I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.
Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.
And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.
In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.
The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.
IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
Well there is no need to be rude and it isn't demonstrably rubbish or untruthful. Some positions are appointed and dictatorships don't start without gaining support in the first place with propaganda. Yes it is the GOPs voters but the GOP have been changed (I even said he has destroyed the GOP). That change has been driven by the likes of Trump and QAnon.
The idea that Trump and Qanon hog the airways or are able to brainwash voters is also a fiction. The mainstream media in America is overwhelmingly democrat or Romneyite. Yes there is Fox but plenty of neo-cons get air time on there.
Trump rampers are routinely shadow banned by twitter and the like. Often these people are relegated to the likes of Locals or Rumble or whatever, sideshow outlets.
Trumpist politics is appealing to lots of Americans, and until his opponents realise that and try to find out why, they won't defeat him
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, I also think that a large part of Trump's appeal is that the establishment/MSM hate him and that it is this that is attractive to those who are generally disaffected with their current lot, either for economic reasons or because they feel demographics and societal norms are moving in directions that they don't like.
I do wonder whether Trump's support would be so robust if he was not so publicly hated by the good and educated.
PS And lest it is not clear, I have come to hate what he does and represents with a vengeance.
I wonder if the polarisation would have been quite as bad if he'd defeated a generic Democrat in 2016 instead of Hillary Clinton.
He wouldn't have defeated a generic Democrat. Hilary was uniquely positioned to be beaten by Trump.
Indeed. "Basket of deplorables" has to be a contender for the most significant gaffe in modern history.
I think that had basically zero impact.
Hilary's problem was she was loathed by America's centrist portion of society who felt it was either: safe to sit this one out because Trump was surely going to lose; or vote for Trump as Congress would rein him in.
Basically (with the massive benefit of hindsight) if zero campaigning had occurred after the Primaries then Clinton would have lost.
If she was "loathed by American Centrists" how did she get the majority of the popular vote?
Unless you believe the centre to be firmly on the right!
Elon Musk grew up in elite white communities in South Africa, detached from apartheid’s atrocities and surrounded by anti-Black propaganda. He sees his takeover of Twitter as a free speech win but in his youth did not suffer the effects of misinformation.
At the time I was puzzled as he was only in Putin’s middle circle, but I guess he was loyal but not powerful enough to be a threat so it makes sense from Putin’s perspective
Yes I don't think any of us were unaware of who was really in charge.
The amount of time that Putin has really been in charge is quite frightening really. He took over in July 1999(!) as Yeltsin was in illhealth. So that's 23 years this summer he's been defacto in charge. I'm trying to think, but since the Soviet Union came about, I'd argue he's only currently beaten by Stalin for tenure.
Putin's always played 'by the rules' regarding his Premiership. Just he changes the rules as he gained more and more power. He's now (officially) got until 2036 before he would be forced by his current rules to stand down. If by some miracle, he's still around then I suspect the rules will just be changed again.
2036. Is that BST or local time in Moscow?
HA! His (almost certain) failure in Ukraine will, I admit, limit his remaining tenure (to say nothing of his possible illness) but I think 20:36 this evening is a bit optimistic.
Elon Musk grew up in elite white communities in South Africa, detached from apartheid’s atrocities and surrounded by anti-Black propaganda. He sees his takeover of Twitter as a free speech win but in his youth did not suffer the effects of misinformation. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1522191917135638529
What is interesting is that they couldn't find stuff on Elon Musk himself as being anything other than being against Apartheid as a teenager. So resorted to "his environment was terrible".
That noise you hear....scraping of the barrel...This attempt to pin him as some far right (adjacent) extremist is absolutely mental.
He’s annoyingly fratboy-ish and occasionally says stupid things on Twitter. That’s about all you can get on him.
Personally I find him much less baleful than Zuckerberg, Thiel, and Bezos.
He is definitely a weird dude, but I think he also plays up to it for effect. But the past couple of weeks, you would think he was a young version of Donald Trump the way loads of people are losing their shit. Where as 2-3 years ago he was saviour of the planet with his EV and power walls, now he is supposedly the most dangerous man in America.
Where as TikTok, with very close ties to Chinese state, free pass and when Trump tried to go after them, racist, xenophobia yadda yadda yadda.
I was very interested to read @viewcode’s header other day, and motivated to read more by Peter Zeihan the geo-strategist who predicted the Ukraine war.
Regarding Brexit, he seems to think the UK has no long term option other than a deal with the US which will see wholesale opening up of the UK to American agri exports, and “three quarters of the London finance industry moving to New York”.
I’m not very persuaded by this. I find him much more interesting on China, as he is very much a pessimist on Chinese power and quite persuasive in the way he runs through Chinese demography, reliance on energy and food imports, and vulnerable geographic position.
I think his views on Brexit make sense. Substantial absorption into the US is the logical consequence of rejecting being part of the alternative (and to my mind more palatable) option of the EU. The Australian deal started the process of dismantling European style protections for the agricultural sector, and the migration of finance to NY has already begun.
There's a rule of thumb that when testing one's position, one should "steelman" the other side of the debate. That is - make it as strong (according to the other side of the debate's logic) as it could be. Or, on the flip side, to investigate the weakest area of one's own position.
Accordingly, if anyone maintains the position that abortion after the moment of conception is wrong, then any argument where 30 weeks+ or "just before birth" is put forward is irrelevant and diversionary. If you maintain that position, then the key portion is "just after conception" and that's where the discussion should lie to test that position.
If anyone maintains the position that up until the moment of birth is acceptable, then that's where their examples should lie. Abortions shortly after conception, or very early on, are irrelevant to testing that position.
