In fact two u-turns in one, as they no longer support a continuation of austerity either.
The OECD are turning into that guy down the pub in The Fast Show, who always agreed with the last thing somebody said....
Not that cheery and OECD report really and they still think that Brexit damaged the UK economy.
"The OECD said it expected the UK economy to grow by 1.8% this year, a 0.1 point increase on its pre-referendum estimate [due to an unexpectedly strong growth before the referendum]. But growth is expected to slow to 1% next year, a bigger fall than it had previously envisaged in the event of a vote for Brexit."
Pushing back the pain does rather smack of them still trying to save some credibility by saying "You'll be sorry! You see...mark my words....!" Then quietly forgetting about it next year.
He's just got the roles of the sun and moon the wrong way round.
Cf. the theory propounded in a book of comic exam answers which says that the moon is more useful than the sun, because the moon sometimes shines at night so you can see where you are going, but the sun only shines in the daytime when it is light anyway.
Why would Germany want an "inferior " trade deal with the Uk ?
It's all bluster.
Inferior to one party is superior to the other party in a deal...
Why would Germany want the UK to have "better" trade terms than it currently has?
It's economic reality.
Because Germany has a great deal more than the UK to lose, if indeed the UK would lose anything at all.
This canard again.
Look at Germany's trade surplus. Much easier for them to withstand an inferior deal with the U.K. than it is for us.
If we want to make a success of Brexit, we should do so on the basis of a coldly honest assessment of where we start off.
That canard again.
Just because Germany has a big net trade surplus with other countries too doesn't alter in the slightest the advantage to them of maintaining a big one with the UK.
And in fact, because Germany's wealth is so tied to racking up trade surpluses across the EU and the world, it means that it has more than most to lose from a retreat into more limited and managed international trade. So it's very much in its interest not to give the UK an opportunity to show that it can prosper outside of the single market, in case other EU countries realise that they too can prosper outside it, in spades since they won't be tied to the Euro either.
And so it's very much in Germany's interests to keep us in there. Whereas the UK can be quite sanguine about the outcome.
Now you are straying beyond terms of trade into the political argument.
What you say makes sense, but you can make the counter argument that Germany profits so much from the EU that it will wear a sub-optimal deal with the U.K. in order to protect and advertise the benefits of EU membership to everyone else.
High risk tactics on their part. Very high risk when you consider that what would clearly be extremely sub-optimal for trade-dependent Germany might quite possibly be regarded by the UK as better than being continued to be bound by the constraints of the EU single market for goods.
Voting to leave the EU and then not following through would be the worst of all available options. Any influence we might have within the organisation would be shot to pieces. Why should the other 27 listen to a member which had expressed no confidence in the organisation, and why should they view a member which then didn't have the guts to exit with anything other than contempt?
Because they would see a distinction between the UK government/establishment and the portion of the population led up the garden path by Farage and Boris?
But they would conclude, rightly, that in the course of any negotiation, the UK was a paper tiger. It is hard to see how the UK could exercise any influence within the organisation.
We would have all the same levers that we have now. Our influence never rested upon the threat of leaving. Our position would be no different to those other countries that had anti-EU referendum results that were subsequently overturned. And they would be very grateful if our regret helped them head off the rise of far right populism back home.
No, we would be demonstrating to them that we were desperate to stay on any terms, and that if, for example, they sought to make all member States join the Euro, join Schengen, adopt refugee quotas, we would fold.
Hillary is following Remain's project fear script; earlier she was following Ed Miliband's "inherit the win" path. She needs to start telling people why they should vote for her, rather than why they should not vote for Trump.
Much like Remain and their failure to name some good things about the EU it's simply difficult to sell this particularly smelly sandwich. Not being Trump is the best reason to vote for Hilary.
Against Hillary, any Republican to whom the tag "bat-shit crazy" didn't stick like shit to a blanket would be painting America red from ocean to ocean.
Unfortunately, when they looked, the cupboard was bare.
Instead they just transferred one bubble to another and lots of guests won't travel to Salford, so either they do the interview remotely or the presenter stays in London that day to do it.
