I am watching the most recent debate right now - and Clinton is coming over as a President-in-waiting. She isn't making populist pledges. She is measured and assured.
On a quarterly basis exports have gone from 128bn and rising in 2012q2 to 127bn and falling in 2015q4.
Am I being too cynical in suspecting that Osborne was told about rising exports in 2012 and decided to jump of the bandwagon and claim credit for it ?
So no march of makers, no export surge, no retention of AAA, no eliminating the deficit, no stopping the banks being too big to fail but a "near excellent" chancellor ?
This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.
What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.
Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?
Nah - he sounds ridiculous because what he is peddling is awful.
And I say this as someone who talked about 100 miles canvassing and campaigning in the final week of May.
I had real, substantive conversations with people on the doorstep - because we had real substantive policies to offer. Several of which the public sector seem to be horrified that we're actually now enacting!
I'm talking about the "air war" really.
Imo what he is saying now is no more tendentious that what he said in the GE campaign. The difference, for a lot of Tories, is that he's now an opponent and everything he says is filtered differently.
You're either underestimating the amount of substantive policy that was in the manifesto, and therefore the basis of our campaign, or over-estimating the renegotiation.
This current rubbish from Cameron is as if we're running an election campaign with only the Salmond/Miliband Poster to go on.
This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.
What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.
Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?
The reason he sounds ridiculous is he's campaigning with such a weak hand.
And his poker face tells everyone he has a pair of threes....
Nah, he's not got as much as a pair. He's got a high 8 at best.
He's got some cards, cuz he has stacked the deck - only he can speak out. And the Referendum happens when he says it happens. And he does have GCHQ on his side, so he can look at everyones hand.
ydoethur: When I say Clinton is seen as competent, I don't mean that she's achieved this or that, but that she's on top of the issues that a President would need to worry about. When she's asked a question about anything, she gives a measured reply which might not be especially meaningful but clearly indicates that she's understood the issue and knows what you're talking about.
Much as I like Bernie politically, I don't feel that with him - he's on a steep learning curve, and if you ask him something out of his comfort zone (what do you think about Korea?) you can see he's under-briefed. Trump, meanwhile, just makes stuff up, and cheerfully changes it if it doesn't work - like Boris, he gets away with it partly because he's made a virtue of being outrageous. If he's elected, I can see him merrily breaking pledges too - "Ha, I only said that because I wanted to be elected. Now I'm doing the right thing for America." Neither of them are really close to being fully informed about the job they're applying to do.
Bush is the GOP equivalent of Clinton - clearly in command of the facts, but not much fun to listen to. Cruz, Rubio, Kasich? Not so much. Carson? Not even a little bit.
My thanks to Hertsmere Pubgoer and Rob D. It looks to me as though the referendum result will be reported at a fairly small (? constituency) level, in which case I repeat my view that Remain will win on the back of Celtic and big city votes, whilst Leave takes Middle England.
If I'm right about that, there should be some real fun on here.
In the meantime, another question for nerds: what proportion of the electorate are expats? (It sometimes feels as though half the Peebies are...)
It will be just like 2005-10 and expect incoming Guido/PB whining about Wee Jock Dickwit McBroon Tractor Stats Wot Won It
This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.
What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.
Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?
Nah - he sounds ridiculous because what he is peddling is awful.
And I say this as someone who talked about 100 miles canvassing and campaigning in the final week of May.
I had real, substantive conversations with people on the doorstep - because we had real substantive policies to offer. Several of which the public sector seem to be horrified that we're actually now enacting!
I'm talking about the "air war" really.
Imo what he is saying now is no more tendentious that what he said in the GE campaign. The difference, for a lot of Tories, is that he's now an opponent and everything he says is filtered differently.
I agree with that. I expect David Cameron has always played to win at all costs. Both sides are peddling nonsense (as in any campaign).
As a thought experiment, could some of the more broadminded Conservative Leavers explain what they would be comfortable hearing David Cameron say on behalf of Remain, bearing in mind that the Leave side is (naturally enough) also playing fast and loose to gather the votes in? After all, it's hardly a revelation that he's coming out for Remain.
If he had come back with something approaching what he set out in the Bloomberg speech I would have been happy. As it is, is appears that he only put a fraction of that on the table, and was only given a fraction of his asks. That he tries to sell this pig-in-a-poke (to use a phrase) as somehow a brilliant new deal for the UK is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
It appears that both sides are completely infiltrated with opponents at the moment, almost everything either of them mention drive people to the other side.
Sorry Prime Minister, but stay in the EU because North Korea - what the f...?
Does anyone know how the referendum result will be reported? UK only, constituent nations, regions, counties, whatever...
If Scotland is a precedent, and I think it is, then on a regional basis by local authority
That was also the case for the AV referendum. Still TBD officially though.
Thank you, David. That's what I'd deduced from what I hadn't heard or read. If Cammo has the brains Eton gave him he'll only allow a single UK figure. Or would that smell of fear?
Whatever financial formula was offered to accompany new powers would never be enough. However “no detriment” was defined, it would be disputed. Whatever financial risk was transferred, it would be too much. However a vow might be fulfilled, it would be a betrayal. We are bang on script.
That does not mean, of course, that the Nats are wrong to do their sums and find Scotland could be worse off as a result of any deal based on Smith’s recommendations. The problem is that this discovery contradicts every posture they have adopted for umpteen years about Scotland being a victim of the existing fiscal framework – i.e. the grievance agenda.
While “Full Fiscal Autonomy” was never the Nationalists’ ultimate demand, it was certainly their interim war-cry for a couple of decades. With the collapse in oil revenues, it has disappeared from their mantra. Confronted with the possibility of even a partial step in that direction, they are forced to admit that the cost could be too high and the risks too great. The roles are reversed and fallacies exposed.
The problem the Scottish government faces is that if they want to include the oil revenues going to them in the good times, they also have to accept the lack of them when the price falls. Any deal done now on the basis that oil revenues belong to Scotland will see them significantly worse off, which they will never be able to sell to the electorate. Hence the attempt to wriggle out of the deal they were all in favour of 18 months ago.
It would be good to see the forthcoming election run on the basis of what the government has the power to do (health, education, policing) rather than what they would or wouldn't have the power to do in future.
The problem is that Westminster want to cut the Scottish budget significantly , after vowing that they would not. They are a bunch of lying B********. They are holding most of the levers to run the country and expect the Scottish government to fix everything by varying only income tax. A complete cretin like Scottp could even work that one out.
This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.
What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.
Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?
Nah - he sounds ridiculous because what he is peddling is awful.
And I say this as someone who talked about 100 miles canvassing and campaigning in the final week of May.
I had real, substantive conversations with people on the doorstep - because we had real substantive policies to offer. Several of which the public sector seem to be horrified that we're actually now enacting!
I'm talking about the "air war" really.
Imo what he is saying now is no more tendentious that what he said in the GE campaign. The difference, for a lot of Tories, is that he's now an opponent and everything he says is filtered differently.
You're either underestimating the amount of substantive policy that was in the manifesto, and therefore the basis of our campaign, or over-estimating the renegotiation.
This current rubbish from Cameron is as if we're running an election campaign with only the Salmond/Miliband Poster to go on.
Or worse - a stone tablet inscribed with his EU negotiation successes...
Absolute filth. Why did we do this to our country?
"Twelve rapists, a 13-year-old victim and a terrifying truth Britain still won't face: The disturbing full story behind the gangs of Pakistani men who target white girls"
The simplest bet on David's logic is just to lay the Democrats at around 1.66 on Betfair, though this market is currently a little less liquid than the main named person markets.
That said, I personally still think the GOP will stop him eventually, given his unfavourables, but I agree he's value at present.
PS on the "useless tossers" bit, this interpretation is apparently incorrect - the delegates awarded by coin tosses were county delegates, not "statewide delegate equivalents" which is what the headline 701-697 result represents.
On a quarterly basis exports have gone from 128bn and rising in 2012q2 to 127bn and falling in 2015q4.
Am I being too cynical in suspecting that Osborne was told about rising exports in 2012 and decided to jump of the bandwagon and claim credit for it ?
So no march of makers, no export surge, no retention of AAA, no eliminating the deficit, no stopping the banks being too big to fail but a "near excellent" chancellor ?
LOL
Osborne only 'near excellent' ?
You're doing him down - he is 'near perfect'.
Anyway you forgot to mention his two great triumphs:
1) HOUSE PRICES ARE UP
even if home ownership is down.
2) THE CREATION OF THE OBR
just think of all those extra fatcat bureaucrats now employed.
This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.
What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.
Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?
Nah - he sounds ridiculous because what he is peddling is awful.
And I say this as someone who talked about 100 miles canvassing and campaigning in the final week of May.
I had real, substantive conversations with people on the doorstep - because we had real substantive policies to offer. Several of which the public sector seem to be horrified that we're actually now enacting!
I'm talking about the "air war" really.
Imo what he is saying now is no more tendentious that what he said in the GE campaign. The difference, for a lot of Tories, is that he's now an opponent and everything he says is filtered differently.
You're either underestimating the amount of substantive policy that was in the manifesto, and therefore the basis of our campaign, or over-estimating the renegotiation.
This current rubbish from Cameron is as if we're running an election campaign with only the Salmond/Miliband Poster to go on.
Or worse - a stone tablet inscribed with his EU negotiation successes...
