Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LAB selectorate polls don’t always get it right – remem

2456

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Labour finally coming round to ending free movement?

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/19/labour-urged-to-make-immigration-controls-a-key-brexit-demand

    Fear of UKIP in Labour seats.

    How many Tory seats would be in danger from UKIP if there was a 'betrayal' over immigration? May be a better bet for the tories to go soft brexit, induce a betrayal, which ends up swapping out a bunch of labour seats for UKIP ones, with minimal damage to themselves.

    This also helps put some clear yellow water between the Lib Dems and Labour. LDs for full EEA keeping FM and single market, Labour against it.

    Plenty of Tory marginals in Essex and Kent and the East Midlands and South West where UKIP are a threat too
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Small donations in play snip

    "The supporters of Candidate Donald Trump have crushed all historic fundraising records for small (under $200/per) “grass roots” donations. Over 2.1 million individual small donations in 3 months.

    For perspective Hillary and Bill Clinton’s small donor base is 2.3 million, as accumulated over their political lifetimes. Donald Trump has amassed a group of 2.1 million small donor contributors since July – 3 months ago – the date of his first email request.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/09/19/trump-shatters-all-prior-gop-fundraising-records-2-1-million-small-donations-in-90-days/

    ''Careless' Hillary' has been debiting the accounts of her donors without authorisation.
    I saw that over the weekend - very cynical - changing debits to fit under the $100 mark for fraud.

    There's far too many of these and varying numbers to discount as an accident. I honestly can't understand how blinkered so many on the Dems side can ignore this stuff. I guess it's like Corbyn.

    Trump is a massive braggart, but he's saying what needs saying and not stealing from poor voters.

    “We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department told the Observer. The source claims that the Clinton campaign has been pulling this stunt since Spring of this year. The Hillary for America campaign will overcharge small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. However, the Clinton campaign strategically doesn’t overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud...

    The New York Times reported in 2007 that Clinton’s first presidential campaign had to refund and subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars from its first-quarter total often because donors’ credit cards were charged twice. Additionally, it was reported that Clinton had to refund a stunning $2.8 million in donations, three times more than the $900K President Barack Obama’s campaign refunded."

    http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/

  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,819
    MTimT said:

    MaxPB said:

    Governor Cuomo is now saying there is a foreign link to the bombs/bombers. Bill de Blassio is looking like a right tit today. I don't understand the rush to dissociate probable terrorism from terroists. It seems completely ridiculous.

    He is the mayor who, upon assuming office, decided that getting rid of horse-drawn carriages from Central Park was the city's top priority.
    Small anecdote - I happened to meet Bill De Blasio while he was campaigning in Prospect Park, he was shaking hands with members of the public as I walked by - he has the limpest handshake of anyone I've ever met. I wouldn't be able to vote for him on that basis alone.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Owen Smith loses, the defeat will be blamed by the non-Corbynites on him. Like @Pulpstar, I think he has only this shot at the prize.

    You'd have to be particularly dense, even by the standard of Labour plotters, to want to propose Owen Smith as your candidate a second time.
    Which means that is exactly what they are going to do!
    Corbyn will be an even heavier favourite next time round. The membership is trending towards him, and dispirited "Saving Labour" members will not renew their subs.
    In addition I think McNicol will be gone as chair of the NEC where Corbyn will further cement control.

    There are also better candidates available, Kinnock (And almost anyone else) springs to mind.
    Not to mention the various proposals for rule changes at Conference this year and next - Corbyn's ideas for the membership to decide the Shadow Cabinet members and key policies only serve to further undermine the Parliamentary Labour Party.
    Personally, I can't see there being another challenge before the last year or so before the next GE now. So summer 2019 perhaps. A last desperate effort to avert disaster. By then it should be clear the scale of what is coming.

    A lot could change, but at moment it seems Labour members are determined to allow, or are unable to stop, the party moving to such a left-wing position that it is utterly unelectable under FPTP, given swing voters, marginal seats etc etc. It is purity over power and purity is winning hands down.

    In a sense it might not matter, as the alternative is social democratic Labour and social democracy is in massive retreat all over Europe, so perhaps a party led by Yvette or Ed Balls or Jarvis would still lose badly.
    Mr. Borough, how would you reconcile your views with those who point out that Labour polling is not actually that bad?
    I am no fan at all of Corbyn , but it may be worth reminding Kinnock - in view of his Panorama comments - of his own electoral record. In 1987 he lost to the Tories by 11.8% and five years later he was defeated by 7.6%. Last week Mori and YouGov had Labour trailing by 6% and 7% respectively - both a bit better than his own acievement!
  • Speaker Martin. Where there's a will there's a way. One way would be to threaten him with an EU parliament vote of censure unless he steps down, coordinated through national leaders.

    Of course, he may still last until end of 2019. But no longer.

    There's no will. This is a British Eurosceptic fantasy. Our EU friends don't see it like that - neither countries nor MEPs.

    It's true that there is some tension between the Commission and some countries, and a bit of a power struggle going on. It's also true that there are disagreements about how to handle Brexit, although those disagreements are across countries (and different politicians within countries). Juncker is just one figure in that debate.
    Perhaps not yet, but I think his time will come. He is alienating people across the EU, and his State of the Union speech last week didn't help.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    JonathanD said:

    MTimT said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:

    It's possible that the likes of Juncker will try to push for a like it or lump it, everything-or-nothing, deal but I think he'd be sacrificed ahead of the interests of the major EU member states.

    Except some will argue it's not in "the interests of the major EU member states" for Brexit to be seen as a success.

    What would stop them following suit?
    Both sides would spin it as a victory. The EU will say the UK is not in the single market now, and must accept EU trade rules unilaterally in order to sell into the bloc. The UK will say we're out of the EU and able to trade with them without tariffs which ensures out industries are safe and we've got restrictions on unskilled migration and access to welfare.
    For Brexit to be both an economic and political success, we need to be free from automatic application of EU regulations on our industry, and we need the ability to negotiate our own trade deals. Accepting 'EU trade rules unilaterally' has to be a non-starter. Unless you mean something else. Obviously, goods sold into the EU have to meet EU standards, and for any type of FTA we'd assume that NTBs would not be allowed.
    Surely for BREXIT to be an economic success, the UK needs to have a higher trend growth after leaving than before, plus a higher trend growth than Germany.
    Avoiding economic disaster (eg unemployment at the rates we saw in the 1980's) counts as a success. We probably will avoid economic disaster, so it will be a success.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Small anecdote - I happened to meet Bill De Blasio while he was campaigning in Prospect Park, he was shaking hands with members of the public as I walked by - he has the limpest handshake of anyone I've ever met. I wouldn't be able to vote for him on that basis alone.

    Does he not also eat pizza with a knife and fork?
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    HYUFD said:

    JonathanD said:

    MTimT said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:

    It's possible that the likes of Juncker will try to push for a like it or lump it, everything-or-nothing, deal but I think he'd be sacrificed ahead of the interests of the major EU member states.

    Except some will argue it's not in "the interests of the major EU member states" for Brexit to be seen as a success.

    What would stop them following suit?
    Both sides would spin it as a victory. The EU will say the UK is not in the single market now, and must accept EU trade rules unilaterally in order to sell into the bloc. The UK will say we're out of the EU and able to trade with them without tariffs which ensures out industries are safe and we've got restrictions on unskilled migration and access to welfare.
    For Brexit to be both an economic and political success, we need to be free from automatic application of EU regulations on our industry, and we need the ability to negotiate our own trade deals. Accepting 'EU trade rules unilaterally' has to be a non-starter. Unless you mean something else. Obviously, goods sold into the EU have to meet EU standards, and for any type of FTA we'd assume that NTBs would not be allowed.
    Surely for BREXIT to be an economic success, the UK needs to have a higher trend growth after leaving than before, plus a higher trend growth than Germany.
    Not for most Leavers, for them the most important thing was to cut immigration
    Not true: the principle that decisions about the uk should be taken in the uk was the most often given reason for voting leave - http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
    Border control came second.

    And anyway he said *economic success".
  • @Casino_Royale

    "For the UK, it will mean more control of free movement of low skilled Labour (I think the Government will discount high skilled)"

    Sorry, Mr. Royale, could you please explain that one too us. What does discount mean in this context? How is the Border Force to know who is high skilled and who is low skilled unless there is some pre-arrival method of checking (aka visas or work permits).

    As ever with these discussions the tricky bit is how does the UK quickly and efficiently remove from its shores those that are in breach of their terms of entry? Unless such people as are deemed undesirable can be thrown out then there is not much point in setting up systems to control who comes in. That would seem to me to require the UK to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the ECtHR.

    It's not for me to justify HMG policy but the intent and direction of it is clear to me from Hammond's statement on free movement of financial workers from the EU a couple of weeks ago:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/08/european-bankers-will-be-exempt-from-migration-curbs-after-brexi/

    I think there may be a salary test, or some form of income bond. Excluding, say, free movement from those on under £40k a year but allowing it for those above.
    I certainly don't expect you or anyone on here to Justify HMG policy, i am just interested in exploring some ideas that people put forward.

