politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump facing right-wing backlash for caving in on the shut dow

As long as Fox News sticks with him I think he's OK. Trump is the Grand Priest of Trumpism, his base trusts him over his new critics, and Ann Coulter and others who feel let down by this hate the mainstream GOP anyway. They will attack him for this climbdown, but they won't agitate for a primary challenge. Short of someone ever more Trumpian than Trump appearing and painting him as the establishment figure, but how likely is that?

Trump is the nominee unless he is impeached or chooses not to run, that's my firm belief.

Jennings not good enough...it’s the same every time.

How will he respond ?
In the usual manner:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/26/trump-shutdown-border-security-wall-caravan-democrats-1128598

I’m not sure O’Rourke is running:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/25/orourke-2020-decision-months-away-1126571

Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

Nigelb said:

I’m not sure O’Rourke is running:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/25/orourke-2020-decision-months-away-1126571

If he is sensible O'Rourke will focus on winning the next the next Senate or Governor race in Texas and aim for 2024 (though he might have competition from Congressman Joseph P Kennedy III).

Beating an incumbent president after only one term of their party in the White House is still a huge ask, especially for someone who lost their last race, which is why it has happened only once since WW2 in 1980. If O'Rourke ran and lost in 2020 he is likely done.

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

Perhaps, but if Trump was willing to do that I don't think the shutdown would have happened at all. This could be the start of him changing tack, but past experience suggests probably not. Trump hasn't really changed his approach at any point since announcing his run in 2015.

He has no choice, given the Democrats control the House he cannot get any legislation passed now without compromise. Ironically the Democrats gaining the House may have ensured Trump's re election as was the case for Bill Clinton after the GOP took Congress in 1994, prior to that Clinton's approval rating was almost as bad as Trump's

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.

The polling though suggests the shutdown was hitting him with independents and he cannot win without those (in 2016 Trump won independents with 48% to 42% for Hillary). His base will still vote for him anyway even if they are grumbling now

HYUFD said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

Perhaps, but if Trump was willing to do that I don't think the shutdown would have happened at all. This could be the start of him changing tack, but past experience suggests probably not. Trump hasn't really changed his approach at any point since announcing his run in 2015.

He has no choice, given the Democrats control the House he cannot get any legislation passed now without compromise. Ironically the Democrats gaining the House may have ensured Trump's re election as was the case for Bill Clinton after the GOP took Congress in 1994, prior to that Clinton's approval rating was almost as bad as Trump's

Sure he does, I think you are making a small but crucial logical leap. He has no choice but compromise *if* he wants to get legislation passed, but that isn't a given. He can keep his no-compromise approach and use the GOP Senate majority to continue appointing judges, act more on foreign policy where he has freer reign, and use executive orders to enact quasi-legislative reform (lest we forget that the 'Muslim Ban' was implemented in some form without any new law going through Congress). It will be much less legislatively productive than the alternative, but it's an option. And he'd blame the Democrats for the lack of legislation.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

Perhaps, but if Trump was willing to do that I don't think the shutdown would have happened at all. This could be the start of him changing tack, but past experience suggests probably not. Trump hasn't really changed his approach at any point since announcing his run in 2015.

He has no choice, given the Democrats control the House he cannot get any legislation passed now without compromise. Ironically the Democrats gaining the House may have ensured Trump's re election as was the case for Bill Clinton after the GOP took Congress in 1994, prior to that Clinton's approval rating was almost as bad as Trump's

Firstly, he didn't compromise on this - he caved in.

Secondly, remember that this crisis arose from Trump's unwillingness to compromise in December... when the GOP controlled both houses.

He hasn't changed his fundamental approach, and won't. All he's done is belatedly take the only route out of a dire situation which was entirely of his own making.

Bill Clinton arguably caved in to the GOP on welfare reform, it still helped him get re elected.

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

Perhaps, but if Trump was willing to do that I don't think the shutdown would have happened at all. This could be the start of him changing tack, but past experience suggests probably not. Trump hasn't really changed his approach at any point since announcing his run in 2015.