YES! Much better metaphor.
Mark - as I think you were even more involved in your local campaign than I was in mine, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. Do you feel similarly let down by the leadership?
The NHS seems to have unlimited money for the fun and games of its fatcats. Still I'm sure we're all reassuered now that 'lessons have been learnt':
' A married human resources director who was called a “whore” and then sacked after she spurned the advances of her NHS boss was awarded more than £800,000 in compensation yesterday.
Helen Marks, 50, lost her job at Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust after fending off the unwanted attentions of its chairman, Alan Baines. Angered by her rejection he then “colluded” with the trust’s chief executive, Steve Trenchard, to dismiss Mrs Marks from her £99,000-a-year post, an employment tribunal heard.
Mrs Marks has now received a payout of £832,711 in a scandal that has cost the taxpayer close to £1.5 million.
The trust, which spent £424,000 on legal fees and investigations, yesterday made a public apology and promised that “lessons have been learnt”.
Last summer an employment tribunal in Nottingham ruled Mrs Marks had been unfairly dismissed after being sexually harassed by Mr Baines and called a “whore”.
For his part in the scandal Professor Trenchard was suspended on full pay for seven months at a cost of £90,000.
This sort of case should conclude with action being taken personally against the man responsible. If this were a private sector company, the shareholders would see to it that the perpetrator in such a clear case was fired without pension, if not bankrupted by the legal bill. It seems that those in high public sector office want the pay of a chairman but without the responsibility.
Is Lady Smug the biggest hypocrite in Britain? Emily Thornberry's promoted her family with sharp elbows despite socialist principles
‘I’m not posh,’ she once told me. ‘I failed my 11-plus.’ I tried to tell her that plenty of posh people are unacademic — but by that point she had sailed off down the corridor, chin in the air. Despite early academic setbacks, our heroine made it to the University of Kent
“lessons have been learnt” “lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”
This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.
What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.
Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?
Nah - he sounds ridiculous because what he is peddling is awful.
And I say this as someone who talked about 100 miles canvassing and campaigning in the final week of May.
I had real, substantive conversations with people on the doorstep - because we had real substantive policies to offer. Several of which the public sector seem to be horrified that we're actually now enacting!
I'm talking about the "air war" really.
Imo what he is saying now is no more tendentious that what he said in the GE campaign. The difference, for a lot of Tories, is that he's now an opponent and everything he says is filtered differently.
I agree with that. I expect David Cameron has always played to win at all costs. Both sides are peddling nonsense (as in any campaign).
As a thought experiment, could some of the more broadminded Conservative Leavers explain what they would be comfortable hearing David Cameron say on behalf of Remain, bearing in mind that the Leave side is (naturally enough) also playing fast and loose to gather the votes in? After all, it's hardly a revelation that he's coming out for Remain.
Assuming I qualify (I'm not a definite Leaver yet...) Cameron can say pretty much what he likes - he wants to win. I was on the other side of him on the AV referendum too, and there was plenty of tendentious stuff from No then. The stakes are a bit higher this time.
Whatever financial formula was offered to accompany new powers would never be enough. However “no detriment” was defined, it would be disputed. Whatever financial risk was transferred, it would be too much. However a vow might be fulfilled, it would be a betrayal. We are bang on script.
That does not mean, of course, that the Nats are wrong to do their sums and find Scotland could be worse off as a result of any deal based on Smith’s recommendations. The problem is that this discovery contradicts every posture they have adopted for umpteen years about Scotland being a victim of the existing fiscal framework – i.e. the grievance agenda.
While “Full Fiscal Autonomy” was never the Nationalists’ ultimate demand, it was certainly their interim war-cry for a couple of decades. With the collapse in oil revenues, it has disappeared from their mantra. Confronted with the possibility of even a partial step in that direction, they are forced to admit that the cost could be too high and the risks too great. The roles are reversed and fallacies exposed.
The problem the Scottish government faces is that if they want to include the oil revenues going to them in the good times, they also have to accept the lack of them when the price falls. Any deal done now on the basis that oil revenues belong to Scotland will see them significantly worse off, which they will never be able to sell to the electorate.
What deal is being done on the 'basis' of oil revenues?
The simplest bet on David's logic is just to lay the Democrats at around 1.66 on Betfair, though this market is currently a little less liquid than the main named person markets.
That said, I personally still think the GOP will stop him eventually, given his unfavourables, but I agree he's value at present.
PS on the "useless tossers" bit, this interpretation is apparently incorrect - the delegates awarded by coin tosses were county delegates, not "statewide delegate equivalents" which is what the headline 701-697 result represents.
"That said, I personally still think the GOP will stop him eventually, given his unfavourables, but I agree he's value at present."
How are they going to do that?
Either by reducing to a 2-horse race asap (will still be close if it's vs Cruz, and they might prefer Trump to Cruz anyway), or by reducing to a 3-horse race and hoping to deny anyone a majority of delegates.
The NHS seems to have unlimited money for the fun and games of its fatcats. Still I'm sure we're all reassuered now that 'lessons have been learnt':
' A married human resources director who was called a “whore” and then sacked after she spurned the advances of her NHS boss was awarded more than £800,000 in compensation yesterday.
Helen Marks, 50, lost her job at Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust after fending off the unwanted attentions of its chairman, Alan Baines. Angered by her rejection he then “colluded” with the trust’s chief executive, Steve Trenchard, to dismiss Mrs Marks from her £99,000-a-year post, an employment tribunal heard.
Mrs Marks has now received a payout of £832,711 in a scandal that has cost the taxpayer close to £1.5 million.
The trust, which spent £424,000 on legal fees and investigations, yesterday made a public apology and promised that “lessons have been learnt”.
Last summer an employment tribunal in Nottingham ruled Mrs Marks had been unfairly dismissed after being sexually harassed by Mr Baines and called a “whore”.
For his part in the scandal Professor Trenchard was suspended on full pay for seven months at a cost of £90,000.
This sort of case should conclude with action being taken personally against the man responsible. If this were a private sector company, the shareholders would see to it that the perpetrator in such a clear case was fired without pension, if not bankrupted by the legal bill. It seems that those in high public sector office want the pay of a chairman but without the responsibility.
I doubt the shareholders of most PLCs give a toss about anything except the size of their dividend.
The problem the Scottish government faces is that if they want to include the oil revenues going to them in the good times, they also have to accept the lack of them when the price falls. Any deal done now on the basis that oil revenues belong to Scotland will see them significantly worse off, which they will never be able to sell to the electorate. Hence the attempt to wriggle out of the deal they were all in favour of 18 months ago.
It would be good to see the forthcoming election run on the basis of what the government has the power to do (health, education, policing) rather than what they would or wouldn't have the power to do in future.
The problem is that Westminster want to cut the Scottish budget significantly , after vowing that they would not. They are a bunch of lying B********. They are holding most of the levers to run the country and expect the Scottish government to fix everything by varying only income tax. A complete cretin like Scottp could even work that one out. Malcolm, the impression given to those in England (or further afield) is that the Scottish Government want to take all the credit for spending money without the inconvenience of needing to raise it through taxes.
Would they be happy, for example, to use a baseline of the year before the referendum (2013-14) as the basis for dividing expenditure from the UK to Scotland? Because that is what they were arguing for 18 months ago.
Now that tax revenues raised in Scotland have dropped off a cliff (as much to do with income tax at higher rates as direct o&g taxes) they want the UK government ("Westminster", "England", delete as appropriate) to increase the amount of money sent to Scotland, but for only Scotland to additionally benefit from any future increase in oil prices and related taxation.
Well guess what, the rest of the UK don't see this as a good deal, and are calling you out on your 180 degree turn inside the 18 months since the referendum.
Does anyone know how the referendum result will be reported? UK only, constituent nations, regions, counties, whatever...
If Scotland is a precedent, and I think it is, then on a regional basis by local authority
That was also the case for the AV referendum. Still TBD officially though.
Thank you, David. That's what I'd deduced from what I hadn't heard or read. If Cammo has the brains Eton gave him he'll only allow a single UK figure. Or would that smell of fear?
Not sure it'd be practical. I think the reasons that the numbers were given by council is because those were the counting areas. That might be something to do with Returning Officers being appointed by councils and elections being run by local authorities but I don't know.
Whatever the legalities, for there only to be one figure nationally would mean people having to send the numbers through secretly. That's obviously open to leakage and would look terrible, especially if Remain won by, say, 51-49. Campaign scrutineers will be taking their own tallies anyway so it shouldn't be too difficult to get a ballpark figure for each area.
Election Data 2/4 As my cluster maps have shown, rail privatisation and rent controls are therefore mostly London issues Again, not universally but mostly
Mark - as I think you were even more involved in your local campaign than I was in mine, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. Do you feel similarly let down by the leadership?
I have made it pretty clear that I am an admirer of Cameron, very pleased he is Prime Minister - and that he is pissing me off by insulting my intelligence with the crap he is peddling on the renegotiation.
I probably didn't need too much back from Brussels to have got me over the Remain line. But the tack taken on the negotiations (speaking as a commercial negotiator for 25 years) was amateurish in the extreme. You will never, ever get anything meaningful if they have no belief that you might recommend LEAVE. And then to be told he has actually got a great deal, when on some of the most fundamental issues that concern me, he has gone backwards...nah.
