politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest Republican TV debate was the best so far but won
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest Republican TV debate was the best so far but won’t change anything
Overnight we have had the latest TV debate in the search to find the Republican nominee for next year’s White House Race. Compares with the last such event a couple of weeks ago which was poorly moderated this was a far better organised and much more inormative
Comments
-
Good Morning Trumpsters Worldwide0
-
0
-
Mike - second paragraph, first word.
"Tt" - missing middle "i" ?!?0 -
There seems to be a lesson here for future contests that you should bet on the best debate performers early, and pay less attention to how people look on paper.0
-
Am I the only slightly cynical about this story?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34777243
The example on the story seems utterly reasonable to me: if the college authorities had concerns about radicalisation, they should report it.0 -
I think it a reasonable maxim not to support GOP candidates involved in pyramid selling.0
-
A good summary here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-sharp-policy-divisions-emerge-awkward-republican-debate/story?id=35075716
Krauthammer, on another channel, said the debate was more substantive and therefore more boring (hmm!), so probably hadn't changed much. Another piece said Christie did really well in the 2nd division debate, though IMO it's probably too late for him to get back in the game.0 -
Ben Carson looked and talked like he was zonked out on Pot
Rubio is a slick operator who looks presidential ..he's probably the only one who can beat Hillary0 -
I don't think that anti-radicalisation policies are the problem. Radicals attempting to murder innocent Britons going about their lawful business is the problem. If the Muslim community addressed the issue properly there would be no need for the government to get involved.JosiasJessop said:Am I the only slightly cynical about this story?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34777243
The example on the story seems utterly reasonable to me: if the college authorities had concerns about radicalisation, they should report it.0 -
Latest German poll shows a big shift in Merkel's favour, with 3.5% switching back from the AfD (though they still are 2 points over the last election). The SPD also recovers slightly. I'm not aware of anything amazing that's just changed, so either this or the previous poll that showed the AfD at a record high could be rogues:
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/0 -
And a more detailed account:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/10/republican-debate-outsiders-volatile-substantive0 -
Is there a German equivalent of UK Polling Report?NickPalmer said:Latest German poll shows a big shift in Merkel's favour, with 3.5% switching back from the AfD (though they still are 2 points over the last election). The SPD also recovers slightly. I'm not aware of anything amazing that's just changed, so either this or the previous poll that showed the AfD at a record high could be rogues:
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/0 -
The Islamic Human Rights Commission is as inappropriately named as the Democratic Republic of East Germany. It's an extremely unpleasant organisation.JosiasJessop said:Am I the only slightly cynical about this story?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34777243
The example on the story seems utterly reasonable to me: if the college authorities had concerns about radicalisation, they should report it.0 -
Rubio is a fantastic candidate.
If he appeals most in the swing states of Ohio and Florida (and I simply don't know, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of American politics) then the Republicans would be mad not to pick him.0 -
Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Jeb Bush have something in common: “multilevel marketing” companies that prey upon the desperate and broke.0
-
That's why the Primary system is so good. It gives you a good idea how candidates would perform in the real contest, while weeding candidates who look good on paper, but don't come up to scratch.Casino_Royale said:Rubio is a fantastic candidate.
If he appeals most in the swing states of Ohio and Florida (and I simply don't know, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of American politics) then the Republicans would be mad not to pick him.0 -
========Casino_Royale said:Rubio is a fantastic candidate.
If he appeals most in the swing states of Ohio and Florida (and I simply don't know, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of American politics) then the Republicans would be mad not to pick him.
Yes Rubio is the only one in the zeit geist who can gain votes in those crucial swing states ; I think he can win in Ohio , Colorado , Nevada , N H and Iowa
0 -
I just use Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_German_federal_electionantifrank said:
Is there a German equivalent of UK Polling Report?NickPalmer said:Latest German poll shows a big shift in Merkel's favour, with 3.5% switching back from the AfD (though they still are 2 points over the last election). The SPD also recovers slightly. I'm not aware of anything amazing that's just changed, so either this or the previous poll that showed the AfD at a record high could be rogues:
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/0 -
Oh my days.. watching this in the background.
Did I just hear Ted Cruz advocate the Gold Standard?0 -
"We think the Euro is insufficiently inflexible, and therefore advocate a return to the Gold standard."Casino_Royale said:Oh my days.. watching this in the background.
Did I just hear Ted Cruz advocate the Gold Standard?0 -
Trump could. Seriously. Yes, Hillary leads with the head-to-head and they've just moved in her direction (mainly thanks to what looks like a rogue poll), but there are few enough 'don't knows' to make this a meaningful comparison, the figures are close enough to put Trump well within range and the public have had a good time to come to an initial view.Cromwell said:Ben Carson looked and talked like he was zonked out on Pot
Rubio is a slick operator who looks presidential ..he's probably the only one who can beat Hillary
That said, Rubio should stand a better chance and if Trump does get the nomination, I'd still expect him to gaffe badly enough at some point to cost himself the election - but it's a probability not a certainty.0 -
They'll need to find a Stargate first, but at least they are looking in the right place - Egyptrcs1000 said:
0 -
It's a good rule of thumb that any poll that puts any party at a record high (or low) is exaggerating but is also revealing, if over-reporting, a genuine shift in sentiment.NickPalmer said:Latest German poll shows a big shift in Merkel's favour, with 3.5% switching back from the AfD (though they still are 2 points over the last election). The SPD also recovers slightly. I'm not aware of anything amazing that's just changed, so either this or the previous poll that showed the AfD at a record high could be rogues:
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/0 -
Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary.Cromwell said:
========Casino_Royale said:Rubio is a fantastic candidate.
If he appeals most in the swing states of Ohio and Florida (and I simply don't know, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of American politics) then the Republicans would be mad not to pick him.