    If a person earning more than £x p.a. is to be given easier access to the UK then there has to be a mechanism for determining that the person has a solid job offer that includes a salary of £x+ befor he he is allowed in. That sounds a lot like a visa/work permit system to me and not a "discounted" system of free movement.

    Fair point, but the Government would argue its free movement in all but name above a threshold; just flash your passport and permit (or e-permit) at the UK border and walk straight through.

    Those without get challenged.
  • justin124 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Owen Smith loses, the defeat will be blamed by the non-Corbynites on him. Like @Pulpstar, I think he has only this shot at the prize.

    You'd have to be particularly dense, even by the standard of Labour plotters, to want to propose Owen Smith as your candidate a second time.
    Which means that is exactly what they are going to do!
    Corbyn will be an even heavier favourite next time round. The membership is trending towards him, and dispirited "Saving Labour" members will not renew their subs.
    In addition I think McNicol will be gone as chair of the NEC where Corbyn will further cement control.

    There are also better candidates available, Kinnock (And almost anyone else) springs to mind.
    Not to mention the various proposals for rule changes at Conference this year and next - Corbyn's ideas for the membership to decide the Shadow Cabinet members and key policies only serve to further undermine the Parliamentary Labour Party.
    Personally, I can't see there being another challenge before the last year or so before the next GE now. So summer 2019 perhaps. A last desperate effort to avert disaster. By then it should be clear the scale of what is coming.

    A lot could change, but at moment it seems Labour members are determined to allow, or are unable to stop, the party moving to such a left-wing position that it is utterly unelectable under FPTP, given swing voters, marginal seats etc etc. It is purity over power and purity is winning hands down.

    In a sense it might not matter, as the alternative is social democratic Labour and social democracy is in massive retreat all over Europe, so perhaps a party led by Yvette or Ed Balls or Jarvis would still lose badly.
    Mr. Borough, how would you reconcile your views with those who point out that Labour polling is not actually that bad?
    I am no fan at all of Corbyn , but it may be worth reminding Kinnock - in view of his Panorama comments - of his own electoral record. In 1987 he lost to the Tories by 11.8% and five years later he was defeated by 7.6%. Last week Mori and YouGov had Labour trailing by 6% and 7% respectively - both a bit better than his own acievement!

    You cannot compare an opinion poll with a GE. Labour under Corbyn will be slaughtered at an actual election.

  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400

    Speaker Martin. Where there's a will there's a way. One way would be to threaten him with an EU parliament vote of censure unless he steps down, coordinated through national leaders.

    Of course, he may still last until end of 2019. But no longer.

    There's no will. This is a British Eurosceptic fantasy. Our EU friends don't see it like that - neither countries nor MEPs.

    It's true that there is some tension between the Commission and some countries, and a bit of a power struggle going on. It's also true that there are disagreements about how to handle Brexit, although those disagreements are across countries (and different politicians within countries). Juncker is just one figure in that debate.
    Perhaps not yet, but I think his time will come. He is alienating people across the EU, and his State of the Union speech last week didn't help.
    There is a story to be told as to why the UK government was so opposed to his appointment yet the rest of the EU was fine with it.

    In EU terms 2019 is close enough that I'd guess that while he won't get re-appointed, he isn't going to get summarily dismissed either. I'm sure that would set a bad precedent and he is a too useful a scape goat for anything that goes wrong for others to want to get rid of him.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited September 2016
    I notice Canada has become the new Sweden in some circles...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37406857
  • The institutional mood of the EU can be judged by the choice of Guy Verhofstadt as the European Parliament's negotiator. Wanting to take a hard line on Britain is a mainstream view.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Off-topic:

    I'm on the market for a new gaming PC, and I was wondering if anyone here could give some advice on suppliers (ISTR this has been talked about before). I can't be faffed to assemble myself, but would like names of reliable, reputable gaming system builders.

    Also, if anyone has any advice on what to look for, or not. Price range £1,000 to 1,500, not including monitor, keyboard and other peripherals. As it's a gaming PC, good graphics are a must (i.e. GTX 980 performance min). Processor less important, but would like an i7 ideally. Good power supply a must.

    TIA. Doing my part for the post-Brexit vote economy by spending money that would otherwise just sit in the bank gaining cobwebs and f'all interest. :)

    Scan's 3XS systems are superb, can highly, highly recommend them

    https://www.scan.co.uk/3xs

    Look at customizing one of their Value Gaming range rather than Custom Pro Gaming computers as the Pro Gaming range come with unnecessary bollocks like fancy cases and LED lighting
  • MTimT said:

    MaxPB said:

    Governor Cuomo is now saying there is a foreign link to the bombs/bombers. Bill de Blassio is looking like a right tit today. I don't understand the rush to dissociate probable terrorism from terroists. It seems completely ridiculous.

    He is the mayor who, upon assuming office, decided that getting rid of horse-drawn carriages from Central Park was the city's top priority.
    Small anecdote - I happened to meet Bill De Blasio while he was campaigning in Prospect Park, he was shaking hands with members of the public as I walked by - he has the limpest handshake of anyone I've ever met. I wouldn't be able to vote for him on that basis alone.
    Donald Trump famously avoids shaking hands, for fear of catching something.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    justin124 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Owen Smith loses, the defeat will be blamed by the non-Corbynites on him. Like @Pulpstar, I think he has only this shot at the prize.

    You'd have to be particularly dense, even by the standard of Labour plotters, to want to propose Owen Smith as your candidate a second time.
    Which means that is exactly what they are going to do!
    Corbyn will be an even heavier favourite next time round. The membership is trending towards him, and dispirited "Saving Labour" members will not renew their subs.
    In addition I think McNicol will be gone as chair of the NEC where Corbyn will further cement control.

    There are also better candidates available, Kinnock (And almost anyone else) springs to mind.
    Not to mention the various proposals for rule changes at Conference this year and next - Corbyn's ideas for the membership to decide the Shadow Cabinet members and key policies only serve to further undermine the Parliamentary Labour Party.
    Personally, I can't see there being another challenge before the last year or so before the next GE now. So summer 2019 perhaps. A last desperate effort to avert disaster. By then it should be clear the scale of what is coming.

    A lot could change, but at moment it seems Labour members are determined to allow, or are unable to stop, the party moving to such a left-wing position that it is utterly unelectable under FPTP, given swing voters, marginal seats etc etc. It is purity over power and purity is winning hands down.

    In a sense it might not matter, as the alternative is social democratic Labour and social democracy is in massive retreat all over Europe, so perhaps a party led by Yvette or Ed Balls or Jarvis would still lose badly.
    Mr. Borough, how would you reconcile your views with those who point out that Labour polling is not actually that bad?
    I am no fan at all of Corbyn , but it may be worth reminding Kinnock - in view of his Panorama comments - of his own electoral record. In 1987 he lost to the Tories by 11.8% and five years later he was defeated by 7.6%. Last week Mori and YouGov had Labour trailing by 6% and 7% respectively - both a bit better than his own acievement!
    Kinnock took Labour from 28% when he took over to 34% when he left. Corbyn has taken Labour right back to 28% again in some polls. Kinnock set the way for Blair and the 1997 Labour landslide, Corbyn may set the way for Labour's destruction
  • Pong said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    I'm shocked

    J Peter Donald
    Wanted: Ahmad Khan Rahami, 28 year old male, is being sought in connection with the Chelsea bombing. #nyc https://t.co/hSxhMqO7Qh

    Known locally as Dave, long history of mental health problems and not a very good Muslim often seen drinking / doing drugs and even might be gay.
    As opposed to Tom from Batley, who, it turns out, didn't have mental health problems when he dispatched Jo Cox.

    Just an ordinary fascist.
    Within normal statistical parameters, probably wouldn't have been reported if hadn't been for the Brexit vote. ©PB Brexitories
  • MaxPB said:

    Governor Cuomo is now saying there is a foreign link to the bombs/bombers. Bill de Blassio is looking like a right tit today. I don't understand the rush to dissociate probable terrorism from terroists. It seems completely ridiculous.

    PlatoSaid said:

    Small donations in play

    "The supporters of Candidate Donald Trump have crushed all historic fundraising records for small (under $200/per) “grass roots” donations. Over 2.1 million individual small donations in 3 months.

    For perspective Hillary and Bill Clinton’s small donor base is 2.3 million, as accumulated over their political lifetimes. Donald Trump has amassed a group of 2.1 million small donor contributors since July – 3 months ago – the date of his first email request."

    Interestingly, I've never seen his fundraising tweets - and many pro Trump tweets re YouTube never appear. I've tried it several times to check.

    Those who dismissed this sort of pro Hillary media bias are wrong. I find it really disappointing that this sort of manipulation is going on.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/09/19/trump-shatters-all-prior-gop-fundraising-records-2-1-million-small-donations-in-90-days/

    PlatoSaid said:

    Small donations in play

    "The supporters of Candidate Donald Trump have crushed all historic fundraising records for small (under $200/per) “grass roots” donations. Over 2.1 million individual small donations in 3 months.

