I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
No they didn't. They actively chose not to support one particular 'nuclear' option, unless you know better and can cite evidence that they've lobbied the EU not to try to use its influence in other ways.
I await with interest a long list of actions advocated instead by Conservative MEPs to guide the Hungarian government down a different path.
As things stand, the one concrete measure that the EU has sought to take, Conservative MEPs opposed.
Might be a reasonable candidate but she does nothing for the electoral maths. The Dems need someone who is going to win in South or Rust Belt, she might do well in coastal and liberal America but that's not really an issue for them.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
No they didn't. They actively chose not to support one particular 'nuclear' option, unless you know better and can cite evidence that they've lobbied the EU not to try to use its influence in other ways.
I await with interest a long list of actions advocated instead by Conservative MEPs to guide the Hungarian government down a different path.
As things stand, the one concrete measure that the EU has sought to take, Conservative MEPs opposed.
Might be a reasonable candidate but she does nothing for the electoral maths. The Dems need someone who is going to win in South or Rust Belt, she might do well in coastal and liberal America but that's not really an issue for them.
On paper you wouldn't expect Trump to be the kind of candidate to reach the areas he did, so treating it as a box-ticking casting exercise might not be the best approach.
When the EU looks to take action to curb it, seeking to stop it from doing so.
So, in your world, disagreeing with a particular measure against a country is tantamount to actively supporting the government of that country. By that logic, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party actively supported Assad, and the LibDems actively supported Saddam.
On this occasion, very definitely yes. Can you explain how it can be viewed differently? Michael Gove sure as heck couldn't on Sunday morning.
First of all, the chances of it having the desired effect is zero. Orban is hardly going to become a nice Cameroon PM just because the EU start waving sticks at him. Secondly it's quite likely to be actively counter-productive, giving Orban an excuse to blame foreigners even more than he does at the moment. Thirdly it potentially complicates Brexit, which is something which is most definitely not in the UK's interests at the moment. Fourthly it's a bit problematic interfering in the democratic (..ish) choices of a member state,
Now to be clear, I'm not saying that if I was an MEP I'd have voted against action, and as you know several Conservative MEPs didn't. The considerations I've listed have to be weighed against the understandable wish to condemn Orban. Coming down on one side or the other is not 'supporting' him.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
Perhaps they voted as they did because they dont believe an unelected eu should have right of censure over an elected government.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
When the EU looks to take action to curb it, seeking to stop it from doing so.
So, in your world, disagreeing with a particular measure against a country is tantamount to actively supporting the government of that country. By that logic, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party actively supported Assad, and the LibDems actively supported Saddam.
On this occasion, very definitely yes. Can you explain how it can be viewed differently? Michael Gove sure as heck couldn't on Sunday morning.
First of all, the chances of it having the desired effect is zero. Orban is hardly going to become a nice Cameroon PM just because the EU start waving sticks at him. Secondly it's quite likely to be actively counter-productive, giving Orban an excuse to blame foreigners even more than he does at the moment. Thirdly it potentially complicates Brexit, which is something which is most definitely not in the UK's interests at the moment. Fourthly it's a bit problematic interfering in the democratic (..ish) choices of a member state,
Now to be clear, I'm not saying that if I was an MEP I'd have voted against action, and as you know several Conservative MEPs didn't. The considerations I've listed have to be weighed against the understandable wish to condemn Orban. Coming down on one side or the other is not 'supporting' him.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
Perhaps they voted as they did because they dont believe an unelected eu should have right of censure over an elected government.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
The people voting were all elected, and Hungary is voluntarily part of the same political system.
I am going to have to break this to you gently. But - whisper - I don't have a morning cappuccino. Or an afternoon one either. In fact, I have very little coffee ever.
I start and end the day with green tea, but coffee powers me between 9am and 6pm. Days without coffee are just snooze fests.... ... The erotic spresms will just have to wait.
Might be a reasonable candidate but she does nothing for the electoral maths. The Dems need someone who is going to win in South or Rust Belt, she might do well in coastal and liberal America but that's not really an issue for them.
On paper you wouldn't expect Trump to be the kind of candidate to reach the areas he did, so treating it as a box-ticking casting exercise might not be the best approach.
Hmm, Trump is exactly the kind of candidate that gets the GOP into the race where they need to be and out of the race where they can't win. Hence, winning the EC and losing the popular vote.
FPT I’m afraid John Harris is looking in completely the wrong places for the causes of Brexit. Instead of investigating left-behind communities he should be visiting southern towns where complacent affluent oldies push their appalling saloon bar nonsense.
Or visit pb, where those views can be found in abundance.
I still can't believe that South Bucks / Beaconsfield voted Leave (by 51/49).
They will all be the first to complain when their little weekend breaks across to France to stock up on sun and wine become more complicated and difficult.
FPT I’m afraid John Harris is looking in completely the wrong places for the causes of Brexit. Instead of investigating left-behind communities he should be visiting southern towns where complacent affluent oldies push their appalling saloon bar nonsense.
Or visit pb, where those views can be found in abundance.
I still can't believe that South Bucks / Beaconsfield voted Leave (by 51/49).
They will all be the first to complain when their little weekend breaks across to France to stock up on sun and wine become more complicated and difficult.
When the EU looks to take action to curb it, seeking to stop it from doing so.
So, in your world, disagreeing with a particular measure against a country is tantamount to actively supporting the government of that country. By that logic, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party actively supported Assad, and the LibDems actively supported Saddam.
On this occasion, very definitely yes. Can you explain how it can be viewed differently? Michael Gove sure as heck couldn't on Sunday morning.
First of all, the chances of it having the desired effect is zero. Orban is hardly going to become a nice Cameroon PM just because the EU start waving sticks at him. Secondly it's quite likely to be actively counter-productive, giving Orban an excuse to blame foreigners even more than he does at the moment. Thirdly it potentially complicates Brexit, which is something which is most definitely not in the UK's interests at the moment. Fourthly it's a bit problematic interfering in the democratic (..ish) choices of a member state,
Now to be clear, I'm not saying that if I was an MEP I'd have voted against action, and as you know several Conservative MEPs didn't. The considerations I've listed have to be weighed against the understandable wish to condemn Orban. Coming down on one side or the other is not 'supporting' him.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
Perhaps they voted as they did because they dont believe an unelected eu should have right of censure over an elected government.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
The people voting were all elected, and Hungary is voluntarily part of the same political system.
Most of them werent elected by hungarians, the hungarian government however was. Those proposing the actions were elected by no one in any european country
FPT I’m afraid John Harris is looking in completely the wrong places for the causes of Brexit. Instead of investigating left-behind communities he should be visiting southern towns where complacent affluent oldies push their appalling saloon bar nonsense.
Or visit pb, where those views can be found in abundance.
I still can't believe that South Bucks / Beaconsfield voted Leave (by 51/49).
They will all be the first to complain when their little weekend breaks across to France to stock up on sun and wine become more complicated and difficult.
What the Leavers really want is to be members of the EU - but without paying the membership fee and without forriners coming here or telling us what to do.
The Irish border, frictionless trade, lots of FTAs both within Europe and across the world - all the things they say they want and which our EU membership gives us.
When the EU looks to take action to curb it, seeking to stop it from doing so.
So, in your world, disagreeing with a particular measure against a country is tantamount to actively supporting the government of that country. By that logic, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party actively supported Assad, and the LibDems actively supported Saddam.
On this occasion, very definitely yes. Can you explain how it can be viewed differently? Michael Gove sure as heck couldn't on Sunday morning.