Yes Rubio is the only one in the zeit geist who can gain votes in those crucial swing states ; I think he can win in Ohio , Colorado , Nevada , N H and Iowa
Which is why the Republicans will choose someone utterly unelectable.0 -
Not that I know of. But the site that I linked to above is zealous about reporting every national and state poll as soon as it appears. They also carry occasional stories of interest to politics fans, but they mainly just tell you what the polls say. There's usually a new one every day. Normally it's like watching paint dry, as the figures remain stable for months on end, but recent events have definitely shaken it up a bit.antifrank said:
Is there a German equivalent of UK Polling Report?NickPalmer said:Latest German poll shows a big shift in Merkel's favour, with 3.5% switching back from the AfD (though they still are 2 points over the last election). The SPD also recovers slightly. I'm not aware of anything amazing that's just changed, so either this or the previous poll that showed the AfD at a record high could be rogues:
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
For general commentary I subscribe to http://www.cicero.de/, which is roughly like the Independent - not firmly in any political camp and keen to be challenging: they intrigue me and irritate me by turns, which I suppose is a good thing. Der Spiegel (which has an English edition which others here have quoted) is mildly left of centre (though firmly anti-communist) but probably the most serious widely-read political publication in Germany. As Hurst Llama observed, their articles are very, very long and detailed, like The Economist on steroids.0 -
Thanks, that's really helpful.NickPalmer said:
Not that I know of. But the site that I linked to above is zealous about reporting every national and state poll as soon as it appears. They also carry occasional stories of interest to politics fans, but they mainly just tell you what the polls say. There's usually a new one every day. Normally it's like watching paint dry, as the figures remain stable for months on end, but recent events have definitely shaken it up a bit.antifrank said:
Is there a German equivalent of UK Polling Report?NickPalmer said:Latest German poll shows a big shift in Merkel's favour, with 3.5% switching back from the AfD (though they still are 2 points over the last election). The SPD also recovers slightly. I'm not aware of anything amazing that's just changed, so either this or the previous poll that showed the AfD at a record high could be rogues:
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
For general commentary I subscribe to http://www.cicero.de/, which is roughly like the Independent - not firmly in any political camp and keen to be challenging: they intrigue me and irritate me by turns, which I suppose is a good thing. Der Spiegel (which has an English edition which others here have quoted) is mildly left of centre (though firmly anti-communist) but probably the most serious widely-read political publication in Germany. As Hurst Llama observed, their articles are very, very long and detailed, like The Economist on steroids.0 -
German Democratic Republic. Two out of three ain't bad.Sean_F said:
The Islamic Human Rights Commission is as inappropriately named as the Democratic Republic of East Germany. It's an extremely unpleasant organisation.JosiasJessop said:Am I the only slightly cynical about this story?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34777243
The example on the story seems utterly reasonable to me: if the college authorities had concerns about radicalisation, they should report it.0 -
Better than the Holy Roman Empire, which managed none of three.david_herdson said:
German Democratic Republic. Two out of three ain't bad.Sean_F said:
The Islamic Human Rights Commission is as inappropriately named as the Democratic Republic of East Germany. It's an extremely unpleasant organisation.JosiasJessop said:Am I the only slightly cynical about this story?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34777243
The example on the story seems utterly reasonable to me: if the college authorities had concerns about radicalisation, they should report it.
0 -
The trend seems to be for AFD to be rising.david_herdson said:
It's a good rule of thumb that any poll that puts any party at a record high (or low) is exaggerating but is also revealing, if over-reporting, a genuine shift in sentiment.NickPalmer said:Latest German poll shows a big shift in Merkel's favour, with 3.5% switching back from the AfD (though they still are 2 points over the last election). The SPD also recovers slightly. I'm not aware of anything amazing that's just changed, so either this or the previous poll that showed the AfD at a record high could be rogues:
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/0 -
By the way, I would like to see many apologies today from people who said that Cameron's negotiation was all stage managed.
It's hard to think of anything less stage managed than "Fuck off", "OK, I will."0 -
Yes, that's very true. Just from watching that I've written off Carson, Cruz and Kasich. Bush is better, but obviously isn't up to scratch.Sean_F said:
That's why the Primary system is so good. It gives you a good idea how candidates would perform in the real contest, while weeding candidates who look good on paper, but don't come up to scratch.Casino_Royale said:Rubio is a fantastic candidate.
If he appeals most in the swing states of Ohio and Florida (and I simply don't know, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of American politics) then the Republicans would be mad not to pick him.
As I said, I'm not American, but if I was I do wonder what I'd think about immigration - Rubio's weak point.
A regular solution (advocated by Bush here) seems to be to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants who have already arrived in the US, and give them a route to obtaining legal status - mainly from South America, and Mexico in particular.
I don't see how that addresses the issue of illegal immigration and I'd expect the Republicans to have more of a handle on it.0 -
Politics is becoming increasingly intertwined with Hollywood ..Rubio is the type of candidate you would cast in a movie about the west wing of the White House
Republicans are usually portrayed as folksy and provincial prone to evangelical fervour but with Rubio you have a Republican Obama who can appeal to the young and non white ; he seems like the obvious nominee to me and would give him a more than 50/50 chance of beating Hillary0 -
I should have posted this on the last thread...
But anyone who likes Egyptian stuff, we've gathered together a bunch of nice artefacts for an exhibition at our place next year. Everyone welcome
http://www.twotempleplace.org/woodgrain/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Appearance-of-Beauty.pdf0 -
Ha. There are still several acts in this drama yet to come.rcs1000 said:By the way, I would like to see many apologies today from people who said that Cameron's negotiation was all stage managed.
It's hard to think of anything less stage managed than "Fuck off", "OK, I will."
*gingerly comes back* "Are you sure you want me to Fuck off?"0 -
What is their problem with him?rcs1000 said:
Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary.Cromwell said:
========Casino_Royale said:Rubio is a fantastic candidate.
If he appeals most in the swing states of Ohio and Florida (and I simply don't know, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of American politics) then the Republicans would be mad not to pick him.
Yes Rubio is the only one in the zeit geist who can gain votes in those crucial swing states ; I think he can win in Ohio , Colorado , Nevada , N H and Iowa
Which is why the Republicans will choose someone utterly unelectable.
I don't buy the whole "he's hispanic" thing.0 -
Hillary has the same problem as Bush , insomuch she has already done two terms in the W H as First lady and I suspect that voters see her as retro and are not going to be too enthusiastic about her carrying Bill back into the WH for another term
I suspect the voters will want someone young and fresh , after all isn't that part of the reason a little known and inexperienced Senator from Chicago was able to beat her ?0 -
Sarah Wollaston is a good example of how such a system could work in the UK. She doesn't seem too popular with the top ranks but is an excellent MP with real knowledge. I bet she even knows what the pyramids are for!Sean_F said:
That's why the Primary system is so good. It gives you a good idea how candidates would perform in the real contest, while weeding candidates who look good on paper, but don't come up to scratch.Casino_Royale said:Rubio is a fantastic candidate.
If he appeals most in the swing states of Ohio and Florida (and I simply don't know, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of American politics) then the Republicans would be mad not to pick him.
On Carson: it is possible to recover from a lame performance, but recovering from ridicule is difficult.0 -
I hold my prediction yesterday, that we will not have even a Heads of Terms by this time next year.Casino_Royale said:
Ha. There are still several acts in this drama yet to come.rcs1000 said:By the way, I would like to see many apologies today from people who said that Cameron's negotiation was all stage managed.