    For perspective Hillary and Bill Clinton’s small donor base is 2.3 million, as accumulated over their political lifetimes. Donald Trump has amassed a group of 2.1 million small donor contributors since July – 3 months ago – the date of his first email request."

    Interestingly, I've never seen his fundraising tweets - and many pro Trump tweets re YouTube never appear. I've tried it several times to check.

    Those who dismissed this sort of pro Hillary media bias are wrong. I find it really disappointing that this sort of manipulation is going on.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/09/19/trump-shatters-all-prior-gop-fundraising-records-2-1-million-small-donations-in-90-days/

    FFS, it's an algorithm. There's no bias, it's just reflecting the fact that most Twitter users are not pro-Trump so his tweets don't trend as much.
  • MTimT said:

    MaxPB said:

    Governor Cuomo is now saying there is a foreign link to the bombs/bombers. Bill de Blassio is looking like a right tit today. I don't understand the rush to dissociate probable terrorism from terroists. It seems completely ridiculous.

    He is the mayor who, upon assuming office, decided that getting rid of horse-drawn carriages from Central Park was the city's top priority.
    Small anecdote - I happened to meet Bill De Blasio while he was campaigning in Prospect Park, he was shaking hands with members of the public as I walked by - he has the limpest handshake of anyone I've ever met. I wouldn't be able to vote for him on that basis alone.
    Donald Trump famously avoids shaking hands, for fear of catching something.
    His infamously tiny hands probably make for a weird handshake anyway ;-)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    justin124 said:

    A pivotal moment. Had Harman not been elected Deputy Leader she would not have been Acting Leader in July 2015, and Labour would have avoided her disastrous decision to abstain on Osborne's Welfare proposals as set out in his July Budget. Without that Corbyn would not have been propelled into the Leadership by the outrage that stemmed from that decision.

    Corbyn was going to run anyway
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    FREEEEEEEEEDOOOOO.....

    Oh, wait

    @lindayueh: Dep 1st minister: 2nd Scottish independence referendum unlikely to be held until #Brexit negotiations are completed https://t.co/HJcMMoMO34
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Ishmael_X said:

    HYUFD said:

    JonathanD said:

    MTimT said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:

    It's possible that the likes of Juncker will try to push for a like it or lump it, everything-or-nothing, deal but I think he'd be sacrificed ahead of the interests of the major EU member states.

    Except some will argue it's not in "the interests of the major EU member states" for Brexit to be seen as a success.

    What would stop them following suit?
    Both sides would spin it as a victory. The EU will say the UK is not in the single market now, and must accept EU trade rules unilaterally in order to sell into the bloc. The UK will say we're out of the EU and able to trade with them without tariffs which ensures out industries are safe and we've got restrictions on unskilled migration and access to welfare.
    For Brexit to be both an economic and political success, we need to be free from automatic application of EU regulations on our industry, and we need the ability to negotiate our own trade deals. Accepting 'EU trade rules unilaterally' has to be a non-starter. Unless you mean something else. Obviously, goods sold into the EU have to meet EU standards, and for any type of FTA we'd assume that NTBs would not be allowed.
    Surely for BREXIT to be an economic success, the UK needs to have a higher trend growth after leaving than before, plus a higher trend growth than Germany.
    Not for most Leavers, for them the most important thing was to cut immigration
    Not true: the principle that decisions about the uk should be taken in the uk was the most often given reason for voting leave - http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
    Border control came second.

    And anyway he said *economic success".
    The two are interlinked and immigration remains the top political issue
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited September 2016
    SienaCollege Poll has Hilary +1 in Florida , field work 10th-to-14th so mostly after the Clinton Collapse.

    https://www.siena.edu/news-events/article/clinton-41-trump-40-in-four-way-sunshine-state-race
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    The institutional mood of the EU can be judged by the choice of Guy Verhofstadt as the European Parliament's negotiator. Wanting to take a hard line on Britain is a mainstream view.

    Amongst some of the elites, with Le Pen leading French polls, Wilders in the Netherlands, 5☆ in Italy near the top and the AfD on the rise in Germany the people may think differently, they do not want an easy ride for the UK but want the EU to reform too and come to a reasonable deal. Of course the harder line the EU takes the harder line the UK will take restricting access of EU goods to the UK in response
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited September 2016

    justin124 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Owen Smith loses, the defeat will be blamed by the non-Corbynites on him. Like @Pulpstar, I think he has only this shot at the prize.

    You'd have to be particularly dense, even by the standard of Labour plotters, to want to propose Owen Smith as your candidate a second time.
    Which means that is exactly what they are going to do!
    Corbyn will be an even heavier favourite next time round. The membership is trending towards him, and dispirited "Saving Labour" members will not renew their subs.
    In addition I think McNicol will be gone as chair of the NEC where Corbyn will further cement control.

    There are also better candidates available, Kinnock (And almost anyone else) springs to mind.

    In a sense it might not matter, as the alternative is social democratic Labour and social democracy is in massive retreat all over Europe, so perhaps a party led by Yvette or Ed Balls or Jarvis would still lose badly.
    Mr. Borough, how would you reconcile your views with those who point out that Labour polling is not actually that bad?
    I am no fan at all of Corbyn , but it may be worth reminding Kinnock - in view of his Panorama comments - of his own electoral record. In 1987 he lost to the Tories by 11.8% and five years later he was defeated by 7.6%. Last week Mori and YouGov had Labour trailing by 6% and 7% respectively - both a bit better than his own acievement!

    You cannot compare an opinion poll with a GE. Labour under Corbyn will be slaughtered at an actual election.

    I don't have high expectations of Corbyn outperforming during an election campaign, but I am also far from convinced that May will shine in that environment - a view reinforced by last week's PMQs. If we look back at elections since World War 2, most campaigns have favoured the Opposition rather than the incumbent - the exceptions being 2015 - 1992 - 1979 - and 1951.
    Even on the basis of polls, however, Kinnock is not well placed to comment. At the same stage of the 1987 Parliament - late October 1988 - the polls were giving the Tories a lead of between 9 and 11.5%.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938

    The institutional mood of the EU can be judged by the choice of Guy Verhofstadt as the European Parliament's negotiator. Wanting to take a hard line on Britain is a mainstream view.

    The direction of travel for the EU in terms of negotiating will depend very much more on the collective will of the council of ministers - the leaderships of the member states. They will have specific interests which they wish to safeguard, but the most important of those will be the trade and financial flows which the UK is involved in.

    I don't doubt that they will put on a stern face, (hence Verhofstadt), but they will not act against their own national best interest to 'further the project' -nor will they attempt to offer up some kind of punishment beating as was alleged before the referendum.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    "A former student has appeared at the Old Bailey accused of planning to launch an Islamic State-inspired nail-bomb attack in central London.

    Haroon Ali Syed, 19, appeared via video link from Belmarsh high-security prison in southeast London. The teenager, from Hounslow in west London, was arrested at his home on the morning of 8 September. He was charged under the terrorism act five days later.

    The Crown alleges that he planned to detonate a nail-bomb, targeting shoppers on London's busy Oxford Street.

    http://news.sky.com/story/man-in-court-over-alleged-nail-bomb-plot-targeting-oxford-street-10584918
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Off-topic:

    I'm on the market for a new gaming PC, and I was wondering if anyone here could give some advice on suppliers (ISTR this has been talked about before). I can't be faffed to assemble myself, but would like names of reliable, reputable gaming system builders.

    Also, if anyone has any advice on what to look for, or not. Price range £1,000 to 1,500, not including monitor, keyboard and other peripherals. As it's a gaming PC, good graphics are a must (i.e. GTX 980 performance min). Processor less important, but would like an i7 ideally. Good power supply a must.

    TIA. Doing my part for the post-Brexit vote economy by spending money that would otherwise just sit in the bank gaining cobwebs and f'all interest. :)

    Mr. Jessop, I would earnestly commend to you the company Chillblast. I got put on to them by a mate of mine who had heard about them from a another mate of his. I looked at their website and not being technically minded I couldn't decide which of their machines suited me best. So I rang them up.

    I wanted a games machine that would be top notch now and allow a bit of future proofing. We chatted about what games I played and we agreed on a spec that was, "Skyrim on max settings, running silky smooth" (this was a few years ago). The chap I was talking to was obviously a game player himself because he he knew exactly what I meant. He emailed me a spec I said go for it and about four years later I am still using the same machine and it has coped with all the games that have come out in between (the graphics on Elite Dangerous were so good, I sometimes used to sit there and just look at them).

    So I would recommend that you talk to Chillblast, a company of gamers who build machines for gamers.

    https://www.chillblast.com/

    P.S. For your budget I am sure they will do something very nice, but talk to them explain your gaming needs. A set up like mine, now running three screens for flight sims (I did mention future proofing), may not be what you want.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    A pivotal moment. Had Harman not been elected Deputy Leader she would not have been Acting Leader in July 2015, and Labour would have avoided her disastrous decision to abstain on Osborne's Welfare proposals as set out in his July Budget. Without that Corbyn would not have been propelled into the Leadership by the outrage that stemmed from that decision.

