politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alastair Meeks recommends his approach to baldness as Britain’
Comments
-
We choose to go to the gender neutral bathroom.DavidL said:
He declined to run for senator last year and said he did not plan to run for any other office. He seems a little short of the old star dust right now.HYUFD said:
Joseph P Kennedy III, Bobby Kennedy's grandson, is a future prospect but he needs to move from the House to the Senate first and 2024 is more likely for him than 2020. Thus he could be a candidate to succeed Trump but not to beat Trump.DavidL said:
But Bill Clinton didn't come from any dynasty. He came from a dirt poor family and a dirt poor southern State. Ditto Obama re poverty and Hawaii. Democrats were dazzled by Kennedys but they haven't had a runner since 1980. If the field wasn't so sparse there would be candidates emerging but with only 16 governors in office and many of them pretty elderly the options are poor.philiph said:
They are waiting for the next Kennedy / Clinton (or other descendent of the great Dems of the past) who is ordained to be the next member of the elected dynasty to rule the free world.DavidL said:
They are really paying the price for having so few successful governors. Where on earth are the Clintons of this generation? As the father of 2 daughters I think we really ought to know!Sandpit said:
Biden would be an awesome Dem candidate but he’s too old (he’ll be 78 at his inauguration if he wins in 2020). The problem the Dems have is their good candidates are all really old and their younger candidates aren’t the sort to win marginal States - building up massive votes in California and NY doesn’t make you President.Nigelb said:Off topic, but betting post...
I am becoming convinced that Biden will run, and has a good chance of securing the nomination.
This encouraged me to put a few quid on today:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/oprah-winfrey-2020-poll-343096?lo=ap_d10 -
-
If Biden is fit and well i believe he will run. He must be bloody seething at what happened last time. I have bet accordingly.HYUFD said:
So what, Trump is also old and well over 70 tooSandpit said:
Biden would be an awesome Dem candidate but he’s too old (he’ll be 78 at his inauguration if he wins in 2020). The problem the Dems have is their good candidates are all really old and their younger candidates aren’t the sort to win marginal States - building up massive votes in California and NY doesn’t make you President.Nigelb said:Off topic, but betting post...
I am becoming convinced that Biden will run, and has a good chance of securing the nomination.
This encouraged me to put a few quid on today:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/oprah-winfrey-2020-poll-343096?lo=ap_d10 -
You're going to have to explain that to me. Sorry if I am being a bit Corbyn.Pulpstar said:
We choose to go to the gender neutral bathroom.DavidL said:
He declined to run for senator last year and said he did not plan to run for any other office. He seems a little short of the old star dust right now.HYUFD said:
Joseph P Kennedy III, Bobby Kennedy's grandson, is a future prospect but he needs to move from the House to the Senate first and 2024 is more likely for him than 2020. Thus he could be a candidate to succeed Trump but not to beat Trump.DavidL said:
But Bill Clinton didn't come from any dynasty. He came from a dirt poor family and a dirt poor southern State. Ditto Obama re poverty and Hawaii. Democrats were dazzled by Kennedys but they haven't had a runner since 1980. If the field wasn't so sparse there would be candidates emerging but with only 16 governors in office and many of them pretty elderly the options are poor.philiph said:
They are waiting for the next Kennedy / Clinton (or other descendent of the great Dems of the past) who is ordained to be the next member of the elected dynasty to rule the free world.DavidL said:
They are really paying the price for having so few successful governors. Where on earth are the Clintons of this generation? As the father of 2 daughters I think we really ought to know!Sandpit said:
Biden would be an awesome Dem candidate but he’s too old (he’ll be 78 at his inauguration if he wins in 2020). The problem the Dems have is their good candidates are all really old and their younger candidates aren’t the sort to win marginal States - building up massive votes in California and NY doesn’t make you President.Nigelb said:Off topic, but betting post...
I am becoming convinced that Biden will run, and has a good chance of securing the nomination.
This encouraged me to put a few quid on today:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/oprah-winfrey-2020-poll-343096?lo=ap_d10 -
Mr. Borough, his own fault. He'd be president right now, in all likelihood, had he run.0
-
JFK - "We choose to go to the moon". Whilst the modern day Democratic party is perceived to be obsessed with issues of diversity etc..DavidL said:
You're going to have to explain that to me. Sorry if I am being a bit Corbyn.Pulpstar said:
We choose to go to the gender neutral bathroom.DavidL said:
He declined to run for senator last year and said he did not plan to run for any other office. He seems a little short of the old star dust right now.HYUFD said:
Joseph P Kennedy III, Bobby Kennedy's grandson, is a future prospect but he needs to move from the House to the Senate first and 2024 is more likely for him than 2020. Thus he could be a candidate to succeed Trump but not to beat Trump.DavidL said:
But Bill Clinton didn't come from any dynasty. He came from a dirt poor family and a dirt poor southern State. Ditto Obama re poverty and Hawaii. Democrats were dazzled by Kennedys but they haven't had a runner since 1980. If the field wasn't so sparse there would be candidates emerging but with only 16 governors in office and many of them pretty elderly the options are poor.philiph said:
They are waiting for the next Kennedy / Clinton (or other descendent of the great Dems of the past) who is ordained to be the next member of the elected dynasty to rule the free world.DavidL said:
They are really paying the price for having so few successful governors. Where on earth are the Clintons of this generation? As the father of 2 daughters I think we really ought to know!Sandpit said:
Biden would be an awesome Dem candidate but he’s too old (he’ll be 78 at his inauguration if he wins in 2020). The problem the Dems have is their good candidates are all really old and their younger candidates aren’t the sort to win marginal States - building up massive votes in California and NY doesn’t make you President.Nigelb said:Off topic, but betting post...
I am becoming convinced that Biden will run, and has a good chance of securing the nomination.
This encouraged me to put a few quid on today:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/oprah-winfrey-2020-poll-343096?lo=ap_d10 -
Ah yes, good old McTernan. I remember his SLAB articles before the 2015 GERichard_Nabavi said:
0 -
He is not going to challenge Elizabeth Warren in the Massachusetts Democratic primary this year, if he does run for the Senate it will be to succeed Ed Markey in 2020 given he is 71DavidL said:
He declined to run for senator last year and said he did not plan to run for any other office. He seems a little short of the old star dust right now.HYUFD said:
Joseph P Kennedy III, Bobby Kennedy's grandson, is a future prospect but he needs to move from the House to the Senate first and 2024 is more likely for him than 2020. Thus he could be a candidate to succeed Trump but not to beat Trump.DavidL said:
But Bill Clinton didn't come from any dynasty. He came from a dirt poor family and a dirt poor southern State. Ditto Obama re poverty and Hawaii. Democrats were dazzled by Kennedys but they haven't had a runner since 1980. If the field wasn't so sparse there would be candidates emerging but with only 16 governors in office and many of them pretty elderly the options are poor.philiph said:
They are waiting for the next Kennedy / Clinton (or other descendent of the great Dems of the past) who is ordained to be the next member of the elected dynasty to rule the free world.DavidL said:
They are really paying the price for having so few successful governors. Where on earth are the Clintons of this generation? As the father of 2 daughters I think we really ought to know!Sandpit said:
Biden would be an awesome Dem candidate but he’s too old (he’ll be 78 at his inauguration if he wins in 2020). The problem the Dems have is their good candidates are all really old and their younger candidates aren’t the sort to win marginal States - building up massive votes in California and NY doesn’t make you President.Nigelb said:Off topic, but betting post...
I am becoming convinced that Biden will run, and has a good chance of securing the nomination.