It's hard to think of anything less stage managed than "Fuck off", "OK, I will."
*gingerly comes back* "Are you sure you want me to Fuck off?"
I was thinking of something Cameron should include as part of the process. He should set up a permanent cross-party committee on EU Competences, which, if it feels that the EU or the ECJ has overstepped its Treaty abilities, can make a recommendation for a further referendum.
0 -
Bill and Hillary are like a pair of aging C and W singers trying to make a comeback but seemingly unawhere that the times have changed , the audience has changed and that they are no longer in vogue and are no longer wanted anymore0
-
He backed an illegal immigration amnesty.Casino_Royale said:
What is their problem with him?rcs1000 said:
Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary.Cromwell said:
========Casino_Royale said:Rubio is a fantastic candidate.
If he appeals most in the swing states of Ohio and Florida (and I simply don't know, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of American politics) then the Republicans would be mad not to pick him.
Yes Rubio is the only one in the zeit geist who can gain votes in those crucial swing states ; I think he can win in Ohio , Colorado , Nevada , N H and Iowa
Which is why the Republicans will choose someone utterly unelectable.
I don't buy the whole "he's hispanic" thing.0 -
I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest0 -
Agreed. There was a shocking lack of self-awareness by the girl quoted in the story. The reason Buddhists, for instance, don't get reported is because there is no current concern about Buddhists becoming radicalised, going off to fight or learning how to blow us up. She might ask herself why it is that Muslims are the main focus of anti-radicalisation policies.foxinsoxuk said:
I don't think that anti-radicalisation policies are the problem. Radicals attempting to murder innocent Britons going about their lawful business is the problem. If the Muslim community addressed the issue properly there would be no need for the government to get involved.JosiasJessop said:Am I the only slightly cynical about this story?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34777243
The example on the story seems utterly reasonable to me: if the college authorities had concerns about radicalisation, they should report it.
0 -
Part of the problem with Bush is that he is too provincial and anachronistic , more suited to a politically ,less sophisticated era like the 1970s ...he will NEVER be President0
-
I think he's suffering from the anti-politics mood. From a distance it seems that GOP voters will vote for anyone as long as they are not remotely a professional politician. How long this lasts before a dose of reality enters the competition is the big question for us betting folks. I am pretty covered on 'moderate' candidates like Rubio and Bush - I'm stuffed if Trump wins. I'll probably also need to invest in a nuclear shelter in the back garden.Casino_Royale said:
What is their problem with him?rcs1000 said:
Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary.Cromwell said:
========Casino_Royale said:Rubio is a fantastic candidate.
If he appeals most in the swing states of Ohio and Florida (and I simply don't know, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of American politics) then the Republicans would be mad not to pick him.
Yes Rubio is the only one in the zeit geist who can gain votes in those crucial swing states ; I think he can win in Ohio , Colorado , Nevada , N H and Iowa
Which is why the Republicans will choose someone utterly unelectable.
I don't buy the whole "he's hispanic" thing.0 -
Why are we so sure voters will come to their senses before the vote? Labour voters never did when backing Corbyn.rottenborough said:
I think he's suffering from the anti-politics mood. From a distance it seems that GOP voters will vote for anyone as long as they are not remotely a professional politician. How long this lasts before a dose of reality enters the competition is the big question for us betting folks. I am pretty covered on 'moderate' candidates like Rubio and Bush - I'm stuffed if Trump wins. I'll probably also need to invest in a nuclear shelter in the back garden.Casino_Royale said:
What is their problem with him?rcs1000 said:
Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary.Cromwell said:
========Casino_Royale said:Rubio is a fantastic candidate.
If he appeals most in the swing states of Ohio and Florida (and I simply don't know, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of American politics) then the Republicans would be mad not to pick him.
Yes Rubio is the only one in the zeit geist who can gain votes in those crucial swing states ; I think he can win in Ohio , Colorado , Nevada , N H and Iowa
Which is why the Republicans will choose someone utterly unelectable.
I don't buy the whole "he's hispanic" thing.0 -
Of course it is. Although it is probably a smaller conflict of interest than recommending a system of job preferences for people of his racial group.Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest0 -
That looks really interesting, thank you.Charles said:I should have posted this on the last thread...
But anyone who likes Egyptian stuff, we've gathered together a bunch of nice artefacts for an exhibition at our place next year. Everyone welcome
http://www.twotempleplace.org/woodgrain/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Appearance-of-Beauty.pdf
0 -
This article from the BBC is so biased. It just repeats the line of the notorious IHRC, repeating an entire story from one of their supporters in depth, and with no counter point of view.
The BBC's partiality is poisonous to British public debate.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-347772430 -
The way the Republicans allocate their delegates is heavily weighted towards establishment candidates.JEO said:
Why are we so sure voters will come to their senses before the vote? Labour voters never did when backing Corbyn.rottenborough said:
I think he's suffering from the anti-politics mood. From a distance it seems that GOP voters will vote for anyone as long as they are not remotely a professional politician. How long this lasts before a dose of reality enters the competition is the big question for us betting folks. I am pretty covered on 'moderate' candidates like Rubio and Bush - I'm stuffed if Trump wins. I'll probably also need to invest in a nuclear shelter in the back garden.Casino_Royale said:
What is their problem with him?rcs1000 said:
Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary.Cromwell said:
========Casino_Royale said:Rubio is a fantastic candidate.
If he appeals most in the swing states of Ohio and Florida (and I simply don't know, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of American politics) then the Republicans would be mad not to pick him.
Yes Rubio is the only one in the zeit geist who can gain votes in those crucial swing states ; I think he can win in Ohio , Colorado , Nevada , N H and Iowa
Which is why the Republicans will choose someone utterly unelectable.
I don't buy the whole "he's hispanic" thing.0 -
Yougov
#EUref Poll
England
By voting intention
Remain (Leave)
LibDems 58% (26%)
Labour 55% (28%)
Conservatives 35% (48%)
UKIP 4% (91%)0 -
It was a mistake to let all those Arab and Asian Muslims into the UK, eh, JEO?JEO said:This article from the BBC is so biased. It just repeats the line of the notorious IHRC, repeating an entire story from one of their supporters in depth, and with no counter point of view.
The BBC's partiality is poisonous to British public debate.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34777243
0 -
If that's the case, how can Cameron - on his own terms - possibly recommend Remain?rcs1000 said:
I hold my prediction yesterday, that we will not have even a Heads of Terms by this time next year.Casino_Royale said:
Ha. There are still several acts in this drama yet to come.rcs1000 said:By the way, I would like to see many apologies today from people who said that Cameron's negotiation was all stage managed.