    Corbyn was going to run anyway
    Indeed - but the point is that he would not have won! Without Harman's poor judgement he would have done no better than a fairly distant third behind Burnham /Cooper.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Owen Smith loses, the defeat will be blamed by the non-Corbynites on him. Like @Pulpstar, I think he has only this shot at the prize.

    You'd have to be particularly dense, even by the standard of Labour plotters, to want to propose Owen Smith as your candidate a second time.
    Which means that is exactly what they are going to do!
    Corbyn will be an even heavier favourite next time round. The membership is trending towards him, and dispirited "Saving Labour" members will not renew their subs.
    In addition I think McNicol will be gone as chair of the NEC where Corbyn will further cement control.

    There are also better candidates available, Kinnock (And almost anyone else) springs to mind.

    In a sense it might not matter, as the alternative is social democratic Labour and social democracy is in massive retreat all over Europe, so perhaps a party led by Yvette or Ed Balls or Jarvis would still lose badly.
    Mr. Borough, how would you reconcile your views with those who point out that Labour polling is not actually that bad?
    I am no fan at all of Corbyn , but it may be worth reminding Kinnock - in view of his Panorama comments - of his own electoral record. In 1987 he lost to the Tories by 11.8% and five years later he was defeated by 7.6%. Last week Mori and YouGov had Labour trailing by 6% and 7% respectively - both a bit better than his own acievement!

    You cannot compare an opinion poll with a GE. Labour under Corbyn will be slaughtered at an actual election.

    I don't have high expectations of Corbyn outperforming during an election campaign, but I am also far from convinced that May will shine in that environment - a view reinforced by last week's PMQs. If we look back at elections since World War 2 most campaigns have favoured the Opposition rather than the incumbent - the exceptions being 2015 - 1992 - 1979 - and 1951.
    If even on the basis of polls, however, Kinnock is not well placed to comment. At the same stage of the 1987 Parliament - late October 1988 - the polls were giving the Tories a lead of between 9 and 11.5%.
    Kinnock was of course left with the worst ever Labour performance in 1983 and a party rife with Militant to clean up. Even Miliband left Corbyn a better legacy than Foot did and Corbyn seems determined to take Labour back to Foot levels
  • Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Small donations in play

    "The supporters of Candidate Donald Trump have crushed all historic fundraising records for small (under $200/per) “grass roots” donations. Over 2.1 million individual small donations in 3 months.

    For perspective Hillary and Bill Clinton’s small donor base is 2.3 million, as accumulated over their political lifetimes. Donald Trump has amassed a group of 2.1 million small donor contributors since July – 3 months ago – the date of his first email request.

    Interestingly, I've never seen his fundraising tweets - and many pro Trump tweets re YouTube never appear. I've tried it several times to check.

    Those who dismissed this sort of pro Hillary media bias are wrong. I find it really disappointing that this sort of manipulation is going on.

    "The supporters of Candidate Donald Trump have crushed all historic fundraising records for small (under $200/per) “grass roots” donations. Over 2.1 million individual small donations in 3 months.

    For perspective Hillary and Bill Clinton’s small donor base is 2.3 million, as accumulated over their political lifetimes. Donald Trump has amassed a group of 2.1 million small donor contributors since July – 3 months ago – the date of his first email request.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/09/19/trump-shatters-all-prior-gop-fundraising-records-2-1-million-small-donations-in-90-days/

    ''Careless' Hillary' has been debiting the accounts of her donors without authorisation.
    https://mic.com/articles/150640/donald-trump-donations-how-to-stop-recurring-payments-credit-cards#.BAPbug7Lv
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    The LA Times is the only poll that has picked up a shift in the Trump African American vote from noise (about 4%) to near 20%.

    It is either completely visionary and will rewrite the rules on how to conduct polling, or it's wrong.
  • MaxPB said:

    FPT

    On the UK-EU deal I think it will ultimately come down to realpolitik but with all sides being able to save face.

    For the EU, that will mean the UK doesn't have the same *level* of unrestricted free access to the single market whilst outside the EU, and less say in its rules.

    For the UK, it will mean more control of free movement of low skilled Labour (I think the Government will discount high skilled) a more independent trade policy, and good access for financial services but an obvious new political relationship with the EU.

    Once we get past that the size of the UK economy, its importance as a major services centre in Europe, its global trade links, and the need for its cooperation in security and defence across the continent will take over.

    It's possible that the likes of Juncker will try to push for a like it or lump it, everything-or-nothing, deal but I think he'd be sacrificed ahead of the interests of the major EU member states.

    His comments on the EU being willing to take economic hardship in order to punish the UK have gone down extremely poorly across the bloc.
    In actual fact, the best policy for the EU (meaning the institutions of the EU) is to do everything in its power to tie the UK into as many EU strictures, projects, and fees as possible. And going alongside that, the 'benefits' of single market access, which as the BOP indicates, work much more in the EU's favour than in the UK's. EU-Max as it were. This will prevent the UK from becoming an embarrassing turbo-capitalist Singapore in the EU's doorstep, and demonstrate that all leaving does is create the much-vaunted 'government by fax'. This is a prize for the EU that is well worth finding a compromise on immigration for.

    Thankfully what it looks like they'll do is throw a tantrum instead, forcing hard Brexit and a Britain that once again chooses 'the open seas'.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    A pivotal moment. Had Harman not been elected Deputy Leader she would not have been Acting Leader in July 2015, and Labour would have avoided her disastrous decision to abstain on Osborne's Welfare proposals as set out in his July Budget. Without that Corbyn would not have been propelled into the Leadership by the outrage that stemmed from that decision.

    Corbyn was going to run anyway
    Indeed - but the point is that he would not have won! Without Harman's poor judgement he would have done no better than a fairly distant third behind Burnham /Cooper.
    The likes of Field and Khan would certainly still have nominated him and he would still have won the membership easily
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited September 2016
    A top Corbynista can be revealed as a convicted criminal who was given a suspended sentence for his role in a violent bank attack. Aaron Bastani, who runs Jeremy Corbyn’s favoured ‘new media’ outlet Novara Media, has had a string of brushes with the law.

    http://order-order.com/2016/09/19/top-corbynista-convicted-role-bank-attack/

    Guy is formally the organizer of UK UnCut protests. I am sure I read somewhere that he had been invited onto Question Time as well.
  • JonathanD said:

    Speaker Martin. Where there's a will there's a way. One way would be to threaten him with an EU parliament vote of censure unless he steps down, coordinated through national leaders.

    Of course, he may still last until end of 2019. But no longer.

    There's no will. This is a British Eurosceptic fantasy. Our EU friends don't see it like that - neither countries nor MEPs.

    It's true that there is some tension between the Commission and some countries, and a bit of a power struggle going on. It's also true that there are disagreements about how to handle Brexit, although those disagreements are across countries (and different politicians within countries). Juncker is just one figure in that debate.
    Perhaps not yet, but I think his time will come. He is alienating people across the EU, and his State of the Union speech last week didn't help.
    There is a story to be told as to why the UK government was so opposed to his appointment yet the rest of the EU was fine with it.

    In EU terms 2019 is close enough that I'd guess that while he won't get re-appointed, he isn't going to get summarily dismissed either. I'm sure that would set a bad precedent and he is a too useful a scape goat for anything that goes wrong for others to want to get rid of him.
    A lot has changed since 2014.
  • HYUFD said:

    Labour finally coming round to ending free movement?

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/19/labour-urged-to-make-immigration-controls-a-key-brexit-demand

    Fear of UKIP in Labour seats.

    How many Tory seats would be in danger from UKIP if there was a 'betrayal' over immigration? May be a better bet for the tories to go soft brexit, induce a betrayal, which ends up swapping out a bunch of labour seats for UKIP ones, with minimal damage to themselves.

    This also helps put some clear yellow water between the Lib Dems and Labour. LDs for full EEA keeping FM and single market, Labour against it.

    Plenty of Tory marginals in Essex and Kent and the East Midlands and South West where UKIP are a threat too
    I suspect this is what the grammar school policy is about (along with similar policies not yet unveiled).

    Throwing enough red meat to kipper inclined voters that May will still get a decent majority in 2020 after a soft brexit with us still in EEA/EFTA and largely following EEA/EFTA immigration rules
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Owen Smith loses, the defeat will be blamed by the non-Corbynites on him. Like @Pulpstar, I think he has only this shot at the prize.

    !


    There are also better candidates available, Kinnock (And almost anyone else) springs to mind.

    In a sense it might not matter, as the alternative is social democratic Labour and social democracy is in massive retreat all over Europe, so perhaps a party led by Yvette or Ed Balls or Jarvis would still lose badly.
    Mr. Borough, how would you reconcile your views with those who point out that Labour polling is not actually that bad?
    I am no fan at all of Corbyn , but it may be worth reminding Kinnock - in view of his Panorama comments - of his own electoral record. In 1987 he lost to the Tories by 11.8% and five years later he was defeated by 7.6%. Last week Mori and YouGov had Labour trailing by 6% and 7% respectively - both a bit better than his own acievement!

