They will be humiliated because they have no strategy, bloody awful tactics, nothing substantive to offer and are not prepared to say that Corbyn is awful because of what he thinks. Criticising Corbyn for his leadership skills is like criticizing Stalin for his dress sense.
They also have another big (and related) problem - no leader. That's why they ended up putting forward Owen Smith.
Corbyn looks a lot more legitimate than magicked May. To me.
Perhaps someone could identify some of these Labour MPs who have UKIP breathing down their necks. A 10% Labour to UKIP swing would net UKIP just 15 MPs. In all bar five of these, UKIP finished third or lower.
Perhaps someone could identify some of these Labour MPs who have UKIP breathing down their necks. A 10% Labour to UKIP swing would net UKIP just 15 MPs. In all bar five of these, UKIP finished third or lower.
Ahem.
Scotland - a precedent dear to your heart (and wallet), I believe!
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
Three words: House. Of. Lords.
Two Words...Parliament Act
34 words...If any elected or appointed member of the Houses of Parliament think they are going to be funny and try to vote down Brexit then they will rightly unleash constitutional and perhaps civic hell.
There is zero chance of Brexit being overturned by a court case or a vote in either house any time soon. The only chance would be to play things very long and hope that events, and a change in political and public mood, creates an opportunity much further down the line. So Brexiters only need worry if they think Mrs May isn't pushing things along at a healthy pace.
Not really following this properly but is there any authoritative poll on the Debate, other than the CNN one which showed a Clinton triumph? if not, do we conclude she won easily?
I thought Trump was pretty dismal, and worse than I expected. Clinton was merely annoying. The moderator was, also, clearly biased.
Perhaps the main thing was that Clinton looked perfectly healthy.
NB - Although we won't have the results of the debate in the polling for a week - we should be able to see trends developing in the daily 7-day running polls relatively quickly.
(Even if the LA Times model is flawed, it should still pick up trends.)
TBH I think the question is not 'Did Clinton win the debate - which was a gimmee based on location, moderator and audience' but "Did Trump outperform expectations". After all if Man City played Forest Green then you would expect them to win - but Forest Green supporters might be happy to lose 3-0 when most people would have expected 7-0 or 8-0.
That has moved from +4 Trump to +3, so small move.
Why is everyone having a go at the moderator? he's a card carrying republican and respected journalist!
And the audience ( as it is for these things) were 50/50 from each party.
Anyway, we will find out in a few days
I think Jon Oliver put it best. Clinton has two main scandals ( Clinton foundation and emails)
If your talking foundations, I think it's fair to say Trump's is 100 times more corrupt than anything the Clinton foundation is accused ( most of which seems to be conjecture)
If you are talking emails, that's bad put not illegal and just a bit careless. And if the issue is transparency, then I'm not sure Trump can compare...
Jon Oliver most definitely didn't say "that's bad put not illegal and just a bit careless". He mocked Clinton for claiming that.
I personally take issue with Trump Foundation is worse than Clinton Foundation. One is accused of stuff like buying paintings with the charity money which they then keep (certainly bad), Clinton Foundation is accused of something on a much much bigger scale.
There are also lots of other Clinton lies and scandals. IMO both are totally unsuitable to be candidates for POTUS and in previous years if either had ran against a normal opponent the level of dirt would sink them.
My point was if you are going to bring up valid stuff about Trump in the form of a question (which I actually don't think the moderator should do, leave it to the candidates to do that), you have to do it to both.
Of course, Trump could have used it as an opportunity to clear the air around birtherism, his tax records and his comments on women, and come out with answers which would have put them all to bed. After all, them coming up can't have been a surprise...
Moderators normally ask questions at debate. Trump was annoyed because he didn't have a good answer ( which is 100% on him)
@Richard_Nabavi I may be tempting providence but the SNP had already been in power in Scotland for 8 years before wiping Labour off the Westminster map.
Not really following this properly but is there any authoritative poll on the Debate, other than the CNN one which showed a Clinton triumph? if not, do we conclude she won easily?
I thought Trump was pretty dismal, and worse than I expected. Clinton was merely annoying. The moderator was, also, clearly biased.
Perhaps the main thing was that Clinton looked perfectly healthy.
Not really following this properly but is there any authoritative poll on the Debate, other than the CNN one which showed a Clinton triumph? if not, do we conclude she won easily?
I thought Trump was pretty dismal, and worse than I expected. Clinton was merely annoying. The moderator was, also, clearly biased.
Perhaps the main thing was that Clinton looked perfectly healthy.
The Clinton-Bot-2000 looked far healthier than for months. They need to reprogramme her to stop that glitch which results in the Joker-esque smile though. At one point she also malfunctioned and got stuck on this racist...racist...its racist...racist...racist loop.
No it can't. The Tory party will go into meltdown if A50 is not triggered by the end of 2017. After that, it's two years. Theresa May knows this; she will trigger.
This is a waste of everyone's time, and as they waste time, Remainers are letting the argument between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit go uncontested, making Hard Brexit more likely. Stupid.
It's worse than a waste of time. Brexit is tricky enough as it is, without introducing yet another factor complicating the timescales and introducing yet more uncertainty. Theresa May absolutely needs the power to pull the trigger at the moment she judges optimal.
Yes, this Remoaner tendency is actually hurting their cause of soft Brexit at the moment. Instead of trying to stop the government from triggering A50 they should be trying to shift the focus onto maintaining a close trading relationship with the EU while also developing new relationships outside of the EU once we've left. Robert's idea of a time limited or renewable form of EEA membership makes sense to me. It puts a hard time limit on our single market membership should we decide to go it alone after 5 years and during the transition we still have the certainty of single market membership, especially while we untangle ourselves from the customs union and retake our place on the WTO and other international trade commissions where we currently defer our representation to the EU.
They will be humiliated because they have no strategy, bloody awful tactics, nothing substantive to offer and are not prepared to say that Corbyn is awful because of what he thinks. Criticising Corbyn for his leadership skills is like criticizing Stalin for his dress sense.
They also have another big (and related) problem - no leader. That's why they ended up putting forward Owen Smith.
Quite: but the definition of a good leader is someone who has something to say:-
- This is who we are. - This is what we do. - This is how we do it. (How we behave, if you like.) - This is where we want to go. - This is how we're going to get there.
And the ability to communicate that in clear sensible language that is something more substantial than pure piss and wind.
They have no good leader because they have nothing of substance to say. That much was evident from Smith. But it was evident from the vapid bilge which constituted the witterings of Cooper, Kendall and Burnham last year.
Corbyn is leader because the moderate social democratic left has been running on empty for years. The intellectual cupboard is empty. And now they have been found out.
Not really following this properly but is there any authoritative poll on the Debate, other than the CNN one which showed a Clinton triumph? if not, do we conclude she won easily?
I thought Trump was pretty dismal, and worse than I expected. Clinton was merely annoying. The moderator was, also, clearly biased.
Perhaps the main thing was that Clinton looked perfectly healthy.
The Clinton-Bot-2000 looked far healthier than for months. They need to reprogramme her to stop that glitch which results in the Joker-esque smile though.
"Do I really look like a girl with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing approval ratings. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just... DO things."
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
Indeed, especially as a bunch of labour MPs in constituencies where ukip was breathing down their neck will "respect the will of the electorate".
Indeed and the Tories too, over half of Tories and a third of Labour voters voted Leave, if Parliament throws their vote back in their face it would be Scotland 2015 the sequel!
@Richard_Nabavi I may be tempting providence but the SNP had already been in power in Scotland for 8 years before wiping Labour off the Westminster map.
Yes, I'm not saying it's a direct equivalent, but I think that Labour MPs will be very aware that safe seats can suddenly look less safe. After all, it doesn't require UKIP to actually win the seat for a swing to UKIP from Labour to have an effect.
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
Three words: House. Of. Lords.
Two Words...Parliament Act
34 words...If any elected or appointed member of the Houses of Parliament think they are going to be funny and try to vote down Brexit then they will rightly unleash constitutional and perhaps civic hell.
There is zero chance of Brexit being overturned by a court case or a vote in either house any time soon. The only chance would be to play things very long and hope that events, and a change in political and public mood, creates an opportunity much further down the line. So Brexiters only need worry if they think Mrs May isn't pushing things along at a healthy pace.
I think the healthy pace should be, as @Richard_Nabavi has, and indeed I have noted previously, whenever she believes the entire government and civil service (and ideally industry) machine is in peak preparation, agreement and readiness for action.
I am in no hurry for that to happen. Not because I never want it to happen, but because when we trigger A50 we are in for years (two in the first instance with the EU) of hugely sensitive and complex negotiations. We need to be absolutely on top of our game when we begin this.
As mentioned above, I am cautious that if we make, as we will, immigration our line in the sand, that is showing part of our hand before we start, as our EU negotiating partners know the government's hands will be tied on that issue and will therefore be more flexible on others.
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
No difference at all. Labour is now committed to accepting Brexit. The Tories have a membership base which yearns for Brexit.
Voting down Brexit would be political suicide for either party. It's just not going to happen. This is displacement activity for people still in grieving denial.
There'll never been anything as definitive as voting down Brexit. If the government doesn't have its act together on the negotiating strategy or objectives then voting against prematurely invoking Article 50 can be sold as something quite different.
No it can't. The Tory party will go into meltdown if A50 is not triggered by the end of 2017. After that, it's two years. Theresa May knows this; she will trigger.
This is a waste of everyone's time, and as they waste time, Remainers are letting the argument between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit go uncontested, making Hard Brexit more likely. Stupid.
I agree it won't make any difference to the end result. But I think Theresa May should present the Article 50 trigger to Parliament, just as Tony Blair did for the Iraq invasion. Firstly on principle. Parliament is sovereign in this country. Using a constitutional loophole to avoid Parliament debating and making the decisions on the most important political issue our country has faced in decades isn't a good look. Secondly the practical point. Given MPs are more or less obliged to respect the referendum result, she might as well get them committed to her course of action. A parliamentary vote has a lot more authority than an executive decree.
No it can't. The Tory party will go into meltdown if A50 is not triggered by the end of 2017. After that, it's two years. Theresa May knows this; she will trigger.
This is a waste of everyone's time, and as they waste time, Remainers are letting the argument between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit go uncontested, making Hard Brexit more likely. Stupid.
It's worse than a waste of time. Brexit is tricky enough as it is, without introducing yet another factor complicating the timescales and introducing yet more uncertainty. Theresa May absolutely needs the power to pull the trigger at the moment she judges optimal.