It's hard to think of anything less stage managed than "Fuck off", "OK, I will."
*gingerly comes back* "Are you sure you want me to Fuck off?"
I was thinking of something Cameron should include as part of the process. He should set up a permanent cross-party committee on EU Competences, which, if it feels that the EU or the ECJ has overstepped its Treaty abilities, can make a recommendation for a further referendum.
0 -
Get your boss to sponsor it!*Cyclefree said:
That looks really interesting, thank you.Charles said:I should have posted this on the last thread...
But anyone who likes Egyptian stuff, we've gathered together a bunch of nice artefacts for an exhibition at our place next year. Everyone welcome
http://www.twotempleplace.org/woodgrain/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Appearance-of-Beauty.pdf
If you look closely you may recognise my avatar's playmate
* Thinking of the delightfully charming Italian0 -
What's the objection?JEO said:
Of course it is. Although it is probably a smaller conflict of interest than recommending a system of job preferences for people of his racial group.Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
I support the candidate that would serve me best, you support the one that would serve you best.0 -
The Guardian includes a good round-up of reactions from around the EU:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/10/camerons-renegotiation-demands-met-with-qualified-support-in-eu
One stood out for me:
"In Berlin, Angela Merkel said she had been in touch with Cameron and he was bringing “no surprises to the table”. The German chancellor said she was willing to work with him on Britain’s proposals and that “if one has the spirit that we can solve these problems, then I’m convinced it can be done” – although she too described some demands as “easier than others”."
One negotiant at least has been warmed up enough.0 -
I don't support the candidate that would serve me best. I support the one that would serve the city and country best, and one that is committed to decency and fairness, rather than patronage politics based around race.TheWhiteRabbit said:
What's the objection?JEO said:
Of course it is. Although it is probably a smaller conflict of interest than recommending a system of job preferences for people of his racial group.Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
I support the candidate that would serve me best, you support the one that would serve you best.0 -
I think Cameron wants to run with what he's got, squeak through the referendum by relying on his appeal and just draw a line under this.rcs1000 said:
I hold my prediction yesterday, that we will not have even a Heads of Terms by this time next year.Casino_Royale said:
Ha. There are still several acts in this drama yet to come.rcs1000 said:By the way, I would like to see many apologies today from people who said that Cameron's negotiation was all stage managed.
It's hard to think of anything less stage managed than "Fuck off", "OK, I will."
*gingerly comes back* "Are you sure you want me to Fuck off?"
I was thinking of something Cameron should include as part of the process. He should set up a permanent cross-party committee on EU Competences, which, if it feels that the EU or the ECJ has overstepped its Treaty abilities, can make a recommendation for a further referendum.0 -
Thanks. He really needs to consider his position on that, or he might not be considered for the position he wants.JEO said:
He backed an illegal immigration amnesty.Casino_Royale said:
What is their problem with him?rcs1000 said:
Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary.Cromwell said:
========Casino_Royale said:Rubio is a fantastic candidate.
If he appeals most in the swing states of Ohio and Florida (and I simply don't know, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of American politics) then the Republicans would be mad not to pick him.
Yes Rubio is the only one in the zeit geist who can gain votes in those crucial swing states ; I think he can win in Ohio , Colorado , Nevada , N H and Iowa
Which is why the Republicans will choose someone utterly unelectable.
I don't buy the whole "he's hispanic" thing.0 -
What am I missing?Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
Group that has interest in tube endorses candidate who most closely reflects those interests.
Gen Houghton in another guise.
All good.0 -
You support the candidate based on what you think, TSSA is backing the candidates based on what they think.JEO said:
I don't support the candidate that would serve me best. I support the one that would serve the city and country best, and one that is committed to decency and fairness, rather than patronage politics based around race.TheWhiteRabbit said:
What's the objection?JEO said:
Of course it is. Although it is probably a smaller conflict of interest than recommending a system of job preferences for people of his racial group.Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
I support the candidate that would serve me best, you support the one that would serve you best.
Conflicts of itnerest don't enter into it,0 -
He is indeed very charming but you overestimate my influence! I can put you in contact with the relevant person if you'd like me to contact you privately.Charles said:
Get your boss to sponsor it!*Cyclefree said:
That looks really interesting, thank you.Charles said:I should have posted this on the last thread...
But anyone who likes Egyptian stuff, we've gathered together a bunch of nice artefacts for an exhibition at our place next year. Everyone welcome
http://www.twotempleplace.org/woodgrain/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Appearance-of-Beauty.pdf
If you look closely you may recognise my avatar's playmate
* Thinking of the delightfully charming Italian
I will see if my son would like to come along as well. He's in his final year at the Courtauld though he's currently studying Indian art, which he loves.
0 -
Because the Mayor and the TSSA are leading participants in negotiating the future of TfL.TOPPING said:
What am I missing?Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
Group that has interest in tube endorses candidate who most closely reflects those interests.
Gen Houghton in another guise.
All good.
They are basically paying to get "their guy" on the other side of the table.
Of course they are entitled to vote for him, but they are providing him with a headquarters, a salaried team and a call centre.0 -
If Germany are onside, Cameron should get what he seeks.antifrank said:The Guardian includes a good round-up of reactions from around the EU:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/10/camerons-renegotiation-demands-met-with-qualified-support-in-eu
One stood out for me:
"In Berlin, Angela Merkel said she had been in touch with Cameron and he was bringing “no surprises to the table”. The German chancellor said she was willing to work with him on Britain’s proposals and that “if one has the spirit that we can solve these problems, then I’m convinced it can be done” – although she too described some demands as “easier than others”."
One negotiant at least has been warmed up enough.
There are only a small group of nations that matter in the EU, the ones who really foot the bill and drive the EU economy.
There seems to be enough popular support across Northern and Western Europe regarding immigration and welfare which is the issue most of interest to the British public.0 -
The other point of interest is this one:antifrank said:The Guardian includes a good round-up of reactions from around the EU:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/10/camerons-renegotiation-demands-met-with-qualified-support-in-eu
One stood out for me:
"In Berlin, Angela Merkel said she had been in touch with Cameron and he was bringing “no surprises to the table”. The German chancellor said she was willing to work with him on Britain’s proposals and that “if one has the spirit that we can solve these problems, then I’m convinced it can be done” – although she too described some demands as “easier than others”."
One negotiant at least has been warmed up enough.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, tweeted that Cameron’s speech and letter formed a “good basis for concrete negotiations”, but that the process would be “difficult. I hope we will succeed because we need a strong UK in EU.”