    You cannot compare an opinion poll with a GE. Labour under Corbyn will be slaughtered at an actual election.

    I don't have high expectations of Corbyn outperforming during an election campaign, but I am also far from convinced that May will shine in that environment - a view reinforced by last week's PMQs. If we look back at elections since World War 2 most campaigns have favoured the Opposition rather than the incumbent - the exceptions being 2015 - 1992 - 1979 - and 1951.
    If even on the basis of polls, however, Kinnock is not well placed to comment. At the same stage of the 1987 Parliament - late October 1988 - the polls were giving the Tories a lead of between 9 and 11.5%.
    Kinnock was of course left with the worst ever Labour performance in 1983 and a party rife with Militant to clean up. Even Miliband left Corbyn a better legacy than Foot did and Corbyn seems determined to take Labour back to Foot levels
    That does not explain his poor performance for two years following the 1987 election.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    HYUFD said:

    JonathanD said:

    MTimT said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:

    It's possible that the likes of Juncker will try to push for a like it or lump it, everything-or-nothing, deal but I think he'd be sacrificed ahead of the interests of the major EU member states.

    Except some will argue it's not in "the interests of the major EU member states" for Brexit to be seen as a success.

    What would stop them following suit?
    Both sides would spin it as a victory. The EU will say the UK is not in the single market now, and must accept EU trade rules unilaterally in order to sell into the bloc. The UK will say we're out of the EU and able to trade with them without tariffs which ensures out industries are safe and we've got restrictions on unskilled migration and access to welfare.
    For Brexit to be both an economic and political success, we need to be free from automatic application of EU regulations on our industry, and we need the ability to negotiate our own trade deals. Accepting 'EU trade rules unilaterally' has to be a non-starter. Unless you mean something else. Obviously, goods sold into the EU have to meet EU standards, and for any type of FTA we'd assume that NTBs would not be allowed.
    Surely for BREXIT to be an economic success, the UK needs to have a higher trend growth after leaving than before, plus a higher trend growth than Germany.
    Not for most Leavers, for them the most important thing was to cut immigration
    Not true: the principle that decisions about the uk should be taken in the uk was the most often given reason for voting leave - http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
    Border control came second.

    And anyway he said *economic success".
    The two are interlinked and immigration remains the top political issue
    Those questioned by Ashcroft were expressly offered immigration as a "main reason"; 33% chose it, against 49% who chose decision making. What do you mean "immigration remains the top political issue", and how do you know?
  • I notice Canada has become the new Sweden in some circles...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37406857

    It's normally around this time in the US electoral cycle that lots of stories start to appear in the press about US citizens wanting to mass emigrate to Canada.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    A top Corbynista can be revealed as a convicted criminal who was given a suspended sentence for his role in a violent bank attack. Aaron Bastani, who runs Jeremy Corbyn’s favoured ‘new media’ outlet Novara Media, has had a string of brushes with the law.

    http://order-order.com/2016/09/19/top-corbynista-convicted-role-bank-attack/

    Guy is formally the organizer of UK UnCut protests. I am sure I read somewhere that he had been invited onto Question Time as well.

    Kinder, gentler politics.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Owen Smith loses, the defeat will be blamed by the non-Corbynites on him. Like @Pulpstar, I think he has only this shot at the prize.

    !


    There are also better candidates available, Kinnock (And almost anyone else) springs to mind.

    In a sense it might not matter, as the alternative is social democratic Labour and social democracy is in massive retreat all over Europe, so perhaps a party led by Yvette or Ed Balls or Jarvis would still lose badly.
    Mr. Borough, how would you reconcile your views with those who point out that Labour polling is not actually that bad?
    I am no fan at all of Corbyn , but it may be worth reminding Kinnock - in view of his Panorama comments - of his own electoral record. In 1987 he lost to the Tories by 11.8% and five years later he was defeated by 7.6%. Last week Mori and YouGov had Labour trailing by 6% and 7% respectively - both a bit better than his own acievement!

    You cannot compare an opinion poll with a GE. Labour under Corbyn will be slaughtered at an actual election.

    I don't have high expectations of Corbyn outperforming during an election campaign, but I am also far from convinced that May will shine in that environment - a view reinforced by last week's PMQs. If we look back at elections since World War 2 most campaigns have favoured the Opposition rather than the incumbent - the exceptions being 2015 - 1992 - 1979 - and 1951.
    If even on the basis of polls, however, Kinnock is not well placed to comment. At the same stage of the 1987 Parliament - late October 1988 - the polls were giving the Tories a lead of between 9 and 11.5%.
    Kinnock was of course left with the worst ever Labour performance in 1983 and a party rife with Militant to clean up. Even Miliband left Corbyn a better legacy than Foot did and Corbyn seems determined to take Labour back to Foot levels
    That does not explain his poor performance for two years following the 1987 election.
    Thatcher had a post general election poll bounce but by 1990 Kinnock was on over 50% in the polls and only Thatcher's downfall and replacement by Major stopped him becoming PM. Get back to me when Corbyn is polling that high!
  • I notice Canada has become the new Sweden in some circles...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37406857

    Actually, now I think about it, that's a remarkably partisan article - even by Gavin Hewitt's standards.

    Perhaps he wants a job with Trudeau?
  • Squabbling over MOE stuff decades after the event. There's straws and then there's Justin124 straws!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    Labour finally coming round to ending free movement?

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/19/labour-urged-to-make-immigration-controls-a-key-brexit-demand

    Fear of UKIP in Labour seats.

    How many Tory seats would be in danger from UKIP if there was a 'betrayal' over immigration? May be a better bet for the tories to go soft brexit, induce a betrayal, which ends up swapping out a bunch of labour seats for UKIP ones, with minimal damage to themselves.

    This also helps put some clear yellow water between the Lib Dems and Labour. LDs for full EEA keeping FM and single market, Labour against it.

    Plenty of Tory marginals in Essex and Kent and the East Midlands and South West where UKIP are a threat too
    I suspect this is what the grammar school policy is about (along with similar policies not yet unveiled).

    Throwing enough red meat to kipper inclined voters that May will still get a decent majority in 2020 after a soft brexit with us still in EEA/EFTA and largely following EEA/EFTA immigration rules
    Maybe but I doubt we will fully be in the EEA though maybe fully in EFTA
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Ishmael_X said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    HYUFD said:

    JonathanD said:

    MTimT said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:

    It's possible that the likes of Juncker will try to push for a like it or lump it, everything-or-nothing, deal but I think he'd be sacrificed ahead of the interests of the major EU member states.

    Except some will argue it's not in "the interests of the major EU member states" for Brexit to be seen as a success.

    What would stop them following suit?
    Both sides would spin it as a victory. The EU will say the UK is not in the single market now, and must accept EU trade rules unilaterally in order to sell into the bloc. The UK will say we're out of the EU and able to trade with them without tariffs which ensures out industries are safe and we've got restrictions on unskilled migration and access to welfare.
    For Brexit to be both an economic and political success, we need to be free from automatic application of EU regulations on our industry, and we need the ability to negotiate our own trade deals. Accepting 'EU trade rules unilaterally' has to be a non-starter. Unless you mean something else. Obviously, goods sold into the EU have to meet EU standards, and for any type of FTA we'd assume that NTBs would not be allowed.
    Surely for BREXIT to be an economic success, the UK needs to have a higher trend growth after leaving than before, plus a higher trend growth than Germany.
    Not for most Leavers, for them the most important thing was to cut immigration
    Not true: the principle that decisions about the uk should be taken in the uk was the most often given reason for voting leave - http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
    Border control came second.

    And anyway he said *economic success".
    The two are interlinked and immigration remains the top political issue
    Those questioned by Ashcroft were expressly offered immigration as a "main reason"; 33% chose it, against 49% who chose decision making. What do you mean "immigration remains the top political issue", and how do you know?
    The August polling on top political issues which was a thread only a few weeks ago. Immigration was the top issue in it
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    The Britannia required 250 crew to serve one or two Important People. That's enough to man two of the new frigates and those sailors are supposed to fight.
  • PlatoSaid said:

    A top Corbynista can be revealed as a convicted criminal who was given a suspended sentence for his role in a violent bank attack. Aaron Bastani, who runs Jeremy Corbyn’s favoured ‘new media’ outlet Novara Media, has had a string of brushes with the law.

    http://order-order.com/2016/09/19/top-corbynista-convicted-role-bank-attack/

    Guy is formally the organizer of UK UnCut protests. I am sure I read somewhere that he had been invited onto Question Time as well.

    Kinder, gentler politics.
    "confirmed he was convicted of a public order offence and received a suspended sentence."

    I see the authorities really took him to town on his criminal activities....a bit like Double Barrel Lives Matter poshos last week.
  • She is storing up a lot of trouble for herself.

    I'm on both Boris and Osborne as PM after the next GE at 50/1 and 200/1 respectively at the moment and am happy with both positions.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    A pivotal moment. Had Harman not been elected Deputy Leader she would not have been Acting Leader in July 2015, and Labour would have avoided her disastrous decision to abstain on Osborne's Welfare proposals as set out in his July Budget. Without that Corbyn would not have been propelled into the Leadership by the outrage that stemmed from that decision.