First of all, the chances of it having the desired effect is zero. Orban is hardly going to become a nice Cameroon PM just because the EU start waving sticks at him. Secondly it's quite likely to be actively counter-productive, giving Orban an excuse to blame foreigners even more than he does at the moment. Thirdly it potentially complicates Brexit, which is something which is most definitely not in the UK's interests at the moment. Fourthly it's a bit problematic interfering in the democratic (..ish) choices of a member state,
Now to be clear, I'm not saying that if I was an MEP I'd have voted against action, and as you know several Conservative MEPs didn't. The considerations I've listed have to be weighed against the understandable wish to condemn Orban. Coming down on one side or the other is not 'supporting' him.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
Perhaps they voted as they did because they dont believe an unelected eu should have right of censure over an elected government.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
The people voting were all elected, and Hungary is voluntarily part of the same political system.
Most of them werent elected by hungarians, the hungarian government however was. Those proposing the actions were elected by no one in any european country
The action was initiated by the European Parliament.
It seems that some have never lost their admiration for Tony Blair.
This seems to come from two quarters: those at the heart of his centrist New Labour administration (his, not Brown’s) and urbanite Conservatives who came of political age during the mid-late 90s, who were and remain in awe of him.
When the EU looks to take action to curb it, seeking to stop it from doing so.
So, in your world, disagreeing with a particular measure against a country is tantamount to actively supporting the government of that country. By that logic, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party actively supported Assad, and the LibDems actively supported Saddam.
On this occasion, very definitely yes. Can you explain how it can be viewed differently? Michael Gove sure as heck couldn't on Sunday morning.
First of all, the chances of it having the desired effect is zero. Orban is hardly going to become a nice Cameroon PM just because the EU start waving sticks at him. Secondly it's quite likely to be actively counter-productive, giving Orban an excuse to blame foreigners even more than he does at the moment. Thirdly it potentially complicates Brexit, which is something which is most definitely not in the UK's interests at the moment. Fourthly it's a bit problematic interfering in the democratic (..ish) choices of a member state,
Now to be clear, I'm not saying that if I was an MEP I'd have voted against action, and as you know several Conservative MEPs didn't. The considerations I've listed have to be weighed against the understandable wish to condemn Orban. Coming down on one side or the other is not 'supporting' him.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
Perhaps they voted as they did because they dont believe an unelected eu should have right of censure over an elected government.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
The people voting were all elected, and Hungary is voluntarily part of the same political system.
Most of them werent elected by hungarians, the hungarian government however was. Those proposing the actions were elected by no one in any european country
The action was initiated by the European Parliament.
Still doesnt change the fact that they were not mostly elected by hungarians. This is one of the reasons people hate the eu. It is too often used by people like you to force through measures that wouldn't get past the national parliaments or too override what people vote for because you think you know better
It seems that some have never lost their admiration for Tony Blair.
This seems to come from two quarters: those at the heart of his centrist New Labour administration (his, not Brown’s) and urbanite Conservatives who came of political age during the mid-late 90s, who were and remain in awe of him.
The only Labour leader to win a working majority since 1966. Maybe that's why he's admired by many people.
When the EU looks to take action to curb it, seeking to stop it from doing so.
So, in your world, disagreeing with a particular measure against a country is tantamount to actively supporting the government of that country. By that logic, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party actively supported Assad, and the LibDems actively supported Saddam.
On this occasion, very definitely yes. Can you explain how it can be viewed differently? Michael Gove sure as heck couldn't on Sunday morning.
First of all, the chances
Now to be clear, I'm not saying that if I was an MEP I'd have voted against action, and as you know several Conservative MEPs didn't. The considerations I've listed have to be weighed against the understandable wish to condemn Orban. Coming down on one side or the other is not 'supporting' him.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
Perhaps they voted as they did because they dont believe an unelected eu should have right of censure over an elected government.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
The people voting were all elected, and Hungary is voluntarily part of the same political system.
Most of them werent elected by hungarians, the hungarian government however was. Those proposing the actions were elected by no one in any european country
The action was initiated by the European Parliament.
Still doesnt change the fact that they were not mostly elected by hungarians. This is one of the reasons people hate the eu. It is too often used by people like you to force through measures that wouldn't get past the national parliaments or too override what people vote for because you think you know better
I rather do hope that we do know better than the anti-democratic Orban with his anti-semitism.
One of the many lamentable aspects of Brexit is us losing our influence on European Democracy and governance. It is bad for the EU as well as ourselves.
When the EU looks to take action to curb it, seeking to stop it from doing so.
So, in your world, disagreeing with a particular measure against a country is tantamount to actively supporting the government of that country. By that logic, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party actively supported Assad, and the LibDems actively supported Saddam.
On this occasion, very definitely yes. Can you explain how it can be viewed differently? Michael Gove sure as heck couldn't on Sunday morning.
First of all, the chances of it having the desired effect is zero. Orban is hardly going to become a nice Cameroon PM just because the EU start waving sticks at him. Secondly it's quite likely to be actively counter-productive, giving Orban an excuse to blame foreigners even more than he does at the moment. Thirdly it potentially complicates Brexit, which is something which is most definitely not in the UK's interests at the moment. Fourthly it's a bit problematic interfering in the democratic (..ish) choices of a member state,
Now to be clear, I'm not saying that if I was an MEP I'd have voted against action, and as you know several Conservative MEPs didn't. The considerations I've listed have to be weighed against the understandable wish to condemn Orban. Coming down on one side or the other is not 'supporting' him.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
Perhaps they voted as they did because they dont believe an unelected eu should have right of censure over an elected government.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
The people voting were all elected, and Hungary is voluntarily part of the same political system.
I thought that the EU threatening to withhold benefits of membership from Poland or Hungary for breaching “European values” was a new thing?
In any event an elected government should be accountable to its voters/parliament not a pan-European body without that authority
When the EU looks to take action to curb it, seeking to stop it from doing so.
So, in your world, disagreeing with a particular measure against a country is tantamount to actively supporting the government of that country. By that logic, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party actively supported Assad, and the LibDems actively supported Saddam.
On this occasion, very definitely yes. Can you explain how it can be viewed differently? Michael Gove sure as heck couldn't on Sunday morning.
First of all, the chances
Now to be clear, I'm not saying that if I was an MEP I'd have voted against action, and as you know several Conservative MEPs didn't. The considerations I've listed have to be weighed against the understandable wish to condemn Orban. Coming down on one side or the other is not 'supporting' him.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
Perhaps they voted as they did because they dont believe an unelected eu should have right of censure over an elected government.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
The people voting were all elected, and Hungary is voluntarily part of the same political system.
Most of them werent elected by hungarians, the hungarian government however was. Those proposing the actions were elected by no one in any european country
The action was initiated by the European Parliament.
I rather do hope that we do know better than the anti-democratic Orban with his anti-semitism.
One of the many lamentable aspects of Brexit is us losing our influence on European Democracy and governance. It is bad for the EU as well as ourselves.
Hungarian voters get to choose their leaders. That this seems to be undesirable baffles me. While I appreciate that the A8 countries are, by and large, more racist, homophobic and transphobic than this sceptered isle, and that this is regrettable, I don't see it affects the ordinary crossdresser on the Clapham Omnibus. Hungary is a far off etc.
When the EU looks to take action to curb it, seeking to stop it from doing so.
So, in your world, disagreeing with a particular measure against a country is tantamount to actively supporting the government of that country. By that logic, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party actively supported Assad, and the LibDems actively supported Saddam.