If that view is widely held then Cameron has a strong hand, if not he will struggle in negotiations over the topic(s) of greatest importance and salience to the most vocal opponents of EU in the UK. That would be hard for him.0 -
Merkel is fully on board with the lot. That has been obvious for a while.antifrank said:The Guardian includes a good round-up of reactions from around the EU:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/10/camerons-renegotiation-demands-met-with-qualified-support-in-eu
One stood out for me:
"In Berlin, Angela Merkel said she had been in touch with Cameron and he was bringing “no surprises to the table”. The German chancellor said she was willing to work with him on Britain’s proposals and that “if one has the spirit that we can solve these problems, then I’m convinced it can be done” – although she too described some demands as “easier than others”."
One negotiant at least has been warmed up enough.
Cameron is relying on her to square the more recalcitrant EU member states, which she is uniquely placed to do.
The hard one is EU migration - I suspect (1) a longer transitional period for any future EU member state will be agreed, at 15+ years and (2) all "normal" benefits (including JSA, Child Tax Credit, Housing Benefit) will be restricted for EU migrants for up to 1 year, but not Working Tax Credit.
On the last one, Cameron will argue it's not a big deal as he's cutting WTA anyway. And I think he'll claim that as a win in the round, and run with it.0 -
= what you respond to in surveys.JEO said:
I don't support the candidate that would serve me best. I support the one that would serve the city and country best, and one that is committed to decency and fairness, rather than patronage politics based around race.TheWhiteRabbit said:
What's the objection?JEO said:
Of course it is. Although it is probably a smaller conflict of interest than recommending a system of job preferences for people of his racial group.Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
I support the candidate that would serve me best, you support the one that would serve you best.
I'm sure you are that paragon of virtue, but 99.9% of people vote out of self-interest. And rightly so. Plus your idea of decency and fairness probably differs from many others'...and we all know that once decency and fairness are believed to be objective truths...socialism isn't far behind...0 -
The referendum requires a HoT agreed with all 27 governments in the EU. If there is even one holdout, given treaty changes require unanimity, then there cannot be a HoT.Cyclefree said:
If that's the case, how can Cameron - on his own terms - possibly recommend Remain?rcs1000 said:
I hold my prediction yesterday, that we will not have even a Heads of Terms by this time next year.Casino_Royale said:
Ha. There are still several acts in this drama yet to come.rcs1000 said:By the way, I would like to see many apologies today from people who said that Cameron's negotiation was all stage managed.
It's hard to think of anything less stage managed than "Fuck off", "OK, I will."
*gingerly comes back* "Are you sure you want me to Fuck off?"
I was thinking of something Cameron should include as part of the process. He should set up a permanent cross-party committee on EU Competences, which, if it feels that the EU or the ECJ has overstepped its Treaty abilities, can make a recommendation for a further referendum.
I think there will be something that emerges, eventually. Probably in May or June 2017, ahead of a late 2017 referendum.
Ultimately, you need 27 different groups, all of which have different priorities and their own domestic political issues, to agree.
As we are major contributors, and no-one wants to pay more, something will probably emerge. But it is by no means certain.
The idea that you can stage manage 27 different governments is ridiculous.0 -
The conflict of interest is not the TSSA's but Khan's. If he is financially supported by the TSSA then he does have a potential conflict of interest if the TSSA wants him to follow policies which are their interest but which are not in the interests of the London population as a whole. That conflict is made more acute if there is any threat, express or implied, that the TSSA might withdraw their funding.TheWhiteRabbit said:
You support the candidate based on what you think, TSSA is backing the candidates based on what they think.JEO said:
I don't support the candidate that would serve me best. I support the one that would serve the city and country best, and one that is committed to decency and fairness, rather than patronage politics based around race.TheWhiteRabbit said:
What's the objection?JEO said:
Of course it is. Although it is probably a smaller conflict of interest than recommending a system of job preferences for people of his racial group.Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
I support the candidate that would serve me best, you support the one that would serve you best.
Conflicts of itnerest don't enter into it,
He who pays the piper and all that......
0 -
Of course she has and others will have been too, but I don't blame Cameron for this, it's what anyone in his position would doantifrank said:The Guardian includes a good round-up of reactions from around the EU:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/10/camerons-renegotiation-demands-met-with-qualified-support-in-eu
One stood out for me:
"In Berlin, Angela Merkel said she had been in touch with Cameron and he was bringing “no surprises to the table”. The German chancellor said she was willing to work with him on Britain’s proposals and that “if one has the spirit that we can solve these problems, then I’m convinced it can be done” – although she too described some demands as “easier than others”."
One negotiant at least has been warmed up enough.
He is desperate for us to remain part of the EU, as are the rest of the EU... In that situation, who wouldn't organise a set of demands that don't change much but might be just enough to convince the British public they do?
This is equivalent to Farage being sent to negotiate a deal to get us into the EU with a load of people who want us out0 -
That poll is a bit dated, but probably does show the balance of public opinion correctly. A 3% lead for Leave in England ( every region apart from London) a 25% lead for Remain in Scotland, a 4% lead for Remain in Wales. Add in Northern Ireland, and Remain would be about 1% ahead in the UK as a whole.Plato_Says said:Yougov
#EUref Poll
England
By voting intention
Remain (Leave)
LibDems 58% (26%)
Labour 55% (28%)
Conservatives 35% (48%)
UKIP 4% (91%)0 -
It was a problem letting Islamist ideology into the UK and allowing it to spread. But Islamists and Muslims are not one and the same. All Islamists are - at least nominally - Muslims. But not all Muslims are Islamists and it is important to remember that.Innocent_Abroad said:
It was a mistake to let all those Arab and Asian Muslims into the UK, eh, JEO?JEO said:This article from the BBC is so biased. It just repeats the line of the notorious IHRC, repeating an entire story from one of their supporters in depth, and with no counter point of view.
The BBC's partiality is poisonous to British public debate.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34777243
0 -
Bah, again, I am failing to be outraged. They have a view of how the tube should be run and are endorsing a guy who they think will help to achieve that.Charles said:
Because the Mayor and the TSSA are leading participants in negotiating the future of TfL.TOPPING said:
What am I missing?Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
Group that has interest in tube endorses candidate who most closely reflects those interests.
Gen Houghton in another guise.
All good.
They are basically paying to get "their guy" on the other side of the table.
Of course they are entitled to vote for him, but they are providing him with a headquarters, a salaried team and a call centre.