Yes, this Remoaner tendency is actually hurting their cause of soft Brexit at the moment. Instead of trying to stop the government from triggering A50 they should be trying to shift the focus onto maintaining a close trading relationship with the EU while also developing new relationships outside of the EU once we've left. Robert's idea of a time limited or renewable form of EEA membership makes sense to me. It puts a hard time limit on our single market membership should we decide to go it alone after 5 years and during the transition we still have the certainty of single market membership, especially while we untangle ourselves from the customs union and retake our place on the WTO and other international trade commissions where we currently defer our representation to the EU.
Hard Brexit is predominantly being talked up by Tories who don't want it because they think it's the best way to get leverage in negotiations.
1) what controls over the executive should Parliament have? 2) what Brexit deal should be struck?
The first will inform how the second is reached but they are in essence unrelated questions. Administrative convenience should not outweigh the need for constitutional checks and balances.
On a Virgin train from Doncaster to Kings cross. Really nice service, clean carriage and the windows are huge. It feels like there isn't a train around you and you are flying through the countryside.
Also noted that the Hull Doncaster branch line still has the old telegraph signalling. Haven't seen that for a while.
Not really following this properly but is there any authoritative poll on the Debate, other than the CNN one which showed a Clinton triumph? if not, do we conclude she won easily?
I thought Trump was pretty dismal, and worse than I expected. Clinton was merely annoying. The moderator was, also, clearly biased.
Perhaps the main thing was that Clinton looked perfectly healthy.
and she did her best to look relaxed and human, insofar as her character and the debate format allowed. When Trump was attacking her temperament and bigging up his own, she patiently waited until he had finished, paused, took a deep breath and with a laugh effectively said 'wow', to a laugh from the audience. A much better response than what I am sure was her instinctive urge to dive in with a detailed rebuttal. It was similar to Reagan's "there you go again..."
The one thing we do know for the next debates is that Clinton will turn up polished and prepared whereas Trump remains unpredictable and high risk. Barring some unexpected health event mid-debate this must make Clinton favourite for being able to survive the next two and hang onto her narrow lead.
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
No difference at all. Labour is now committed to accepting Brexit. The Tories have a membership base which yearns for Brexit.
Voting down Brexit would be political suicide for either party. It's just not going to happen. This is displacement activity for people still in grieving denial.
There'll never been anything as definitive as voting down Brexit. If the government doesn't have its act together on the negotiating strategy or objectives then voting against prematurely invoking Article 50 can be sold as something quite different.
No it can't. The Tory party will go into meltdown if A50 is not triggered by the end of 2017. After that, it's two years. Theresa May knows this; she will trigger.
This is a waste of everyone's time, and as they waste time, Remainers are letting the argument between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit go uncontested, making Hard Brexit more likely. Stupid.
If anybody does manage to find a way to block A50 and therefore block Brexit, surely the EU would get fed up and boot the UK out.
The EU project would be far better off without us now that the electorate has voted to leave, however narrowly.
None of the obstacles that are being suggested to block A50 come with any hint of trying to persuade the electorate that the EU is a wonderful thing.
Foreign secretary also boasted of his ‘beautiful,’ ‘well-functioning Turkish washing machine.’
For someone who has spent the best part of this year telling us we cant take anythong Boris says at face value, you appear to be suddenly taking Boris at face value.
Foreign secretary also boasted of his ‘beautiful,’ ‘well-functioning Turkish washing machine.’
For someone who has spent the best part of this year telling us we cant take anythong Boris says at face value, you appear to be suddenly taking Boris at face value.
You mean, you don't believe Boris has a Turkish washing machine?
The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.
Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?
This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."
"Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government," isn't a message you can push while sitting in the same party.
I appreciate that it seems a bit hypocritical to have tolerated Corbyn and McDonnell's presence in the PLP for the last how ever many years, but they need to start thinking about the consequences of staying in the same party as them now they have taken it over. They're lucky that the media isn't trying to tar them with the same brush.
The longer they stay the more likely it is to happen. That's the risk they run. The repeated cries for Jeremy to do something about this are, frankly, pathetic. He is part of the problem not the solution. The fish rots from the head. The toxin which has entered Labour's body has been in Jeremy's for years.
And never mind the media, the greater risk the voters will start tarring them with the same brush.
Labour MPs need to start finding their moral compasses. They need to start using their consciences. A clean conscience, behaving like a morally decent person are (to me anyway) more important than a fake unity based around toleration of or turning a blind eye to morally reprehensible behavior.
If I may say so, I think you are underestimating the extent to which Labour has become a religion to many.
The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.
Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?
This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."
"Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government," isn't a message you can push while sitting in the same party.
I appreciate that it seems a bit hypocritical to have tolerated Corbyn and McDonnell's presence in the PLP for the last how ever many years, but they need to start thinking about the consequences of staying in the same party as them now they have taken it over. They're lucky that the media isn't trying to tar them with the same brush.
The fish rots from the head. The toxin which has entered Labour's body has been in Jeremy's for years.
I thought Sean explained the other day that actually the Labour Party is a big fat stupid cockroach that rots from the thoracic ganglia when parasitized by a commiewasp.
On a Virgin train from Doncaster to Kings cross. Really nice service, clean carriage and the windows are huge. It feels like there isn't a train around you and you are flying through the countryside.
Also noted that the Hull Doncaster branch line still has the old telegraph signalling. Haven't seen that for a while.
Sunil Nerd mode off.
I did Doncaster to Leuchars back in 2012 (though as it was March, it turned dark as we passed Berwick on the return leg the next day). Already did Hitchin to Doncaster to Leeds in 2010. And London to Hitchin to Cambridge loads of times in 2004 to 2007, as I worked in Cambridge back then
Yesterday, I did Ely to Bury St Edmunds, only about 10 miles of track but served only every two hours in each direction. Aborted a planned trip from Paddington-Westbury-Exeter as the weather forecast wasn't too great.
NB - Although we won't have the results of the debate in the polling for a week - we should be able to see trends developing in the daily 7-day running polls relatively quickly.
(Even if the LA Times model is flawed, it should still pick up trends.)
TBH I think the question is not 'Did Clinton win the debate - which was a gimmee based on location, moderator and audience' but "Did Trump outperform expectations". After all if Man City played Forest Green then you would expect them to win - but Forest Green supporters might be happy to lose 3-0 when most people would have expected 7-0 or 8-0.
That has moved from +4 Trump to +3, so small move.
Why is everyone having a go at the moderator? he's a card carrying republican and respected journalist!
And the audience ( as it is for these things) were 50/50 from each party.
Anyway, we will find out in a few days
I can't stand Trump, but the moderator was definitely biased against Trump. He might be a registered republican, but we know loads of GOP "establishment" hate Trump.
He brought up all secondary questions that were Trump's "weaknesses", the racist and sexist stuff, the birther stuff and his tax returns. Total fair to ask.
But to Clinton...nothing...Trump had to scream EMAILS...nothing on Clinton Foundation...etc etc etc.
Both are so covered in shit you could do a 3 x 90 minute debates just on their lies and scandals.
I think Jon Oliver put it best. Clinton has two main scandals ( Clinton foundation and emails)
If your talking foundations, I think it's fair to say Trump's is 100 times more corrupt than anything the Clinton foundation is accused ( most of which seems to be conjecture)
If you are talking emails, that's bad put not illegal and just a bit careless. And if the issue is transparency, then I'm not sure Trump can compare...
It is illegal she breached security protocols with highly sensitive information. Anyone else would be in jail by now.
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
Three words: House. Of. Lords.
Two Words...Parliament Act
34 words...If any elected or appointed member of the Houses of Parliament think they are going to be funny and try to vote down Brexit then they will rightly unleash constitutional and perhaps civic hell.
There is zero chance of Brexit being overturned by a court case or a vote in either house any time soon. The only chance would be to play things very long and hope that events, and a change in political and public mood, creates an opportunity much further down the line. So Brexiters only need worry if they think Mrs May isn't pushing things along at a healthy pace.
I tend to agree, Brexit may hold on to its 52:48 support ratio in which case we will do a hard or soft Brexit and hope for the best. If it becomes extremely unpopular then a way will have to be found to avoid it going ahead. So far it looks as though it's still as popular, but then it hasn't happened yet. All we have had is a devaluation of the pound (but the pound in your pocket is worth the same, except on foreign holidays) and some businesses considering where their investments should be made. Time will tell.
Perhaps someone could identify some of these Labour MPs who have UKIP breathing down their necks. A 10% Labour to UKIP swing would net UKIP just 15 MPs. In all bar five of these, UKIP finished third or lower.
There is also the effect of new boundaries which will diminish the incumbency benefit that a sitting MP will have.
The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.
Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?
This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."
"Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government," isn't a message you can push while sitting in the same party.
I appreciate that it seems a bit hypocritical to have tolerated Corbyn and McDonnell's presence in the PLP for the last how ever many years, but they need to start thinking about the consequences of staying in the same party as them now they have taken it over. They're lucky that the media isn't trying to tar them with the same brush.
The longer they stay the more likely it is to happen. That's the risk they run. The repeated cries for Jeremy to do something about this are, frankly, pathetic. He is part of the problem not the solution. The fish rots from the head. The toxin which has entered Labour's body has been in Jeremy's for years.
And never mind the media, the greater risk the voters will start tarring them with the same brush.
Labour MPs need to start finding their moral compasses. They need to start using their consciences. A clean conscience, behaving like a morally decent person are (to me anyway) more important than a fake unity based around toleration of or turning a blind eye to morally reprehensible behavior.
If I may say so, I think you are underestimating the extent to which Labour has become a religion to many.
I may well be, yes. A false idol if so. Labour would do well to go back to its Methodist roots if it really wants to survive. There was honour in that.
Foreign secretary also boasted of his ‘beautiful,’ ‘well-functioning Turkish washing machine.’
For someone who has spent the best part of this year telling us we cant take anythong Boris says at face value, you appear to be suddenly taking Boris at face value.
You mean, you don't believe Boris has a Turkish washing machine?
Perhaps someone could identify some of these Labour MPs who have UKIP breathing down their necks. A 10% Labour to UKIP swing would net UKIP just 15 MPs. In all bar five of these, UKIP finished third or lower.
Oh absolutely. If I recall correctly from my previous research into this question, the only seats where Ukip are really close (based on the new boundaries) are Harwich & Clacton (narrow hold for Carswell,) Thurrock, and Thanet East (and that challenge might evaporate, assuming that Farage isn't the candidate again next time around.) The next closest seat is Stoke on Trent North (neck-and-neck with the Tories, but about 4,500 votes behind Labour,) and after that things get progressively and rapidly more difficult.
