Is it me or are @HYUFD's posts increasingly sounding like the guys from Sunshine Desserts' product research dept. in The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin?
I like how the numbers I report are “rubbish”, but the numbers he reports are gospel. They come from the exact same set of respondents.
The poll also found 73% saying staying in the EU would be unacceptable but only 57% saying a clean break from the EU would be unacceptable
Still doesn’t explain how the findings I report are “rubbish”.
I’m glad you’re happy with the finding that 57% say No Deal is unacceptable. In your shoes I’d be scared shitless.
Including 37% of Tory supporters.
Indeed.
That is the key variable that should terrify the Cons: over a third of their supporters absolutely detest No Deal.
Why? 78% of Tory voters say we should go ahead with No Deal on October 31st, only 42% of Labour voters say we should cancel Brexit and Remain in the EU
I think the answer to your puzzlement is to read more carefully.
The 78% comes from a question which starts by saying that Johnson wants to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, and then asks what should happen if he is unable to. I'm sure the difference in emphasis is enough to account for the discrepancy of 5% between that figure and the 37% unacceptable (which oddly includes 23% who think it would be "somewhat" unacceptable).
Yet even on those numbers 59% of all voters say revoking Brexit and staying in the EU would be completely unacceptable, including 55% of Labour voters who say it would be unacceptable.
I don't think revoking comes into the picture (unless the EU refused an extension).
Which given Macron's statements they likely will and of course the Commons has rejected the Withdrawal Agreement 3 times which the EU has made clear they will not reopen
Is it me or are @HYUFD's posts increasingly sounding like the guys from Sunshine Desserts' product research dept. in The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin?
I like how the numbers I report are “rubbish”, but the numbers he reports are gospel. They come from the exact same set of respondents.
The poll also found 73% saying staying in the EU would be unacceptable but only 57% saying a clean break from the EU would be unacceptable
Still doesn’t explain how the findings I report are “rubbish”.
I’m glad you’re happy with the finding that 57% say No Deal is unacceptable. In your shoes I’d be scared shitless.
Including 37% of Tory supporters.
Indeed.
That is the key variable that should terrify the Cons: over a third of their supporters absolutely detest No Deal.
Why? 78% of Tory voters say we should go ahead with No Deal on October 31st, only 42% of Labour voters say we should cancel Brexit and Remain in the EU
I think the answer to your puzzlement is to read more carefully.
The 78% comes from a question which starts by saying that Johnson wants to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, and then asks what should happen if he is unable to. I'm sure the difference in emphasis is enough to account for the discrepancy of 5% between that figure and the 37% unacceptable (which oddly includes 23% who think it would be "somewhat" unacceptable).
Yet even on those numbers 59% of all voters say revoking Brexit and staying in the EU would be completely unacceptable, including 55% of Labour voters who say it would be unacceptable.
I don't think revoking comes into the picture (unless the EU refused an extension).
Which given Macron's statements they likely will and of course the Commons has rejected the Withdrawal Agreement 3 times which the EU has made clear they will not reopen
Of course, Macron and Co are the other half of the equation. I assume they would look more favourably on a request for an extension if it were coupled with a general election.
Having googled, some food for thought for those who have ventured the Dems need to have a white male candidate. Largest popular vote in history. 1) Obama 2008. 2) Obama 2012. 3) Hilary 2016.
Given a rising population, almost every election sees voting records for each party.
Should we Brexit in October, and vote in November, the entire political landscape will have been utterly changed. All previous polling will be irrelevant and any policies regarding whether we Brexit or not will have been rendered moot. There will be a totally new series of questions. Psychologically it will be a transformed electorate, the Rubicon crossed, and a completely unpredictable election will ensue. Regardless of whether Brexit is catastrophic or merely briefly inconvenient. That's my take anyway.
Having googled, some food for thought for those who have ventured the Dems need to have a white male candidate. Largest popular vote in history. 1) Obama 2008. 2) Obama 2012. 3) Hilary 2016.
Given a rising population, almost every election sees voting records for each party.
Republicans are going to have to step up their efforts on voter suppression, then.
Thing about Biden is that he’s run in national campaigns before. A lot. Other than Sanders, the rest are virtual novices. They will learn how to up their game - whereas come the real campaign, Biden will just be a year older...
Should we Brexit in October, and vote in November, the entire political landscape will have been utterly changed. All previous polling will be irrelevant and any policies regarding whether we Brexit or not will have been rendered moot. There will be a totally new series of questions. Psychologically it will be a transformed electorate, the Rubicon crossed, and a completely unpredictable election will ensue. Regardless of whether Brexit is catastrophic or merely briefly inconvenient. That's my take anyway.
The Brexit Party vote will collapse in favour of the Tories in such circumstances, the LDs will campaign to rejoin the EU straight away and diehard Remainers will flock to the Liberals and Labour will be stuck in no man's land, shelled from both sides having rejected the Withdrawal Agreement which was the only compromise on offer.
IIRC, the Amish community were seen as a way for G W Bush to win in 2000 and 2004 in some states. I don't have any impericle evidence to affirm whether this was actualised into votes. I seem to remember they were more amenable to the GOP than your impression via film may imply. The point I was making was that given the small margins in the electoral colloge in three states in 2016, it may be a way for democrats to suppress turnout in the Amish community by focusing on Trumps environmental and climate change denial for instance. Winning elections is not just about persuading people to vote for a party but sometimes giving voters a reason not to support an opponent!
Done a quick google and, yes, it is as you say. A significant target group. But I'm hoping that Trump will be defeated by a margin far greater than the expected number of Amish voters. I'm looking for worst case 5 million.
You always have to plan for the worst and hope for the best. The Democrats will be targeting Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania big time in 2020. Election machines always use the last comparative election result as a benchmark for the next election in terms of focused activity.
Having googled, some food for thought for those who have ventured the Dems need to have a white male candidate. Largest popular vote in history. 1) Obama 2008. 2) Obama 2012. 3) Hilary 2016.
Given a rising population, almost every election sees voting records for each party.
Indeed. Although it does show that there are enough votes there for the right candidate regardless. It also shows Trump is not the vote winner he is sometimes perceived to be.
The chances of Biden, who looks even fucking older than he actually is, saying something hilariously inappropriate that's terminal for his campaign must be close to 100%. It's just a matter of time.
Should we Brexit in October, and vote in November, the entire political landscape will have been utterly changed. All previous polling will be irrelevant and any policies regarding whether we Brexit or not will have been rendered moot. There will be a totally new series of questions. Psychologically it will be a transformed electorate, the Rubicon crossed, and a completely unpredictable election will ensue. Regardless of whether Brexit is catastrophic or merely briefly inconvenient. That's my take anyway.
The Brexit Party vote will collapse in favour of the Tories in such circumstances, the LDs will campaign to rejoin the EU straight away and diehard Remainers will flock to the Liberals and Labour will be stuck in no man's land, shelled from both sides having rejected the Withdrawal Agreement which was the only compromise on offer.
Never mind winning, Labour could even come third
My view is that, in such a circumstance, the whether we Brexit will become totally irrelevant to the discussion. How we,respond will become the question. Once we have left there is no Leave and Remain. There is Rejoin and Don't Rejoin. You may be right, I may be wrong. You seem to think actually Brexiting will, in effect, change nothing politically at all.
