The Times which is has always been known as "the paper of record" is testing that line to destruction. The tale of non-existent meeting of the POTUS and the PM at the white house, now a company sales pitch reported as a secret government memo.
The original story makes that clear
A government source said that the memo had not been commissioned by the government. The Times understands that its author prepared it under his own initiative.
The first paragraph says...
"Whitehall is working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and could need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants, according to a leaked memo prepared for the Cabinet Office."
That is highly misleading.
Hardly. It's an opening paragraph to be read in conjunction with the ones that follow. It is actually very misleading to cherry pick paragraphs from an article to pretend it says something it does not.
The Times which is has always been known as "the paper of record" is testing that line to destruction. The tale of non-existent meeting of the POTUS and the PM at the white house, now a company sales pitch reported as a secret government memo.
The original story makes that clear
A government source said that the memo had not been commissioned by the government. The Times understands that its author prepared it under his own initiative.
The first paragraph says...
"Whitehall is working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and could need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants, according to a leaked memo prepared for the Cabinet Office."
That is highly misleading.
Hardly. It's an opening paragraph to be read in conjunction with the ones that follow. It is actually very misleading to cherry pick paragraphs from an article to pretend it says something it does not.
It is deliberately misleading. They should clearly word that to make it explicitly clear from the get-go this was some bloke on secondment and not under the direction of anybody in government.
And the BBC's excuse giving a misleading report on this?
Got to wonder whether pollsters aren't kidding themselves about the chances of Alain Juppé, a 70-year old convicted crook, winning the French presidency. The other main candidate from the non-FN right, Nicolas Sarkozy, is awaiting trial for corruption. Is anyone offering a price on Le Pen winning outright in the first round?
I think he'll win, if there is one nation that won't want to be seen to be going the way of the USA and Britain - it is France.
Le Pen is also a convicted criminal.
She is?
Edit: ah, just checked.
'Convicted for fraud In 2014, the Criminal Court of Bethune found Marine Le Pen guilty of fraud and sentenced her a 10,000 Euro fine, for producing and distributing flyers purporting to be from electoral opponent Jean-Luc Mélenchon in the 2012 election. In a statement, her counsel Wallerand de Saint-Just announced that she was appealing the conviction.'
I thought being being done for fraud or campaign finance irregularities was a pre-condition of standing for election in France, along side having had an extra-martial affair?
The fraud in Marine Le Pen's case was electoral fraud consisting of the printing of black propaganda, not financial crime.
Juppé was convicted of corruption when he was head of the RPR - after his time as prime minister - when it used (stole) public resources from the city of Paris. He got a suspended jail sentence and was banned from running for president for 10 years, reduced on appeal to 14 months. Chirac also got a suspended jail sentence for corruption. Sarkozy, due to stand trial for corruption next year, could be banned from the presidential race. The next president is looking like either Juppé or Le Pen. Le Pen is not a reality TV celebrity known to millions from the wrestling, but I'm wondering whether she could give it some of the "Crooked Alain".
The Times which is has always been known as "the paper of record" is testing that line to destruction. The tale of non-existent meeting of the POTUS and the PM at the white house, now a company sales pitch reported as a secret government memo.
The original story makes that clear
A government source said that the memo had not been commissioned by the government. The Times understands that its author prepared it under his own initiative.
The first paragraph says...
"Whitehall is working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and could need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants, according to a leaked memo prepared for the Cabinet Office."
That is highly misleading.
Hardly. It's an opening paragraph to be read in conjunction with the ones that follow. It is actually very misleading to cherry pick paragraphs from an article to pretend it says something it does not.
And the BBC's excuse?
BBC criteria for news stories:- 1. It was anti the Caonervative govt so it must be true. 2. It portrays Brexit in a bad light so it must be true.
Sky just as bad and are still running the "memo" line at the 11am news live!
The Times which is has always been known as "the paper of record" is testing that line to destruction. The tale of non-existent meeting of the POTUS and the PM at the white house, now a company sales pitch reported as a secret government memo.
The original story makes that clear
A government source said that the memo had not been commissioned by the government. The Times understands that its author prepared it under his own initiative.
The first paragraph says...
"Whitehall is working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and could need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants, according to a leaked memo prepared for the Cabinet Office."
That is highly misleading.
But it feeds into the government's irritating whinging about how terribly difficult Brexit negotiations will be. Lots of things in life are difficult. They should have thought about how difficult their jobs might be before they accepted them. What a bunch of moaning minnies.
A win for Brexit? Frank-Walter Steinmeier apparently can't stand being in Boris Johnson's presence, but now he's going to become the German President so there'll be a new Foreign Minister to deal with.
It could be Ursula von der Leyen, on her way towards the Chancellorship.
The German Foreign Minister is always supplied by the junior coalition parter, though I'm not sure if this is simply tradition or if it's written into the rules. That would rule out Ursula von der Leyen (CDU); it'd have to be someone else from the SPD.
It is interesting the government are focusing on disputing the provenance of the report rather than the substance of the report, which sounds very accurate.
We also can't go back to " Remain " as was. Cameron's deal has been voided by the Council anyway and it was insufficient at the time. I've no doubt that the proposition that Leave put before the voters is in the penultimate stage of collapse. The opportunity is there. But the psychology means we can't go back to Remain. Remaining members needs presentational finesse.
I wouldn't be so sure, I think one of the lessons of Trump and Brexit is that there's a limit to the power of presentational finesse. You can't keep on pretending to agree with economic populism while enacting liberal internationalism forever. At some point you need to actually do what you kept pretending you wanted to do or admit that you actually favour liberal internationalism, and explain why it's a good idea.
Just been looking through the campaign data. Clinton was absolutely useless. She spent more time in NYC preaching to the converted than she did trying to shore up the rust belt. Trump outperformed Romney by an average of 9% in those key states (during 4 years of population contraction), that's with third parties outperforming by 4% over 2012. If Trump had the GOP traditionalists on his side he would have outperformed Romney by over 10% in raw vote terms, that's a lot of new voters and former Dems who turned out for Trump.
Those fucking data analysts running the Clinton campaign need to be hung from theor balls. Completely useless. It also shows that Hillary Clinton just doesn't have "it". Since the loss we've heard that Bill was imploring her to go to these solid blue states and now Obama has said she didn't do enough there either. Looking at her campaign visits they are right. If she was any good at politics she would have felt that Trump was energising long time Dems and first time voters in these key states. The problem is that she was so far removed from ordinary American people that she doesn't understand them. I'm not sure she ever has.
