A poll by Left Foot Forward with a clear agenda, though of course now we are through Phase 1 of the talks with the EU we are heading for a deal ultimately anyway
Maybe we should have a referendum on whether we should have a second referendum? We might at least be able to agree on the question.
What exactly is the question for a second referendum - will it be multiple choice?
Leave or remain -.we did that before didn't www. Accept the deal or reject it - what happens if we reject it. The deal on offer or a different deal in theory No deal or leave with a deal No deal or remain with a new deal for staying in the EU Stay in the single market and customs union or leave both Stay in the single market leave the customs union Stay in the customs union leave the single market
Any other possible questions?
When would the campaign for a third referendum be started by the losers of a second referendum?
A poll by Left Foot Forward with a clear agenda, though of course now we are through Phase 1 of the talks with the EU we are heading for a deal ultimately anyway
Maybe we should have a referendum on whether we should have a second referendum? We might at least be able to agree on the question.
What exactly is the question for a second referendum - will it be multiple choice?
Leave or remain -.we did that before didn't www. Accept the deal or reject it - what happens if we reject it. The deal on offer or a different deal in theory No deal or leave with a deal No deal or remain with a new deal for staying in the EU Stay in the single market and customs union or leave both Stay in the single market leave the customs union Stay in the customs union leave the single market
Any other possible questions?
When will the campaign for a third referendum be started by the losers of a second referendum?
Best of three referendums or best of five - half the country could be subject to different arrangements just like at the Wimbledon tennis champs.
Curiously, that's not how the poll's commissioners presented the data:
37% of current Labour voters say Labour’s stance is somewhat or very unclear (to 53% against)......65% of current Tory voters believe their stance is somewhat/very clear (to 28% against)......
Perhaps most surprisingly though, only 26% of voters appear to know the Liberal Democrats’ stance on Brexit, with 27% believing it is not very clear and 21% not clear at all.....
It suggests the party’s messages on the Single Market/Customs Union and a second referendum are struggling to be heard.
A poll by Left Foot Forward with a clear agenda, though of course now we are through Phase 1 of the talks with the EU we are heading for a deal ultimately anyway
Maybe we should have a referendum on whether we should have a second referendum? We might at least be able to agree on the question.
What exactly is the question for a second referendum - will it be multiple choice?
Leave or remain -.we did that before didn't www. Accept the deal or reject it - what happens if we reject it. The deal on offer or a different deal in theory No deal or leave with a deal No deal or remain with a new deal for staying in the EU Stay in the single market and customs union or leave both Stay in the single market leave the customs union Stay in the customs union leave the single market
Any other possible questions?
When will the campaign for a third referendum be started by the losers of a second referendum?
Best of three referendums or best of five - half the country could be subject to different arrangements just like at the Wimbledon tennis champs.
Clegg gave up too soon as Lib Dem candidate in his old seat. He could have been campaigning for a by-election and people would realise what they were missing.
Clegg gave up too soon as Lib Dem candidate in his old seat. He could have been campaigning for a by-election and people would realise what they were missing.
If neither Clegg nor Osborne (not that I much like either) had not scurried off to pastures lucrative new with such alacrity, politics would be very different.....
...San Francisco’s state senator, Scott Wiener, has introduced a bill that would all but abolish the city’s famously strict land use controls—and virtually every other residential zoning restriction in California’s urban neighborhoods. It’s just about the most radical attack on California’s affordability crisis you could imagine.
Wiener’s bill, SB-827, flies in the face of every assumption Americans have held about neighborhood politics and design for a century. It also makes intuitive sense. The bill would ensure that all new housing construction within a half-mile of a train station or a quarter-mile of a frequent bus route would not be subject to local regulations concerning size, height, number of apartments, restrictive design standards, or the provision of parking spaces. Because San Francisco is a relatively transit-rich area, this would up-zone virtually the entire city. But it would also apply to corridors in Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and low-rise, transit-oriented suburbs across the state. It would produce larger residential buildings around transit hubs, but just as importantly it would enable developers to build those buildings faster....
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
...San Francisco’s state senator, Scott Wiener, has introduced a bill that would all but abolish the city’s famously strict land use controls—and virtually every other residential zoning restriction in California’s urban neighborhoods. It’s just about the most radical attack on California’s affordability crisis you could imagine.
Wiener’s bill, SB-827, flies in the face of every assumption Americans have held about neighborhood politics and design for a century. It also makes intuitive sense. The bill would ensure that all new housing construction within a half-mile of a train station or a quarter-mile of a frequent bus route would not be subject to local regulations concerning size, height, number of apartments, restrictive design standards, or the provision of parking spaces. Because San Francisco is a relatively transit-rich area, this would up-zone virtually the entire city. But it would also apply to corridors in Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and low-rise, transit-oriented suburbs across the state. It would produce larger residential buildings around transit hubs, but just as importantly it would enable developers to build those buildings faster....
Would it work? Yes.
Would the politically active homeowners who benefit from limited supply allow it? Not any time soon, in either place.
However, I do think the political strategy is right: There's no point in advocating for little marginal changes, because the benefits are too uninspiring to beat the vested interests of the bagholders: They can bog it down and squish it one detail at a time. It's better to think big, and get behind proposals that would actually comprehensively solve the problem.
Labour then become seen as the party of splits and disunity. Lose a chunk of support.
And as Labour sees it will lose the next election too, all Hell lets loose....
You mean Labour were seen as the party of unity at the last election when their share of the vote went up nearly 10%?
"Unity" for political parties is really overrated.
The Lib Dems have been the most "united" party for the last decade (think about it, there's been barely any open infighting since Sir Ming left), yet they've been losing ground in election after election during that time.
A poll by Left Foot Forward with a clear agenda, though of course now we are through Phase 1 of the talks with the EU we are heading for a deal ultimately anyway
Maybe we should have a referendum on whether we should have a second referendum? We might at least be able to agree on the question.
What exactly is the question for a second referendum - will it be multiple choice?
Leave or remain -.we did that before didn't we? Accept the deal or reject it - what happens if we reject it? The deal on offer or a different deal in theory No deal or leave with a deal - so go back and get one No deal or remain with a new deal for staying in the EU which we don't know the form of (Euro and Schengen and no rebate?) Stay in the single market and customs union or leave both Stay in the single market leave the customs union Stay in the customs union leave the single market Or just let the government and MPs get on with it.
Any other possible questions?
Maybe we should just get pollsters to decide - remain won, Clinton won and May has a 100 seat majority.
I think you'd almost certainly just repeat the previous question, on the basis that there's now more information about what it means. Anything else smells of shenannigans, and keeping it the same as last time makes it easier to arrange in a hurry.
The leavers will obviously oppose doing it but the PM can justify it with a variation same line that Farage used: Now you know what you're getting, so if the voters change their minds then fine, but if not, let us consider the issue settled, no more remoaning, etc etc.
The political benefit to her of doing this is that it makes it harder for the leavers to demagogue her deal; If they talk it down too much they'll risk losing the re-referendum.
Your penultimate line is true. You’ve said it many times. So have I. So have others.
And yet the Tories seem to be oblivious. Indeed, if recent reports are to be believed, they seem intent on reusing at the next election the “Corbyn is a threat to national security” line which bombed (excuse the pun) so badly last time.
They are so utterly useless, so seemingly bereft of the most basic political tradecraft - Corbyn is doing better on this every day - that I would cheerfully vote them out of office tomorrow, were it not for the prospect of having Corbyn as PM.
I don't think they are oblivious. I certainly hope not. Certainly at the grassroots level the entire party was gobsmacked by the incompetence of the GE2017 campaign: we kept waiting for the attacks on Corbyn's policies, phrased in simple terms relevant to voters, to start, and they never came.
Edit: The other point is that with modern media targetting we should be able to emphasise different things to different voters. So, for example, the IRA stuff is useless for younger voters but still potent for anyone over 55 or so.
