had made in the past 3 days to his workshare colleague - and them doing that twice a week!
But in the architects or engineers case, you would work on one project rather than many.
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
The big thing that a sensible government should be doing is looking at way to encourage phased retirement. It is bonkers that is this day and age at 65 ot 68 etc you go from 40hrs a week to 0. It would be far more sensible to have it that throughout your 60's you start to reduce the number of hours, also better for people's health etc etc etc.
Actually I found going from 40+ hours a week to 0 to be enormously beneficial as have all my friends who are now retired (none of us can work out how we had the time to work given how busy we all are).
The idea of a sliding scale of hours worked down to full retirement is impractical. How the heck do employers plan for replacement?
B&Q make it work....It isn't that hard, how do you plan anything if you know it coming...That's the crucial bit you know this is coming. Many companies already make job shares and people working 3-4 days a week absolutely fine.
B&Q can make having part time shop assistants work, as can just about everybody. Now lets us think about someone who has been managing a department of N people essential to the organisation's purpose. How does that manager gradually withdraw over a period of years and someone else gradually step up to the plate over a period of years? How, when it comes down to it, can anyone be a part-time leader?
The other thing to bear in mind with Trump is that he was elected DESPITE the efforts of the GOP establishment. A number don't like him and don't think they owe him any favours.
They are still not going to hand the Democrats the electoral golddust of an impeached Republican President. The Democrats for similar reasons are going to want 4 years of Trump instead of 4 years of Pence, Pence is much more effective, much more right wing, and in 4 years the public will have forgotten the Keystone Kops President and will vote for Pence (especially if as expected the Democrats select some loony tunes left-winger)
@Richard_Nabavi These Lib Dem subsamples look utterly catastrophic to me
Jo Swinson might be a good bet for leader after the GE, as she could be one of two or three Lib Dem MPs all north of the border !
ICM's LD seat subsamples are vanishingly small (owing to the fact, of course, that less than 1.5% of the electorate lives in LD seats.) In the last poll published, it accounted for just 29 respondents.
Even read across a whole series of surveys, you would have to conclude that the findings for a group this small are meaningless.
LD Held seats in England and Wales, look at the general picture. n = 118.
It's still a very small sample but look at the lines. Those are terrible news
No doubt about it, the LD failure to perform is the surprise story of this election. Huge potential to boost Theresa's majority and give Corbyn an excuse to cling on.
Labour's proposal to cancel the planned increases in pension age is the single most barmy measure in the whole barmy sweet-bag. We actually need to be discussing whether and when more increases will be needed, beyond those already planned.
The big thing that a sensible government should be doing is looking at way to encourage phased retirement. It is bonkers that is this day and age at 65 ot 68 etc you go from 40hrs a week to 0. It would be far more sensible to have it that throughout your 60's you start to reduce the number of hours, also better for people's health etc etc etc.
Actually I found going from 40+ hours a week to 0 to be enormously beneficial as have all my friends who are now retired (none of us can work out how we had the time to work given how busy we all are).
The idea of a sliding scale of hours worked down to full retirement is impractical. How the heck do employers plan for replacement?
B&Q make it work....It isn't that hard, how do you plan anything if you know it coming...That's the crucial bit you know this is coming. Many companies already make job shares and people working 3-4 days a week absolutely fine.
B&Q can make having part time shop assistants work, as can just about everybody. Now lets us think about someone who has been managing a department of N people essential to the organisation's purpose. How does that manager gradually withdraw over a period of years and someone else gradually step up to the plate over a period of years? How, when it comes down to it, can anyone be a part-time leader?
Comments
http://ge2017.icmunlimited.com
Wether Trump goes or stays, Pence will be the growing power behind the throne.
For impeachment by his own party I think the republican base has to abandon him and they think he is doing fine so far.
I hope you all have a splendid time.
As for that bet: daylight robbery, were it not that he accosted Ladbrokes and thrust his money upon them!
Disappointed @HackneyAbbott not coming on the show today after all. I do hope she changes her mind.
My fear in all this analysis is that anyone seriously interested in whether Labour's sums add up has long jumped ship.
Doubt I can make it to the pubmeet sadly, my wife is not well so I can't just jump down to London for the sake of it anymore but hope you have a profitable time.
Still not seen the race yet, my weekend being rather rudely interrupted by a bunch of high-paying customers wanting advice on backups and security patches. Is it worth watching?
Coupled with his potential witness intimidation and suborning perjury, this makes for a big noisy mess.
I still want General Flynn prosecuted for violating the Logan Act
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/864441577925685248
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/864461057057837056
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/864441847833341953
https://twitter.com/stevewebb1/status/864444586055413760
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/864466239372091392
https://twitter.com/CorbynSnap/status/864464714947903488
Lab 2015 vote
Leave vote
Lab Held and sub 15%
No age filter
Poll 08 (14/05)
Tory 8% Labour 52% UKIP 34%
Leave vote
Safe Labour
No age filter
Poll 08 (14/05)
Labour 70%, Tories 24%
LOL! I'm sure a few 1%ers can rustle up £300bn in no time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39930865
Is there really a Logan Act ? I'd always taken it to be a "24" reference to the corrupt President.