The 30,000 extra civil servants claim could have come from the lips of Sir Humphrey himself.
It would appear (according to the Times) that senior civil servants saw and "worked on" them memo.... Therefore it could be fair to conclude that the group of people wanted to help create new civil service empires for themselves and help Deloitte's get work. Maybe some were also ex Deloitte's?
"It is interesting the government are focusing on disputing the provenance of the report rather than the substance of the report, which sounds very accurate." This is an unsolicited report authored by TSE.
On trade, security, and democracy it is a busted flush. The arguments in favour - academic at best - have been decisively Trumped.
Our permanent interests as a maritime nation are for the freest trade and for a world of liberal democratic internationalism - from the UN to the World Bank.
Irony or ironies, the safest vehicle for that today is the EU.
Sorry Brexiters, you just got Trexited. You're allying yourself with demagoguery, isolationism and kleptocracy. Quit before the mental and moral gymnastics start to affect your health.
If the EU showed any interest whatsoever in returning powers to Member States, you might have a point, but they don't, so the argument for leaving remains the same.
You do know that Member States have a veto over the final deal, don't you?
It doesn't alter the fact that EU membership means ever More Europe. That's not a bug, it's a feature.
Dave's Deal specifically opted us out of Ever Closer Union.
Er, no it didn't. That's a ridiculous claim.
The Tusk text says (p10) specifically: “It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union.” It also promises to incorporate this in the EU treaties next time they are opened.
Which proves my point; no promise means anything unless it is written into treaty. Dave deal was not an EU treaty.
Well, there's not much point arguing over Dave's Deal - that's now dead and gone. But it's interesting how it's gone from 'worthless piece of evil europhile capitulation that cost him the referendum' to 'okay but needs to be enshrined in a treaty'.
Except I said no such thing. A statement to the effect of "the UK is not committed to further political integration", even written into treaty, is not any kind of lock on an Ever Closer Union that you seem to think it is. I was just pointing out that a promise not written into treaty is totally meaningless.
Trump was running on a GOP ticket, that is historically pretty much a 50-50 bet whether or not you win the presidency, if you pick any race 'blind'. Le Pen does not have this historic advantage by running on a FN ticket.
Le Pen has a much lower public profile than Trump, and is less charismatic
Hillary won the popular vote
It is not an ECV or FPTP system (Juppe's huge margins in Paris will help).
National opinion polling for Brexit, the USA (nationally), Austria has all been quite accurate & Le Pen is behind in a run off scenario. We must however pay attention to ALL the polls however - and be watchful of swings toward Le Pen.
I'm ~ £110 on Juppe, £70 at 4-6 and ~ £44 at 10-11ish.
I'll be watching all the polls for sure, and will reverse if Le Pen looks strong. Currently she doesn't (2nd round) but we're a way off yet.
It is interesting the government are focusing on disputing the provenance of the report rather than the substance of the report, which sounds very accurate.
The Times which is has always been known as "the paper of record" is testing that line to destruction. The tale of non-existent meeting of the POTUS and the PM at the white house, now a company sales pitch reported as a secret government memo.
The original story makes that clear
A government source said that the memo had not been commissioned by the government. The Times understands that its author prepared it under his own initiative.
The first paragraph says...
"Whitehall is working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and could need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants, according to a leaked memo prepared for the Cabinet Office."
That is highly misleading.
But it feeds into the government's irritating whinging about how terribly difficult Brexit negotiations will be. Lots of things in life are difficult. They should have thought about how difficult their jobs might be before they accepted them. What a bunch of moaning minnies.
Nothing in the memo is particularly surprising: the cabinet splits, May's inability to delegate and need to micromanage, companies blackmailing the government into providing support and the general lack of a plan. All of these were obvious to any onlooker. The 30,000 extra civil servants is new, although may include the new staff needed to cover the work currently done for us by Brussels.
"It is interesting the government are focusing on disputing the provenance of the report rather than the substance of the report, which sounds very accurate." This is an unsolicited report authored by TSE.
Donald Trump has accused a judge of being biased because he's Mexican, mocked the disabled, insulted the parents of a dead veteran and boasted of grabbing women by the pussy. I really can't get worked up about his daughter advertising jewellery for sale.
Yes the voters knew he is a sleazeball and shruged their shoulders, (atleast almost half of them) they won't care about this.
Politics is so debased now, why give a fuck about any "scandal'. Who cares.
What I can't understand is why Hilary Clinton is so deified by many liberal commentators? I read the Guardian mostly, and it's opinion writers, especially it's cadre of feminist writers such as Jessica Valenti are actually traumatised by the Trump vote. They have projected so much onto her, almost as if she was the perfect candidate. The Guardian is literally pissing its pants and begging for money to fight Trump., and I can't fail to think that if Trump is such a monster (and he probably his) why didn't the Dems pick a better candidate? It almost feels as if it was Clinton's turn to have a play, and somehow she was denied it.
This is what we were discussing yesterday. There was enough split ticket voting in Michigan and NC to swing the state from the Dems at Gubernatorial, House or Senate level to Trump for the White House. Dems turned out but they voted for Trump. Clinton was a rubbish candidate and should have been told by the DNC not to run and they should have pushed Biden to have a go for one term while they rebuilt the party machinery and flushed all the Clinton surrogates out.
I'm not sure what conclusions one can draw from governor races.
Just been looking through the campaign data. Clinton was absolutely useless. She spent more time in NYC preaching to the converted than she did trying to shore up the rust belt. Trump outperformed Romney by an average of 9% in those key states (during 4 years of population contraction), that's with third parties outperforming by 4% over 2012. If Trump had the GOP traditionalists on his side he would have outperformed Romney by over 10% in raw vote terms, that's a lot of new voters and former Dems who turned out for Trump.
Those fucking data analysts running the Clinton campaign need to be hung from theor balls. Completely useless. It also shows that Hillary Clinton just doesn't have "it". Since the loss we've heard that Bill was imploring her to go to these solid blue states and now Obama has said she didn't do enough there either. Looking at her campaign visits they are right. If she was any good at politics she would have felt that Trump was energising long time Dems and first time voters in these key states. The problem is that she was so far removed from ordinary American people that she doesn't understand them. I'm not sure she ever has.
I feel sorry for Bill Clinton, who was doing basically a one man tour of blue collar America in the Mid West and Appalachia, and was mocked for it by his wife's campaign team.