That said, the fact that anyone is taking the Ukip threat remotely seriously is simply another reflection of how badly Labour is faltering. Nobody knows yet whether or not Ukip can get its act together, but if it can then those parts of the Labour heartland that are the most economically deprived and the least ethnically diverse are the obvious targets for a renewed attempt to break into Parliament. I'm thinking in particular of parts of the North East, Yorkshire and South Wales. These regions are also those which voted heavily for Brexit, and if Michael Crick was correct in what he was saying on C4 News the other evening then Labour is in desperate trouble with this cohort.
Three-and-a-half years might well be long enough for Ukip to effect some sort of breakthrough against a badly wounded Labour Party, and even if it doesn't quite make it the Labour party machine could be forced to divert valuable resources away from fighting the Tories in order to fend off the Ukip challenge.
The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.
Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?
This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."
"Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government," isn't a message you can push while sitting in the same party.
I appreciate that it seems a bit hypocritical to have tolerated Corbyn and McDonnell's presence in the PLP for the last how ever many years, but they need to start thinking about the consequences of staying in the same party as them now they have taken it over. They're lucky that the media isn't trying to tar them with the same brush.
The fish rots from the head. The toxin which has entered Labour's body has been in Jeremy's for years.
I thought Sean explained the other day that actually the Labour Party is a big fat stupid cockroach that rots from the thoracic ganglia when parasitized by a commiewasp.
Indeed. But fish are clean and yummy and have a healthy image to them. Doesn't sit as naturally alongside the Labour party as a festering cockroach carcass does.
Not really following this properly but is there any authoritative poll on the Debate, other than the CNN one which showed a Clinton triumph? if not, do we conclude she won easily?
I thought Trump was pretty dismal, and worse than I expected. Clinton was merely annoying. The moderator was, also, clearly biased.
Perhaps the main thing was that Clinton looked perfectly healthy.
and she did her best to look relaxed and human, insofar as her character and the debate format allowed. When Trump was attacking her temperament and bigging up his own, she patiently waited until he had finished, paused, took a deep breath and with a laugh effectively said 'wow', to a laugh from the audience. A much better response than what I am sure was her instinctive urge to dive in with a detailed rebuttal. It was similar to Reagan's "there you go again..."
The one thing we do know for the next debates is that Clinton will turn up polished and prepared whereas Trump remains unpredictable and high risk. Barring some unexpected health event mid-debate this must make Clinton favourite for being able to survive the next two and hang onto her narrow lead.
Yes, Clinton's deep breath strategy worked well, and as you say bought a couple of positive audience reactions, which helps.
Preparing Trump for these must be an absolute nightmare, as anyone who's ever tried working with an egotistical CEO on an important presentation will be able to testify. I guess he's got people like Pence and Christie around him to help with the debate prep. He also really needs to shift the annoying habit of interrupting himself and not finishing a sentence.
The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.
Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?
This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."
"Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government," isn't a message you can push while sitting in the same party.
I appreciate that it seems a bit hypocritical to have tolerated Corbyn and McDonnell's presence in the PLP for the last how ever many years, but they need to start thinking about the consequences of staying in the same party as them now they have taken it over. They're lucky that the media isn't trying to tar them with the same brush.
The longer they stay the more likely it is to happen. That's the risk they run. The repeated cries for Jeremy to do something about this are, frankly, pathetic. He is part of the problem not the solution. The fish rots from the head. The toxin which has entered Labour's body has been in Jeremy's for years.
And never mind the media, the greater risk the voters will start tarring them with the same brush.
Labour MPs need to start finding their moral compasses. They need to start using their consciences. A clean conscience, behaving like a morally decent person are (to me anyway) more important than a fake unity based around toleration of or turning a blind eye to morally reprehensible behavior.
If I may say so, I think you are underestimating the extent to which Labour has become a religion to many.
I may well be, yes. A false idol if so. Labour would do well to go back to its Methodist roots if it really wants to survive. There was honour in that.
NB - Although we won't have the results of the debate in the polling for a week - we should be able to see trends developing in the daily 7-day running polls relatively quickly.
(Even if the LA Times model is flawed, it should still pick up trends.)
TBH I think the question is not 'Did Clinton win the debate - which was a gimmee based on location, moderator and audience' but "Did Trump outperform expectations". After all if Man City played Forest Green then you would expect them to win - but Forest Green supporters might be happy to lose 3-0 when most people would have expected 7-0 or 8-0.
That has moved from +4 Trump to +3, so small move.
Why is everyone having a go at the moderator? he's a card carrying republican and respected journalist!
And the audience ( as it is for these things) were 50/50 from each party.
Anyway, we will find out in a few days
I can't stand Trump, but the moderator was definitely biased against Trump. He might be a registered republican, but we know loads of GOP "establishment" hate Trump.
He brought up all secondary questions that were Trump's "weaknesses", the racist and sexist stuff, the birther stuff and his tax returns. Total fair to ask.
But to Clinton...nothing...Trump had to scream EMAILS...nothing on Clinton Foundation...etc etc etc.
Both are so covered in shit you could do a 3 x 90 minute debates just on their lies and scandals.
I think Jon Oliver put it best. Clinton has two main scandals ( Clinton foundation and emails)
If your talking foundations, I think it's fair to say Trump's is 100 times more corrupt than anything the Clinton foundation is accused ( most of which seems to be conjecture)
If you are talking emails, that's bad put not illegal and just a bit careless. And if the issue is transparency, then I'm not sure Trump can compare...
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
No difference at all. Labour is now committed to accepting Brexit. The Tories have a membership base which yearns for Brexit.
Voting down Brexit would be political suicide for either party. It's just not going to happen. This is displacement activity for people still in grieving denial.
There'll never been anything as definitive as voting down Brexit. If the government doesn't have its act together on the negotiating strategy or objectives then voting against prematurely invoking Article 50 can be sold as something quite different.
No it can't. The Tory party will go into meltdown if A50 is not triggered by the end of 2017. After that, it's two years. Theresa May knows this; she will trigger.
This is a waste of everyone's time, and as they waste time, Remainers are letting the argument between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit go uncontested, making Hard Brexit more likely. Stupid.
If anybody does manage to find a way to block A50 and therefore block Brexit, surely the EU would get fed up and boot the UK out.
The EU project would be far better off without us now that the electorate has voted to leave, however narrowly.
None of the obstacles that are being suggested to block A50 come with any hint of trying to persuade the electorate that the EU is a wonderful thing.
(Good afternoon, everyone)
There's no process to boot a member state out, and in any case the EU is generally conflict-averse and won't pick a fight to force an outcome that looks like it's going to happen anyway.
That said, the UK is likely to be increasingly ignored in decision-making.
The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.
Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?
This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."
"Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government," isn't a message you can push while sitting in the same party.
I appreciate that it seems a bit hypocritical to have tolerated Corbyn and McDonnell's presence in the PLP for the last how ever many years, but they need to start thinking about the consequences of staying in the same party as them now they have taken it over. They're lucky that the media isn't trying to tar them with the same brush.
The longer they stay the more likely it is to happen. That's the risk they run. The repeated cries for Jeremy to do something about this are, frankly, pathetic. He is part of the problem not the solution. The fish rots from the head. The toxin which has entered Labour's body has been in Jeremy's for years.
And never mind the media, the greater risk the voters will start tarring them with the same brush.
Labour MPs need to start finding their moral compasses. They need to start using their consciences. A clean conscience, behaving like a morally decent person are (to me anyway) more important than a fake unity based around toleration of or turning a blind eye to morally reprehensible behavior.
If I may say so, I think you are underestimating the extent to which Labour has become a religion to many.
Foreign secretary also boasted of his ‘beautiful,’ ‘well-functioning Turkish washing machine.’
For someone who has spent the best part of this year telling us we cant take anythong Boris says at face value, you appear to be suddenly taking Boris at face value.
You mean, you don't believe Boris has a Turkish washing machine?
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
No difference at all. Labour is now committed to accepting Brexit. The Tories have a membership base which yearns for Brexit.
Voting down Brexit would be political suicide for either party. It's just not going to happen. This is displacement activity for people still in grieving denial.
There'll never been anything as definitive as voting down Brexit. If the government doesn't have its act together on the negotiating strategy or objectives then voting against prematurely invoking Article 50 can be sold as something quite different.
No it can't. The Tory party will go into meltdown if A50 is not triggered by the end of 2017. After that, it's two years. Theresa May knows this; she will trigger.
This is a waste of everyone's time, and as they waste time, Remainers are letting the argument between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit go uncontested, making Hard Brexit more likely. Stupid.
If anybody does manage to find a way to block A50 and therefore block Brexit, surely the EU would get fed up and boot the UK out.
The EU project would be far better off without us now that the electorate has voted to leave, however narrowly.
None of the obstacles that are being suggested to block A50 come with any hint of trying to persuade the electorate that the EU is a wonderful thing.
(Good afternoon, everyone)
There's no process to boot a member state out, and in any case the EU is generally conflict-averse and won't pick a fight to force an outcome that looks like it's going to happen anyway.
That said, the UK is likely to be increasingly ignored in decision-making.
Not really following this properly but is there any authoritative poll on the Debate, other than the CNN one which showed a Clinton triumph? if not, do we conclude she won easily?
I thought Trump was pretty dismal, and worse than I expected. Clinton was merely annoying. The moderator was, also, clearly biased.
Perhaps the main thing was that Clinton looked perfectly healthy.
and she did her best to look relaxed and human, insofar as her character and the debate format allowed. When Trump was attacking her temperament and bigging up his own, she patiently waited until he had finished, paused, took a deep breath and with a laugh effectively said 'wow', to a laugh from the audience. A much better response than what I am sure was her instinctive urge to dive in with a detailed rebuttal. It was similar to Reagan's "there you go again..."
The one thing we do know for the next debates is that Clinton will turn up polished and prepared whereas Trump remains unpredictable and high risk. Barring some unexpected health event mid-debate this must make Clinton favourite for being able to survive the next two and hang onto her narrow lead.
Yes, Clinton's deep breath strategy worked well, and as you say bought a couple of positive audience reactions, which helps.
Preparing Trump for these must be an absolute nightmare, as anyone who's ever tried working with an egotistical CEO on an important presentation will be able to testify. I guess he's got people like Pence and Christie around him to help with the debate prep. He also really needs to shift the annoying habit of interrupting himself and not finishing a sentence.