On this occasion, very definitely yes. Can you explain how it can be viewed differently? Michael Gove sure as heck couldn't on Sunday morning.
First of all, the chances of it having the desired effect is zero. Orban is hardly going to become a nice Cameroon PM just because the EU start waving sticks at him. Secondly it's quite likely to be actively counter-productive, giving Orban an excuse to blame foreigners even more than he does at the moment. Thirdly it potentially complicates Brexit, which is something which is most definitely not in the UK's interests at the moment. Fourthly it's a bit problematic interfering in the democratic (..ish) choices of a member state,
Now to be clear, I'm not saying that if I was an MEP I'd have voted against action, and as you know several Conservative MEPs didn't. The considerations I've listed have to be weighed against the understandable wish to condemn Orban. Coming down on one side or the other is not 'supporting' him.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
Perhaps they voted as they did because they dont believe an unelected eu should have right of censure over an elected government.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
The people voting were all elected, and Hungary is voluntarily part of the same political system.
I thought that the EU threatening to withhold benefits of membership from Poland or Hungary for breaching “European values” was a new thing?
In any event an elected government should be accountable to its voters/parliament not a pan-European body without that authority
According to a vox piece a couple of days ago while Poland and Hungary support one another there is little the EU can do on that front.
FPT I’m afraid John Harris is looking in completely the wrong places for the causes of Brexit. Instead of investigating left-behind communities he should be visiting southern towns where complacent affluent oldies push their appalling saloon bar nonsense.
Or visit pb, where those views can be found in abundance.
I still can't believe that South Bucks / Beaconsfield voted Leave (by 51/49).
They will all be the first to complain when their little weekend breaks across to France to stock up on sun and wine become more complicated and difficult.
It seems that some have never lost their admiration for Tony Blair.
This seems to come from two quarters: those at the heart of his centrist New Labour administration (his, not Brown’s) and urbanite Conservatives who came of political age during the mid-late 90s, who were and remain in awe of him.
The only Labour leader to win a working majority since 1966. Maybe that's why he's admired by many people.
On this occasion, very definitely yes. Can you explain how it can be viewed differently? Michael Gove sure as heck couldn't on Sunday morning.
First of all, the chances
Now to be clear, I'm not saying that if I was an MEP I'd have voted against action, and as you know several Conservative MEPs didn't. The considerations I've listed have to be weighed against the understandable wish to condemn Orban. Coming down on one side or the other is not 'supporting' him.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
Perhaps they voted as they did because they dont believe an unelected eu should have right of censure over an elected government.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
The people voting were all elected, and Hungary is voluntarily part of the same political system.
Most of them werent elected by hungarians, the hungarian government however was. Those proposing the actions were elected by no one in any european country
The action was initiated by the European Parliament.
I rather do hope that we do know better than the anti-democratic Orban with his anti-semitism.
One of the many lamentable aspects of Brexit is us losing our influence on European Democracy and governance. It is bad for the EU as well as ourselves.
Hungarian voters get to choose their leaders. That this seems to be undesirable baffles me. While I appreciate that the A8 countries are, by and large, more racist, homophobic and transphobic than this sceptered isle, and that this is regrettable, I don't see it affects the ordinary crossdresser on the Clapham Omnibus. Hungary is a far off etc.
Voters cannot be allowed to select the wrong leaders though in the sight of the bien pensant's such as foxy. Democracy is only allowed when us little people vote how we are told to
It seems that some have never lost their admiration for Tony Blair.
This seems to come from two quarters: those at the heart of his centrist New Labour administration (his, not Brown’s) and urbanite Conservatives who came of political age during the mid-late 90s, who were and remain in awe of him.
The only Labour leader to win a working majority since 1966. Maybe that's why he's admired by many people.
Disliked by even more! His popularity rating of - 48% is pretty much worst in the country:
What is it about the mendacious, war mongering money-grabber that Taylor Swift fans like so much? He would be the kiss of death to any new Centre Party.
On this occasion, very definitely yes. Can you explain how it can be viewed differently? Michael Gove sure as heck couldn't on Sunday morning.
First of all, the chances
Now to be clear, I'm not saying that if I was an MEP I'd have voted against action, and as you know several Conservative MEPs didn't. The considerations I've listed have to be weighed against the understandable wish to condemn Orban. Coming down on one side or the other is not 'supporting' him.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
Perhaps they voted as they did because they dont believe an unelected eu should have right of censure over an elected government.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
The people voting were all elected, and Hungary is voluntarily part of the same political system.
Most of them werent elected by hungarians, the hungarian government however was. Those proposing the actions were elected by no one in any european country
The action was initiated by the European Parliament.
I rather do hope that we do know better than the anti-democratic Orban with his anti-semitism.
One of the many lamentable aspects of Brexit is us losing our influence on European Democracy and governance. It is bad for the EU as well as ourselves.
Hungarian voters get to choose their leaders. That this seems to be undesirable baffles me. While I appreciate that the A8 countries are, by and large, more racist, homophobic and transphobic than this sceptered isle, and that this is regrettable, I don't see it affects the ordinary crossdresser on the Clapham Omnibus. Hungary is a far off etc.
Voters cannot be allowed to select the wrong leaders though in the sight of the bien pensant's such as foxy. Democracy is only allowed when us little people vote how we are told to
Voters are free to vote for any demogogue they like, but don't expect me to approve of every stupid choice that they make.
FPT I’m afraid John Harris is looking in completely the wrong places for the causes of Brexit. Instead of investigating left-behind communities he should be visiting southern towns where complacent affluent oldies push their appalling saloon bar nonsense.
Or visit pb, where those views can be found in abundance.
Part of your problem is you just don't understand places like Stoke or Walsall. What John Harris found running up to Brexit vote in Stoke is exactly what I was hearing, and it came as no surprise.
The referendum was not won in Stoke or Walsall (and I doubt many pbers have been in Walsall more recently than me). It was won in affluent southern towns and villages where appalling reactionaries who hate change decided that pandering to xenophobia was an acceptable way of indulging their own prejudices. Look around you: they’re all over pb.
I have been diverted from my work today by the personal problems of a very dear friend (marriages - pah!) so come on here for some light relief and see that it is the same old arguments interspersed with a bit of erotic spresms, whatever they may be. Have I been missing out? Or is this some sort of Baker-Street-style activity too exotic for my tender ears and eyes?
Something I think we can agree you should avoid on your morning cappuccino ?
I am going to have to break this to you gently. But - whisper - I don't have a morning cappuccino. Or an afternoon one either. In fact, I have very little coffee ever.
I have just had a bit of chocolate to cheer myself up and, rather than feel good, I feel a bit sick. It is probably time for a big mug of proper Builders' Tea.
Harris trails Biden, Warren and Sanders both nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Hickenhooper is likely to be too centrist for the Democrats who after Hillary lost to Trump in 2016 are unlikely to pick another centrist to take on Trump in 2020
Yes but if we exclude Biden, Warren and Sanders as being too old or otherwise unlikely runners, and make due allowance for name recognition, Harris and Hickenlooper are back in the frame.
I think it is extremely unlikely that Sanders will run again. He was really old last time. This time he'll be positively ancient. Joe Biden was rubbish on the primary campaign trail in 2008, so what makes anyone think he'll be any more exciting this time. Oh yeah, and he's too old. Elizabeth Warren. Bore fest. Would bomb in the debates.
Kamala Harris is a decent call. As is Hickenlooper. As is Beto O'Rourke. As is Mitch Landrieu, who'd be a shoe-in if he had more hair.