Bill of course, managed to carry Missouri, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania as well as the Mid West. That's 104 Electoral College Votes.
You say it is not "liberal" to shut free speech down by saying it is racist or islamophobic. But what if it IS racist or islamophobic?
I think you are not clear what liberalism is and are mixing it up with libertarianism. Both of them are about people being free to do what they want. The difference is that liberalism says you are free to do what you want up until the point at which you start hurting others, while libertarianis says you are free to do what you want and to hell with everyone else.
There is room for a discussion about the point at which freely expressed opinions cross over from being merely offensive to raising the possibility of real harm being done to people. But true liberals would say there must be some form of limit to free speech. The usual and obvious example is the one about shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
I've had quite enough of people thinking they can say and do what they like. We have created a society across a lot of the world made up of selfish people who think they are entitled to have whatever they want whenever they want it and don't care who they trample on to get it.
I've also had quite enough of people sneering at "liberals" on this site and elsewhere.
And while I'm at it I have had quite enough of Brexit bullies claiming we all have to do as they say. No we don't.
Off to have a cup of tea - although what I really need is a stiff gin.
Sneering at "liberals"? Or pointing out the bad 2016 they are having - because of an ill-thought out ideology for our times? Depends where you stand I suppose.
It is interesting the government are focusing on disputing the provenance of the report rather than the substance of the report, which sounds very accurate.
"We don't recognise" a leaked document is a well known euphemism for "It's too embarrassing to talk about"
The Times which is has always been known as "the paper of record" is testing that line to destruction. The tale of non-existent meeting of the POTUS and the PM at the white house, now a company sales pitch reported as a secret government memo.
The Times seems very dominated by REMAIN supporters desperate to create anti-Brexit stories. People at the Times should be fired.
I've stop subscribing. It's gone totally downhill since June.
Donald Trump has accused a judge of being biased because he's Mexican, mocked the disabled, insulted the parents of a dead veteran and boasted of grabbing women by the pussy. I really can't get worked up about his daughter advertising jewellery for sale.
Yes the voters knew he is a sleazeball and shruged their shoulders, (atleast almost half of them) they won't care about this.
Politics is so debased now, why give a fuck about any "scandal'. Who cares.
What I can't understand is why Hilary Clinton is so deified by many liberal commentators? I read the Guardian mostly, and it's opinion writers, especially it's cadre of feminist writers such as Jessica Valenti are actually traumatised by the Trump vote. They have projected so much onto her, almost as if she was the perfect candidate. The Guardian is literally pissing its pants and begging for money to fight Trump., and I can't fail to think that if Trump is such a monster (and he probably his) why didn't the Dems pick a better candidate? It almost feels as if it was Clinton's turn to have a play, and somehow she was denied it.
This is what we were discussing yesterday. There was enough split ticket voting in Michigan and NC to swing the state from the Dems at Gubernatorial, House or Senate level to Trump for the White House. Dems turned out but they voted for Trump. Clinton was a rubbish candidate and should have been told by the DNC not to run and they should have pushed Biden to have a go for one term while they rebuilt the party machinery and flushed all the Clinton surrogates out.
The Republicans won the overall vote for the House by 50% to 47%. So Clinton did slightly overperform Democratic House candidates, and Trump slightly underperformed Republicans.
It looks like any GOP candidate may well have won, but I think the polling would have been 'more right'.
Would a generic GOPer have got TRump's amazing vote efficiency? The vote count change needed ot flip this election is miniscule (as was Obama's lead in 2012)
@MaxPB - there's a little bit of me that wonders if Clinton and Co were going for the Holy Grail. That is, they wanted to win without showing any deference to the swing states.
Just been looking through the campaign data. Clinton was absolutely useless. She spent more time in NYC preaching to the converted than she did trying to shore up the rust belt. Trump outperformed Romney by an average of 9% in those key states (during 4 years of population contraction), that's with third parties outperforming by 4% over 2012. If Trump had the GOP traditionalists on his side he would have outperformed Romney by over 10% in raw vote terms, that's a lot of new voters and former Dems who turned out for Trump.
Those fucking data analysts running the Clinton campaign need to be hung from theor balls. Completely useless. It also shows that Hillary Clinton just doesn't have "it". Since the loss we've heard that Bill was imploring her to go to these solid blue states and now Obama has said she didn't do enough there either. Looking at her campaign visits they are right. If she was any good at politics she would have felt that Trump was energising long time Dems and first time voters in these key states. The problem is that she was so far removed from ordinary American people that she doesn't understand them. I'm not sure she ever has.
I feel sorry for Bill Clinton, who was doing basically a one man tour of blue collar America in the Mid West and Appalachia, and was mocked for it by his wife's campaign team.
Bill of course, managed to carry Missouri, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania as well as the Mid West. That's 104 Electoral College Votes.
Leavers seem very fragile this morning. It seems that their safe space has been invaded. I hope that they find suitable harbour in those bastions of accurate reporting, the Mail, the Express and Breitbart.
The Times which is has always been known as "the paper of record" is testing that line to destruction. The tale of non-existent meeting of the POTUS and the PM at the white house, now a company sales pitch reported as a secret government memo.
The original story makes that clear
A government source said that the memo had not been commissioned by the government. The Times understands that its author prepared it under his own initiative.
The first paragraph says...
"Whitehall is working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and could need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants, according to a leaked memo prepared for the Cabinet Office."
That is highly misleading.
Hardly. It's an opening paragraph to be read in conjunction with the ones that follow. It is actually very misleading to cherry pick paragraphs from an article to pretend it says something it does not.
It is deliberately misleading. They should clearly word that to make it explicitly clear from the get-go this was some bloke on secondment and not under the direction of anybody in government.
And the BBC's excuse giving a misleading report on this?
Translation - I do not like the reporting on this, therefore it must be biased.
The right is the left, the left is the right.
The opening four lines of the BBC online report:
The government says it "does not recognise" a leaked memo suggesting it has no overall plan for Brexit. A spokesman said the "unsolicited document" came from an external accountancy firm and had "no authority".
Leavers seem very fragile this morning. It seems that their safe space has been invaded. I hope that they find suitable harbour in those bastions of accurate reporting, the Mail, the Express and Breitbart.
Having to read Breitbart to get the official Whitehouse line on things is going to get a bit trying these next few years.
The Times which is has always been known as "the paper of record" is testing that line to destruction. The tale of non-existent meeting of the POTUS and the PM at the white house, now a company sales pitch reported as a secret government memo.