I'm not sure what you would rather they did? Not endorse him, but they have members who presumably want them to achieve their vision of the tube. Not offer him resources? I can live with them giving him a phone and a team.0 -
So how do we shift that?Sean_F said:
That poll is a bit dated, but probably does show the balance of public opinion correctly. A 3% lead for Leave in England ( every region apart from London) a 25% lead for Remain in Scotland, a 4% lead for Remain in Wales. Add in Northern Ireland, and Remain would be about 1% ahead in the UK as a whole.Plato_Says said:Yougov
#EUref Poll
England
By voting intention
Remain (Leave)
LibDems 58% (26%)
Labour 55% (28%)
Conservatives 35% (48%)
UKIP 4% (91%)0 -
We wanted the full twelve furlongs and forty yards.
He asked for a yard,
And received a foot.
But when he looked closer
It was much less than an inch !0 -
Easy - Give Scotland IndependanceCasino_Royale said:
So how do we shift that?Sean_F said:
That poll is a bit dated, but probably does show the balance of public opinion correctly. A 3% lead for Leave in England ( every region apart from London) a 25% lead for Remain in Scotland, a 4% lead for Remain in Wales. Add in Northern Ireland, and Remain would be about 1% ahead in the UK as a whole.Plato_Says said:Yougov
#EUref Poll
England
By voting intention
Remain (Leave)
LibDems 58% (26%)
Labour 55% (28%)
Conservatives 35% (48%)
UKIP 4% (91%)0 -
I think as long as it's transparent it's fine. You will look at the ballot paper, see "Khan" and think - oh yes that's the guy who supports the TSSA...having a political allegiance isn't a conflict of interest if it is disclosed.Cyclefree said:
The conflict of interest is not the TSSA's but Khan's. If he is financially supported by the TSSA then he does have a potential conflict of interest if the TSSA wants him to follow policies which are their interest but which are not in the interests of the London population as a whole. That conflict is made more acute if there is any threat, express or implied, that the TSSA might withdraw their funding.TheWhiteRabbit said:
You support the candidate based on what you think, TSSA is backing the candidates based on what they think.JEO said:
I don't support the candidate that would serve me best. I support the one that would serve the city and country best, and one that is committed to decency and fairness, rather than patronage politics based around race.TheWhiteRabbit said:
What's the objection?JEO said:
Of course it is. Although it is probably a smaller conflict of interest than recommending a system of job preferences for people of his racial group.Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
I support the candidate that would serve me best, you support the one that would serve you best.
Conflicts of itnerest don't enter into it,
He who pays the piper and all that......0 -
The TSSA are entitled to do what they are doing. Nothing wrong with that.TOPPING said:
Bah, again, I am failing to be outraged. They have a view of how the tube should be run and are endorsing a guy who they think will help to achieve that.Charles said:
Because the Mayor and the TSSA are leading participants in negotiating the future of TfL.TOPPING said:
What am I missing?Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
Group that has interest in tube endorses candidate who most closely reflects those interests.
Gen Houghton in another guise.
All good.
They are basically paying to get "their guy" on the other side of the table.
Of course they are entitled to vote for him, but they are providing him with a headquarters, a salaried team and a call centre.
I'm not sure what you would rather they did? Not endorse him, but they have members who presumably want them to achieve their vision of the tube. Not offer him resources? I can live with them giving him a phone and a team.
The issue is whether Khan realises he has a potential conflict of interest and how he addresses it. He needs to persuade everyone else that he will govern in the interests of all and not just those who have funded him and that he won't be influenced by his financial backers simply because they are funding him rather than because of the merits of the arguments.
0 -
Any idea that a particular candidate is in the pocket of the constantly striking tube workers will not play well with a lot of people who rely on the thing to get to work.0
-
Disclosure is necessary. But not sufficient.TOPPING said:
I think as long as it's transparent it's fine. You will look at the ballot paper, see "Khan" and think - oh yes that's the guy who supports the TSSA...having a political allegiance isn't a conflict of interest if it is disclosed.Cyclefree said:
The conflict of interest is not the TSSA's but Khan's. If he is financially supported by the TSSA then he does have a potential conflict of interest if the TSSA wants him to follow policies which are their interest but which are not in the interests of the London population as a whole. That conflict is made more acute if there is any threat, express or implied, that the TSSA might withdraw their funding.TheWhiteRabbit said:
You support the candidate based on what you think, TSSA is backing the candidates based on what they think.JEO said:
I don't support the candidate that would serve me best. I support the one that would serve the city and country best, and one that is committed to decency and fairness, rather than patronage politics based around race.TheWhiteRabbit said:
What's the objection?JEO said:
Of course it is. Although it is probably a smaller conflict of interest than recommending a system of job preferences for people of his racial group.Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
I support the candidate that would serve me best, you support the one that would serve you best.
Conflicts of itnerest don't enter into it,
He who pays the piper and all that......
0 -
I no longer am convinced. But I can't face putting money on Trump or Carson. Probably not a very good betting strategy.JEO said:
Why are we so sure voters will come to their senses before the vote? Labour voters never did when backing Corbyn.rottenborough said:
I think he's suffering from the anti-politics mood. From a distance it seems that GOP voters will vote for anyone as long as they are not remotely a professional politician. How long this lasts before a dose of reality enters the competition is the big question for us betting folks. I am pretty covered on 'moderate' candidates like Rubio and Bush - I'm stuffed if Trump wins. I'll probably also need to invest in a nuclear shelter in the back garden.Casino_Royale said:
What is their problem with him?rcs1000 said:
Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary.Cromwell said:
========Casino_Royale said:Rubio is a fantastic candidate.
If he appeals most in the swing states of Ohio and Florida (and I simply don't know, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of American politics) then the Republicans would be mad not to pick him.
Yes Rubio is the only one in the zeit geist who can gain votes in those crucial swing states ; I think he can win in Ohio , Colorado , Nevada , N H and Iowa
Which is why the Republicans will choose someone utterly unelectable.
I don't buy the whole "he's hispanic" thing.
I would say, however, that the £3 so any old Communist could vote in Labour election was a new feature. I remain convinced, based on no evidence whatsoever, that longer standing party members would not have been swept up in a #Jezwecan fervour if the £3ers had not been around.
In US, primaries have been open for a long time, at least to registered voters and in some states anyone, I believe. So there's nothing new about the GOP selectorate in a way there was with Corbyn.0 -
Has anyone else paid 33% more for a book because it's from your local old bookshop rather than just get it on Amazon?