He is seriously tarnishing his image. And you say "the leadership". Everyone else is conspicuous by their absence right now. We were being told that Osborne was a central figure in the negotiations. But he seems to have been the Invisible Man in the last few days, as soon as it was clear the "renegotiation" had got the lead-balloon treatment. Cameron is out on his own, looking very exposed.
What I can't understand is why Cameron has rushed for a June 2016 referendum. If he was getting nowhere, he should have said "we are clearly getting nowhere - talk to me when you have mulled over the prospect of the UK leaving the EU, which have got ever nearer because I have nothing to sell my party. You've got twelve months...."
Mark - as I think you were even more involved in your local campaign than I was in mine, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. Do you feel similarly let down by the leadership?
I have made it pretty clear that I am an admirer of Cameron, very pleased he is Prime Minister - and that he is pissing me off by insulting my intelligence with the crap he is peddling on the renegotiation.
I probably didn't need too much back from Brussels to have got me over the Remain line. But the tack taken on the negotiations (speaking as a commercial negotiator for 25 years) was amateurish in the extreme. You will never, ever get anything meaningful if they have no belief that you might recommend LEAVE. And then to be told he has actually got a great deal, when on some of the most fundamental issues that concern me, he has gone backwards...nah.
He is seriously tarnishing his image. And you say "the leadership". Everyone else is conspicuous by their absence right now. We were being told that Osborne was a central figure in the negotiations. But he seems to have been the Invisible Man in the last few days, as soon as it was clear the "renegotiation" had got the lead-balloon treatment. Cameron is out on his own, looking very exposed.
What I can't understand is why Cameron has rushed for a June 2016 referendum. If he was getting nowhere, he should have said "we are clearly getting nowhere - talk to me when you have mulled over the prospect of the UK leaving the EU, which have got ever nearer because I have nothing to sell my party. You've got twelve months...."
Well said. Your view is the same as mine, but articulated much better.
I watched a bit of the Faith Family Forum GOP event last night, and Ted Cruz brought up an important point.
The presidential race this time is extremeley important because perhaps 4 SCOTUS judges could be appointed.
Obviously Ted was going at this from a (very) socially conservative PoV - but the logic holds true if you are a US social liberal on the other side of the social arguments from conservative Cruz. (Guns, abortion, gay marriage)
Does anyone know how the referendum result will be reported? UK only, constituent nations, regions, counties, whatever...
If Scotland is a precedent, and I think it is, then on a regional basis by local authority
That was also the case for the AV referendum. Still TBD officially though.
Thank you, David. That's what I'd deduced from what I hadn't heard or read. If Cammo has the brains Eton gave him he'll only allow a single UK figure. Or would that smell of fear?
Not sure it'd be practical. I think the reasons that the numbers were given by council is because those were the counting areas. That might be something to do with Returning Officers being appointed by councils and elections being run by local authorities but I don't know.
Whatever the legalities, for there only to be one figure nationally would mean people having to send the numbers through secretly. That's obviously open to leakage and would look terrible, especially if Remain won by, say, 51-49. Campaign scrutineers will be taking their own tallies anyway so it shouldn't be too difficult to get a ballpark figure for each area.
Is Lady Smug the biggest hypocrite in Britain? Emily Thornberry's promoted her family with sharp elbows despite socialist principles
‘I’m not posh,’ she once told me. ‘I failed my 11-plus.’ I tried to tell her that plenty of posh people are unacademic — but by that point she had sailed off down the corridor, chin in the air. Despite early academic setbacks, our heroine made it to the University of Kent
Of course Thornberry never had any advantages from her own parents:
' Thornberry was born in north Surrey to Cedric Thornberry, a Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College London, and his wife Sallie Thornberry, a teacher.[4] Her parents divorced when Thornberry was aged seven and she and her two brothers lived with her mother who later became a Labour councillor and mayor.[5] Her father went on to become a United Nations Assistant Secretary General and worked as a consultant for NATO.[6] '
Thornberry's father was also a Labour parliamentary candidate and human rights lawyer:
If Hilary is the nominee she must be fav to beat either Trump or Cruz.Bloomberg is not going to stand if she is the nominee.Cannot see Saunders winning presendential race never mind nominee.Saunders might be VP choicee as might Kusich on republican.If there is value in the presidency market it lies in either Rubio or Bush or someone not currently in the race.
In the Guardian article, the crux of the problem is revealed though. The NI terrorists weren't really interested in recruiting other Protestants or Catholics in jails. You were either already in or they thought you were a waste of time. Instead, extremist Muslims are actively trying to recruit across the Muslim prison population. In France, they have already taken those they deem to be extremists out of general prison population into isolation.
ydoethur: When I say Clinton is seen as competent, I don't mean that she's achieved this or that, but that she's on top of the issues that a President would need to worry about. When she's asked a question about anything, she gives a measured reply which might not be especially meaningful but clearly indicates that she's understood the issue and knows what you're talking about.
Much as I like Bernie politically, I don't feel that with him - he's on a steep learning curve, and if you ask him something out of his comfort zone (what do you think about Korea?) you can see he's under-briefed. Trump, meanwhile, just makes stuff up, and cheerfully changes it if it doesn't work - like Boris, he gets away with it partly because he's made a virtue of being outrageous. If he's elected, I can see him merrily breaking pledges too - "Ha, I only said that because I wanted to be elected. Now I'm doing the right thing for America." Neither of them are really close to being fully informed about the job they're applying to do.
Bush is the GOP equivalent of Clinton - clearly in command of the facts, but not much fun to listen to. Cruz, Rubio, Kasich? Not so much. Carson? Not even a little bit.
I think you are right to compare Trump to Boris. In both cases it is a big mistake to take their persona too seriously. Trump is also a very smart guy, who has done business across the world and remember his wives have been Czech and Slovene.
I would however say Trump is much more principled than Boris. Trump refused to give money to a variety of pressure groups (Club for growth, Bob Vander Plaats) to earn their support. He has been remarkably consistent in his policies and principles over the years.
Trump will go on HRC's record, her covering up of her husband's behaviour towards women and the fact she is a bought and paid for establishment figure. She won't have a chance.
On a quarterly basis exports have gone from 128bn and rising in 2012q2 to 127bn and falling in 2015q4.
Am I being too cynical in suspecting that Osborne was told about rising exports in 2012 and decided to jump of the bandwagon and claim credit for it ?
So no march of makers, no export surge, no retention of AAA, no eliminating the deficit, no stopping the banks being too big to fail but a "near excellent" chancellor ?
LOL
Osborne only 'near excellent' ?
You're doing him down - he is 'near perfect'.
Anyway you forgot to mention his two great triumphs:
1) HOUSE PRICES ARE UP
even if home ownership is down.
2) THE CREATION OF THE OBR
just think of all those extra fatcat bureaucrats now employed.
Anecdote alert
I'm currently working in the double whammy of manufacturing and some of my customers supply construction.
One of my largest customers supplies the rail sector and has been waiting for a contract to be placed for 15 months now, Lots of consulatnts have been employed at up to £700 a day to review best value etc. and not surprisingly they keep finding more reasons to delay and issues to review. The management are shit scared of placing an order in case they get blamed and the whole fiasco rolls on. No construction work, no orders for suppliers, no improved rail jouneys for passengers. But it's pigswill time for the troughers in the middle. Net result "services" are up and production and construction are in the doldrums.
On a quarterly basis exports have gone from 128bn and rising in 2012q2 to 127bn and falling in 2015q4.
Am I being too cynical in suspecting that Osborne was told about rising exports in 2012 and decided to jump of the bandwagon and claim credit for it ?
So no march of makers, no export surge, no retention of AAA, no eliminating the deficit, no stopping the banks being too big to fail but a "near excellent" chancellor ?
LOL
Britain's hard-working farmers had better hope Osborne has a good gastroent; if owt goes wrong with his arsehole the nation shall be cast unto darkness.
ydoethur: When I say Clinton is seen as competent, I don't mean that she's achieved this or that, but that she's on top of the issues that a President would need to worry about. When she's asked a question about anything, she gives a measured reply which might not be especially meaningful but clearly indicates that she's understood the issue and knows what you're talking about.
Much as I like Bernie politically, I don't feel that with him - he's on a steep learning curve, and if you ask him something out of his comfort zone (what do you think about Korea?) you can see he's under-briefed. Trump, meanwhile, just makes stuff up, and cheerfully changes it if it doesn't work - like Boris, he gets away with it partly because he's made a virtue of being outrageous. If he's elected, I can see him merrily breaking pledges too - "Ha, I only said that because I wanted to be elected. Now I'm doing the right thing for America." Neither of them are really close to being fully informed about the job they're applying to do.
Bush is the GOP equivalent of Clinton - clearly in command of the facts, but not much fun to listen to. Cruz, Rubio, Kasich? Not so much. Carson? Not even a little bit.
It seems curious to me that you support Corbyn in Britain, who's clearly the Sanders' equivalent here, while backing Hillary there, who'd be Cooper's equivalent.
I agree with the other parallels. The US system makes it easier for outsiders to come in (other than UK mayoralities and PCC elections), so while Trump is more the equivalent of his Apprentice opposite number, Alan Sugar, the Boris analogy is about as close as it meaningfully gets.