This encouraged me to put a few quid on today:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/oprah-winfrey-2020-poll-343096?lo=ap_d10 -
Biden is the best bet in the general election but he has to get past Sanders, Warren and maybe Oprah too first in the primaryrottenborough said:
If Biden is fit and well i believe he will run. He must be bloody seething at what happened last time. I have bet accordingly.HYUFD said:
So what, Trump is also old and well over 70 tooSandpit said:
Biden would be an awesome Dem candidate but he’s too old (he’ll be 78 at his inauguration if he wins in 2020). The problem the Dems have is their good candidates are all really old and their younger candidates aren’t the sort to win marginal States - building up massive votes in California and NY doesn’t make you President.Nigelb said:Off topic, but betting post...
I am becoming convinced that Biden will run, and has a good chance of securing the nomination.
This encouraged me to put a few quid on today:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/oprah-winfrey-2020-poll-343096?lo=ap_d10 -
I agree. No way Trump would have beaten Biden. But there were family reasons.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Borough, his own fault. He'd be president right now, in all likelihood, had he run.
0 -
Yup. I understand his reasons for not wanting to run last time, but that was his opportunity and it’s not there any more.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Borough, his own fault. He'd be president right now, in all likelihood, had he run.
0 -
All the potential runners look desperately uninspiring to me. Biden would be a good choice but he's a bit old now to be honest and Obama was the better candidate when it might have been a good time for him to run.HYUFD said:
He is not going to challenge Elizabeth Warren in the primary this year, if he does run it will be to succeed Ed Markey in 2020 given he is 71DavidL said:
He declined to run for senator last year and said he did not plan to run for any other office. He seems a little short of the old star dust right now.HYUFD said:
Joseph P Kennedy III, Bobby Kennedy's grandson, is a future prospect but he needs to move from the House to the Senate first and 2024 is more likely for him than 2020. Thus he could be a candidate to succeed Trump but not to beat Trump.DavidL said:
But Bill Clinton didn't come from any dynasty. He came from a dirt poor family and a dirt poor southern State. Ditto Obama re poverty and Hawaii. Democrats were dazzled by Kennedys but they haven't had a runner since 1980. If the field wasn't so sparse there would be candidates emerging but with only 16 governors in office and many of them pretty elderly the options are poor.philiph said:
They are waiting for the next Kennedy / Clinton (or other descendent of the great Dems of the past) who is ordained to be the next member of the elected dynasty to rule the free world.DavidL said:
They are really paying the price for having so few successful governors. Where on earth are the Clintons of this generation? As the father of 2 daughters I think we really ought to know!Sandpit said:
Biden would be an awesome Dem candidate but he’s too old (he’ll be 78 at his inauguration if he wins in 2020). The problem the Dems have is their good candidates are all really old and their younger candidates aren’t the sort to win marginal States - building up massive votes in California and NY doesn’t make you President.Nigelb said:Off topic, but betting post...
I am becoming convinced that Biden will run, and has a good chance of securing the nomination.
This encouraged me to put a few quid on today:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/oprah-winfrey-2020-poll-343096?lo=ap_d10 -
He's not even on the BF board. Although Caroline Kennedy is.HYUFD said:
Joseph P Kennedy III, Bobby Kennedy's grandson, is a future prospect but he needs to move from the House to the Senate first and 2024 is more likely for him than 2020. Thus he could be a candidate to succeed Trump but not to beat Trump.DavidL said:
But Bill Clinton didn't come from any dynasty. He came from a dirt poor family and a dirt poor southern State. Ditto Obama re poverty and Hawaii. Democrats were dazzled by Kennedys but they haven't had a runner since 1980. If the field wasn't so sparse there would be candidates emerging but with only 16 governors in office and many of them pretty elderly the options are poor.philiph said:
They are waiting for the next Kennedy / Clinton (or other descendent of the great Dems of the past) who is ordained to be the next member of the elected dynasty to rule the free world.DavidL said:
They are really paying the price for having so few successful governors. Where on earth are the Clintons of this generation? As the father of 2 daughters I think we really ought to know!Sandpit said:
Biden would be an awesome Dem candidate but he’s too old (he’ll be 78 at his inauguration if he wins in 2020). The problem the Dems have is their good candidates are all really old and their younger candidates aren’t the sort to win marginal States - building up massive votes in California and NY doesn’t make you President.Nigelb said:Off topic, but betting post...
I am becoming convinced that Biden will run, and has a good chance of securing the nomination.
This encouraged me to put a few quid on today:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/oprah-winfrey-2020-poll-343096?lo=ap_d1
I might be tempted for a couple of quid if he was on.0 -
True (given it's the Guardian), but correct all the same.DavidL said:0 -
Mr. Borough, yeah, I remember, and he probably (not unreasonably) thought Clinton would walk it. Anybody who accurately forecast the last US election would've made a killing.0
-
Based on the electorate at the 2017 General Election I calculate that NI would get 17 with 650 seats and now only 16 with 600 seats. The Corbynite increase in electoral registrations for 2017 did not happens in NI and thus the number of seats NI would get based on the revised electorate has gone down.Sean_F said:
18 is the correct number, if there are 650 seats overall.dixiedean said:
Interesting to see he points out that the DUP's complaint is NI losing a seat. I was unaware of that. On that point they have no case. 17 is the number of seats NI gets, whether there are 650 or 600 seats.Verulamius said:
Useful commentary by Nicholas Whyte on his website:Sean_F said:O/T it looks like the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission's revised proposals are much more DUP-friendly. The government may get the changes through the Commons, now.
https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2949414.html
That is simple arithmetic.0 -
There's nothing wrong with playing with toy soldiers, provided you actually use toy soldiers.
A better expression might be something like, "valour by proxy" perhaps.0 -
I do admire Alastair's hat 0
-
Imagine you are a prosperous medium size country with ambitions for the world stage. You are a liberal democracy and you have an open economy. What do you want?
You want leverage and you want to work multilaterally. You have influence. People will listen to your ideas, but you can't impose these on them. By first convincing your partners and then working with them, you have the leverage to make a difference. Your economy is an open one and would prefer other countries to reciprocate. You look to be part of a free trade area. As a liberal democracy you are happy when organisations and countries you work with operate to the same principles of democracy and the rule of law.
We have our specification: Rules-based multilateral organisation operating a common market between its members working to liberal democratic principles. It happens there is an organisation that fits the specification perfectly and it's on our doorstep!
People who say, what about Australia, they manage perfectly fine without the European Union, miss the point in my view. We are passing up an asset that really suits our position and what we are trying to do. Australia recently published a Foreign Policy Whitepaper, interesting read btw, full of angst about the threat coming from China and about how reliable America would be in a time of need. They are feeling pretty lonely because they want to operate multilaterally too. The few references in it to the EU are somewhat wistful ones.
Brexit is worse than losing opportunity however. The European Union is the only show in town in Europe. If we want to work with our neighbouring countries we can only do it through the EU. They will still operate multilaterally but will now cut us out entirely from any decision-making. We can still deal with them but it will be take it or leave it.
