I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
It’s a combination of groups:
- religious/faith based belief in the sanctity of life from conception (in theory this is mainstream catholic doctrine) - strict and limiting interpretation of the constitution and opposition to judicial activism (I have some sympathy with this - moral decisions by a society should be made by voters and their representatives not the courts) - Believes in states rights vs federal imposition - political mischief makers - Canny politicians who see a personal advantage in supporting this cause
Together they add up; individually they are all too small
OT - I noticed with some surprise that Boris was campaigning very visibly in Sunderland yesterday - and area which still has all 3 Labour MPs. Probably means nothing but....
He was lost
Care about the North East? He doesn't even know where he is.
Kay Burley seems to have the bit between her teeth over beergate (currygate) this morning
What she doesn’t know about parties, isn’t worth knowing.
Morning Sandpit. How are your wife’s family bearing Up ?
Not too bad, thanks for asking. Most friends and family are in Kiev or West of the capital, which has thankfully calmed down a little in recent weeks.
Ukranians are overwhelmed by the support and goodwill coming from around the world at the moment, both military and civilian aid, and the determination of the international community to see Putin defeated.
Refugees are starting to return home, but we need to make sure that the international efforts don’t stop when the fighting does - there are many thousands of people who have lost their homes and possessions, and Ukraine needs to be rebuilt.
The Supreme Court just gave the Dems mid term campaign a huge boost . With state legislatures and lots of governors up for grabs the only way to save your abortion rights is to vote Democrat . These downballot races will effect the House and Senate as people will think vote blue across the board .
All bets are off for the mid terms . It’s a sad day for women’s rights in the USA but ironically a huge boost for the Dems .
I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
I read someone credible, can't remember who, who said that the way to understand this is racism: people who get abortions are disproportionately black. Same with free healthcare, can't have black people being treated on my tax dollar.
This sounds incredible but compare the war on drugs, a senior member of Nixon's government is on record as saying it was just a proxy for a war on black people
But why would racists want more black babies born? Not saying you're wrong. It just seems weird to me.
I will sound like a broken record but it does feel to me that in all societies there are always groups who seek to control women and limit them. It is mostly men doing this but not exclusively because it is often women who will, because of their own views of what women should be, seek to control other women. But the urge to control is a constant. Those who want to make their own decisions about their lives are seen as a threat. That is the heart of it.
The old Tories (vote for us, we'll make you richer) are doomed.
Hence we're left with the new Tories (vote for us to win the culture war). Which has the consequences we see around us, and also makes it harder for the country to become richer.
This isn't going to end well, but the end could be some way off.
OT - I noticed with some surprise that Boris was campaigning very visibly in Sunderland yesterday - and area which still has all 3 Labour MPs. Probably means nothing but....
According the Guardian (well, you wouldn't expect that to be positive about him) he was in Whitley Bay, N Tyneside but thought he was on Teeside!
Does anyone care, save to note that Fog on the Tees wouldn't rhyme so well? Is all me's I suppose
I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
It’s a combination of groups:
- religious/faith based belief in the sanctity of life from conception (in theory this is mainstream catholic doctrine) - strict and limiting interpretation of the constitution and opposition to judicial activism (I have some sympathy with this - moral decisions by a society should be made by voters and their representatives not the courts) - Believes in states rights vs federal imposition - political mischief makers - Canny politicians who see a personal advantage in supporting this cause
Together they add up; individually they are all too small
I think that the abortion issue marks a point in the breakdown of the previous political “system” in the States.
Previously, Roe vs Wade would have been followed by a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right properly in law. The argument was “but we’ve won and an amendment would be too difficult”.
It was noticeable that the push on politicising judicial appointments went into overdrive after Roe vs Wade. Trump narrowly won on the basis that he would hand control of judicial appointments to the ultras.
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will deny lack people the vote why shouldn't they be permitted to do so?
After all, using the reasoning in the leaked decision, blacks having the right to vote is hardly rooted in history in the US. Why is that not as much of a "phony right" as the other rights criticised by this draft judgment?
And if they should not be permitted to do so, on what basis do you say this?
Invoking de Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority is a bit silly in this case. Whether you wish to admit it or not, abortion rights are a nuanced topic, balancing the rights of the child versus the rights of the mother. I haven’t heard a compelling argument why either position should be enshrined in the constitution and not be subject to containing live debate, as medical science advances and social and religious norms evolve.
The biggest problem American society has is that it has forgotten that it’s ok for other people to hold different opinions to each other, in this battle by both sides to homogenise society in their image. What works in Oregon might not work in Oklahoma. What works in Austin today might not work in Austin tomorrow. That’s ok isn’t it?
By making this an apparently “settled” point of law for decades, RvW instead poured salt in a social and political sore.
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will deny lack people the vote why shouldn't they be permitted to do so?
After all, using the reasoning in the leaked decision, blacks having the right to vote is hardly rooted in history in the US. Why is that not as much of a "phony right" as the other rights criticised by this draft judgment?
And if they should not be permitted to do so, on what basis do you say this?
Because there is an explicit protection in the Bill of Rights (I think it’s there rather than the constitution but happy to be corrected). But if they could work through the process to amend the Bill of Rights then they would have the legal ability to do that. It wouldn’t be the right thing to do, of course…
Alito’s argument isn’t based on “rooted in history” - that was an aside - and focusing on that gives an incorrect interpretation. His fundamental position is that (1) abortion is not a right explicitly protected in the constitution; (2) Roe vs Wade was a novel interpretation and a classical example of judicial activism; (3) he takes a strict view that the constitution does not support judicial activism; and therefore (4) the federal courts have no right to impose their views on state governments. It’s a narrow and dry interpretation of constitutional law but one I have a lot of sympathy for from a philosophical perspective.
From a personal perspective, FWIW, I see abortion as a conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child. I would tend to choose viability (c 20 weeks) as the point when the child has the right to life. And I would certainly vote against any candidate who intended to ban it de jure or de facto.
I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
I read someone credible, can't remember who, who said that the way to understand this is racism: people who get abortions are disproportionately black. Same with free healthcare, can't have black people being treated on my tax dollar.
This sounds incredible but compare the war on drugs, a senior member of Nixon's government is on record as saying it was just a proxy for a war on black people
If you're going down that deeply unpleasant rabbit hole the logical outcome is that a ban on abortion will inevitably lead to more black people being born proportionately, which from the perspective of the racist is that the objective they're seeking?
America is becoming a more and more alien country every year it seems. To be banning women from controlling their own bodies is utterly disgusting if that comes to pass.
It’s like a UK version of those March threads about Russian military tyre maintenance. The British economy’s tyres are getting worryingly bald and under inflated.
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
If voters in those states want to elect representatives who will bring back slavery shouldn't they be permitted to do so? How about stoning gays? Or making women the property of their menfolk?
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
If voters in those states want to elect representatives who will bring back slavery shouldn't they be permitted to do so? How about stoning gays? Or making women the property of their menfolk?
You have just said "Voters should be able to decide all things in a democracy." Which is it?
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
It’s a combination of groups:
- religious/faith based belief in the sanctity of life from conception (in theory this is mainstream catholic doctrine) - strict and limiting interpretation of the constitution and opposition to judicial activism (I have some sympathy with this - moral decisions by a society should be made by voters and their representatives not the courts) - Believes in states rights vs federal imposition - political mischief makers - Canny politicians who see a personal advantage in supporting this cause
Together they add up; individually they are all too small
I think that the abortion issue marks a point in the breakdown of the previous political “system” in the States.
Previously, Roe vs Wade would have been followed by a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right properly in law. The argument was “but we’ve won and an amendment would be too difficult”.
It was noticeable that the push on politicising judicial appointments went into overdrive after Roe vs Wade. Trump narrowly won on the basis that he would hand control of judicial appointments to the ultras.
Absolutely. Judicial activism was like the extension of the EU in the UK.
Can we not trot out the tired "Roe vs Wade energised the religious right" urban myth.
The Southern Baptist Council was in favour of Roe vs Wade. Hard core opposition to abortion was seen as a suspiciously Catholic thing. The SBC celebrated the clarification and certainty that Roe brought and allowed them to focus on their main aim which was racially segregated schooling for their children.
It was the ending of tax breaks for racist segregated schools and collages in the 1970s that activated the Religious Right in America.
The Heritage Foundation started to reframe abortion through the lens of race (its always race in America). Abortion was coded as an activity abused by "the poor" (where "the poor" means minorities) to rile up the base. It took until the mid eighties before you could start to say that the Religious Right was solidly anti-abortion.
Amazing how, in a supposed age of Chinese ascendancy, first Britain, then Russia, now America, have each chosen to deploy the finest footguns available to them.
Can we not trot out the tired "Roe vs Wade energised the religious right" urban myth.
The Southern Baptist Council was in favour of Roe vs Wade. Hard core opposition to abortion was seen as a suspiciously Catholic thing. The SBC celebrated the clarification and certainty that Roe brought and allowed them to focus on their main aim which was racially segregated schooling for their children.
It was the ending of tax breaks for racist segregated schools and collages in the 1970s that activated the Religious Right in America.
The Heritage Foundation started to reframe abortion through the lens of race (its always race in America). Abortion was coded as an activity abused by "the poor" (where "the poor" means minorities) to rile up the base. It took until the mid eighties before you could start to say that the Religious Right was solidly anti-abortion.
The irony is that the racists in favour of abortion being banned because they're racist, will be the same ones in the future bemoaning the "race suicide" of white people and that more minorities are being born.