We were told repeatedly on this very blog that the Conservatives had mastered the art of social media targeting to an uncanny degree, and that as a result various attack videos on Corbyn had been seen zillions of times. Some posters gave regular updates every few days about the latest total.
The problem was that they were OTT. Corbyn doesn't look like a deranged terrorist sympathiser (because he isn't). The sheer venom causes people to discount all the attacks, even apparently plausible ones.
Which is a fitting punishment for excessive spin.
It worked with male, older voters, and helped drive turnout. But didn't with the under 40s.
One thing that made a lot of sense reading the (excellent) Tim Shipman book "Fallout" is how it was always parents or retired older voters who answered the door to canvassers. Never their adult children, be they students, graduates or young workers.
Both Labour and Conservatives missed them, and assumed they weren't that interested.
Moderate Labour MPs threaten to quit the party and sit as independents if branches of Momentum carry out their threat to deselect them
Panic!!!
If it happened and I doubt the courage of the rebels but for Corbyn it would be 'panic'
170 odd Labour MP 's rebelled against Corbyn previously and even if 100 formed their own group it would deal a fatal blow to him
If a group of that size were backed by their constituencies and by big donors and had a thought through set of policies ( a lot of 'ifs') it could really shake up politics. They'd need a charismatic leader and some sort of agreement with the LibDems and Greens, plus maybe some Tories too. The backing of a newspaper or two would also help. However, there is a big hunger for such a party and no great love for the ones we currently have.
That's a pretty galling article by Nick Timothy in the Sun.
One of the reasons the Government can't do anything radical is because he was instrumental in blowing their majority in the GE, meaning only an essential legislative programme could be passed in a double parliamentary session.
There is no margin or mandate to pursue any radical reform.
The message needs to be simple, direct, and relevant to voters' personal circumstances. So, not 'exchange controls would wreck the City' (true and worrying though that is), but 'Corbyn's tax bombshell'.
I agree that the message needs to be direct and relevant. But "Corbyn's tax bombshell" won't cut it any more.
I live in a prosperous part of the country. The local maternity unit (in a 50,000-population town) is currently being downgraded to midwifery-led. Schools are laying off TAs, while most kids' educations are suffering because of disruptive kids who no longer have a learning support service from the local authority. And let's not get into the old saws of potholes and recycling.
People are tired of paying more for less. That was Vote Leave's genius: the bus slogan was effectively "pay less for more" - you'll no longer have to pay £350m a week and we'll make the NHS better. There is no mileage right now in a pure tax cut message, and that is why the Conservatives are losing traction among the under-50s.
Voters vote for what they perceive will benefit themselves.
Conservatives offer pensioners lots of freebies at taxpayers expense, and Labour do the same for younger voters.
When you overlap cultural differences between the generations on top of that, it's not hard to see where the gap comes from.
Remember the posters of Hague with Thatcher's hairdo? You could imagine something similar with whoever the new Tory leader is as Theresa May with the caption "Nothing Has Changed".
I do remember them, and they were stupid and ineffectual.
In any case, I was talking more about the message framing than Theresa May's personal image (dire though that was by the end of the campaign). That's the backroom stuff which was done very well in 2015 but extremely badly in 2017.
FWIW, I think the Conservative Party were terrified by the near miss of GE2017 - and what it could have meant - and are taking its lessons very seriously.
Whether that means they can rejuvenate the voluntary base, and deploy a campaign strategy that's far more effective in GE2022, is another matter.
On the economy Trump is delivering. Unemployment is down to 4.1%, the lowest since 2000, growth in the latter part of 2017 was very strong, 3.3% on an annualised basis and exports are improving on the back of a weaker dollar. Real wages for blue collar workers are increasing again after a fairly lengthy period in the doldrums and workers are about to get a Federal tax cut. Its a pretty impressive record and if Trump can keep it up getting re-elected is going to be a walk in the park.
With the tax deal with the megacorps still to come I think at the moment the odds on him achieving this are better than evens. Like this country there is a very small minority who worry too much about international relationships and a very large majority for whom its the economy stupid.
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation...
Americans's loyalty to their president is remarkeable. Nonetheless, a 10% drop in support by Trump voters would mean a Democrat landslide in the Electoral College.
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
Such a arcel of rogues in a nation...
Americans's loyalty to their prrsidebt is remarkeable. Nonetheless, a 10% drop in support by Trump voters would mean a Democrat landslide in the Electoral College.
You are assuming that there are no voters going the other way. And that the Democrats can find a candidate to rally around and maximise their turnout. Trump's popularity ratings are incredibly low but they are off the bottom.
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
Such a arcel of rogues in a nation...
Americans's loyalty to their prrsidebt is remarkeable. Nonetheless, a 10% drop in support by Trump voters would mean a Democrat landslide in the Electoral College.
You are assuming that there are no voters going the other way. And that the Democrats can find a candidate to rally around and maximise their turnout. Trump's popularity ratings are incredibly low but they are off the bottom.
Sure, there are lots of steps along the way, but I am far from convinced that Trump will stand again. He doesn't look to be enjoying it.
Like this country there is a very small minority who worry too much about international relationships and a very large majority for whom its the economy stupid.
I think shitholegate is a net positive for DT. Voters greatly prize authenticity even they don't always agree with it. It's why Corbyn is going to be PM.
The message needs to be simple, direct, and relevant to voters' personal circumstances. So, not 'exchange controls would wreck the City' (true and worrying though that is), but 'Corbyn's tax bombshell'.
I agree that the message needs to be direct and relevant. But "Corbyn's tax bombshell" won't cut it any more.
I live in a prosperous part of the country. The local maternity unit (in a 50,000-population town) is currently being downgraded to midwifery-led. Schools are laying off TAs, while most kids' educations are suffering because of disruptive kids who no longer have a learning support service from the local authority. And let's not get into the old saws of potholes and recycling.
People are tired of paying more for less. That was Vote Leave's genius: the bus slogan was effectively "pay less for more" - you'll no longer have to pay £350m a week and we'll make the NHS better. There is no mileage right now in a pure tax cut message, and that is why the Conservatives are losing traction among the under-50s.
Voters vote for what they perceive will benefit themselves.
Conservatives offer pensioners lots of freebies at taxpayers expense, and Labour do the same for younger voters.
When you overlap cultural differences between the generations on top of that, it's not hard to see where the gap comes from.
Labour were smart enough to offer freebies to the pensioners too.
Like this country there is a very small minority who worry too much about international relationships and a very large majority for whom its the economy stupid.
I think shitholegate is a net positive for DT. Voters greatly prize authenticity even they don't always agree with it. It's why Corbyn is going to be PM.
The trouble with the media apoplexy on that is that many people have used the phrase, at some point, in private, to describe some place, and will conclude that saying it's "racist" is hugely overblown.
They risk making Trump looking reasonable, and themselves unreasonable, even though he isn't.
Like this country there is a very small minority who worry too much about international relationships and a very large majority for whom its the economy stupid.
I think shitholegate is a net positive for DT. Voters greatly prize authenticity even they don't always agree with it. It's why Corbyn is going to be PM.
No he isn't. In fact I doubt he will even stand in another GE. He's too old and too useless. But he is consolidating his faction's grip on the party and will have more influence on the selection of his successor than May is likely to have on hers.
The SPD ought to have nothing to do with another Grand Coalition. It will take them down to 15%.
Perhaps, but they seem caught between a rock and a hard place - being blamed for causing new elections doesn't seem like it will benefit them either. Junior partners presumably always hope something will come along later to ensure they do not suffer overmuch.
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
Such a arcel of rogues in a nation...
Americans's loyalty to their prrsidebt is remarkeable. Nonetheless, a 10% drop in support by Trump voters would mean a Democrat landslide in the Electoral College.