He has no choice, given the Democrats control the House he cannot get any legislation passed now without compromise. Ironically the Democrats gaining the House may have ensured Trump's re election as was the case for Bill Clinton after the GOP took Congress in 1994, prior to that Clinton's approval rating was almost as bad as Trump's

Sure he does, I think you are making a small but crucial logical leap. He has no choice but compromise *if* he wants to get legislation passed, but that isn't a given. He can keep his no-compromise approach and use the GOP Senate majority to continue appointing judges, act more on foreign policy where he has freer reign, and use executive orders to enact quasi-legislative reform (lest we forget that the 'Muslim Ban' was implemented in some form without any new law going through Congress). It will be much less legislatively productive than the alternative, but it's an option. And he'd blame the Democrats for the lack of legislation.

Judges do not come up that often and that area is now largely settle anyway in Trump,'s favour.

On foreign policy the likes of Romney in the Senate may limit his manoeuvre to sign treaties and foreign policy rarely wins elections, domestic policy does and the House is key to that

Feel a bit sorry for the Don on this one. He works tirelessly to impress his alt right constituency and at the first sign of a wobble (and one which he can hardly be blamed for) they dump on him. It makes you wonder who on earth these people want in the White House if this president is not good enough for them. Like, would Alex Jones suffice?

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.

The polling though suggests the shutdown was hitting him with independents and he cannot win without those (in 2016 Trump won independents with 48% to 42% for Hillary). His base will still vote for him anyway even if they are grumbling now

I'm not sure "his base will still vote for him" is right.

Non-college educated white men can easily find something better to do on a Tuesday in November than going down to vote for someone who just got his ass handed back to him by an elderly Democrat woman. They are highly unlikely to vote for anyone else, but motivation matters.

They will still turnout for him, Trump has not abandoned his commitment to the wall even if he is not prepared to shutdown the Government forever over its funding.

Plus unless Democrats find a candidate who can appeal to bluecollar workers in the rustbelt Trump still has a good chance of winning the Electoral College again

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.

The polling though suggests the shutdown was hitting him with independents and he cannot win without those (in 2016 Trump won independents with 48% to 42% for Hillary). His base will still vote for him anyway even if they are grumbling now

I'm not sure "his base will still vote for him" is right.

Non-college educated white men can easily find something better to do on a Tuesday in November than going down to vote for someone who just got his ass handed back to him by an elderly Democrat woman. They are highly unlikely to vote for anyone else, but motivation matters.

They will still turnout for him, Trump has not abandoned his commitment to the wall even if he is not prepared to shutdown the Government forever over its funding.

Plus unless Democrats find a candidate who can appeal to bluecollar workers in the rustbelt Trump still has a good chance of winning the Electoral College again

Yeah, but is "I still intend to build a wall, but haven't been able to for 4 years" as exciting a proposition to vote for as "I'll build a wall"? Presidents often struggle to excite their base for re-election, there's no reason Trump shouldn't have the same problem to some extent (albeit not as bad as normal due to hyper-partisanship these days).

I'm totally on the other side of this bet.

Quincel said:

kinabalu said:

Feel a bit sorry for the Don on this one. He works tirelessly to impress his alt right constituency and at the first sign of a wobble (one which he can hardly be blamed for) they dump on him. It makes you wonder who on earth these people want in the White House if this president is not good enough for them. Like, would Alex Jones suffice?

They want someone who can deliver everything they want, despite what they want being at times literally impossible and at other times politically impossible (separation of powers etc). The backlash isn't about Trump, it's about their dream hitting reality.

What they want in cultural terms is someone to humiliate the people they don't like, so being humiliated by Pelosi is just about the worst thing for him.

williamglenn said:

Quincel said:

kinabalu said:

Feel a bit sorry for the Don on this one. He works tirelessly to impress his alt right constituency and at the first sign of a wobble (one which he can hardly be blamed for) they dump on him. It makes you wonder who on earth these people want in the White House if this president is not good enough for them. Like, would Alex Jones suffice?

They want someone who can deliver everything they want, despite what they want being at times literally impossible and at other times politically impossible (separation of powers etc). The backlash isn't about Trump, it's about their dream hitting reality.

What they want in cultural terms is someone to humiliate the people they don't like, so being humiliated by Pelosi is just about the worst thing for him.

That's a good point. Trump looking like a strongman is as important as him being one.

What is the difference between a forward defensive by Keaton Jennings and the Loch Ness Monster?

There are people who claim to have seen the Loch Ness Monster.

HYUFD said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.