Is there any evidence that Trump did any prep? I thought I read somewhere that he turned down some offers to rehearse
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
No difference at all. Labour is now committed to accepting Brexit. The Tories have a membership base which yearns for Brexit.
Voting down Brexit would be political suicide for either party. It's just not going to happen. This is displacement activity for people still in grieving denial.
There'll never been anything as definitive as voting down Brexit. If the government doesn't have its act together on the negotiating strategy or objectives then voting against prematurely invoking Article 50 can be sold as something quite different.
No it can't. The Tory party will go into meltdown if A50 is not triggered by the end of 2017. After that, it's two years. Theresa May knows this; she will trigger.
This is a waste of everyone's time, and as they waste time, Remainers are letting the argument between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit go uncontested, making Hard Brexit more likely. Stupid.
If anybody does manage to find a way to block A50 and therefore block Brexit, surely the EU would get fed up and boot the UK out.
The EU project would be far better off without us now that the electorate has voted to leave, however narrowly.
None of the obstacles that are being suggested to block A50 come with any hint of trying to persuade the electorate that the EU is a wonderful thing.
(Good afternoon, everyone)
There's no process to boot a member state out, and in any case the EU is generally conflict-averse and won't pick a fight to force an outcome that looks like it's going to happen anyway.
That said, the UK is likely to be increasingly ignored in decision-making.
"That said, the UK is likely to be increasingly ignored in decision-making. "
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
Three words: House. Of. Lords.
Two Words...Parliament Act
34 words...If any elected or appointed member of the Houses of Parliament think they are going to be funny and try to vote down Brexit then they will rightly unleash constitutional and perhaps civic hell.
There is zero chance of Brexit being overturned by a court case or a vote in either house any time shing things along at a healthy pace.
le on others.
Theresa is absolutely right to say she won't give a running commentary, for all those reasons. We're heading into a game of geopolitical poker. We can't go running around the Commons saying Look, we've only got a pair of sevens.
That said I can't see how, politically, she can delay A50 much beyond the Autumn of 2017. About the last excuse for delay is the German election in September that year.
"Theresa", eh?
Well we all know about immigration and border controls. So does M. Barnier. I suspect any other cards we have or may show will be far less important. Plus I suppose our final position is WTO so it's not as though it is open-ended.
But to me this sounds like Leavers panicking.
Look, we are leaving, the whole country might not have voted for it, but the whole country will be leaving (talking to you, N-Sturg). It is right and proper, therefore, for there to be a healthy and public debate about it. I want, say, passporting and don't give a stuff about free movement. You want to build a wall across South Armagh and to hell with the financial services sector. Fine. Let's get a feeling for what the country as a whole wants, which of course will be a compromise.
At worst, we get "nothing" and go WTO, at best, whatever we do get, the whole country feels invested in the process.
They will be humiliated because they have no strategy, bloody awful tactics, nothing substantive to offer and are not prepared to say that Corbyn is awful because of what he thinks. Criticising Corbyn for his leadership skills is like criticizing Stalin for his dress sense.
They also have another big (and related) problem - no leader. That's why they ended up putting forward Owen Smith.
Quite: but the definition of a good leader is someone who has something to say:-
- This is who we are. - This is what we do. - This is how we do it. (How we behave, if you like.) - This is where we want to go. - This is how we're going to get there.
And the ability to communicate that in clear sensible language that is something more substantial than pure piss and wind.
They have no good leader because they have nothing of substance to say. That much was evident from Smith. But it was evident from the vapid bilge which constituted the witterings of Cooper, Kendall and Burnham last year.
Corbyn is leader because the moderate social democratic left has been running on empty for years. The intellectual cupboard is empty. And now they have been found out.
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
No difference at all. Labour is now committed to accepting Brexit. The Tories have a membership base which yearns for Brexit.
Voting down Brexit would be political suicide for either party. It's just not going to happen. This is displacement activity for people still in grieving denial.
There'll never been anything as definitive as voting down Brexit. If the government doesn't have its act together on the negotiating strategy or objectives then voting against prematurely invoking Article 50 can be sold as something quite different.
No it can't. The Tory party will go into meltdown if A50 is not triggered by the end of 2017. After that, it's two years. Theresa May knows this; she will trigger.
This is a waste of everyone's time, and as they waste time, Remainers are letting the argument between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit go uncontested, making Hard Brexit more likely. Stupid.
If anybody does manage to find a way to block A50 and therefore block Brexit, surely the EU would get fed up and boot the UK out.
The EU project would be far better off without us now that the electorate has voted to leave, however narrowly.
None of the obstacles that are being suggested to block A50 come with any hint of trying to persuade the electorate that the EU is a wonderful thing.
(Good afternoon, everyone)
There's no process to boot a member state out, and in any case the EU is generally conflict-averse and won't pick a fight to force an outcome that looks like it's going to happen anyway.
That said, the UK is likely to be increasingly ignored in decision-making.
"That said, the UK is likely to be increasingly ignored in decision-making. "
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
No difference at all. Labour is now committed to accepting Brexit. The Tories have a membership base which yearns for Brexit.
Voting down Brexit would be political suicide for either party. It's just not going to happen. This is displacement activity for people still in grieving denial.
There'll never been anything as definitive as voting down Brexit. If the government doesn't have its act together on the negotiating strategy or objectives then voting against prematurely invoking Article 50 can be sold as something quite different.
No it can't. The Tory party will go into meltdown if A50 is not triggered by the end of 2017. After that, it's two years. Theresa May knows this; she will trigger.
This is a waste of everyone's time, and as they waste time, Remainers are letting the argument between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit go uncontested, making Hard Brexit more likely. Stupid.
If anybody does manage to find a way to block A50 and therefore block Brexit, surely the EU would get fed up and boot the UK out.
The EU project would be far better off without us now that the electorate has voted to leave, however narrowly.
None of the obstacles that are being suggested to block A50 come with any hint of trying to persuade the electorate that the EU is a wonderful thing.
(Good afternoon, everyone)
There's no process to boot a member state out, and in any case the EU is generally conflict-averse and won't pick a fight to force an outcome that looks like it's going to happen anyway.
That said, the UK is likely to be increasingly ignored in decision-making.
"That said, the UK is likely to be increasingly ignored in decision-making. "
Not really following this properly but is there any authoritative poll on the Debate, other than the CNN one which showed a Clinton triumph? if not, do we conclude she won easily?
I thought Trump was pretty dismal, and worse than I expected. Clinton was merely annoying. The moderator was, also, clearly biased.
Perhaps the main thing was that Clinton looked perfectly healthy.
and she did her best to look relaxed and human, insofar as her character and the debate format allowed. When Trump was attacking her temperament and bigging up his own, she patiently waited until he had finished, paused, took a deep breath and with a laugh effectively said 'wow', to a laugh from the audience. A much better response than what I am sure was her instinctive urge to dive in with a detailed rebuttal. It was similar to Reagan's "there you go again..."
The one thing we do know for the next debates is that Clinton will turn up polished and prepared whereas Trump remains unpredictable and high risk. Barring some unexpected health event mid-debate this must make Clinton favourite for being able to survive the next two and hang onto her narrow lead.
Yes, Clinton's deep breath strategy worked well, and as you say bought a couple of positive audience reactions, which helps.
Preparing Trump for these must be an absolute nightmare, as anyone who's ever tried working with an egotistical CEO on an important presentation will be able to testify. I guess he's got people like Pence and Christie around him to help with the debate prep. He also really needs to shift the annoying habit of interrupting himself and not finishing a sentence.
Is there any evidence that Trump did any prep? I thought I read somewhere that he turned down some offers to rehearse
He may well not have done. Which is stupid but plausible
NB - Although we won't have the results of the debate in the polling for a week - we should be able to see trends developing in the daily 7-day running polls relatively quickly.
(Even if the LA Times model is flawed, it should still pick up trends.)
TBH I think the question is not 'Did Clinton win the debate - which was a gimmee based on location, moderator and audience' but "Did Trump outperform expectations". After all if Man City played Forest Green then you would expect them to win - but Forest Green supporters might be happy to lose 3-0 when most people would have expected 7-0 or 8-0.
That has moved from +4 Trump to +3, so small move.
Why is everyone having a go at the moderator? he's a card carrying republican and respected journalist!
And the audience ( as it is for these things) were 50/50 from each party.
Anyway, we will find out in a few days
I can't stand Trump, but the moderator was definitely biased against Trump. He might be a registered republican, but we know loads of GOP "establishment" hate Trump.
He brought up all secondary questions that were Trump's "weaknesses", the racist and sexist stuff, the birther stuff and his tax returns. Total fair to ask.
But to Clinton...nothing...Trump had to scream EMAILS...nothing on Clinton Foundation...etc etc etc.
Both are so covered in shit you could do a 3 x 90 minute debates just on their lies and scandals.
I think Jon Oliver put it best. Clinton has two main scandals ( Clinton foundation and emails)
If your talking foundations, I think it's fair to say Trump's is 100 times more corrupt than anything the Clinton foundation is accused ( most of which seems to be conjecture)
If you are talking emails, that's bad put not illegal and just a bit careless. And if the issue is transparency, then I'm not sure Trump can compare...
"....just 32% of Americans now say they trust the media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" -- the lowest level since 1972, when Gallup began polling. "Now, only about a third of the U.S. has any trust in the Fourth Estate, a stunning development for an institution designed to inform the public," Gallup said in its press release. "
If anybody does manage to find a way to block A50 and therefore block Brexit, surely the EU would get fed up and boot the UK out.
The EU project would be far better off without us now that the electorate has voted to leave, however narrowly.
None of the obstacles that are being suggested to block A50 come with any hint of trying to persuade the electorate that the EU is a wonderful thing.
(Good afternoon, everyone)
Hurst Lama was mentioning the other day the importance of being prepared to walk away to show you are serious in negotiations. I Googled Brexit and BATNA (Best alternative to negotiated agreement) to see what those that negotiate for a living thought. In general they appear to think the whole exercise is bonkers and you would never get yourself into the situation in the first place (There may be a certain amount of Remainian prejudice though)
I decided our Best alternative to negotiated agreement is to stay put, for the reason you give. I am talking purely about negotiation tactics, not because I voted Remain. We keep all our present benefits in terms of Single Market etc but the EU side won't be happy if we stick around. It gives them an incentive to move. Hard Brexiteers would be all over it, though, which makes the tactic a non-starter. The Brexit process will just have to take its course. It will be what it is
Donald Trump I really enjoyed the debate last night.Crooked Hillary says she is going to do so many things.Why hasn't she done them in her last 30 years?