I have never particularly bought into the Brexit will be economic disaster scenario.0 -
Thanks! That is what I was vaguely remembering.Verulamius said:
Based on the electorate at the 2017 General Election I calculate that NI would get 17 with 650 seats and now only 16 with 600 seats. The Corbynite increase in electoral registrations for 2017 did not happens in NI and thus the number of seats NI would get based on the revised electorate has gone down.Sean_F said:
18 is the correct number, if there are 650 seats overall.dixiedean said:
Interesting to see he points out that the DUP's complaint is NI losing a seat. I was unaware of that. On that point they have no case. 17 is the number of seats NI gets, whether there are 650 or 600 seats.Verulamius said:
Useful commentary by Nicholas Whyte on his website:Sean_F said:O/T it looks like the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission's revised proposals are much more DUP-friendly. The government may get the changes through the Commons, now.
https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2949414.html
That is simple arithmetic.0 -
But the review isn’t being conducted with the 2017 electorate as it started before the election.dixiedean said:
Thanks! That is what I was vaguely remembering.Verulamius said:
Based on the electorate at the 2017 General Election I calculate that NI would get 17 with 650 seats and now only 16 with 600 seats. The Corbynite increase in electoral registrations for 2017 did not happens in NI and thus the number of seats NI would get based on the revised electorate has gone down.Sean_F said:
18 is the correct number, if there are 650 seats overall.dixiedean said:
Interesting to see he points out that the DUP's complaint is NI losing a seat. I was unaware of that. On that point they have no case. 17 is the number of seats NI gets, whether there are 650 or 600 seats.Verulamius said:
Useful commentary by Nicholas Whyte on his website:Sean_F said:O/T it looks like the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission's revised proposals are much more DUP-friendly. The government may get the changes through the Commons, now.
https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2949414.html
That is simple arithmetic.0 -
Brexit only risks being an economic disaster to the extent that we try to pretend it isn’t a political disaster.FF43 said:Imagine you are a prosperous medium size country with ambitions for the world stage. You are a liberal democracy and you have an open economy. What do you want?
You want leverage and you want to work multilaterally. You have influence. People will listen to your ideas, but you can't impose these on them. By first convincing your partners and then working with them, you have the leverage to make a difference. Your economy is an open one and would prefer other countries to reciprocate. You look to be part of a free trade area. As a liberal democracy you are happy when organisations and countries you work with operate to the same principles of democracy and the rule of law.
We have our specification: Rules-based multilateral organisation operating a common market between its members working to liberal democratic principles. It happens there is an organisation that fits the specification perfectly and it's on our doorstep!
People who say, what about Australia, they manage perfectly fine without the European Union, miss the point in my view. We are passing up an asset that really suits our position and what we are trying to do. Australia recently published a Foreign Policy Whitepaper, interesting read btw, full of angst about the threat coming from China and about how reliable America would be in a time of need. They are feeling pretty lonely because they want to operate multilaterally too. The few references in it to the EU are somewhat wistful ones.
Brexit is worse than losing opportunity however. The European Union is the only show in town in Europe. If we want to work with our neighbouring countries we can only do it through the EU. They will still operate multilaterally but will now cut us out entirely from any decision-making. We can still deal with them but it will be take it or leave it.
I have never particularly bought into the Brexit will be economic disaster scenario.0 -
-
Has McTernan's Jezza sized man crush subsided already? If he's not careful, a mob of pitchfork wielding comrades will be at his door.Pulpstar said:
One can but hope.
'WATCH: Arch-Blairite John McTernan joins Momentum'
https://tinyurl.com/y8ftw5jr0 -
Domino's Pizza CEO: Your Pizzas Will Probably Be Delivered by Autonomous Cars
https://www.thestreet.com/story/14439472/1/dominos-pizza-ceo-talks-about-future-of-fast-food.html
Even with pineapple?0 -
@steverichards14: We are living through the late 70s in reverse. Then assumptions of minority Lab govn were challenged volcanically. Now Grenfell Tower, Carillion, collapse of austere deficit targets, chaotic train services etc challenge outdated assumptions of minority Tory govn.0
-
Canada here I come...Scott_P said:@steverichards14: We are living through the late 70s in reverse. Then assumptions of minority Lab govn were challenged volcanically. Now Grenfell Tower, Carillion, collapse of austere deficit targets, chaotic train services etc challenge outdated assumptions of minority Tory govn.
0 -
Further to my comment the other day that Angela Raynor is on manoeuvres. She's popped up in this week's Spectator, where some Tories describe her as best shadow education minister in a generation and it is noted that she has refused the Momentum Pledge.
I've taken another dip at 14/10 -
'with ambitions for the world stage.' - I don't think we should have "ambitions for the world stage" personally. Meeks' thoughts on the military in the header to take an example echo my own.FF43 said:Imagine you are a prosperous medium size country 'with ambitions for the world stage.'
Edit: Actually I've never seen why being a nuclear power is something to be particularly proud of. Hundreds of other nations, quite a few richer on a per capita basis than our own don't bother with nukes. If it wasn't for the fact of Brexit making us look like a bit of a laughing stock internationally, I'd be in favour of using that political capital to scrap them tommorow.0 -
0
-
As I said he will not be a candidate in 2020, 2024 mayberottenborough said:
He's not even on the BF board. Although Caroline Kennedy is.HYUFD said:
Joseph P Kennedy III, Bobby Kennedy's grandson, is a future prospect but he needs to move from the House to the Senate first and 2024 is more likely for him than 2020. Thus he could be a candidate to succeed Trump but not to beat Trump.DavidL said:
But Bill Clinton didn't come from any dynasty. He came from a dirt poor family and a dirt poor southern State. Ditto Obama re poverty and Hawaii. Democrats were dazzled by Kennedys but they haven't had a runner since 1980. If the field wasn't so sparse there would be candidates emerging but with only 16 governors in office and many of them pretty elderly the options are poor.philiph said:
They are waiting for the next Kennedy / Clinton (or other descendent of the great Dems of the past) who is ordained to be the next member of the elected dynasty to rule the free world.DavidL said:
They are really paying the price for having so few successful governors. Where on earth are the Clintons of this generation? As the father of 2 daughters I think we really ought to know!Sandpit said:
Biden would be an awesome Dem candidate but he’s too old (he’ll be 78 at his inauguration if he wins in 2020). The problem the Dems have is their good candidates are all really old and their younger candidates aren’t the sort to win marginal States - building up massive votes in California and NY doesn’t make you President.Nigelb said:Off topic, but betting post...
I am becoming convinced that Biden will run, and has a good chance of securing the nomination.
This encouraged me to put a few quid on today:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/oprah-winfrey-2020-poll-343096?lo=ap_d1
I might be tempted for a couple of quid if he was on.0 -
By ambitions on the world stage I meant having influence internationally rather than just fitting in to whatever is happening in the world. Be that as it may, after Brexit we will be doing more fitting in.Pulpstar said:
'with ambitions for the world stage.' - I don't think we should have "ambitions for the world stage" personally. Meeks' thoughts on the military in the header to take an example echo my own.FF43 said:Imagine you are a prosperous medium size country 'with ambitions for the world stage.'
Edit: Actually I've never seen why being a nuclear power is something to be particularly proud of. Hundreds of other nations, quite a few richer on a per capita basis than our own don't bother with nukes. If it wasn't for the fact of Brexit making us look like a bit of a laughing stock internationally, I'd be in favour of using that political capital to scrap them tommorow.