The polling though suggests the shutdown was hitting him with independents and he cannot win without those (in 2016 Trump won independents with 48% to 42% for Hillary). His base will still vote for him anyway even if they are grumbling now

I'm not sure "his base will still vote for him" is right.

Non-college educated white men can easily find something better to do on a Tuesday in November than going down to vote for someone who just got his ass handed back to him by an elderly Democrat woman. They are highly unlikely to vote for anyone else, but motivation matters.

They will still turnout for him, Trump has not abandoned his commitment to the wall even if he is not prepared to shutdown the Government forever over its funding.

Plus unless Democrats find a candidate who can appeal to bluecollar workers in the rustbelt Trump still has a good chance of winning the Electoral College again

Yeah, but is "I still intend to build a wall, but haven't been able to for 4 years" as exciting a proposition to vote for as "I'll build a wall"? Presidents often struggle to excite their base for re-election, there's no reason Trump shouldn't have the same problem to some extent (albeit not as bad as normal due to hyper-partisanship these days).

He can just blame Congress for blocking funding

And he no doubt will, but it doesn't change the fact that people who want a wall can't feel as confident that Trump will deliver it as they could have in 2016.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

Perhaps, but if Trump was willing to do that I don't think the shutdown would have happened at all. This could be the start of him changing tack, but past experience suggests probably not. Trump hasn't really changed his approach at any point since announcing his run in 2015.

He has no choice, given the Democrats control the House he cannot get ump's

Firstly, he didn't compromise on this - he caved in.

Secondly, remember that this making.

Bill Clinton arguably caved in to the GOP on welfare reform, it still helped him get re elected.

That's not analogous at all.

Clinton said "okay, you've elected a GOP Congress to do some things including welfare reform... so I'll agree a package with them that delivers that, which I can sign, and that tames their wilder instincts". He vetoed two bills, before negotiating a somewhat more moderate (albeit still conservative) alternative. He therefore came across as respecting the midterms, and being moderating and reasonable.

Would he have passed the welfare reforms had he not needed to deal with a GOP Congress? No. But would it have gone further if Gingrich had had a colleague in the White House? Yes - and the vetoed bills did go further.

In this case, Trump has come across as unreasonable, essentially saying, "I'll shut the government down for years if necessary unless I get my wall money". And he's come across as weak because his bluff was called and he got nothing.

Clinton would not have implemented welfare reform without being forced to by a GOP Congress, so again opposition control of Congress was pivotal for forcing him to the centre and boosting his re election chances in 1996 by becoming more fiscally conservative. Trump similarly has had to accept Government shutdown is not a price most American voters will accept to fund the wall, so again that shifts him more to the centre as a result

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.

The polling though suggests the shutdown was hitting him with independents and he cannot win without those (in 2016 Trump won independents with 48% to 42% for Hillary). His base will still vote for him anyway even if they are grumbling now

I'm not sure "his base will still vote for him" is right.

Non-college educated white men can easily find something better to do on a Tuesday in November than going down to vote for someone who just got his ass handed back to him by an elderly Democrat woman. They are highly unlikely to vote for anyone else, but motivation matters.

They will still turnout for him, Trump has not abandoned his commitment to the wall even if he is not prepared to shutdown the Government forever over its funding.

Plus unless Democrats find a candidate who can appeal to bluecollar workers in the rustbelt Trump still has a good chance of winning the Electoral College again

Trump's whole USP was "You've had loads of vague promises from politicians who don't deliver. Here's a (literally) concrete promise from a businessman who knows how to get things done".

For many, it wasn't the Wall as such but the idea of a bloke doing something they can understand - success you can see.

That's why "I'd still like to build a wall but, y'know, it's been tricky because Nancy has been nasty to me" just doesn't motivate in the same way.

I don't think he's dead, incidentally. The economy is going reasonably well (stuttering a bit but historically decent), and there's no guarantee by any means that the Democrats will come out of the primaries with a candidate who is strong and relatively undamaged by months of fighting with colleagues.

HYUFD said:

So what, Trump still backs the wall but he can blame the Democrats for refusing to fund it which would not have been the case were the Republicans still in control of Congress.

Because, as SirNorfolk says, someone supporting something isn't as compelling as someone promising to deliver something.

williamglenn said:

What they want in cultural terms is someone to humiliate the people they don't like, so being humiliated by Pelosi is just about the worst thing for him.