I agree with the criticism that the BBC needed to do more to cover the country better, and certainly having the bulk of the organisation in one city was not helping. Now the BBC are doing much the same thing they did before, but in two locations rather than one.
In fact two u-turns in one, as they no longer support a continuation of austerity either.
The OECD are turning into that guy down the pub in The Fast Show, who always agreed with the last thing somebody said....
Not that cheery and OECD report really and they still think that Brexit damaged the UK economy.
"The OECD said it expected the UK economy to grow by 1.8% this year, a 0.1 point increase on its pre-referendum estimate [due to an unexpectedly strong growth before the referendum]. But growth is expected to slow to 1% next year, a bigger fall than it had previously envisaged in the event of a vote for Brexit."
Pushing back the pain does rather smack of them still trying to save some credibility by saying "You'll be sorry! You see...mark my words....!" Then quietly forgetting about it next year.
Wait for June's update which puts 2017 growth at 1.6-1.8%!
In fact two u-turns in one, as they no longer support a continuation of austerity either.
The OECD are turning into that guy down the pub in The Fast Show, who always agreed with the last thing somebody said....
Not that cheery and OECD report really and they still think that Brexit damaged the UK economy.
"The OECD said it expected the UK economy to grow by 1.8% this year, a 0.1 point increase on its pre-referendum estimate [due to an unexpectedly strong growth before the referendum]. But growth is expected to slow to 1% next year, a bigger fall than it had previously envisaged in the event of a vote for Brexit."
Pushing back the pain does rather smack of them still trying to save some credibility by saying "You'll be sorry! You see...mark my words....!" Then quietly forgetting about it next year.
We shall see. However if they are only revising up this years growth by 0.1% and that only due to pre-referendum performance, then I don't think they can be accused of pushing back the Brexit pain.
The big miss of economic forecasts re Brexit appears to be consumer spending staying higher for longer. This could be consumer naivety or increased spending by tourists.
Against Hillary, any Republican to whom the tag "bat-shit crazy" didn't stick like shit to a blanket would be painting America red from ocean to ocean.
Unfortunately, when they looked, the cupboard was bare.
Yep, Mitt Romney would look pretty darn good right now.
Instead they just transferred one bubble to another and lots of guests won't travel to Salford, so either they do the interview remotely or the presenter stays in London that day to do it.
I agree with the criticism that the BBC needed to do more to cover the country better, and certainly having the bulk of the organisation in one city was not helping. Now the BBC are doing much the same thing they did before, but in two locations rather than one.
The only thing that seems to have happened is the BBC have worked out that Salford is a s##thole with high levels of violent crime, so now we get the odd programme on that through the lens of a metro elite who spends 3 days a week in the Media City bubble.
Oh and did you know a nightclub is closing in London...did they tell you this...you might have missed the 50 articles on it.
FF43 is giving scrutiny to the terms of Brexit the same thing as putting a parliamentary step in the journey to triggering A50? I think not. Tezza should just trigger when she's ready but then parliament should be all over the following two years of negotiations. The people have mandated the FACT of Brexit but it's up to politicians to manage the NATURE of it.
It's not a question of "putting a parliamentary step". It's a question of using a loophole to deliberately exclude Parliament from oversight over the execution of the most important Government policy of recent years.
Edit: Sorry, I misread your post. I agree. Doesn't harm repeating it.
If Parliament didn't want us to Leave it shouldn't have let us choose whether to leave...
He's just got the roles of the sun and moon the wrong way round.
Cf. the theory propounded in a book of comic exam answers which says that the moon is more useful than the sun, because the moon sometimes shines at night so you can see where you are going, but the sun only shines in the daytime when it is light anyway.
"He's just got the roles of the sun and moon the wrong way round." JUST? JUST? Come on!
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
The notion of a NYorker article being balanced rather stretches my credulity. There's an enormous amount of campaign nonsense posturing being taken as literal policy.
I'll leave you to your diet of Breitbart and Jeremy Kyle then.
Golly, what a superior lifeform you are. Still, the plebeians watch ITV and those who give them a voice are sneered at as untouchables.