Is Lady Smug the biggest hypocrite in Britain? Emily Thornberry's promoted her family with sharp elbows despite socialist principles
‘I’m not posh,’ she once told me. ‘I failed my 11-plus.’ I tried to tell her that plenty of posh people are unacademic — but by that point she had sailed off down the corridor, chin in the air. Despite early academic setbacks, our heroine made it to the University of Kent
Of course Thornberry never had any advantages from her own parents:
' Thornberry was born in north Surrey to Cedric Thornberry, a Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College London, and his wife Sallie Thornberry, a teacher.[4] Her parents divorced when Thornberry was aged seven and she and her two brothers lived with her mother who later became a Labour councillor and mayor.[5] Her father went on to become a United Nations Assistant Secretary General and worked as a consultant for NATO.[6] '
Thornberry's father was also a Labour parliamentary candidate and human rights lawyer:
The NHS seems to have unlimited money for the fun and games of its fatcats. Still I'm sure we're all reassuered now that 'lessons have been learnt':
' A married human resources director who was called a “whore” and then sacked after she spurned the advances of her NHS boss was awarded more than £800,000 in compensation yesterday.
Helen Marks, 50, lost her job at Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust after fending off the unwanted attentions of its chairman, Alan Baines. Angered by her rejection he then “colluded” with the trust’s chief executive, Steve Trenchard, to dismiss Mrs Marks from her £99,000-a-year post, an employment tribunal heard.
Mrs Marks has now received a payout of £832,711 in a scandal that has cost the taxpayer close to £1.5 million.
The trust, which spent £424,000 on legal fees and investigations, yesterday made a public apology and promised that “lessons have been learnt”.
Last summer an employment tribunal in Nottingham ruled Mrs Marks had been unfairly dismissed after being sexually harassed by Mr Baines and called a “whore”.
For his part in the scandal Professor Trenchard was suspended on full pay for seven months at a cost of £90,000.
This sort of case should conclude with action being taken personally against the man responsible. If this were a private sector company, the shareholders would see to it that the perpetrator in such a clear case was fired without pension, if not bankrupted by the legal bill. It seems that those in high public sector office want the pay of a chairman but without the responsibility.
I doubt the shareholders of most PLCs give a toss about anything except the size of their dividend.
What have the thoughts of the shareholders got to do with anything ?
Most of their votes are controlled by a few dozen City fatcats.
In the Guardian article, the crux of the problem is revealed though. The NI terrorists weren't really interested in recruiting other Protestants or Catholics in jails. You were either already in or they thought you were a waste of time. Instead, extremist Muslims are actively trying to recruit across the Muslim prison population. In France, they have already taken those they deem to be extremists out of general prison population into isolation.
Yes, but the difference is our government introduced the problem of Islamic immigration, the Irish problem already existed
I saw a Q&A between Matt Forde and Tommy Robinson last year and the Muslim gangs running British prisons was his main point of concern
Mark - as I think you were even more involved in your local campaign than I was in mine, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. Do you feel similarly let down by the leadership?
.... What I can't understand is why Cameron has rushed for a June 2016 referendum. If he was getting nowhere, he should have said "we are clearly getting nowhere - talk to me when you have mulled over the prospect of the UK leaving the EU, which have got ever nearer because I have nothing to sell my party. You've got twelve months...."
Is he demob happy? Rushing to settle us in and then resign? Told by France and Germany it has to be done in 2016 due to their elections in 2017? Thinks that June is only the start of the summer season of migration and best to get the vote before the autumn? Wants to give the Leave people less time to organise and campaign?
Citing ex Labour MP Brian Wilson is hardly clever politics. He is a unifying figure only in the sense of being disliked by even every faction in what's left of Labour in Scotland.He now carries forward his old grievances from the pages of The Scotsman which is read by even less people that The Independent. If Wilson had been a recent Labour MP rather than the ancient mariner he would have been in the "totally useless" bracket, as current shadow Ministers describe the Scottish Labour's contribution.
Citing the history of North Sea Oil is also very bad politics. In the good years Scotland would have been in surplus to an "embarrasing degree", as a former Scottish Office economic adviser once wrote in a paper kept secret for thirty years. If they had done a Norway then they would be sitting on a cash pile of upwards of £100 billion not a share of a deiecit of upwards of 1.5 trillion. Most folk up here have some awareness of that.
Finally the UK Government is totally sunk on the fiscal lack of deal. They offered "no detriment" or more accurately "no financial disadvantage" to forestall independence. Now they are not delivering and will pay the price. All the NATS have to do is sit tight and fight the elections on a platform of the TORIES want to STEAL Scotland's money and LABOUR want to TAX the poor to pay for it!
Little wonder Sturgeon is winning out of the park.
I watched a bit of the Faith Family Forum GOP event last night, and Ted Cruz brought up an important point.
The presidential race this time is extremeley important because perhaps 4 SCOTUS judges could be appointed.
Obviously Ted was going at this from a (very) socially conservative PoV - but the logic holds true if you are a US social liberal on the other side of the social arguments from conservative Cruz. (Guns, abortion, gay marriage)
Good point about the SC Judges. Wasn't Obama working hard to persuade a couple of the older Clinton-appointed judges (Ginsberg, 82, and Brayer, 77) to retire soon, such that he could get the appointment of their replacements through before he leaves office?
Mark - as I think you were even more involved in your local campaign than I was in mine, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. Do you feel similarly let down by the leadership?
I have made it pretty clear that I am an admirer of Cameron, very pleased he is Prime Minister - and that he is pissing me off by insulting my intelligence with the crap he is peddling on the renegotiation.
I probably didn't need too much back from Brussels to have got me over the Remain line. But the tack taken on the negotiations (speaking as a commercial negotiator for 25 years) was amateurish in the extreme. You will never, ever get anything meaningful if they have no belief that you might recommend LEAVE. And then to be told he has actually got a great deal, when on some of the most fundamental issues that concern me, he has gone backwards...nah.
He is seriously tarnishing his image. And you say "the leadership". Everyone else is conspicuous by their absence right now. We were being told that Osborne was a central figure in the negotiations. But he seems to have been the Invisible Man in the last few days, as soon as it was clear the "renegotiation" had got the lead-balloon treatment. Cameron is out on his own, looking very exposed.
What I can't understand is why Cameron has rushed for a June 2016 referendum. If he was getting nowhere, he should have said "we are clearly getting nowhere - talk to me when you have mulled over the prospect of the UK leaving the EU, which have got ever nearer because I have nothing to sell my party. You've got twelve months...."
Though I have a lot of sympathy with your position - in many ways I am in the same boat - I disagree with your conclusions. "Tarnishing his image" - well maybe, but from the other side it's "spending his political capital", which is something plenty of successful leaders forget to do, only to find that it suddenly leaches away.
And the June 2016 date is the obvious choice once you assume that (a) he wants to Remain and (b) he believes that the country will buy what he's selling.
The price is that the politically engaged see through all this - and of course all Conservative activists fall into that category. They will reduce their support of him, even if they still sympathise with his domestic programme (Gove's dilemma). But Cameron is stepping down anyway, so he personally never needs their votes again.
Look for Osborne to be good cop to Cameron's bad cop.
Is Lady Smug the biggest hypocrite in Britain? Emily Thornberry's promoted her family with sharp elbows despite socialist principles
‘I’m not posh,’ she once told me. ‘I failed my 11-plus.’ I tried to tell her that plenty of posh people are unacademic — but by that point she had sailed off down the corridor, chin in the air. Despite early academic setbacks, our heroine made it to the University of Kent
Of course Thornberry never had any advantages from her own parents:
' Thornberry was born in north Surrey to Cedric Thornberry, a Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College London, and his wife Sallie Thornberry, a teacher.[4] Her parents divorced when Thornberry was aged seven and she and her two brothers lived with her mother who later became a Labour councillor and mayor.[5] Her father went on to become a United Nations Assistant Secretary General and worked as a consultant for NATO.[6] '
Thornberry's father was also a Labour parliamentary candidate and human rights lawyer:
This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.
What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.
Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?
Nah - he sounds ridiculous because what he is peddling is awful.
And I say this as someone who talked about 100 miles canvassing and campaigning in the final week of May.
I had real, substantive conversations with people on the doorstep - because we had real substantive policies to offer. Several of which the public sector seem to be horrified that we're actually now enacting!
I'm talking about the "air war" really.
Imo what he is saying now is no more tendentious that what he said in the GE campaign. The difference, for a lot of Tories, is that he's now an opponent and everything he says is filtered differently.
I agree with that. I expect David Cameron has always played to win at all costs. Both sides are peddling nonsense (as in any campaign). As a thought experiment, could some of the more broadminded Conservative Leavers explain what they would be comfortable hearing David Cameron say on behalf of Remain, bearing in mind that the Leave side is (naturally enough) also playing fast and loose to gather the votes in? After all, it's hardly a revelation that he's coming out for Remain.
If he had gone for what he set out in his Bloomberg speech, I would have seriously considered Remain. But now I feel let down by his pretence at eurosceptism. Best if Cameron had played fair and stuck by the "no comment from the cabinet" line until after the negotiations had finished. Instead he is creating massive problems inside his party.
Mark - as I think you were even more involved in your local campaign than I was in mine, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. Do you feel similarly let down by the leadership?