New York's Chief Medical Examiner completes autopsy on Jeffrey Epstein but says the cause and manner of his death 'is pending further information at this time' as it is revealed there were NO cameras in his prison cell
Should we Brexit in October, and vote in November, the entire political landscape will have been utterly changed. All previous polling will be irrelevant and any policies regarding whether we Brexit or not will have been rendered moot. There will be a totally new series of questions. Psychologically it will be a transformed electorate, the Rubicon crossed, and a completely unpredictable election will ensue. Regardless of whether Brexit is catastrophic or merely briefly inconvenient. That's my take anyway.
The Brexit Party vote will collapse in favour of the Tories in such circumstances, the LDs will campaign to rejoin the EU straight away and diehard Remainers will flock to the Liberals and Labour will be stuck in no man's land, shelled from both sides having rejected the Withdrawal Agreement which was the only compromise on offer.
Never mind winning, Labour could even come third
I know you think the Brexit party will collapse and the Brexit supporting media has gone into overdrive trying to push Leave voters into backing the Tories. However, I am starting to suspect Leave voters are not going to play ball. Which, I find highly amusing! Election machines do not work in fptp elections in the way you suggest. You are going to drive yourself crazy directing ghost armies to win tory majorities...
New York's Chief Medical Examiner completes autopsy on Jeffrey Epstein but says the cause and manner of his death 'is pending further information at this time' as it is revealed there were NO cameras in his prison cell
No cameras in the cell of a man who was on suicide watch? A man who just so happened to have extremely damaging information on lots of rich and powerful people. A man who was once party buddies with the US president? This has foul play written all over it.
The chances of Biden, who looks even fucking older than he actually is, saying something hilariously inappropriate that's terminal for his campaign must be close to 100%. It's just a matter of time.
Hilariously inappropriate and terminal are changed terms over the past few years.
IIRC, the Amish community were seen as a way for G W Bush to win in 2000 and 2004 in some states. I don't have any impericle evidence to affirm whether this was actualised into votes. I seem to remember they were more amenable to the GOP than your impression via film may imply. The point I was making was that given the small margins in the electoral colloge in three states in 2016, it may be a way for democrats to suppress turnout in the Amish community by focusing on Trumps environmental and climate change denial for instance. Winning elections is not just about persuading people to vote for a party but sometimes giving voters a reason not to support an opponent!
Done a quick google and, yes, it is as you say. A significant target group. But I'm hoping that Trump will be defeated by a margin far greater than the expected number of Amish voters. I'm looking for worst case 5 million.
You always have to plan for the worst and hope for the best. The Democrats will be targeting Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania big time in 2020. Election machines always use the last comparative election result as a benchmark for the next election in terms of focused activity.
I think Iowa and Arizona are easier Democrat pickups than Pennsylvania
The chances of Biden, who looks even fucking older than he actually is, saying something hilariously inappropriate that's terminal for his campaign must be close to 100%. It's just a matter of time.
Fortunately, voters in the rust belt are desperate for an incoherent old man.
IIRC, the Amish community were seen as a way for G W Bush to win in 2000 and 2004 in some states. I don't have any impericle evidence to affirm whether this was actualised into votes. I seem to remember they were more amenable to the GOP than your impression via film may imply. The point I was making was that given the small margins in the electoral colloge in three states in 2016, it may be a way for democrats to suppress turnout in the Amish community by focusing on Trumps environmental and climate change denial for instance. Winning elections is not just about persuading people to vote for a party but sometimes giving voters a reason not to support an opponent!
Done a quick google and, yes, it is as you say. A significant target group. But I'm hoping that Trump will be defeated by a margin far greater than the expected number of Amish voters. I'm looking for worst case 5 million.
You always have to plan for the worst and hope for the best. The Democrats will be targeting Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania big time in 2020. Election machines always use the last comparative election result as a benchmark for the next election in terms of focused activity.
I think Iowa and Arizona are easier Democrat pickups than Pennsylvania
Which states have voting machines most secure from Russian hacking? I hear Trump have done everything they can to thwart election security.
IIRC, the Amish community were seen as a way for G W Bush to win in 2000 and 2004 in some states. I don't have any impericle evidence to affirm whether this was actualised into votes. I seem to remember they were more amenable to the GOP than your impression via film may imply. The point I was making was that given the small margins in the electoral colloge in three states in 2016, it may be a way for democrats to suppress turnout in the Amish community by focusing on Trumps environmental and climate change denial for instance. Winning elections is not just about persuading people to vote for a party but sometimes giving voters a reason not to support an opponent!
Done a quick google and, yes, it is as you say. A significant target group. But I'm hoping that Trump will be defeated by a margin far greater than the expected number of Amish voters. I'm looking for worst case 5 million.
You always have to plan for the worst and hope for the best. The Democrats will be targeting Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania big time in 2020. Election machines always use the last comparative election result as a benchmark for the next election in terms of focused activity.
I think Iowa and Arizona are easier Democrat pickups than Pennsylvania
Should we Brexit in October, and vote in November, the entire political landscape will have been utterly changed. All previous polling will be irrelevant and any policies regarding whether we Brexit or not will have been rendered moot. There will be a totally new series of questions. Psychologically it will be a transformed electorate, the Rubicon crossed, and a completely unpredictable election will ensue. Regardless of whether Brexit is catastrophic or merely briefly inconvenient. That's my take anyway.
The Brexit Party vote will collapse in favour of the Tories in such circumstances, the LDs will campaign to rejoin the EU straight away and diehard Remainers will flock to the Liberals and Labour will be stuck in no man's land, shelled from both sides having rejected the Withdrawal Agreement which was the only compromise on offer.
Never mind winning, Labour could even come third
I know you think the Brexit party will collapse and the Brexit supporting media has gone into overdrive trying to push Leave voters into backing the Tories. However, I am starting to suspect Leave voters are not going to play ball. Which, I find highly amusing! Election machines do not work in fptp elections in the way you suggest. You are going to drive yourself crazy directing ghost armies to win tory majorities...
The Brexit Party will still be there but under 10% if we Leave with No Deal which would be more than enough for a Tory majority.
Labour meanwhile will have the LDs snapping at their heels, the question may thus not be whether Boris comes first or not but whether Corbyn can avoid the fate Foot narrowly avoided and not fall behind the Liberals. Indeed the LDs were just 1% behind Labour with Yougov last week while the Tories were 9% in front
New York's Chief Medical Examiner completes autopsy on Jeffrey Epstein but says the cause and manner of his death 'is pending further information at this time' as it is revealed there were NO cameras in his prison cell
No cameras in the cell of a man who was on suicide watch? A man who just so happened to have extremely damaging information on lots of rich and powerful people. A man who was once party buddies with the US president? This has foul play written all over it.
He was on suicide watch a few weeks ago, but not recently.
New York's Chief Medical Examiner completes autopsy on Jeffrey Epstein but says the cause and manner of his death 'is pending further information at this time' as it is revealed there were NO cameras in his prison cell
No cameras in the cell of a man who was on suicide watch? A man who just so happened to have extremely damaging information on lots of rich and powerful people. A man who was once party buddies with the US president? This has foul play written all over it.
He was on suicide watch a few weeks ago, but not recently.
The only suicide watch he's been on lately is a careful one to make sure he had means, opportunity and motivation.