Now Wash Your Hands.
Count your blessings he didn't lump you in with half of pb.com as a "deplorable"....
I find this attitude really remarkable - I simply don't understand how anyone can look down on a whole section of society and in the same breath parade their virtue.
Hillary's Deplorables was a watershed moment. Given Barbara Streisand performed at that big plate price event just made it even more wince-making.
Decent Analysis here from the Clinton team. They have plenty of paths to victory (just taking Florida and losing the rest of the battlegrounds would do it).
And that's the point, that despite all the chat on here about Trump winning, he's still fighting on the same map as Romney and McCain fought on, i.e having to sweep nearly all the battlegrounds. I'm not saying he can't win, but he's effectively in the same position as Dukakis in '88, locked out of so many big states (California, Illinois, New York ect) that he has to sweep the board with what's left.
He's just got the roles of the sun and moon the wrong way round.
Cf. the theory propounded in a book of comic exam answers which says that the moon is more useful than the sun, because the moon sometimes shines at night so you can see where you are going, but the sun only shines in the daytime when it is light anyway.
"He's just got the roles of the sun and moon the wrong way round." JUST? JUST? Come on!
I wasn't being wholly serious.
The theory propounded in my second paragraph is also flawed btw.
All this talk and about the people having the right of another referendum to agree to the terms of Brexit is just waffle. It can be read that 48% will automatically vote against . In affect it will be a "rerun" of the original referendum. Remoaners just hope that a suitable minority who voted for Brexit will then vote against the deal. Then they will claim that May has no mandate to proceed and therefore Brexit will have to be delayed perhaps abandoned.
Job done .... In my view the British people voted to leave. The Government shall now get the best deal they can and then just leave. The democratic decision right or wrong whether you like it or not must be respected and not circumvented by anyone.
If any one tries that then as was pointed out up thread it really will be pitch fork time.
He's so cuddly - with no links to anything - no siree. The notebook was on him FFS.
“You (USA government) continue your … slaught against … mujahideen be it Afhanistan, Iraq, Sham, Palestine… etc,” Rahami writes, using the preferred term of Syria among Sunni jihadis. “Brother Osama bin Laden offered you a truce,” he writes. “You should of let us meet death overseas. You wanted it this way so you will have it this way.”
In another part of the notebook, he relates that he was seeking how to conduct terror attacks and began consulting the works of famed terror propagandists. “I looked for guidence [sic] and Alhumdulilah Guidance came. Sheikh Anwar Brother Adnani Dawla. Said it clearly attack the kuffar in their backyard,” he write. “Brother Adnani Dawla” appears to be a reference to Abu Mohamed al-Adnani, a chief Islamic State spokesman killed earlier this year. “Dawlah” is the Arabic word for “State.”
He's just got the roles of the sun and moon the wrong way round.
Cf. the theory propounded in a book of comic exam answers which says that the moon is more useful than the sun, because the moon sometimes shines at night so you can see where you are going, but the sun only shines in the daytime when it is light anyway.
"He's just got the roles of the sun and moon the wrong way round." JUST? JUST? Come on!
I wasn't being wholly serious.
The theory propounded in my second paragraph is also flawed btw.
OK. it wasn't aimed at you specifically! We really need more MPs with a scientific background making decisions based on evidence rather than opinions (even if they are so strongly held that you can argue with Newton). The theory in your second point had the benefit of being amusing, rather than scary.
Decent Analysis here from the Clinton team. They have plenty of paths to victory (just taking Florida and losing the rest of the battlegrounds would do it).
And that's the point, that despite all the chat on here about Trump winning, he's still fighting on the same map as Romney and McCain fought on, i.e having to sweep nearly all the battlegrounds. I'm not saying he can't win, but he's effectively in the same position as Dukakis in '88, locked out of so many big states (California, Illinois, New York ect) that he has to sweep the board with what's left.
At present, Trump is in a better position than Dukakis. If, say, he leads by 1% on the day, he'll get the swing States. It doesn't matter that California, Illinois, New York are out of reach.
