Best Of

Boy Kennedy getting some Dem support:

We've mentioned that Democrats might find common ground with some of Robert F Kennedy Jr's policies. Now, let's hear from Jared Polis, the Democrat governor of Colorado.

Speaking on X, the former House representative says Kennedy will "help make America healthy again by shaking up [Department of Health and Human Services] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration]".

Polis cites some of RFK Jr's promises, like capping prescription drug prices, cutting certain FDA departments, and moving away from "pesticide-intensive agriculture", as reasons for his excitement.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c0lp93494g9t

Of course a move towards organic farming is not likely to bring food prices down.

If he can sort out how they deal with animal husbandry then maybe we can have a trade deal?

But I thought that doing to the farmers what happened to the coal miners was the policy?

Replacement with cheap imports?

I think the pendulum on the left has already swung back to be honest.

Identity politics and being pro immigration are basically over as far as I can see.

Labour has not done a single identity politics or pro immigration thing since coming to office that I can see.

I'd like to think so - but it takes a long, long time to turn the tanker around, and the government have done nothing to turn the dial; they just haven't turned it any further. There are still any number of identity politics and pro-immigration things happening. The identarian left is still there throughout the public sector and public-sector-adjacent-sector - it may not be getting further encouragement but nor is it getting any discouragement.

It’s also palpably not true

Labour has already done tons of pro migrant woke shit. Abolished the preference for Brits in council housing etc. Abandoned Rwanda and not attempted to replace it. And much else

They are still merrily paddling the national kayak forward through the rapids marked “from here on a Reform government - or something far worse - is just beyond the next waterfall”

We could spend another £800m to find 4 volunteers to travel to Botswana, but I don't really see the point?

I don’t think even @SeanT costs £800 million to be sent to Botswana?

The new government estimated that the old government had spent £700 million in total on the Rwanda scheme.

How much of that was due to cockblocking by the 3rd sector and activist Liberal-Left, though?

Once resolved the cost per head would have dropped dramatically. It just never got there.

Because of the cockblocking.

That rather falls foul of the reality that the initial capacity was limited to 200, and that the claimed "rapid scale up" was a little problematic because Rwanda is a country modestly larger than Wales with a population of 13 million.

Sending them somewhere tiny, which is even fuller than we are, in penny packets, is strange logic.

You forget that had they all

And if my auntie had balls - we'd be back on transgender stuff, so let's not go there.

But that was the intent and it was cockblocked. To deliberately stop the policy. And therefore stop it being effective. It wasn't for want of the government trying.

This is all laid at the feet of the Tories whereas, in reality, there was a whole movement dedicated to sabotaging it. Because open borders.

These nominations still require Senate approval though. He could just be "rewarding" loyal supporters assuming that the Senate will block them and sigh in relief at slightly less terrifying alternatives.
A strong start though, infighting in the Senate GOP, based on his first term some of these appointees may only last a few weeks or months.

We will see.
I think he's deadly serious, and the Senate may just buckle. No way do they reject all of them; they aren't brave enough.

If they just cave in and go into Recess as Trump is demanding, the need for confirmation hearings does not exist and he can just appoint.

It's an abuse of process, but that may not stop him.

The two barriers I can see is Scotus being perhaps ultimately more attached to their own supremacy rather than to the fluffing of Trump, and similarly for the non-cultist members of Senate being attached in some measure to their own authority.

The Senate refused to appoint Trump's demanded candidate as speaker (if that is the correct term); is that a straw in the breeze?