The original story makes that clear
A government source said that the memo had not been commissioned by the government. The Times understands that its author prepared it under his own initiative.
The first paragraph says...
"Whitehall is working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and could need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants, according to a leaked memo prepared for the Cabinet Office."
That is highly misleading.
Hardly. It's an opening paragraph to be read in conjunction with the ones that follow. It is actually very misleading to cherry pick paragraphs from an article to pretend it says something it does not.
And the BBC's excuse?
BBC criteria for news stories:- 1. It was anti the Caonervative govt so it must be true. 2. It portrays Brexit in a bad light so it must be true.
Sky just as bad and are still running the "memo" line at the 11am news live!
The BBC, Sky and Indy missed the word 'illegal' out of their headlines when reporting Trump's deportation policy.
Leavers seem very fragile this morning. It seems that their safe space has been invaded. I hope that they find suitable harbour in those bastions of accurate reporting, the Mail, the Express and Breitbart.
I am sure they will have been cheered by the entirely fair and impartial interview of Nigel Farage, by Piers Morgan, about Donald Trump
@MaxPB - there's a little bit of me that wonders if Clinton and Co were going for the Holy Grail. That is, they wanted to win without showing any deference to the swing states.
Truly an awful strategy if that was what they were aiming for. I just think Hillary doesn't understand the American people, she can equivocate with the best of them and pretend to like them, but I expect her private reaction would be very much like Brown vs "the bigoted lady" after talking to any ordinary person about their concerns on immigration and globalisation.
The Times which is has always been known as "the paper of record" is testing that line to destruction. The tale of non-existent meeting of the POTUS and the PM at the white house, now a company sales pitch reported as a secret government memo.
The original story makes that clear
A government source said that the memo had not been commissioned by the government. The Times understands that its author prepared it under his own initiative.
The first paragraph says...
"Whitehall is working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and could need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants, according to a leaked memo prepared for the Cabinet Office."
That is highly misleading.
Hardly. It's an opening paragraph to be read in conjunction with the ones that follow. It is actually very misleading to cherry pick paragraphs from an article to pretend it says something it does not.
It is deliberately misleading. They should clearly word that to make it explicitly clear from the get-go this was some bloke on secondment and not under the direction of anybody in government.
And the BBC's excuse giving a misleading report on this?
Translation - I do not like the reporting on this, therefore it must be biased.
The right is the left, the left is the right.
The opening four lines of the BBC online report:
The government says it "does not recognise" a leaked memo suggesting it has no overall plan for Brexit. A spokesman said the "unsolicited document" came from an external accountancy firm and had "no authority".
That is the BBC "updated" report. They were told at 7am that their initial report was factually incorrect, but still ran with it. And they should have known anyway, because they weren't simply reporting on what the Times were claiming, they were given access to the documentation itself.
Is it too much to ask to get factually correct reporting?
If this story ran as "Delloite consultant on secondment to the government suggests that there will be a need for a significantly more staff in order to complete Brexit" that would be a perfectly reasonable story.
On the right side of Brexit (From a purely theoretical PoV), and the Iraq war in my view. Also we need more council housing and the penny on income tax to the NHS (See the USA disaster for perspective) is a very good idea.
I'd also add that I think Hunt's NHS reforms are a very good idea, and I think there is too much restriction of freedom of speech in this country (Violence speech rather than Hate speech should be the criminal test).
I'm to the left of the party on tuition fees
And not letting party loyalties get in the way of my Richmond by-election betting
The Times which is has always been known as "the paper of record" is testing that line to destruction. The tale of non-existent meeting of the POTUS and the PM at the white house, now a company sales pitch reported as a secret government memo.
The original story makes that clear
A government source said that the memo had not been commissioned by the government. The Times understands that its author prepared it under his own initiative.
The first paragraph says...
"Whitehall is working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and could need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants, according to a leaked memo prepared for the Cabinet Office."
That is highly misleading.
Hardly. It's an opening paragraph to be read in conjunction with the ones that follow. It is actually very misleading to cherry pick paragraphs from an article to pretend it says something it does not.
It is deliberately misleading. They should clearly word that to make it explicitly clear from the get-go this was some bloke on secondment and not under the direction of anybody in government.
And the BBC's excuse giving a misleading report on this?
Translation - I do not like the reporting on this, therefore it must be biased.
The right is the left, the left is the right.
The opening four lines of the BBC online report:
The government says it "does not recognise" a leaked memo suggesting it has no overall plan for Brexit. A spokesman said the "unsolicited document" came from an external accountancy firm and had "no authority".
Leavers seem very fragile this morning. It seems that their safe space has been invaded. I hope that they find suitable harbour in those bastions of accurate reporting, the Mail, the Express and Breitbart.
I am sure they will have been cheered by the entirely fair and impartial interview of Nigel Farage, by Piers Morgan, about Donald Trump
@MaxPB - there's a little bit of me that wonders if Clinton and Co were going for the Holy Grail. That is, they wanted to win without showing any deference to the swing states.
It all very reminiscent of Ed Miliband's Labour party thinking at the 2015 general election, they thought had every seat they held in England & Wales in the bag so they focused on attack and nothing on defence.
Ultimately they lost 8 seats to the Tories in England and Wales, that was the difference between a hung parliament and a Tory majority.
The Times which is has always been known as "the paper of record" is testing that line to destruction. The tale of non-existent meeting of the POTUS and the PM at the white house, now a company sales pitch reported as a secret government memo.
The original story makes that clear
A government source said that the memo had not been commissioned by the government. The Times understands that its author prepared it under his own initiative.
The first paragraph says...
"Whitehall is working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and could need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants, according to a leaked memo prepared for the Cabinet Office."
That is highly misleading.
Hardly. It's an opening paragraph to be read in conjunction with the ones that follow. It is actually very misleading to cherry pick paragraphs from an article to pretend it says something it does not.
It is deliberately misleading. They should clearly word that to make it explicitly clear from the get-go this was some bloke on secondment and not under the direction of anybody in government.
And the BBC's excuse giving a misleading report on this?
Translation - I do not like the reporting on this, therefore it must be biased.
The right is the left, the left is the right.
The opening four lines of the BBC online report:
The government says it "does not recognise" a leaked memo suggesting it has no overall plan for Brexit. A spokesman said the "unsolicited document" came from an external accountancy firm and had "no authority".