He, as a Brexiteer, obviously has problems with experts. He was persistent though, persistently wrong.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts - Richard Feynman.
That's how science progresses, however it usually builds on what has been discovered before. "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." I Newton.
Decent Analysis here from the Clinton team. They have plenty of paths to victory (just taking Florida and losing the rest of the battlegrounds would do it).
And that's the point, that despite all the chat on here about Trump winning, he's still fighting on the same map as Romney and McCain fought on, i.e having to sweep nearly all the battlegrounds. I'm not saying he can't win, but he's effectively in the same position as Dukakis in '88, locked out of so many big states (California, Illinois, New York ect) that he has to sweep the board with what's left.
At present, Trump is in a better position than Dukakis. If, say, he leads by 1% on the day, he'll get the swing States. It doesn't matter that California, Illinois, New York are out of reach.
From the interaction of state and national polling it seems Trump +1 leaves a bunch of battleground states 50/50. At the moment given the disparity in GOTV operations I would tend to favour the Dems on the coin flips.
Trump +2 would be what I would need to say it was a certain lock for Trump.
He's so cuddly - with no links to anything - no siree. The notebook was on him FFS.
“You (USA government) continue your … slaught against … mujahideen be it Afhanistan, Iraq, Sham, Palestine… etc,” Rahami writes, using the preferred term of Syria among Sunni jihadis. “Brother Osama bin Laden offered you a truce,” he writes. “You should of let us meet death overseas. You wanted it this way so you will have it this way.”
In another part of the notebook, he relates that he was seeking how to conduct terror attacks and began consulting the works of famed terror propagandists. “I looked for guidence [sic] and Alhumdulilah Guidance came. Sheikh Anwar Brother Adnani Dawla. Said it clearly attack the kuffar in their backyard,” he write. “Brother Adnani Dawla” appears to be a reference to Abu Mohamed al-Adnani, a chief Islamic State spokesman killed earlier this year. “Dawlah” is the Arabic word for “State.”
And doesn't all of that make it seem he was a self-radicalised would-be murderer? Not to mention he mixes up IS and AQ; he is not a member or agent of either, according to that.
Voting to leave the EU and then not following through would be the worst of all available options. Any influence we might have within the organisation would be shot to pieces. Why should the other 27 listen to a member which had expressed no confidence in the organisation, and why should they view a member which then didn't have the guts to exit with anything other than contempt?
Because they would see a distinction between the UK government/establishment and the portion of the population led up the garden path by Farage and Boris?
But they would conclude, rightly, that in the course of any negotiation, the UK was a paper tiger. It is hard to see how the UK could exercise any influence within the organisation.
We would have all the same levers that we have now. Our influence never rested upon the threat of leaving. Our position would be no different to those other countries that had anti-EU referendum results that were subsequently overturned. And they would be very grateful if our regret helped them head off the rise of far right populism back home.
No, we would be demonstrating to them that we were desperate to stay on any terms, and that if, for example, they sought to make all member States join the Euro, join Schengen, adopt refugee quotas, we would fold.
Most of those are areas where we would have a veto
Decent Analysis here from the Clinton team. They have plenty of paths to victory (just taking Florida and losing the rest of the battlegrounds would do it).
And that's the point, that despite all the chat on here about Trump winning, he's still fighting on the same map as Romney and McCain fought on, i.e having to sweep nearly all the battlegrounds. I'm not saying he can't win, but he's effectively in the same position as Dukakis in '88, locked out of so many big states (California, Illinois, New York ect) that he has to sweep the board with what's left.
At present, Trump is in a better position than Dukakis. If, say, he leads by 1% on the day, he'll get the swing States. It doesn't matter that California, Illinois, New York are out of reach.
The point being though that she starts on 247 electoral votes (if you include Pennsylvania where she's consistently ahead), and Trump hasn't had any impact in that 'Blue Wall'.
When Clinton won in '92 he re-drew the electoral map, picking off states that hadn't voted Democrat since LBJ. In order to give himself multiple paths to victory Trump needed to make some of these states competitive, and he hasn't. That's why he's facing the narrow path that Romney and McCain faced in '08 and '16. Like I say not impossible but unlikely.