You are assuming that there are no voters going the other way. And that the Democrats can find a candidate to rally around and maximise their turnout. Trump's popularity ratings are incredibly low but they are off the bottom.
As mentioned a couple of threads ago, I spent the weekend with a significant Democrat player. He thinks Trump will win in 2020
That's a pretty galling article by Nick Timothy in the Sun.
One of the reasons the Government can't do anything radical is because he was instrumental in blowing their majority in the GE, meaning only an essential legislative programme could be passed in a double parliamentary session.
There is no margin or mandate to pursue any radical reform.
Particularly as he doesn't seem to have much idea about what that 'radical reform' might be. Seems to be an uglier and ruder version of May herself.
The message needs to be simple, direct, and relevant to voters' personal circumstances. So, not 'exchange controls would wreck the City' (true and worrying though that is), but 'Corbyn's tax bombshell'.
I agree that the message needs to be direct and relevant. But "Corbyn's tax bombshell" won't cut it any more.
I live in a prosperous part of the country. The local maternity unit (in a 50,000-population town) is currently being downgraded to midwifery-led. Schools are laying off TAs, while most kids' educations are suffering because of disruptive kids who no longer have a learning support service from the local authority. And let's not get into the old saws of potholes and recycling.
People are tired of paying more for less. That was Vote Leave's genius: the bus slogan was effectively "pay less for more" - you'll no longer have to pay £350m a week and we'll make the NHS better. There is no mileage right now in a pure tax cut message, and that is why the Conservatives are losing traction among the under-50s.
Voters vote for what they perceive will benefit themselves.
Conservatives offer pensioners lots of freebies at taxpayers expense, and Labour do the same for younger voters.
When you overlap cultural differences between the generations on top of that, it's not hard to see where the gap comes from.
Labour were smart enough to offer freebies to the pensioners too.
Labour offered freebies to everyone. Whether it was smart is open to debate. No one took it seriously because the Tory majority was nailed on. Won't happen again. Of course the Tories still have to find their own tunes.
Mr. F, to the benefit of the AfD, or will other smaller parties gain, d'you think?
Bloody cold outside (although, thankfully, a million miles away from the crazy weather north-east USA saw recently).
Six Nations: thought I'd give the markets a quick look but Ladbrokes only has a few up (six per match, I expect they'll have dozens nearer the time). I'm thinking about backing Scotland to do well.
Moderate Labour MPs threaten to quit the party and sit as independents if branches of Momentum carry out their threat to deselect them
Panic!!!
If it happened and I doubt the courage of the rebels but for Corbyn it would be 'panic'
170 odd Labour MP 's rebelled against Corbyn previously and even if 100 formed their own group it would deal a fatal blow to him
Rebelling against Corbyn the loser and giving up the job for life they think they are entitled to are 2 different things entirely
Yep. They didn't act in the face of presumed defeat, they won't now. They'll go quietly or not at all .
Deselection seems to be a myth, and when independents stand against their old party, they nearly always lose. Momentumite campaigners were happy to turn out in droves for moderate Labour candidates. Liz Kendall had hordes of them. Rememer when the Tories thought that they would be taking that Leave voting WWC seat?, Liz substantially increased her majority.
The Labour party will hold together, and inded looks substantially more united than a year ago.
Like this country there is a very small minority who worry too much about international relationships and a very large majority for whom its the economy stupid.
I think shitholegate is a net positive for DT. Voters greatly prize authenticity even they don't always agree with it. It's why Corbyn is going to be PM.
No he isn't. In fact I doubt he will even stand in another GE. He's too old and too useless.
He's coming. He's like Lenin on the train to the Finlandskaya Vokzal or Mao on the Long March.
I have decided to take the pragmatic approach to Brexit and generally ignore posts from either Remainers or Brexiteers that attempt to convince themselves and others of the righteousness of their cause and accept that a deal of some sort will be done and constant speculation about the outcome is a waste of effort that can be put to better use
One thing is certain with the Keystone cops running the show, our deal will be crap and it will be more expensive than our membership currently costs. Hopefully Scotland will get off the sinking ship before it goes down.
Mr. F, to the benefit of the AfD, or will other smaller parties gain, d'you think?
Bloody cold outside (although, thankfully, a million miles away from the crazy weather north-east USA saw recently).
Six Nations: thought I'd give the markets a quick look but Ladbrokes only has a few up (six per match, I expect they'll have dozens nearer the time). I'm thinking about backing Scotland to do well.
Like this country there is a very small minority who worry too much about international relationships and a very large majority for whom its the economy stupid.
I think shitholegate is a net positive for DT. Voters greatly prize authenticity even they don't always agree with it. It's why Corbyn is going to be PM.
The trouble with the media apoplexy on that is that many people have used the phrase, at some point, in private, to describe some place, and will conclude that saying it's "racist" is hugely overblown.
They risk making Trump looking reasonable, and themselves unreasonable, even though he isn't.
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
Such a arcel of rogues in a nation...
Americans's loyalty to their prrsidebt is remarkeable. Nonetheless, a 10% drop in support by Trump voters would mean a Democrat landslide in the Electoral College.
You are assuming that there are no voters going the other way. And that the Democrats can find a candidate to rally around and maximise their turnout. Trump's popularity ratings are incredibly low but they are off the bottom.
As mentioned a couple of threads ago, I spent the weekend with a significant Democrat player. He thinks Trump will win in 2020
Subject to health this seems by far the most likely outcome to me. Single term Presidents who choose to stand again but lose are quite rare and lose to political giants: Hoover to FDR and Carter to Reagan. I'm not seeing anyone even in the right ball park for the Dems at the moment.
Like this country there is a very small minority who worry too much about international relationships and a very large majority for whom its the economy stupid.
I think shitholegate is a net positive for DT. Voters greatly prize authenticity even they don't always agree with it. It's why Corbyn is going to be PM.
No he isn't. In fact I doubt he will even stand in another GE. He's too old and too useless.
He's coming. He's like Lenin on the train to the Finlandskaya Vokzal or Mao on the Long March.
Moderate Labour MPs threaten to quit the party and sit as independents if branches of Momentum carry out their threat to deselect them
Panic!!!
If it happened and I doubt the courage of the rebels but for Corbyn it would be 'panic'
170 odd Labour MP 's rebelled against Corbyn previously and even if 100 formed their own group it would deal a fatal blow to him
Rebelling against Corbyn the loser and giving up the job for life they think they are entitled to are 2 different things entirely
Yep. They didn't act in the face of presumed defeat, they won't now. They'll go quietly or not at all .
Deselection seems to be a myth, and when independents stand against their old party, they nearly always lose. Momentumite campaigners were happy to turn out in droves for moderate Labour candidates. Liz Kendall had hordes of them. Rememer when the Tories thought that they would be taking that Leave voting WWC seat?, Liz substantially increased her majority.
The Labour party will hold together, and inded looks substantially more united than a year ago.
It does, since those who disliked Corbyn only because they thought he'd lead them to disaster were wrong and so have changed their tune and those who genuinely think his path is wrong are even more scared of taking action and so sing his praises for now.
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
Such a arcel of rogues in a nation...
Americans's loyalty to their prrsidebt is remarkeable. Nonetheless, a 10% drop in support by Trump voters would mean a Democrat landslide in the Electoral College.
You are assuming that there are no voters going the other way. And that the Democrats can find a candidate to rally around and maximise their turnout. Trump's popularity ratings are incredibly low but they are off the bottom.
As mentioned a couple of threads ago, I spent the weekend with a significant Democrat player. He thinks Trump will win in 2020
Dr. Foxy, I think you're making a mistake in not 'blaming'/'crediting' the Conservatives' atrocious campaign for such things (at least in part).