*beacon cheeks*
There are no legal grounds for impeaching a US President based on sharing classified information, because the President is the final arbiter of what is classified. The mere act of him sharing information is an act of declassification.
I am and have never been a Trump fan. And I hope he is impeached. But this particular issue is not the solid case many think it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
I think you can argue Congressman Charlie Wilson violated the Logan Act during the 80s, but he did it for a good cause.
A trial to find out if General Flynn violated the Logan Act would be hysterical.
Health warning: LibDem supporters should sit down and take any prescribed medications before clicking on the 'LD-held seats in E&W' filter under Marginal Constituencies. Admittedly, those figures are based on a very small sample.
"Because we don't know what the share price would be at the time that we do it," he replies.
Cheap as chips...
Plus one
The base are going to require a very very high standard of evidence to turn on Trump.
Short of a video of him admitting he conspired to steal the election with the Russians because he has massive loans from Putin what would convince them?
One of the people I know from the ACLU has said one of the things in Trump's favour is that the US constitution and laws really never expected a President to act in such a reckless fashion.
Though they did leave the High Crimes and Misdemeanours option pretty open and vague.
Even in a dem landslide something like 70% wouldn't lose their seats.
I'm not sure which of them was responsible for more civilian deaths, however.
As has been pointed out below, most of these figures have just been plucked from Googling.
Probably tomorrow.
So by my reckoning the next polls out will be
Ipsos Mori - Wednesday lunchtime
YouGov - Wednesday.
Department of the Navy v. Egan 484 U.S. 518 (1988)
The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. Not even then. That is covered under E.O 13292, which classifies documents obtained from foreign confidential sources, but as per Navy v Egan, the Presidential power to classify and declassify exists entirely outside the legislative framework, and derives from the Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13292
Tory Lab Lib Dem UKIP
Tory 0.9 0.12 0.15 0.52
Lab 0.04 0.75 0.11 0.08
Lib Dem 0.05 0.08 0.7 0.04
UKIP 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.33
may not be a million miles off for Lib Dem seats.
Tories hoovering up ALL the leavers from other parties, and a fair chunk of the Lib Dem ones.
The remain, and aggregate vote transitions are dreadful too.
It's not just about money either. There's plenty of evidence that keeping working, perhaps with shorter hours or in a different role, helps your mental and physical health, including reducing the risk of dementia The big statistic to watch isn't so much life expectancy, but disability-free life expectancy, which is rising more slowly than full life expectancy. Both figures vary dramatically according to area of the country, occupation and wealth.
Jo Swinson might be a good bet for leader after the GE, as she could be one of two or three Lib Dem MPs all north of the border !
The idea of a sliding scale of hours worked down to full retirement is impractical. How the heck do employers plan for replacement?
All that matters is what Congress thinks.
Thanks. I was being careless in my use of the word impeach, using it in its popular usage, rather than in its strict political and legal usage. Congress can choose to impeach him regardless of the evidence, but they can only force him out of office based on evidence, unless they can pressure him into resigning (what is the phrase? Infinitesimally small?)
I'll resign now in exchange for a full pardon.
*I don't think Ford ever signed up for that deal, he genuinely thought it was best for the country to end the nightmare.
Steve Webb didn't in fact say what sort it was.
Arsenal won 2-0 at Anfield in the last minute to win the league, happy days
Worth raising a glass or two on the 28th anniversary
checks spread bet position... open Sell at average 22.71..
Or a golden lining in this case.
Even read across a whole series of surveys, you would have to conclude that the findings for a group this small are meaningless.
What's clear is that a radical solution to the time bomb is required, the problem is further exacerbated by the 1997 raid on private pensions, the closing of company schemes and that interest rates have now been on the floor for almost a decade.
If the semi-retiree was any sort of engineer or designer it would be a complete nightmare, differences in style, differences in technique, and a massive transfer of knowledge required every time they swapped...
Imagine an architect trying to explain and justify the changing in a design for a substantial development that he had made in the past 3 days to his workshare colleague - and them doing that twice a week!
I'm hoping Alistair Carmichael is working his own campaign at this point mind...
The other thing to bear in mind with Trump is that he was elected DESPITE the efforts of the GOP establishment. A number don't like him and don't think they owe him any favours.
https://order-order.com/2017/05/16/reporter-grabs-boob-live-bbc/
It's still a very small sample but look at the lines. Those are terrible news
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/16/general-election-2017-jeremy-corbyns-manifesto-will-hit-nearly/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/16/tim-farron-labour-party-already-dead/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There's trouble at t'DWP.