I think the defence budget is appropriate for a country of our size. In peacetime you try to have a bit of everything to keep your hand in. My quibbles are with the priorities for the spending rather than the total amount. I agree with you on the nukes and the aircraft carriers don't seem value , although I am by no means an expert.0 -
I understand that. However, if the new boundaries don't go through?RobD said:
But the review isn’t being conducted with the 2017 electorate as it started before the election.dixiedean said:
Thanks! That is what I was vaguely remembering.Verulamius said:
Based on the electorate at the 2017 General Election I calculate that NI would get 17 with 650 seats and now only 16 with 600 seats. The Corbynite increase in electoral registrations for 2017 did not happens in NI and thus the number of seats NI would get based on the revised electorate has gone down.Sean_F said:
18 is the correct number, if there are 650 seats overall.dixiedean said:
Interesting to see he points out that the DUP's complaint is NI losing a seat. I was unaware of that. On that point they have no case. 17 is the number of seats NI gets, whether there are 650 or 600 seats.Verulamius said:
Useful commentary by Nicholas Whyte on his website:Sean_F said:O/T it looks like the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission's revised proposals are much more DUP-friendly. The government may get the changes through the Commons, now.
https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2949414.html
That is simple arithmetic.0 -
Plus the last time a former VP challenged a sitting President, Walter Mondale in 1984, Mondale lost to ReaganPulpstar said:
All the potential runners look desperately uninspiring to me. Biden would be a good choice but he's a bit old now to be honest and Obama was the better candidate when it might have been a good time for him to run.HYUFD said:
He is not going to challenge Elizabeth Warren in the primary this year, if he does run it will be to succeed Ed Markey in 2020 given he is 71DavidL said:
He declined to run for senator last year and said he did not plan to run for any other office. He seems a little short of the old star dust right now.HYUFD said:
Joseph P Kennedy III, Bobby Kennedy's grandson, is a future prospect but he needs to move from the House to the Senate first and 2024 is more likely for him than 2020. Thus he could be a candidate to succeed Trump but not to beat Trump.DavidL said:
But Bill Clinton didn't come from any dynasty. He came from a dirt poor family and a dirt poor southern State. Ditto Obama re poverty and Hawaii. Democrats were dazzled by Kennedys but they haven't had a runner since 1980. If the field wasn't so sparse there would be candidates emerging but with only 16 governors in office and many of them pretty elderly the options are poor.philiph said:
They are waiting for the next Kennedy / Clinton (or other descendent of the great Dems of the past) who is ordained to be the next member of the elected dynasty to rule the free world.DavidL said:
They are really paying the price for having so few successful governors. Where on earth are the Clintons of this generation? As the father of 2 daughters I think we really ought to know!Sandpit said:
Biden would be an awesome Dem candidate but he’s too old (he’ll be 78 at his inauguration if he wins in 2020). The problem the Dems have is their good candidates are all really old and their younger candidates aren’t the sort to win marginal States - building up massive votes in California and NY doesn’t make you President.Nigelb said:Off topic, but betting post...
I am becoming convinced that Biden will run, and has a good chance of securing the nomination.
This encouraged me to put a few quid on today:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/oprah-winfrey-2020-poll-343096?lo=ap_d10 -
Keep an eye on Zephyr Teachout.Can't find her in the betting even but mightily impressive.Pulpstar said:
All the potential runners look desperately uninspiring to me. Biden would be a good choice but he's a bit old now to be honest and Obama was the better candidate when it might have been a good time for him to run.HYUFD said:
He is not going to challenge Elizabeth Warren in the primary this year, if he does run it will be to succeed Ed Markey in 2020 given he is 71DavidL said:
He declined to run for senator last year and said he did not plan to run for any other office. He seems a little short of the old star dust right now.HYUFD said:
Joseph P Kennedy III, Bobby Kennedy's grandson, is a future prospect but he needs to move from the House to the Senate first and 2024 is more likely for him than 2020. Thus he could be a candidate to succeed Trump but not to beat Trump.DavidL said:
But Bill Clinton didn't come from any dynasty. He came from a dirt poor family and a dirt poor southern State. Ditto Obama re poverty and Hawaii. Democrats were dazzled by Kennedys but they haven't had a runner since 1980. If the field wasn't so sparse there would be candidates emerging but with only 16 governors in office and many of them pretty elderly the options are poor.philiph said:
They are waiting for the next Kennedy / Clinton (or other descendent of the great Dems of the past) who is ordained to be the next member of the elected dynasty to rule the free world.DavidL said:
They are really paying the price for having so few successful governors. Where on earth are the Clintons of this generation? As the father of 2 daughters I think we really ought to know!Sandpit said:
Biden would be an awesome Dem candidate but he’s too old (he’ll be 78 at his inauguration if he wins in 2020). The problem the Dems have is their good candidates are all really old and their younger candidates aren’t the sort to win marginal States - building up massive votes in California and NY doesn’t make you President.Nigelb said:Off topic, but betting post...
I am becoming convinced that Biden will run, and has a good chance of securing the nomination.
This encouraged me to put a few quid on today:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/oprah-winfrey-2020-poll-343096?lo=ap_d1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zephyr_Teachout0 -
Zephyr Rain - were her parents both meteorologists?volcanopete said:
Keep an eye on Zephyr Teachout.Can't find her in the betting even but mightily impressive.Pulpstar said:
All the potential runners look desperately uninspiring to me. Biden would be a good choice but he's a bit old now to be honest and Obama was the better candidate when it might have been a good time for him to run.HYUFD said:
He is not going to challenge Elizabeth Warren in the primary this year, if he does run it will be to succeed Ed Markey in 2020 given he is 71DavidL said:
He declined to run for senator last year and said he did not plan to run for any other office. He seems a little short of the old star dust right now.HYUFD said:
Joseph P Kennedy III, Bobby Kennedy's grandson, is a future prospect but he needs to move from the House to the Senate first and 2024 is more likely for him than 2020. Thus he could be a candidate to succeed Trump but not to beat Trump.DavidL said:
But Bill Clinton didn't come from any dynasty. He came from a dirt poor family and a dirt poor southern State. Ditto Obama re poverty and Hawaii. Democrats were dazzled by Kennedys but they haven't had a runner since 1980. If the field wasn't so sparse there would be candidates emerging but with only 16 governors in office and many of them pretty elderly the options are poor.philiph said:
They are waiting for the next Kennedy / Clinton (or other descendent of the great Dems of the past) who is ordained to be the next member of the elected dynasty to rule the free world.DavidL said:
They are really paying the price for having so few successful governors. Where on earth are the Clintons of this generation? As the father of 2 daughters I think we really ought to know!Sandpit said:
Biden would be an awesome Dem candidate but he’s too old (he’ll be 78 at his inauguration if he wins in 2020). The problem the Dems have is their good candidates are all really old and their younger candidates aren’t the sort to win marginal States - building up massive votes in California and NY doesn’t make you President.Nigelb said:Off topic, but betting post...
I am becoming convinced that Biden will run, and has a good chance of securing the nomination.
This encouraged me to put a few quid on today:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/oprah-winfrey-2020-poll-343096?lo=ap_d1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zephyr_Teachout
The Dems need a Matt Santos.0 -
I reckon half voted as a matter of principle an the other half were emboldened to stick it to Jezza.Scott_P said:
How many of them represent Leave constituencies? They can't all be the member for Luvvieville Central.0 -
Constitutionally, Brexit has not caused much trouble. The government has a majority of 15-20 for its Brexit business in the Commons, and support for the SNP is slowly waning.rottenborough said:0 -
A lot of good sense there AM.
But one thing you missed is that the increase in Overseas Aid was also part of peacocking about the world.
Even the justification of it was that the UK would be an 'Aid Superpower'.
Is there another country which spends both the 2% of defence and 0.7% on Overseas Aid ?
Likewise you could say that many of the big capital investments the government has indulged in - Trident, Hinkley C, HS2 - were more for reasons of posturing than practicality.0 -
Having nuclear weapons is one thing, having Trident is another.Pulpstar said:
'with ambitions for the world stage.' - I don't think we should have "ambitions for the world stage" personally. Meeks' thoughts on the military in the header to take an example echo my own.FF43 said:Imagine you are a prosperous medium size country 'with ambitions for the world stage.'
Edit: Actually I've never seen why being a nuclear power is something to be particularly proud of. Hundreds of other nations, quite a few richer on a per capita basis than our own don't bother with nukes. If it wasn't for the fact of Brexit making us look like a bit of a laughing stock internationally, I'd be in favour of using that political capital to scrap them tommorow.