FPT I’m afraid John Harris is looking in completely the wrong places for the causes of Brexit. Instead of investigating left-behind communities he should be visiting southern towns where complacent affluent oldies push their appalling saloon bar nonsense.
Or visit pb, where those views can be found in abundance.
I still can't believe that South Bucks / Beaconsfield voted Leave (by 51/49).
They will all be the first to complain when their little weekend breaks across to France to stock up on sun and wine become more complicated and difficult.
What the Leavers really want is to be members of the EU - but without paying the membership fee and without forriners coming here or telling us what to do.
The Irish border, frictionless trade, lots of FTAs both within Europe and across the world - all the things they say they want and which our EU membership gives us.
That is why Brexit is so stupid.
Not really.
A better “Remain” criticism might be that some Leavers think the UK can make the same choices as the likes of the US or China, and that our history and pride as a people make this a right, whilst failing to recognise the realpolitik of just how far the UK has fallen in international heft and weight so that actually all our choices are crap, whether we like it or not.
We’re buggered either way, but staying in the EU though crap - and corroding our national identity - may be less crap than cutting ourselves wholly loose, because we’ll be easy pickings for everyone else and get worse deals, so we may as well just begrudgingly suck it up and stay to get ourselves some level of influence and protection.
When the EU looks to take action to curb it, seeking to stop it from doing so.
So, in your world, disagreeing with a particular measure against a country is tantamount to actively supporting the government of that country. By that logic, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party actively supported Assad, and the LibDems actively supported Saddam.
On this occasion, very definitely yes. Can you explain how it can be viewed differently? Michael Gove sure as heck couldn't on Sunday morning.
First of all, the chances of it having the desired effect is zero. Orban is hardly going to become a nice Cameroon PM just because the EU start waving sticks at him. Secondly it's quite likely to be actively counter-productive, giving Orban an excuse to blame foreigners even more than he does at the moment. Thirdly it potentially complicates Brexit, which is something which is most definitely not in the UK's interests at the moment. Fourthly it's a bit problematic interfering in the democratic (..ish) choices of a member state,
Now to be clear, I'm not saying that if I was an MEP I'd have voted against action, and as you know several Conservative MEPs didn't. The considerations I've listed have to be weighed against the understandable wish to condemn Orban. Coming down on one side or the other is not 'supporting' him.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
Perhaps they voted as they did because they dont believe an unelected eu should have right of censure over an elected government.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
The people voting were all elected, and Hungary is voluntarily part of the same political system.
I thought that the EU threatening to withhold benefits of membership from Poland or Hungary for breaching “European values” was a new thing?
In any event an elected government should be accountable to its voters/parliament not a pan-European body without that authority
It’s a fight between the EU as an alliance of European nations states, who work together by treaty, and the EU as a nascent superstate with a developing level of independent pan-European political legitimacy.
Harris trails Biden, Warren and Sanders both nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Hickenhooper is likely to be too centrist for the Democrats who after Hillary lost to Trump in 2016 are unlikely to pick another centrist to take on Trump in 2020
Yes but if we exclude Biden, Warren and Sanders as being too old or otherwise unlikely runners, and make due allowance for name recognition, Harris and Hickenlooper are back in the frame.
I think it is extremely unlikely that Sanders will run again. He was really old last time. This time he'll be positively ancient. Joe Biden was rubbish on the primary campaign trail in 2008, so what makes anyone think he'll be any more exciting this time. Oh yeah, and he's too old. Elizabeth Warren. Bore fest. Would bomb in the debates.
Kamala Harris is a decent call. As is Hickenlooper. As is Beto O'Rourke. As is Mitch Landrieu, who'd be a shoe-in if he had more hair.
On this occasion, very definitely yes. Can you explain how it can be viewed differently? Michael Gove sure as heck couldn't on Sunday morning.
First of all, the chances
Now to be clear, I'm not saying that if I was an MEP I'd have voted against action, and as you know several Conservative MEPs didn't. The considerations I've listed have to be weighed against the understandable wish to condemn Orban. Coming down on one side or the other is not 'supporting' him.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
Perhaps they voted as they did because they dont believe an unelected eu should have right of censure over an elected government.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
The people voting were all elected, and Hungary is voluntarily part of the same political system.
Most of them werent elected by hungarians, the hungarian government however was. Those proposing the actions were elected by no one in any european country
The action was initiated by the European Parliament.
I rather do hope that we do know better than the anti-democratic Orban with his anti-semitism.
One of the many lamentable aspects of Brexit is us losing our influence on European Democracy and governance. It is bad for the EU as well as ourselves.
Hungarian voters get to choose their leaders. That this seems to be undesirable baffles me. While I appreciate that the A8 countries are, by and large, more racist, homophobic and transphobic than this sceptered isle, and that this is regrettable, I don't see it affects the ordinary crossdresser on the Clapham Omnibus. Hungary is a far off etc.
Voters cannot be allowed to select the wrong leaders though in the sight of the bien pensant's such as foxy. Democracy is only allowed when us little people vote how we are told to
Voters are free to vote for any demogogue they like, but don't expect me to approve of every stupid choice that they make.
There’s a difference between you disapproving and you punishing them
I think Kamala Harris is an excellent bet. However I don't think you're going to win on it. If she runs then she's massively credible. Not enough to be the candidate though.
Generally laying all the candidates is a good plan I think. From so far out its very hard to guess, but the candidates I won't lay are Gabbard and Garcetti. Warren, Sanders, Biden - all have traded far too short - I can't see any of them featuring.
I'm totally sure I don't understand US politics well enough to really commit to a proper bet. If you give me a free bet though I'd not hesitate in backing Gabbard.
What the Leavers really want is to be members of the EU - but without paying the membership fee and without forriners coming here or telling us what to do.
The Irish border, frictionless trade, lots of FTAs both within Europe and across the world - all the things they say they want and which our EU membership gives us.
That is why Brexit is so stupid.
Not really.
A better “Remain” criticism might be that some Leavers think the UK can make the same choices as the likes of the US or China, and that our history and pride as a people make this a right, whilst failing to recognise the realpolitik of just how far the UK has fallen in international heft and weight so that actually all our choices are crap, whether we like it or not.
There is a lot of truth in that. Our influence has greatly waned since the days of Empire and gunboat diplomacy.
We’re buggered either way, but staying in the EU though crap - and corroding our national identity - may be less crap than cutting ourselves wholly loose, because we’ll be easy pickings for everyone else and get worse deals, so we may as well just begrudgingly suck it up and stay to get ourselves some level of influence and protection.
I don't see much of a weighing exercise there. The EU is one of the few organisations that has real external influence on the Hungarian government. Conservative MEPs actively chose to undermine attempts to use that.
Perhaps they voted as they did because they dont believe an unelected eu should have right of censure over an elected government.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
The people voting were all elected, and Hungary is voluntarily part of the same political system.
Most of them werent elected by hungarians, the hungarian government however was. Those proposing the actions were elected by no one in any european country
The action was initiated by the European Parliament.
I rather do hope that we do know better than the anti-democratic Orban with his anti-semitism.
One of the many lamentable aspects of Brexit is us losing our influence on European Democracy and governance. It is bad for the EU as well as ourselves.
Hungarian voters get to choose their leaders. That this seems to be undesirable baffles me. While I appreciate that the A8 countries are, by and large, more racist, homophobic and transphobic than this sceptered isle, and that this is regrettable, I don't see it affects the ordinary crossdresser on the Clapham Omnibus. Hungary is a far off etc.
Voters cannot be allowed to select the wrong leaders though in the sight of the bien pensant's such as foxy. Democracy is only allowed when us little people vote how we are told to
Voters are free to vote for any demogogue they like, but don't expect me to approve of every stupid choice that they make.