Should we Brexit in October, and vote in November, the entire political landscape will have been utterly changed. All previous polling will be irrelevant and any policies regarding whether we Brexit or not will have been rendered moot. There will be a totally new series of questions. Psychologically it will be a transformed electorate, the Rubicon crossed, and a completely unpredictable election will ensue. Regardless of whether Brexit is catastrophic or merely briefly inconvenient. That's my take anyway.
The Brexit Party vote will collapse in favour of the Tories in such circumstances, the LDs will campaign to rejoin the EU straight away and diehard Remainers will flock to the Liberals and Labour will be stuck in no man's land, shelled from both sides having rejected the Withdrawal Agreement which was the only compromise on offer.
Never mind winning, Labour could even come third
My view is that, in such a circumstance, the whether we Brexit will become totally irrelevant to the discussion. How we,respond will become the question. Once we have left there is no Leave and Remain. There is Rejoin and Don't Rejoin. You may be right, I may be wrong. You seem to think actually Brexiting will, in effect, change nothing politically at all.
I think Hyufd is half right. If we do leave with no deal, regardless of how well or badly it goes, Boris will have shot the Brexit party fox. Unless the Tories pivot to rejoin, why vote for Nigel's single issue party on an issue where you have already won.
The two interesting questions are - where do Brexit party voters go in this event (I think this will depend a good deal on how well or badly no deal goes), and what would mean for the Liberals vs Labour vote split?
A lot will depend on Labour's position post no deal. Are they going to go for rejoin, and slug it out with the Lib Dems for the diehard remainers? Try and do a BINO deal, despite having allowed no deal by repeated voting down a pretty BINO deal? Ignore the whole thing and blame it on the Jews?
New York's Chief Medical Examiner completes autopsy on Jeffrey Epstein but says the cause and manner of his death 'is pending further information at this time' as it is revealed there were NO cameras in his prison cell
No cameras in the cell of a man who was on suicide watch? A man who just so happened to have extremely damaging information on lots of rich and powerful people. A man who was once party buddies with the US president? This has foul play written all over it.
He was on suicide watch a few weeks ago, but not recently.
The only suicide watch he's been on lately is a careful one to make sure he had means, opportunity and motivation.
If people were surprised by Epstein's suicide, just imagine how surprised he was!
Should we Brexit in October, and vote in November, the entire political landscape will have been utterly changed. All previous polling will be irrelevant and any policies regarding whether we Brexit or not will have been rendered moot. There will be a totally new series of questions. Psychologically it will be a transformed electorate, the Rubicon crossed, and a completely unpredictable election will ensue. Regardless of whether Brexit is catastrophic or merely briefly inconvenient. That's my take anyway.
The Brexit Party vote will collapse in favour of the Tories in such circumstances, the LDs will campaign to rejoin the EU straight away and diehard Remainers will flock to the Liberals and Labour will be stuck in no man's land, shelled from both sides having rejected the Withdrawal Agreement which was the only compromise on offer.
Never mind winning, Labour could even come third
My view is that, in such a circumstance, the whether we Brexit will become totally irrelevant to the discussion. How we,respond will become the question. Once we have left there is no Leave and Remain. There is Rejoin and Don't Rejoin. You may be right, I may be wrong. You seem to think actually Brexiting will, in effect, change nothing politically at all.
I think Hyufd is half right. If we do leave with no deal, regardless of how well or badly it goes, Boris will have shot the Brexit party fox. Unless the Tories pivot to rejoin, why vote for Nigel's single issue party on an issue where you have already won.
The two interesting questions are - where do Brexit party voters go in this event (I think this will depend a good deal on how well or badly no deal goes), and what would mean for the Liberals vs Labour vote split?
A lot will depend on Labour's position post no deal. Are they going to go for rejoin, and slug it out with the Lib Dems for the diehard remainers? Try and do a BINO deal, despite having allowed no deal by repeated voting down a pretty BINO deal? Ignore the whole thing and blame it on the Jews?
Labour's position will be blame Botched Tory Brexit, make the best of it. Labour voters generally are not obsessed by this issue. Almost uniquely. Rejoin would be out of the question. Indeed, it is an issue more likely to split the LDs.
New York's Chief Medical Examiner completes autopsy on Jeffrey Epstein but says the cause and manner of his death 'is pending further information at this time' as it is revealed there were NO cameras in his prison cell
No cameras in the cell of a man who was on suicide watch? A man who just so happened to have extremely damaging information on lots of rich and powerful people. A man who was once party buddies with the US president? This has foul play written all over it.
He was on suicide watch a few weeks ago, but not recently.
The only suicide watch he's been on lately is a careful one to make sure he had means, opportunity and motivation.
If people were surprised by Epstein's suicide, just imagine how surprised he was!
New York's Chief Medical Examiner completes autopsy on Jeffrey Epstein but says the cause and manner of his death 'is pending further information at this time' as it is revealed there were NO cameras in his prison cell
No cameras in the cell of a man who was on suicide watch? A man who just so happened to have extremely damaging information on lots of rich and powerful people. A man who was once party buddies with the US president? This has foul play written all over it.
He was on suicide watch a few weeks ago, but not recently.
He was inexplicably taken off suicide watch despite having a suicide attempt and being a threat to many powerful people. He was inexplicably not being watched by a camera, as is standard practice. He was inexplicably not checked up on with the regular 15 mimite checks required.
If any believes this was a pure suicide, I have a bridge to sell you. I fully expect critical video tapes to either go missing or be sealed.
IIRC, the Amish community were seen as a way for G W Bush to win in 2000 and 2004 in some states. I don't have any impericle evidence to affirm whether this was actualised into votes. I seem to remember they were more amenable to the GOP than your impression via film may imply. The point I was making was that given the small margins in the electoral colloge in three states in 2016, it may be a way for democrats to suppress turnout in the Amish community by focusing on Trumps environmental and climate change denial for instance. Winning elections is not just about persuading people to vote for a party but sometimes giving voters a reason not to support an opponent!
Done a quick google and, yes, it is as you say. A significant target group. But I'm hoping that Trump will be defeated by a margin far greater than the expected number of Amish voters. I'm looking for worst case 5 million.
You always have to plan for the worst and hope for the best. The Democrats will be targeting Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania big time in 2020. Election machines always use the last comparative election result as a benchmark for the next election in terms of focused activity.
I think Iowa and Arizona are easier Democrat pickups than Pennsylvania
17 votes versus 20.
And I think the Democrats will win Wisconsin at a canter.
If we assume the Democrats lose Pennsylvania, then it's all on Michigan.
(Unless they spring a surprise in Florida or North Carolina, both of which were won by Obama.)
Having googled, some food for thought for those who have ventured the Dems need to have a white male candidate. Largest popular vote in history. 1) Obama 2008. 2) Obama 2012. 3) Hilary 2016.
Given a rising population, almost every election sees voting records for each party.
Having googled, some food for thought for those who have ventured the Dems need to have a white male candidate. Largest popular vote in history. 1) Obama 2008. 2) Obama 2012. 3) Hilary 2016.
Given a rising population, almost every election sees voting records for each party.
Good point
Although the point is also the Dem vote has declined at the last 2 elections in real terms. Pushing it back up with the Orange One in power should not be that much of a stretch. Meanwhile Trump has to increase a historically high GOP vote.
Having googled, some food for thought for those who have ventured the Dems need to have a white male candidate. Largest popular vote in history. 1) Obama 2008. 2) Obama 2012. 3) Hilary 2016.
Given a rising population, almost every election sees voting records for each party.