As Sir Humphrey boasted in YPM its the sort of nuclear weapon you would buy from Harrods.0 -
Representing their voters, good for them. Most Labour voters are Remain voters.SandyRentool said:
I reckon half voted as a matter of principle an the other half were emboldened to stick it to Jezza.Scott_P said:
How many of them represent Leave constituencies? They can't all be the member for Luvvieville Central.0 -
The republicans can only dream of an Arnie Vinick...SandyRentool said:
Zephyr Rain - were her parents both meteorologists?volcanopete said:
Keep an eye on Zephyr Teachout.Can't find her in the betting even but mightily impressive.Pulpstar said:
All the potential runners look desperately uninspiring to me. Biden would be a good choice but he's a bit old now to be honest and Obama was the better candidate when it might have been a good time for him to run.HYUFD said:
He is not going to challenge Elizabeth Warren in the primary this year, if he does run it will be to succeed Ed Markey in 2020 given he is 71DavidL said:
He declined to run for senator last year and said he did not plan to run for any other office. He seems a little short of the old star dust right now.HYUFD said:
Joseph P Kennedy III, Bobby Kennedy's grandson, is a future prospect but he needs to move from the House to the Senate first and 2024 is more likely for him than 2020. Thus he could be a candidate to succeed Trump but not to beat Trump.DavidL said:
But Bill Clinton didn't come from any dynasty. He came from a dirt poor family and a dirt poor southern State. Ditto Obama re poverty and Hawaii. Democrats were dazzled by Kennedys but they haven't had a runner since 1980. If the field wasn't so sparse there would be candidates emerging but with only 16 governors in office and many of them pretty elderly the options are poor.philiph said:
They are waiting for the next Kennedy / Clinton (or other descendent of the great Dems of the past) who is ordained to be the next member of the elected dynasty to rule the free world.DavidL said:
They are really paying the price for having so few successful governors. Where on earth are the Clintons of this generation? As the father of 2 daughters I think we really ought to know!Sandpit said:
Biden would be an awesome Dem candidate but he’s too old (he’ll be 78 at his inauguration if he wins in 2020). The problem the Dems have is their good candidates are all really old and their younger candidates aren’t the sort to win marginal States - building up massive votes in California and NY doesn’t make you President.Nigelb said:Off topic, but betting post...
I am becoming convinced that Biden will run, and has a good chance of securing the nomination.
This encouraged me to put a few quid on today:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/oprah-winfrey-2020-poll-343096?lo=ap_d1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zephyr_Teachout
The Dems need a Matt Santos.0 -
From what I can see Labour MPs are pretty solid for SM+CU. Only Corbyn and a couple of others really don't want it. Labour MPs are a lot more coherent than Conservative ones, I would say, even if they are coherent for a position that has been rejected by their leadership. Conservative MPs are much more diffuse with a loud and quite large group of enthusiasts for Brexit, a small and also quite loud group for a Soft Brexit and a larger again group that don't want to talk about Brexit and wish it would go away.SandyRentool said:
I reckon half voted as a matter of principle an the other half were emboldened to stick it to Jezza.Scott_P said:
How many of them represent Leave constituencies? They can't all be the member for Luvvieville Central.0 -
The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.0
-
I'd say that there are more Labour MP's assisting the government on Brexit than there are Conservative MP's hindering it.FF43 said:
From what I can see Labour MPs are pretty solid for SM+CU. Only Corbyn and a couple of others really don't want it. Labour MPs are a lot more coherent than Conservative ones, I would say, even if they are coherent for a position that has been rejected by their leadership. Conservative MPs are much more diffuse with a loud and quite large group of enthusiasts for Brexit, a small and also quite loud group for a Soft Brexit and a larger again group that don't want to talk about Brexit and wish it would go away.SandyRentool said:
I reckon half voted as a matter of principle an the other half were emboldened to stick it to Jezza.Scott_P said:
How many of them represent Leave constituencies? They can't all be the member for Luvvieville Central.0 -
How we miss HurstLamarpjs said:
Commerce protection against modern piracy is pretty much the only naval rôle that makes sense these days, other than using amphibious assault ships to drop in specialist land forces in random locations, and selling HMS Ocean to the Brazilians suggests we're not really interested in doing that any more.DavidL said:
Do we really need to protect the sea lanes these days? From what? Pirates in the Indian Ocean I suppose. Otherwise? Germany seems to manage to export a great deal more goods than us with a smaller navy.david_herdson said:
If we want a mercantile foreign policy then Britain needs a fleet with which to protect the shipping on which it depends, whether foreign-registered or not.John_M said:
We don't need aircraft carriers to deliver on our obligations to NATO. We get very poor value from our defence spend, mainly in a futile attempt to preserve our sovereign industrial base.Philip_Thompson said:Interesting thread Alastair.
However it was my understanding that we haven't been spending a disproportionately large amount of GDP on defence. We've been spending "just" the NATO 2% amount which all NATO nations are supposed to spend.
If we're going to cut below that then we won't just be leaving the EU but driving a stake through the heart of NATO.
In fact, Alastair's thinking as to overseas commitments is back-to-front. Britain developed overseas military commitments in the first place for that same commercial imperative; even when it did start empire-building for the sake of it, it was as much to deny the land to rivals.
As I mentioned in a thread a few weeks ago, there's a reason why China is building naval bases in Africa.
it's an open secret among naval officers the world over that in any full-scale conflict, everyone's ships would be on the sea floor within a few days. Apparently the USN won't play war games with the other services any more because that always happens.0 -
It is only a mess for the Labour party who are riven from top to bottom over the Brexit issue.rottenborough said:0 -
Those Labour MPs probably should have read their own manifesto and listened to what their leader said before GE2017 then.FF43 said:
From what I can see Labour MPs are pretty solid for SM+CU. Only Corbyn and a couple of others really don't want it. Labour MPs are a lot more coherent than Conservative ones, I would say, even if they are coherent for a position that has been rejected by their leadership. Conservative MPs are much more diffuse with a loud and quite large group of enthusiasts for Brexit, a small and also quite loud group for a Soft Brexit and a larger again group that don't want to talk about Brexit and wish it would go away.SandyRentool said:
I reckon half voted as a matter of principle an the other half were emboldened to stick it to Jezza.Scott_P said:
How many of them represent Leave constituencies? They can't all be the member for Luvvieville Central.0 -
I thought MPs were suppose to represent their constituents, not just those that voted for them?Anazina said:
Representing their voters, good for them. Most Labour voters are Remain voters.SandyRentool said:
I reckon half voted as a matter of principle an the other half were emboldened to stick it to Jezza.Scott_P said:
How many of them represent Leave constituencies? They can't all be the member for Luvvieville Central.0 -
That's a great episodeanother_richard said:
Having nuclear weapons is one thing, having Trident is another.Pulpstar said:
'with ambitions for the world stage.' - I don't think we should have "ambitions for the world stage" personally. Meeks' thoughts on the military in the header to take an example echo my own.FF43 said:Imagine you are a prosperous medium size country 'with ambitions for the world stage.'
Edit: Actually I've never seen why being a nuclear power is something to be particularly proud of. Hundreds of other nations, quite a few richer on a per capita basis than our own don't bother with nukes. If it wasn't for the fact of Brexit making us look like a bit of a laughing stock internationally, I'd be in favour of using that political capital to scrap them tommorow.