Terrible optics. Could hardly have been worse - although I suppose Pelosi could have been Mexican. Not writing Trump off yet though. I see dangers in him being forced by a split congress into behaving less like an infant. Might muddy the waters for WH2020 if that happens.

Surely it's time John Humphrys retired.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/26/john-humphrys-suggests-ireland-could-quit-eu-and-join-uk

Is brexit male or female?

Mr. Glenn, I'm amused at the outrage, given the EU/Republic of Ireland seems to think they should have the right to commit a regulatory annexation of UK territory (a nonsense with which May's dreadful deal has colluded).

dots said:

Is brexit male or female?

No Deal is 100% bloke.

Norway Plus, however, is a girl. That's why our Head Girl - her maj - is getting behind it.

Theresa May's decision to scrap the fee for EU nationals to apply for stay in the UK after Brexit will cost up to £1.95m in refunds, the Lib Dems say.

EU citizens who want to continue living in the UK after 30 June 2021 were facing a £65 fee.
But the PM said on Monday she would waive the fee and give refunds to those who had already applied. Home Office Minister Caroline Nokes said more than 30,000 people had signed up in a pilot programme for the scheme.

kinabalu said:

dots said:

Is brexit male or female?

No Deal is 100% bloke.

Norway Plus, however, is a girl. That's why our Head Girl - her maj - is getting behind it.

Women can get things wrong, but to be a true d**khead requires a man?

williamglenn said:

Surely it's time John Humphrys retired.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/26/john-humphrys-suggests-ireland-could-quit-eu-and-join-uk

The Today Show lost more than 10% of its audience 17 to 18. I suspect the haemorrhage has continued.

The problem is, Humphreys is undoubtedly popular with a majority - let’s say 52% - of the audience. The rest are voting with their feet.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Glenn, I'm amused at the outrage, given the EU/Republic of Ireland seems to think they should have the right to commit a regulatory annexation of UK territory (a nonsense with which May's dreadful deal has colluded).

The whole point about the Good Friday Agreement is that it did grant some (limited) oversight to the Republic over NI. Our present problem is derived from the insistence of Ireland/EU that this continues indefinitely, and that treaties should take this into account. The Gordian Knot solution would be to abandon the GFA, but everybody is still pretending it's still viable post-Brexit.

rottenborough said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

As long as Trump has a Democrat Congress to pitch against, an economy doing OK and ideally with another coastal liberal elitist Democratic candidate such as Harris or Warren he has a good chance of winning the Midwestern and rustbelt swing states again and re election

Plausible. The Dems need somebody who can hit him where it hurts. That'll be a man or woman from a hardscrabble background who can mock his populism and out-macho him. All the Dem candidates appear to be nice middle/upper class people who get upset and outraged when challenged. It's not enough. If it wasn't for his creepy videos I'd say Biden had a chance, but they exist so he doesn't.

Tim Kane?

Possibly.

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Surely it's time John Humphrys retired.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/26/john-humphrys-suggests-ireland-could-quit-eu-and-join-uk

The Today Show lost more than 10% of its audience 17 to 18. I suspect the haemorrhage has continued.

The problem is, Humphreys is undoubtedly popular with a majority - let’s say 52% - of the audience. The rest are voting with their feet.

Yes , I voted with mine.Used to listen to R4 in the early morning quite a bit.
However stopped listening because of John Humphrys.

When he asked Ed Milliband if he was to ugly to be PM.
I thought it was time to give it a miss.

SeanT said:

I no longer follow American politics closely enough to either comment, or care. Indeed I wonder at our obsession with the White House. It was understandable when America ruled the world and was 50% of global GDP. Now it is around 20% and will fall further over time. It is one power amongst several. China is already more important to most people in the world, in terms of trade

Relatedly, I had an intriguing Brexit debate with some liberal Americans and Canadians in Vietnam last week. They were quite urgently questioning me on Brexit - why are you doing it, why is it such a disaster, what has possessed you, &c

Then I explained to them the basic rudiments of how the EU works: it is run by unelected commissioners, who cannot be thrown out by voters, the parliament only approves laws, does not propose, the Supreme Court works in a foreign language and sits in a foreign country, there is no obvious way to get EU laws repealed, etc etc etc

They were utterly confounded. I turned them into eurosceptics in about 2 minutes. The common response was: why the fuck would you ever tolerate that?

