I get all my news from the most reputable of news outlets. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-ceremony-joining-Oxford-dining-society.html
Jesus H. Christ this country loves to make things awkward. Here's to more months of uncertainty, a weaker pound, and political commentary from morons on facebook.
Can someone explain to me how labour would have any path to Corbyn becoming the PM? Despite momentum and gaining roughly 30 seats they are still 57 seats behind the conservatives who are only 8 short of a majority. Seems much more likely that the conservatives try and replace may who is fucking awful and an absolute dumbass for calling this election and move on.
He doesn't really. The Lib Dems have already refused a coalition, the SNP wouldn't be enough, and the unionist Irish party won't talk to him.
A slender one possibly if that in practice; Sinn Fein won't take their seats so you can subtract them from the seat total equation.
Plurality but they will form a government with the DUP - unless the Conservatives insist on recognizing gay marriages.
lmfao at Swim Cantore liking this post. May just committed the biggest self own in the history of British politics. it doesn't matter who the PM is right now; they'll be toothless at best
whoever the PM is will be in a much weaker position than may was before this election but I also think a new PM would be in a much better position moving forward than may will be. With the trump election and the brexit vote you would think the number one lesson learned is that the polls don't have a fucking clue because people are switching parties based on certain issues. Instead, may got cocky and embarrassed. Losing an election you specifically called for is such an epic fail.
I knew she didn't have much of a personality, but I don't think anybody foresaw her waging the worst campaign ever. She pretty much lost an unlosable election.
I dont think either was an example of all that bad polling. Bad poll interpretation in both cases. The average poll for Brexit was about 45-45-10% undecided and the result was 52-48. Thats not a big whiff at all. Same for Trump. For US presidential election the national polls had Hillary winning by 3% and it ended up 2%. There it was only the vulnerability in the midwest that was more underreported than it was badly polled. The last french elections for instance were a much bigger whif, it just didnt change the outcome so it doesnt get much reporting
Every poll I saw on brexit was stay up 2-3%. Are you saying the media just straight up juiced the polls or lied about the results before reporting? Not exactly like I saw the raw data. Same on trump. Obviously the national doesn't really matter but the rust belt swing states where he won were close but Hillary was winning every one in every poll I saw. French election I knew macron would win so I didn't really follow closely.
Yes. He said the polling was 45-45 and 10% undecided. My comments had more to do with the difference between that and what I had seen. Margin of error can impact any poll but the polls from a political standpoint seem to be less accurate than they were 10 years ago. I think a lot of that has to do with changing deomographics and changing sides. There are a lot of blue collar factory workers in the rust belt of the US and in the northern part of England who would normally associate with a democrat in the US or a party resembling Tory in the U.K. who voted trump and brexit.
Im really not saying either. I saw the polls in line with what i just looked up. Think your memory has failed you a bit. With Trump the weakness in the polls in the rustbelt was easily explainable but very real
The last batch of polls all showed remain ahead, and some by as much as 6-8%, but only a week before, the polls had shown basically a tied race or leave slightly ahead. It was clear the whole time that it was very close.
It was also a media failure, when the polling is basically tied or within the margin of error but most the media treated stay like a certainty the miss feels bigger even if the math doesn't back that up.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...al-over-what-is-required-for-brexit-1.3156695 The evidence continues to pile up: the UK government is woefully underprepared for Brexit, and remains in denial about what is now required. Theresa May and other Brexiteers keep insisting that things are proceeding smoothly when clearly they are not. As the EU’s negotiator-in-chief Michel Barnier said this week, all that he sees and hears about Britain’s preparations is a “clock ticking”. March 2019 approaches inexorably. And we get this week’s intervention by Boris Johnson in which he told the EU “to go whistle” if it wants the UK to honour its financial obligations. An absence of serious engagement with the details of Brexit is one thing but the refusal to prepare the electorate for the damage that leaving is going to cause is just as big a failure. The British people deserve – and need – better. Leading commentators are growing ever bolder in their efforts to heap derision on the government’s non-strategy and on the absence of any engagement with the details. It simply isn’t true, as the Brexiteers keep insisting, that current free-trade agreements between the EU and other countries can be adopted by the UK overnight. Trade agreements take years to negotiate, and are about much more than simple tariffs on physical goods. That’s the easy part. The rules and regulations surrounding trade in services – much more important to the UK – are mind-numbingly complicated and fraught with difficulty. Another example: nobody in the British government appears close to understanding that the EU regards its four freedoms – of movement of goods, capital, services and people – as fundamental and indivisible. While there may be wiggle room on some of the details, you can’t trade one off against the other in any material way. Complexity The obvious question is now being asked: if voters had been asked a slightly different question, “Do you want Brexit with all of its complexity and cost?”, what would the answer have been? The commentator Nick Cohen, writing for the Spectator, this week brilliantly evoked the physicist and Nobel prize-winner Richard Feynman in an attempt to try and make sense of what the British government is up to. Feynman said that only torment awaits those who try to understand quantum mechanics. “Do not keep saying to yourself, ‘but how can it [nature] be like that?’, because you will get down the drain, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped.” That’s Brexit: it is what it is but it defies attempts to understand what it actually is. David Allen Green, writing in the Financial Times, describes it slightly differently. “As pro-Brexit ministers attempt to chuckle their way through any form of scrutiny, the EU negotiating team is there waiting patiently…there will be attempts by ministers and their supporters at avoidance, evasion and diversion. There will be name-calling and strident demands for patriotism. There will be blame-mongering and jockeying for succession. But what there will not be is any relevant minister taking this as seriously as the EU is doing.” The British government is negotiating with itself, its supporters and the tabloid press. It is not seriously talking to the EU. Tony Blair, not listened to by anyone, published a thoughtful piece in recent days arguing that Britain currently has “more followership than leadership”. With no serious people at the centre, the country can only stagger on to whatever happens next. He thinks that a proper engagement with Europe would reveal a more nuanced view of one of those four freedoms, the movement of people: here, he suggests, there is room for manoeuvre. Horror show The UK National Audit Office last week warned that the government’s approach was so chaotic that the Brexit process “could fall apart like a chocolate orange”. A “horror show” awaits if custom officials have to process new trade arrangements manually, it warns, something that awaits if a new computerised system of checks is not ready. Rather than take any of this seriously, the UK inches ever closer to what is now probably the most likely outcome: crashing out of the EU without a deal. Sensing the national mood on Brexit is starting to shift, the hard right of the Tory party actually now wants “no deal” as the preferred outcome. Any kind of compromise to avoid this disaster is now a matter of high treason. Brexit’s critics come at all of this with arguments, reason and detail. Anyone interested in Brexiteer response should read the comments at the end of any of this columnist’s recent articles (and probably this one). Ian Dunt, a leading critic of the Brexiteers, points out that the Tories keep May in her job only as a human shield, protection against both ridicule and Corbyn as prime minister. At least that’s what they hope. Nick Cohen likens the Brexiteers to Hitler’s appeasers: every option except the most difficult one was discarded.
The slow death of Brexit has begun https://www.theguardian.com/politic...asks-eu-for-two-year-brexit-transition-period
Special deal for Northern Ireland, which would have probably hastened a United Ireland but also been highly lucrative for the North, torpedoed by the hillbilly Unionists propping up the UK Government. The deal had been done. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...brexit-deal-amid-dup-doubts-over-irish-border
What's been going on in Italian politics over the last 5 years is almost as embarrassing as what's been going on here