Good point
Although the point is also the Dem vote has declined at the last 2 elections in real terms. Pushing it back up with the Orange One in power should not be that much of a stretch. Meanwhile Trump has to increase a historically high GOP vote.
Your point is fundamentally a good one. The Dems don't actually need to do anything particular astonishing to win, they merely need to get the voters who voted for Obama to turn up.
Hillary not being the candidate will certainly help.
Should we Brexit in October, and vote in November, the entire political landscape will have been utterly changed. All previous polling will be irrelevant and any policies regarding whether we Brexit or not will have been rendered moot. There will be a totally new series of questions. Psychologically it will be a transformed electorate, the Rubicon crossed, and a completely unpredictable election will ensue. Regardless of whether Brexit is catastrophic or merely briefly inconvenient. That's my take anyway.
The Brexit Party vote will collapse in favour of the Tories in such circumstances, the LDs will campaign to rejoin the EU straight away and diehard Remainers will flock to the Liberals and Labour will be stuck in no man's land, shelled from both sides having rejected the Withdrawal Agreement which was the only compromise on offer.
Never mind winning, Labour could even come third
1) Do you think you think that no deal supporters have made a realistic assessment of the consequences of such an outcome happening?
2) If they have misjudged the consequences on the positive side, do you think that this is a risk to their current stated intention of voting Conservative?
When are the leaflets out, and do you think they will give a realistic picture of no deal consequences?
As already discussed ad nauseam, Corbyn could simply say he'd agree provided Johnson requested an extension.
Not sure if we've discussed this part ad nauseum but if Corybn votes for an election, does that give Boris a blank cheque on the specific timing, or can Corbyn enforceably agree to Date X but not Date Y?
He was inexplicably taken off suicide watch despite having a suicide attempt and being a threat to many powerful people. He was inexplicably not being watched by a camera, as is standard practice. He was inexplicably not checked up on with the regular 15 mimite checks required.
Having worked for the government, albeit the British one not the American one, I can confirm it really is this incompetent.
New York's Chief Medical Examiner completes autopsy on Jeffrey Epstein but says the cause and manner of his death 'is pending further information at this time' as it is revealed there were NO cameras in his prison cell
No cameras in the cell of a man who was on suicide watch? A man who just so happened to have extremely damaging information on lots of rich and powerful people. A man who was once party buddies with the US president? This has foul play written all over it.
He was on suicide watch a few weeks ago, but not recently.
He was inexplicably taken off suicide watch despite having a suicide attempt and being a threat to many powerful people. He was inexplicably not being watched by a camera, as is standard practice. He was inexplicably not checked up on with the regular 15 mimite checks required.
If any believes this was a pure suicide, I have a bridge to sell you. I fully expect critical video tapes to either go missing or be sealed.
Suicide is the simplest and most rational explanation. That doesn't make it the correct explanation, but the conspiracy theories are all more complex.
Sadly, people commit suicide in prison. Some do it whilst on suicide watch, or shortly after being taken off it (ISTR Fred West was one such). Or, from a quick Google, the following case is another: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-46276388
Epstein was an arch manipulator, and it's easy to see him convincing people in the prison: "Look, I;m fine now; this suicide watch is a bloody pointless exercise that infringes my rights!" etc, etc.
What I'd like to know more of was how he was reported as feeling / what he said after his first attempt - if he complained it wasn't really a suicide attempt but something darker. Or if he was just someone who wanted to end it all, and was just waiting for the right opportunity.
The Dems don't actually need to do anything particular astonishing to win, they merely need to get the voters who voted for Obama to turn up.
This sounds easier than it is, in that as well as being a once-in-a-generation inspirational speaker, Obama had the whole "first black president" thing going for him.
I have spent many pleasurable hours arguing with conspiracy theorists over the last couple of decades. From Moon hoaxers to JFKers; from Chemtrailers to MH17 Putinists (the last one rather enjoyably on here).
In that time, I cannot recall one of those conspiracy theories that has been proved correct. Yet there are undoubtedly conspiracies; it's just that they're rarely sexy enough for the theorists to jump behind.
As already discussed ad nauseam, Corbyn could simply say he'd agree provided Johnson requested an extension.
Not sure if we've discussed this part ad nauseum but if Corybn votes for an election, does that give Boris a blank cheque on the specific timing, or can Corbyn enforceably agree to Date X but not Date Y?
Of course, there is a curious way around the "No Deal" before the election. It involves someone else becoming Prime Minister (briefly) and then being VoNCed. The new PM can then set the election date.
Incredibly unlikely? Yes. But we live in unlikely times.
Having googled, some food for thought for those who have ventured the Dems need to have a white male candidate. Largest popular vote in history. 1) Obama 2008. 2) Obama 2012. 3) Hilary 2016.
Given a rising population, almost every election sees voting records for each party.
Good point
Although the point is also the Dem vote has declined at the last 2 elections in real terms. Pushing it back up with the Orange One in power should not be that much of a stretch. Meanwhile Trump has to increase a historically high GOP vote.
Your point is fundamentally a good one. The Dems don't actually need to do anything particular astonishing to win, they merely need to get the voters who voted for Obama to turn up.
Hillary not being the candidate will certainly help.
Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million or so. She campaigned in all the wrong places, a mistake she and her team previously made in the primaries against Obama. Perhaps we should oppose whoever Hillary's campaign team works for now.
As already discussed ad nauseam, Corbyn could simply say he'd agree provided Johnson requested an extension.
Not sure if we've discussed this part ad nauseum but if Corybn votes for an election, does that give Boris a blank cheque on the specific timing, or can Corbyn enforceably agree to Date X but not Date Y?
Been discussed as nauseum but still no definitive answer, at least as far as I can tell. Most likely answer is Johnson has to secure the formal extension before MPs* will agree to vote for the election. Which, since Johnson has chosen Brexit or bust by Oct 31 as the hill he wishes to die on, makes this all somewhat problematic.
*Note: MPs, not Corbyn: I suspect in practice Labour backbenchers might be the ones to refuse to vote for an election that opened the prospect of No Deal happening during the campaign.
Of course, there is a curious way around the "No Deal" before the election. It involves someone else becoming Prime Minister (briefly) and then being VoNCed. The new PM can then set the election date.
Incredibly unlikely? Yes. But we live in unlikely times.
This is the weird thing about the caretaker PM thing: They don't actually need to have the confidence of the House of Commons. They just need the House of Commons to *look like* it would have confidence in them. Once they're appointed, arguably the House would likely immediately cease to have confidence in them, since there would be no more upside for them.
In theory I think you could spin this logic into an argument that no matter how the Commons votes, the would-be caretaker shouldn't be made PM...
As already discussed ad nauseam, Corbyn could simply say he'd agree provided Johnson requested an extension.
Not sure if we've discussed this part ad nauseum but if Corybn votes for an election, does that give Boris a blank cheque on the specific timing, or can Corbyn enforceably agree to Date X but not Date Y?
Of course, there is a curious way around the "No Deal" before the election. It involves someone else becoming Prime Minister (briefly) and then being VoNCed. The new PM can then set the election date.
Incredibly unlikely? Yes. But we live in unlikely times.
Yes, we all know this by now surely? This was the scenario which Johnson was going to refuse to resign in to avoid, no?