Decent Analysis here from the Clinton team. They have plenty of paths to victory (just taking Florida and losing the rest of the battlegrounds would do it).
And that's the point, that despite all the chat on here about Trump winning, he's still fighting on the same map as Romney and McCain fought on, i.e having to sweep nearly all the battlegrounds. I'm not saying he can't win, but he's effectively in the same position as Dukakis in '88, locked out of so many big states (California, Illinois, New York ect) that he has to sweep the board with what's left.
At present, Trump is in a better position than Dukakis. If, say, he leads by 1% on the day, he'll get the swing States. It doesn't matter that California, Illinois, New York are out of reach.
From the interaction of state and national polling it seems Trump +1 leaves a bunch of battleground states 50/50. At the moment given the disparity in GOTV operations I would tend to favour the Dems on the coin flips.
Trump +2 would be what I would need to say it was a certain lock for Trump.
No. If Clinton leads by 1.5% nationally then Trump wins the E.C according to 538. Ground game is only of any use if u have the support in the first place and Clinton support has been soft compared to a harder Trump core.
Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.
From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.
1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.
2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.
The second only flies of the referendum was agreed as binding. Which it could have been (as was AV, as I recall). But this one wasn't. If Parliament agrees a referendum as advisory it must leave open the possibility - in theory if not in practice - that the result can be disregarded.
Can you please cite the clause in the Act that allows for the result to be ignored?
The absence of the words in section 8 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.
Having a Referendum does not equate to taking a decision, unless the Act so specifies.
@faisalislam: soft Brexiteers start to speak out as Britain heads towards hard Brexit - where Tory MPs sit on this issue matters: https://t.co/RJFU3opl2e
The first piece is absolutely excellent and should be required reading for those on here who refuse to listen to nuance and prefer to spout meaningless platitudes like "Brexit means Brexit".
As a 'less than hardest' brexiter obviously me and mine will take a fair share of responsibility should less than preferential Brexit occur, but you are quite right about nuance and the pointlessness of that platitude - there was always going to be a struggle to define Brexit in the aftermath. Some took the view the risk of hard Brexit was worth achieving a less than hard Brexit, some felt that risk was not worth it and some didn't want any type of Brexit in the first place even if soft Brexit were guaranteed, but the fight is now on. Currently the hard brexiteers are winning, and will continue to win so long as any hint of less than hardest Brexit is presented as repudiating the will of the people.
He's so cuddly - with no links to anything - no siree. The notebook was on him FFS.
“You (USA government) continue your … slaught against … mujahideen be it Afhanistan, Iraq, Sham, Palestine… etc,” Rahami writes, using the preferred term of Syria among Sunni jihadis. “Brother Osama bin Laden offered you a truce,” he writes. “You should of let us meet death overseas. You wanted it this way so you will have it this way.”
In another part of the notebook, he relates that he was seeking how to conduct terror attacks and began consulting the works of famed terror propagandists. “I looked for guidence [sic] and Alhumdulilah Guidance came. Sheikh Anwar Brother Adnani Dawla. Said it clearly attack the kuffar in their backyard,” he write. “Brother Adnani Dawla” appears to be a reference to Abu Mohamed al-Adnani, a chief Islamic State spokesman killed earlier this year. “Dawlah” is the Arabic word for “State.”
And doesn't all of that make it seem he was a self-radicalised would-be murderer? Not to mention he mixes up IS and AQ; he is not a member or agent of either, according to that.
Decent Analysis here from the Clinton team. They have plenty of paths to victory (just taking Florida and losing the rest of the battlegrounds would do it).
And that's the point, that despite all the chat on here about Trump winning, he's still fighting on the same map as Romney and McCain fought on, i.e having to sweep nearly all the battlegrounds. I'm not saying he can't win, but he's effectively in the same position as Dukakis in '88, locked out of so many big states (California, Illinois, New York ect) that he has to sweep the board with what's left.