I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
I read someone credible, can't remember who, who said that the way to understand this is racism: people who get abortions are disproportionately black. Same with free healthcare, can't have black people being treated on my tax dollar.
This sounds incredible but compare the war on drugs, a senior member of Nixon's government is on record as saying it was just a proxy for a war on black people
But why would racists want more black babies born? Not saying you're wrong. It just seems weird to me.
I will sound like a broken record but it does feel to me that in all societies there are always groups who seek to control women and limit them. It is mostly men doing this but not exclusively because it is often women who will, because of their own views of what women should be, seek to control other women. But the urge to control is a constant. Those who want to make their own decisions about their lives are seen as a threat. That is the heart of it.
Doesn't matter [edity - very necessary!] to these responsible, if these children are not allowed to vote when they reach 18, whether by practical means or even by law.
Can we not trot out the tired "Roe vs Wade energised the religious right" urban myth.
The Southern Baptist Council was in favour of Roe vs Wade. Hard core opposition to abortion was seen as a suspiciously Catholic thing. The SBC celebrated the clarification and certainty that Roe brought and allowed them to focus on their main aim which was racially segregated schooling for their children.
It was the ending of tax breaks for racist segregated schools and collages in the 1970s that activated the Religious Right in America.
The Heritage Foundation started to reframe abortion through the lens of race (its always race in America). Abortion was coded as an activity abused by "the poor" (where "the poor" means minorities) to rile up the base. It took until the mid eighties before you could start to say that the Religious Right was solidly anti-abortion.
The irony is that the racists in favour of abortion being banned because they're racist, will be the same ones in the future bemoaning the "race suicide" of white people and that more minorities are being born.
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
It was settled law at the time the question was asked…
So the justices aren't actual perjurers, just dissembling politicians ?
Anyone at that level of seniority in any role is a dissembling politician
Judges shouldn't be. They should be interpreting the law regardless of their personal views. And most do just that.
I would separate their role in court from what they do to get their seat.
In any career the internal stuff is different to the external stuff
If they are being interviewed for a job as a judge they shouldn't. They might say they disagree with a law but will uphold that law and then be seen to do so.
Can we not trot out the tired "Roe vs Wade energised the religious right" urban myth.
The Southern Baptist Council was in favour of Roe vs Wade. Hard core opposition to abortion was seen as a suspiciously Catholic thing. The SBC celebrated the clarification and certainty that Roe brought and allowed them to focus on their main aim which was racially segregated schooling for their children.
It was the ending of tax breaks for racist segregated schools and collages in the 1970s that activated the Religious Right in America.
The Heritage Foundation started to reframe abortion through the lens of race (its always race in America). Abortion was coded as an activity abused by "the poor" (where "the poor" means minorities) to rile up the base. It took until the mid eighties before you could start to say that the Religious Right was solidly anti-abortion.
The irony is that the racists in favour of abortion being banned because they're racist, will be the same ones in the future bemoaning the "race suicide" of white people and that more minorities are being born.
I'm not sure I'd define it as irony. The next stage in that argument often seems to be forced sterilisations for [non-white] people who "can't afford kids". Further layers of misery heaped on in pursuit of twisted objectives.
Terrible for expectations management for Labour (Westminster!), but the methodology does look convincing. Roll on Thursday!
Incidentally, I'm astonished by the predicted halving of Green representation. I think this may underestimate the power of incumbency for small parties - when you actually hold the seat, it's hard for anyone to say it's a wasted vote.
Some interesting views on democracy. To my simplistic mind, democracy gives rights to the majority. Although I've always been against the death penalty for murder, it should have been a decision for everyone affected.
Having unelected people making decisions looks odd. Parliamentary democracy is a surrogate, and a surrogate only because it's not practicable to have the whole population voting on every single issue
I know some people think they are special and should have special rights, but I remember the old aphorism. Empty vessels make most noise.
If the majority of the US population want to vote for Trump, that is their right, not something to work round.
You can get 2/1 on the LibDems winning control of Woking Council. 10 of the 30 seats are up for grabs and, knowing the area as I do, I think this is a value bet. They have made steady gains in recent times and they are already the largest party. It's clear that the party machine is up and running hard for this.
I've only seen LibDem posters up and there is a lot of anger directed towards the Conservatives. In addition the tory run minority council has squandered huge amounts of money and the council is now the third most most debt-ridden in the country.
The old Tories (vote for us, we'll make you richer) are doomed.
Hence we're left with the new Tories (vote for us to win the culture war). Which has the consequences we see around us, and also makes it harder for the country to become richer.
This isn't going to end well, but the end could be some way off.
Culture wars bother people like Leon for sure but I can’t see them bothering too many people. It’s the economy that matters and the cost of living. The Tories are doomed.
7:20 Sir Ed interview: We will introduce a windfall tax on oil companies' excessive profits. (Also heavyweight denial of any Lib-Lab pact) 7:30 (first I head) News Headline: BP makes £16bn loss.
How does this work? Can a Govt say "we are having X billions of this, even though you made an overall loss because of the Ukraine War?"
If this comes down to a Court scrimmage, I'd punt that the walking away from Russia voluntarily (if it was) would be a problem for BP.
8:10 Sir Keir adopts the same position on BP. 20 minute interview and that was one of about three questions he answered, including about 4 goes at not answering whether the Durham Constabulary have been in contact again since the food-beer-food work event became news.
The old Tories (vote for us, we'll make you richer) are doomed.
Hence we're left with the new Tories (vote for us to win the culture war). Which has the consequences we see around us, and also makes it harder for the country to become richer.
This isn't going to end well, but the end could be some way off.
Culture wars bother people like Leon for sure but I can’t see them bothering too many people. It’s the economy that matters and the cost of living. The Tories are doomed.
I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
It’s a combination of groups:
- religious/faith based belief in the sanctity of life from conception (in theory this is mainstream catholic doctrine) - strict and limiting interpretation of the constitution and opposition to judicial activism (I have some sympathy with this - moral decisions by a society should be made by voters and their representatives not the courts) - Believes in states rights vs federal imposition - political mischief makers - Canny politicians who see a personal advantage in supporting this cause
Together they add up; individually they are all too small
So why did these enemies of judicial activism overturn federal campaign finance laws ?
Here in LA, mask wearing falls into two categories:
- wear them all the time, including while outside and when no-one else is near (15% of people) - never where them, even if in an incredibly poorly ventilated place with lots of people (83% of people)
And then there are 2% of people (inluding... errr.. me...) who will wear one when it seems higher risk, and will not the rest of the time.
First, thank you Mike for your report, we have been collectively & individually concerned about your condition. Sorry that you & yours have been having it so rough. And very glad you're feeling better!
As per observation in from Smithson the Younger in El Lay, here in Seattle % of people taking the Middle Way with masking is higher than 2%, at least in my very Woke neighborhood. In local big grocery store, would guess maybe 35%-40% still masked. Higher in smaller shops particularly where staff is masked. For me, and many others, feeling of solidarity with owners & workers of these places is part of the equation.
My personal practice is similar to RCS perhaps slightly more as I am a) approaching OGH's age cohort with several risk factors; and b) kind of guy who wears belt AND suspenders (actually visa versa).
Lol - had a double-take on that one... it's belt and braces over here - suspenders are something else. ;-)
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will deny lack people the vote why shouldn't they be permitted to do so?
After all, using the reasoning in the leaked decision, blacks having the right to vote is hardly rooted in history in the US. Why is that not as much of a "phony right" as the other rights criticised by this draft judgment?
And if they should not be permitted to do so, on what basis do you say this?
Invoking de Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority is a bit silly in this case. Whether you wish to admit it or not, abortion rights are a nuanced topic, balancing the rights of the child versus the rights of the mother. I haven’t heard a compelling argument why either position should be enshrined in the constitution and not be subject to containing live debate, as medical science advances and social and religious norms evolve.
The biggest problem American society has is that it has forgotten that it’s ok for other people to hold different opinions to each other, in this battle by both sides to homogenise society in their image. What works in Oregon might not work in Oklahoma. What works in Austin today might not work in Austin tomorrow. That’s ok isn’t it?
By making this an apparently “settled” point of law for decades, RvW instead poured salt in a social and political sore.
The BBC is taking a fairly horrified view of the idea of RvW being reversed - something which illustrates the problem.
If the SC decides abortion is a matter for legislators not the SC it is returning the USA to the position in the UK. This is not a big deal constitutionally.
The big deal of course is that the argument becomes one between extremes - one which gives maximal and one which gives minimal consideration to the rights of the unborn. Most people probably think that this is a matter for careful balance and are represented by neither extreme.
As a Clintonian moderate about abortion (it should be 'safe. legal and rare') it also seems to me that generations to come may well view widespread abortion, in an age of gender equality and contraception, as almost as anomalous as slavery or human sacrifice is seen now.
You can get 2/1 on the LibDems winning control of Woking Council. 10 of the 30 seats are up for grabs and, knowing the area as I do, I think this is a value bet. They have made steady gains in recent times and they are already the largest party. It's clear that the party machine is up and running hard for this.
I've only seen LibDem posters up and there is a lot of anger directed towards the Conservatives. In addition the tory run minority council has squandered huge amounts of money and the council is now the third most most debt-ridden in the country.
OT - I noticed with some surprise that Boris was campaigning very visibly in Sunderland yesterday - and area which still has all 3 Labour MPs. Probably means nothing but....
He was lost
Care about the North East? He doesn't even know where he is.
Ironic given labour have taken the north east for granted for many years and didn’t give a fuck about it.