New York's Chief Medical Examiner completes autopsy on Jeffrey Epstein but says the cause and manner of his death 'is pending further information at this time' as it is revealed there were NO cameras in his prison cell
No cameras in the cell of a man who was on suicide watch? A man who just so happened to have extremely damaging information on lots of rich and powerful people. A man who was once party buddies with the US president? This has foul play written all over it.
He was on suicide watch a few weeks ago, but not recently.
He was inexplicably taken off suicide watch despite having a suicide attempt and being a threat to many powerful people. He was inexplicably not being watched by a camera, as is standard practice. He was inexplicably not checked up on with the regular 15 mimite checks required.
If any believes this was a pure suicide, I have a bridge to sell you. I fully expect critical video tapes to either go missing or be sealed.
Suicide is the simplest and most rational explanation. That doesn't make it the correct explanation, but the conspiracy theories are all more complex.
Sadly, people commit suicide in prison. Some do it whilst on suicide watch, or shortly after being taken off it (ISTR Fred West was one such). Or, from a quick Google, the following case is another: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-46276388
Epstein was an arch manipulator, and it's easy to see him convincing people in the prison: "Look, I;m fine now; this suicide watch is a bloody pointless exercise that infringes my rights!" etc, etc.
What I'd like to know more of was how he was reported as feeling / what he said after his first attempt - if he complained it wasn't really a suicide attempt but something darker. Or if he was just someone who wanted to end it all, and was just waiting for the right opportunity.
Surely your theory is just as complex as the simplest conspiracy theories. Epstein did commit suicide, at a time when he was not on suicide watch, even after his previous attempt. The conspiracy theorists have the guards persuaded by the deep state, whereas you have them persuaded by Epstein himself.
Apart from the conspiracy theorist-in-chief who thinks the Clintons murdered Epstein.
Boris will be disappointed with the front pages, most of which, even on a slow news day, do not splash his tough-on-crime initiatives, with the Mail and Express leading with different NHS crises (shortage of HRT drugs; shortage of GPs) and even the Telegraph relegating Boris to below the fold. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-49314826
This is the weird thing about the caretaker PM thing: They don't actually need to have the confidence of the House of Commons. They just need the House of Commons to *look like* it would have confidence in them. Once they're appointed, arguably the House would likely immediately cease to have confidence in them, since there would be no more upside for them.
In theory I think you could spin this logic into an argument that no matter how the Commons votes, the would-be caretaker shouldn't be made PM...
That argument would mean Bozo shouldn't be PM. There is no evidence he has the confidence of the HoC
Surely your theory is just as complex as the simplest conspiracy theories. Epstein did commit suicide, at a time when he was not on suicide watch, even after his previous attempt. The conspiracy theorists have the guards persuaded by the deep state, whereas you have them persuaded by Epstein himself.
Apart from the conspiracy theorist-in-chief who thinks the Clintons murdered Epstein.
*Perhaps* persuaded by Epstein. It might just be they took him off suicide watch, and he was waiting for the opportunity. Or perhaps it was just a what-the-hell moment from him. The fact is, the simple suicide theory only involved one person - Epstein himself.
I've lost two friends to suicide - one a few years ago. In his case, the ups and downs of his final illness were quite staggering. I wish I'd done more.
Having googled, some food for thought for those who have ventured the Dems need to have a white male candidate. Largest popular vote in history. 1) Obama 2008. 2) Obama 2012. 3) Hilary 2016.
Given a rising population, almost every election sees voting records for each party.
Good point
Although the point is also the Dem vote has declined at the last 2 elections in real terms. Pushing it back up with the Orange One in power should not be that much of a stretch. Meanwhile Trump has to increase a historically high GOP vote.
Your point is fundamentally a good one. The Dems don't actually need to do anything particular astonishing to win, they merely need to get the voters who voted for Obama to turn up.
Hillary not being the candidate will certainly help.
Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million or so. She campaigned in all the wrong places, a mistake she and her team previously made in the primaries against Obama. Perhaps we should oppose whoever Hillary's campaign team works for now.
I'm not convinced that Hillary spending more time in Wisconsin would have helped the Democrats!
As already discussed ad nauseam, Corbyn could simply say he'd agree provided Johnson requested an extension.
Not sure if we've discussed this part ad nauseum but if Corybn votes for an election, does that give Boris a blank cheque on the specific timing, or can Corbyn enforceably agree to Date X but not Date Y?
Of course, there is a curious way around the "No Deal" before the election. It involves someone else becoming Prime Minister (briefly) and then being VoNCed. The new PM can then set the election date.
Incredibly unlikely? Yes. But we live in unlikely times.
Yes, we all know this by now surely? This was the scenario which Johnson was going to refuse to resign in to avoid, no?
I thought he was going to refuse to resign so as to avoid a GoNAfaE being formed. But maybe I'm not keeping with the times
No cameras in the cell of a man who was on suicide watch? A man who just so happened to have extremely damaging information on lots of rich and powerful people. A man who was once party buddies with the US president? This has foul play written all over it.
He was on suicide watch a few weeks ago, but not recently.
If any believes this was a pure suicide, I have a bridge to sell you. I fully expect critical video tapes to either go missing or be sealed.
Suicide is the simplest and most rational explanation. That doesn't make it the correct explanation, but the conspiracy theories are all more complex.
Sadly, people commit suicide in prison. Some do it whilst on suicide watch, or shortly after being taken off it (ISTR Fred West was one such). Or, from a quick Google, the following case is another: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-46276388
Epstein was an arch manipulator, and it's easy to see him convincing people in the prison: "Look, I;m fine now; this suicide watch is a bloody pointless exercise that infringes my rights!" etc, etc.
What I'd like to know more of was how he was reported as feeling / what he said after his first attempt - if he complained it wasn't really a suicide attempt but something darker. Or if he was just someone who wanted to end it all, and was just waiting for the right opportunity.
Surely your theory is just as complex as the simplest conspiracy theories. Epstein did commits suicide, at a time when he was not on suicide watch, even after his previous attempt. The conspiracy theorists have the guards persuaded by the deep state, whereas you have them persuaded by Epstein himself.
Apart from the conspiracy theorist-in-chief who thinks the Clintons murdered Epstein.
One might ask why Barr and his Justice Department, who were responsible for Epstein, fell down on the job. But we’re talking about Trump’s pet Attorney General, who is probably the least principled AG in the last fifty years.
Of course such circumstances would also make it easier to have him murdered, and there are some with very strong motives, and ample financial means to arrange it.
IIRC, the Amish community were seen as a way for G W Bush to win in 2000 and 2004 in some states. I don't have any impericle evidence to affirm whether this was actualised into votes. I seem to remember they were more amenable to the GOP than your impression via film may imply. The point I was making was that given the small margins in the electoral colloge in three states in 2016, it may be a way for democrats to suppress turnout in the Amish community by focusing on Trumps environmental and climate change denial for instance. Winning elections is not just about persuading people to vote for a party but sometimes giving voters a reason not to support an opponent!
Done a quick google and, yes, it is as you say. A significant target group. But I'm hoping that Trump will be defeated by a margin far greater than the expected number of Amish voters. I'm looking for worst case 5 million.
You always have to plan for the worst and hope for the best. The Democrats will be targeting Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania big time in 2020. Election machines always use the last comparative election result as a benchmark for the next election in terms of focused activity.
I think Iowa and Arizona are easier Democrat pickups than Pennsylvania
17 votes versus 20.
And I think the Democrats will win Wisconsin at a canter.
If we assume the Democrats lose Pennsylvania, then it's all on Michigan.