I relay this not to extol my eloquence, but as an example of how intelligent foreigners - even foreigners who speak the same language - can be incredibly ignorant of another country’s politics. I think this issue has bedeviled Brexit from the start. After 50 years we still don’t quite *get* the EU, and they don’t quite *get* us. Hence, Brexit.

De Gaulle was right. A wise Frenchman.

Clearly foreigners are very gullible to to any half arsed misrepresentation. Not so different to Britons. .

SeanT said:

I no longer follow American politics closely enough to either comment, or care. Indeed I wonder at our obsession with the White House. It was understandable when America ruled the world and was 50% of global GDP. Now it is around 20% and will fall further over time. It is one power amongst several. China is already more important to most people in the world, in terms of trade

Relatedly, I had an intriguing Brexit debate with some liberal Americans and Canadians in Vietnam last week. They were quite urgently questioning me on Brexit - why are you doing it, why is it such a disaster, what has possessed you, &c

Then I explained to them the basic rudiments of how the EU works: it is run by unelected commissioners, who cannot be thrown out by voters, the parliament only approves laws, does not propose, the Supreme Court works in a foreign language and sits in a foreign country, there is no obvious way to get EU laws repealed, etc etc etc

They were utterly confounded. I turned them into eurosceptics in about 2 minutes. The common response was: why the fuck would you ever tolerate that?

I relay this not to extol my eloquence, but as an example of how intelligent foreigners - even foreigners who speak the same language - can be incredibly ignorant of another country’s politics. I think this issue has bedeviled Brexit from the start. After 50 years we still don’t quite *get* the EU, and they don’t quite *get* us. Hence, Brexit.

De Gaulle was right. A wise Frenchman.

I turned two of my relatives into Europhiles over lunch by explaining how the UK works, what it does for us and how much it spends (1% of our GDP). The better-educated party has the upper hand in these debates.

SeanT said:

...the [EU] parliament only approves laws, does not propose....

It annoys me that this misconception is still widely held.

The UK Parliament is the building in Westminster with a big clock. Apart from private member's bills it does not propose laws, and indeed Christopher Chope excused his blocking of the upskirting law by stating that only the Government can propose law.

The UK Government is the buildings in Whitehall and other cities that house the UK Cabinet and ancilliary staff. It proposes laws but does not approve them.

Mr. HYUFD, I think China's going to be interesting to watch. Xi's purged rivals, ended the decades long truce over corruption, made himself pre-eminent rather than first among equals, beefed up the military, claimed disputed islands, and made a large land (well, sea) grab in the South China Sea.

Now he's consolidated his position the atmosphere in China seems to be a bit less foreign-friendly. Military adventures seem far from impossible.

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

As long as Trump has a Democrat Congress to pitch against, an economy doing OK and ideally with another coastal liberal elitist Democratic candidate such as Harris or Warren he has a good chance of winning the Midwestern and rustbelt swing states again and re election

Plausible. The Dems need somebody who can hit him where it hurts. That'll be a man or woman from a hardscrabble background who can mock his populism and out-macho him. All the Dem candidates appear to be nice middle/upper class people who get upset and outraged when challenged. It's not enough. If it wasn't for his creepy videos I'd say Biden had a chance, but they exist so he doesn't.

The GOP rightly value the prospect of winning the Rustbelt, but holding it isn't a guaranteed ticket to Trump re-election. If the Dems begin winning the 'Sunbelt' such as Arizona/Georgia then the maths becomes tight even with a Rustbelt sweep. And the region needn't go all for one candidate.

Trump won in 2016 because the shift of blue-collar whites delivered new states to the GOP before hispanics and white-collar whites delivered new states to the Democrats. But that needn't be the case in 2020, even if the first half still works for the GOP.

What I'm saying is, a Biden candidacy aims at denying the GOP the midwest states they need to win. But the Dems could also go for the Obama coalition again and try to 'take' existing GOP states to make up for the Midwest instead, and that could work too. The key is not to get stuck in the middle of the road, but that's the difficulty of coalition-building generally.

If Donald Trump’s advisers had only watched The Wire, many of the president’s aides and associates might have saved themselves a great deal of legal trouble.

A scene from the HBO crime drama shows a character named Stringer Bell trying to broker peace between rival drug dealers, and trying to get them to abide by Robert’s Rules of Order. When the meeting adjourns, Bell walks up to a subordinate, who is busy scribbling on a legal pad.