It is! And having managed to steal the NE away from Labour the Tories can't find enough ways to hand it back quickly. The Tyneside / Teesside thing has not gone down well. I also saw some ironic humour from hangers that the real surprise in Boris's visit to Hartlepool was a rare sighting of their MP.
I know. I’m on the same page as you. It beggars belief.
Although I cannot say I have seen or heard of anyone too bothered, outside political circles, on the Tyneside/Teesside thing.
It’s not like when IDS went to Nissan and praised Newcastle United.
The dirty truth is that plenty of people working at Nissan support Newcastle because they are from there. So less of a fuss. But the Tyne / Tees thing? Have seen a lot of stuff on social media. Remember the Tories have taken over from Labour saying "you can trust us to improve your area finally". Not knowing where that area is probably doesn't help.
I just cannot see it moving any votes in any numbers. I really can’t. Same with Durham beergate.
I’ve worked at Nissan and in Nissan supply chain. I’m aware of the allegiances.
The old Tories (vote for us, we'll make you richer) are doomed.
Hence we're left with the new Tories (vote for us to win the culture war). Which has the consequences we see around us, and also makes it harder for the country to become richer.
This isn't going to end well, but the end could be some way off.
Culture wars bother people like Leon for sure but I can’t see them bothering too many people. It’s the economy that matters and the cost of living. The Tories are doomed.
Broadly agree- I don't think the UK media landscape will allow us to go full-on American.
But it will be ugly in the meantime.
On which happy note, let's go and see what the day has in store.
7:20 Sir Ed interview: We will introduce a windfall tax on oil companies' excessive profits. (Also heavyweight denial of any Lib-Lab pact) 7:30 (first I head) News Headline: BP makes £16bn loss.
How does this work? Can a Govt say "we are having X billions of this, even though you made an overall loss because of the Ukraine War?"
If this comes down to a Court scrimmage, I'd punt that the walking away from Russia voluntarily (if it was) would be a problem for BP.
8:10 Sir Keir adopts the same position on BP. 20 minute interview and that was one of about three questions he answered, including about 4 goes at not answering whether the Durham Constabulary have been in contact again since the food-beer-food work event became news.
I think it's Richard Tyndall who has posted on here about an existing Petroleum Revenue Tax - that is currently set at 0%, after being reduced to that level at a time of low oil prices to encourage investment in North Sea Oil - which would be the pre-existing mechanism for taxing windfall gains made from a high oil price, and would tax North Sea Oil production, which is presumably currently a lot more profitable than forecast.
Cabinet minister tells Sky that Johnson wont be leaving however bad the locals results are because not every voter is getting a vote this May so it's not "the full picture".
Some interesting views on democracy. To my simplistic mind, democracy gives rights to the majority. Although I've always been against the death penalty for murder, it should have been a decision for everyone affected.
Having unelected people making decisions looks odd. Parliamentary democracy is a surrogate, and a surrogate only because it's not practicable to have the whole population voting on every single issue
I know some people think they are special and should have special rights, but I remember the old aphorism. Empty vessels make most noise.
If the majority of the US population want to vote for Trump, that is their right, not something to work round.
What about a situation where people want to vote for a leader who is committed (whether openly acknowledged or not) to preventing further free democratic votes once elected?
I believe in legal abortion, but it needs to be the politicians and voters who authorise it, not the courts.
I dont disagree, but there are other issues like that which the court is presumably still happy to impose its judicial (ha) view on things irrespective of public or elected views and authorisation.
I suppose the key is whether the draft will live up to what it says about returning it to the elected. Or will the court work hard to obstruct liberalisation in practice?
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
It was settled law at the time the question was asked…
So the justices aren't actual perjurers, just dissembling politicians ?
Anyone at that level of seniority in any role is a dissembling politician
Judges shouldn't be. They should be interpreting the law regardless of their personal views. And most do just that.
I would separate their role in court from what they do to get their seat.
In any career the internal stuff is different to the external stuff
If they are being interviewed for a job as a judge they shouldn't. They might say they disagree with a law but will uphold that law and then be seen to do so.
Parliaments enact laws, judges interprete them.
Interviewed under oath. The current Republican justices are simply dishonest.
Record number of Channel migrants reaching the UK as crossings ‘fuelled by Rwanda delays’
...
It followed 11 days of bad weather that had prevented any migrants crossing the Channel, prompting speculation – dismissed by government sources – that the Rwanda plan was already deterring migrants.
But on Monday night, France claimed the policy had created a window of opportunity that people-smugglers were exploiting. Pierre-Henri Dumont, the Calais MP, said there was evidence that criminals were encouraging migrants to attempt the crossing before the measures take effect.
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will deny lack people the vote why shouldn't they be permitted to do so?
After all, using the reasoning in the leaked decision, blacks having the right to vote is hardly rooted in history in the US. Why is that not as much of a "phony right" as the other rights criticised by this draft judgment?
And if they should not be permitted to do so, on what basis do you say this?
Invoking de Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority is a bit silly in this case. Whether you wish to admit it or not, abortion rights are a nuanced topic, balancing the rights of the child versus the rights of the mother. I haven’t heard a compelling argument why either position should be enshrined in the constitution and not be subject to containing live debate, as medical science advances and social and religious norms evolve.
The biggest problem American society has is that it has forgotten that it’s ok for other people to hold different opinions to each other, in this battle by both sides to homogenise society in their image. What works in Oregon might not work in Oklahoma. What works in Austin today might not work in Austin tomorrow. That’s ok isn’t it?
By making this an apparently “settled” point of law for decades, RvW instead poured salt in a social and political sore.
The BBC is taking a fairly horrified view of the idea of RvW being reversed - something which illustrates the problem.
If the SC decides abortion is a matter for legislators not the SC it is returning the USA to the position in the UK. This is not a big deal constitutionally.
The big deal of course is that the argument becomes one between extremes - one which gives maximal and one which gives minimal consideration to the rights of the unborn. Most people probably think that this is a matter for careful balance and are represented by neither extreme.
As a Clintonian moderate about abortion (it should be 'safe. legal and rare') it also seems to me that generations to come may well view widespread abortion, in an age of gender equality and contraception, as almost as anomalous as slavery or human sacrifice is seen now.
What would be the BBC view of a court in London overturning the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland, I wonder?
It’s a similar analogy, should these moral issues be devolved or centralised - but in the USA devolved is always the default, and states’ rights is an important topic of debate.
I agree with you, that abortion will be high on the list of things that future generations think of as barbaric, in the same way we now look at slavery.
Cabinet minister tells Sky that Johnson wont be leaving however bad the locals results are because not every voter is getting a vote this May so it's not "the full picture".
More desperate by the day.
More confident by the day I'd have said. SKS has really fucked up here.
7:20 Sir Ed interview: We will introduce a windfall tax on oil companies' excessive profits. (Also heavyweight denial of any Lib-Lab pact) 7:30 (first I head) News Headline: BP makes £16bn loss.
How does this work? Can a Govt say "we are having X billions of this, even though you made an overall loss because of the Ukraine War?"
If this comes down to a Court scrimmage, I'd punt that the walking away from Russia voluntarily (if it was) would be a problem for BP.
8:10 Sir Keir adopts the same position on BP. 20 minute interview and that was one of about three questions he answered, including about 4 goes at not answering whether the Durham Constabulary have been in contact again since the food-beer-food work event became news.
BP made 3.6 billion dollars (2.87 billion pounds) exess profit in the period and I understand Labour are seeking a 10% windfall tax which would raise 287,000,000 pounds, nowhere near their £600 energy rebate promised
The other point, of course, is that many of the states' laws targeting abortion (which are already enacted, and will come into force immediately upon this decision being published) will treat every miscarriage as a potential crime.
How that is not a massive invasion of the right to privacy is an interesting question.
I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
It’s a combination of groups:
- religious/faith based belief in the sanctity of life from conception (in theory this is mainstream catholic doctrine) - strict and limiting interpretation of the constitution and opposition to judicial activism (I have some sympathy with this - moral decisions by a society should be made by voters and their representatives not the courts) - Believes in states rights vs federal imposition - political mischief makers - Canny politicians who see a personal advantage in supporting this cause
Together they add up; individually they are all too small
I think that the abortion issue marks a point in the breakdown of the previous political “system” in the States.
Previously, Roe vs Wade would have been followed by a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right properly in law. The argument was “but we’ve won and an amendment would be too difficult”.
It was noticeable that the push on politicising judicial appointments went into overdrive after Roe vs Wade. Trump narrowly won on the basis that he would hand control of judicial appointments to the ultras.
Winning enough to appoint as young justices as you can seems to be the principal goal. They wont be political shills every single case, theyre professionals, but they will often enough for it to matter.
Record number of Channel migrants reaching the UK as crossings ‘fuelled by Rwanda delays’
...
It followed 11 days of bad weather that had prevented any migrants crossing the Channel, prompting speculation – dismissed by government sources – that the Rwanda plan was already deterring migrants.
I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
It’s a combination of groups:
- religious/faith based belief in the sanctity of life from conception (in theory this is mainstream catholic doctrine) - strict and limiting interpretation of the constitution and opposition to judicial activism (I have some sympathy with this - moral decisions by a society should be made by voters and their representatives not the courts) - Believes in states rights vs federal imposition - political mischief makers - Canny politicians who see a personal advantage in supporting this cause
Together they add up; individually they are all too small
I think that the abortion issue marks a point in the breakdown of the previous political “system” in the States.
Previously, Roe vs Wade would have been followed by a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right properly in law. The argument was “but we’ve won and an amendment would be too difficult”.