My mums birthday and I think she'd prefer I did that!0 -
Assuming 20-22 million vote in the whole UK, Scotland will have 10% of the vote at most unless they experience a phenomenal turnout. It would have to be very, very close in the rUK for Scotland alone to overhaul it, and NI to a much lesser extent, too.Lennon said:
Easy - Give Scotland IndependanceCasino_Royale said:
So how do we shift that?Sean_F said:
That poll is a bit dated, but probably does show the balance of public opinion correctly. A 3% lead for Leave in England ( every region apart from London) a 25% lead for Remain in Scotland, a 4% lead for Remain in Wales. Add in Northern Ireland, and Remain would be about 1% ahead in the UK as a whole.Plato_Says said:Yougov
#EUref Poll
England
By voting intention
Remain (Leave)
LibDems 58% (26%)
Labour 55% (28%)
Conservatives 35% (48%)
UKIP 4% (91%)
Probably a lead of 2% or less for Leave in England/Wales would be needed for that to be a factor.
I was thinking more of Leave targeting more Labour voters, rather than relying on the more fickle floating Conservatives who may be all too easily swayed by Cameron.0 -
By the way, I finally got round to watching Michael Cockerell's 'Healey' TV documentary last night. Fascinatingly, it includes shots from late 1970s of a young Corbyn in a huddle with Benn and Livingstone trying to find a way to get the last few votes for the leadership for Benn.
Plus ca change.
0 -
Yes, sometimes. Use them or lose them, as they say.isam said:Has anyone else paid 33% more for a book because it's from your local old bookshop rather than just get it on Amazon?
My mums birthday and I think she'd prefer I did that!0 -
'Cameron’s speech and letter formed a “good basis for concrete negotiations”,'
Indeed they do because - especially after a bit more backtracking and horse trading - they will amount to precisely nothing of significance.
This is a million miles from the handbag approach, that's for sure. There is nothing being proposed that is even remotely similar to the rebate Thatcher got - it is just Foreign Office dissembling.
0 -
Nah, don't worry, I was just teasing. I know him slightly from years ago. Although...Cyclefree said:
He is indeed very charming but you overestimate my influence! I can put you in contact with the relevant person if you'd like me to contact you privately.Charles said:
Get your boss to sponsor it!*Cyclefree said:
That looks really interesting, thank you.Charles said:I should have posted this on the last thread...
But anyone who likes Egyptian stuff, we've gathered together a bunch of nice artefacts for an exhibition at our place next year. Everyone welcome
http://www.twotempleplace.org/woodgrain/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Appearance-of-Beauty.pdf
If you look closely you may recognise my avatar's playmate
* Thinking of the delightfully charming Italian
I will see if my son would like to come along as well. He's in his final year at the Courtauld though he's currently studying Indian art, which he loves.
You son should definitely come along - we have a close partnership with the Courtauld as part of the idea is that it gives an opportunity for one of their MA Curatorial students to curate a major exhibition - Martin Caiger-Smith from the Courtauld works closely with us on the project. (And it is probably 100 yards from his school...)0 -
William Hague:
" A major study published recently found that many members of the public can forecast economic and political events at least as accurately as the experts, and that some of them do consistently better than the pundits and economists we always turn to for advice.
Pollsters proved hopeless at forecasting our general election, and economists had little clue that the price of oil would plummet at the end of last year. It is a lesson of the modern world that having more data does not inevitably mean more accurate forecasting."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11986994/The-migrant-crisis-is-a-mere-gust-of-the-hurricane-that-will-soon-engulf-Europe.html0 -
The advantage of a bookshop is that you can read part of the book, and browse, before deciding whether to buy. I'm willing to pay extra for that.rottenborough said:
Yes, sometimes. Use them or lose them, as they say.isam said:Has anyone else paid 33% more for a book because it's from your local old bookshop rather than just get it on Amazon?
My mums birthday and I think she'd prefer I did that!0 -
They are funding him.TOPPING said:
Bah, again, I am failing to be outraged. They have a view of how the tube should be run and are endorsing a guy who they think will help to achieve that.Charles said:
Because the Mayor and the TSSA are leading participants in negotiating the future of TfL.TOPPING said:
What am I missing?Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
Group that has interest in tube endorses candidate who most closely reflects those interests.
Gen Houghton in another guise.
All good.
They are basically paying to get "their guy" on the other side of the table.
Of course they are entitled to vote for him, but they are providing him with a headquarters, a salaried team and a call centre.
I'm not sure what you would rather they did? Not endorse him, but they have members who presumably want them to achieve their vision of the tube. Not offer him resources? I can live with them giving him a phone and a team.
So, when the TSSA says we want £10 an hour more for our drivers (making up numbers) will Khan say "yes" or "no".
Given that the TSSA may not support his re-election bid if he doesn't give them what he wants how can he be a steward of public funds in this case?
The usual approach would be that he recuse himself from this part of the portfolio, but given the significance of transport it's not really practical in this case0 -
Quite strong words by Hague:AndyJS said:William Hague:
" A major study published recently found that many members of the public can forecast economic and political events at least as accurately as the experts, and that some of them do consistently better than the pundits and economists we always turn to for advice.
Pollsters proved hopeless at forecasting our general election, and economists had little clue that the price of oil would plummet at the end of last year. It is a lesson of the modern world that having more data does not inevitably mean more accurate forecasting."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11986994/The-migrant-crisis-is-a-mere-gust-of-the-hurricane-that-will-soon-engulf-Europe.html
"According to the UN, fully half of all the population increase globally in the next 35 years is expected to be in one continent: Africa. What is more, that increase will mainly be in poorer, less stable countries, alongside massive growth in numbers in the most war-torn areas of the Middle East, such as Yemen and Iraq.
The numbers that emerge are stark. The increase in Africa’s population alone is set to be 1.3 billion by 2050, about two-and-a-half times the entire population of the EU today. Put another way, the number of people in Africa and western Asia is expected to increase by over 110,000 every single day for decades to come.
Such figures put into perspective a crisis caused by the arrival of several thousand migrants a day. What we have seen in recent months is only a hint of what might happen next, mere gusts of wind before the approach of a hurricane."0 -
Is there any difference between Khan's relationship to the TSSA and any sponsored Labour MP's to their sponsoring Union? This is just the same canard that Tories have run since, oh, at least the foundation of the LRC in 1900.Charles said:
They are funding him.TOPPING said:
Bah, again, I am failing to be outraged. They have a view of how the tube should be run and are endorsing a guy who they think will help to achieve that.Charles said:
Because the Mayor and the TSSA are leading participants in negotiating the future of TfL.TOPPING said:
What am I missing?Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
Group that has interest in tube endorses candidate who most closely reflects those interests.
Gen Houghton in another guise.
All good.
They are basically paying to get "their guy" on the other side of the table.
Of course they are entitled to vote for him, but they are providing him with a headquarters, a salaried team and a call centre.