“Motherfucker, what is that?” Bell asks.

“The Robert Rules say we gotta have minutes for a meeting. These the minutes,” he replies.

Astonished, Bell snatches the paper out of his hand. “Nigga, is you takin’ notes on a criminal fuckin’ conspiracy? What the fuck is you thinking, man?”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/trump-associates-keep-taking-notes-conspiracies/581299/

viewcode said:

SeanT said:

...the [EU] parliament only approves laws, does not propose....

It annoys me that this misconception is still widely held.

The UK Parliament is the building in Westminster with a big clock. Apart from private member's bills it does not propose laws, and indeed Christopher Chope excused his blocking of the upskirting law by stating that only the Government can propose law.

The UK Government is the buildings in Whitehall and other cities that house the UK Cabinet and ancilliary staff. It proposes laws but does not approve them.

So what you are saying is there is a mechanism for Parliament to propose its own laws?

Quincel said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

As long as Trump has a Democrat Congress to pitch against, an economy doing OK and ideally with another coastal liberal elitist Democratic candidate such as Harris or Warren he has a good chance of winning the Midwestern and rustbelt swing states again and re election

Plausible. The Dems need somebody who can hit him where it hurts. That'll be a man or woman from a hardscrabble background who can mock his populism and out-macho him. All the Dem candidates appear to be nice middle/upper class people who get upset and outraged when challenged. It's not enough. If it wasn't for his creepy videos I'd say Biden had a chance, but they exist so he doesn't.

The GOP rightly value the prospect of winning the Rustbelt, but holding it isn't a guaranteed ticket to Trump re-election. If the Dems begin winning the 'Sunbelt' such as Arizona/Georgia then the maths becomes tight even with a Rustbelt sweep. And the region needn't go all for one candidate.

Trump won in 2016 because the shift of blue-collar whites delivered new states to the GOP before hispanics and white-collar whites delivered new states to the Democrats. But that needn't be the case in 2020, even if the first half still works for the GOP.

What I'm saying is, a Biden candidacy aims at denying the GOP the midwest states they need to win. But the Dems could also go for the Obama coalition again and try to 'take' existing GOP states to make up for the Midwest instead, and that could work too. The key is not to get stuck in the middle of the road, but that's the difficulty of coalition-building generally.

To win Arizona they need huge Hispanic turnout and Georgia they need huge black turnout and even Obama could not win Georgia. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania remain the likeliest route to a Democratic EC win

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, I wonder how much Western firms are regretting jumping over there, what with IP going walkies.

No expert on China, but I'd guess that Xi is likely in a very strong domestic position in the short term. But growth is done (always happens with a rapidly expanding economy) and that could lead to political pressure. And, in the past, a way of distracting from that can be to wave the flag and go invade somewhere.

China's notably been reticent to have military adventures. I think Tibet in the 1950s was the last such conquest (had to check, they were involved in the Korean War but didn't conquer the peninsula, obviously, and absorb it into China).

An alternative could be more land-grabbing.

Yes and Hong Kong too is facing a crackdown on the pro democracy opposition, the Communist Party still wants capitalism on its own terms.

China is unlikely to expand military adventures much beyond its borders but Taiwan is the likeliest flashpoint. Russia is still far more willing to challenge the West with military expeditions to the Middle East etc than China is

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

No, the point is he's failed to do it. I'll say it again - his USP was "canny, unconventional business tycoon who gets things done", not "fat bloke who broadly supports things you like but will fold embarrassingly when confronted with an elderly lady from California".

Yes, his big plus points to his base IMO are:

1. Saying Non PC (aka primitive and vulgar) things which echo their own baser sentiments.
2. Being a hard ass Businessman Who Gets Things Done. A wheeler dealer. A doer.

Where (1) means "He's just like one of us" and (2) adds on "But he's also a proven billionaire boss-man and so we look up to him and trust him to deliver on stuff".

It was Trump's killer achievement to successfully present this duality in 2016 and I don't think he wins again if he loses either aspect. I think he needs both, which is a challenge for him.

Of course (1) is quite easy to maintain or even burnish - just keep up the trash talk - but (2) not so much.