Trump was running on a GOP ticket, that is historically pretty much a 50-50 bet whether or not you win the presidency, if you pick any race 'blind'. Le Pen does not have this historic advantage by running on a FN ticket.
Le Pen has a much lower public profile than Trump, and is less charismatic
Hillary won the popular vote
It is not an ECV or FPTP system (Juppe's huge margins in Paris will help).
National opinion polling for Brexit, the USA (nationally), Austria has all been quite accurate & Le Pen is behind in a run off scenario. We must however pay attention to ALL the polls however - and be watchful of swings toward Le Pen.
I'm ~ £110 on Juppe, £70 at 4-6 and ~ £44 at 10-11ish.
I'll be watching all the polls for sure, and will reverse if Le Pen looks strong. Currently she doesn't (2nd round) but we're a way off yet.
I'm something like +£350 Juppe -£600 Le Pen, other candidates -£400ish
The Times which is has always been known as "the paper of record" is testing that line to destruction. The tale of non-existent meeting of the POTUS and the PM at the white house, now a company sales pitch reported as a secret government memo.
The original story makes that clear
A government source said that the memo had not been commissioned by the government. The Times understands that its author prepared it under his own initiative.
The first paragraph says...
"Whitehall is working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and could need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants, according to a leaked memo prepared for the Cabinet Office."
That is highly misleading.
Hardly. It's an opening paragraph to be read in conjunction with the ones that follow. It is actually very misleading to cherry pick paragraphs from an article to pretend it says something it does not.
It is deliberately misleading. They should clearly word that to make it explicitly clear from the get-go this was some bloke on secondment and not under the direction of anybody in government.
And the BBC's excuse giving a misleading report on this?
Translation - I do not like the reporting on this, therefore it must be biased.
The right is the left, the left is the right.
The opening four lines of the BBC online report:
The government says it "does not recognise" a leaked memo suggesting it has no overall plan for Brexit. A spokesman said the "unsolicited document" came from an external accountancy firm and had "no authority".
More than 50 percent of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland, Oregon, in the days following the election did not bother to vote.
A search of state election records was conducted by a Portland television station which reported that of the 112 protesters that were arrested, 69 of them could not be found to have turned in a ballot or were not registered to vote in the Beaver State.
The Times which is has always been known as "the paper of record" is testing that line to destruction. The tale of non-existent meeting of the POTUS and the PM at the white house, now a company sales pitch reported as a secret government memo.
The original story makes that clear
A government source said that the memo had not been commissioned by the government. The Times understands that its author prepared it under his own initiative.
The first paragraph says...
"Whitehall is working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and could need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants, according to a leaked memo prepared for the Cabinet Office."
That is highly misleading.
Hardly. It's an opening paragraph to be read in conjunction with the ones that follow. It is actually very misleading to cherry pick paragraphs from an article to pretend it says something it does not.
It is deliberately misleading. They should clearly word that to make it explicitly clear from the get-go this was some bloke on secondment and not under the direction of anybody in government.
And the BBC's excuse giving a misleading report on this?
Translation - I do not like the reporting on this, therefore it must be biased.
The right is the left, the left is the right.
The opening four lines of the BBC online report:
The government says it "does not recognise" a leaked memo suggesting it has no overall plan for Brexit. A spokesman said the "unsolicited document" came from an external accountancy firm and had "no authority".
Donald Trump has accused a judge of being biased because he's Mexican, mocked the disabled, insulted the parents of a dead veteran and boasted of grabbing women by the pussy. I really can't get worked up about his daughter advertising jewellery for sale.
Yes the voters knew he is a sleazeball and shruged their shoulders, (atleast almost half of them) they won't care about this.
Politics is so debased now, why give a fuck about any "scandal'. Who cares.
What I can't understand is why Hilary Clinton is so deified by many liberal commentators? I read the Guardian mostly, and it's opinion writers, especially it's cadre of feminist writers such as Jessica Valenti are actually traumatised by the Trump vote. They have projected so much onto her, almost as if she was the perfect candidate. The Guardian is literally pissing its pants and begging for money to fight Trump., and I can't fail to think that if Trump is such a monster (and he probably his) why didn't the Dems pick a better candidate? It almost feels as if it was Clinton's turn to have a play, and somehow she was denied it.
The DNC stitched up, that's why many Dems didn't turn out for her, although many also switched to Trump. That's probably why better candidates like Biden and Warren didn't bother standing they knew they were up against the Clinton machine who had learnt lessons from Obama and had likely bought up either by money or favours everyone who mattered in the DNC and party establishment.
More than 50 percent of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland, Oregon, in the days following the election did not bother to vote.
A search of state election records was conducted by a Portland television station which reported that of the 112 protesters that were arrested, 69 of them could not be found to have turned in a ballot or were not registered to vote in the Beaver State.
@MaxPB - there's a little bit of me that wonders if Clinton and Co were going for the Holy Grail. That is, they wanted to win without showing any deference to the swing states.
Truly an awful strategy if that was what they were aiming for. I just think Hillary doesn't understand the American people, she can equivocate with the best of them and pretend to like them, but I expect her private reaction would be very much like Brown vs "the bigoted lady" after talking to any ordinary person about their concerns on immigration and globalisation.
The simplest explanations are often the most accurate. I think she and her advisors were simply arrogant and in groupthink world. In their worldview, it was unthinkable that the deplorables could actually win, therefore they simply did not believe that the Rust Belt would swing against them, so warranted none of their attention in their hubris to go for more EV votes than Obama got.
Put more simply, they thought they were going to win bigger than Obama, so could not conceive that PAWIMI needed attention.
@MaxPB - there's a little bit of me that wonders if Clinton and Co were going for the Holy Grail. That is, they wanted to win without showing any deference to the swing states.
Truly an awful strategy if that was what they were aiming for. I just think Hillary doesn't understand the American people, she can equivocate with the best of them and pretend to like them, but I expect her private reaction would be very much like Brown vs "the bigoted lady" after talking to any ordinary person about their concerns on immigration and globalisation.
They didn't need blue collar voters. The "Coalition of the Ascendant" would see them home. And, they still lost Florida and failed to take North Carolina, and nearly lost Nevada. Remember all the talk about how brilliant the early voting for Hillary was in those States?
Donald Trump has accused a judge of being biased because he's Mexican, mocked the disabled, insulted the parents of a dead veteran and boasted of grabbing women by the pussy. I really can't get worked up about his daughter advertising jewellery for sale.