I'm not sure what you would rather they did? Not endorse him, but they have members who presumably want them to achieve their vision of the tube. Not offer him resources? I can live with them giving him a phone and a team.
So, when the TSSA says we want £10 an hour more for our drivers (making up numbers) will Khan say "yes" or "no".
Given that the TSSA may not support his re-election bid if he doesn't give them what he wants how can he be a steward of public funds in this case?
The usual approach would be that he recuse himself from this part of the portfolio, but given the significance of transport it's not really practical in this case
Perhaps there's a Tory Peebie who can explain to me why it's responsible of the Government to allow left-wing ideas to be legal
0 -
Come on Sam! You know as well as I, that Cameron's proposals are phantoms and are a complete nonsense. Maybe the people can be fooled again by the politicians and their allies in the MSM, but it's up to us to get our supporters out for an OUT vote.isam said:
Of course she has and others will have been too, but I don't blame Cameron for this, it's what anyone in his position would doantifrank said:The Guardian includes a good round-up of reactions from around the EU:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/10/camerons-renegotiation-demands-met-with-qualified-support-in-eu
One stood out for me:
"In Berlin, Angela Merkel said she had been in touch with Cameron and he was bringing “no surprises to the table”. The German chancellor said she was willing to work with him on Britain’s proposals and that “if one has the spirit that we can solve these problems, then I’m convinced it can be done” – although she too described some demands as “easier than others”."
One negotiant at least has been warmed up enough.
He is desperate for us to remain part of the EU, as are the rest of the EU... In that situation, who wouldn't organise a set of demands that don't change much but might be just enough to convince the British public they do?
This is equivalent to Farage being sent to negotiate a deal to get us into the EU with a load of people who want us out0 -
Obviously he will govern in the interests of all, but as per my comment above about someone wanting "decency and fairness", his vision of what is in the best interests of all might not coincide with yours. That is politics.Cyclefree said:
The TSSA are entitled to do what they are doing. Nothing wrong with that.TOPPING said:
Bah, again, I am failing to be outraged. They have a view of how the tube should be run and are endorsing a guy who they think will help to achieve that.Charles said:
Because the Mayor and the TSSA are leading participants in negotiating the future of TfL.TOPPING said:
What am I missing?Charles said:I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
Group that has interest in tube endorses candidate who most closely reflects those interests.
Gen Houghton in another guise.
All good.
They are basically paying to get "their guy" on the other side of the table.
Of course they are entitled to vote for him, but they are providing him with a headquarters, a salaried team and a call centre.
I'm not sure what you would rather they did? Not endorse him, but they have members who presumably want them to achieve their vision of the tube. Not offer him resources? I can live with them giving him a phone and a team.
The issue is whether Khan realises he has a potential conflict of interest and how he addresses it. He needs to persuade everyone else that he will govern in the interests of all and not just those who have funded him and that he won't be influenced by his financial backers simply because they are funding him rather than because of the merits of the arguments.
I doubt Jezza's vision of what is good for "all" would coincide with mine. I know from reading CiF that Dave's vision isn't shared by a few btl commentators.
If Khan accepts the TSSA dollar it is because he shares their vision that tube drivers should get £100,000 pa and a free owl, or whatever it is. And we price that into our assessment of him and his overall manifesto.0 -
Good morning all. I miss Hague, he has brains and eloquence in equal measure. Africa's stability (or lack of it) is Europe's sword of Damocles. I didn't notice his source, but another 1.3 billion people in Africa by 2020? Horrifying, if we don't see the emergence of their equivalent of the Asian tiger economies.AndyJS said:William Hague:
" A major study published recently found that many members of the public can forecast economic and political events at least as accurately as the experts, and that some of them do consistently better than the pundits and economists we always turn to for advice.
Pollsters proved hopeless at forecasting our general election, and economists had little clue that the price of oil would plummet at the end of last year. It is a lesson of the modern world that having more data does not inevitably mean more accurate forecasting."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11986994/The-migrant-crisis-is-a-mere-gust-of-the-hurricane-that-will-soon-engulf-Europe.html
Before I receive the usual veiled accusations of racism; I wouldn't change my view if they were cricket playing, tea drinking whities; my argument about immigration has always been based on scale, pace and sustainability.0 -
To the web moderator,
I appear to have a problem with my main account. It won't let me log in, and there is a little sticker by my posts saying I am banned. I don't think I've broken any rules (please let me know if I have!), so I am guessing it has been triggered automatically due to posting from an African IP address. Could someone let me know how I could release this?
Many thanks!
JEO0 -
I am very well aware that most Muslims are not Islamists - although perhaps that depends on what we understand by the latter term. If it means "someone who believes that Muslims should only live in countries Muslims have conquered" then most British Muslims would agree. They tend to keep in touch with their families in South Asia or wherever, who are not slow to remind then that Islam can only be fully practised where the Government is Islamic - and where I live the Muslims are Arabs. It's an open secret that Arabs do not believe in racial equality.Cyclefree said:
It was a problem letting Islamist ideology into the UK and allowing it to spread. But Islamists and Muslims are not one and the same. All Islamists are - at least nominally - Muslims. But not all Muslims are Islamists and it is important to remember that.Innocent_Abroad said:
It was a mistake to let all those Arab and Asian Muslims into the UK, eh, JEO?JEO said:This article from the BBC is so biased. It just repeats the line of the notorious IHRC, repeating an entire story from one of their supporters in depth, and with no counter point of view.
The BBC's partiality is poisonous to British public debate.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34777243
0 -
No, I don't think that. I just think that if there is an allegation that the government is hurting a particular group of people, there should be the counter argument. That doesn't seem unreasonable.Innocent_Abroad said:
It was a mistake to let all those Arab and Asian Muslims into the UK, eh, JEO?JEO said:This article from the BBC is so biased. It just repeats the line of the notorious IHRC, repeating an entire story from one of their supporters in depth, and with no counter point of view.
The BBC's partiality is poisonous to British public debate.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-347772430 -
Like the quotes from the Home Office spokesman in the article?JEO2 said:
No, I don't think that. I just think that if there is an allegation that the government is hurting a particular group of people, there should be the counter argument. That doesn't seem unreasonable.Innocent_Abroad said:
It was a mistake to let all those Arab and Asian Muslims into the UK, eh, JEO?JEO said:This article from the BBC is so biased. It just repeats the line of the notorious IHRC, repeating an entire story from one of their supporters in depth, and with no counter point of view.
The BBC's partiality is poisonous to British public debate.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34777243
EDIT: Sorry didn't realise I was responding to someone who is banned.0
at 