    Corbyn was going to run anyway
    Indeed - but the point is that he would not have won! Without Harman's poor judgement he would have done no better than a fairly distant third behind Burnham /Cooper.
    The likes of Field and Khan would certainly still have nominated him and he would still have won the membership easily
    I disagree. He would still have gained the required number of nominations, but he would not have found himself in a position where he was the only one of the four candidates to vote against the Welfare proposals. That is what generated all the momentum for him , and made it possible to accuse the other three candidates of being 'Torylite' as a result of going along with Harman as Shadow Cabinet members. With hindsight Cooper and Burnham ought to have stood down from the Shadow Cabinet for the campaign and so freed themselves up to oppose Harman's line. Last year Corbyn was able to say 'I am the only candidate prepared to take on the Tories!'. Harman has to carry the can for that.
  • I notice Canada has become the new Sweden in some circles...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37406857

    Actually, now I think about it, that's a remarkably partisan article - even by Gavin Hewitt's standards.

    Perhaps he wants a job with Trudeau?
    Trudeau can do no wrong in some circles. I guess with Obama spending all his time on the golf course, they need a new god to worship.
  • 'Remember June 2007' - Yup, I de-lurked as the expression goes. Blimey how the time flies…
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Owen Smith loses, the defeat will be blamed by the non-Corbynites on him. Like @Pulpstar, I think he has only this shot at the prize.

    !


    There are also better candidates available, Kinnock (And almost anyone else) springs to mind.

    In a sense it might not matter, as the alternative is social democratic Labour and social democracy is in massive retreat all over Europe, so perhaps a party led by Yvette or Ed Balls or Jarvis would still lose badly.
    Mr. Borough, how would you reconcile your views with those who point out that Labour polling is not actually that bad?
    I am no fan at all of Corbyn , but it may be worth reminding Kinnock - in view of his Panorama comments - of his own electoral record. In 1987 he lost to the Tories by 11.8% and five years later he was defeated by 7.6%. Last week Mori and YouGov had Labour trailing by 6% and 7% respectively - both a bit better than his own acievement!

    You cannot compare an opinion poll with a GE. Labour under Corbyn will be slaughtered at an actual election.

    I don't have high expectations of Corbyn outperforming during an election campaign, but I am also far from convinced that May will shine in that environment - a view reinforced by last week's PMQs. If we look back at elections since World War 2 most campaigns have favoured the Opposition rather than the incumbent - the exceptions being 2015 - 1992 - 1979 - and 1951.
    If even on the basis of polls, however, Kinnock is not well placed to comment. At the same stage of the 1987 Parliament - late October 1988 - the polls were giving the Tories a lead of between 9 and 11.5%.
    Kinnock was of course left with the worst ever Labour performance in 1983 and a party rife with Militant to clean up. Even Miliband left Corbyn a better legacy than Foot did and Corbyn seems determined to take Labour back to Foot levels
    That does not explain his poor performance for two years following the 1987 election.
    Thatcher had a post general election poll bounce but by 1990 Kinnock was on over 50% in the polls and only Thatcher's downfall and replacement by Major stopped him becoming PM. Get back to me when Corbyn is polling that high!
    Indeed - but not in Autumn 1988 the equivalent point of that Parliament!
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    HYUFD said:

    JonathanD said:

    MTimT said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:

    It's possible that the likes of Juncker will try to push for a like it or lump it, everything-or-nothing, deal but I think he'd be sacrificed ahead of the interests of the major EU member states.

    Except some will argue it's not in "the interests of the major EU member states" for Brexit to be seen as a success.

    What would stop them following suit?
    Both sides would spin it as a victory. The EU will say the UK is not in the single market now, and must accept EU trade rules unilaterally in order to sell into the bloc. The UK will say we're out of the EU and able to trade with them without tariffs which ensures out industries are safe and we've got restrictions on unskilled migration and access to welfare.
    For Brexit to be both an economic and political success, we need to be free from automatic application of EU regulations on our industry, and we need the ability to negotiate our own trade deals. Accepting 'EU trade rules unilaterally' has to be a non-starter. Unless you mean something else. Obviously, goods sold into the EU have to meet EU standards, and for any type of FTA we'd assume that NTBs would not be allowed.
    Surely for BREXIT to be an economic success, the UK needs to have a higher trend growth after leaving than before, plus a higher trend growth than Germany.
    Not for most Leavers, for them the most important thing was to cut immigration
    Not true: the principle that decisions about the uk should be taken in the uk was the most often given reason for voting leave - http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
    Border control came second.

    And anyway he said *economic success".
    The two are interlinked and immigration remains the top political issue
    Those questioned by Ashcroft were expressly offered immigration as a "main reason"; 33% chose it, against 49% who chose decision making. What do you mean "immigration remains the top political issue", and how do you know?
    The August polling on top political issues which was a thread only a few weeks ago. Immigration was the top issue in it
    So not a poll of leavers, then, and what you said initially remains simply not true.
  • On Trots Tots, some more funnies...

    Teletubbies. After repeatedly missing annual quotas for production of Tubby Custard, the heavy industry of Teletubbyland must become more efficient in order to deliver the latest five-year plan. To that end, Tinky Winky has been shot and replaced by a surly but dedicated machinist named Pavel.

    In the Night Garden… The Night Garden has come under threat from ruthless developers, who plan a new airport runway and several thousand unaffordable executive homes. Iggle Piggle and three of the Wottingers were recently arrested after breaking into the Pinky Ponk’s hangar and gluing themselves to its propeller, under the brand of Black Lives Matter UK.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2016/09/eight-childrens-television-programmes-for-the-enjoyment-and-enlightenment-of-momentum-kids.html
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Labour finally coming round to ending free movement?

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/19/labour-urged-to-make-immigration-controls-a-key-brexit-demand

    Fear of UKIP in Labour seats.

    How many Tory seats would be in danger from UKIP if there was a 'betrayal' over immigration? May be a better bet for the tories to go soft brexit, induce a betrayal, which ends up swapping out a bunch of labour seats for UKIP ones, with minimal damage to themselves.

    This also helps put some clear yellow water between the Lib Dems and Labour. LDs for full EEA keeping FM and single market, Labour against it.

    Thurrock and the replacement for Thanet South would be the likeliest. Probably too, in all likelihood, Dover, Castle Point, and Boston.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Michael Deacon
    Revealing interview with the awful current president of the National Union of Students. https://t.co/SpR2ggTkgt https://t.co/xYLp7sQngu
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    wasd said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Owen Smith loses, the defeat will be blamed by the non-Corbynites on him. Like @Pulpstar, I think he has only this shot at the prize.

    You'd have to be particularly dense, even by the standard of Labour plotters, to want to propose Owen Smith as your candidate a second time.
    Which means that is exactly what they are going to do!
    Corbyn will be an even heavier favourite next time round. The membership is trending towards him, and dispirited "Saving Labour" members will not renew their subs.
    In addition I think McNicol will be gone as chair of the NEC where Corbyn will further cement control.

    There are also better candidates available, Kinnock (And almost anyone else) springs to mind.
    Not to mention the various proposals for rule changes at Conference this year and next - Corbyn's ideas for the membership to decide the Shadow Cabinet members and key policies only serve to further undermine the Parliamentary Labour Party.
    Smith started that ball rolling - he was the one who proposed shadow cabinet elections !
    I don't see how the likes of John Woodcock and Dan Jarvis can remain in the PLP. We need a market up on the number of Conference season defections. 2 or 3 looks plausible, I wonder if the LDs have one lined up in the next couple of days.
    I'm not sure why we're expecting defections when just resigning the whip seems more likely. If nothing else 'Labour' > 'Independent Labour' leaves them the opportunity to return to a party that's been home for most of their adult life and that seem to have a fierce love for. 'Labour' > 'Con|LD|Nats' pretty much rules that out.
    Agree that resignations of the whip are more likely over time, but if any defections were to take place, they'd take place over Conference season - nothing like a defector at Conference for a massive cheer from the faithful. Two I'm watching are Woodcock and Carswell.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Damian Counselling
    . @jeremyduns *About A Goy*: Hugh Grant opens a Momentum creche to pick up single mums, accidentally becomes Shadow Minister For Jews.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    I notice Canada has become the new Sweden in some circles...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37406857

    Actually, now I think about it, that's a remarkably partisan article - even by Gavin Hewitt's standards.

    Perhaps he wants a job with Trudeau?
    I daresay that Trudeau is able to cure scrofula too.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Michael Deacon
    Over at the mumsnet webchat, a Corbyn supporter calls for a law to ensure leftleaning newspapers in GP waiting rooms https://t.co/1grezHQlG4
  • A top Corbynista can be revealed as a convicted criminal who was given a suspended sentence for his role in a violent bank attack. Aaron Bastani, who runs Jeremy Corbyn’s favoured ‘new media’ outlet Novara Media, has had a string of brushes with the law.

    http://order-order.com/2016/09/19/top-corbynista-convicted-role-bank-attack/

    Guy is formally the organizer of UK UnCut protests. I am sure I read somewhere that he had been invited onto Question Time as well.