They will be humiliated because they have no strategy, bloody awful tactics, nothing substantive to offer and are not prepared to say that Corbyn is awful because of what he thinks. Criticising Corbyn for his leadership skills is like criticizing Stalin for his dress sense.
They also have another big (and related) problem - no leader. That's why they ended up putting forward Owen Smith.
Quite: but the definition of a good leader is someone who has something to say:-
- This is who we are. - This is what we do. - This is how we do it. (How we behave, if you like.) - This is where we want to go. - This is how we're going to get there.
And the ability to communicate that in clear sensible language that is something more substantial than pure piss and wind.
They have no good leader because they have nothing of substance to say. That much was evident from Smith. But it was evident from the vapid bilge which constituted the witterings of Cooper, Kendall and Burnham last year.
Corbyn is leader because the moderate social democratic left has been running on empty for years. The intellectual cupboard is empty. And now they have been found out.
But I'm really looking forward to @SouthamObserver's thoughts on this as he is a Labour man.
I'd add that the last element of a leader is instilling belief in the followers. Belief that if we do this today, we shall get to the promised land tomorrow. And a key element of belief is purpose - this is why we do it.
If you are free to choose your own followers, the goal and purpose can be the personal foible of the leader. People then chose to follow or not, and that will decide the size of the movement or organization. However, if you are leading a given set of people, the leader has to LISTEN to what the followers want, and somehow mold or adapt his or her vision to the followers' objectives. This will be extraordinarily difficult for any true labour lefty to do with the current PLP. It is against every fibre of Jezza's body to even try.
PS This is probably part of the reason for the current mess. The membership who voted for Jezza are self-selected followers. The rest and the PLP are not.
On a Virgin train from Doncaster to Kings cross. Really nice service, clean carriage and the windows are huge. It feels like there isn't a train around you and you are flying through the countryside.
Also noted that the Hull Doncaster branch line still has the old telegraph signalling. Haven't seen that for a while.
Sunil Nerd mode off.
I did Doncaster to Leuchars back in 2012 (though as it was March, it turned dark as we passed Berwick on the return leg the next day). Already did Hitchin to Doncaster to Leeds in 2010. And London to Hitchin to Cambridge loads of times in 2004 to 2007, as I worked in Cambridge back then
Yesterday, I did Ely to Bury St Edmunds, only about 10 miles of track but served only every two hours in each direction. Aborted a planned trip from Paddington-Westbury-Exeter as the weather forecast wasn't too great.
How do you afford it though? Anyway interesting that you aborted strip from Paddington to. Westbury and Exeter normally FIrst GReat Western do this for us.
You can always take the London Waterloo to Exeter St David's service route . Train divides at Salisbury with front part going to Exeter and the rear section to Bristol Temple Meads. ( seem to recollect you did the latter a little while back?)
Not really following this properly but is there any authoritative poll on the Debate, other than the CNN one which showed a Clinton triumph? if not, do we conclude she won easily?
I thought Trump was pretty dismal, and worse than I expected. Clinton was merely annoying. The moderator was, also, clearly biased.
Perhaps the main thing was that Clinton looked perfectly healthy.
and she did her best to look relaxed and human, insofar as her character and the debate format allowed. When Trump was attacking her temperament and bigging up his own, she patiently waited until he had finished, paused, took a deep breath and with a laugh effectively said 'wow', to a laugh from the audience. A much better response than what I am sure was her instinctive urge to dive in with a detailed rebuttal. It was similar to Reagan's "there you go again..."
The one thing we do know for the next debates is that Clinton will turn up polished and prepared whereas Trump remains unpredictable and high risk. Barring some unexpected health event mid-debate this must make Clinton favourite for being able to survive the next two and hang onto her narrow lead.
Yes, Clinton's deep breath strategy worked well, and as you say bought a couple of positive audience reactions, which helps.
Preparing Trump for these must be an absolute nightmare, as anyone who's ever tried working with an egotistical CEO on an important presentation will be able to testify. I guess he's got people like Pence and Christie around him to help with the debate prep. He also really needs to shift the annoying habit of interrupting himself and not finishing a sentence.
Is there any evidence that Trump did any prep? I thought I read somewhere that he turned down some offers to rehearse
It was said that Hillary had done almost nothing else for a week, as is usual for the candidates in these contests.
I doubt Trump has the attention span for a long and detailed critique of his opponent - and to be fair to him his technique has worked well up until now - but he needs a lot more refinement and that's the tricky bit.
He can work with more general 'rules', like don't call her 'crooked' and remember to smile, but more specific and nuanced things like the interruptions of himself and his opponent are baked into his personality, therefore much more difficult to work around.
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
Three words: House. Of. Lords.
Two Words...Parliament Act
Two more words: Constitutional Crisis :-)
Seriously, if the courts are foolish enough to throw a spanner into the works and frustrate the decision of the public, then not only do they come dangerously close to dragging themselves into politics, they also provide a powerful temptation to the Lords (where there is no Government majority, nobody has to face election, and there is no shortage of vocal, die-in-a-ditch Remainers) to frustrate the whole process. It would infuriate that substantial section of the Leave vote who are already deeply suspicious of politicians and feel that they are not listened to, it would put a rocket under Ukip, and it would also drive the leaders of the rest of the EU up the wall as they are made to wait again, potentially for a whole extra year, for A50 to be invoked. The only alternatives to that would be for the Government to demand an early election - effectively as a second referendum on Brexit - or to pack the Lords with 300 new Government peers to try to hurry the process along.
The relatively benign climate post-referendum is due largely to the rapid installation of a new Prime Minister who is being seen to behave in a fairly calm and measured way. The last thing on Earth we need is a tiny clique of unelected, Continuity Remain ultras obstructing both the will of the Commons and the referendum decision made by the people, leading both to a General Election and potential accusations of the politicization of the courts.
There is an alternative to Corbyn. Leaving the party. But I don't think they'll do that.
There is another alternative which is if Corbyn is Foot then wait until he loses the next election and then replace him with a Kinnock-like figure who will attempt to get Militant/Momentum out again. Probably easier than getting SDP II to work. There is a lack of patience it seems to simply let Corbyn be seen to fail.
What a mess she's made of all this, which is a real shame as she's the sort of person who will undoubtedly make a good member of the Lords, with a legal background and a strong belief in the rights of the individual. But the way it's been done is a complete shambles!
There is an alternative to Corbyn. Leaving the party. But I don't think they'll do that.
There is another alternative which is if Corbyn is Foot then wait until he loses the next election and then replace him with a Kinnock-like figure who will attempt to get Militant/Momentum out again. Probably easier than getting SDP II to work. There is a lack of patience it seems to simply let Corbyn be seen to fail.
Except Kinnock lost TWO elections on the trot, in addition to Foot's debacle.
What a mess she's made of all this, which is a real shame as she's the sort of person who will undoubtedly make a good member of the Lords, with a legal background and a strong belief in the rights of the individual. But the way it's been done is a complete shambles!
She's a hand wringing do-gooder. Get her out of the Lords. A mass expulsion is what's needed.
There is an alternative to Corbyn. Leaving the party. But I don't think they'll do that.
There is another alternative which is if Corbyn is Foot then wait until he loses the next election and then replace him with a Kinnock-like figure who will attempt to get Militant/Momentum out again. Probably easier than getting SDP II to work. There is a lack of patience it seems to simply let Corbyn be seen to fail.
Except Kinnock lost TWO elections on the trot, in addition to Foot's debacle.
Yet Labour still returned to power in a majority 13 years before the legacy of the SDP did as a doomed minority.
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
Three words: House. Of. Lords.
Two Words...Parliament Act
Two more words: Constitutional Crisis :-)
Seriously, if the courts are foolish enough to throw a spanner into the works and frustrate the decision of the public, then not only do they come dangerously close to dragging themselves into politics, they also provide a powerful temptation to the Lords (where there is no Government majority, nobody has to face election, and there is no shortage of vocal, die-in-a-ditch Remainers) to frustrate the whole process. It would infuriate that substantial section of the Leave vote who are already deeply suspicious of politicians and feel that they are not listened to, it would put a rocket under Ukip, and it would also drive the leaders of the rest of the EU up the wall as they are made to wait again, potentially for a whole extra year, for A50 to be invoked. The only alternatives to that would be for the Government to demand an early election - effectively as a second referendum on Brexit - or to pack the Lords with 300 new Government peers to try to hurry the process along.
The relatively benign climate post-referendum is due largely to the rapid installation of a new Prime Minister who is being seen to behave in a fairly calm and measured way. The last thing on Earth we need is a tiny clique of unelected, Continuity Remain ultras obstructing both the will of the Commons and the referendum decision made by the people, leading both to a General Election and potential accusations of the politicization of the courts.
A reminder that under EHV (Enormo-Haddock Voting) the Upper Chamber would be occupied by the octo-lemur. I'm sure we can all agree this would be a better state of affairs.
Mr. Thompson, a problem with letting Corbyn fail is that it then decreases the number of MPs either he or a comparable politician needs to get onto the short list next time. If he even resigns.
Mr. Rook, indeed. There's a movement by some to try and frustrate, prolong and, if possible, deny the referendum result. It's rancid.
Not really following this properly but is there any authoritative poll on the Debate, other than the CNN one which showed a Clinton triumph? if not, do we conclude she won easily?
I thought Trump was pretty dismal, and worse than I expected. Clinton was merely annoying. The moderator was, also, clearly biased.
Perhaps the main thing was that Clinton looked perfectly healthy.
and she did her best to look relaxed and human, insofar as her character and the debate format allowed. When Trump was attacking her temperament and bigging up his own, she patiently waited until he had finished, paused, took a deep breath and with a laugh effectively said 'wow', to a laugh from the audience. A much better response than what I am sure was her instinctive urge to dive in with a detailed rebuttal. It was similar to Reagan's "there you go again..."
The one thing we do know for the next debates is that Clinton will turn up polished and prepared whereas Trump remains unpredictable and high risk. Barring some unexpected health event mid-debate this must make Clinton favourite for being able to survive the next two and hang onto her narrow lead.
Yes, Clinton's deep breath strategy worked well, and as you say bought a couple of positive audience reactions, which helps.
Preparing Trump for these must be an absolute nightmare, as anyone who's ever tried working with an egotistical CEO on an important presentation will be able to testify. I guess he's got people like Pence and Christie around him to help with the debate prep. He also really needs to shift the annoying habit of interrupting himself and not finishing a sentence.
Is there any evidence that Trump did any prep? I thought I read somewhere that he turned down some offers to rehearse
He said to a reporter being too prepared as he had seen some do means you are so on message you can't handle the questions form left field.