I have made it pretty clear that I am an admirer of Cameron, very pleased he is Prime Minister - and that he is pissing me off by insulting my intelligence with the crap he is peddling on the renegotiation.
I probably didn't need too much back from Brussels to have got me over the Remain line. But the tack taken on the negotiations (speaking as a commercial negotiator for 25 years) was amateurish in the extreme. You will never, ever get anything meaningful if they have no belief that you might recommend LEAVE. And then to be told he has actually got a great deal, when on some of the most fundamental issues that concern me, he has gone backwards...nah.
He is seriously tarnishing his image. And you say "the leadership". Everyone else is conspicuous by their absence right now. We were being told that Osborne was a central figure in the negotiations. But he seems to have been the Invisible Man in the last few days, as soon as it was clear the "renegotiation" had got the lead-balloon treatment. Cameron is out on his own, looking very exposed.
What I can't understand is why Cameron has rushed for a June 2016 referendum. If he was getting nowhere, he should have said "we are clearly getting nowhere - talk to me when you have mulled over the prospect of the UK leaving the EU, which have got ever nearer because I have nothing to sell my party. You've got twelve months...."
......But Cameron is stepping down anyway, so he personally never needs their votes again. Look for Osborne to be good cop to Cameron's bad cop.
Osborne has dipped his hands into the blood of the Remain campaign and it will not wash off.
On a quarterly basis exports have gone from 128bn and rising in 2012q2 to 127bn and falling in 2015q4.
Am I being too cynical in suspecting that Osborne was told about rising exports in 2012 and decided to jump of the bandwagon and claim credit for it ?
So no march of makers, no export surge, no retention of AAA, no eliminating the deficit, no stopping the banks being too big to fail but a "near excellent" chancellor ?
LOL
Osborne only 'near excellent' ?
You're doing him down - he is 'near perfect'.
Anyway you forgot to mention his two great triumphs:
1) HOUSE PRICES ARE UP
even if home ownership is down.
2) THE CREATION OF THE OBR
just think of all those extra fatcat bureaucrats now employed.
Anecdote alert
I'm currently working in the double whammy of manufacturing and some of my customers supply construction.
One of my largest customers supplies the rail sector and has been waiting for a contract to be placed for 15 months now, Lots of consulatnts have been employed at up to £700 a day to review best value etc. and not surprisingly they keep finding more reasons to delay and issues to review. The management are shit scared of placing an order in case they get blamed and the whole fiasco rolls on. No construction work, no orders for suppliers, no improved rail jouneys for passengers. But it's pigswill time for the troughers in the middle. Net result "services" are up and production and construction are in the doldrums.
Never forget that the UK's 'business services consultants' are the envy of the world.
There is no evidence Bloomberg hands the election to the Republican, the polls done so far show him drawing almost equally from Republicans and Democrats, the biggest difference is he would score well with independents with whom he polls best
If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.
If Sanders is at 8/1 for the presidency that is great value as he not only is neck and neck with Hillary for the nomination but has a 9% lead over Trump in the RCP poll average for the general election
Is Lady Smug the biggest hypocrite in Britain? Emily Thornberry's promoted her family with sharp elbows despite socialist principles
‘I’m not posh,’ she once told me. ‘I failed my 11-plus.’ I tried to tell her that plenty of posh people are unacademic — but by that point she had sailed off down the corridor, chin in the air. Despite early academic setbacks, our heroine made it to the University of Kent
Of course Thornberry never had any advantages from her own parents:
' Thornberry was born in north Surrey to Cedric Thornberry, a Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College London, and his wife Sallie Thornberry, a teacher.[4] Her parents divorced when Thornberry was aged seven and she and her two brothers lived with her mother who later became a Labour councillor and mayor.[5] Her father went on to become a United Nations Assistant Secretary General and worked as a consultant for NATO.[6] '
Thornberry's father was also a Labour parliamentary candidate and human rights lawyer:
If Sanders is at 8/1 for the presidency that is great value as he not only is neck and neck with Hillary for the nomination but has a 9% lead over Trump in the RCP poll average for the general election
Nobody has attacked Sanders yet. You'd have to believe that Americans will elect a socialist to the White House which is a stretch belief Particularly versus Trump who shares most moderate voters' beliefs, perhaps in an undignified way but still not a socialist
If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.
If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.
Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side
There is no evidence Bloomberg hands the election to the Republican, the polls done so far show him drawing almost equally from Republicans and Democrats, the biggest difference is he would score well with independents with whom he polls best
We need to know more details as to WHERE Bloomberg draws votes before we can estimate what effect he would have.
For example taking Republican votes in New York but Democrat votes in Florida would certainly have a non-equal effect.
I watched a bit of the Faith Family Forum GOP event last night, and Ted Cruz brought up an important point.
The presidential race this time is extremeley important because perhaps 4 SCOTUS judges could be appointed.
Obviously Ted was going at this from a (very) socially conservative PoV - but the logic holds true if you are a US social liberal on the other side of the social arguments from conservative Cruz. (Guns, abortion, gay marriage)
Good point about the SC Judges. Wasn't Obama working hard to persuade a couple of the older Clinton-appointed judges (Ginsberg, 82, and Brayer, 77) to retire soon, such that he could get the appointment of their replacements through before he leaves office?
Yes, American Democrat friends cite this as the absolutely central issue for them - they will vote for literally ANY Democrat because of this, holding their noses if necessary. No doubt the same is true in reverse for many Republicans, though I wouldn't place one cent betting on whom Trump might appoint.
Hillary is repeating Nixon's campaign in 1968 when he won the presidency on the second attempt, sound familiar? He also faced a tough nomination battle against a favourite of the base, Ronald Reagan and indeed Reagan won the California primary. In the general election he beat Humphrey by less than 1%. Nixon, like Hillary an intelligent but uncharismatic and abrasive personality, was lucky that he did not face Bobby Kennedy in the general as he would probably have lost, Hillary is equally fortunate she is likely to avoid Rubio who would have most likely defeated her
@NickPalmer the problem is Clinton may give the impression that she is on top of things (because as a trained lawyer/attorney she knows how to master a brief) but in practice when you look at her with a cold eye it is clear she has no idea of what to do in practice about the said problems.
You are asking me to belief that after a lifetime of incompetence at the age of 69 she will suddenly come good? Well, as we found out in May and September all things are possible in politics, but colour me sceptical.
Is Lady Smug the biggest hypocrite in Britain? Emily Thornberry's promoted her family with sharp elbows despite socialist principles
‘I’m not posh,’ she once told me. ‘I failed my 11-plus.’ I tried to tell her that plenty of posh people are unacademic — but by that point she had sailed off down the corridor, chin in the air. Despite early academic setbacks, our heroine made it to the University of Kent
Of course Thornberry never had any advantages from her own parents:
' Thornberry was born in north Surrey to Cedric Thornberry, a Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College London, and his wife Sallie Thornberry, a teacher.[4] Her parents divorced when Thornberry was aged seven and she and her two brothers lived with her mother who later became a Labour councillor and mayor.[5] Her father went on to become a United Nations Assistant Secretary General and worked as a consultant for NATO.[6] '
Thornberry's father was also a Labour parliamentary candidate and human rights lawyer:
Didn’t her father b@£$%^r off suddenly leaving his wife and the children in a considerable financial pickle?
er so he was completely untraceable working as an academic?
Can’t recail the details but there was something rather odd about it. IIRC he went off to the US and was, while traceable, unable/unwilling/whatever to pay anything. Emily herself went to a comprehensive, reached the VIth form (or whatever it’s called nowadays) and consequently university.
But agree, it’s one of those situations one can spin in all sorts of ways. "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” as a principle does seem be honoured mainly in the breach nowadays.
Tissue Price: "Though I have a lot of sympathy with your position - in many ways I am in the same boat - I disagree with your conclusions. "Tarnishing his image" - well maybe, but from the other side it's "spending his political capital", which is something plenty of successful leaders forget to do, only to find that it suddenly leaches away."
You make a very fair point about expanding political capital. He has built up a fair bit, and if he is out at the end of this Parliament, then - not having expressed any ambition as to what he does afterwards - he might as well expend it.
But there are so many things he could have better employed that capital on. His conference speech last autumn showed he had a vision for a fairer society. He could - in the way that he did with gay marriage - have expended that capital forcing through some of the changes needed to bring about that fair society. Instead, he has pissed it all up against a wall.
It seems curious to me that you support Corbyn in Britain, who's clearly the Sanders' equivalent here, while backing Hillary there, who'd be Cooper's equivalent.
I agree with the other parallels. The US system makes it easier for outsiders to come in (other than UK mayoralities and PCC elections), so while Trump is more the equivalent of his Apprentice opposite number, Alan Sugar, the Boris analogy is about as close as it meaningfully gets.
No, I'd like Bernie to win, though he doesn't press my buttons as Corbyn does - not as left-wing, not IMO as personally nice (I'm biased by longstanding personal knowledge of Jeremy, who is just as selflessly idealistic as his fans think; Bernie seems decent enough but also the original Grumpy Old Man). But it would be wonderful if Bernie pulled it off.