At present, Trump is in a better position than Dukakis. If, say, he leads by 1% on the day, he'll get the swing States. It doesn't matter that California, Illinois, New York are out of reach.
The point being though that she starts on 247 electoral votes (if you include Pennsylvania where she's consistently ahead), and Trump hasn't had any impact in that 'Blue Wall'.
When Clinton won in '92 he re-drew the electoral map, picking off states that hadn't voted Democrat since LBJ. In order to give himself multiple paths to victory Trump needed to make some of these states competitive, and he hasn't. That's why he's facing the narrow path that Romney and McCain faced in '08 and '16. Like I say not impossible but unlikely.
Sure, but Clinton won by 5%, so he got those States. If Trump wins by 5%, he'll be picking up States the Republicans haven't won since 1988.
Labour list expecting 630,000 votes this time, compared to 423,000 last time.
Amazing volume of votes. Although I think Corbyn a menace, and his followers delusional, it's amazing how many people have signed up under his leadership.
Could it be the largest party, now, by membership, in Europe?
Labour list expecting 630,000 votes this time, compared to 423,000 last time.
Amazing volume of votes. Although I think Corbyn a menace, and his followers delusional, it's amazing how many people have signed up under his leadership.
Could it be the largest party, now, by membership, in Europe?
Labour list expecting 630,000 votes this time, compared to 423,000 last time.
Amazing volume of votes. Although I think Corbyn a menace, and his followers delusional, it's amazing how many people have signed up under his leadership.
Could it be the largest party, now, by membership, in Europe?
I believe that is already established.
I notice that 'our man at the heart of the action' Mr Brind chose to hang his retreat from his "it's neck and neck" reports on the apparently low turnout! I wonder what his excuse will be, now?
@faisalislam: soft Brexiteers start to speak out as Britain heads towards hard Brexit - where Tory MPs sit on this issue matters: https://t.co/RJFU3opl2e
The first piece is absolutely excellent and should be required reading for those on here who refuse to listen to nuance and prefer to spout meaningless platitudes like "Brexit means Brexit".
As a 'less than hardest' brexiter obviously me and mine will take a fair share of responsibility should less than preferential Brexit occur, but you are quite right about nuance and the pointlessness of that platitude - there was always going to be a struggle to define Brexit in the aftermath. Some took the view the risk of hard Brexit was worth achieving a less than hard Brexit, some felt that risk was not worth it and some didn't want any type of Brexit in the first place even if soft Brexit were guaranteed, but the fight is now on. Currently the hard brexiteers are winning, and will continue to win so long as any hint of less than hardest Brexit is presented as repudiating the will of the people.
Remember, too, that at the same time as arguing about this amongst ourselves (i.e. the British), we are positioning for a future negotiation with Europe. Even for those of us who favour soft-ish Brexit, in order to achieve this, we have be prepared to accept - and to let Europe know that we would be prepared to accept - hard Brexit. Otherwise we are in a very weak negotiating position - like David Cameron was. FWIW I am a soft Brexiter for whom the risk of hard Brexit was worth taking to avoid the risk of hard Bremain.
Well he has Bezos on his heels, New Glenn skips Falcon 9 in terms of lift and competes directly against the Heavy setup (Slightly less thrust though a much larger faring). Bezos is slightly behind for now, but whether he will be in a decade's time is another matter. Good to have two multi-billionaires competing though.
Two multi-billionaires are competing with the aid of massive subsidies (sorry, research contracts) from the American government. No stale rhetoric about picking winners (a bad thing) and magic money trees over there.
Edit: internal quotes removed to meet length restrictions.
Late to the game (took the little 'un to the farm), but would you kindly state the 'massive subsidies' that Bezos and Blue Origin are getting? There's not much, especially compared to their outlay and the amount SpaceX have been getting.
"The Romans had a good word for such people: cunctators. If Parliament does indeed have the final say over the triggering of Article 50, I expect we will hear Leavers talking a lot more about cunctators in the coming months."
Comments
Cf. the theory propounded in a book of comic exam answers which says that the moon is more useful than the sun, because the moon sometimes shines at night so you can see where you are going, but the sun only shines in the daytime when it is light anyway.