(Unless they spring a surprise in Florida or North Carolina, both of which were won by Obama.)
Or Texas, which is unlikely, but far from impossible.
As already discussed ad nauseam, Corbyn could simply say he'd agree provided Johnson requested an extension.
Not sure if we've discussed this part ad nauseum but if Corybn votes for an election, does that give Boris a blank cheque on the specific timing, or can Corbyn enforceably agree to Date X but not Date Y?
Of course, there is a curious way around the "No Deal" before the election. It involves someone else becoming Prime Minister (briefly) and then being VoNCed. The new PM can then set the election date.
Incredibly unlikely? Yes. But we live in unlikely times.
Yes, we all know this by now surely? This was the scenario which Johnson was going to refuse to resign in to avoid, no?
I thought he was going to refuse to resign so as to avoid a GoNAfaE being formed. But maybe I'm not keeping with the times
Same thing. Anyone other than Johnson would need cross party support, including current or former Tory MPs, in order to make the case they had or could get confidence. Johnson and Cummings' point was that they don't believe any of them could actually win a confidence vote, and Johnson shouldn't have to resign for them to be proved right.
The Dems don't actually need to do anything particular astonishing to win, they merely need to get the voters who voted for Obama to turn up.
This sounds easier than it is, in that as well as being a once-in-a-generation inspirational speaker, Obama had the whole "first black president" thing going for him.
On the other hand you have the "Obama voters, Clinton abstainers" in Wi, Mi and Pa who have had 4 years to ruminate on the effects of their abstension.
Same thing. Anyone other than Johnson would need cross party support, including current or former Tory MPs, in order to make the case they had or could get confidence. Johnson and Cummings' point was that they don't believe any of them could actually win a confidence vote, and Johnson shouldn't have to resign for them to be proved right.
Johnson already needs cross party support. If BoZo loses a confidence vote he has proved their point, and can no longer be PM
IIRC, the Amish community were seen as a way for G W Bush to win in 2000 and 2004 in some states. I don't have any impericle evidence to affirm whether this was actualised into votes. I seem to remember they were more amenable to the GOP than your impression via film may imply. The point I was making was that given the small margins in the electoral colloge in three states in 2016, it may be a way for democrats to suppress turnout in the Amish community by focusing on Trumps environmental and climate change denial for instance. Winning elections is not just about persuading people to vote for a party but sometimes giving voters a reason not to support an opponent!
Done a quick google and, yes, it is as you say. A significant target group. But I'm hoping that Trump will be defeated by a margin far greater than the expected number of Amish voters. I'm looking for worst case 5 million.
You always have to plan for the worst and hope for the best. The Democrats will be targeting Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania big time in 2020. Election machines always use the last comparative election result as a benchmark for the next election in terms of focused activity.
I think Iowa and Arizona are easier Democrat pickups than Pennsylvania
17 votes versus 20.
And I think the Democrats will win Wisconsin at a canter.
If we assume the Democrats lose Pennsylvania, then it's all on Michigan.
(Unless they spring a surprise in Florida or North Carolina, both of which were won by Obama.)
If Florida votes Dem, the surprise will not be that more people support them than the Republicans, but that the voting regulations were lax enough to let a majority of Democrat voters to vote and have their vote counted.
Same thing. Anyone other than Johnson would need cross party support, including current or former Tory MPs, in order to make the case they had or could get confidence. Johnson and Cummings' point was that they don't believe any of them could actually win a confidence vote, and Johnson shouldn't have to resign for them to be proved right.
Johnson already needs cross party support. If BoZo loses a confidence vote he has proved their point, and can no longer be PM
Mr. Meeks, might not cost him much to knock Sussex (after all, they've been very green and a shade woke recently which is unlikely to crossover with Farage's support). Knocking the Queen Mother, however, is quite another thing, I suspect.
I have spent many pleasurable hours arguing with conspiracy theorists over the last couple of decades. From Moon hoaxers to JFKers; from Chemtrailers to MH17 Putinists (the last one rather enjoyably on here).
In that time, I cannot recall one of those conspiracy theories that has been proved correct. Yet there are undoubtedly conspiracies; it's just that they're rarely sexy enough for the theorists to jump behind.
Life is fairly mundane; so are the conspiracies.
To which the conspiracy theorists would say, “of course not: the authorities covered it up.”
Mr. Meeks, might not cost him much to knock Sussex (after all, they've been very green and a shade woke recently which is unlikely to crossover with Farage's support). Knocking the Queen Mother, however, is quite another thing, I suspect.
I guess in this case 'woke' means 'says stuff I don't agree with'?
I have spent many pleasurable hours arguing with conspiracy theorists over the last couple of decades. From Moon hoaxers to JFKers; from Chemtrailers to MH17 Putinists (the last one rather enjoyably on here).
In that time, I cannot recall one of those conspiracy theories that has been proved correct. Yet there are undoubtedly conspiracies; it's just that they're rarely sexy enough for the theorists to jump behind.
Life is fairly mundane; so are the conspiracies.
To which the conspiracy theorists would say, “of course not: the authorities covered it up.”
To quote the late, great Sir Terry Pratchett, given their track record of mind bending incompetence in almost every other field, it is amazing how good governments are at covering up conspiracies.
On topic, good tips. I’m very late to this market but I’m certainly using this to help inform my betting strategy.
On the other hand it does show where all that money goes in US presidential elections. Employing up to 100 full time staff in one US state for over a year can’t be cheap.
40% also say Boris should refuse to resign if he loses a VONC and call a general election, only 29% say he should resign so an alternative government can be formed
Boris does nor have it within in his power to call a general election.
He does if no alternative government is formed within 14 days of his losing a VONC
I still don't think this ever gets to a VONC. I still think Boris will get in first and announce we're having an election the day before Parliament returns on 5th September.
Jezza will agree because hoe could he not... And off we go.
From what I am hearing that is right, Boris will call a general election either in September or early October to be held in November shortly after we have left the EU
Which raises the question. What will the Tory manifesto be? What will the LD manifesto be? What will TBP manifesto be? We pretty much know the Labour manifesto.
Tory manifesto, Brexit Deal or No Deal on October 31st plus tax cuts and spending splurge, LD manifesto Stop Brexit, TBP manifesto No Deal Brexit without passing go, Labour manifesto Have not got a clue on Brexit but tax the rich and end austerity and renationalise the utilities.
You can't have a Brexit now/ Stop Brexit position in a November manifesto after we have Brexited in October! Which was my point. You have to answer a completely different set of questions. There is no sign that anyone of those parties have put a great deal of thinking into what comes next.
You can if you want to commit to that Brexit or reverse it and rejoin the EU
"Commit to that Brexit" has a1945 election written all over it. What does that even mean? The psychological Rubicon will have been crossed. We will have Brexited. No evidence that the LDs will have a unified position on Rejoin. Most people are heartily sick of hearing about it. Re-opening the question for another 5 years is not likely to be spectacularly successful. Meanwhile, Corbyn will blame all issues/problems on "botched Tory Brexit", while actually having some policies to appeal to a large sector of the Brexit vote. If that is the Tory plan, I think it is nuts. Especially if the fruit of Brexit is large tax cuts for the well off.
The one thing guaranteed to keep it in the news for years to come is a no deal exit in October.
. Knocking the Queen Mother, however, is quite another thing, I suspect.