    There's a lot of it about:
    "Mr Lovegrove has served two prison sentences - one for wounding with intent in 1996 and one for actual bodily harm in 2000, the Portsmouth News reported.

    His past has been the subject of heated rows at Ukip meetings"
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Michael Deacon
    Revealing interview with the awful current president of the National Union of Students. https://t.co/SpR2ggTkgt https://t.co/xYLp7sQngu

    She is quite horrendous. A stain on the NUS (which is saying something for one of the worst associations in the UK)
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Michael Deacon
    Over at the mumsnet webchat, a Corbyn supporter calls for a law to ensure leftleaning newspapers in GP waiting rooms https://t.co/1grezHQlG4

    I presume by Left leaning they don't mean the Guardian either, they mean the Morning Star....and Press TV must be on the big screen...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    On the UK-EU deal I think it will ultimately come down to realpolitik but with all sides being able to save face.

    For the EU, that will mean the UK doesn't have the same *level* of unrestricted free access to the single market whilst outside the EU, and less say in its rules.

    For the UK, it will mean more control of free movement of low skilled Labour (I think the Government will discount high skilled) a more independent trade policy, and good access for financial services but an obvious new political relationship with the EU.

    Once we get past that the size of the UK economy, its importance as a major services centre in Europe, its global trade links, and the need for its cooperation in security and defence across the continent will take over.

    It's possible that the likes of Juncker will try to push for a like it or lump it, everything-or-nothing, deal but I think he'd be sacrificed ahead of the interests of the major EU member states.

    His comments on the EU being willing to take economic hardship in order to punish the UK have gone down extremely poorly across the bloc.
    In actual fact, the best policy for the EU (meaning the institutions of the EU) is to do everything in its power to tie the UK into as many EU strictures, projects, and fees as possible. And going alongside that, the 'benefits' of single market access, which as the BOP indicates, work much more in the EU's favour than in the UK's. EU-Max as it were. This will prevent the UK from becoming an embarrassing turbo-capitalist Singapore in the EU's doorstep, and demonstrate that all leaving does is create the much-vaunted 'government by fax'. This is a prize for the EU that is well worth finding a compromise on immigration for.

    Thankfully what it looks like they'll do is throw a tantrum instead, forcing hard Brexit and a Britain that once again chooses 'the open seas'.
    Agree completely. There's nothing the EU (as an institution) would hate more than a successful and prosperous UK, a decade or two down the line from their leaving the EU.
  • "“I don’t know whether it’s necessarily low if we compare it with voter turnout more generally.” After I run through the average turnout for general, mayoral and devolved parliaments, she takes a new tack."

    That is absolutely wonderful.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited September 2016
    deleted
  • About Britannia:

    I wonder which British shipyards have the capability to build a 5,000-tonne+, 400-foot long luxury yacht (if we went for an equivalent)? Appledore? Devonport? Scotsoun / Govan?

    Also, if HMY was as successful as was claimed below and elsewhere in bringing in trade, why was that (e.g. association with the royal family, quality etc), and how could we reproduce it?
  • wasdwasd Posts: 276
    edited September 2016
    Sandpit said:

    wasd said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Owen Smith loses, the defeat will be blamed by the non-Corbynites on him. Like @Pulpstar, I think he has only this shot at the prize.

    You'd have to be particularly dense, even by the standard of Labour plotters, to want to propose Owen Smith as your candidate a second time.
    Which means that is exactly what they are going to do!
    Corbyn will be an even heavier favourite next time round. The membership is trending towards him, and dispirited "Saving Labour" members will not renew their subs.
    In addition I think McNicol will be gone as chair of the NEC where Corbyn will further cement control.

    There are also better candidates available, Kinnock (And almost anyone else) springs to mind.
    Not to mention the various proposals for rule changes at Conference this year and next - Corbyn's ideas for the membership to decide the Shadow Cabinet members and key policies only serve to further undermine the Parliamentary Labour Party.
    Smith started that ball rolling - he was the one who proposed shadow cabinet elections !
    I don't see how the likes of John Woodcock and Dan Jarvis can remain in the PLP. We need a market up on the number of Conference season defections. 2 or 3 looks plausible, I wonder if the LDs have one lined up in the next couple of days.
    I'm not sure why we're expecting defections when just resigning the whip seems more likely. If nothing else 'Labour' > 'Independent Labour' leaves them the opportunity to return to a party that's been home for most of their adult life and that seem to have a fierce love for. 'Labour' > 'Con|LD|Nats' pretty much rules that out.
    Agree that resignations of the whip are more likely over time, but if any defections were to take place, they'd take place over Conference season - nothing like a defector at Conference for a massive cheer from the faithful. Two I'm watching are Woodcock and Carswell.
    A Sheffield man born in the late 70's defecting straight to the Tories? Stranger things have happened though not that many.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    JonathanD said:

    MTimT said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:

    It's possible that the likes of Juncker will try to push for a like it or lump it, everything-or-nothing, deal but I think he'd be sacrificed ahead of the interests of the major EU member states.

    Except some will argue it's not in "the interests of the major EU member states" for Brexit to be seen as a success.

    What would stop them following suit?
    Both sides would spin it as a victory. The EU will say the UK is not in the single market now, and must accept EU trade rules unilaterally in order to sell into the bloc. The UK will say we're out of the EU and able to trade with them without tariffs which ensures out industries are safe and we've got restrictions on unskilled migration and access to welfare.
    For Brexit to be both an economic and political success, we need to be free from automatic application of EU regulations on our industry, and we need the ability to negotiate our own trade deals. Accepting 'EU trade rules unilaterally' has to be a non-starter. Unless you mean something else. Obviously, goods sold into the EU have to meet EU standards, and for any type of FTA we'd assume that NTBs would not be allowed.
    Surely for BREXIT to be an economic success, the UK needs to have a higher trend growth after leaving than before, plus a higher trend growth than Germany.
    Which we won't get if Brexit means staying in the EU without a vote.

    Not sure why it would require both higher trend growth than before and higher than Germany. And your measures assess success merely in aggregate economic terms. There are other measures of success in life.
  • WRT the NUS girl - the ending, where she just blankly repeats the same lines is frustrating and I'm only reading the damned thing.

    See you in Birmingham Ladywood in 2025, I guess.
  • HYUFD said:

    Labour finally coming round to ending free movement?

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/19/labour-urged-to-make-immigration-controls-a-key-brexit-demand

    Fear of UKIP in Labour seats.

    How many Tory seats would be in danger from UKIP if there was a 'betrayal' over immigration? May be a better bet for the tories to go soft brexit, induce a betrayal, which ends up swapping out a bunch of labour seats for UKIP ones, with minimal damage to themselves.

    This also helps put some clear yellow water between the Lib Dems and Labour. LDs for full EEA keeping FM and single market, Labour against it.

    Plenty of Tory marginals in Essex and Kent and the East Midlands and South West where UKIP are a threat too
    I suspect this is what the grammar school policy is about (along with similar policies not yet unveiled).

    Throwing enough red meat to kipper inclined voters that May will still get a decent majority in 2020 after a soft brexit with us still in EEA/EFTA and largely following EEA/EFTA immigration rules
    Grammar schools may be popular with kipper-leaning Tory activists but I'd need some convincing they'd swing a single UKIP voter back to the Conservatives. Most people don't have school-aged children and most of the ones that do probably want their local school to improve rather than yet another upheaval. Most voters old enough to remember grammar schools will themselves have gone to secondary moderns.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,819
    I get the feeling she's quite enjoying publicly shooting down her cabinet ministers. She's done it with several of them now. A power play to show who's boss. Same reason Osborne's sacking was so public.
  • “As far I’m concerned, I’m just a journalist who happens to see the challenge to Corbyn exactly in the same terms as I saw the Miners’ Strike... The question was, on day one, which side are you on?”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/paul-mason-fleet-streets-rebel-with-a-cause-on-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-media_uk_57daa890e4b0d584f7f03a7b
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024

    PlatoSaid said:

    A top Corbynista can be revealed as a convicted criminal who was given a suspended sentence for his role in a violent bank attack. Aaron Bastani, who runs Jeremy Corbyn’s favoured ‘new media’ outlet Novara Media, has had a string of brushes with the law.

    http://order-order.com/2016/09/19/top-corbynista-convicted-role-bank-attack/

    Guy is formally the organizer of UK UnCut protests. I am sure I read somewhere that he had been invited onto Question Time as well.

    Kinder, gentler politics.
    "confirmed he was convicted of a public order offence and received a suspended sentence."

    I see the authorities really took him to town on his criminal activities....a bit like Double Barrel Lives Matter poshos last week.
    Yeah buy poshos always get away with crime, what's new?
  • WRT the NUS girl - the ending, where she just blankly repeats the same lines is frustrating and I'm only reading the damned thing.

    See you in Birmingham Ladywood in 2025, I guess.