It was noticeable that the push on politicising judicial appointments went into overdrive after Roe vs Wade. Trump narrowly won on the basis that he would hand control of judicial appointments to the ultras.
Absolutely. Judicial activism was like the extension of the EU in the UK.
It worked perfectly. Until you asked the voters.
Your account of 'judicial activism' is a republican myth.
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
If voters in those states want to elect representatives who will bring back slavery shouldn't they be permitted to do so? How about stoning gays? Or making women the property of their menfolk?
You have just said "Voters should be able to decide all things in a democracy." Which is it?
The states who could theoretically make these choices operate rigged voting systems in rigged districts having spent a lot of time and effort to disenfranchise the ability of target groups to vote.
If Americans were asked their opinion - and able to freely vote in a sane system - then none of this would be happening. Creating a broken "democracy" where money buys votes is not democracy.
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will deny lack people the vote why shouldn't they be permitted to do so?
After all, using the reasoning in the leaked decision, blacks having the right to vote is hardly rooted in history in the US. Why is that not as much of a "phony right" as the other rights criticised by this draft judgment?
And if they should not be permitted to do so, on what basis do you say this?
Invoking de Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority is a bit silly in this case. Whether you wish to admit it or not, abortion rights are a nuanced topic, balancing the rights of the child versus the rights of the mother. I haven’t heard a compelling argument why either position should be enshrined in the constitution and not be subject to containing live debate, as medical science advances and social and religious norms evolve.
The biggest problem American society has is that it has forgotten that it’s ok for other people to hold different opinions to each other, in this battle by both sides to homogenise society in their image. What works in Oregon might not work in Oklahoma. What works in Austin today might not work in Austin tomorrow. That’s ok isn’t it?
By making this an apparently “settled” point of law for decades, RvW instead poured salt in a social and political sore.
The BBC is taking a fairly horrified view of the idea of RvW being reversed - something which illustrates the problem.
If the SC decides abortion is a matter for legislators not the SC it is returning the USA to the position in the UK. This is not a big deal constitutionally.
The big deal of course is that the argument becomes one between extremes - one which gives maximal and one which gives minimal consideration to the rights of the unborn. Most people probably think that this is a matter for careful balance and are represented by neither extreme.
As a Clintonian moderate about abortion (it should be 'safe. legal and rare') it also seems to me that generations to come may well view widespread abortion, in an age of gender equality and contraception, as almost as anomalous as slavery or human sacrifice is seen now.
What would be the BBC view of a court in London overturning the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland, I wonder?
It’s a similar analogy, should these moral issues be devolved or centralised - but in the USA devolved is always the default, and states’ rights is an important topic of debate.
I agree with you, that abortion will be high on the list of things that future generations think of as barbaric, in the same way we now look at slavery.
With fears of the impacts of over population it could be future generations will think less abortion is barbaric.
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
If voters in those states want to elect representatives who will bring back slavery shouldn't they be permitted to do so? How about stoning gays? Or making women the property of their menfolk?
You have just said "Voters should be able to decide all things in a democracy." Which is it?
The states who could theoretically make these choices operate rigged voting systems in rigged districts having spent a lot of time and effort to disenfranchise the ability of target groups to vote.
If Americans were asked their opinion - and able to freely vote in a sane system - then none of this would be happening. Creating a broken "democracy" where money buys votes is not democracy.
7:20 Sir Ed interview: We will introduce a windfall tax on oil companies' excessive profits. (Also heavyweight denial of any Lib-Lab pact) 7:30 (first I head) News Headline: BP makes £16bn loss.
How does this work? Can a Govt say "we are having X billions of this, even though you made an overall loss because of the Ukraine War?"
If this comes down to a Court scrimmage, I'd punt that the walking away from Russia voluntarily (if it was) would be a problem for BP.
8:10 Sir Keir adopts the same position on BP. 20 minute interview and that was one of about three questions he answered, including about 4 goes at not answering whether the Durham Constabulary have been in contact again since the food-beer-food work event became news.
Anne Marie Trevelyan suggesting that when Starmer gets his FPNs he doesn't have to resign. I can see what is at work here. "If Starmer doesn't resign for his egregious and wilful breach of Covid rules why should Johnson resign for the minor indiscretion of being ambushed by cake".
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will deny lack people the vote why shouldn't they be permitted to do so?
After all, using the reasoning in the leaked decision, blacks having the right to vote is hardly rooted in history in the US. Why is that not as much of a "phony right" as the other rights criticised by this draft judgment?
And if they should not be permitted to do so, on what basis do you say this?
Invoking de Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority is a bit silly in this case. Whether you wish to admit it or not, abortion rights are a nuanced topic, balancing the rights of the child versus the rights of the mother. I haven’t heard a compelling argument why either position should be enshrined in the constitution and not be subject to containing live debate, as medical science advances and social and religious norms evolve.
The biggest problem American society has is that it has forgotten that it’s ok for other people to hold different opinions to each other, in this battle by both sides to homogenise society in their image. What works in Oregon might not work in Oklahoma. What works in Austin today might not work in Austin tomorrow. That’s ok isn’t it?
By making this an apparently “settled” point of law for decades, RvW instead poured salt in a social and political sore.
The BBC is taking a fairly horrified view of the idea of RvW being reversed - something which illustrates the problem.
If the SC decides abortion is a matter for legislators not the SC it is returning the USA to the position in the UK. This is not a big deal constitutionally.
The big deal of course is that the argument becomes one between extremes - one which gives maximal and one which gives minimal consideration to the rights of the unborn. Most people probably think that this is a matter for careful balance and are represented by neither extreme.
As a Clintonian moderate about abortion (it should be 'safe. legal and rare') it also seems to me that generations to come may well view widespread abortion, in an age of gender equality and contraception, as almost as anomalous as slavery or human sacrifice is seen now.
BBC news on the radio this morning reported some people supported the move then featured fox pops of those opposed to it.
BP report a thumping loss due to Russia write downs, BBC radio journalists reports their profit was forecast at 4 billion for the quarter and came in at 6 billion and then wittered on about a one off tax.
Susanna Reid has made the same point to Johnson now.
Also Primary Day in the great Hoosier State of Indiana
In-person P-Day voting begins in a few hours, running from 6am - 6pm local time, which is EDT in most of the state EXCEPT for Northwest (Gary, Michigan City) and Southwest (Evanville) Indiana which are CDT.
So first Indiana results will be coming in sometime after 11pm UK time tonight.
According to the Gray Lady (NYT $)
"Indiana’s primary also features some notable elections with implications for the direction of the Republican Party. This year, more incumbents at the state level are facing primary challengers from the right than in at least a decade, according to a review by The Indianapolis Star, potentially resulting in an even more conservative legislative supermajority.
North of Indianapolis, in Hamilton County, the re-election campaign of the prosecutor D. Lee Buckingham against Greg Garrison, a conservative talk-show host, is garnering outsize attention: Mr. Buckingham has the support of former Vice President Mike Pence."
Remains to be seen what impact today's news re: Roe v Wade may have on today's AND subsequent primaries as well as 2022 general election.
Today too early to tell, obviously, but possible that as year progresses SCOTUS reversal of RvW could reduce current advantage in enthusiasm gap enjoyed by Republicans at present, by galvanizing, mobilizing and turning out Democrats & pro-choice swing voters, esp. in key, mostly-suburban counties and districts critical in key 2022 gubernatorial, senatorial, congressional, legislative and local races across America.
7:20 Sir Ed interview: We will introduce a windfall tax on oil companies' excessive profits. (Also heavyweight denial of any Lib-Lab pact) 7:30 (first I head) News Headline: BP makes £16bn loss.
How does this work? Can a Govt say "we are having X billions of this, even though you made an overall loss because of the Ukraine War?"
If this comes down to a Court scrimmage, I'd punt that the walking away from Russia voluntarily (if it was) would be a problem for BP.
8:10 Sir Keir adopts the same position on BP. 20 minute interview and that was one of about three questions he answered, including about 4 goes at not answering whether the Durham Constabulary have been in contact again since the food-beer-food work event became news.
We are in for a dull time. SKS does not intend to try winning the next election by answering hard questions or having actual analysable policies apart from tiny retail ones.
R4 Today gave him a staggeringly easy ride this morning. They do need to sharpen up their act. Such fun (and illumination) as there will be over major policy between now and the GE can only be had by very high quality questioning.
I'm not blaming SKS - I intend to vote for him. Apart from bits of retail policy bait there are few vote winning policies (apart from those held by all parties) to be had by any party in the current multiple pile up.
My vote for him is entirely on the basis of being somewhat more honest and decent that the other lot at the moment. Though Burgon, Abbott and co could change my mind in a heartbeat.
7:20 Sir Ed interview: We will introduce a windfall tax on oil companies' excessive profits. (Also heavyweight denial of any Lib-Lab pact) 7:30 (first I head) News Headline: BP makes £16bn loss.
How does this work? Can a Govt say "we are having X billions of this, even though you made an overall loss because of the Ukraine War?"
If this comes down to a Court scrimmage, I'd punt that the walking away from Russia voluntarily (if it was) would be a problem for BP.
8:10 Sir Keir adopts the same position on BP. 20 minute interview and that was one of about three questions he answered, including about 4 goes at not answering whether the Durham Constabulary have been in contact again since the food-beer-food work event became news.
You need educating about the basics of the constitution first. You would impose a tax by primary legislation. In what court would you expect a scrimmage about that?
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will deny lack people the vote why shouldn't they be permitted to do so?
After all, using the reasoning in the leaked decision, blacks having the right to vote is hardly rooted in history in the US. Why is that not as much of a "phony right" as the other rights criticised by this draft judgment?