And gives a near infinite supply of ammunition to his opponents
“Does the Prime Minister agree with me that all true patriots should celebrate and give thanks for the dedicated life and service of the Queen Mother and not disparage her to foreign audiences?”
I have spent many pleasurable hours arguing with conspiracy theorists over the last couple of decades. From Moon hoaxers to JFKers; from Chemtrailers to MH17 Putinists (the last one rather enjoyably on here).
In that time, I cannot recall one of those conspiracy theories that has been proved correct. Yet there are undoubtedly conspiracies; it's just that they're rarely sexy enough for the theorists to jump behind.
Life is fairly mundane; so are the conspiracies.
To which the conspiracy theorists would say, “of course not: the authorities covered it up.”
To quote the late, great Sir Terry Pratchett, given their track record of mind bending incompetence in almost every other field, it is amazing how good governments are at covering up conspiracies.
Applying occam’s razor is a good rule of thumb as to why almost all conspiracy theories are hokum.
On the rare occasion it’s actually tried, e.g. Watergate, it comes out relatively quickly.
I also note conspiracy theorists say nothing of the far more competent conspiracies exhibited on the Government rather than by them.
The Cambridge Spies deceived the British state for years.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
Are the Government still intending to send out leaflets on how to deal with Brexit on October 31st? Might the contents of these leaflets need to be radically different if they are sent out during an election period? In fact “public information” campaigns of any sort (with the exception of factual information on registering to vote etc) during election campaigns are very difficult because they will need BOTH ministerial AND senior civil service sign off.
Which likely means we had full scale towards no deal Brexit, it’s no widespread public information on how individuals and businesses should deal with it.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
I have spent many pleasurable hours arguing with conspiracy theorists over the last couple of decades. From Moon hoaxers to JFKers; from Chemtrailers to MH17 Putinists (the last one rather enjoyably on here).
In that time, I cannot recall one of those conspiracy theories that has been proved correct. Yet there are undoubtedly conspiracies; it's just that they're rarely sexy enough for the theorists to jump behind.
Life is fairly mundane; so are the conspiracies.
To which the conspiracy theorists would say, “of course not: the authorities covered it up.”
To quote the late, great Sir Terry Pratchett, given their track record of mind bending incompetence in almost every other field, it is amazing how good governments are at covering up conspiracies.
Applying occam’s razor is a good rule of thumb as to why almost all conspiracy theories are hokum.
On the rare occasion it’s actually tried, e.g. Watergate, it comes out relatively quickly.
I also note conspiracy theorists say nothing of the far more competent conspiracies exhibited on the Government rather than by them.
The Cambridge Spies deceived the British state for years.
The Cambridge Spies are perhaps not the best example: Antony Blunt was known to be a spy for Russia for well over a decade before he was uncovered by a journalist. In that case, there certainly was a conspiracy to stop information coming out that would be embarrassing.
New York's Chief Medical Examiner completes autopsy on Jeffrey Epstein but says the cause and manner of his death 'is pending further information at this time' as it is revealed there were NO cameras in his prison cell
No cameras in the cell of a man who was on suicide watch? A man who just so happened to have extremely damaging information on lots of rich and powerful people. A man who was once party buddies with the US president? This has foul play written all over it.
He was on suicide watch a few weeks ago, but not recently.
He was inexplicably taken off suicide watch despite having a suicide attempt and being a threat to many powerful people. He was inexplicably not being watched by a camera, as is standard practice. He was inexplicably not checked up on with the regular 15 mimite checks required.
If any believes this was a pure suicide, I have a bridge to sell you. I fully expect critical video tapes to either go missing or be sealed.
Except the one with Bill Clinton crudely CGI-ed in.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
It's not daft at all. I've been around people with kids a great deal for the last five years, and the reasons why people choose to have a baby (in these days of choice) are weird. In one case, a family of JAMS had a much-loved second child - and a large part of her reasoning was that she hadn't managed to breast feed her first child.
In a similar manner, we almost certainly won't have a second child. I always said that I didn't want more than a three-year gap between kids, and the little 'un is now five. It's utterly illogical on one level, but it's how I feel.
And their brother has no consequence on their thinking. And at least they're thinking about such things.
On conspiracy theories: I like the Area 51 conspiracy whereby the military make people think that UFOs are buzzing about so that they can test their stealth aircraft with impunity.
On conspiracy theories: I like the Area 51 conspiracy whereby the military make people think that UFOs are buzzing about so that they can test their stealth aircraft with impunity.
Mangumgate is the best conspiracy theory and almost certainly true.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
It's not daft at all. I've been around people with kids a great deal for the last five years, and the reasons why people choose to have a baby (in these days of choice) are weird. In one case, a family of JAMS had a much-loved second child - and a large part of her reasoning was that she hadn't managed to breast feed her first child.
In a similar manner, we almost certainly won't have a second child. I always said that I didn't want more than a three-year gap between kids, and the little 'un is now five. It's utterly illogical on one level, but it's how I feel.
And their brother has no consequence on their thinking. And at least they're thinking about such things.
It's just irritating virtue signalling. Their lifestyle means that their (max) two kids will have more of an impact on the planet than if you or I had four hundred.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
It's not daft at all. I've been around people with kids a great deal for the last five years, and the reasons why people choose to have a baby (in these days of choice) are weird. In one case, a family of JAMS had a much-loved second child - and a large part of her reasoning was that she hadn't managed to breast feed her first child.
In a similar manner, we almost certainly won't have a second child. I always said that I didn't want more than a three-year gap between kids, and the little 'un is now five. It's utterly illogical on one level, but it's how I feel.
And their brother has no consequence on their thinking. And at least they're thinking about such things.
It's just irritating virtue signalling. Their lifestyle means that their (max) two kids will have more of an impact on the planet than if you or I had four hundred.
That makes it almost the opposite of virtue signalling, surely?
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
It's not daft at all. I've been around people with kids a great deal for the last five years, and the reasons why people choose to have a baby (in these days of choice) are weird. In one case, a family of JAMS had a much-loved second child - and a large part of her reasoning was that she hadn't managed to breast feed her first child.
In a similar manner, we almost certainly won't have a second child. I always said that I didn't want more than a three-year gap between kids, and the little 'un is now five. It's utterly illogical on one level, but it's how I feel.
And their brother has no consequence on their thinking. And at least they're thinking about such things.
It's just irritating virtue signalling. Their lifestyle means that their (max) two kids will have more of an impact on the planet than if you or I had four hundred.
But less than if there were more than two of them.
The stories that usually need investigating are right under your nose.
For instance, the story that the government has a list of companies likely to go into administration if there is a No Deal Brexit. If true and if some of those companies are public, then such information is potentially price sensitive. Anyone using such information for their benefit or that of others could potentially be committing a serious criminal offence.
So what steps are being taken to ensure that all those with this knowledge - Ministers, advisors, SPADS, civil servants etc - are being made aware of their legal obligations? Have the companies concerned been informed? What about the regulators etc?
If we didn’t have such a useless opposition someone would be asking such questions.
This is not hypothetical stuff. I did a case involving a well-known company being bailed out by the government where there was some timely trading and the amount of leaking by government people was eye-watering.
As well as useless opposition MPs we have journalists incapable of doing anything more than regurgitate press releases. Grrr.....
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
It's not daft at all. I've been around people with kids a great deal for the last five years, and the reasons why people choose to have a baby (in these days of choice) are weird. In one case, a family of JAMS had a much-loved second child - and a large part of her reasoning was that she hadn't managed to breast feed her first child.