Is Lady Smug the biggest hypocrite in Britain? Emily Thornberry's promoted her family with sharp elbows despite socialist principles
‘I’m not posh,’ she once told me. ‘I failed my 11-plus.’ I tried to tell her that plenty of posh people are unacademic — but by that point she had sailed off down the corridor, chin in the air. Despite early academic setbacks, our heroine made it to the University of Kent
Of course Thornberry never had any advantages from her own parents:
' Thornberry was born in north Surrey to Cedric Thornberry, a Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College London, and his wife Sallie Thornberry, a teacher.[4] Her parents divorced when Thornberry was aged seven and she and her two brothers lived with her mother who later became a Labour councillor and mayor.[5] Her father went on to become a United Nations Assistant Secretary General and worked as a consultant for NATO.[6] '
Thornberry's father was also a Labour parliamentary candidate and human rights lawyer:
Didn’t her father b@£$%^r off suddenly leaving his wife and the children in a considerable financial pickle?
er so he was completely untraceable working as an academic?
Can’t recail the details but there was something rather odd about it. IIRC he went off to the US and was, while traceable, unable/unwilling/whatever to pay anything. Emily herself went to a comprehensive, reached the VIth form (or whatever it’s called nowadays) and consequently university.
I had read that she failed the 11 plus but may be wrong. Why was he not pursued for financial support when he re-entered the country? Or was part living off the state a lifestyle choice?
If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.
If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.
Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side
If you want to be taken seriously, give us those examples of where Cameron didn't "play fair" in the 2015 General Election.
If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.
If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.
Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side
I am talking here about acting fair within his own party. Loyalty has to be earned to be given. After the referendum whoever wins Cameron has to go.
Cameron is really starting to get on my tits, using every day to make some foolishly extravagant claim about the UK if we don't take his shitty renegotiation. Today it's that we won't "retreat from the world". Who has said we would?
You're embarrassing yourself now, Prime Minister. Please - just STFU a while.
The ones getting on my tits are the shrill little englander nutjobs infesting the site at the moment. Almost as daft as the corbynites.
As soon as " little Englander" is used the argument is lost.
To be fair I don't agree with them either but that's not the point. I want a leave vote purely because of the political system that is used and for which I have never in the entire time since Heath had a chance to express an opinion. In saying that more than happy to be in Europe and commonly work there every week it's a superb place I just detest the political elite at the top and everything being decided by them in cahoots with Merkel.
At least you have an argument but at the end it's only an argument against - 'leave' have presented no alternative view of how things would be after exit - because they have none. Hence the attacks on Cameron. It's much the same as the negativity we saw after 2010 from Labour - they attacked Cameron because they'd got nowt else to say. Here we are today and guess what Cameron is the PM.
Of course they have presented positive alternatives. You are just so blinkered and stupid that you don't understand them or pretend they don't exist.
The Little Englanders are the morons like you who think we have to be part of a backward protectionist bloc to survive in that big scary world out there.
Is Lady Smug the biggest hypocrite in Britain? Emily Thornberry's promoted her family with sharp elbows despite socialist principles
‘I’m not posh,’ she once told me. ‘I failed my 11-plus.’ I tried to tell her that plenty of posh people are unacademic — but by that point she had sailed off down the corridor, chin in the air. Despite early academic setbacks, our heroine made it to the University of Kent
Of course Thornberry never had any advantages from her own parents:
' Thornberry was born in north Surrey to Cedric Thornberry, a Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College London, and his wife Sallie Thornberry, a teacher.[4] Her parents divorced when Thornberry was aged seven and she and her two brothers lived with her mother who later became a Labour councillor and mayor.[5] Her father went on to become a United Nations Assistant Secretary General and worked as a consultant for NATO.[6] '
Thornberry's father was also a Labour parliamentary candidate and human rights lawyer:
Didn’t her father b@£$%^r off suddenly leaving his wife and the children in a considerable financial pickle?
er so he was completely untraceable working as an academic?
Can’t recail the details but there was something rather odd about it. IIRC he went off to the US and was, while traceable, unable/unwilling/whatever to pay anything. Emily herself went to a comprehensive, reached the VIth form (or whatever it’s called nowadays) and consequently university.
I had read that she failed the 11 plus but may be wrong. Why was he not pursued for financial support when he re-entered the country? Or was part living off the state a lifestyle choice?
I edited my orginal post, which I perhaps shouldn’t have done, as follows
"But agree, it’s one of those situations one can spin in all sorts of ways. "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” as a principle does seem be honoured mainly in the breach nowadays.
I’m by no merans sure of the details but, again IIRC, Emilys mother was teaching again before too long.
According to Wikipedia, Clinton already has 362 pledged super-delegates. Ties or close-run events in Nevada and South Carolina still gives her a commanding lead. So, no, her being doomed after close losses isn't going to happen.
Superdelegates can change their minds. Yes, nominally she has a big lead if you include superdelegates. But if Nevada is close-run, never mind South Carolina, Sanders will win big numbers ofgenuinely pledged delegates come March (a superdelegate's pledge is no more than a statement of intent).
But they are statements of intent that they don''t want the party nominee to be a bat-shit crazy leftie. They are mostly rock solid for Clinton.
Super delegates aren't going to give the nomination to Clinton if she's lost it at the ballot box to Bernie. Over turning the verdict of voters is dreadful optics.
Whereas losing to Trump with a bat-shit crazy leftie at the helm isn't dreadful optics?
Not so much, for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, Bernie isn't a bat shit crazy leftie, in policy terms he's much closer to Cameron than Corbyn.
I'm of the opinion if HRC only gets over the line with a huge boost from superdelegates then she loses in Nov anyway. It alienates the base and allows the GOP to paint her as an establishment loser who was gifted in a back room what she lost at the ballot box.
Sanders wants higher taxes and spending like Corbyn and unlike Cameron, Sanders also opposed the Iraq War like Corbyn, Cameron supported it
If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.
If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.
Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side
I am talking here about acting fair within his own party. Loyalty has to be earned to be given. After the referendum whoever wins Cameron has to go.
No! If Remain wins, he has beaten the main strand of opinion in his party that never really supported him. Why does he have to go because of sore losers - normally, sore losers on PB get told that those are the rules and that the other side won?
I had read that she failed the 11 plus but may be wrong. Why was he not pursued for financial support when he re-entered the country? Or was part living off the state a lifestyle choice?
Yes she did. In fairness to her and the likes of say, Prescott, going to university from a Sec Mod is a very significant achievement in itself (I know Prescott didn't go straight away).
However I have to say she doesn't strike me as very bright and her white van tweet demonstrated that she has no sense at all. Her appointment to SSoSfD suggests that Corbyn just wants an empty suit so he can dominate the brief himself.
That being said, he was also quite right to move Eagle after the Dannett farrago. I would have sacked her altogether, twin sister or no.
This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.
What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.
Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?
Yes Cameron is campaigning. And he is doing it whilst having specifically forbidden his opponents in his own party from doing so. I suspect he is making more than a few long term enemies by his behaviour right now.
I watched a bit of the Faith Family Forum GOP event last night, and Ted Cruz brought up an important point.
The presidential race this time is extremeley important because perhaps 4 SCOTUS judges could be appointed.
Obviously Ted was going at this from a (very) socially conservative PoV - but the logic holds true if you are a US social liberal on the other side of the social arguments from conservative Cruz. (Guns, abortion, gay marriage)
Good point about the SC Judges. Wasn't Obama working hard to persuade a couple of the older Clinton-appointed judges (Ginsberg, 82, and Brayer, 77) to retire soon, such that he could get the appointment of their replacements through before he leaves office?
Yes, American Democrat friends cite this as the absolutely central issue for them - they will vote for literally ANY Democrat because of this, holding their noses if necessary. No doubt the same is true in reverse for many Republicans, though I wouldn't place one cent betting on whom Trump might appoint.
Strictly speaking, nominate rather than appoint. That limits the numbers to a fair degree.
If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.
If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.
Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side
If you want to be taken seriously, give us those examples of where Cameron didn't "play fair" in the 2015 General Election.
No plans about tax credits. Going after EdM's family. Each more unfair than the tactics deployed so far in his silly referendum. Politics isn't fair, it's about winning.
Of course Thornberry never had any advantages from her own parents:
' Thornberry was born in north Surrey to Cedric Thornberry, a Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College London, and his wife Sallie Thornberry, a teacher.[4] Her parents divorced when Thornberry was aged seven and she and her two brothers lived with her mother who later became a Labour councillor and mayor.[5] Her father went on to become a United Nations Assistant Secretary General and worked as a consultant for NATO.[6] '
Thornberry's father was also a Labour parliamentary candidate and human rights lawyer:
Didn’t her father b@£$%^r off suddenly leaving his wife and the children in a considerable financial pickle?
er so he was completely untraceable working as an academic?
Can’t recail the details but there was something rather odd about it. IIRC he went off to the US and was, while traceable, unable/unwilling/whatever to pay anything. Emily herself went to a comprehensive, reached the VIth form (or whatever it’s called nowadays) and consequently university.
I had read that she failed the 11 plus but may be wrong. Why was he not pursued for financial support when he re-entered the country? Or was part living off the state a lifestyle choice?
I edited my orginal post, which I perhaps shouldn’t have done, as follows
"But agree, it’s one of those situations one can spin in all sorts of ways. "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” as a principle does seem be honoured mainly in the breach nowadays.
I’m by no merans sure of the details but, again IIRC, Emilys mother was teaching again before too long.
In that exchange with Hitchens she fell straight into the trap of meeting outrage with outrage.