You are free to disapprove all you want it is a free country. When you try and overturn the democratic will of people, whether brexit or the governance of a country, is where you cross the line and need slapping down
It’s a fight between the EU as an alliance of European nations states, who work together by treaty, and the EU as a nascent superstate with a developing level of independent pan-European political legitimacy.
It's not as simple as that. Even something that was purely an alliance of nation states wouldn't be able to tolerate one of its members descending into autocracy.
This is one of the best pieces on trends in Poland and Hungary written by someone on the centre-right:
Harris trails Biden, Warren and Sanders both nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Hickenhooper is likely to be too centrist for the Democrats who after Hillary lost to Trump in 2016 are unlikely to pick another centrist to take on Trump in 2020
Yes but if we exclude Biden, Warren and Sanders as being too old or otherwise unlikely runners, and make due allowance for name recognition, Harris and Hickenlooper are back in the frame.
I think it is extremely unlikely that Sanders will run again. He was really old last time. This time he'll be positively ancient. Joe Biden was rubbish on the primary campaign trail in 2008, so what makes anyone think he'll be any more exciting this time. Oh yeah, and he's too old. Elizabeth Warren. Bore fest. Would bomb in the debates.
Kamala Harris is a decent call. As is Hickenlooper. As is Beto O'Rourke. As is Mitch Landrieu, who'd be a shoe-in if he had more hair.
Harris trails Biden, Warren and Sanders both nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Hickenhooper is likely to be too centrist for the Democrats who after Hillary lost to Trump in 2016 are unlikely to pick another centrist to take on Trump in 2020
Yes but if we exclude Biden, Warren and Sanders as being too old or otherwise unlikely runners, and make due allowance for name recognition, Harris and Hickenlooper are back in the frame.
I think it is extremely unlikely that Sanders will run again. He was really old last time. This time he'll be positively ancient. Joe Biden was rubbish on the primary campaign trail in 2008, so what makes anyone think he'll be any more exciting this time. Oh yeah, and he's too old. Elizabeth Warren. Bore fest. Would bomb in the debates.
Kamala Harris is a decent call. As is Hickenlooper. As is Beto O'Rourke. As is Mitch Landrieu, who'd be a shoe-in if he had more hair.
What rustbelt states is Harris going to win that Hillary did not? She comes from California which Hillary won by a landslide anyway.
Hickenlooper and Landrieu are far too centrist, O'Rourke still trails Cruz in the polls for the Texas Senate race, unless he wins that he will not be a real contender for 2020
A better “Remain” criticism might be that some Leavers think the UK can make the same choices as the likes of the US or China, and that our history and pride as a people make this a right, whilst failing to recognise the realpolitik of just how far the UK has fallen in international heft and weight so that actually all our choices are crap, whether we like it or not.
We’re buggered either way, but staying in the EU though crap - and corroding our national identity - may be less crap than cutting ourselves wholly loose, because we’ll be easy pickings for everyone else and get worse deals, so we may as well just begrudgingly suck it up and stay to get ourselves some level of influence and protection.
It’s not a view I share, incidentally.
Hypothetically, if the Scottish independence referendum had gone the other way and they were in the process of joining the EU as a full member state, would you still support the rUK or even just England trying to separate itself from the the EU?
It’s a fight between the EU as an alliance of European nations states, who work together by treaty, and the EU as a nascent superstate with a developing level of independent pan-European political legitimacy.
It's not as simple as that. Even something that was purely an alliance of nation states wouldn't be able to tolerate one of its members descending into autocracy.
This is one of the best pieces on trends in Poland and Hungary written by someone on the centre-right:
The trends in europe lie at one door you and your kind, when people expressed concern you dismissed them as racists, fruitcakes and nutcases. Instead of listening you ignored them. It is people like you that drove them into the arms of extremists. I hope you like what you have sown
"Even more crudely, if even Tony Blair judges that he can safely and morally recommend voters to make Jeremy Corbyn prime minister, then we can’t expect many Labour MPs to reach a different conclusion."
A better “Remain” criticism might be that some Leavers think the UK can make the same choices as the likes of the US or China, and that our history and pride as a people make this a right, whilst failing to recognise the realpolitik of just how far the UK has fallen in international heft and weight so that actually all our choices are crap, whether we like it or not.
We’re buggered either way, but staying in the EU though crap - and corroding our national identity - may be less crap than cutting ourselves wholly loose, because we’ll be easy pickings for everyone else and get worse deals, so we may as well just begrudgingly suck it up and stay to get ourselves some level of influence and protection.
It’s not a view I share, incidentally.
Hypothetically, if the Scottish independence referendum had gone the other way and they were in the process of joining the EU as a full member state, would you still support the rUK or even just England trying to separate itself from the the EU?
I think Kamala Harris is an excellent bet. However I don't think you're going to win on it. If she runs then she's massively credible. Not enough to be the candidate though.
Generally laying all the candidates is a good plan I think. From so far out its very hard to guess, but the candidates I won't lay are Gabbard and Garcetti. Warren, Sanders, Biden - all have traded far too short - I can't see any of them featuring.
I'm totally sure I don't understand US politics well enough to really commit to a proper bet. If you give me a free bet though I'd not hesitate in backing Gabbard.
I don’t think this is their cycle. Impressive though Gabbard might be, I can’t see it at all. I like Garcetti: On June 16, 2014, while speaking at the championship celebration for the Los Angeles Kings hockey team, Garcetti cautioned: "There are two rules in politics – never be pictured with a drink in your hand, and never swear." He then held up an empty beer bottle and said, "But this is a big fucking day" But I don’t think he’s got much of a chance.
Might be a reasonable candidate but she does nothing for the electoral maths. The Dems need someone who is going to win in South or Rust Belt, she might do well in coastal and liberal America but that's not really an issue for them.
On paper you wouldn't expect Trump to be the kind of candidate to reach the areas he did, so treating it as a box-ticking casting exercise might not be the best approach.
Hmm, Trump is exactly the kind of candidate that gets the GOP into the race where they need to be and out of the race where they can't win. Hence, winning the EC and losing the popular vote.
Yes, william is right, on paper no way should Obama have won Iowa twice but he did because of his views and policies, same with Trump.
I think it's a fair point - there's a real generational divide among younger, Labour leaning voters over Blair. GenXers and older millenials who remember the early Blair years tend to feel he has something to offer, even if they can't forgive Iraq. Somewhere in there is the young guy who could stir people even when setting out unexciting but sensible ideas. Younger millenials remember the post-2005 fag end of the Blair years when the government was largely engaged in the unpleasant business of worrying about terrorism and firefighting - and of course are largely defined by Iraq and the crash, both of which they, not entirely without reason, lay at Blair's door.
Blair the figure has become toxic, which is a shame as he'd otherwise have a lot to contribute. He's still given the sharpest explanations of the mess we're in with Brexit and where it leaves the left and centre of anyone. Any new centre-party leader should take care to distance themself publicly from Blair but listen to every word he says very carefully.
"Even more crudely, if even Tony Blair judges that he can safely and morally recommend voters to make Jeremy Corbyn prime minister, then we can’t expect many Labour MPs to reach a different conclusion."
I don't understand that bit at all; it seems to say that if Blair doesn't join the new party he is *implicitly*"recommend[ing] voters to make JC PM", which isn't the case.
In that clip I think Kavanaugh seems like a boy caught (notice the ''augh'') with his hand in the cookie jar. Or as a man of limited intellect. Saints preserve us.