Mr. F, Die Linke have been a feature of the political scene for a while (have vague memories of learning a spot of German politics at school). If the far right continues to rise, that will probably make things increasingly uncomfortable unless mainstream parties actually address voters' concerns.
Speaking of which, I saw a graph the other day suggesting every single German political party except the AfD was to the left of median opinion. (Tried to find it, saw it on Twitter, but it eludes me for now at least).
Labour's shadow Cabinet Office minister Jon Trickett accused the Government of being "recklessly complacent" by attempting to lay sole blame for Carillion's collapse on the company.
He said: "The House will conclude it was recklessly complacent in seeking to avoid responsibility for the Government and placing the whole responsibility on the company.
Whatever happens its always the government's fault
I have decided to take the pragmatic approach to Brexit and generally ignore posts from either Remainers or Brexiteers that attempt to convince themselves and others of the righteousness of their cause and accept that a deal of some sort will be done and constant speculation about the outcome is a waste of effort that can be put to better use
One thing is certain with the Keystone cops running the show, our deal will be crap and it will be more expensive than our membership currently costs. Hopefully Scotland will get off the sinking ship before it goes down.
It won't get the chance to get off until we are already going down of course. But then Scotland has been metaphorically hanging out near the lifeboats for a while, just in case, alas .
Like this country there is a very small minority who worry too much about international relationships and a very large majority for whom its the economy stupid.
I think shitholegate is a net positive for DT. Voters greatly prize authenticity even they don't always agree with it. It's why Corbyn is going to be PM.
No he isn't. In fact I doubt he will even stand in another GE. He's too old and too useless.
He's coming. He's like Lenin on the train to the Finlandskaya Vokzal or Mao on the Long March.
More like Godot who never quite turns up.
I can envisage either the Conservatives or Labour winning next time.
Like this country there is a very small minority who worry too much about international relationships and a very large majority for whom its the economy stupid.
I think shitholegate is a net positive for DT. Voters greatly prize authenticity even they don't always agree with it. It's why Corbyn is going to be PM.
No he isn't. In fact I doubt he will even stand in another GE. He's too old and too useless.
He's coming. He's like Lenin on the train to the Finlandskaya Vokzal or Mao on the Long March.
The SPD ought to have nothing to do with another Grand Coalition. It will take them down to 15%.
You could well be right, but it's bit too soon to judge. Another poll on the same day shows the usual pattern (INSA always produces results rather different to everyone else - have never seen a methodological explanation).
I'd expect a deal to produce a small "relief" bump for the parties, at the expense of the FDP, but I agree that the non-coalition parties will benefit in the medium term when things get difficult.
I can envisage either the Conservatives or Labour winning next time.
The tories are going to have to tack to port to do it. Now that they've given up any pretense at fiscal rectitude (Brexit, DUP) they can change their tune on nationalisation, state intervention, benefits, etc. The party has no ideology or guiding principles beyond Brexit so they might manage it.
Like this country there is a very small minority who worry too much about international relationships and a very large majority for whom its the economy stupid.
I think shitholegate is a net positive for DT. Voters greatly prize authenticity even they don't always agree with it. It's why Corbyn is going to be PM.
No he isn't. In fact I doubt he will even stand in another GE. He's too old and too useless.
He's coming. He's like Lenin on the train to the Finlandskaya Vokzal or Mao on the Long March.
More like Godot who never quite turns up.
I can envisage either the Conservatives or Labour winning next time.
The result last three elections were not what was generally predicted. Based on the obvious contrariness of the British electorate I think the next one will be exactly in line with all the pollsters.
Like this country there is a very small minority who worry too much about international relationships and a very large majority for whom its the economy stupid.
I think shitholegate is a net positive for DT. Voters greatly prize authenticity even they don't always agree with it. It's why Corbyn is going to be PM.
No he isn't. In fact I doubt he will even stand in another GE. He's too old and too useless.
He's coming. He's like Lenin on the train to the Finlandskaya Vokzal or Mao on the Long March.
More like Godot who never quite turns up.
I can envisage either the Conservatives or Labour winning next time.
The result last three elections were not what was generally predicted. Based on the obvious contrariness of the British electorate I think the next one will be exactly in line with all the pollsters.
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
Such a arcel of rogues in a nation...
Americans's loyalty to their prrsidebt is remarkeable. Nonetheless, a 10% drop in support by Trump voters would mean a Democrat landslide in the Electoral College.
You are assuming that there are no voters going the other way. And that the Democrats can find a candidate to rally around and maximise their turnout. Trump's popularity ratings are incredibly low but they are off the bottom.
As mentioned a couple of threads ago, I spent the weekend with a significant Democrat player. He thinks Trump will win in 2020
Did they think Trump would win in 2016?
He told me that Clinton was a terrible candidate well ahead of time but I never asked for a prediction on the result. From a platform perspective he likes Bernie but felt (even in 2016) that he was 15 years too old to be credible so didn’t support him.
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
Such a arcel of rogues in a nation...
Americans's loyalty to their prrsidebt is remarkeable. Nonetheless, a 10% drop in support by Trump voters would mean a Democrat landslide in the Electoral College.
You are assuming that there are no voters going the other way. And that the Democrats can find a candidate to rally around and maximise their turnout. Trump's popularity ratings are incredibly low but they are off the bottom.
Why wouldn't his base like him?
He's doing(or attempting to do) everything he said he would in his campaign.
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
Such a arcel of rogues in a nation...
Americans's loyalty to their prrsidebt is remarkeable. Nonetheless, a 10% drop in support by Trump voters would mean a Democrat landslide in the Electoral College.
You are assuming that there are no voters going the other way. And that the Democrats can find a candidate to rally around and maximise their turnout. Trump's popularity ratings are incredibly low but they are off the bottom.
As mentioned a couple of threads ago, I spent the weekend with a significant Democrat player. He thinks Trump will win in 2020
Did they think Trump would win in 2016?
He told me that Clinton was a terrible candidate well ahead of time but I never asked for a prediction on the result. From a platform perspective he likes Bernie but felt (even in 2016) that he was 15 years too old to be credible so didn’t support him.
Sanders supporters at least have energy and enthusiasm, much like Trump's which is more than can be said for Hillary's in 2016.
Labour's shadow Cabinet Office minister Jon Trickett accused the Government of being "recklessly complacent" by attempting to lay sole blame for Carillion's collapse on the company.
He said: "The House will conclude it was recklessly complacent in seeking to avoid responsibility for the Government and placing the whole responsibility on the company.
Whatever happens its always the government's fault
If they are actively seeking to shift the blame that’s not complacent!
Labour's shadow Cabinet Office minister Jon Trickett accused the Government of being "recklessly complacent" by attempting to lay sole blame for Carillion's collapse on the company.
He said: "The House will conclude it was recklessly complacent in seeking to avoid responsibility for the Government and placing the whole responsibility on the company.
Whatever happens its always the government's fault
The questions the government has to answer are not to do with why Carillion failed - this seems to be down to unprofitable contracts, cashflow problems, money wasted on unprofitable acquisitions and a huge pension deficit - but why so many contracts were awarded to one company, even after it was beginning to get into difficulties.
Maybe it was the cheapest but the concept of value for money is more important. No point going for the cheapest if the contractor doesn’t turn up for work or cannot complete the contract.
Outsourcing is not in principle wrong but only if those commissioning the work know how to get good contractors and good contracts in place.
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
Such a arcel of rogues in a nation...
Americans's loyalty to their prrsidebt is remarkeable. Nonetheless, a 10% drop in support by Trump voters would mean a Democrat landslide in the Electoral College.
You are assuming that there are no voters going the other way. And that the Democrats can find a candidate to rally around and maximise their turnout. Trump's popularity ratings are incredibly low but they are off the bottom.