And if he loses that, what then does he become? A rich superannuated bigot with a dirty mouth. That gets you places, of course it does, but it will not get you a 2nd term in the White House.

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, I wonder how much Western firms are regretting jumping over there, what with IP going walkies.

No expert on China, but I'd guess that Xi is likely in a very strong domestic position in the short term. But growth is done (always happens with a rapidly expanding economy) and that could lead to political pressure. And, in the past, a way of distracting from that can be to wave the flag and go invade somewhere.

China's notably been reticent to have military adventures. I think Tibet in the 1950s was the last such conquest (had to check, they were involved in the Korean War but didn't conquer the peninsula, obviously, and absorb it into China).

An alternative could be more land-grabbing.

Yes and Hong Kong too is facing a crackdown on the pro democracy opposition, the Communist Party still wants capitalism on its own terms.

China is unlikely to expand military adventures much beyond its borders but Taiwan is the likeliest flashpoint. Russia is still far more willing to challenge the West with military expeditions to the Middle East etc than China is

I recall them invading Vietnam with minimal success.

Vietnam is still the Far East really though

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1089208094012391426

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1089208094012391426

Fair enough. When are they going to start building those border posts?

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, I wonder how much Western firms are regretting jumping over there, what with IP going walkies.

No expert on China, but I'd guess that Xi is likely in a very strong domestic position in the short term. But growth is done (always happens with a rapidly expanding economy) and that could lead to political pressure. And, in the past, a way of distracting from that can be to wave the flag and go invade somewhere.

China's notably been reticent to have military adventures. I think Tibet in the 1950s was the last such conquest (had to check, they were involved in the Korean War but didn't conquer the peninsula, obviously, and absorb it into China).

An alternative could be more land-grabbing.

Yes and Hong Kong too is facing a crackdown on the pro democracy opposition, the Communist Party still wants capitalism on its own terms.

China is unlikely to expand military adventures much beyond its borders but Taiwan is the likeliest flashpoint. Russia is still far more willing to challenge the West with military expeditions to the Middle East etc than China is

I recall them invading Vietnam with minimal success.

My recent trip to Vietnam was remarkably illuminating. The highlight, politically, was my guide in Saigon. He was a handsome dude in his forties, recently married to his 3rd wife, and with 4 sons. He was keen to talk sex, and politics. I discovered his Dad was once the media minister for the Vietnamese government in Hanoi, and was something of a hero of the War against America

Yet this guy railed against the commie government, said it was totally corrupt. He showed me apartments in central Saigon costing 1-3 million dollars. All owned or sold by communist party officials. He also explained how much Vietnam feared and loathed China, and felt increasingly encircled by it, as China has made Laos and Cambodia total satellites and puppet governments, and at the same time has built bases on islands all down the Vietnamese coast.

The ironic peak was reached when he told me Vietnam needed and wanted a deep friendship with Trump’s America, to balance Chinese power. He was serious, and he was smart. It was fascinating.

Interesting. I would have thought that their more natural ally was Japan.

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, I wonder how much Western firms are regretting jumping over there, what with IP going walkies.

No expert on China, but I'd guess that Xi is likely in a very strong domestic position in the short term. But growth is done (always happens with a rapidly expanding economy) and that could lead to political pressure. And, in the past, a way of distracting from that can be to wave the flag and go invade somewhere.

China's notably been reticent to have military adventures. I think Tibet in the 1950s was the last such conquest (had to check, they were involved in the Korean War but didn't conquer the peninsula, obviously, and absorb it into China).

An alternative could be more land-grabbing.

Yes and Hong Kong too is facing a crackdown on the pro democracy opposition, the Communist Party still wants capitalism on its own terms.

China is unlikely to expand military adventures much beyond its borders but Taiwan is the likeliest flashpoint. Russia is still far more willing to challenge the West with military expeditions to the Middle East etc than China is

I recall them invading Vietnam with minimal success.

My recent trip to Vietnam was remarkably illuminating. The highlight, politically, was my guide in Saigon. He was a handsome dude in his forties, recently married to his 3rd wife, and with 4 sons. He was keen to talk sex, and politics. I discovered his Dad was once the media minister for the Vietnamese government in Hanoi, and was something of a hero of the War against America

Yet this guy railed against the commie government, said it was totally corrupt. He showed me apartments in central Saigon costing 1-3 million dollars. All owned or sold by communist party officials. He also explained how much Vietnam feared and loathed China, and felt increasingly encircled by it, as China has made Laos and Cambodia total satellites and puppet governments, and at the same time has built bases on islands all down the Vietnamese coast.