Yes the voters knew he is a sleazeball and shruged their shoulders, (atleast almost half of them) they won't care about this.
Politics is so debased now, why give a fuck about any "scandal'. Who cares.
What I can't understand is why Hilary Clinton is so deified by many liberal commentators? I read the Guardian mostly, and it's opinion writers, especially it's cadre of feminist writers such as Jessica Valenti are actually traumatised by the Trump vote. They have projected so much onto her, almost as if she was the perfect candidate. The Guardian is literally pissing its pants and begging for money to fight Trump., and I can't fail to think that if Trump is such a monster (and he probably his) why didn't the Dems pick a better candidate? It almost feels as if it was Clinton's turn to have a play, and somehow she was denied it.
This is what we were discussing yesterday. There was enough split ticket voting in Michigan and NC to swing the state from the Dems at Gubernatorial, House or Senate level to Trump for the White House. Dems turned out but they voted for Trump. Clinton was a rubbish candidate and should have been told by the DNC not to run and they should have pushed Biden to have a go for one term while they rebuilt the party machinery and flushed all the Clinton surrogates out.
The Republicans won the overall vote for the House by 50% to 47%. So Clinton did slightly overperform Democratic House candidates, and Trump slightly underperformed Republicans.
It looks like any GOP candidate may well have won, but I think the polling would have been 'more right'.
Would a generic GOPer have got TRump's amazing vote efficiency? The vote count change needed to flip this election is miniscule (as was Obama's lead in 2012)
Probably not. And a generic GOPer wouldn't have gained the Rust Belt swings that Trump did. On the other hand, someone like Kasich or Romney for example (and they're about as 'generic GOP' as you get), would in all probability have gained a much bigger *national* swing when up against Hillary.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
@SamCoatesTimes: No10 can't tell journalists they know who the source is --- and then also claim they know nothing about memo...
Goes to show why you should not immediately believe everything that the government tells you really, doesn't it?
It's pretty obvious that it was solicited by a member of the government in order to put pressure on someone else, it is not a "government memo" nor was it solicited by the government.
What this memo does show again, Mrs May's government leaks like a sieve, which does not bode well for good governance
All governments suffer from leaks. It wouldn't be hard to link to loads of leaks that Coalition government "suffered"...and I say that as somebody who isn't exactly impressed by Mrs T.
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
@SamCoatesTimes: No10 can't tell journalists they know who the source is --- and then also claim they know nothing about memo...
Goes to show why you should not immediately believe everything that the government tells you really, doesn't it?
It's pretty obvious that it was solicited by a member of the government in order to put pressure on someone else, it is not a "government memo" nor was it solicited by the government.
When is a memo solicited by a member of the government not solicited by the government?
We also can't go back to " Remain " as was. Cameron's deal has been voided by the Council anyway and it was insufficient at the time. I've no doubt that the proposition that Leave put before the voters is in the penultimate stage of collapse. The opportunity is there. But the psychology means we can't go back to Remain. Remaining members needs presentational finesse.
I wouldn't be so sure, I think one of the lessons of Trump and Brexit is that there's a limit to the power of presentational finesse. You can't keep on pretending to agree with economic populism while enacting liberal internationalism forever. At some point you need to actually do what you kept pretending you wanted to do or admit that you actually favour liberal internationalism, and explain why it's a good idea.
Exactly so. And picking up on a discussion last night. That's why liberalism is in full scale retreat at the moment and we're heading back somewhat to the 1930's (minus genocidal dictators and global war). No-one defends liberal values on first principles, so all the issues that are bubbling up (undeserved subsidies for bankers, people being left behind by globalisation, poorly integrated immigrants and so on) are blamed on liberalism. As all that happened on the Liberal Watch, so to speak, there is some justification for the blame. But it means liberal values such as the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - values that in my view should be cherished - are being discarded.
@MaxPB - there's a little bit of me that wonders if Clinton and Co were going for the Holy Grail. That is, they wanted to win without showing any deference to the swing states.
Truly an awful strategy if that was what they were aiming for. I just think Hillary doesn't understand the American people, she can equivocate with the best of them and pretend to like them, but I expect her private reaction would be very much like Brown vs "the bigoted lady" after talking to any ordinary person about their concerns on immigration and globalisation.
They didn't need blue collar voters. The "Coalition of the Ascendant" would see them home. And, they still lost Florida and failed to take North Carolina, and nearly lost Nevada. Remember all the talk about how brilliant the early voting for Hillary was in those States?
Yes, that 538 article on why early voting was not a good guide to the final result was, in the end, very important. I also remember arguing on here that Dem early voting being up over 2012 was not indicative of Clinton doing well. So it turned out.
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
What happens if countries then just decide to not pay their subs for a few years, then ask to come back in at a later date?
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
Being a nuclear state in today's world is a burden and liability. I wish we weren't - I think it is quite right that those that benefit from the US umbrella should pay up.
More than 50 percent of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland, Oregon, in the days following the election did not bother to vote.
A search of state election records was conducted by a Portland television station which reported that of the 112 protesters that were arrested, 69 of them could not be found to have turned in a ballot or were not registered to vote in the Beaver State.
I’m remanded of the St Paul’s tent village that was 90% empty at night. – Some people just like protesting for the sake of it, rather than something perhaps a little more constructive.
More than 50 percent of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland, Oregon, in the days following the election did not bother to vote.
A search of state election records was conducted by a Portland television station which reported that of the 112 protesters that were arrested, 69 of them could not be found to have turned in a ballot or were not registered to vote in the Beaver State.
I'm not. It's a characteristic of modern politics! Don't bother getting involved or voting then demonstrate and riot when you don't get the result the herd want
The Times which is has always been known as "the paper of record" is testing that line to destruction. The tale of non-existent meeting of the POTUS and the PM at the white house, now a company sales pitch reported as a secret government memo.
The original story makes that clear
A government source said that the memo had not been commissioned by the government. The Times understands that its author prepared it under his own initiative.
The first paragraph says...
"Whitehall is working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and could need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants, according to a leaked memo prepared for the Cabinet Office."
That is highly misleading.
Hardly. It's an opening paragraph to be read in conjunction with the ones that follow. It is actually very misleading to cherry pick paragraphs from an article to pretend it says something it does not.
And the BBC's excuse?
BBC criteria for news stories:- 1. It was anti the Caonervative govt so it must be true. 2. It portrays Brexit in a bad light so it must be true.