As mentioned a couple of threads ago, I spent the weekend with a significant Democrat player. He thinks Trump will win in 2020
Subject to health this seems by far the most likely outcome to me. Single term Presidents who choose to stand again but lose are quite rare and lose to political giants: Hoover to FDR and Carter to Reagan. I'm not seeing anyone even in the right ball park for the Dems at the moment.
Reagan of course beat Carter having lost the Republican nomination to Ford at the previous election.
Sanders will hope he is Reagan, Hillary is Ford and Trump is Carter
On the economy Trump is delivering. Unemployment is down to 4.1%, the lowest since 2000, growth in the latter part of 2017 was very strong, 3.3% on an annualised basis and exports are improving on the back of a weaker dollar. Real wages for blue collar workers are increasing again after a fairly lengthy period in the doldrums and workers are about to get a Federal tax cut. Its a pretty impressive record and if Trump can keep it up getting re-elected is going to be a walk in the park.
With the tax deal with the megacorps still to come I think at the moment the odds on him achieving this are better than evens. Like this country there is a very small minority who worry too much about international relationships and a very large majority for whom its the economy stupid.
A good point well made.
If average-income voters in the swing states see themselves as better off in 2020 than in 2016 then Trump will likely win again, no matter how much CNN and the late-night comedians in New York and California say he’s an evil racist friend of Russia.
Especially so if the Democrats choose someone who will spend the campaign going on about bathrooms when Trump is going on about jobs.
The absolute incredible botch job Trump and the USA is making of hurricane relief in Puerto Rico is going to cause problems come next election(s).
Tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans are leaving and ending up in Florida and other states of a swing like nature.
Statehood for Puerto Rico could become a very live issue after 2018. The most recent referendum there, last year, produced an overwhelming majority for statehood - albeit on a low turnout due to a boycott from those favouring the status quo. If the Democrats gain both Houses in November - unlikely but not impossible - then there could well be a statehood bill passed by Congress and, probably, rejected by Trump.
However, I doubt that hurricane relief from last year will be a major issue come 2020: too few voters were affected and for the rest, it'll be too long gone.
Labour's shadow Cabinet Office minister Jon Trickett accused the Government of being "recklessly complacent" by attempting to lay sole blame for Carillion's collapse on the company.
He said: "The House will conclude it was recklessly complacent in seeking to avoid responsibility for the Government and placing the whole responsibility on the company.
Whatever happens its always the government's fault
The questions the government has to answer are not to do with why Carillion failed - this seems to be down to unprofitable contracts, cashflow problems, money wasted on unprofitable acquisitions and a huge pension deficit - but why so many contracts were awarded to one company, even after it was beginning to get into difficulties.
Maybe it was the cheapest but the concept of value for money is more important. No point going for the cheapest if the contractor doesn’t turn up for work or cannot complete the contract.
Outsourcing is not in principle wrong but only if those commissioning the work know how to get good contractors and good contracts in place.
The failure of Carillion seems very similar to the failure of Connaught in 2010. They were another company with hundreds of Council contracts, but who had won them too cheaply in the hope of extras which were not forthcoming, hence they went bust. Corbyn really showed his stupidity yesterday when he said that Carillion had wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers money. In reality they have taken on the Government contracts far too cheaply. Anyone who contracts to a government body knows that they will always go for the cheapest price. Carillions failure is likely to mean that future contracts are going to cost more as Carillion will no longer be a competitor and a more realistic price can be charged.
The SPD ought to have nothing to do with another Grand Coalition. It will take them down to 15%.
That's probably true. However, it'd still be a brave call, essentially favouring very likely pain now over probable greater pain later: not the usual politicians' call.
If the SPD reject a coalition, there'll almost certainly be new elections. I don't see how a minority CDU-led government is viable, even with FDP or Green support (which would in any case be less likely if the government was a minority and therefore less able to get policies through parliament).
But with the SPD sinking further in the polls since last year's election, they could well end up with their lowest share of the vote in any German federal election since 1887* (they'd need less than 19.7% to 'achieve' that). Opposition should give them the chance to reestablish their voice and recover but it'd mean sacrifices in the short term.
* Excluding 'elections' during the Nazi era, when the SPD was banned.
The absolute incredible botch job Trump and the USA is making of hurricane relief in Puerto Rico is going to cause problems come next election(s).
Tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans are leaving and ending up in Florida and other states of a swing like nature.
Statehood for Puerto Rico could become a very live issue after 2018. The most recent referendum there, last year, produced an overwhelming majority for statehood - albeit on a low turnout due to a boycott from those favouring the status quo. If the Democrats gain both Houses in November - unlikely but not impossible - then there could well be a statehood bill passed by Congress and, probably, rejected by Trump.
However, I doubt that hurricane relief from last year will be a major issue come 2020: too few voters were affected and for the rest, it'll be too long gone.
The turnout on the Puerto Rico statehood vote last June was only 23 per cent. Suggests the vast majority of Puerto Ricans aren't that fussed on that matter.
It has been a US territory since 1898 and people born there have been US citizens for a century. In all that time they have never been given statehood - its even less likely now as the Republicans would oppose it as it would be two extra Dem senate seats. Should Guam get statehood too?
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
The country didn't stand by Nixon. His approval rating just prior to his resignation was 24%, which is almost the lowest rating that they've ever recorded for any president (Truman bottomed out at 22%; Nixon's is the lowest of anyone since).
(It should also be Burns' Night if you're going to use an apostrophe, though there's not really any need to at all).
The SPD ought to have nothing to do with another Grand Coalition. It will take them down to 15%.
That's probably true. However, it'd still be a brave call, essentially favouring very likely pain now over probable greater pain later: not the usual politicians' call.
If the SPD reject a coalition, there'll almost certainly be new elections. I don't see how a minority CDU-led government is viable, even with FDP or Green support (which would in any case be less likely if the government was a minority and therefore less able to get policies through parliament).
But with the SPD sinking further in the polls since last year's election, they could well end up with their lowest share of the vote in any German federal election since 1887* (they'd need less than 19.7% to 'achieve' that). Opposition should give them the chance to reestablish their voice and recover but it'd mean sacrifices in the short term.
* Excluding 'elections' during the Nazi era, when the SPD was banned.
Until the CDU/CSU agree to form governments with the AdD and the SPD agree to form governments with Die Linke under the German PR system Grand Coalitions of the CDU and SPD will be the norm
Sensible scouse Union/Lab bloke on the radio this morning talking about Carillion. Dangerous for the Cons and very good for Lab the image of school meals not being delivered by nasty private companies while the State could do so much better.
Extend that to any sector you like and it can add 5pts to the Lab vote.
The absolute incredible botch job Trump and the USA is making of hurricane relief in Puerto Rico is going to cause problems come next election(s).
Tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans are leaving and ending up in Florida and other states of a swing like nature.
Statehood for Puerto Rico could become a very live issue after 2018. The most recent referendum there, last year, produced an overwhelming majority for statehood - albeit on a low turnout due to a boycott from those favouring the status quo. If the Democrats gain both Houses in November - unlikely but not impossible - then there could well be a statehood bill passed by Congress and, probably, rejected by Trump.
However, I doubt that hurricane relief from last year will be a major issue come 2020: too few voters were affected and for the rest, it'll be too long gone.
The turnout on the Puerto Rico statehood vote last June was only 23 per cent. Suggests the vast majority of Puerto Ricans aren't that fussed on that matter.
It has been a US territory since 1898 and people born there have been US citizens for a century. In all that time they have never been given statehood - its even less likely now as the Republicans would oppose it as it would be two extra Dem senate seats. Should Guam get statehood too?
As I said in my comment (did you read it?) there was a boycott by parties opposed to statehood. Even so, the result was what it was. And yes, Republicans might well oppose it - including Trump, presumably - which is why I said that the passage of a statehood bill would probably be contingent on the Democrats gaining control of both Houses of Congress.