Unfortunately, when they looked, the cupboard was bare.
The big miss of economic forecasts re Brexit appears to be consumer spending staying higher for longer. This could be consumer naivety or increased spending by tourists.
"The fall of Labour’s golden generation
Blair and Brown's young advisors were intelligent, metropolitan, and destined for power. What went wrong for the party's best and brightest?"
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/fall-labour-s-golden-generation
Oh and did you know a nightclub is closing in London...did they tell you this...you might have missed the 50 articles on it.
JUST? JUST? Come on!
Hillary's Deplorables was a watershed moment. Given Barbara Streisand performed at that big plate price event just made it even more wince-making.
http://order-order.com/2016/09/21/jez-looking-for-jews-to-appear-in-labour-ppb/
"Is it morning?"
"Either that or someone set the moon on fire."
Anyway, time for me to be off.
Decent Analysis here from the Clinton team. They have plenty of paths to victory (just taking Florida and losing the rest of the battlegrounds would do it).
And that's the point, that despite all the chat on here about Trump winning, he's still fighting on the same map as Romney and McCain fought on, i.e having to sweep nearly all the battlegrounds. I'm not saying he can't win, but he's effectively in the same position as Dukakis in '88, locked out of so many big states (California, Illinois, New York ect) that he has to sweep the board with what's left.
The theory propounded in my second paragraph is also flawed btw.
Job done .... In my view the British people voted to leave. The Government shall now get the best deal they can and then just leave. The democratic decision right or wrong whether you like it or not must be respected and not circumvented by anyone.
If any one tries that then as was pointed out up thread it really will be pitch fork time.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/maureen-lipman-claims-jeremy-corbyn-sups-with-the-devil-and-warns-people-to-be-very-very-afraid-of-a6679831.html
“You (USA government) continue your … slaught against … mujahideen be it Afhanistan, Iraq, Sham, Palestine… etc,” Rahami writes, using the preferred term of Syria among Sunni jihadis. “Brother Osama bin Laden offered you a truce,” he writes. “You should of let us meet death overseas. You wanted it this way so you will have it this way.”
In another part of the notebook, he relates that he was seeking how to conduct terror attacks and began consulting the works of famed terror propagandists. “I looked for guidence [sic] and Alhumdulilah Guidance came. Sheikh Anwar Brother Adnani Dawla. Said it clearly attack the kuffar in their backyard,” he write. “Brother Adnani Dawla” appears to be a reference to Abu Mohamed al-Adnani, a chief Islamic State spokesman killed earlier this year. “Dawlah” is the Arabic word for “State.”
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09/20/exclusive-new-jersey-bombers-notebook/
We really need more MPs with a scientific background making decisions based on evidence rather than opinions (even if they are so strongly held that you can argue with Newton).
The theory in your second point had the benefit of being amusing, rather than scary.
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." I Newton.
Trump +2 would be what I would need to say it was a certain lock for Trump.
And who is the straw man who said he was cuddly?
When Clinton won in '92 he re-drew the electoral map, picking off states that hadn't voted Democrat since LBJ. In order to give himself multiple paths to victory Trump needed to make some of these states competitive, and he hasn't. That's why he's facing the narrow path that Romney and McCain faced in '08 and '16. Like I say not impossible but unlikely.
Court News
Ping pongers penned! Jail for hipsters who attacked bouncer when he stopped their table tennis tourney at games bar
Having a Referendum does not equate to taking a decision, unless the Act so specifies.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
Although I think Corbyn a menace, and his followers delusional, it's amazing how many people have signed up under his leadership.
Could it be the largest party, now, by membership, in Europe?
New thread btw.
I notice that 'our man at the heart of the action' Mr Brind chose to hang his retreat from his "it's neck and neck" reports on the apparently low turnout! I wonder what his excuse will be, now?
FWIW I am a soft Brexiter for whom the risk of hard Brexit was worth taking to avoid the risk of hard Bremain.
NEW THREAD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin#Collaborations_with_NASA
I'd expect Leavers to use a shorter word.