And if they should not be permitted to do so, on what basis do you say this?
Invoking de Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority is a bit silly in this case. Whether you wish to admit it or not, abortion rights are a nuanced topic, balancing the rights of the child versus the rights of the mother. I haven’t heard a compelling argument why either position should be enshrined in the constitution and not be subject to containing live debate, as medical science advances and social and religious norms evolve.
The biggest problem American society has is that it has forgotten that it’s ok for other people to hold different opinions to each other, in this battle by both sides to homogenise society in their image. What works in Oregon might not work in Oklahoma. What works in Austin today might not work in Austin tomorrow. That’s ok isn’t it?
By making this an apparently “settled” point of law for decades, RvW instead poured salt in a social and political sore.
The BBC is taking a fairly horrified view of the idea of RvW being reversed - something which illustrates the problem.
If the SC decides abortion is a matter for legislators not the SC it is returning the USA to the position in the UK. This is not a big deal constitutionally.
The big deal of course is that the argument becomes one between extremes - one which gives maximal and one which gives minimal consideration to the rights of the unborn. Most people probably think that this is a matter for careful balance and are represented by neither extreme.
As a Clintonian moderate about abortion (it should be 'safe. legal and rare') it also seems to me that generations to come may well view widespread abortion, in an age of gender equality and contraception, as almost as anomalous as slavery or human sacrifice is seen now.
What would be the BBC view of a court in London overturning the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland, I wonder?
It’s a similar analogy, should these moral issues be devolved or centralised - but in the USA devolved is always the default, and states’ rights is an important topic of debate.
I agree with you, that abortion will be high on the list of things that future generations think of as barbaric, in the same way we now look at slavery.
Comparing with Britain is a bit misleading. For individuals, the effect of localising the decision in a country as large as the US is to effectively penalise the poor. If you're wealthy and living in Alabama, popping over to California is no big deal. If you're poor, then merely organising it and then travelling and taking the time needed to have the abortion is a major issue.
I'm not enthusiastic about abortion - few people are - though the British law feels about right to me. Regardless, I think something as fundamental as how long you're allowed to decide what to do with your body deserves a national decision. It would be better if it was simply a law passed by Congress, but American democracy is so broken at deciding anything, it's doubtful if they'd reach a conculsion one way or the other.
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
If voters in those states want to elect representatives who will bring back slavery shouldn't they be permitted to do so? How about stoning gays? Or making women the property of their menfolk?
You have just said "Voters should be able to decide all things in a democracy." Which is it?
The states who could theoretically make these choices operate rigged voting systems in rigged districts having spent a lot of time and effort to disenfranchise the ability of target groups to vote.
If Americans were asked their opinion - and able to freely vote in a sane system - then none of this would be happening. Creating a broken "democracy" where money buys votes is not democracy.
Ah OK the "No true democracy" fallacy
Is it a fallacy? At national level the electoral college produces increasingly silly results. At state and county level the rigging is massive - by both parties.
I am confident that given a free vote Americans would not vote for Gilead. And yet here they are on the road to Gilead. Sure, some of them will vote for things the rest of think are crazy and I touched on some of the questions why earlier. But the majority? No.
I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
It’s a combination of groups:
- religious/faith based belief in the sanctity of life from conception (in theory this is mainstream catholic doctrine) - strict and limiting interpretation of the constitution and opposition to judicial activism (I have some sympathy with this - moral decisions by a society should be made by voters and their representatives not the courts) - Believes in states rights vs federal imposition - political mischief makers - Canny politicians who see a personal advantage in supporting this cause
Together they add up; individually they are all too small
So why did these enemies of judicial activism overturn federal campaign finance laws ?
There's judicial activism they like and judicial activism they dont like.
I usually find any legal opinion persuasive as top jurists are bright people, but the bit about which things unmentioned in the constitution it was ok to meddle with felt like they were squirming for an explanation of inconsistent application.
A feature of this government is it holds the line right up until Boris starts taking serious flack directly. He's getting a brutal - and personal - kicking from @susannareid100. That means in the next week or so we'll see a major announcement about more help on cost of living. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1521397379777589250
7:20 Sir Ed interview: We will introduce a windfall tax on oil companies' excessive profits. (Also heavyweight denial of any Lib-Lab pact) 7:30 (first I head) News Headline: BP makes £16bn loss.
How does this work? Can a Govt say "we are having X billions of this, even though you made an overall loss because of the Ukraine War?"
If this comes down to a Court scrimmage, I'd punt that the walking away from Russia voluntarily (if it was) would be a problem for BP.
8:10 Sir Keir adopts the same position on BP. 20 minute interview and that was one of about three questions he answered, including about 4 goes at not answering whether the Durham Constabulary have been in contact again since the food-beer-food work event became news.
Anne Marie Trevelyan suggesting that when Starmer gets his FPNs he doesn't have to resign. I can see what is at work here. "If Starmer doesn't resign for his egregious and wilful breach of Covid rules why should Johnson resign for the minor indiscretion of being ambushed by cake".
If Starmer accepts an FPN he has to go.
If (and if is doing a lot of heavy lifting here) it turns out that Starmer lied about what really happened, then he has damaged his reputation, possibly significantly.
I don't really believe it, and I think it would be an enormous waste of time for Durham police to do an investigation. But I don't think the Met should be doing so either. Far better would have been a truth and reconciliation and an amnesty/quashing of ALL fines issued, be they students, or women walking with a coffee, or an ill judged birthday cake, or a slightly cheeky curry with the lads after a campaign event.
But Starmer has gone huge on this and is banking on being the whiter the white alternative. If he's not entirely white, that has consequences.
Can we not trot out the tired "Roe vs Wade energised the religious right" urban myth.
The Southern Baptist Council was in favour of Roe vs Wade. Hard core opposition to abortion was seen as a suspiciously Catholic thing. The SBC celebrated the clarification and certainty that Roe brought and allowed them to focus on their main aim which was racially segregated schooling for their children.
It was the ending of tax breaks for racist segregated schools and collages in the 1970s that activated the Religious Right in America.
The Heritage Foundation started to reframe abortion through the lens of race (its always race in America). Abortion was coded as an activity abused by "the poor" (where "the poor" means minorities) to rile up the base. It took until the mid eighties before you could start to say that the Religious Right was solidly anti-abortion.
7:20 Sir Ed interview: We will introduce a windfall tax on oil companies' excessive profits. (Also heavyweight denial of any Lib-Lab pact) 7:30 (first I head) News Headline: BP makes £16bn loss.
How does this work? Can a Govt say "we are having X billions of this, even though you made an overall loss because of the Ukraine War?"
If this comes down to a Court scrimmage, I'd punt that the walking away from Russia voluntarily (if it was) would be a problem for BP.
8:10 Sir Keir adopts the same position on BP. 20 minute interview and that was one of about three questions he answered, including about 4 goes at not answering whether the Durham Constabulary have been in contact again since the food-beer-food work event became news.
You need educating about the basics of the constitution first. You would impose a tax by primary legislation. In what court would you expect a scrimmage about that?
I think the issue being raised is what defines profit. There is no problem taxing excess oil company profits - even Thatcher did so and that legislation is still on the statute books. But if there is no profit to tax, its all a bit moot.
The question then is what is profit? Its relatively simple for big profitable companies to reduce their stated profits. Whilst I am sure that Ukraine is slamming oil as it is my own industry I would be surprised if the losses were so large as to offset profits made everywhere else in this time of elevated oil prices.
But how would a government or a court prove it...?
That twitter thread posted earlier by @Taz contains some damning economic analysis but imo the biggest condemnation of Tory economic mismanagement is the fact that at the next GE real wages will be below the level they were when Labour left office in 2010.
Can any PB Tories refute or defend that? Still all Labour's fault is it?
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will deny lack people the vote why shouldn't they be permitted to do so?
After all, using the reasoning in the leaked decision, blacks having the right to vote is hardly rooted in history in the US. Why is that not as much of a "phony right" as the other rights criticised by this draft judgment?
And if they should not be permitted to do so, on what basis do you say this?
Invoking de Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority is a bit silly in this case. Whether you wish to admit it or not, abortion rights are a nuanced topic, balancing the rights of the child versus the rights of the mother. I haven’t heard a compelling argument why either position should be enshrined in the constitution and not be subject to containing live debate, as medical science advances and social and religious norms evolve.
The biggest problem American society has is that it has forgotten that it’s ok for other people to hold different opinions to each other, in this battle by both sides to homogenise society in their image. What works in Oregon might not work in Oklahoma. What works in Austin today might not work in Austin tomorrow. That’s ok isn’t it?
By making this an apparently “settled” point of law for decades, RvW instead poured salt in a social and political sore.
The BBC is taking a fairly horrified view of the idea of RvW being reversed - something which illustrates the problem.
If the SC decides abortion is a matter for legislators not the SC it is returning the USA to the position in the UK. This is not a big deal constitutionally.
The big deal of course is that the argument becomes one between extremes - one which gives maximal and one which gives minimal consideration to the rights of the unborn. Most people probably think that this is a matter for careful balance and are represented by neither extreme.
As a Clintonian moderate about abortion (it should be 'safe. legal and rare') it also seems to me that generations to come may well view widespread abortion, in an age of gender equality and contraception, as almost as anomalous as slavery or human sacrifice is seen now.
What would be the BBC view of a court in London overturning the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland, I wonder?
It’s a similar analogy, should these moral issues be devolved or centralised - but in the USA devolved is always the default, and states’ rights is an important topic of debate.