The difference being that he is a columnist and can get away with - is paid for - manufactured outrage, whereas she is a politician and is supposed to be better than that.
Also note careful lawyerly language used to describe her circumstances as being a whole lot worse that they probably were in practice. It's like Hilary saying there was no classified documents on her mail server, which is technically correct but only because she had all the classified markings removed from them first!
I had read that she failed the 11 plus but may be wrong. Why was he not pursued for financial support when he re-entered the country? Or was part living off the state a lifestyle choice?
Yes she did. In fairness to her and the likes of say, Prescott, going to university from a Sec Mod is a very significant achievement in itself (I know Prescott didn't go straight away).
However I have to say she doesn't strike me as very bright and her white van tweet demonstrated that she has no sense at all. Her appointment to SSoSfD suggests that Corbyn just wants an empty suit so he can dominate the brief himself.
That being said, he was also quite right to move Eagle after the Dannett farrago. I would have sacked her altogether, twin sister or no.
Being bright academically and having common sense are traits not necessarily always found in the same person
If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.
If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.
Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side
Remember that fight at that school in Crewe? The one you said "didn't really happen". The one that was "made up by Breitbart". The one that was "just a couple of kids in a scrap, happens all the time". Remember that one? That school?
OFSTED have just been sent in to do an emergency inspection
Ofsted have carried out an unscheduled inspection of Sir William Stanier School, in Crewe, after a fight where police had to be called 11:26 p.m. - 12 Feb 2016
Liar. Who denied that a fight happened? You are good at writing fiction but it seems that your vibrant inner life distorts your memory.
If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.
If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.
Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side
Remember that fight at that school in Crewe? The one you said "didn't really happen". The one that was "made up by Breitbart". The one that was "just a couple of kids in a scrap, happens all the time". Remember that one? That school?
OFSTED have just been sent in to do an emergency inspection
Ofsted have carried out an unscheduled inspection of Sir William Stanier School, in Crewe, after a fight where police had to be called 11:26 p.m. - 12 Feb 2016
Whatever the truth therefore, that school is about to be labelled inadequate. OFSTED never bother with surprise inspections unless they've decided the result in advance.
If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.
If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.
Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side
I am talking here about acting fair within his own party. Loyalty has to be earned to be given. After the referendum whoever wins Cameron has to go.
No! If Remain wins, he has beaten the main strand of opinion in his party that never really supported him. Why does he have to go because of sore losers - normally, sore losers on PB get told that those are the rules and that the other side won?
I would have thought that was obvious... because there will be enough sore losers writing letters to the 1922 to trigger a leadership challenge, and he is hardly likely to stand in a leadership contest only to step down 6-12 months later anyway.
I had read that she failed the 11 plus but may be wrong. Why was he not pursued for financial support when he re-entered the country? Or was part living off the state a lifestyle choice?
Yes she did. In fairness to her and the likes of say, Prescott, going to university from a Sec Mod is a very significant achievement in itself (I know Prescott didn't go straight away).
However I have to say she doesn't strike me as very bright and her white van tweet demonstrated that she has no sense at all. Her appointment to SSoSfD suggests that Corbyn just wants an empty suit so he can dominate the brief himself.
That being said, he was also quite right to move Eagle after the Dannett farrago. I would have sacked her altogether, twin sister or no.
Being bright academically and having common sense are traits not necessarily always found in the same person
If Sanders is at 8/1 for the presidency that is great value as he not only is neck and neck with Hillary for the nomination but has a 9% lead over Trump in the RCP poll average for the general election
Nobody has attacked Sanders yet. You'd have to believe that Americans will elect a socialist to the White House which is a stretch belief Particularly versus Trump who shares most moderate voters' beliefs, perhaps in an undignified way but still not a socialist
Trump will have the white male vote, Sanders the Hispanic, female and black vote. Against Rubio Sanders would probably lose, Rubio has a narrow lead over Bernie in the RCP poll average but against Trump anything could happen and it is Trump who is likely to be GOP nominee. He is certainly great value at 8/1
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Remember the days when we used to look forward to polls as if they had some significance ?
Yeah but this could be the final ever IOS/ComRes poll. Sad face.
Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many.
Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many
that just makes PBers sound saddos.
We are saddos!
Speak for yourself I pride myself that unlike you I'm not one of those posters who would drone on and on about a single issue or politician and just not let it go.
In brief: got a short story in a horror anthology out probably in the next couple of months, and the first volume of The Adventures of Sir Edric (a pair of novellas published together) should be out shortly after that.
If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.
If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.
Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side
I am talking here about acting fair within his own party. Loyalty has to be earned to be given. After the referendum whoever wins Cameron has to go.
No! If Remain wins, he has beaten the main strand of opinion in his party that never really supported him. Why does he have to go because of sore losers - normally, sore losers on PB get told that those are the rules and that the other side won?
I would have thought that was obvious... because there will be enough sore losers writing letters to the 1922 to trigger a leadership challenge, and he is hardly likely to stand in a leadership contest only to step down 6-12 months later anyway.
Why wouldn't he? It would take a huge degree of self-sacrificial behaviour to step down, in the face of a challenge by the losing side, assuming that they get behind a Sceptic who would be the front-runner absent Cameron. Dare I say it would also be bad for the party to appoint a partisan from the losing side in the heat of its anger
Remember the days when we used to look forward to polls as if they had some significance ?
Yeah but this could be the final ever IOS/ComRes poll. Sad face.
Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many.
Yes, it's one fewer newspaper to commission opinion polling.
They're actually closing the Indy titles, or just stopping the print editions and going online-only? If the latter then there may be some scope to keep the polling series going, although TBH why any media org wants to spend money on VI polling right now defeats me.
There is no evidence Bloomberg hands the election to the Republican, the polls done so far show him drawing almost equally from Republicans and Democrats, the biggest difference is he would score well with independents with whom he polls best
We need to know more details as to WHERE Bloomberg draws votes before we can estimate what effect he would have.
For example taking Republican votes in New York but Democrat votes in Florida would certainly have a non-equal effect.
I have seen no difference statewide or nationwide, Bloomberg draws equally from both parties but does best with independents
Remember the days when we used to look forward to polls as if they had some significance ?
Yeah but this could be the final ever IOS/ComRes poll. Sad face.
Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many.
Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many
that just makes PBers sound saddos.
We are saddos!
Speak for yourself I pride myself that unlike you I'm not one of those posters who would drone on and on about a single issue or politician and just not let it go.
*cough cough "
My sole obsession is winding up the Nats and Kippers AV
Remember the days when we used to look forward to polls as if they had some significance ?
Yeah but this could be the final ever IOS/ComRes poll. Sad face.
Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many.
Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many
that just makes PBers sound saddos.
We are saddos!
Speak for yourself I pride myself that unlike you I'm not one of those posters who would drone on and on about a single issue or politician and just not let it go.
*cough cough "
My sole obsession is winding up the Nats and Kippers AV
Comments
tfw you've had a skinful and some geezer's eyeing up your bird https://t.co/aPfrDz6Yrv
LOL
This current rubbish from Cameron is as if we're running an election campaign with only the Salmond/Miliband Poster to go on.
But he should stick to playing Angry Birds.
Much as I like Bernie politically, I don't feel that with him - he's on a steep learning curve, and if you ask him something out of his comfort zone (what do you think about Korea?) you can see he's under-briefed. Trump, meanwhile, just makes stuff up, and cheerfully changes it if it doesn't work - like Boris, he gets away with it partly because he's made a virtue of being outrageous. If he's elected, I can see him merrily breaking pledges too - "Ha, I only said that because I wanted to be elected. Now I'm doing the right thing for America." Neither of them are really close to being fully informed about the job they're applying to do.
Bush is the GOP equivalent of Clinton - clearly in command of the facts, but not much fun to listen to. Cruz, Rubio, Kasich? Not so much. Carson? Not even a little bit.
It appears that both sides are completely infiltrated with opponents at the moment, almost everything either of them mention drive people to the other side.
Sorry Prime Minister, but stay in the EU because North Korea - what the f...?
It would be good to see the forthcoming election run on the basis of what the government has the power to do (health, education, policing) rather than what they would or wouldn't have the power to do in future.
The problem is that Westminster want to cut the Scottish budget significantly , after vowing that they would not. They are a bunch of lying B********. They are holding most of the levers to run the country and expect the Scottish government to fix everything by varying only income tax. A complete cretin like Scottp could even work that one out.
How are they going to do that?
You're doing him down - he is 'near perfect'.
Anyway you forgot to mention his two great triumphs:
1) HOUSE PRICES ARE UP
even if home ownership is down.
2) THE CREATION OF THE OBR
just think of all those extra fatcat bureaucrats now employed.
Mark - as I think you were even more involved in your local campaign than I was in mine, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. Do you feel similarly let down by the leadership?
‘I’m not posh,’ she once told me. ‘I failed my 11-plus.’ I tried to tell her that plenty of posh people are unacademic — but by that point she had sailed off down the corridor, chin in the air. Despite early academic setbacks, our heroine made it to the University of Kent
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445093/Emily-Thornberry-s-promoted-family-sharp-elbows-despite-socialist-principles.html
Sheridan.....................
Arrgggggh
What deal is being done on the 'basis' of oil revenues?
Malcolm, the impression given to those in England (or further afield) is that the Scottish Government want to take all the credit for spending money without the inconvenience of needing to raise it through taxes.