The ironic peak was reached when he told me Vietnam needed and wanted a deep friendship with Trump’s America, to balance Chinese power. He was serious, and he was smart. It was fascinating.

China seems to have a knack for pissing off its neighbours. It’s a soft power minnow.

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

Theresa May's decision to scrap the fee for EU nationals to apply for stay in the UK after Brexit will cost up to £1.95m in refunds, the Lib Dems say.

EU citizens who want to continue living in the UK after 30 June 2021 were facing a £65 fee.
But the PM said on Monday she would waive the fee and give refunds to those who had already applied. Home Office Minister Caroline Nokes said more than 30,000 people had signed up in a pilot programme for the scheme.

How many seconds of government spending does that represent?

Won't the Government be losing £200 million plus from abolishing the fee meaning the administration costs of the scheme will fall on the general taxpayer.

In the end for a modest admin fee of £65 - less than the cost of 4 hours of home care most local councils charge our frail elderly - you get right of residency in the UK for the rest of your life. Perhaps we could have said the sums raised will be used to fund social care for our elderly and disabled - several hundred thousand of whom have suffered cuts in support since 2010 as we apparently have no money to help them.

Should we allow Irish citizens here to claim back the 80 euro cost of their Irish passports (105 euro if you get a passport card too) as that is their means of evidencing their right to remain here under the common travel area? Given Windrush that might be needed.

What about the £10 admin fee we charge the frail elderly and disabled for a blue badge. Surely cruel and inhumane - why not abolish it. Its not their fault they cannot walk far?

Why don't we offer UK passports for free and abolish the £80 charge - surely its nasty to charge people an admin fee so they can travel abroad.

Or the £20 those of working age have to pay for an eye test - or £30 for a dental check up plus another £50 for a filling or £7 for a prescription. Surely unfair and cruel on the sick and poorly sighted - its not their fault their filling came out or they need glasses?

Indeed why not abolish all government charges for everything - cos they are so unfair.

In the end if you are so uncommitted to the UK that you weren't prepared to pay £65 (the price of a meal for two in a decent restaurant) to get lifetime residency here so we can cover the admin costs of checking your eligibility - are you really committed to the UK that much?

Gardenwalker said:

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, I wonder how much Western firms are regretting jumping over there, what with IP going walkies.

No expert on China, but I'd guess that Xi is likely in a very strong domestic position in the short term. But growth is done (always happens with a rapidly expanding economy) and that could lead to political pressure. And, in the past, a way of distracting from that can be to wave the flag and go invade somewhere.

China's notably been reticent to have military adventures. I think Tibet in the 1950s was the last such conquest (had to check, they were involved in the Korean War but didn't conquer the peninsula, obviously, and absorb it into China).

An alternative could be more land-grabbing.

Yes and Hong Kong too is facing a crackdown on the pro democracy opposition, the Communist Party still wants capitalism on its own terms.

China is unlikely to expand military adventures much beyond its borders but Taiwan is the likeliest flashpoint. Russia is still far more willing to challenge the West with military expeditions to the Middle East etc than China is

I recall them invading Vietnam with minimal success.

My recent trip to Vietnam was remarkably illuminating. The highlight, politically, was my guide in Saigon. He was a handsome dude in his forties, recently married to his 3rd wife, and with 4 sons. He was keen to talk sex, and politics. I discovered his Dad was once the media minister for the Vietnamese government in Hanoi, and was something of a hero of the War against America

Yet this guy railed against the commie government, said it was totally corrupt. He showed me apartments in central Saigon costing 1-3 million dollars. All owned or sold by communist party officials. He also explained how much Vietnam feared and loathed China, and felt increasingly encircled by it, as China has made Laos and Cambodia total satellites and puppet governments, and at the same time has built bases on islands all down the Vietnamese coast.

The ironic peak was reached when he told me Vietnam needed and wanted a deep friendship with Trump’s America, to balance Chinese power. He was serious, and he was smart. It was fascinating.

China seems to have a knack for pissing off its neighbours. It’s a soft power minnow.

I think the trouble is that it’s increasingly hard power too.

This “peaceful rise” stuff is a myth.