Sky just as bad and are still running the "memo" line at the 11am news live!
You are just blindly assuming it's not true because you close your ears to anything that shows Brexit in a poor light.
@MaxPB - there's a little bit of me that wonders if Clinton and Co were going for the Holy Grail. That is, they wanted to win without showing any deference to the swing states.
Truly an awful strategy if that was what they were aiming for. I just think Hillary doesn't understand the American people, she can equivocate with the best of them and pretend to like them, but I expect her private reaction would be very much like Brown vs "the bigoted lady" after talking to any ordinary person about their concerns on immigration and globalisation.
They didn't need blue collar voters. The "Coalition of the Ascendant" would see them home. And, they still lost Florida and failed to take North Carolina, and nearly lost Nevada. Remember all the talk about how brilliant the early voting for Hillary was in those States?
Yes, that 538 article on why early voting was not a good guide to the final result was, in the end, very important. I also remember arguing on here that Dem early voting being up over 2012 was not indicative of Clinton doing well. So it turned out.
They got out their own vote early.
The demographic swings in Florida and North Carolina never looked good for them however. Always thought it smelt a bit off.
''Probably not. And a generic GOPer wouldn't have gained the Rust Belt swings that Trump did. On the other hand, someone like Kasich or Romney for example (and they're about as 'generic GOP' as you get), would in all probability have gained a much bigger *national* swing when up against Hillary. ''
Can you name the states which Trump lost, that a generic GOP candidate would have won?
''The DNC stitched up, that's why many Dems didn't turn out for her, although many also switched to Trump. ''
You could argue Trump has done the DNC a favour. They are well rid of the Clintons.
Two years ago everyone thought this would be a Bush-Clinton election. Killing off two political dynasties in one cycle is an incredible feat.
You don't kill them that easily but they have been eclipsed for now. American political dynasties are remarkably resilient things. There'll be another Bush along in time although the Clinton legacy is a lot thinner and rests with what Chelsea wants to do.
@SamCoatesTimes: No10 can't tell journalists they know who the source is --- and then also claim they know nothing about memo...
Goes to show why you should not immediately believe everything that the government tells you really, doesn't it?
It's pretty obvious that it was solicited by a member of the government in order to put pressure on someone else, it is not a "government memo" nor was it solicited by the government.
When is a memo solicited by a member of the government not solicited by the government?
The government is a collective, like any company or entity.
@SamCoatesTimes: No10 can't tell journalists they know who the source is --- and then also claim they know nothing about memo...
Goes to show why you should not immediately believe everything that the government tells you really, doesn't it?
It's pretty obvious that it was solicited by a member of the government in order to put pressure on someone else, it is not a "government memo" nor was it solicited by the government.
When is a memo solicited by a member of the government not solicited by the government?
The government is a collective, like any company or entity.
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
''I reckon she's going to beat JFK's and Carter's winning margins.''
Andrew Neil points out that Trump did not set out to win the popular vote. He did not campaign at all in foregone conclusion states like California and New York.
IF it had been a popular vote election, he would have employed a different strategy.
''Probably not. And a generic GOPer wouldn't have gained the Rust Belt swings that Trump did. On the other hand, someone like Kasich or Romney for example (and they're about as 'generic GOP' as you get), would in all probability have gained a much bigger *national* swing when up against Hillary. ''
Can you name the states which Trump lost, that a generic GOP candidate would have won?
Nevada / New Mexico?
Good chance Kasich would have taken Virginia I would think.
@SamCoatesTimes: No10 can't tell journalists they know who the source is --- and then also claim they know nothing about memo...
Goes to show why you should not immediately believe everything that the government tells you really, doesn't it?
It's pretty obvious that it was solicited by a member of the government in order to put pressure on someone else, it is not a "government memo" nor was it solicited by the government.
When is a memo solicited by a member of the government not solicited by the government?
The government is a collective, like any company or entity.
And when does the government ever collectively solicit a memo from a consultant working for the Cabinet Office? It doesn't happen, so to try to contrast that situation with what has happened here is obfuscation.
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
Ah yes, 'protection money'.
Ah The Don both in name and in cosa nostra sense too.
''Probably not. And a generic GOPer wouldn't have gained the Rust Belt swings that Trump did. On the other hand, someone like Kasich or Romney for example (and they're about as 'generic GOP' as you get), would in all probability have gained a much bigger *national* swing when up against Hillary. ''
Can you name the states which Trump lost, that a generic GOP candidate would have won?
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
Ah yes, 'protection money'.
Well we all know about how Trump had to deal with the mafia in NY in the 80s who controlled the concrete business....
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senatorial distribution reflects the fact that the US is a federation not a country.
You may find it inconvenient, but people think of themselves as Texan or Californian or Virginia before they think of themselves as American.
(I am down in Tennessee this week, after a short stop in NYC, so will report on anything interesting)
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
Ah yes, 'protection money'.
Globalised racketeering, though Trump wouldn't threaten those nations who don't pay with American bombs. He might give Vlad a call though.
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
Ah yes, 'protection money'.
I don't think even Donald Trump is suggesting he will nuke Tokyo and Berlin if they don't pay up!
@SamCoatesTimes: No10 can't tell journalists they know who the source is --- and then also claim they know nothing about memo...
Goes to show why you should not immediately believe everything that the government tells you really, doesn't it?
It's pretty obvious that it was solicited by a member of the government in order to put pressure on someone else, it is not a "government memo" nor was it solicited by the government.
When is a memo solicited by a member of the government not solicited by the government?
The government is a collective, like any company or entity.
And when does the government ever collectively solicit a memo from a consultant working for the Cabinet Office? It doesn't happen, so to try to contrast that situation with what has happened here is obfuscation.
The government solicits reports from external consultants all the time, usually via the civil service (including the Cabinet Office). Indeed the lack of civil service paw marks on this one is rather the give away.
''I reckon she's going to beat JFK's and Carter's winning margins.''
Andrew Neil points out that Trump did not set out to win the popular vote. He did not campaign at all in foregone conclusion states like California and New York.
IF it had been a popular vote election, he would have employed a different strategy.
In US election, neither side sets out focused on winning the popular vote. Hence why they spend bugger all time and money in ultra safe states and all the focus is on just a few key states.
@SamCoatesTimes: No10 can't tell journalists they know who the source is --- and then also claim they know nothing about memo...
Goes to show why you should not immediately believe everything that the government tells you really, doesn't it?