@Black_Rook What utter nonsense. The Article 50 case explores an important area of constitutional law - the extent of the royal prerogative.
One day the government will want to do something that you strongly disapprove of. Who knows, that government might even be headed by a Prime Minister who was put in that position by a popular vote and following a programme that had been put before the people at a general election. You would still want to ensure that appropriate checks and balances were in place.
They will be humiliated because they have no strategy, bloody awful tactics, nothing substantive to offer and are not prepared to say that Corbyn is awful because of what he thinks. Criticising Corbyn for his leadership skills is like criticizing Stalin for his dress sense.
They also have another big (and related) problem - no leader. That's why they ended up putting forward Owen Smith.
Quite: but the definition of a good leader is someone who has something to say:-
- This is who we are. - This is what we do. - This is how we do it. (How we behave, if you like.) - This is where we want to go. - This is how we're going to get there.
And the ability to communicate that in clear sensible language that is something more substantial than pure piss and wind.
They have no good leader because they have nothing of substance to say. That much was evident from Smith. But it was evident from the vapid bilge which constituted the witterings of Cooper, Kendall and Burnham last year.
Corbyn is leader because the moderate social democratic left has been running on empty for years. The intellectual cupboard is empty. And now they have been found out.
But I'm really looking forward to @SouthamObserver's thoughts on this as he is a Labour man.
As this is a similar conversation albeit with different participants, I am going to take the liberty of C&Ping two comments I posted under Southam's last thread. Apologies to those who have seen them before.
Southam's contention was that the "Corbynite" camp is, on closer inspection, composed of several different factions, and some of these factions may be less tightly attached to the Corbyn dream and more amenable to moves from Labour's moderates, than the margin of victory in the leadership election suggested.
A reminder that under EHV (Enormo-Haddock Voting) the Upper Chamber would be occupied by the octo-lemur. I'm sure we can all agree this would be a better state of affairs.
Mr. Thompson, a problem with letting Corbyn fail is that it then decreases the number of MPs either he or a comparable politician needs to get onto the short list next time. If he even resigns.
Mr. Rook, indeed. There's a movement by some to try and frustrate, prolong and, if possible, deny the referendum result. It's rancid.
Does the octo-lemur have 8 fuzzy, ringed tails? And enormous eyes? Could be cute, and intelligent.
What the heck is "non-Corbynite Labour" anyway? What is it for? What does it think? What is the vision?
No group is homogeneous if you drill down deep enough - at the end of the day, we are all individuals and no two individuals think exactly alike. On that basis, the realisation that the "Corbynites" are heterogeneous brings a total sense of false security. Yes, they have factions with different outlooks. Like every single coherent political movement in the history of mankind! Way to go for spotting a weak-point...
But what about the non-Corbyn group? The non-Corbynites are in such a mess they don't really form a faction except by the negative definition of "the lot who don't fit into any of the Corbynite categories". In fact they're in such a mess they can't even be decomposed into sub-factions. They are just a useless, pathetic, undirected, ideologically-bereft, jellylike, vacuous, amorphous blob. And that's the second-kindest thing I can think of saying about them, after "Well, 38% ain't all that bad - third time lucky?"
They don't stand for anything. They don't have a clear identity to promote. They don't even seem to think anything.
Sometimes a lack of ideology is dressed up as a bonus, it's "pragmatic". But even pragmatism forms a coherent system of moral and political thought. This isn't pragmatism. It's an ideas vacuum.
Since the Brown government ran out of steam, it's as if all the ideas have run out. For all the Corbynista witch-hunting of "Blairites", they mostly left the scene when Blair did. If Labour actually had a coherent group of thirty or so hardcore ideologically-committed Blairites, perhaps under a different name, it would be a good thing. At least they could push some ideas or policy proposals out, form an alternative narrative, and if the left-wing project fails then there's a seed there for the next wave of Labour's history to grow from.
I never wonder that question (about doing science at school). I wonder why we couldn't do as many subjects as we liked at school. But then I remember - ah, yes! No computers and no internet, having to rely on teachers for information and libraries for books. I have never regretted studying science formally and filling in the gaps of arts, languages and history myself. And making learning a life-long hobby.
Now thanks to Cookie and Hurstllama I have two more books to clutter the house for the effort of just two clicks of the trackpad. I am particularly looking forward to the Oppenheimer book - my (American) wife is constantly telling me how all the British/Irish are genetically identical and we are silly to hang on to our home country identities.
BTW and FWIW, for those interested in anecdotal evidence of a US citizen's response to the debate, the wife (who is anyone but Trump) fell asleep after 40 minutes, was surprised Trump held it together and hated Hillary more after the debate than before. One element in Hillary's favour - she intends to vote Johnson, unless it's close, in which case she will hold her nose and vote Hillary.
I noted that when my children got to age 14 and had to pick their GCSE’s they had a matrix of subjects. IIRC they had to select eight (plus English and Maths) out of eight “boxes”. It was organised so that they had to end up with a range of subjects, and the less academic could include PE and Woodwork etc. Much better than the “sheep or goats” approach of my 50’s Grammar School. Grandson 2 will be selecting later this year; ’twill be interesting to see how his school approaches the matter. Constructing timetables must be quite difficult.
Lifelong Learning is a fascinating subject in its own right. There’s considerable evidence that it helps to keep the brain active and postpone the ageing process, mentally anyway. I got involved with it on a professional basis in my last few working years and am still somewhat involved in organisation. What one has to be very careful of doing is confusing education with exams. The two are often inextricably linked in the mind.
Mr. T, the octo-lemur are strange and mysterious. You'll know one when you see it.
Mr. Meeks, you recall Parliament voted for the referendum, promised to abide by the result and the party proposing the referendum won an outright majority at the last election?
It's not like the referendum was a surprise put forward by a minority party against the will of Parliament and without consulting the people.
Post-government, the 2010 contest brought us EdMilibandism. In fact in 2010 it sounded like he might have some idea about a fresh direction. In fairness DavidMilibandism also sounded like a direction, albeit reheated rather than fresh, but it wasn't fully-formed, and post the decapitation of its leader, it seems to have been a movement without acolytes. And how coherent was the Milibandism we did get? After 5 years to get a policy position together, Axelrod's description of Vote Labour and Win a Microwave was spot-on.
How about 2015's contest? Cooper somehow couldn't put a package before the selectorate that was more solid or coherent than Andy Burnham's. Couldn't even get more votes than him either. A risible showing from someone who probably had the intellectual heft to frame a new direction. I can only think she was trying to second-guess the preferences of the membership while third-guessing the long-run impact of her positions among the wider GE-voting public, and ended up sloganeering in an effort to sell the wishy-washy and the meaningless. Kendall was braver - stuck her colours to a mast - just a shame she wasn't about in the early/mid 90s. Notably she had few MPs behind her and hasn't formed the nucleus of a new ideas-powerhouse for MPs setting out alternatives to Project Corbyn.
With 2016, Owen Smith didn't repeat the Kendall "mistake". When addressing the membership, he at least pretended to be "socialism in a better suit" who would cut out the internecine warfare. But there were no "Smithites" because there's no such thing as "Smithism". As James Forsyth says, it was an intellectual surrender. It didn't get her v. far but at least one can imagine such a beast as a Kendallite.
When commentators talk about "Labour moderates", "Labour centrists" or "Labour social democrats" rebuilding, who exactly is to do the rebuilding? The non-Corbynite part of the PLP lacks clear leaders or uniting ideas. It is basically just a large but disorganised and rudderless rabble of marooned MPs. They may want to reach out to the two fifths of the membership who opposed Corbyn, but lack the organisation and communicational connections to do so. The three fifths who supported Corbyn may come from different backgrounds, but we know they are all left-wing (to varying degrees) and what kind of agenda they can get behind. The two fifths deemed to be the base for regeneration are spread out far wider across the political spectrum, so lining them up behind a common agenda is going to be a very hard slog. Who out there is going to put the necessary shift in - and do they even have the political nous to pull it off? The big beasts have moved on, and if Owen Smith is the best they can do then it just isn't going to be good enough.
A reminder that under EHV (Enormo-Haddock Voting) the Upper Chamber would be occupied by the octo-lemur. I'm sure we can all agree this would be a better state of affairs.
Mr. Thompson, a problem with letting Corbyn fail is that it then decreases the number of MPs either he or a comparable politician needs to get onto the short list next time. If he even resigns.
Mr. Rook, indeed. There's a movement by some to try and frustrate, prolong and, if possible, deny the referendum result. It's rancid.
Does the octo-lemur have 8 fuzzy, ringed tails? And enormous eyes? Could be cute, and intelligent.
I had fried octopus tentacles while in the Canaries recently. Is that similar?
Newt Gingrich I worked with Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton and I got a lot done--welfare reform,balancing the budget.Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton.
"Bill Clinton and I got a lot done" ? Gingrich caused two US Government shutdowns!
"The United States federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1995–96 were the result of conflicts between Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress over funding for Medicare, education, the environment, and public health in the 1996 federal budget. The government shut down after Clinton vetoed the spending bill the Republican Party-controlled Congress sent him. The federal government of the United States put government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services from November 14 through November 19, 1995, and from December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996, for a total of 27 days. The major players were President Clinton and Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich."
@Black_Rook What utter nonsense. The Article 50 case explores an important area of constitutional law - the extent of the royal prerogative.
One day the government will want to do something that you strongly disapprove of. Who knows, that government might even be headed by a Prime Minister who was put in that position by a popular vote and following a programme that had been put before the people at a general election. You would still want to ensure that appropriate checks and balances were in place.
Not everything is just about Brexit.
We had the checks and balances. Parliament voted for the referendum, a policy which was very prominent in the manifesto, and the public made the decision. The government now has the extremely difficult task of implementing it, a task in which the exact timing is an important factor and which can only be made more dangerous by trying retrospectively to undo the decision or delay the implementation.
As David Herdson has rightly pointed out, what would a vote on Article 50 in parliament be for? If there is any chance of it not approving the triggering of Article 50, that would be a democratic outrage given the referendum result. Alternatively, if it is just a cosmetic rubber-stamp job, then that weakens, not strengthens, the role of parliament.
@Black_Rook What utter nonsense. The Article 50 case explores an important area of constitutional law - the extent of the royal prerogative.
One day the government will want to do something that you strongly disapprove of. Who knows, that government might even be headed by a Prime Minister who was put in that position by a popular vote and following a programme that had been put before the people at a general election. You would still want to ensure that appropriate checks and balances were in place.