A couple of discordant thoughts - first, I've not been following the Democrat nomination process if it's even started yet. Kamala Harris may be a good candidate but to assume that everyone who voted Trump in 2016 will dos o again seems foolish. They may or they may abstain and first the GOP has to decide if it wants to or can stomach another four years of Trump.
Could someone run as an independent GOP candidate? The split in the GOP in 1912 between the Bull Moose Progressives and the supporters of Taft gifted Woodrow Wilson a landslide.
On a new "centre" party, I'm pretty disenchanted with all the parties including the LDs and listening to may's special pleading on Facebook has done nothing to improve my mood. I'm all for positivity but I prefer my leaders to at least live in the real world and not re-iterate that every tomorrow will be some golden utopia based on nothing more than hope.
Is Blair important to the formation of a new party? I suppose the answer is he will be if he wants to be - after all, Jenkins had plenty of negative publicity in the 1970s when he went off to become a European Commissioner and was never much liked by either the Labour or Conservative Press so Blair fits some of that but he has of course the baggage of Iraq.
As a political operator, he's still better than most of the current shower and on many issues he talks a lot of sense but I never voted for him or his party and if he led a new party I wouldn't support it now and nor could I support a party that offered regurgitated Blairism as its defining philosophy. The GFC wrecked the reputation of the centre-left for sound political and economic management and while the centre-right has forfeited most of its advantage the fact remains we are still struggling to come up with a coherent economic policy for the 2020s.
According to a vox piece a couple of days ago while Poland and Hungary support one another there is little the EU can do on that front.
That's correct, though it does mean Hungary will miss out when they ask for their share of any new projects. Being a member of a club where everyone dislikes you isn't a good long-term plan. Also, Poland and Hungary differ in important ways which get in the way of certain brotherhood - in particular, Poland is vehemently anti-Russian, while Orban thinks Russia is cool.
On the subject of the current presidency I keep thinking of phrases that suggest to me cartoons. It's probably just the sort of game we play on long trips. But it does deflect my mind from important things.The latest three are: Fool in a china shop. King conker. Tool's paradise.
If we are chucking out names from the Kavanaugh hearings then Cory Booker (at 25/1) came at it from the other direction: why did Trump nominate this particular judge, who was not on hist first list of potential nominees? Why did Trump, out of nowhere, nominate Kavanaugh who had expressed the opinion that a serving president could not be indicted? Disappointingly, he did not add the words "innocent face".
According to a vox piece a couple of days ago while Poland and Hungary support one another there is little the EU can do on that front.
That's correct, though it does mean Hungary will miss out when they ask for their share of any new projects. Being a member of a club where everyone dislikes you isn't a good long-term plan. Also, Poland and Hungary differ in important ways which get in the way of certain brotherhood - in particular, Poland is vehemently anti-Russian, while Orban thinks Russia is cool.
I seemed to remember watching a Newsnight piece on Hungary and they stated that it isn't just Poland and Hungary, there are a number of former Eastern block countries now happy to support one another (organized by Hungary) in this manner.
Harris trails Biden, Warren and Sanders both nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Hickenhooper is likely to be too centrist for the Democrats who after Hillary lost to Trump in 2016 are unlikely to pick another centrist to take on Trump in 2020
Yes but if we exclude Biden, Warren and Sanders as being too old or otherwise unlikely runners, and make due allowance for name recognition, Harris and Hickenlooper are back in the frame.
I think it is extremely unlikely that Sanders will run again. He was really old last time. This time he'll be positively ancient. Joe Biden was rubbish on the primary campaign trail in 2008, so what makes anyone think he'll be any more exciting this time. Oh yeah, and he's too old. Elizabeth Warren. Bore fest. Would bomb in the debates.
Kamala Harris is a decent call. As is Hickenlooper. As is Beto O'Rourke. As is Mitch Landrieu, who'd be a shoe-in if he had more hair.
It won’t be Hickenlooper.
Andrew Cuomo (NYS gov) will run, but won't get through the primaries. Also from New York though is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Reckon she might get it.
The EU is "ready to improve" its offer on the Irish border, Michel Barnier has said as he warned the "moment of truth" was nearing for Brexit negotiations.
Trump and Duda propose a permanent US military base in Poland called "Fort Trump". Putin should ask for a refund on his investment in the US election.
Hmm. Something is afoot, but we don't know what. Of course Trump may have just made it up on the spur and now the Pentagon are running around screaming.
On the subject of the current presidency I keep thinking of phrases that suggest to me cartoons. It's probably just the sort of game we play on long trips. But it does deflect my mind from important things.The latest three are: Fool in a china shop. King conker. Tool's paradise.
A couple of discordant thoughts - first, I've not been following the Democrat nomination process if it's even started yet. Kamala Harris may be a good candidate but to assume that everyone who voted Trump in 2016 will dos o again seems foolish. They may or they may abstain and first the GOP has to decide if it wants to or can stomach another four years of Trump.
Could someone run as an independent GOP candidate? The split in the GOP in 1912 between the Bull Moose Progressives and the supporters of Taft gifted Woodrow Wilson a landslide.
On a new "centre" party, I'm pretty disenchanted with all the parties including the LDs and listening to may's special pleading on Facebook has done nothing to improve my mood. I'm all for positivity but I prefer my leaders to at least live in the real world and not re-iterate that every tomorrow will be some golden utopia based on nothing more than hope.
Is Blair important to the formation of a new party? I suppose the answer is he will be if he wants to be - after all, Jenkins had plenty of negative publicity in the 1970s when he went off to become a European Commissioner and was never much liked by either the Labour or Conservative Press so Blair fits some of that but he has of course the baggage of Iraq.
As a political operator, he's still better than most of the current shower and on many issues he talks a lot of sense but I never voted for him or his party and if he led a new party I wouldn't support it now and nor could I support a party that offered regurgitated Blairism as its defining philosophy. The GFC wrecked the reputation of the centre-left for sound political and economic management and while the centre-right has forfeited most of its advantage the fact remains we are still struggling to come up with a coherent economic policy for the 2020s.
If you want an Independent Republican candidate, then have a look at Evan McMullin at 640 on Betfair exchange. He has set up a couple of campaigning fronts including this one. He stood as an independent in Utah in 2016 and did well. It wouldn't surprise me if he stood against Trump in the Primaries:
According to a vox piece a couple of days ago while Poland and Hungary support one another there is little the EU can do on that front.
That's correct, though it does mean Hungary will miss out when they ask for their share of any new projects. Being a member of a club where everyone dislikes you isn't a good long-term plan. Also, Poland and Hungary differ in important ways which get in the way of certain brotherhood - in particular, Poland is vehemently anti-Russian, while Orban thinks Russia is cool.
I seemed to remember watching a Newsnight piece on Hungary and they stated that it isn't just Poland and Hungary, there are a number of former Eastern block countries now happy to support one another (organized by Hungary) in this manner.
Harris trails Biden, Warren and Sanders both nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Hickenhooper is likely to be too centrist for the Democrats who after Hillary lost to Trump in 2016 are unlikely to pick another centrist to take on Trump in 2020
Yes but if we exclude Biden, Warren and Sanders as being too old or otherwise unlikely runners, and make due allowance for name recognition, Harris and Hickenlooper are back in the frame.
I think it is extremely unlikely that Sanders will run again. He was really old last time. This time he'll be positively ancient. Joe Biden was rubbish on the primary campaign trail in 2008, so what makes anyone think he'll be any more exciting this time. Oh yeah, and he's too old. Elizabeth Warren. Bore fest. Would bomb in the debates.