In reality, the issue won't be resolved until after 2021 at the earliest but it could become a live debate before then.
Raising Guam is a classic case of whataboutery. There is a debate ongoing in Guam about its status but it's nothing like as developed as that in Puerto Rico, where five referendums have been held on the issue.
Sensible scouse Union/Lab bloke on the radio this morning talking about Carillion. Dangerous for the Cons and very good for Lab the image of school meals not being delivered by nasty private companies while the State could do so much better.
Extend that to any sector you like and it can add 5pts to the Lab vote.
Wasn't the whole reason for the involvement of the private sector in the provision of public services because the state was doing so bad and was very inefficient?
The SPD ought to have nothing to do with another Grand Coalition. It will take them down to 15%.
That's probably true. However, it'd still be a brave call, essentially favouring very likely pain now over probable greater pain later: not the usual politicians' call.
If the SPD reject a coalition, there'll almost certainly be new elections. I don't see how a minority CDU-led government is viable, even with FDP or Green support (which would in any case be less likely if the government was a minority and therefore less able to get policies through parliament).
But with the SPD sinking further in the polls since last year's election, they could well end up with their lowest share of the vote in any German federal election since 1887* (they'd need less than 19.7% to 'achieve' that). Opposition should give them the chance to reestablish their voice and recover but it'd mean sacrifices in the short term.
* Excluding 'elections' during the Nazi era, when the SPD was banned.
Until the CDU/CSU agree to form governments with the AdD and the SPD agree to form governments with Die Linke under the German PR system Grand Coalitions of the CDU and SPD will be the norm
I'm not sure that's true. Certainly under the current vote shares it is but unless the SPD break free, it's quite possible that they could see their vote coalition fragmenting in many different directions to the point where they become a minor party. Who then takes the role of the sensible left? That's harder to say but both the FPD (traditionally very classically liberal but not so much now) and the Greens (one-time radicals but far more centrist these days) could have a shot. I don't think The Left are likely to, though if they did find themselves in government, it's not at all impossible that they could moderate even if that resulted in their more radical edge splintering off.
The absolute incredible botch job Trump and the USA is making of hurricane relief in Puerto Rico is going to cause problems come next election(s).
Tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans are leaving and ending up in Florida and other states of a swing like nature.
Statehood for Puerto Rico could become a very live issue after 2018. The most recent referendum there, last year, produced an overwhelming majority for statehood - albeit on a low turnout due to a boycott from those favouring the status quo. If the Democrats gain both Houses in November - unlikely but not impossible - then there could well be a statehood bill passed by Congress and, probably, rejected by Trump.
However, I doubt that hurricane relief from last year will be a major issue come 2020: too few voters were affected and for the rest, it'll be too long gone.
Few voters but majority of those few will be in Florida.
The number is projected to be enough to tip the state alone. All those Puerto Ricans emigrating have the vote.
Sensible scouse Union/Lab bloke on the radio this morning talking about Carillion. Dangerous for the Cons and very good for Lab the image of school meals not being delivered by nasty private companies while the State could do so much better.
Extend that to any sector you like and it can add 5pts to the Lab vote.
Wasn't the whole reason for the involvement of the private sector in the provision of public services because the state was doing so bad and was very inefficient?
One of the features, particularly of Trump’s election was the gfaxt that only just over 50% of the electorate actually voted. It was around average by American standards, but lower than the turnout when Obama was first elected. Trump’s vote was slightly up on the Repub;lican vote, but what does emphasis is the effect of differential turnout. A few more Dem voters being persuaded to turn out and the result would have been very different, so that should the ‘missing Dems’ appear in 2020 that Trump’s current voters are reasonably happy with him won’t matter; he’ll lose.
The absolute incredible botch job Trump and the USA is making of hurricane relief in Puerto Rico is going to cause problems come next election(s).
Tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans are leaving and ending up in Florida and other states of a swing like nature.
Statehood for Puerto Rico could become a very live issue after 2018. The most recent referendum there, last year, produced an overwhelming majority for statehood - albeit on a low turnout due to a boycott from those favouring the status quo. If the Democrats gain both Houses in November - unlikely but not impossible - then there could well be a statehood bill passed by Congress and, probably, rejected by Trump.
However, I doubt that hurricane relief from last year will be a major issue come 2020: too few voters were affected and for the rest, it'll be too long gone.
The turnout on the Puerto Rico statehood vote last June was only 23 per cent. Suggests the vast majority of Puerto Ricans aren't that fussed on that matter.
It has been a US territory since 1898 and people born there have been US citizens for a century. In all that time they have never been given statehood - its even less likely now as the Republicans would oppose it as it would be two extra Dem senate seats. Should Guam get statehood too?
As I said in my comment (did you read it?) there was a boycott by parties opposed to statehood. Even so, the result was what it was. And yes, Republicans might well oppose it - including Trump, presumably - which is why I said that the passage of a statehood bill would probably be contingent on the Democrats gaining control of both Houses of Congress.
In reality, the issue won't be resolved until after 2021 at the earliest but it could become a live debate before then.
Raising Guam is a classic case of whataboutery. There is a debate ongoing in Guam about its status but it's nothing like as developed as that in Puerto Rico, where five referendums have been held on the issue.
A boycott so successful 77 per cent of people didn't bother to vote? So well developed more than three quarters of the population couldn't even be bothered to express a view. Suggests most Puerto Ricans aren't they fussed.
I don't really think the comparison with Guam is whataboutery. It's a US territory and they are US citizens. Washington DC hasn't even been given statehood - although it gets some electoral college votes - why would Puerto Rico get there before DC?
It has to be a bit more developed than we support it cos the Democrats would get two extra Senate seats!
Maybe if PR could get a 70 per cent turnout on a vote like we had on 23 June 2016 it might have a case. Cos even with triple their turnout many won't accept our referendum.
Sensible scouse Union/Lab bloke on the radio this morning talking about Carillion. Dangerous for the Cons and very good for Lab the image of school meals not being delivered by nasty private companies while the State could do so much better.
Extend that to any sector you like and it can add 5pts to the Lab vote.
Wasn't the whole reason for the involvement of the private sector in the provision of public services because the state was doing so bad and was very inefficient?
Sensible scouse Union/Lab bloke on the radio this morning talking about Carillion. Dangerous for the Cons and very good for Lab the image of school meals not being delivered by nasty private companies while the State could do so much better.
Extend that to any sector you like and it can add 5pts to the Lab vote.
Wasn't the whole reason for the involvement of the private sector in the provision of public services because the state was doing so bad and was very inefficient?
No.
What was the reason then?
To funnel more public money into private companies and to move public debt off the balance book.
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
Truman and Ford both had personal integrity as did Reagan in office apart from the Iran Contra affair. Eisenhower's mistress was never really proved nor a major issue
Sensible scouse Union/Lab bloke on the radio this morning talking about Carillion. Dangerous for the Cons and very good for Lab the image of school meals not being delivered by nasty private companies while the State could do so much better.
Extend that to any sector you like and it can add 5pts to the Lab vote.
The state is good private sector bad vote is already voting Labour anyway
One of the features, particularly of Trump’s election was the gfaxt that only just over 50% of the electorate actually voted. It was around average by American standards, but lower than the turnout when Obama was first elected. Trump’s vote was slightly up on the Repub;lican vote, but what does emphasis is the effect of differential turnout. A few more Dem voters being persuaded to turn out and the result would have been very different, so that should the ‘missing Dems’ appear in 2020 that Trump’s current voters are reasonably happy with him won’t matter; he’ll lose.
Blacks made up 11.9% of voters in 2016, down from 12.9% in 2012 – the first time since 2004 that blacks have declined as a share of voters. Hillary couldn't persuade them she was much different to Trump, one of the most damning outcomes of her campaign.