Would they be happy, for example, to use a baseline of the year before the referendum (2013-14) as the basis for dividing expenditure from the UK to Scotland? Because that is what they were arguing for 18 months ago.
Now that tax revenues raised in Scotland have dropped off a cliff (as much to do with income tax at higher rates as direct o&g taxes) they want the UK government ("Westminster", "England", delete as appropriate) to increase the amount of money sent to Scotland, but for only Scotland to additionally benefit from any future increase in oil prices and related taxation.
Well guess what, the rest of the UK don't see this as a good deal, and are calling you out on your 180 degree turn inside the 18 months since the referendum.
Whatever the legalities, for there only to be one figure nationally would mean people having to send the numbers through secretly. That's obviously open to leakage and would look terrible, especially if Remain won by, say, 51-49. Campaign scrutineers will be taking their own tallies anyway so it shouldn't be too difficult to get a ballpark figure for each area.
2/4 As my cluster maps have shown, rail privatisation and rent controls are therefore mostly London issues Again, not universally but mostly
I probably didn't need too much back from Brussels to have got me over the Remain line. But the tack taken on the negotiations (speaking as a commercial negotiator for 25 years) was amateurish in the extreme. You will never, ever get anything meaningful if they have no belief that you might recommend LEAVE. And then to be told he has actually got a great deal, when on some of the most fundamental issues that concern me, he has gone backwards...nah.
He is seriously tarnishing his image. And you say "the leadership". Everyone else is conspicuous by their absence right now. We were being told that Osborne was a central figure in the negotiations. But he seems to have been the Invisible Man in the last few days, as soon as it was clear the "renegotiation" had got the lead-balloon treatment. Cameron is out on his own, looking very exposed.
What I can't understand is why Cameron has rushed for a June 2016 referendum. If he was getting nowhere, he should have said "we are clearly getting nowhere - talk to me when you have mulled over the prospect of the UK leaving the EU, which have got ever nearer because I have nothing to sell my party. You've got twelve months...."
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/698443754764685312
The presidential race this time is extremeley important because perhaps 4 SCOTUS judges could be appointed.
Obviously Ted was going at this from a (very) socially conservative PoV - but the logic holds true if you are a US social liberal on the other side of the social arguments from conservative Cruz. (Guns, abortion, gay marriage)
' Thornberry was born in north Surrey to Cedric Thornberry, a Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College London, and his wife Sallie Thornberry, a teacher.[4] Her parents divorced when Thornberry was aged seven and she and her two brothers lived with her mother who later became a Labour councillor and mayor.[5] Her father went on to become a United Nations Assistant Secretary General and worked as a consultant for NATO.[6] '
Thornberry's father was also a Labour parliamentary candidate and human rights lawyer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedric_Thornberry
In the Guardian article, the crux of the problem is revealed though. The NI terrorists weren't really interested in recruiting other Protestants or Catholics in jails. You were either already in or they thought you were a waste of time. Instead, extremist Muslims are actively trying to recruit across the Muslim prison population. In France, they have already taken those they deem to be extremists out of general prison population into isolation.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-31/the-trump-doctrine-revealed
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/donald-trump-is-much-derided-but-he-is-right-about-the-middle-east-a6698171.html
I would however say Trump is much more principled than Boris. Trump refused to give money to a variety of pressure groups (Club for growth, Bob Vander Plaats) to earn their support. He has been remarkably consistent in his policies and principles over the years.
Trump will go on HRC's record, her covering up of her husband's behaviour towards women and the fact she is a bought and paid for establishment figure. She won't have a chance.
I'm currently working in the double whammy of manufacturing and some of my customers supply construction.
One of my largest customers supplies the rail sector and has been waiting for a contract to be placed for 15 months now, Lots of consulatnts have been employed at up to £700 a day to review best value etc. and not surprisingly they keep finding more reasons to delay and issues to review. The management are shit scared of placing an order in case they get blamed and the whole fiasco rolls on. No construction work, no orders for suppliers, no improved rail jouneys for passengers. But it's pigswill time for the troughers in the middle. Net result "services" are up and production and construction are in the doldrums.
I agree with the other parallels. The US system makes it easier for outsiders to come in (other than UK mayoralities and PCC elections), so while Trump is more the equivalent of his Apprentice opposite number, Alan Sugar, the Boris analogy is about as close as it meaningfully gets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W8-z30j8I8
Most of their votes are controlled by a few dozen City fatcats.
I saw a Q&A between Matt Forde and Tommy Robinson last year and the Muslim gangs running British prisons was his main point of concern
Or all of the above?
Citing ex Labour MP Brian Wilson is hardly clever politics. He is a unifying figure only in the sense of being disliked by even every faction in what's left of Labour in Scotland.He now carries forward his old grievances from the pages of The Scotsman which is read by even less people that The Independent. If Wilson had been a recent Labour MP rather than the ancient mariner he would have been in the "totally useless" bracket, as current shadow Ministers describe the Scottish Labour's contribution.
Citing the history of North Sea Oil is also very bad politics. In the good years Scotland would have been in surplus to an "embarrasing degree", as a former Scottish Office economic adviser once wrote in a paper kept secret for thirty years. If they had done a Norway then they would be sitting on a cash pile of upwards of £100 billion not a share of a deiecit of upwards of 1.5 trillion. Most folk up here have some awareness of that.
Finally the UK Government is totally sunk on the fiscal lack of deal. They offered "no detriment" or more accurately "no financial disadvantage" to forestall independence. Now they are not delivering and will pay the price. All the NATS have to do is sit tight and fight the elections on a platform of the TORIES want to STEAL Scotland's money and LABOUR want to TAX the poor to pay for it!
Little wonder Sturgeon is winning out of the park.
And the June 2016 date is the obvious choice once you assume that (a) he wants to Remain and (b) he believes that the country will buy what he's selling.
The price is that the politically engaged see through all this - and of course all Conservative activists fall into that category. They will reduce their support of him, even if they still sympathise with his domestic programme (Gove's dilemma). But Cameron is stepping down anyway, so he personally never needs their votes again.
Look for Osborne to be good cop to Cameron's bad cop.
Just like the UK's bankers were.
Michael Deacon
Corbynistas wish Clive James well in his battle with leukaemia https://t.co/dQ3nbYhQK1 https://t.co/bxWTXk3L7L
You'd have to believe that Americans will elect a socialist to the White House which is a stretch belief
Particularly versus Trump who shares most moderate voters' beliefs, perhaps in an undignified way but still not a socialist
Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side
For example taking Republican votes in New York but Democrat votes in Florida would certainly have a non-equal effect.
You are asking me to belief that after a lifetime of incompetence at the age of 69 she will suddenly come good? Well, as we found out in May and September all things are possible in politics, but colour me sceptical.
But agree, it’s one of those situations one can spin in all sorts of ways.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” as a principle does seem be honoured mainly in the breach nowadays.
You make a very fair point about expanding political capital. He has built up a fair bit, and if he is out at the end of this Parliament, then - not having expressed any ambition as to what he does afterwards - he might as well expend it.
But there are so many things he could have better employed that capital on. His conference speech last autumn showed he had a vision for a fairer society. He could - in the way that he did with gay marriage - have expended that capital forcing through some of the changes needed to bring about that fair society. Instead, he has pissed it all up against a wall.
The Little Englanders are the morons like you who think we have to be part of a backward protectionist bloc to survive in that big scary world out there.
"But agree, it’s one of those situations one can spin in all sorts of ways.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” as a principle does seem be honoured mainly in the breach nowadays.
I’m by no merans sure of the details but, again IIRC, Emilys mother was teaching again before too long.
Poll alert: We have a ComRes poll in @IndyOnSunday tomorrow, shared with @TheSundayMirror
https://m.facebook.com/MrJohnRentoul/posts/1566146773708472
However I have to say she doesn't strike me as very bright and her white van tweet demonstrated that she has no sense at all. Her appointment to SSoSfD suggests that Corbyn just wants an empty suit so he can dominate the brief himself.
That being said, he was also quite right to move Eagle after the Dannett farrago. I would have sacked her altogether, twin sister or no.
Going after EdM's family.
Each more unfair than the tactics deployed so far in his silly referendum.
Politics isn't fair, it's about winning.
The difference being that he is a columnist and can get away with - is paid for - manufactured outrage, whereas she is a politician and is supposed to be better than that.
Also note careful lawyerly language used to describe her circumstances as being a whole lot worse that they probably were in practice. It's like Hilary saying there was no classified documents on her mail server, which is technically correct but only because she had all the classified markings removed from them first!
Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many.
that just makes PBers sound saddos.
Lots more to come
https://www.rt.com/news/332308-assad-syria-turkey-saudi/
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
*cough cough "
http://thaddeuswhite.weebly.com/writing-blog/2016-publishing-plans
In brief: got a short story in a horror anthology out probably in the next couple of months, and the first volume of The Adventures of Sir Edric (a pair of novellas published together) should be out shortly after that.
It would take a huge degree of self-sacrificial behaviour to step down, in the face of a challenge by the losing side, assuming that they get behind a Sceptic who would be the front-runner absent Cameron. Dare I say it would also be bad for the party to appoint a partisan from the losing side in the heat of its anger
A New York liberal Senator
vs
A New York liberal Jewish Mayor
vs
A New York liberal property developer