    Corbyn will move her straight to the Lords - in charge of re-educating the masses.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    I notice Canada has become the new Sweden in some circles...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37406857

    It's normally around this time in the US electoral cycle that lots of stories start to appear in the press about US citizens wanting to mass emigrate to Canada.

    Only fair, given that every successful Canadian broadcaster and entertainer ends up in the US.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    WRT the NUS girl - the ending, where she just blankly repeats the same lines is frustrating and I'm only reading the damned thing.

    See you in Birmingham Ladywood in 2025, I guess.

    Corbyn will move her straight to the Lords - in charge of re-educating the masses.
    That Corbyn apptd a single peer - who happened to be Shami is most impressive chutzpah :wink:
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    For the Tykes among us - some people are never satisfied. This lady moved to the Dales and expects the amenities of London.

    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/who-d-live-in-the-sexist-yorkshire-dales-there-s-not-even-a-waitrose-1-8132691
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited September 2016

    PlatoSaid said:

    Michael Deacon
    Revealing interview with the awful current president of the National Union of Students. https://t.co/SpR2ggTkgt https://t.co/xYLp7sQngu

    She is quite horrendous. A stain on the NUS (which is saying something for one of the worst associations in the UK)
    "After studying a degree in culture studies she read an MA in postcolonial theory at the University of Birmingham,"

    Sigh......

    "Now a woman sitting at what is known as the liberation desk in the office, who works on campaigns for LGBT, black, female and disabled students, gets involved. What Greer thinks she means is not the point, she says; the trans community consider her a “fascist”, the NUS respects their view, ergo Greer is a fascist."

    They people are just absolutely f##king bonkers.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    @Casino_Royale

    "For the UK, it will mean more control of free movement of low skilled Labour (I think the Government will discount high skilled)"

    Sorry, Mr. Royale, could you please explain that one too us. What does discount mean in this context? How is the Border Force to know who is high skilled and who is low skilled unless there is some pre-arrival method of checking (aka visas or work permits).

    As ever with these discussions the tricky bit is how does the UK quickly and efficiently remove from its shores those that are in breach of their terms of entry? Unless such people as are deemed undesirable can be thrown out then there is not much point in setting up systems to control who comes in. That would seem to me to require the UK to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the ECtHR.

    It's not for me to justify HMG policy but the intent and direction of it is clear to me from Hammond's statement on free movement of financial workers from the EU a couple of weeks ago:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/08/european-bankers-will-be-exempt-from-migration-curbs-after-brexi/

    I think there may be a salary test, or some form of income bond. Excluding, say, free movement from those on under £40k a year but allowing it for those above.
    I certainly don't expect you or anyone on here to Justify HMG policy, i am just interested in exploring some ideas that people put forward.

    If a person earning more than £x p.a. is to be given easier access to the UK then there has to be a mechanism for determining that the person has a solid job offer that includes a salary of £x+ befor he he is allowed in. That sounds a lot like a visa/work permit system to me and not a "discounted" system of free movement.

    You can only get an NI number if in possession of a written job offer of more than £40k. At the one year mark, if you're still in possession of that job (or another paying £40k+), the NI number is extended for a further period. After five years, assuming you've had a £40k+ job for 85% of the time, it's made permanent.

    Doesn't seem to be that complicated.
  • UkUncut.

    Well, that's spelt wrong for a start.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545

    I get the feeling she's quite enjoying publicly shooting down her cabinet ministers. She's done it with several of them now. A power play to show who's boss. Same reason Osborne's sacking was so public.
    I think this is common sense. Brexit is not going to be a comfortable experience. The government will be very exposed when a company who has been doing business here for decades pulls out or when they have to make difficult spending choices on a reduced taxbase. A half built royal yacht on which to sign all the wonderful Brexit deals that aren't materialising would be hubris on a comic scale, when you are struggling for answers on the most basic questions.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    This is policing that's trusting

    NBC Nightly News
    MORE: State police: Ahmad Khan Rahami is believed to be operating 2003 blue Honda Civic with NJ registration D63EYB. https://t.co/GVsCVGrcwf
  • About Britannia:

    I wonder which British shipyards have the capability to build a 5,000-tonne+, 400-foot long luxury yacht (if we went for an equivalent)? Appledore? Devonport? Scotsoun / Govan?

    Also, if HMY was as successful as was claimed below and elsewhere in bringing in trade, why was that (e.g. association with the royal family, quality etc), and how could we reproduce it?

    I have no doubt we could build another, but it's the politics that matter as much as the economics here.
  • About Britannia:

    I wonder which British shipyards have the capability to build a 5,000-tonne+, 400-foot long luxury yacht (if we went for an equivalent)? Appledore? Devonport? Scotsoun / Govan?

    Also, if HMY was as successful as was claimed below and elsewhere in bringing in trade, why was that (e.g. association with the royal family, quality etc), and how could we reproduce it?

    Send it to the Clyde......if nothing else for the fun of watching Sturgeon chew wasps while it was built.

    Boris' suggestion of recommissioning the 60 year old ship were completely impractical.....
  • I notice Canada has become the new Sweden in some circles...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37406857

    Actually, now I think about it, that's a remarkably partisan article - even by Gavin Hewitt's standards.

    Perhaps he wants a job with Trudeau?
    Trudeau can do no wrong in some circles. I guess with Obama spending all his time on the golf course, they need a new god to worship.
    One can just imagine the level of media luvvy love in if Trudeau did any sort of deal with a Sturgeon led independent Scotland.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Remember the Tommy Robinson pub story?

    Judge "evidence is vague & cagey & not genuine" case dismissed
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Latest twitter storm on Hillary's health, re ambulance in her motorcade:

    http://www.ksdk.com/news/politics/is-it-normal-for-clinton-to-have-an-ambulance/319630667

    Apparently, it's standard procedure for those with a Secret Service detail, but not for those without, which is why Trump has no ambulance in his motorcade.

    Be interesting to see if former Presidents, such as Bill, who do have Secret Service details, have ambulances in their motorcades.
  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    Mr. Royale, tented trousers and screams of "Progressive" would abound ;)
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Remember the Tommy Robinson pub story?

    Judge "evidence is vague & cagey & not genuine" case dismissed

    What was he allegedly done this time?
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Sahil Kapur
    .@VP Joe Biden rules out serving in a @HillaryClinton White House. https://t.co/mHctS2jhe8 (via @dylanlscott)
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    MTimT said:

    I notice Canada has become the new Sweden in some circles...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37406857

    It's normally around this time in the US electoral cycle that lots of stories start to appear in the press about US citizens wanting to mass emigrate to Canada.

    Only fair, given that every successful Canadian broadcaster and entertainer ends up in the US.
    The only exception I can think of is Anne Murray. When we lived in Toronto in the late 70s she used to shop at the same supermarket we did. She drove a battered blue Volvo.

    I wish they'd take Justin Bieber back.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Tim_B said:

    For the Tykes among us - some people are never satisfied. This lady moved to the Dales and expects the amenities of London.

    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/who-d-live-in-the-sexist-yorkshire-dales-there-s-not-even-a-waitrose-1-8132691

    A few years ago she moved to Devon and got 5 years of articles out of the lack of amenities from the move. The one I remember was that she couldn't sleep because it was "too quiet".

    Dreadful journalist, even by the standards of the Daily Mail
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    PlatoSaid said:

    Remember the Tommy Robinson pub story?

    Judge "evidence is vague & cagey & not genuine" case dismissed

    What was he allegedly done this time?
    Being in a pub, on Sunday with his kids was going to cause public disorder.

    It's laughable and sinister from Beds Police.
  • I get the feeling she's quite enjoying publicly shooting down her cabinet ministers. She's done it with several of them now. A power play to show who's boss. Same reason Osborne's sacking was so public.
    May needs to remember she isn't Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher got away with it because she had won the respect (even if begruding) from the vast majority of her parliamentary party, and had banked some real results.

    Theresa has not. Yet.

    And, even then, Theresa would do well to note that Maggie's behaviour did eventually bring her down.

    People don't like to be publicly humiliated, particularly ambitious politicians.
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Remember the Tommy Robinson pub story?

    Judge "evidence is vague & cagey & not genuine" case dismissed

    What was he allegedly done this time?
    Allegedly got drunk in a pub in Cambridge:
    http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/ex-edl-leader-tommy-robinson-s-cambridge-pub-incident-claims-police-boss-defends-officers/story-29676276-detail/story.html

    If that's the same case.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    MTimT said:

    Latest twitter storm on Hillary's health, re ambulance in her motorcade:

    http://www.ksdk.com/news/politics/is-it-normal-for-clinton-to-have-an-ambulance/319630667

    Apparently, it's standard procedure for those with a Secret Service detail, but not for those without, which is why Trump has no ambulance in his motorcade.

    Be interesting to see if former Presidents, such as Bill, who do have Secret Service details, have ambulances in their motorcades.

    As an official candidate, Trump also has Secret Service protection.

    Bill probably has an RV in his motorcades, in case he gets lucky.
This discussion has been closed.