In a similar manner, we almost certainly won't have a second child. I always said that I didn't want more than a three-year gap between kids, and the little 'un is now five. It's utterly illogical on one level, but it's how I feel.
And their brother has no consequence on their thinking. And at least they're thinking about such things.
It's just irritating virtue signalling. Their lifestyle means that their (max) two kids will have more of an impact on the planet than if you or I had four hundred.
I love the way you can look into their hearts and discern truth.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
It's not daft at all. I've been around people with kids a great deal for the last five years, and the reasons why people choose to have a baby (in these days of choice) are weird. In one case, a family of JAMS had a much-loved second child - and a large part of her reasoning was that she hadn't managed to breast feed her first child.
In a similar manner, we almost certainly won't have a second child. I always said that I didn't want more than a three-year gap between kids, and the little 'un is now five. It's utterly illogical on one level, but it's how I feel.
And their brother has no consequence on their thinking. And at least they're thinking about such things.
It's just irritating virtue signalling. Their lifestyle means that their (max) two kids will have more of an impact on the planet than if you or I had four hundred.
But less than if there were more than two of them.
I don’t care how many children the Sussexes have. But if Harry wanted to make a point about being green why couldn’t he give his talk by video link? It would have made his point very powerfully.
I’ve just spent two weeks interviewing people from China to Mexico and a whole load of places in between, all by video link. This is not difficult stuff.
Comments
(Not a serious suggestion.)
Psychologically it will be a transformed electorate, the Rubicon crossed, and a completely unpredictable election will ensue.
Regardless of whether Brexit is catastrophic or merely briefly inconvenient.
That's my take anyway.
https://twitter.com/jolberding01/status/1160618274670989312
Other than Sanders, the rest are virtual novices.
They will learn how to up their game - whereas come the real campaign, Biden will just be a year older...
Never mind winning, Labour could even come third
You may be right, I may be wrong.
You seem to think actually Brexiting will, in effect, change nothing politically at all.
New York's Chief Medical Examiner completes autopsy on Jeffrey Epstein but says the cause and manner of his death 'is pending further information at this time' as it is revealed there were NO cameras in his prison cell
And far more effective if Biden does the job for them.
Labour meanwhile will have the LDs snapping at their heels, the question may thus not be whether Boris comes first or not but whether Corbyn can avoid the fate Foot narrowly avoided and not fall behind the Liberals. Indeed the LDs were just 1% behind Labour with Yougov last week while the Tories were 9% in front
The two interesting questions are - where do Brexit party voters go in this event (I think this will depend a good deal on how well or badly no deal goes), and what would mean for the Liberals vs Labour vote split?
A lot will depend on Labour's position post no deal. Are they going to go for rejoin, and slug it out with the Lib Dems for the diehard remainers? Try and do a BINO deal, despite having allowed no deal by repeated voting down a pretty BINO deal? Ignore the whole thing and blame it on the Jews?
If any believes this was a pure suicide, I have a bridge to sell you. I fully expect critical video tapes to either go missing or be sealed.
If we assume the Democrats lose Pennsylvania, then it's all on Michigan.
(Unless they spring a surprise in Florida or North Carolina, both of which were won by Obama.)
Hillary not being the candidate will certainly help.
2) If they have misjudged the consequences on the positive side, do you think that this is a risk to their current stated intention of voting Conservative?
When are the leaflets out, and do you think they will give a realistic picture of no deal consequences?
Sadly, people commit suicide in prison. Some do it whilst on suicide watch, or shortly after being taken off it (ISTR Fred West was one such). Or, from a quick Google, the following case is another: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-46276388
Epstein was an arch manipulator, and it's easy to see him convincing people in the prison: "Look, I;m fine now; this suicide watch is a bloody pointless exercise that infringes my rights!" etc, etc.
What I'd like to know more of was how he was reported as feeling / what he said after his first attempt - if he complained it wasn't really a suicide attempt but something darker. Or if he was just someone who wanted to end it all, and was just waiting for the right opportunity.
In that time, I cannot recall one of those conspiracy theories that has been proved correct. Yet there are undoubtedly conspiracies; it's just that they're rarely sexy enough for the theorists to jump behind.
Life is fairly mundane; so are the conspiracies.
Incredibly unlikely? Yes. But we live in unlikely times.
*Note: MPs, not Corbyn: I suspect in practice Labour backbenchers might be the ones to refuse to vote for an election that opened the prospect of No Deal happening during the campaign.
In theory I think you could spin this logic into an argument that no matter how the Commons votes, the would-be caretaker shouldn't be made PM...
Apart from the conspiracy theorist-in-chief who thinks the Clintons murdered Epstein.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-49314826
I've lost two friends to suicide - one a few years ago. In his case, the ups and downs of his final illness were quite staggering. I wish I'd done more.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-mcc-suicide.html
And the guards were understaffed and working heavy overtime.
One might ask why Barr and his Justice Department, who were responsible for Epstein, fell down on the job. But we’re talking about Trump’s pet Attorney General, who is probably the least principled AG in the last fifty years.
Of course such circumstances would also make it easier to have him murdered, and there are some with very strong motives, and ample financial means to arrange it.
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1160782478283628549?s=21
https://twitter.com/dprk_news/status/1160396099133177856?s=21
Does Nigel Farage smoke?
Or does he just let off lots of steam?
daft comment
They’re a bit slow, aren’t they? Why do they think Sturgeon rules out a deal with Labour?
On the other hand it does show where all that money goes in US presidential elections. Employing up to 100 full time staff in one US state for over a year can’t be cheap.
“Does the Prime Minister agree with me that all true patriots should celebrate and give thanks for the dedicated life and service of the Queen Mother and not disparage her to foreign audiences?”
On the rare occasion it’s actually tried, e.g. Watergate, it comes out relatively quickly.
I also note conspiracy theorists say nothing of the far more competent conspiracies exhibited on the Government rather than by them.
The Cambridge Spies deceived the British state for years.
Its just as broad brush and just as ridiculous
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
Which likely means we had full scale towards no deal Brexit, it’s no widespread public information on how individuals and businesses should deal with it.
In a similar manner, we almost certainly won't have a second child. I always said that I didn't want more than a three-year gap between kids, and the little 'un is now five. It's utterly illogical on one level, but it's how I feel.
And their brother has no consequence on their thinking. And at least they're thinking about such things.
https://theithacan.org/blogs/mangum-gate-2012-is-the-internets-conspiracy-theory-of-the-week/
For instance, the story that the government has a list of companies likely to go into administration if there is a No Deal Brexit. If true and if some of those companies are public, then such information is potentially price sensitive. Anyone using such information for their benefit or that of others could potentially be committing a serious criminal offence.
So what steps are being taken to ensure that all those with this knowledge - Ministers, advisors, SPADS, civil servants etc - are being made aware of their legal obligations? Have the companies concerned been informed? What about the regulators etc?
If we didn’t have such a useless opposition someone would be asking such questions.
This is not hypothetical stuff. I did a case involving a well-known company being bailed out by the government where there was some timely trading and the amount of leaking by government people was eye-watering.
As well as useless opposition MPs we have journalists incapable of doing anything more than regurgitate press releases. Grrr.....
I’ve just spent two weeks interviewing people from China to Mexico and a whole load of places in between, all by video link. This is not difficult stuff.