It's pretty obvious that it was solicited by a member of the government in order to put pressure on someone else, it is not a "government memo" nor was it solicited by the government.
When is a memo solicited by a member of the government not solicited by the government?
The government is a collective, like any company or entity.
Or The Borg?
The Microsoft campus is Redmond is like the Borg collective.
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
What happens if countries then just decide to not pay their subs for a few years, then ask to come back in at a later date?
@SamCoatesTimes: No10 can't tell journalists they know who the source is --- and then also claim they know nothing about memo...
Goes to show why you should not immediately believe everything that the government tells you really, doesn't it?
It's pretty obvious that it was solicited by a member of the government in order to put pressure on someone else, it is not a "government memo" nor was it solicited by the government.
When is a memo solicited by a member of the government not solicited by the government?
The government is a collective, like any company or entity.
Or The Borg?
The Microsoft campus is Redmond is like the Borg collective.
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
What happens if countries then just decide to not pay their subs for a few years, then ask to come back in at a later date?
And what happens if, say, Taiwan pays. Does that make the US *legally* obliged to intervene in a dispute with China? And who will enforce their rights? Sound like a shakedoen me
''I reckon she's going to beat JFK's and Carter's winning margins.''
Andrew Neil points out that Trump did not set out to win the popular vote. He did not campaign at all in foregone conclusion states like California and New York.
IF it had been a popular vote election, he would have employed a different strategy.
Don is wise, Don is all seeing, Don can do anything!
Comments
And the BBC's excuse giving a misleading report on this?
Juppé was convicted of corruption when he was head of the RPR - after his time as prime minister - when it used (stole) public resources from the city of Paris. He got a suspended jail sentence and was banned from running for president for 10 years, reduced on appeal to 14 months. Chirac also got a suspended jail sentence for corruption. Sarkozy, due to stand trial for corruption next year, could be banned from the presidential race. The next president is looking like either Juppé or Le Pen. Le Pen is not a reality TV celebrity known to millions from the wrestling, but I'm wondering whether she could give it some of the "Crooked Alain".
1. It was anti the Caonervative govt so it must be true.
2. It portrays Brexit in a bad light so it must be true.
Sky just as bad and are still running the "memo" line at the 11am news live!
Those fucking data analysts running the Clinton campaign need to be hung from theor balls. Completely useless. It also shows that Hillary Clinton just doesn't have "it". Since the loss we've heard that Bill was imploring her to go to these solid blue states and now Obama has said she didn't do enough there either. Looking at her campaign visits they are right. If she was any good at politics she would have felt that Trump was energising long time Dems and first time voters in these key states. The problem is that she was so far removed from ordinary American people that she doesn't understand them. I'm not sure she ever has.
Trump was running on a GOP ticket, that is historically pretty much a 50-50 bet whether or not you win the presidency, if you pick any race 'blind'. Le Pen does not have this historic advantage by running on a FN ticket.
Le Pen has a much lower public profile than Trump, and is less charismatic
Hillary won the popular vote
It is not an ECV or FPTP system (Juppe's huge margins in Paris will help).
National opinion polling for Brexit, the USA (nationally), Austria has all been quite accurate & Le Pen is behind in a run off scenario. We must however pay attention to ALL the polls however - and be watchful of swings toward Le Pen.
I'm ~ £110 on Juppe, £70 at 4-6 and ~ £44 at 10-11ish.
I'll be watching all the polls for sure, and will reverse if Le Pen looks strong. Currently she doesn't (2nd round) but we're a way off yet.
Bill of course, managed to carry Missouri, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania as well as the Mid West. That's 104 Electoral College Votes.
The right is the left, the left is the right.
The opening four lines of the BBC online report:
The government says it "does not recognise" a leaked memo suggesting it has no overall plan for Brexit.
A spokesman said the "unsolicited document" came from an external accountancy firm and had "no authority".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37983948
@peterwalker99: McDonnell then launches into a section on the US election by referring to "Donald Trope".
Is it too much to ask to get factually correct reporting?
If this story ran as "Delloite consultant on secondment to the government suggests that there will be a need for a significantly more staff in order to complete Brexit" that would be a perfectly reasonable story.
On the right side of Brexit (From a purely theoretical PoV), and the Iraq war in my view. Also we need more council housing and the penny on income tax to the NHS (See the USA disaster for perspective) is a very good idea.
I'd also add that I think Hunt's NHS reforms are a very good idea, and I think there is too much restriction of freedom of speech in this country (Violence speech rather than Hate speech should be the criminal test).
I'm to the left of the party on tuition fees
And not letting party loyalties get in the way of my Richmond by-election betting
It'll be interesting to see how subscription numbers across a whole range of media settle down after the Trump win.
I wonder if the Guardian will be the only media business begging its readers for cash.
Ultimately they lost 8 seats to the Tories in England and Wales, that was the difference between a hung parliament and a Tory majority.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/14/report-majority-arrested-portland-anti-trump-protests-didnt-vote/
More than 50 percent of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland, Oregon, in the days following the election did not bother to vote.
A search of state election records was conducted by a Portland television station which reported that of the 112 protesters that were arrested, 69 of them could not be found to have turned in a ballot or were not registered to vote in the Beaver State.
But no-one denounced anyone. Something was reported and the report was updated.
Put more simply, they thought they were going to win bigger than Obama, so could not conceive that PAWIMI needed attention.
You could argue Trump has done the DNC a favour. They are well rid of the Clintons.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The demographic swings in Florida and North Carolina never looked good for them however. Always thought it smelt a bit off.
Can you name the states which Trump lost, that a generic GOP candidate would have won?
Do you think Hillary's going to win the popular vote by a larger percentage than Bush in 2004?
I reckon she's going to beat JFK's and Carter's winning margins.
Andrew Neil points out that Trump did not set out to win the popular vote. He did not campaign at all in foregone conclusion states like California and New York.
IF it had been a popular vote election, he would have employed a different strategy.
Good chance Kasich would have taken Virginia I would think.
Must admit, I thought Ron Dennis would last longer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37987396
You may find it inconvenient, but people think of themselves as Texan or Californian or Virginia before they think of themselves as American.
(I am down in Tennessee this week, after a short stop in NYC, so will report on anything interesting)
Well maybe. Not enough to counterbalance rust belt losses as Mr Generic spent half the election apologising for his big business contacts.
The truth that dare not speak its name is that Trump wasn't a weak candidate, he was a strong candidate. Maybe he was the only candidate.