Kamala Harris is a decent call. As is Hickenlooper. As is Beto O'Rourke. As is Mitch Landrieu, who'd be a shoe-in if he had more hair.
“Elizabeth Warren. Bore fest.”
Boring is what politics should be. After Trumps 4 years it will be like heaven. And I thought you didn’t rate her.
The EU is "ready to improve" its offer on the Irish border, Michel Barnier has said as he warned the "moment of truth" was nearing for Brexit negotiations.
This won’t help at all. It still produces a backstop where NI is within the CU and the UK outside which means that British business cannot move items to NI without them complying with EU regulations.
May might be able to sell this if the EU had accepted her customs partnership because she can then claim we are bound by a common rulebook. But the whole point of the backstop is that the EU can reject her plan later and still force the split.
The DUP will never agree to this. The country will never accept it. The obvious question is why May is even discussing something that cannot be agreed at this late stage. Clearly the EU are not taking her seriously.
As we Leavers predicted, her climbdown on Chequers has just emboldened the EU to push for more concessions. Even if she managed to get this past the HoC on Labour votes, the DUP will no confidence the Government five seconds later.
Harris trails Biden, Warren and Sanders both nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Hickenhooper is likely to be too centrist for the Democrats who after Hillary lost to Trump in 2016 are unlikely to pick another centrist to take on Trump in 2020
Yes but if we exclude Biden, Warren and Sanders as being too old or otherwise unlikely runners, and make due allowance for name recognition, Harris and Hickenlooper are back in the frame.
I think it is extremely unlikely that Sanders will run again. He was really old last time. This time he'll be positively ancient. Joe Biden was rubbish on the primary campaign trail in 2008, so what makes anyone think he'll be any more exciting this time. Oh yeah, and he's too old. Elizabeth Warren. Bore fest. Would bomb in the debates.
Kamala Harris is a decent call. As is Hickenlooper. As is Beto O'Rourke. As is Mitch Landrieu, who'd be a shoe-in if he had more hair.
“Elizabeth Warren. Bore fest.”
Boring is what politics should be. After Trumps 4 years it will be like heaven. And I thought you didn’t rate her.
Politics should be about deciding what outcomes we want and then being evidence based about deciding the best way to get there.
Crime and punishment? Set up a series of trials and see what minimises offending and re-offending. I don't have the answers, but I do know that trying things and doing more of what works and less of what doesn't is a winning strategy.
Voters like politicians who say they have the answers. They like conviction. They are deluded.
What's incredible is how few successful business people or investors are "conviction". The ability to change your mind if you are wrong is the single most important attribute for success there is.
I realise this isn't a proper answer to your point. It's just important.
Harris trails Biden, Warren and Sanders both nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Hickenhooper is likely to be too centrist for the Democrats who after Hillary lost to Trump in 2016 are unlikely to pick another centrist to take on Trump in 2020
Yes but if we exclude Biden, Warren and Sanders as being too old or otherwise unlikely runners, and make due allowance for name recognition, Harris and Hickenlooper are back in the frame.
I think it is extremely unlikely that Sanders will run again. He was really old last time. This time he'll be positively ancient. Joe Biden was rubbish on the primary campaign trail in 2008, so what makes anyone think he'll be any more exciting this time. Oh yeah, and he's too old. Elizabeth Warren. Bore fest. Would bomb in the debates.
Kamala Harris is a decent call. As is Hickenlooper. As is Beto O'Rourke. As is Mitch Landrieu, who'd be a shoe-in if he had more hair.
What rustbelt states is Harris going to win that Hillary did not?
In the UK, it is generally accepted that governments lose elections, rather than oppositions winning them. I think that is probably true of 1992, 1980 and 1976.
The EU is "ready to improve" its offer on the Irish border, Michel Barnier has said as he warned the "moment of truth" was nearing for Brexit negotiations.
This won’t help at all. It still produces a backstop where NI is within the CU and the UK outside which means that British business cannot move items to NI without them complying with EU regulations.
May might be able to sell this if the EU had accepted her customs partnership because she can then claim we are bound by a common rulebook. But the whole point of the backstop is that the EU can reject her plan later and still force the split.
The DUP will never agree to this. The country will never accept it. The obvious question is why May is even discussing something that cannot be agreed at this late stage. Clearly the EU are not taking her seriously.
As we Leavers predicted, her climbdown on Chequers has just emboldened the EU to push for more concessions. Even if she managed to get this past the HoC on Labour votes, the DUP will no confidence the Government five seconds later.
May will likely agree the whole UK stays in the single market and customs union in all but name to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
This is quite interesting for those who follow party minutiae - JC's support is not in doubt, but he doesn't win (or indeed seriously try to win) every argument:
Harris trails Biden, Warren and Sanders both nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Hickenhooper is likely to be too centrist for the Democrats who after Hillary lost to Trump in 2016 are unlikely to pick another centrist to take on Trump in 2020
Yes but if we exclude Biden, Warren and Sanders as being too old or otherwise unlikely runners, and make due allowance for name recognition, Harris and Hickenlooper are back in the frame.
I think it is extremely unlikely that Sanders will run again. He was really old last time. This time he'll be positively ancient. Joe Biden was rubbish on the primary campaign trail in 2008, so what makes anyone think he'll be any more exciting this time. Oh yeah, and he's too old. Elizabeth Warren. Bore fest. Would bomb in the debates.
Kamala Harris is a decent call. As is Hickenlooper. As is Beto O'Rourke. As is Mitch Landrieu, who'd be a shoe-in if he had more hair.
What rustbelt states is Harris going to win that Hillary did not?
In the UK, it is generally accepted that governments lose elections, rather than oppositions winning them. I think that is probably true of 1992, 1980 and 1976.
It may also be true of 2020 (or it may not).
On the US EC system even if you win the popular vote out of opposition to the incumbent unless you win the rustbelt swing states you still lose, Biden and Sanders are best placed to win there
The EU is "ready to improve" its offer on the Irish border, Michel Barnier has said as he warned the "moment of truth" was nearing for Brexit negotiations.
This won’t help at all. It still produces a backstop where NI is within the CU and the UK outside which means that British business cannot move items to NI without them complying with EU regulations.
May might be able to sell this if the EU had accepted her customs partnership because she can then claim we are bound by a common rulebook. But the whole point of the backstop is that the EU can reject her plan later and still force the split.
The DUP will never agree to this. The country will never accept it. The obvious question is why May is even discussing something that cannot be agreed at this late stage. Clearly the EU are not taking her seriously.
As we Leavers predicted, her climbdown on Chequers has just emboldened the EU to push for more concessions. Even if she managed to get this past the HoC on Labour votes, the DUP will no confidence the Government five seconds later.
May will likely agree the whole UK stays in the single market and customs union in all but name to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
The mooted transition period is no change. The withdrawal agreement will enable that.
I don’t see how she gets post transition SM/CU past Parliament.
The EU is "ready to improve" its offer on the Irish border, Michel Barnier has said as he warned the "moment of truth" was nearing for Brexit negotiations.
This won’t help at all. It still produces a backstop where NI is within the CU and the UK outside which means that British business cannot move items to NI without them complying with EU regulations.
May might be able to sell this if the EU had accepted her customs partnership because she can then claim we are bound by a common rulebook. But the whole point of the backstop is that the EU can reject her plan later and still force the split.
The DUP will never agree to this. The country will never accept it. The obvious question is why May is even discussing something that cannot be agreed at this late stage. Clearly the EU are not taking her seriously.