As Sir Humphrey boasted in YPM its the sort of nuclear weapon you would buy from Harrods. 0 -
Spot on. It's hard to escape a conclusion that this article is a mixture of Alastair's natural predisposition towards pacifism, combined with a desire to give some Brexiteers a good troll through a negative consequence of their vote he knows they probably won't like. Just as he applauded the pensioners getting an end to their triple lock in the Tory manifesto.DavidL said:SNIP
During all of that period we kept significant number of destroyers and frigates along with submarines in the Atlantic with a view to keeping the sea lanes open. Again pretty much all gone with a handful of ships remaining.
So to pretend that our defence commitments are exceptional or delusional and that we have failed to recognise our diminished role is a straw man. There may be further steps to take. Do we need Trident submarines or could that money be better spent on tactical forces we might actually use? Are we really likely to fight major tank battles in the near future? But this is not new, let alone a consequence of Brexit. It has been an ongoing pattern since WW2.
The UK meets the minimum NATO target - just. This is typical of other NATO member countries. If we don't want that alliance to collapse - which would certainly be dangerous for our security - we must pull our weight within it. Of course, our armed forces will naturally be more maritime and expeditionary than those on the continent, because we're an island with that does as much global trade as it does European. And it's a myth we can defend ourselves "on the shoreline". Our prosperity and livelihood depends upon global security of open sea lanes and trade routes, and broader global security. But, if an enemy did get as far as our shores, it'd already be way too late and a "militia only" defence spend of 1% of GDP wouldn't help us anymore than zero.
It is true to say that the EU and the European Council is the main forum through which European countries politically cooperate with each other on foreign and defence policy. But it's not the only one, and nor must it be the inevitable one. The EU currently has no defence union, a very small and tokenist "eurocorps" and takes foreign policy decisions only by unanimity. That will change, but more important is what each country has to contribute in assets. And we know security and defence is something both the EU and UK want to include in any post-Brexit deal, and this will include mechanisms to discuss and agree it.
Finally, our think our major overseas interventions ended with the 2010 SDR. We don't have an army big enough anymore to sustain and deploy an independent heavy and light division in the field. So if the concern is that we'll interfere disproportionately where we're not welcome, I think that's gone now.0 -
Not Labour MPs in working class Leave seats for whom opposition to free movement was the main reason they voted LeaveFF43 said:
From what I can see Labour MPs are pretty solid for SM+CU. Only Corbyn and a couple of others really don't want it. Labour MPs are a lot more coherent than Conservative ones, I would say, even if they are coherent for a position that has been rejected by their leadership. Conservative MPs are much more diffuse with a loud and quite large group of enthusiasts for Brexit, a small and also quite loud group for a Soft Brexit and a larger again group that don't want to talk about Brexit and wish it would go away.SandyRentool said:
I reckon half voted as a matter of principle an the other half were emboldened to stick it to Jezza.Scott_P said:
How many of them represent Leave constituencies? They can't all be the member for Luvvieville Central.0 -
Oh come now - remember when we pulled out of NATO, the UN and WTO ?Richard_Tyndall said:The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
No - it was specifically and only the EU.
Some people still don’t get why.0 -
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/watch-cathy-newmans-catastrophic-interview-with-jordan-peterson/
This is an amazing watch - the clash of approaches is delicious.0 -
Off topic - reports Alexis Sanchez has agreed a £400, 000 a week four and a half year deal
If true that is a massive salary and will make some premier clubs stare in amazement0 -
MP’s are supposed to review the issues and vote in seems to them to be the best interests of their constituents.FrancisUrquhart said:
I thought MPs were suppose to represent their constituents, not just those that voted for them?Anazina said:
Representing their voters, good for them. Most Labour voters are Remain voters.SandyRentool said:
I reckon half voted as a matter of principle an the other half were emboldened to stick it to Jezza.Scott_P said:
How many of them represent Leave constituencies? They can't all be the member for Luvvieville Central.0 -
It was a vote to be connected with the world, but can we do it over Skype instead of letting people come here?Richard_Tyndall said:The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
0 -
It was the equivalent of a customer sending back a corked bottle of wine and the sommelier claiming it was because they were teetotal.williamglenn said:
It was a vote to be connected with the world, but can we do it over Skype instead of letting people come here?Richard_Tyndall said:The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
0 -
It was a vote to end political control by a backward organisation that represents only 6% of the world's population.williamglenn said:
It was a vote to be connected with the world, but can we do it over Skype instead of letting people come here?Richard_Tyndall said:The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
0 -
0
-
I think you're wrong. A significant proportion of leave voters definitely voted for isolation, but at the same time there are a lot of remain voters who voted for isolation, just within Europe rather than completely alone. Scores of remain voters want to stay within a protectionist bloc just as plenty of leave voters want the UK to be protectionist.Richard_Tyndall said:The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
Not all leave voters voted for isolation, but a lot of them did. To deny that is to deny reality.0 -
Majority of 29 is a good resultdr_spyn said:Off to the Lords.
https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/9537113686283100160 -
There have always been many people in this country (and it's an opinion that cuts across political lines) who think we should just mind our own business, and leave the rest of the world to its own devices. The original "Little Englanders" were left wing Liberals who opposed the idea that Britain had an imperial mission. It's strange that the term is now used pejoratively of eurosceptics.MaxPB said:
I think you're wrong. A significant proportion of leave voters definitely voted for isolation, but at the same time there are a lot of remain voters who voted for isolation, just within Europe rather than completely alone. Scores of remain voters want to stay within a protectionist bloc just as plenty of leave voters want the UK to be protectionist.Richard_Tyndall said:The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
Not all leave voters voted for isolation, but a lot of them did. To deny that is to deny reality.
IMHO, there are a range of options between the British Empire and total isolationism.0 -
Why are PB articles so often formatted like this? With the last part in italics, in a blockquote?0
-
For a 29 year old whose star is on the wane...Big_G_NorthWales said:Off topic - reports Alexis Sanchez has agreed a £400, 000 a week four and a half year deal
If true that is a massive salary and will make some premier clubs stare in amazement0 -
REMINDER:HYUFD said:
Not Labour MPs in working class Leave seats for whom opposition to free movement was the main reason they voted LeaveFF43 said:
From what I can see Labour MPs are pretty solid for SM+CU. Only Corbyn and a couple of others really don't want it. Labour MPs are a lot more coherent than Conservative ones, I would say, even if they are coherent for a position that has been rejected by their leadership. Conservative MPs are much more diffuse with a loud and quite large group of enthusiasts for Brexit, a small and also quite loud group for a Soft Brexit and a larger again group that don't want to talk about Brexit and wish it would go away.SandyRentool said:
I reckon half voted as a matter of principle an the other half were emboldened to stick it to Jezza.Scott_P said:
How many of them represent Leave constituencies? They can't all be the member for Luvvieville Central.
Leave majority in a Labour-held constituency =/= Leave majority among Labour voters in that constituency0 -
Foreign attempts to meddle with Brexit? While it was certainly unwelcome, I hardly think Barack Obama's intervention warrants an investigation.williamglenn said:0 -
To the back of the queue for you....kyf_100 said:
Foreign attempts to meddle with Brexit? While it was certainly unwelcome, I hardly think Barack Obama's intervention warrants an investigation.williamglenn said:0 -
Zing !kyf_100 said:
Foreign attempts to meddle with Brexit? While it was certainly unwelcome, I hardly think Barack Obama's intervention warrants an investigation.williamglenn said:0 -
While we were in the EU some people think the President of the USA was a puppet who would recite David Cameron’s message verbatim. We no longer have such influence...kyf_100 said:
Foreign attempts to meddle with Brexit? While it was certainly unwelcome, I hardly think Barack Obama's intervention warrants an investigation.williamglenn said:0 -
If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab.
2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD.
3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP.
4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD.
5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab.
6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab.
7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab.