I agree with you, that abortion will be high on the list of things that future generations think of as barbaric, in the same way we now look at slavery.
Comparing with Britain is a bit misleading. For individuals, the effect of localising the decision in a country as large as the US is to effectively penalise the poor. If you're wealthy and living in Alabama, popping over to California is no big deal. If you're poor, then merely organising it and then travelling and taking the time needed to have the abortion is a major issue.
I'm not enthusiastic about abortion - few people are - though the British law feels about right to me. Regardless, I think something as fundamental as how long you're allowed to decide what to do with your body deserves a national decision. It would be better if it was simply a law passed by Congress, but American democracy is so broken at deciding anything, it's doubtful if they'd reach a conculsion one way or the other.
I much prefer the British way of allowing free votes on moral issues, which prevents them being politicised as they are in the US. It’s something on which everyone will have a slightly different and nuanced viewpoint, trying to shoehorn the debate in to one of two extreme positions is somewhat less than useful.
The difference between UK and US devolution, is that in the UK the ultimate power is devolved from the central government, whereas in the US the ultimate power is with the States and devolved up to the Federal level.
I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
It’s a combination of groups:
- religious/faith based belief in the sanctity of life from conception (in theory this is mainstream catholic doctrine) - strict and limiting interpretation of the constitution and opposition to judicial activism (I have some sympathy with this - moral decisions by a society should be made by voters and their representatives not the courts) - Believes in states rights vs federal imposition - political mischief makers - Canny politicians who see a personal advantage in supporting this cause
Together they add up; individually they are all too small
I think that the abortion issue marks a point in the breakdown of the previous political “system” in the States.
Previously, Roe vs Wade would have been followed by a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right properly in law. The argument was “but we’ve won and an amendment would be too difficult”.
It was noticeable that the push on politicising judicial appointments went into overdrive after Roe vs Wade. Trump narrowly won on the basis that he would hand control of judicial appointments to the ultras.
Winning enough to appoint as young justices as you can seems to be the principal goal. They wont be political shills every single case, theyre professionals, but they will often enough for it to matter.
It's very simple to find non-shills - who just happen to have the ideology you require.
It's like finding an expert witness that agrees with you. Unless you are a moron, you don't do that by giving them a suitcase of cash to change their mind. You just find the right one.
Also Primary Day in the great Hoosier State of Indiana
In-person P-Day voting begins in a few hours, running from 6am - 6pm local time, which is EDT in most of the state EXCEPT for Northwest (Gary, Michigan City) and Southwest (Evanville) Indiana which are CDT.
So first Indiana results will be coming in sometime after 11pm UK time tonight.
According to the Gray Lady (NYT $)
"Indiana’s primary also features some notable elections with implications for the direction of the Republican Party. This year, more incumbents at the state level are facing primary challengers from the right than in at least a decade, according to a review by The Indianapolis Star, potentially resulting in an even more conservative legislative supermajority.
North of Indianapolis, in Hamilton County, the re-election campaign of the prosecutor D. Lee Buckingham against Greg Garrison, a conservative talk-show host, is garnering outsize attention: Mr. Buckingham has the support of former Vice President Mike Pence."
Remains to be seen what impact today's news re: Roe v Wade may have on today's AND subsequent primaries as well as 2022 general election.
Today too early to tell, obviously, but possible that as year progresses SCOTUS reversal of RvW could reduce current advantage in enthusiasm gap enjoyed by Republicans at present, by galvanizing, mobilizing and turning out Democrats & pro-choice swing voters, esp. in key, mostly-suburban counties and districts critical in key 2022 gubernatorial, senatorial, congressional, legislative and local races across America.
I know this isnt the main takeaway, but what's a Hoosier?
Boris hasn't been on GMB for five years. It's very obvious why. The only way this could have gone worse is if he'd whipped out his phone and started looking at tractors... https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1521398220676804609
7:20 Sir Ed interview: We will introduce a windfall tax on oil companies' excessive profits. (Also heavyweight denial of any Lib-Lab pact) 7:30 (first I head) News Headline: BP makes £16bn loss.
How does this work? Can a Govt say "we are having X billions of this, even though you made an overall loss because of the Ukraine War?"
If this comes down to a Court scrimmage, I'd punt that the walking away from Russia voluntarily (if it was) would be a problem for BP.
8:10 Sir Keir adopts the same position on BP. 20 minute interview and that was one of about three questions he answered, including about 4 goes at not answering whether the Durham Constabulary have been in contact again since the food-beer-food work event became news.
I think it's Richard Tyndall who has posted on here about an existing Petroleum Revenue Tax - that is currently set at 0%, after being reduced to that level at a time of low oil prices to encourage investment in North Sea Oil - which would be the pre-existing mechanism for taxing windfall gains made from a high oil price, and would tax North Sea Oil production, which is presumably currently a lot more profitable than forecast.
Yes, "overall loss" is a bit misleading, as they are running at $25bn/year profit, but have taken a one-off hit of $23bn to write off their Russian investments. Putting the Petroleum Revenue Tax up seems the simplest and most flexible mechanism.
The old Tories (vote for us, we'll make you richer) are doomed.
Hence we're left with the new Tories (vote for us to win the culture war). Which has the consequences we see around us, and also makes it harder for the country to become richer.
This isn't going to end well, but the end could be some way off.
Culture wars bother people like Leon for sure but I can’t see them bothering too many people. It’s the economy that matters and the cost of living. The Tories are doomed.
Not sure. What was Brexit, after all, but a Battle in the Culture Wars?
Johnson (or Biden) face the same problem as Putin. A long and protracted war in Ukraine will ultimately cause declining popularity, as sanctions (Putin) or economic costs (Johnson, Biden) really begin to bite.
The longer the war continues, the more likely it is that all three are despatched.
It is just a case of who goes first.
If Putin goes first, maybe Johnson & Biden will get a victory bounce and pull through.
But, if Putin has not gone by 2024 and the war is continuing, the economic consequences will kill both Johnson and Biden's re-election chances.
I also got Covid a few weeks ago despite being triple jabbed.
It was not great either but I had largely recovered within a week. If I had not been jabbed however I would have been far more likely to be hospitalised.
7:20 Sir Ed interview: We will introduce a windfall tax on oil companies' excessive profits. (Also heavyweight denial of any Lib-Lab pact) 7:30 (first I head) News Headline: BP makes £16bn loss.
How does this work? Can a Govt say "we are having X billions of this, even though you made an overall loss because of the Ukraine War?"
If this comes down to a Court scrimmage, I'd punt that the walking away from Russia voluntarily (if it was) would be a problem for BP.
8:10 Sir Keir adopts the same position on BP. 20 minute interview and that was one of about three questions he answered, including about 4 goes at not answering whether the Durham Constabulary have been in contact again since the food-beer-food work event became news.
You need educating about the basics of the constitution first. You would impose a tax by primary legislation. In what court would you expect a scrimmage about that?
I think the issue being raised is what defines profit. There is no problem taxing excess oil company profits - even Thatcher did so and that legislation is still on the statute books. But if there is no profit to tax, its all a bit moot.
The question then is what is profit? Its relatively simple for big profitable companies to reduce their stated profits. Whilst I am sure that Ukraine is slamming oil as it is my own industry I would be surprised if the losses were so large as to offset profits made everywhere else in this time of elevated oil prices.
But how would a government or a court prove it...?
We seem to work it out OK for corporation tax purposes.
Wow. That moment where Boris Johnson says in response to being told about 77-year-old Elsie who uses her freedom pass to ride buses all day because she can’t afford to heat her home “I introduced the freedom bus pass” should play again, and again, and again. Sums up the govt. https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1521399019045543936
I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
It’s a combination of groups:
- religious/faith based belief in the sanctity of life from conception (in theory this is mainstream catholic doctrine) - strict and limiting interpretation of the constitution and opposition to judicial activism (I have some sympathy with this - moral decisions by a society should be made by voters and their representatives not the courts) - Believes in states rights vs federal imposition - political mischief makers - Canny politicians who see a personal advantage in supporting this cause
Together they add up; individually they are all too small
I think that the abortion issue marks a point in the breakdown of the previous political “system” in the States.
Previously, Roe vs Wade would have been followed by a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right properly in law. The argument was “but we’ve won and an amendment would be too difficult”.
It was noticeable that the push on politicising judicial appointments went into overdrive after Roe vs Wade. Trump narrowly won on the basis that he would hand control of judicial appointments to the ultras.
Winning enough to appoint as young justices as you can seems to be the principal goal. They wont be political shills every single case, theyre professionals, but they will often enough for it to matter.
It's very simple to find non-shills - who just happen to have the ideology you require.
It's like finding an expert witness that agrees with you. Unless you are a moron, you don't do that by giving them a suitcase of cash to change their mind. You just find the right one.
I withdraw the word shills and substitute it for hacks. In any case the situation remains the same - each side will apply consistent principles in decisions, up to the point its something important to them politically, when they will become more flexible.
Can we not trot out the tired "Roe vs Wade energised the religious right" urban myth.
The Southern Baptist Council was in favour of Roe vs Wade. Hard core opposition to abortion was seen as a suspiciously Catholic thing. The SBC celebrated the clarification and certainty that Roe brought and allowed them to focus on their main aim which was racially segregated schooling for their children.
It was the ending of tax breaks for racist segregated schools and collages in the 1970s that activated the Religious Right in America.
The Heritage Foundation started to reframe abortion through the lens of race (its always race in America). Abortion was coded as an activity abused by "the poor" (where "the poor" means minorities) to rile up the base. It took until the mid eighties before you could start to say that the Religious Right was solidly anti-abortion.