Not everything is just about Brexit.
Its an entirely baseless case though. Unless the law needs to be altered for the process, then the prerogative rests with the Government.
I can't believe they're even wasting any time on it.
It is of course, different now when treaties are signed - due purely to an act of parliament, which can also be repealed in the same way it was passed, returning that right to royal prerogative where no legislation is needed to fulfil treaty obligations.
I noted that when my children got to age 14 and had to pick their GCSE’s they had a matrix of subjects. IIRC they had to select eight (plus English and Maths) out of eight “boxes”. It was organised so that they had to end up with a range of subjects, and the less academic could include PE and Woodwork etc. Much better than the “sheep or goats” approach of my 50’s Grammar School. Grandson 2 will be selecting later this year; ’twill be interesting to see how his school approaches the matter. Constructing timetables must be quite difficult.
Lifelong Learning is a fascinating subject in its own right. There’s considerable evidence that it helps to keep the brain active and postpone the ageing process, mentally anyway. I got involved with it on a professional basis in my last few working years and am still somewhat involved in organisation. What one has to be very careful of doing is confusing education with exams. The two are often inextricably linked in the mind.
Yes, creating those matrices must be incredibly difficult. That is the problem of relying on teachers teaching in physical classes at set times to a define set of students.
I have to say, my daughter's suggestion that she switch from that model to distance learning, (where everything was done on the computer in self study off a reading list and questions were one on one with the tutor at a time of mutual convenience and focussed only on problem issues specific to my daughter's learning), turned out not only to be a way more efficient, but also a way more effective way of learning. Interestingly, the tests in this model turned from the dreaded 'exam' into simply a way of proving that you had completed the assignment for that section, and nothing to be feared.
It has had a huge impact on her success in the university environment.
What a mess she's made of all this, which is a real shame as she's the sort of person who will undoubtedly make a good member of the Lords, with a legal background and a strong belief in the rights of the individual. But the way it's been done is a complete shambles!
There are plenty of good lawyers with a strong belief in the rights of individuals, and with a real record of achievement, in the Lords. Lord Lester, for instance. Shami is not fit to lick their boots, frankly.
She showed appalling judgment in relation to the LSE and its acceptance of Ghadaffi family money. She failed to stand up for free speech in relation to the ban on Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, a ban subsequently overturned by the courts.
She has utterly failed to do the hard thinking needed to advance the cause of civil liberties when those same liberties are being used as a sword by those dedicated to their destruction, failed to understand the threat that such an ideology posed and failed to think intelligently about how to counter it, preferring to utter banalities which would have embarrassed an intelligent first year politics student.
We don't need any more people with poor judgment in the Lords.
Mr. Thompson, a problem with letting Corbyn fail is that it then decreases the number of MPs either he or a comparable politician needs to get onto the short list next time. If he even resigns.
No that's a problem with being impatient and trying to take the easy way out. Labour will be ready for the voters to consider them for power not when it short-circuits its members choice and forces a leader the membership doesn't want on them ... but when a prospective rational leader is ready and able to defeat a contender comparable to Corbyn.
There is an alternative to Corbyn. Leaving the party. But I don't think they'll do that.
There is another alternative which is if Corbyn is Foot then wait until he loses the next election and then replace him with a Kinnock-like figure who will attempt to get Militant/Momentum out again. Probably easier than getting SDP II to work. There is a lack of patience it seems to simply let Corbyn be seen to fail.
Except Kinnock lost TWO elections on the trot, in addition to Foot's debacle.
True, but he got them back in the game, with gains at both elections, a vastly improved central machine, policy reform and the purging of militant. And he almost certainly would have won in 1991/2 had not the Tories dumped Thatcher.
Mr. Meeks, so the official taxpayer-funded guidance stating that the result would be respected was a lie? And the democratic result should be ignored because the electorate voted wrong?
These poor Labour 'moderates' are going to spend a decade or more fighting and failing to recover the Labour Party and then, when they are sitting in their retirement chair looking out to sea with a blanket to keep them warm, will realise that their time would have better been spent quickly killing the party off.
What a mess she's made of all this, which is a real shame as she's the sort of person who will undoubtedly make a good member of the Lords, with a legal background and a strong belief in the rights of the individual. But the way it's been done is a complete shambles!
There are plenty of good lawyers with a strong belief in the rights of individuals, and with a real record of achievement, in the Lords. Lord Lester, for instance. Shami is not fit to lick their boots, frankly.
She showed appalling judgment in relation to the LSE and its acceptance of Ghadaffi family money. She failed to stand up for free speech in relation to the ban on Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, a ban subsequently overturned by the courts.
She has utterly failed to do the hard thinking needed to advance the cause of civil liberties when those same liberties are being used as a sword by those dedicated to their destruction, failed to understand the threat that such an ideology posed and failed to think intelligently about how to counter it, preferring to utter banalities which would have embarrassed an intelligent first year politics student.
We don't need any more people with poor judgment in the Lords.
@Black_Rook What utter nonsense. The Article 50 case explores an important area of constitutional law - the extent of the royal prerogative.
One day the government will want to do something that you strongly disapprove of. Who knows, that government might even be headed by a Prime Minister who was put in that position by a popular vote and following a programme that had been put before the people at a general election. You would still want to ensure that appropriate checks and balances were in place.
Not everything is just about Brexit.
We had the checks and balances. Parliament voted for the referendum, a policy which was very prominent in the manifesto, and the public made the decision. The government now has the extremely difficult task of implementing it, a task in which the exact timing is an important factor and which can only be made more dangerous by trying retrospectively to undo the decision or delay the implementation.
As David Herdson has rightly pointed out, what would a vote on Article 50 in parliament be for? If there is any chance of it not approving the triggering of Article 50, that would be a democratic outrage given the referendum result. Alternatively, if it is just a cosmetic rubber-stamp job, then that weakens, not strengthens, the role of parliament.
The referendum was a (quite close) vote to leave the EU. It didn't decide what sort of Brexit we should have. Are we supposed to accept whatever the 3 Brexiteers Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson, come up without a vote in Parliament? Take back control - vote in Parliament!
Comments
Scotland - a precedent dear to your heart (and wallet), I believe!
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/voters-nationally-say-clinton-won-debate-5140.html
- This is who we are.
- This is what we do.
- This is how we do it. (How we behave, if you like.)
- This is where we want to go.
- This is how we're going to get there.
And the ability to communicate that in clear sensible language that is something more substantial than pure piss and wind.
They have no good leader because they have nothing of substance to say. That much was evident from Smith. But it was evident from the vapid bilge which constituted the witterings of Cooper, Kendall and Burnham last year.
Corbyn is leader because the moderate social democratic left has been running on empty for years. The intellectual cupboard is empty. And now they have been found out.
What the social democratic left should be thinking is a tough job. I gave my thoughts in a thread header a few weeks back - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/08/07/going-back-to-your-roots-cyclefree-on-the-labour-leadership-contest/.
But I'm really looking forward to @SouthamObserver's thoughts on this as he is a Labour man.
I am in no hurry for that to happen. Not because I never want it to happen, but because when we trigger A50 we are in for years (two in the first instance with the EU) of hugely sensitive and complex negotiations. We need to be absolutely on top of our game when we begin this.
As mentioned above, I am cautious that if we make, as we will, immigration our line in the sand, that is showing part of our hand before we start, as our EU negotiating partners know the government's hands will be tied on that issue and will therefore be more flexible on others.
1) what controls over the executive should Parliament have?
2) what Brexit deal should be struck?
The first will inform how the second is reached but they are in essence unrelated questions. Administrative convenience should not outweigh the need for constitutional checks and balances.
http://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-uk-will-help-turkey-join-the-eu/
Boris Johnson: UK will help Turkey join the EU
Foreign secretary also boasted of his ‘beautiful,’ ‘well-functioning Turkish washing machine.’
On a Virgin train from Doncaster to Kings cross. Really nice service, clean carriage and the windows are huge. It feels like there isn't a train around you and you are flying through the countryside.
Also noted that the Hull Doncaster branch line still has the old telegraph signalling. Haven't seen that for a while.
Sunil Nerd mode off.
The one thing we do know for the next debates is that Clinton will turn up polished and prepared whereas Trump remains unpredictable and high risk. Barring some unexpected health event mid-debate this must make Clinton favourite for being able to survive the next two and hang onto her narrow lead.
The EU project would be far better off without us now that the electorate has voted to leave, however narrowly.
None of the obstacles that are being suggested to block A50 come with any hint of trying to persuade the electorate that the EU is a wonderful thing.
(Good afternoon, everyone)
Yesterday, I did Ely to Bury St Edmunds, only about 10 miles of track but served only every two hours in each direction. Aborted a planned trip from Paddington-Westbury-Exeter as the weather forecast wasn't too great.
So far it looks as though it's still as popular, but then it hasn't happened yet. All we have had is a devaluation of the pound (but the pound in your pocket is worth the same, except on foreign holidays) and some businesses considering where their investments should be made.
Time will tell.
That said, the fact that anyone is taking the Ukip threat remotely seriously is simply another reflection of how badly Labour is faltering. Nobody knows yet whether or not Ukip can get its act together, but if it can then those parts of the Labour heartland that are the most economically deprived and the least ethnically diverse are the obvious targets for a renewed attempt to break into Parliament. I'm thinking in particular of parts of the North East, Yorkshire and South Wales. These regions are also those which voted heavily for Brexit, and if Michael Crick was correct in what he was saying on C4 News the other evening then Labour is in desperate trouble with this cohort.
Three-and-a-half years might well be long enough for Ukip to effect some sort of breakthrough against a badly wounded Labour Party, and even if it doesn't quite make it the Labour party machine could be forced to divert valuable resources away from fighting the Tories in order to fend off the Ukip challenge.
Preparing Trump for these must be an absolute nightmare, as anyone who's ever tried working with an egotistical CEO on an important presentation will be able to testify. I guess he's got people like Pence and Christie around him to help with the debate prep. He also really needs to shift the annoying habit of interrupting himself and not finishing a sentence.
That said, the UK is likely to be increasingly ignored in decision-making.
(only kidding!)
"That said, the UK is likely to be increasingly ignored in decision-making. "
So no change there then :-)
Well we all know about immigration and border controls. So does M. Barnier. I suspect any other cards we have or may show will be far less important. Plus I suppose our final position is WTO so it's not as though it is open-ended.
But to me this sounds like Leavers panicking.