Sensible scouse Union/Lab bloke on the radio this morning talking about Carillion. Dangerous for the Cons and very good for Lab the image of school meals not being delivered by nasty private companies while the State could do so much better.
Extend that to any sector you like and it can add 5pts to the Lab vote.
Wasn't the whole reason for the involvement of the private sector in the provision of public services because the state was doing so bad and was very inefficient?
No.
What was the reason then?
To funnel more public money into private companies and to move public debt off the balance book.
Carillion have gone bust as they were providing these public services far too cheaply
The SPD ought to have nothing to do with another Grand Coalition. It will take them down to 15%.
That's probably true. However, it'd still be a brave call, essentially favouring very likely pain now over probable greater pain later: not the usual politicians' call.
If the SPD reject a coalition, there'll almost certainly be new elections. I don't see how a minority CDU-led government is viable, even with FDP or Green support (which would in any case be less likely if the government was a minority and therefore less able to get policies through parliament).
But with the SPD sinking further in the polls since last year's election, they could well end up with their lowest share of the vote in any German federal election since 1887* (they'd need less than 19.7% to 'achieve' that). Opposition should give them the chance to reestablish their voice and recover but it'd mean sacrifices in the short term.
* Excluding 'elections' during the Nazi era, when the SPD was banned.
Until the CDU/CSU agree to form governments with the AdD and the SPD agree to form governments with Die Linke under the German PR system Grand Coalitions of the CDU and SPD will be the norm
I'm not sure that's true. Certainly under the current vote shares it is but unless the SPD break free, it's quite possible that they could see their vote coalition fragmenting in many different directions to the point where they become a minor party. Who then takes the role of the sensible left? That's harder to say but both the FPD (traditionally very classically liberal but not so much now) and the Greens (one-time radicals but far more centrist these days) could have a shot. I don't think The Left are likely to, though if they did find themselves in government, it's not at all impossible that they could moderate even if that resulted in their more radical edge splintering off.
It was the CDU's failure to agree a deal with the FDP and Greens which made another Grand Coalition necessary. Die Linke are a traditional left party and are not going to dilute their raison d'etre
Sensible scouse Union/Lab bloke on the radio this morning talking about Carillion. Dangerous for the Cons and very good for Lab the image of school meals not being delivered by nasty private companies while the State could do so much better.
Extend that to any sector you like and it can add 5pts to the Lab vote.
Wasn't the whole reason for the involvement of the private sector in the provision of public services because the state was doing so bad and was very inefficient?
No.
What was the reason then?
To funnel more public money into private companies and to move public debt off the balance book.
Carillion have gone bust as they were providing these public services far too cheaply
Anyone bidding "far too cheaply" should have been picked up in the bidding process. First rule of bid assessment: if something looks too good to be true....
Sensible scouse Union/Lab bloke on the radio this morning talking about Carillion. Dangerous for the Cons and very good for Lab the image of school meals not being delivered by nasty private companies while the State could do so much better.
Extend that to any sector you like and it can add 5pts to the Lab vote.
Wasn't the whole reason for the involvement of the private sector in the provision of public services because the state was doing so bad and was very inefficient?
No.
What was the reason then?
To funnel more public money into private companies and to move public debt off the balance book.
Carillion have gone bust as they were providing these public services far too cheaply
Anyone bidding "far too cheaply" should have been picked up in the bidding process. First rule of bid assessment: if something looks too good to be true....
Nobody has come out of Carillion well.
Who would pick this up? My company bids daily to Councils for contracts, Councils simply do not have enough trained employees to know what is too cheap.
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
Such a arcel of rogues in a nation...
Americans's loyalty to their prrsidebt is remarkeable. Nonetheless, a 10% drop in support by Trump voters would mean a Democrat landslide in the Electoral College.
You are assuming that there are no voters going the other way. And that the Democrats can find a candidate to rally around and maximise their turnout. Trump's popularity ratings are incredibly low but they are off the bottom.
As mentioned a couple of threads ago, I spent the weekend with a significant Democrat player. He thinks Trump will win in 2020
Subject to health this seems by far the most likely outcome to me. Single term Presidents who choose to stand again but lose are quite rare and lose to political giants: Hoover to FDR and Carter to Reagan. I'm not seeing anyone even in the right ball park for the Dems at the moment.
Reagan of course beat Carter having lost the Republican nomination to Ford at the previous election.
Sanders will hope he is Reagan, Hillary is Ford and Trump is Carter
The absolute incredible botch job Trump and the USA is making of hurricane relief in Puerto Rico is going to cause problems come next election(s).
Tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans are leaving and ending up in Florida and other states of a swing like nature.
Statehood for Puerto Rico could become a very live issue after 2018. The most recent referendumes in Novemberstatehood bill passed by Congress and, probably, rejected by Trump.
However, I doubt that hurricane relief from last year will be a major issue come 2020: too few voters were affected and for the rest, it'll be too long gone.
The turnout on the Puerto Rico statehood vote last June was only 23 per cent. Suggests the vast majority of Puerto Ricans aren't that fussed on that matter.
It has been a US territory since 1898 and people born there have been US citizens for a century. In all that time they have never been given statehood - its even less likely now as the Republicans would oppose it as it would be two extra Dem senate seats. Should Guam get statehood too?
As I said in my comment (did you read it?) there was a boycott by parties opposed to statehood. Even so, the result was what it was. And yes, Republicans might well oppose it - including Trump, presumably - which is why I said that the passage of a statehood bill would probably be contingent on the Democrats gaining control of both Houses of Congress.
In reality, the issue won't be resolved until after 2021 at the earliest but it could become a live debate before then.
Raising Guam is a classic case of whataboutery. There is a debate ongoing in Guam about its status but it's nothing like as developed as that in Puerto Rico, where five referendums have been held on the issue.
A boycott so successful 77 per cent of people didn't bother to vote? So well developed more than three quarters of the population couldn't even be bothered to express a view. Suggests most Puerto Ricans aren't they fussed.
I don't really think the comparison with Guam is whataboutery. It's a US territory and they are US citizens. Washington DC hasn't even been given statehood - although it gets some electoral college votes - why would Puerto Rico get there before DC?
It has to be a bit more developed than we support it cos the Democrats would get two extra Senate seats!
Maybe if PR could get a 70 per cent turnout on a vote like we had on 23 June 2016 it might have a case. Cos even with triple their turnout many won't accept our referendum.
DC was explicitly denied statehood (IIRC it was carved out of Virginia) to avoid the creation of an over mighty State with the power of the federal government
Oh Dear! The panic in the PBtories breasties*..... Haven't laughed so much at so little for a long time.
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
Such a arcel of rogues in a nation...
Americans's loyalty to their prrsidebt is remarkeable. Nonetheless, a 10% drop in support by Trump voters would mean a Democrat landslide in the Electoral College.
You are assuming that there are no voters going the other way. And that the Democrats can find a candidate to rally around and maximise their turnout. Trump's popularity ratings are incredibly low but they are off the bottom.
As mentioned a couple of threads ago, I spent the weekend with a significant Democrat player. He thinks Trump will win in 2020
Subject to health this seems by far the most likely outcome to me. Single term Presidents who choose to stand again but lose are quite rare and lose to political giants: Hoover to FDR and Carter to Reagan. I'm not seeing anyone even in the right ball park for the Dems at the moment.
Reagan of course beat Carter having lost the Republican nomination to Ford at the previous election.
Sanders will hope he is Reagan, Hillary is Ford and Trump is Carter
Comments
Or as many will no doubt say - what another one?
https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/952086306045251584
https://twitter.com/andrealeadsom/status/952861095374573568
https://slate.com/business/2018/01/california-bill-sb827-residential-zoning-transit-awesome.html
...San Francisco’s state senator, Scott Wiener, has introduced a bill that would all but abolish the city’s famously strict land use controls—and virtually every other residential zoning restriction in California’s urban neighborhoods. It’s just about the most radical attack on California’s affordability crisis you could imagine.