With due respect, believe you are greatly under-estimating the impact of abortion in mobilizing evangelical, conservative Christians in the US behind conservative social causes AND the Republican Party. And in the process creating links leading to increasing cooperation with conservative Catholics.
Was on the ground while this was happening, from West Virginia to Louisiana to Indiana to Washington State. Certainly the Heritage Foundation played a part, but it was NOT the driver. Much more grassroots, as harnessed - not propagated - by likes of Christian Coalition.
So much for the recent additions to the Supreme Court having stated under oath that they regarded Roe v Wade as settled law during the confirmations.
US politics is going to get even uglier.
My view on this is the same as @rcs1000 namely abortion should be legal but the voters need to decide it, not the courts. Much of the reason why the debate has been so poisonous is the view it was dictated from above - and I’d have the same view is the Supreme Court imposed a law favouring to conservatives.
Re Roe v Wade, it has been widely seen as a poor (in terms of legal reasoning) judgement. Even Ginsburg recognised that.
Yes. Radio 4 was saying 26!states would ban/restrict abortion as a result - more than half of the US.
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will do that why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
The UK has no real understanding of proper federalism
If the voters in those states want to elect representatives who will deny lack people the vote why shouldn't they be permitted to do so?
After all, using the reasoning in the leaked decision, blacks having the right to vote is hardly rooted in history in the US. Why is that not as much of a "phony right" as the other rights criticised by this draft judgment?
And if they should not be permitted to do so, on what basis do you say this?
Invoking de Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority is a bit silly in this case. Whether you wish to admit it or not, abortion rights are a nuanced topic, balancing the rights of the child versus the rights of the mother. I haven’t heard a compelling argument why either position should be enshrined in the constitution and not be subject to containing live debate, as medical science advances and social and religious norms evolve.
The biggest problem American society has is that it has forgotten that it’s ok for other people to hold different opinions to each other, in this battle by both sides to homogenise society in their image. What works in Oregon might not work in Oklahoma. What works in Austin today might not work in Austin tomorrow. That’s ok isn’t it?
By making this an apparently “settled” point of law for decades, RvW instead poured salt in a social and political sore.
The BBC is taking a fairly horrified view of the idea of RvW being reversed - something which illustrates the problem.
If the SC decides abortion is a matter for legislators not the SC it is returning the USA to the position in the UK. This is not a big deal constitutionally.
The big deal of course is that the argument becomes one between extremes - one which gives maximal and one which gives minimal consideration to the rights of the unborn. Most people probably think that this is a matter for careful balance and are represented by neither extreme.
As a Clintonian moderate about abortion (it should be 'safe. legal and rare') it also seems to me that generations to come may well view widespread abortion, in an age of gender equality and contraception, as almost as anomalous as slavery or human sacrifice is seen now.
What would be the BBC view of a court in London overturning the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland, I wonder?
It’s a similar analogy, should these moral issues be devolved or centralised - but in the USA devolved is always the default, and states’ rights is an important topic of debate.
I agree with you, that abortion will be high on the list of things that future generations think of as barbaric, in the same way we now look at slavery.
Comparing with Britain is a bit misleading. For individuals, the effect of localising the decision in a country as large as the US is to effectively penalise the poor. If you're wealthy and living in Alabama, popping over to California is no big deal. If you're poor, then merely organising it and then travelling and taking the time needed to have the abortion is a major issue.
I'm not enthusiastic about abortion - few people are - though the British law feels about right to me. Regardless, I think something as fundamental as how long you're allowed to decide what to do with your body deserves a national decision. It would be better if it was simply a law passed by Congress, but American democracy is so broken at deciding anything, it's doubtful if they'd reach a conculsion one way or the other.
Fair point, but the gap between rich and poor is a universal in our world. Yes, the rich have more money and more freedom.
A country as big as the USA is entitled to decide at what level particular laws are made (as does the UK). The grown up answer to the problems caused by the fact of democratic processes of legislation is by activism and, most of all, voting.
Courts are of course essential, but they are bad policy makers. And when democracy is broken I am very doubtful if the answer is to have less of it.
The picture Nadine Dorries is retweeting is of Keir Starmer sharing a curry with Frank Dobson who died in 2019. Ergo he could not have been eating with Keir Starmer in 2021 no matter what time of day it was. Nadine Dorries is the Cabinet minister responsible for #disinformation
That twitter thread posted earlier by @Taz contains some damning economic analysis but imo the biggest condemnation of Tory economic mismanagement is the fact that at the next GE real wages will be below the level they were when Labour left office in 2010.
Can any PB Tories refute or defend that? Still all Labour's fault is it?
Comments
- religious/faith based belief in the sanctity of life from conception (in theory this is mainstream catholic doctrine)
- strict and limiting interpretation of the constitution and opposition to judicial activism (I have some sympathy with this - moral decisions by a society should be made by voters and their representatives not the courts)
- Believes in states rights vs federal imposition
- political mischief makers
- Canny politicians who see a personal advantage in supporting this cause
Together they add up; individually they are all too small
Ukranians are overwhelmed by the support and goodwill coming from around the world at the moment, both military and civilian aid, and the determination of the international community to see Putin defeated.
Refugees are starting to return home, but we need to make sure that the international efforts don’t stop when the fighting does - there are many thousands of people who have lost their homes and possessions, and Ukraine needs to be rebuilt.
All bets are off for the mid terms . It’s a sad day for women’s rights in the USA but ironically a huge boost for the Dems .
I will sound like a broken record but it does feel to me that in all societies there are always groups who seek to control women and limit them. It is mostly men doing this but not exclusively because it is often women who will, because of their own views of what women should be, seek to control other women. But the urge to control is a constant. Those who want to make their own decisions about their lives are seen as a threat. That is the heart of it.
Hence we're left with the new Tories (vote for us to win the culture war). Which has the consequences we see around us, and also makes it harder for the country to become richer.
This isn't going to end well, but the end could be some way off.
Previously, Roe vs Wade would have been followed by a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right properly in law. The argument was “but we’ve won and an amendment would be too difficult”.
It was noticeable that the push on politicising judicial appointments went into overdrive after Roe vs Wade. Trump narrowly won on the basis that he would hand control of judicial appointments to the ultras.
The biggest problem American society has is that it has forgotten that it’s ok for other people to hold different opinions to each other, in this battle by both sides to homogenise society in their image. What works in Oregon might not work in Oklahoma. What works in Austin today might not work in Austin tomorrow. That’s ok isn’t it?
By making this an apparently “settled” point of law for decades, RvW instead poured salt in a social and political sore.
Alito’s argument isn’t based on “rooted in history” - that was an aside - and focusing on that gives an incorrect interpretation. His fundamental position is that (1) abortion is not a right explicitly protected in the constitution; (2) Roe vs Wade was a novel interpretation and a classical example of judicial activism; (3) he takes a strict view that the constitution does not support judicial activism; and therefore (4) the federal courts have no right to impose their views on state governments. It’s a narrow and dry interpretation of constitutional law but one I have a lot of sympathy for from a philosophical perspective.
From a personal perspective, FWIW, I see abortion as a conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child. I would tend to choose viability (c 20 weeks) as the point when the child has the right to life. And I would certainly vote against any candidate who intended to ban it de jure or de facto.
America is becoming a more and more alien country every year it seems. To be banning women from controlling their own bodies is utterly disgusting if that comes to pass.
With caveat that his own electoral popularity continues to exceed the length of his coat-tails.
Ukraine notwithstanding. So far.
Same is true on flip side re: Biden's ratings, which remain (un)well under water in all but a handful of states.
In-person, Election Day voting begins in just over 4 hours from Ashtabula to Xenia to Ironton to Lima, and all across the great Buckeye State.
Keep yer eye on Trumpsky's toxic toad JD Vance.
https://twitter.com/sianushka/status/1521382336495075328?s=21&t=rQ0c6nCSbNpY_zewdEP_pw
Apparently abortion was not a criminal offence in the US when the Constitution was being written.
It worked perfectly. Until you asked the voters.
The Southern Baptist Council was in favour of Roe vs Wade. Hard core opposition to abortion was seen as a suspiciously Catholic thing. The SBC celebrated the clarification and certainty that Roe brought and allowed them to focus on their main aim which was racially segregated schooling for their children.
It was the ending of tax breaks for racist segregated schools and collages in the 1970s that activated the Religious Right in America.
The Heritage Foundation started to reframe abortion through the lens of race (its always race in America). Abortion was coded as an activity abused by "the poor" (where "the poor" means minorities) to rile up the base. It took until the mid eighties before you could start to say that the Religious Right was solidly anti-abortion.
In any career the internal stuff is different to the external stuff
It just makes it unsafe or those women, leading to increased maternal mortality
https://twitter.com/clarewenham/status/1521376177851711488
Parliaments enact laws, judges interprete them.
Not sure if we've covered this - can't see it on the thread?
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_localelectionpoll_20220503.html
Terrible for expectations management for Labour (Westminster!), but the methodology does look convincing. Roll on Thursday!
Incidentally, I'm astonished by the predicted halving of Green representation. I think this may underestimate the power of incumbency for small parties - when you actually hold the seat, it's hard for anyone to say it's a wasted vote.
Having unelected people making decisions looks odd. Parliamentary democracy is a surrogate, and a surrogate only because it's not practicable to have the whole population voting on every single issue
I know some people think they are special and should have special rights, but I remember the old aphorism. Empty vessels make most noise.
If the majority of the US population want to vote for Trump, that is their right, not something to work round.