8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative
The seat numbers would then have been:
Con: 309
Lab: 267
SNP: 36
LD: 14
PC: 4
Greens: 1
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.0 -
but 26% of world economic activityRichard_Tyndall said:
It was a vote to end political control by a backward organisation that represents only 6% of the world's population.williamglenn said:
It was a vote to be connected with the world, but can we do it over Skype instead of letting people come here?Richard_Tyndall said:The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
vs. China currently 13%, USA 24%0 -
Apart from not liking the Tories, what else do Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens agree on ?AndyJS said:If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab.
2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD.
3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP.
4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD.
5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab.
6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab.
7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab.
8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative
The seat numbers would then have been:
Con: 309
Lab: 267
SNP: 36
LD: 14
PC: 4
Greens: 1
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
0 -
Not this again.kyf_100 said:
Foreign attempts to meddle with Brexit? While it was certainly unwelcome, I hardly think Barack Obama's intervention warrants an investigation.williamglenn said:
Everyone
Knew
He
Was
American
This
Is
About
Fake
Profiles0 -
I completely disagree. It is true that scores of people may have voted for controls on immigration but that in no way equates with isolationism. Mr Meeks is just pursuing his normal rabid ideas that have no foundation in reality.MaxPB said:
I think you're wrong. A significant proportion of leave voters definitely voted for isolation, but at the same time there are a lot of remain voters who voted for isolation, just within Europe rather than completely alone. Scores of remain voters want to stay within a protectionist bloc just as plenty of leave voters want the UK to be protectionist.Richard_Tyndall said:The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
Not all leave voters voted for isolation, but a lot of them did. To deny that is to deny reality.0 -
The article is utter self-justifying tosh of the highest order and the only positive thing one can say about it is at least the Guardian is prepared to publish views at odds with it's natural ethos. Sections of it would stand-up well in the Daily Mash tbh.Richard_Nabavi said:
True (given it's the Guardian), but correct all the same.DavidL said:
"...profits, we are told sanctimoniously, are privatised, while risk remains nationalised. In the case of Carillion we can see that is utterly and demonstrably false. How? In the simplest possible way – the company has gone bust." ...So who will pick up the tab for half-finished hospitals and un-met pension commitments? You and I will my friend, as taxpayers. The shareholders have lost their investment but beyond that their liability is limited.
"The problem is that we are all a little squeamish. Companies going out of business is part-and-parcel of how capitalism works – it is essential that there is both creativity and destruction. For individual workers whose pay and pensions depend on the continued success of the company, that is disruptive."" Distruptive?! The crassness of that last statement is incredible.
For a much better analysis of the PFI fiasco read Monbiot's article in today's Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses-carillion-money-george-monbiot0 -
It's enoughYBarddCwsc said:
Apart from not liking the Tories, what else do Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens agree on ?AndyJS said:If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab.
2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD.
3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP.
4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD.
5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab.
6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab.
7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab.
8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative
The seat numbers would then have been:
Con: 309
Lab: 267
SNP: 36
LD: 14
PC: 4
Greens: 1
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats. 0 -
Don’t forget NE Fife; 3 more LibDem votes and that would have been 15 LD seats.YBarddCwsc said:
Apart from not liking the Tories, what else do Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens agree on ?AndyJS said:If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab.
2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD.
3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP.
4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD.
5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab.
6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab.
7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab.
8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative
The seat numbers would then have been:
Con: 309
Lab: 267
SNP: 36
LD: 14
PC: 4
Greens: 1
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
However, otherwise it’s a very fair question.0 -
Indeed. Luckily the voters decided that it was too risky to give Corbyn the keys.AndyJS said:If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab.
2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD.
3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP.
4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD.
5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab.
6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab.
7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab.
8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative
The seat numbers would then have been:
Con: 309
Lab: 267
SNP: 36
LD: 14
PC: 4
Greens: 1
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
I'm cooking, but suspect that a thousand votes the other way in the right places might have secured the Tories a majority?0 -
'By recognising reality, I was able to move on.'
Sounds like you are intervening very regularly to hide the reality (that you are a man with hair growing on the side of his head but not on top) on a very regular basis. No doubt this is more efficient (and given social norms less absurd) than the Trump approach but it still carries a whiff of fraudulence.0 -
There is a cost to taxpayers, when a big company fails. Welfare benefits get paid to unemployed workers, and creditors offset their bad debts against income. But that isn't nationalising losses. The shareholders have lost everything that they invested in the company, and nobody is going to reimburse them.Benpointer said:
The article is utter self-justifying tosh of the highest order and the only positive thing one can say about it is at least the Guardian is prepared to publish views at odds with it's natural ethos. Sections of it would stand-up well in the Daily Mash tbh.Richard_Nabavi said:
True (given it's the Guardian), but correct all the same.DavidL said:
"...profits, we are told sanctimoniously, are privatised, while risk remains nationalised. In the case of Carillion we can see that is utterly and demonstrably false. How? In the simplest possible way – the company has gone bust." ...So who will pick up the tab for half-finished hospitals and un-met pension commitments? You and I will my friend, as taxpayers. The shareholders have lost their investment but beyond that their liability is limited.
"The problem is that we are all a little squeamish. Companies going out of business is part-and-parcel of how capitalism works – it is essential that there is both creativity and destruction. For individual workers whose pay and pensions depend on the continued success of the company, that is disruptive."" Distruptive?! The crassness of that last statement is incredible.
For a much better analysis of the PFI fiasco read Monbiot's article in today's Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses-carillion-money-george-monbiot
0 -
As someone who voted for Brexit I'd be happy to see us scale back our military reach and craven attempts to maintain international influence. My reaction to the Remainers banging on about our supposed loss of influence was if only it were true. I don't recall Mr Meeks lauding this potential outcome though.0
-
And if 1022 people in eight different seats, Kensington, Dudley North, Newcastle UL, Crewe, Canterbury, Barrow, Keighley and Rutherglen, had voted the other way, Theresa May would have a majority.AndyJS said:If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab.
2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD.
3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP.
4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD.
5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab.
6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab.
7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab.
8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative
The seat numbers would then have been:
Con: 309
Lab: 267
SNP: 36
LD: 14
PC: 4
Greens: 1
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
Similarly if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
It requires a far smaller and more plausible swing for the Tories to have a biggish majority than the one Labour need for largest party status. A UNS of 3% gives a majority of 60 in addition to aviating porcines. To achieve a majority of one Corbyn needs over 4% and for some of his shadow cabinet other than Ashworth to look vaguely sane and competent for five minutes.
Given the number of seats with wafer thin majorities and changing demography, the big story of 2022 may well be December 1910 - many seats changing hands to finish more or less where we started.0 -
The balance between left and right has not altered that much in the last three elections, overall, but there have been huge shifts in individual seats.ydoethur said:
And if 1022 people in eight different seats, Kensington, Dudley North, Newcastle UL, Crewe, Canterbury, Barrow, Keighley and Rutherglen, had voted the other way, Theresa May would have a majority.AndyJS said:If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab.
2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD.
3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP.
4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD.
5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab.
6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab.
7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab.
8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative
The seat numbers would then have been:
Con: 309
Lab: 267
SNP: 36
LD: 14
PC: 4
Greens: 1
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
Similarly if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
It requires a far smaller and more plausible swing for the Tories to have a biggish majority than the one Labour need for largest party status. A UNS of 3% gives a majority of 60 in addition to aviating porcines. To achieve a majority of one Corbyn needs over 4% and for some of his shadow cabinet other than Ashworth to look vaguely sane and competent for five minutes.