As we Leavers predicted, her climbdown on Chequers has just emboldened the EU to push for more concessions. Even if she managed to get this past the HoC on Labour votes, the DUP will no confidence the Government five seconds later.
May will likely agree the whole UK stays in the single market and customs union in all but name to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
The mooted transition period is no change. The withdrawal agreement will enable that.
I don’t see how she gets post transition SM/CU past Parliament.
Post transition SM/CU will not be an issue for May as we will likely be in transition for years effectively in SM/CU anyway while she tries and negotiates a FTA.
Comments
As things stand, the one concrete measure that the EU has sought to take, Conservative MEPs opposed.
http://conservativeeurope.com/news/dalton-any-action-must-make-a-difference-in-hungary/
Seems pretty reasonable.
Incidentally I hadn't realised that the CSU took the same position. Somehow the UK press don't seem to have told us that.
If I see someone about to shoot a nazi and stop them it doesnt mean I support Nazi's it means I don't agree with shooting peopl
...
The erotic spresms will just have to wait.
Ooo-err!
The Irish border, frictionless trade, lots of FTAs both within Europe and across the world - all the things they say they want and which our EU membership gives us.
That is why Brexit is so stupid.
This seems to come from two quarters: those at the heart of his centrist New Labour administration (his, not Brown’s) and urbanite Conservatives who came of political age during the mid-late 90s, who were and remain in awe of him.
Great video (apart from the dull admin bit in the middle).
I’d like to see her up against Trumpton.
One of the many lamentable aspects of Brexit is us losing our influence on European Democracy and governance. It is bad for the EU as well as ourselves.
In any event an elected government should be accountable to its voters/parliament not a pan-European body without that authority
https://youtu.be/P8MQTgdjcLE
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Tony_Blair
What is it about the mendacious, war mongering money-grabber that Taylor Swift fans like so much? He would be the kiss of death to any new Centre Party.
Kamala Harris is a decent call. As is Hickenlooper. As is Beto O'Rourke. As is Mitch Landrieu, who'd be a shoe-in if he had more hair.
A better “Remain” criticism might be that some Leavers think the UK can make the same choices as the likes of the US or China, and that our history and pride as a people make this a right, whilst failing to recognise the realpolitik of just how far the UK has fallen in international heft and weight so that actually all our choices are crap, whether we like it or not.
We’re buggered either way, but staying in the EU though crap - and corroding our national identity - may be less crap than cutting ourselves wholly loose, because we’ll be easy pickings for everyone else and get worse deals, so we may as well just begrudgingly suck it up and stay to get ourselves some level of influence and protection.
It’s not a view I share, incidentally.
Generally laying all the candidates is a good plan I think. From so far out its very hard to guess, but the candidates I won't lay are Gabbard and Garcetti. Warren, Sanders, Biden - all have traded far too short - I can't see any of them featuring.
I'm totally sure I don't understand US politics well enough to really commit to a proper bet. If you give me a free bet though I'd not hesitate in backing Gabbard.
Or has no one told him ?
There is a lot of truth in that too.
This is one of the best pieces on trends in Poland and Hungary written by someone on the centre-right:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/poland-polarization/568324/
Hickenlooper and Landrieu are far too centrist, O'Rourke still trails Cruz in the polls for the Texas Senate race, unless he wins that he will not be a real contender for 2020
"Even more crudely, if even Tony Blair judges that he can safely and morally recommend voters to make Jeremy Corbyn prime minister, then we can’t expect many Labour MPs to reach a different conclusion."
Impressive though Gabbard might be, I can’t see it at all.
I like Garcetti: On June 16, 2014, while speaking at the championship celebration for the Los Angeles Kings hockey team, Garcetti cautioned: "There are two rules in politics – never be pictured with a drink in your hand, and never swear." He then held up an empty beer bottle and said, "But this is a big fucking day"
But I don’t think he’s got much of a chance.
http://chronicle.gi/2018/09/spains-josep-borrell-optimistic-of-brexit-deal-with-gibraltar/
Blair the figure has become toxic, which is a shame as he'd otherwise have a lot to contribute. He's still given the sharpest explanations of the mess we're in with Brexit and where it leaves the left and centre of anyone. Any new centre-party leader should take care to distance themself publicly from Blair but listen to every word he says very carefully.
Or as a man of limited intellect.
Saints preserve us.
https://www.boredpanda.com/bear-photobombs-wedding
A couple of discordant thoughts - first, I've not been following the Democrat nomination process if it's even started yet. Kamala Harris may be a good candidate but to assume that everyone who voted Trump in 2016 will dos o again seems foolish. They may or they may abstain and first the GOP has to decide if it wants to or can stomach another four years of Trump.
Could someone run as an independent GOP candidate? The split in the GOP in 1912 between the Bull Moose Progressives and the supporters of Taft gifted Woodrow Wilson a landslide.
On a new "centre" party, I'm pretty disenchanted with all the parties including the LDs and listening to may's special pleading on Facebook has done nothing to improve my mood. I'm all for positivity but I prefer my leaders to at least live in the real world and not re-iterate that every tomorrow will be some golden utopia based on nothing more than hope.
Is Blair important to the formation of a new party? I suppose the answer is he will be if he wants to be - after all, Jenkins had plenty of negative publicity in the 1970s when he went off to become a European Commissioner and was never much liked by either the Labour or Conservative Press so Blair fits some of that but he has of course the baggage of Iraq.
As a political operator, he's still better than most of the current shower and on many issues he talks a lot of sense but I never voted for him or his party and if he led a new party I wouldn't support it now and nor could I support a party that offered regurgitated Blairism as its defining philosophy. The GFC wrecked the reputation of the centre-left for sound political and economic management and while the centre-right has forfeited most of its advantage the fact remains we are still struggling to come up with a coherent economic policy for the 2020s.
Fool in a china shop.
King conker.
Tool's paradise.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45566205
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1042138997424828423
https://twitter.com/StandUpRepublic/status/1041770270363738117?s=19
?
https://twitter.com/BenGartside/status/1042156871719759874
Boring is what politics should be. After Trumps 4 years it will be like heaven. And I thought you didn’t rate her.
May might be able to sell this if the EU had accepted her customs partnership because she can then claim we are bound by a common rulebook. But the whole point of the backstop is that the EU can reject her plan later and still force the split.
The DUP will never agree to this. The country will never accept it. The obvious question is why May is even discussing something that cannot be agreed at this late stage. Clearly the EU are not taking her seriously.
As we Leavers predicted, her climbdown on Chequers has just emboldened the EU to push for more concessions. Even if she managed to get this past the HoC on Labour votes, the DUP will no confidence the Government five seconds later.
Crime and punishment? Set up a series of trials and see what minimises offending and re-offending. I don't have the answers, but I do know that trying things and doing more of what works and less of what doesn't is a winning strategy.
Voters like politicians who say they have the answers. They like conviction. They are deluded.
What's incredible is how few successful business people or investors are "conviction". The ability to change your mind if you are wrong is the single most important attribute for success there is.
I realise this isn't a proper answer to your point. It's just important.
It may also be true of 2020 (or it may not).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/18/corbyns-proposals-to-transform-labour-party-parked-for-a-year
This laid-back style has both advantages and drawbacks - it produces slower change, but also avoids cataclysmic confrontations.
I don’t see how she gets post transition SM/CU past Parliament.
Mrs May blew even bigger leads than that before.
I know you do this for Brexit polls, but if YouGov have the same error as their final GE2017 poll then that poll would be
Con 39%
Lab 42%
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1038204127170441216?s=20