Look, we are leaving, the whole country might not have voted for it, but the whole country will be leaving (talking to you, N-Sturg). It is right and proper, therefore, for there to be a healthy and public debate about it. I want, say, passporting and don't give a stuff about free movement. You want to build a wall across South Armagh and to hell with the financial services sector. Fine. Let's get a feeling for what the country as a whole wants, which of course will be a compromise.
At worst, we get "nothing" and go WTO, at best, whatever we do get, the whole country feels invested in the process.
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz
"....just 32% of Americans now say they trust the media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" -- the lowest level since 1972, when Gallup began polling.
"Now, only about a third of the U.S. has any trust in the Fourth Estate, a stunning development for an institution designed to inform the public," Gallup said in its press release. "
This a down the line article however and worth a read.
I decided our Best alternative to negotiated agreement is to stay put, for the reason you give. I am talking purely about negotiation tactics, not because I voted Remain. We keep all our present benefits in terms of Single Market etc but the EU side won't be happy if we stick around. It gives them an incentive to move. Hard Brexiteers would be all over it, though, which makes the tactic a non-starter. The Brexit process will just have to take its course. It will be what it is
http://order-order.com/2016/09/27/shami-chakrabarti-squirms-peerage-questions/
I really enjoyed the debate last night.Crooked Hillary says she is going to do so many things.Why hasn't she done them in her last 30 years?
If you are free to choose your own followers, the goal and purpose can be the personal foible of the leader. People then chose to follow or not, and that will decide the size of the movement or organization. However, if you are leading a given set of people, the leader has to LISTEN to what the followers want, and somehow mold or adapt his or her vision to the followers' objectives. This will be extraordinarily difficult for any true labour lefty to do with the current PLP. It is against every fibre of Jezza's body to even try.
PS This is probably part of the reason for the current mess. The membership who voted for Jezza are self-selected followers. The rest and the PLP are not.
There is an alternative to Corbyn. Leaving the party. But I don't think they'll do that.
You can always take the London Waterloo to Exeter St David's service route . Train divides at Salisbury with front part going to Exeter and the rear section to Bristol Temple Meads. ( seem to recollect you did the latter a little while back?)
Newt Gingrich
I worked with Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton and I got a lot done--welfare reform,balancing the budget.Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton.
I doubt Trump has the attention span for a long and detailed critique of his opponent - and to be fair to him his technique has worked well up until now - but he needs a lot more refinement and that's the tricky bit.
He can work with more general 'rules', like don't call her 'crooked' and remember to smile, but more specific and nuanced things like the interruptions of himself and his opponent are baked into his personality, therefore much more difficult to work around.
Seriously, if the courts are foolish enough to throw a spanner into the works and frustrate the decision of the public, then not only do they come dangerously close to dragging themselves into politics, they also provide a powerful temptation to the Lords (where there is no Government majority, nobody has to face election, and there is no shortage of vocal, die-in-a-ditch Remainers) to frustrate the whole process. It would infuriate that substantial section of the Leave vote who are already deeply suspicious of politicians and feel that they are not listened to, it would put a rocket under Ukip, and it would also drive the leaders of the rest of the EU up the wall as they are made to wait again, potentially for a whole extra year, for A50 to be invoked. The only alternatives to that would be for the Government to demand an early election - effectively as a second referendum on Brexit - or to pack the Lords with 300 new Government peers to try to hurry the process along.
The relatively benign climate post-referendum is due largely to the rapid installation of a new Prime Minister who is being seen to behave in a fairly calm and measured way. The last thing on Earth we need is a tiny clique of unelected, Continuity Remain ultras obstructing both the will of the Commons and the referendum decision made by the people, leading both to a General Election and potential accusations of the politicization of the courts.
What a mess she's made of all this, which is a real shame as she's the sort of person who will undoubtedly make a good member of the Lords, with a legal background and a strong belief in the rights of the individual. But the way it's been done is a complete shambles!
Mr. Thompson, a problem with letting Corbyn fail is that it then decreases the number of MPs either he or a comparable politician needs to get onto the short list next time. If he even resigns.
Mr. Rook, indeed. There's a movement by some to try and frustrate, prolong and, if possible, deny the referendum result. It's rancid.
One day the government will want to do something that you strongly disapprove of. Who knows, that government might even be headed by a Prime Minister who was put in that position by a popular vote and following a programme that had been put before the people at a general election. You would still want to ensure that appropriate checks and balances were in place.
Not everything is just about Brexit.
Southam's contention was that the "Corbynite" camp is, on closer inspection, composed of several different factions, and some of these factions may be less tightly attached to the Corbyn dream and more amenable to moves from Labour's moderates, than the margin of victory in the leadership election suggested.
No group is homogeneous if you drill down deep enough - at the end of the day, we are all individuals and no two individuals think exactly alike. On that basis, the realisation that the "Corbynites" are heterogeneous brings a total sense of false security. Yes, they have factions with different outlooks. Like every single coherent political movement in the history of mankind! Way to go for spotting a weak-point...
But what about the non-Corbyn group? The non-Corbynites are in such a mess they don't really form a faction except by the negative definition of "the lot who don't fit into any of the Corbynite categories". In fact they're in such a mess they can't even be decomposed into sub-factions. They are just a useless, pathetic, undirected, ideologically-bereft, jellylike, vacuous, amorphous blob. And that's the second-kindest thing I can think of saying about them, after "Well, 38% ain't all that bad - third time lucky?"
They don't stand for anything. They don't have a clear identity to promote. They don't even seem to think anything.
Sometimes a lack of ideology is dressed up as a bonus, it's "pragmatic". But even pragmatism forms a coherent system of moral and political thought. This isn't pragmatism. It's an ideas vacuum.
Since the Brown government ran out of steam, it's as if all the ideas have run out. For all the Corbynista witch-hunting of "Blairites", they mostly left the scene when Blair did. If Labour actually had a coherent group of thirty or so hardcore ideologically-committed Blairites, perhaps under a different name, it would be a good thing. At least they could push some ideas or policy proposals out, form an alternative narrative, and if the left-wing project fails then there's a seed there for the next wave of Labour's history to grow from.
Grandson 2 will be selecting later this year; ’twill be interesting to see how his school approaches the matter. Constructing timetables must be quite difficult.
Lifelong Learning is a fascinating subject in its own right. There’s considerable evidence that it helps to keep the brain active and postpone the ageing process, mentally anyway. I got involved with it on a professional basis in my last few working years and am still somewhat involved in organisation. What one has to be very careful of doing is confusing education with exams. The two are often inextricably linked in the mind.
Mr. Meeks, you recall Parliament voted for the referendum, promised to abide by the result and the party proposing the referendum won an outright majority at the last election?
It's not like the referendum was a surprise put forward by a minority party against the will of Parliament and without consulting the people.
How about 2015's contest? Cooper somehow couldn't put a package before the selectorate that was more solid or coherent than Andy Burnham's. Couldn't even get more votes than him either. A risible showing from someone who probably had the intellectual heft to frame a new direction. I can only think she was trying to second-guess the preferences of the membership while third-guessing the long-run impact of her positions among the wider GE-voting public, and ended up sloganeering in an effort to sell the wishy-washy and the meaningless. Kendall was braver - stuck her colours to a mast - just a shame she wasn't about in the early/mid 90s. Notably she had few MPs behind her and hasn't formed the nucleus of a new ideas-powerhouse for MPs setting out alternatives to Project Corbyn.
With 2016, Owen Smith didn't repeat the Kendall "mistake". When addressing the membership, he at least pretended to be "socialism in a better suit" who would cut out the internecine warfare. But there were no "Smithites" because there's no such thing as "Smithism". As James Forsyth says, it was an intellectual surrender. It didn't get her v. far but at least one can imagine such a beast as a Kendallite.
When commentators talk about "Labour moderates", "Labour centrists" or "Labour social democrats" rebuilding, who exactly is to do the rebuilding? The non-Corbynite part of the PLP lacks clear leaders or uniting ideas. It is basically just a large but disorganised and rudderless rabble of marooned MPs. They may want to reach out to the two fifths of the membership who opposed Corbyn, but lack the organisation and communicational connections to do so. The three fifths who supported Corbyn may come from different backgrounds, but we know they are all left-wing (to varying degrees) and what kind of agenda they can get behind. The two fifths deemed to be the base for regeneration are spread out far wider across the political spectrum, so lining them up behind a common agenda is going to be a very hard slog. Who out there is going to put the necessary shift in - and do they even have the political nous to pull it off? The big beasts have moved on, and if Owen Smith is the best they can do then it just isn't going to be good enough.
Gingrich caused two US Government shutdowns!
"The United States federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1995–96 were the result of conflicts between Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress over funding for Medicare, education, the environment, and public health in the 1996 federal budget. The government shut down after Clinton vetoed the spending bill the Republican Party-controlled Congress sent him. The federal government of the United States put government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services from November 14 through November 19, 1995, and from December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996, for a total of 27 days. The major players were President Clinton and Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich."
And that's the point.
As David Herdson has rightly pointed out, what would a vote on Article 50 in parliament be for? If there is any chance of it not approving the triggering of Article 50, that would be a democratic outrage given the referendum result. Alternatively, if it is just a cosmetic rubber-stamp job, then that weakens, not strengthens, the role of parliament.
Apparently it is.
I can't believe they're even wasting any time on it.
It is of course, different now when treaties are signed - due purely to an act of parliament, which can also be repealed in the same way it was passed, returning that right to royal prerogative where no legislation is needed to fulfil treaty obligations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37484397
I have to say, my daughter's suggestion that she switch from that model to distance learning, (where everything was done on the computer in self study off a reading list and questions were one on one with the tutor at a time of mutual convenience and focussed only on problem issues specific to my daughter's learning), turned out not only to be a way more efficient, but also a way more effective way of learning. Interestingly, the tests in this model turned from the dreaded 'exam' into simply a way of proving that you had completed the assignment for that section, and nothing to be feared.
It has had a huge impact on her success in the university environment.
She showed appalling judgment in relation to the LSE and its acceptance of Ghadaffi family money. She failed to stand up for free speech in relation to the ban on Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, a ban subsequently overturned by the courts.
She has utterly failed to do the hard thinking needed to advance the cause of civil liberties when those same liberties are being used as a sword by those dedicated to their destruction, failed to understand the threat that such an ideology posed and failed to think intelligently about how to counter it, preferring to utter banalities which would have embarrassed an intelligent first year politics student.
We don't need any more people with poor judgment in the Lords.
I don't see that as a good thing myself.
In the docudrama 'Conspiracy' it emerges that a majority of those people sitting around determining the Final Solution are lawyers by training.