Given the number of seats with wafer thin majorities and changing demography, the big story of 2022 may well be December 1910 - many seats changing hands to finish more or less where we started.0 -
I wholeheartedly agree that Britain did not vote for isolationism.Richard_Tyndall said:The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
0 -
On topic, and as I have argued before, Labour is better placed than the Tories to adjust to the post-Brexit realities, both economic and strategic/military, that Alastair outlines in the lead. If the Tories remain in power they will find the past particularly difficult to let go, not least because a fair few of them unrealistically think that the past is where Brexit should take us.0
-
New Nick Timothy article in the Telegraph:
"Don't get complacent: the racism which haunted Cyrille Regis is still alive in Britain"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/17/dont-get-complacent-racism-haunted-cyrille-regis-still-alive/0 -
They didn’t, but they certainly didn’t vote for turbocharged globalisation. That view is the preserve of some Leave Tories in the public eye, and almost no-one else.initforthemoney said:
I wholeheartedly agree that Britain did not vote for isolationism.Richard_Tyndall said:The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
0 -
Notice how Corbyn supporters put the Liberal Democrats in the Corbyn camp when totting up House of Commons numbers. How many of Corbyn's policies do you think the LDs would vote for?ydoethur said:
And if 1022 people in eight different seats, Kensington, Dudley North, Newcastle UL, Crewe, Canterbury, Barrow, Keighley and Rutherglen, had voted the other way, Theresa May would have a majority.AndyJS said:If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab.
2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD.
3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP.
4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD.
5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab.
6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab.
7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab.
8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative
The seat numbers would then have been:
Con: 309
Lab: 267
SNP: 36
LD: 14
PC: 4
Greens: 1
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
Similarly if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
It requires a far smaller and more plausible swing for the Tories to have a biggish majority than the one Labour need for largest party status. A UNS of 3% gives a majority of 60 in addition to aviating porcines. To achieve a majority of one Corbyn needs over 4% and for some of his shadow cabinet other than Ashworth to look vaguely sane and competent for five minutes.
Given the number of seats with wafer thin majorities and changing demography, the big story of 2022 may well be December 1910 - many seats changing hands to finish more or less where we started.0 -
I have just watched the documentary film "Icarus" again.
It will have to be an astonishing film to deprive it of the Oscar.0 -
Even joking, no it isn't - they may well all be closer to each other than the Tories (although frankly on some quite big issues I don't think that is true), but hypotheticals of such an alliance always make it seem like it would be easy just because they all dislike the Tories. Well they also dislike each other, to some degree, or they really would just be a single party, called the non-Tories, and as a supporter of minority parties doing well, I'd really like to think they care enough about ideology and policies enough that it would in fact be quite difficult to combine five different parties into one. It should be tough to negotiate an alliance, if the party labels are more than just fig leafs for hatred of one of the others. Honestly I am surprised the Tories and the DUP managed to come to an agreement so quickly, and even then its not much of one. Good if you can manage it, but if it is not to be subject to petty political whim, it would require a lot of tough talk and more than just hating someone else.Benpointer said:
It's enoughYBarddCwsc said:
Apart from not liking the Tories, what else do Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens agree on ?AndyJS said:If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab.
2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD.
3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP.
4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD.
5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab.
6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab.
7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab.
8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative
The seat numbers would then have been:
Con: 309
Lab: 267
SNP: 36
LD: 14
PC: 4
Greens: 1
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
0 -
Phuck me, we are being warned against complacency by Nick Timothy. Words fail me.AndyJS said:New Nick Timothy article in the Telegraph:
"Don't get complacent: the racism which haunted Cyrille Regis is still alive in Britain"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/17/dont-get-complacent-racism-haunted-cyrille-regis-still-alive/0 -
That's a very high turnout.dr_spyn said:Off to the Lords.
https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/9537113686283100160 -
Both the World Bank and IMF disagree with you. By their measure of GDP (PPP) China is well ahead of the EU. If you remove the UK from the EU figures so is the US.rural_voter said:
but 26% of world economic activityRichard_Tyndall said:
It was a vote to end political control by a backward organisation that represents only 6% of the world's population.williamglenn said:
It was a vote to be connected with the world, but can we do it over Skype instead of letting people come here?Richard_Tyndall said:The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
vs. China currently 13%, USA 24%0 -
I agree with you entirely.Sean_F said:
There have always been many people in this country (and it's an opinion that cuts across political lines) who think we should just mind our own business, and leave the rest of the world to its own devices. The original "Little Englanders" were left wing Liberals who opposed the idea that Britain had an imperial mission. It's strange that the term is now used pejoratively of eurosceptics.MaxPB said:
I think you're wrong. A significant proportion of leave voters definitely voted for isolation, but at the same time there are a lot of remain voters who voted for isolation, just within Europe rather than completely alone. Scores of remain voters want to stay within a protectionist bloc just as plenty of leave voters want the UK to be protectionist.Richard_Tyndall said:The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
Not all leave voters voted for isolation, but a lot of them did. To deny that is to deny reality.
IMHO, there are a range of options between the British Empire and total isolationism.
I'm actually quite pro-global, and even pro-European, engagement. Influencing the world is how we can best protect ourselves and way of life. But I wasn't willing to continue sacrificing the current level, and what I saw inevitable future increased levels, of sovereignty to maintain our full membership of what I see as a flawed institution that doesn't work for us.
I recognise that presents big challenges. I don't think they're either terminal or insurmountable for us, let alone existential.
But, I don't expect all Remainers, or even all Leavers, to necessarily understand that.0 -
This comes up at most elections.Mortimer said:
Indeed. Luckily the voters decided that it was too risky to give Corbyn the keys.AndyJS said:If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab.
2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD.
3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP.
4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD.
5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab.
6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab.
7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab.
8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative
The seat numbers would then have been:
Con: 309
Lab: 267
SNP: 36
LD: 14
PC: 4
Greens: 1
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
I'm cooking, but suspect that a thousand votes the other way in the right places might have secured the Tories a majority?
It's just a function of normal distribution type graphs of how the votes stack up in the most marginal seats. It happened in 1983, 1987, 1997 and 2001 as well.
But, it means much more in close elections where a handful of seats make all the difference - e.g. 1992, 2010, 2015 and 2017.0 -
Another straw in the wind...
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/democrat-wins-special-election-in-northwestern-wisconsin/article_ddbdd542-800e-506b-8882-78c9551fc034.html
This was not some alleged abuser of teenagers losing a solid Republican seat.
I think the Republicans may do very badly indeed in the midterms.0 -
I was joking thoughkle4 said:
Even joking, no it isn't - they may well all be closer to each other than the Tories (although frankly on some quite big issues I don't think that is true), but hypotheticals of such an alliance always make it seem like it would be easy just because they all dislike the Tories. Well they also dislike each other, to some degree, or they really would just be a single party, called the non-Tories, and as a supporter of minority parties doing well, I'd really like to think they care enough about ideology and policies enough that it would in fact be quite difficult to combine five different parties into one. It should be tough to negotiate an alliance, if the party labels are more than just fig leafs for hatred of one of the others. Honestly I am surprised the Tories and the DUP managed to come to an agreement so quickly, and even then its not much of one. Good if you can manage it, but if it is not to be subject to petty political whim, it would require a lot of tough talk and more than just hating someone else.Benpointer said:
It's enoughYBarddCwsc said:
Apart from not liking the Tories, what else do Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens agree on ?AndyJS said:If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab.
2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD.
3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP.
4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD.
5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab.
6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab.
7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab.
8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative
The seat numbers would then have been:
Con: 309
Lab: 267
SNP: 36
LD: 14
PC: 4
Greens: 1
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
0