Wiener’s bill, SB-827, flies in the face of every assumption Americans have held about neighborhood politics and design for a century. It also makes intuitive sense. The bill would ensure that all new housing construction within a half-mile of a train station or a quarter-mile of a frequent bus route would not be subject to local regulations concerning size, height, number of apartments, restrictive design standards, or the provision of parking spaces. Because San Francisco is a relatively transit-rich area, this would up-zone virtually the entire city. But it would also apply to corridors in Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and low-rise, transit-oriented suburbs across the state. It would produce larger residential buildings around transit hubs, but just as importantly it would enable developers to build those buildings faster....
Anyway, back to the header, one of the interesting things I've found about US Americans is their belief and support for the President, right or wrong. Once the oath is sworn, hand on Bible, on a cold day in January, the President is allowed, by public consent, to be able to behave and act in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the general populace for at least 4 years, and quite likely for another 4 after.
Oh, I do remember Nixon, but that was a case where he mis-behaved according to the House, but he still had a great deal of support in the country. Otherwise, JFK and his brother's sexual adventures, Eisenhower's mistress, Clinton, cigars and black dresses, LBJ, the Bush's. In fact, I can only think of Carter and Obama off hand, who actually have upheld the office with honour, no matter how much they were attacked for fantasy crimes and errors. Probably because they were aware that any naughtiness would have caused them to be drummed out of office, no matter how irrelevant, or because they actually believed that they had a job to do.
*Soon be Burn's Night and just getting into practice...
Would the politically active homeowners who benefit from limited supply allow it? Not any time soon, in either place.
However, I do think the political strategy is right: There's no point in advocating for little marginal changes, because the benefits are too uninspiring to beat the vested interests of the bagholders: They can bog it down and squish it one detail at a time. It's better to think big, and get behind proposals that would actually comprehensively solve the problem.
Repeal the planning laws.
The leavers will obviously oppose doing it but the PM can justify it with a variation same line that Farage used: Now you know what you're getting, so if the voters change their minds then fine, but if not, let us consider the issue settled, no more remoaning, etc etc.
The political benefit to her of doing this is that it makes it harder for the leavers to demagogue her deal; If they talk it down too much they'll risk losing the re-referendum.
One thing that made a lot of sense reading the (excellent) Tim Shipman book "Fallout" is how it was always parents or retired older voters who answered the door to canvassers. Never their adult children, be they students, graduates or young workers.
Both Labour and Conservatives missed them, and assumed they weren't that interested.
However, there is a big hunger for such a party and no great love for the ones we currently have.
One of the reasons the Government can't do anything radical is because he was instrumental in blowing their majority in the GE, meaning only an essential legislative programme could be passed in a double parliamentary session.
There is no margin or mandate to pursue any radical reform.
Conservatives offer pensioners lots of freebies at taxpayers expense, and Labour do the same for younger voters.
When you overlap cultural differences between the generations on top of that, it's not hard to see where the gap comes from.
Whether that means they can rejuvenate the voluntary base, and deploy a campaign strategy that's far more effective in GE2022, is another matter.
With the tax deal with the megacorps still to come I think at the moment the odds on him achieving this are better than evens. Like this country there is a very small minority who worry too much about international relationships and a very large majority for whom its the economy stupid.
Americans's loyalty to their president is remarkeable. Nonetheless, a 10% drop in support by Trump voters would mean a Democrat landslide in the Electoral College.
They risk making Trump looking reasonable, and themselves unreasonable, even though he isn't.
Seems to be an uglier and ruder version of May herself.
Glad I've stayed out of this market.
Mr. F, to the benefit of the AfD, or will other smaller parties gain, d'you think?
Bloody cold outside (although, thankfully, a million miles away from the crazy weather north-east USA saw recently).
Six Nations: thought I'd give the markets a quick look but Ladbrokes only has a few up (six per match, I expect they'll have dozens nearer the time). I'm thinking about backing Scotland to do well.
The Labour party will hold together, and inded looks substantially more united than a year ago.
Hopefully Scotland will get off the sinking ship before it goes down.
Mr. F, Die Linke have been a feature of the political scene for a while (have vague memories of learning a spot of German politics at school). If the far right continues to rise, that will probably make things increasingly uncomfortable unless mainstream parties actually address voters' concerns.
Speaking of which, I saw a graph the other day suggesting every single German political party except the AfD was to the left of median opinion. (Tried to find it, saw it on Twitter, but it eludes me for now at least).
Labour's shadow Cabinet Office minister Jon Trickett accused the Government of being "recklessly complacent" by attempting to lay sole blame for Carillion's collapse on the company.
He said: "The House will conclude it was recklessly complacent in seeking to avoid responsibility for the Government and placing the whole responsibility on the company.
Whatever happens its always the government's fault
I maintain that those who blame every bad thing on external factors cannot also claim credit for every good thing ignoring external factors .
With a poor leader and a tired, divided government, it's easier for Gov to get the blame though, even when it isn't their fault.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
I'd expect a deal to produce a small "relief" bump for the parties, at the expense of the FDP, but I agree that the non-coalition parties will benefit in the medium term when things get difficult.
Tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans are leaving and ending up in Florida and other states of a swing like nature.
He's doing(or attempting to do) everything he said he would in his campaign.
Maybe it was the cheapest but the concept of value for money is more important. No point going for the cheapest if the contractor doesn’t turn up for work or cannot complete the contract.
Outsourcing is not in principle wrong but only if those commissioning the work know how to get good contractors and good contracts in place.
Sanders will hope he is Reagan, Hillary is Ford and Trump is Carter
If average-income voters in the swing states see themselves as better off in 2020 than in 2016 then Trump will likely win again, no matter how much CNN and the late-night comedians in New York and California say he’s an evil racist friend of Russia.
Especially so if the Democrats choose someone who will spend the campaign going on about bathrooms when Trump is going on about jobs.
However, I doubt that hurricane relief from last year will be a major issue come 2020: too few voters were affected and for the rest, it'll be too long gone.
If the SPD reject a coalition, there'll almost certainly be new elections. I don't see how a minority CDU-led government is viable, even with FDP or Green support (which would in any case be less likely if the government was a minority and therefore less able to get policies through parliament).
But with the SPD sinking further in the polls since last year's election, they could well end up with their lowest share of the vote in any German federal election since 1887* (they'd need less than 19.7% to 'achieve' that). Opposition should give them the chance to reestablish their voice and recover but it'd mean sacrifices in the short term.
* Excluding 'elections' during the Nazi era, when the SPD was banned.
It has been a US territory since 1898 and people born there have been US citizens for a century. In all that time they have never been given statehood - its even less likely now as the Republicans would oppose it as it would be two extra Dem senate seats. Should Guam get statehood too?
(It should also be Burns' Night if you're going to use an apostrophe, though there's not really any need to at all).
Extend that to any sector you like and it can add 5pts to the Lab vote.
In reality, the issue won't be resolved until after 2021 at the earliest but it could become a live debate before then.
Raising Guam is a classic case of whataboutery. There is a debate ongoing in Guam about its status but it's nothing like as developed as that in Puerto Rico, where five referendums have been held on the issue.
The number is projected to be enough to tip the state alone. All those Puerto Ricans emigrating have the vote.
I don't really think the comparison with Guam is whataboutery. It's a US territory and they are US citizens. Washington DC hasn't even been given statehood - although it gets some electoral college votes - why would Puerto Rico get there before DC?
It has to be a bit more developed than we support it cos the Democrats would get two extra Senate seats!
Maybe if PR could get a 70 per cent turnout on a vote like we had on 23 June 2016 it might have a case. Cos even with triple their turnout many won't accept our referendum.
NEW THREAD
Nobody has come out of Carillion well.