You can get 2/1 on the LibDems winning control of Woking Council. 10 of the 30 seats are up for grabs and, knowing the area as I do, I think this is a value bet. They have made steady gains in recent times and they are already the largest party. It's clear that the party machine is up and running hard for this.
I've only seen LibDem posters up and there is a lot of anger directed towards the Conservatives. In addition the tory run minority council has squandered huge amounts of money and the council is now the third most most debt-ridden in the country.
I think at 2/1 this is value. I'm on.
https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/partygate-made-conservatives-grumpy-what-23812465
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/staggering-amount-woking-borough-council-23066714
https://wokinglibdems.org.uk/en/article/2021/1421356/shock-by-election-win-paves-way-for-lib-dem-gain-in-woking
https://www.libdems.org.uk/willforster/polling_day_in_woking
I need educating about windfall taxes.
Radio 4 this AM:
7:20 Sir Ed interview: We will introduce a windfall tax on oil companies' excessive profits.
(Also heavyweight denial of any Lib-Lab pact)
7:30 (first I head) News Headline: BP makes £16bn loss.
How does this work? Can a Govt say "we are having X billions of this, even though you made an overall loss because of the Ukraine War?"
If this comes down to a Court scrimmage, I'd punt that the walking away from Russia voluntarily (if it was) would be a problem for BP.
8:10 Sir Keir adopts the same position on BP. 20 minute interview and that was one of about three questions he answered, including about 4 goes at not answering whether the Durham Constabulary have been in contact again since the food-beer-food work event became news.
Vance said a few years ago that Trump might be America's Hitler. God knows what Vance actually really thinks in private now.
May we be forever divided by a common language!
If the SC decides abortion is a matter for legislators not the SC it is returning the USA to the position in the UK. This is not a big deal constitutionally.
The big deal of course is that the argument becomes one between extremes - one which gives maximal and one which gives minimal consideration to the rights of the unborn. Most people probably think that this is a matter for careful balance and are represented by neither extreme.
As a Clintonian moderate about abortion (it should be 'safe. legal and rare') it also seems to me that generations to come may well view widespread abortion, in an age of gender equality and contraception, as almost as anomalous as slavery or human sacrifice is seen now.
I’ve worked at Nissan and in Nissan supply chain. I’m aware of the allegiances.
But it will be ugly in the meantime.
On which happy note, let's go and see what the day has in store.
More desperate by the day.
Trump and, er, Hitler spring to mind.
I suppose the key is whether the draft will live up to what it says about returning it to the elected. Or will the court work hard to obstruct liberalisation in practice?
The current Republican justices are simply dishonest.
Record number of Channel migrants reaching the UK as crossings ‘fuelled by Rwanda delays’
...
It followed 11 days of bad weather that had prevented any migrants crossing the Channel, prompting speculation – dismissed by government sources – that the Rwanda plan was already deterring migrants.
But on Monday night, France claimed the policy had created a window of opportunity that people-smugglers were exploiting. Pierre-Henri Dumont, the Calais MP, said there was evidence that criminals were encouraging migrants to attempt the crossing before the measures take effect.
...
Genius
PP fanbois pls explain
It’s a similar analogy, should these moral issues be devolved or centralised - but in the USA devolved is always the default, and states’ rights is an important topic of debate.
I agree with you, that abortion will be high on the list of things that future generations think of as barbaric, in the same way we now look at slavery.
BBC News - BP profits soar amid calls for a windfall tax
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61304001
How that is not a massive invasion of the right to privacy is an interesting question.
If Americans were asked their opinion - and able to freely vote in a sane system - then none of this would be happening. Creating a broken "democracy" where money buys votes is not democracy.
If Starmer accepts an FPN he has to go.
BP report a thumping loss due to Russia write downs, BBC radio journalists reports their profit was forecast at 4 billion for the quarter and came in at 6 billion and then wittered on about a one off tax.
Susanna Reid has made the same point to Johnson now.
In-person P-Day voting begins in a few hours, running from 6am - 6pm local time, which is EDT in most of the state EXCEPT for Northwest (Gary, Michigan City) and Southwest (Evanville) Indiana which are CDT.
So first Indiana results will be coming in sometime after 11pm UK time tonight.
According to the Gray Lady (NYT $)
"Indiana’s primary also features some notable elections with implications for the direction of the Republican Party. This year, more incumbents at the state level are facing primary challengers from the right than in at least a decade, according to a review by The Indianapolis Star, potentially resulting in an even more conservative legislative supermajority.
North of Indianapolis, in Hamilton County, the re-election campaign of the prosecutor D. Lee Buckingham against Greg Garrison, a conservative talk-show host, is garnering outsize attention: Mr. Buckingham has the support of former Vice President Mike Pence."
Remains to be seen what impact today's news re: Roe v Wade may have on today's AND subsequent primaries as well as 2022 general election.
Today too early to tell, obviously, but possible that as year progresses SCOTUS reversal of RvW could reduce current advantage in enthusiasm gap enjoyed by Republicans at present, by galvanizing, mobilizing and turning out Democrats & pro-choice swing voters, esp. in key, mostly-suburban counties and districts critical in key 2022 gubernatorial, senatorial, congressional, legislative and local races across America.
R4 Today gave him a staggeringly easy ride this morning. They do need to sharpen up their act. Such fun (and illumination) as there will be over major policy between now and the GE can only be had by very high quality questioning.
I'm not blaming SKS - I intend to vote for him. Apart from bits of retail policy bait there are few vote winning policies (apart from those held by all parties) to be had by any party in the current multiple pile up.
My vote for him is entirely on the basis of being somewhat more honest and decent that the other lot at the moment. Though Burgon, Abbott and co could change my mind in a heartbeat.
I'm not enthusiastic about abortion - few people are - though the British law feels about right to me. Regardless, I think something as fundamental as how long you're allowed to decide what to do with your body deserves a national decision. It would be better if it was simply a law passed by Congress, but American democracy is so broken at deciding anything, it's doubtful if they'd reach a conculsion one way or the other.
I am confident that given a free vote Americans would not vote for Gilead. And yet here they are on the road to Gilead. Sure, some of them will vote for things the rest of think are crazy and I touched on some of the questions why earlier. But the majority? No.
I usually find any legal opinion persuasive as top jurists are bright people, but the bit about which things unmentioned in the constitution it was ok to meddle with felt like they were squirming for an explanation of inconsistent application.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1521397379777589250
I don't really believe it, and I think it would be an enormous waste of time for Durham police to do an investigation. But I don't think the Met should be doing so either. Far better would have been a truth and reconciliation and an amnesty/quashing of ALL fines issued, be they students, or women walking with a coffee, or an ill judged birthday cake, or a slightly cheeky curry with the lads after a campaign event.
But Starmer has gone huge on this and is banking on being the whiter the white alternative. If he's not entirely white, that has consequences.
The question then is what is profit? Its relatively simple for big profitable companies to reduce their stated profits. Whilst I am sure that Ukraine is slamming oil as it is my own industry I would be surprised if the losses were so large as to offset profits made everywhere else in this time of elevated oil prices.
But how would a government or a court prove it...?
Can any PB Tories refute or defend that? Still all Labour's fault is it?
https://twitter.com/technopopulist/status/1521122232097021953?s=21&t=cTVgar1NfQtvogk2F1iNDA
For many years most voters have bought the line that the Tories are best for managing the economy. Surely, that belief is going to be shattered now.
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
The difference between UK and US devolution, is that in the UK the ultimate power is devolved from the central government, whereas in the US the ultimate power is with the States and devolved up to the Federal level.
It's like finding an expert witness that agrees with you. Unless you are a moron, you don't do that by giving them a suitcase of cash to change their mind. You just find the right one.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1521398220676804609
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1521398267786977280
Johnson (or Biden) face the same problem as Putin. A long and protracted war in Ukraine will ultimately cause declining popularity, as sanctions (Putin) or economic costs (Johnson, Biden) really begin to bite.
The longer the war continues, the more likely it is that all three are despatched.
It is just a case of who goes first.
If Putin goes first, maybe Johnson & Biden will get a victory bounce and pull through.
But, if Putin has not gone by 2024 and the war is continuing, the economic consequences will kill both Johnson and Biden's re-election chances.
It was not great either but I had largely recovered within a week. If I had not been jabbed however I would have been far more likely to be hospitalised.
https://twitter.com/MrsNickyClark/status/1521395519049805824
https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1521399019045543936
Was on the ground while this was happening, from West Virginia to Louisiana to Indiana to Washington State. Certainly the Heritage Foundation played a part, but it was NOT the driver. Much more grassroots, as harnessed - not propagated - by likes of Christian Coalition.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1521399280535224320
A country as big as the USA is entitled to decide at what level particular laws are made (as does the UK). The grown up answer to the problems caused by the fact of democratic processes of legislation is by activism and, most of all, voting.
Courts are of course essential, but they are bad policy makers. And when democracy is broken I am very doubtful if the answer is to have less of it.
https://twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/1521092894987325445
The picture Nadine Dorries is retweeting is of Keir Starmer sharing a curry with Frank Dobson who died in 2019. Ergo he could not have been eating with Keir Starmer in 2021 no matter what time of day it was. Nadine Dorries is the Cabinet minister responsible for #disinformation
If real wages are down it is because of inflation due to the Ukraine situation and demand rising in excess of supply post lockdown
Given this show doesn’t even get 5 million viewers that’s a stretch.
It didn't sound like a dig, it sounded like he genuinely had NO idea who @reallorraine is.
In an interview that was meant to tell @GMB viewers he was in touch with them... https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1521399499595206656/photo/1