Which also implies that anyone maintaining "No abortions at any point"/"not after the moment of conception"/"life begins at conception" who points to late-term abortions for their own discussion isn't really confident in their own position.
Likewise anyone who maintains "abortions at any point"/"up to birth"/"life begins at first breath" who points to zygote status or very early term for their own examples and discussion is also not sufficiently confident in their own position.
It may be unfair, but that's always the instinct I get.
Elon Musk grew up in elite white communities in South Africa, detached from apartheid’s atrocities and surrounded by anti-Black propaganda. He sees his takeover of Twitter as a free speech win but in his youth did not suffer the effects of misinformation.
The gatekeepers of the American press, aren’t taking the idea of free speech very well.
Last month it was Joe Rogan in their hit-pieces, for being more successful than they are while not playing by their rules. This month it’s Elon Musk.
Its one thing for idiots on twitter to be ranting about far right Musk, but the NYT is supposed to be paper of record. Its Fox News level stuff.
Given that they can't even spell "black" correctly, I'm not sure why anyone takes them seriously.
I’m with you on the narcissistic little typography-as-virtue-signalling. The NYT is a deeply weird paper, but I guess it reflects the contradictions and obsessions of American “liberalism”.
A few posts on twitter than election 2022 might be a thing after Johnson told economy will only get worse.
I’m deeply sceptical. I think the tories have no option but to wait for 2024, now.
Unless the economy - and their polling - miraculously reverses, it’s 2024 nailed on.
As @AlastairMeeks has remarked on Twitter, talk of an election and of a reshuffle "is a thin disguise for the concern that the vote of no confidence is coming."
Yup.
The knives come out at 10pm.
We’ll see how sharp they are.
The knives do not come out at 10pm. For one, no decent results will be available for some time.
Secondly, this election is due to be a damp squib (except in Northern Ireland).
The knives come out when Sue Gray reports and Boris is using every trick in the book to forestall it. In fact, his slippery performance over the last few months has been a politcal masterclass of sorts.
In the 2016 US presidential election, the three candidates with the highest net negative approval ratings were, as I recall, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz. And, sadly, I fear that for the supporters of each, that was a feature, not a bug.
(Someone quipped at the time that Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who didn't think she would benefit from Bill Clinton's political advice.)
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Because of the principle that it isn't a person that has been born, the woman is and it is her body that is in question.
Why should the foetus have rights? Why not sperm?
Sperm cannot hope to evolve into children. Foetuses can. What's special about birth, and where would the cutoff be if humans were marsupial?
A foetus can only develop into a child in certain specific contexts (implantation into a uterus). A sperm can develop into a child in certain specific contexts (it's got an ovum to fertilise and then become a foetus).
Personally, I think "rights" depend on what you are, not on what you might become. I don't see any reason to give a blastocyst rights, even if one day we could gestate it entirely artificially.
If humans were marsupials...? You've seen my avatar picture!
When a thug kicks a 20 weeks pregnant woman in the stomach with the intention of causing injury to the woman and to the unborn, how many possessors of rights are directly having their rights infringed? You say One, I say at least Two. Doesn't everybody?
In the 2016 US presidential election, the three candidates with the highest net negative approval ratings were, as I recall, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz. And, sadly, I fear that for the supporters of each, that was a feature, not a bug.
(Someone quipped at the time that Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who didn't think she would benefit from Bill Clinton's political advice.)
It was one of those rare occasions where both main political parties messed up at the same time, and managed to give the American public the choice between the two most unsuitable candidates in living memory.
I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.
Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.
And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.
In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.
The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.
IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
Well there is no need to be rude and it isn't demonstrably rubbish or untruthful. Some positions are appointed and dictatorships don't start without gaining support in the first place with propaganda. Yes it is the GOPs voters but the GOP have been changed (I even said he has destroyed the GOP). That change has been driven by the likes of Trump and QAnon.
The idea that Trump and Qanon hog the airways or are able to brainwash voters is also a fiction. The mainstream media in America is overwhelmingly democrat or Romneyite. Yes there is Fox but plenty of neo-cons get air time on there.
Trump rampers are routinely shadow banned by twitter and the like. Often these people are relegated to the likes of Locals or Rumble or whatever, sideshow outlets.
Trumpist politics is appealing to lots of Americans, and until his opponents realise that and try to find out why, they won't defeat him
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, I also think that a large part of Trump's appeal is that the establishment/MSM hate him and that it is this that is attractive to those who are generally disaffected with their current lot, either for economic reasons or because they feel demographics and societal norms are moving in directions that they don't like.
I do wonder whether Trump's support would be so robust if he was not so publicly hated by the good and educated.
PS And lest it is not clear, I have come to hate what he does and represents with a vengeance.
I wonder if the polarisation would have been quite as bad if he'd defeated a generic Democrat in 2016 instead of Hillary Clinton.
He wouldn't have defeated a generic Democrat. Hilary was uniquely positioned to be beaten by Trump.
Indeed. "Basket of deplorables" has to be a contender for the most significant gaffe in modern history.
I think that had basically zero impact.
Hilary's problem was she was loathed by America's centrist portion of society who felt it was either: safe to sit this one out because Trump was surely going to lose; or vote for Trump as Congress would rein him in.
Basically (with the massive benefit of hindsight) if zero campaigning had occurred after the Primaries then Clinton would have lost.
If she was "loathed by American Centrists" how did she get the majority of the popular vote?
Unless you believe the centre to be firmly on the right!
Plenty on centerists saw the clear and present danger of Trump and voted Hilary but a very significant block went with "Hating Clinton" over "Not Electing the Fascist".
Elon Musk grew up in elite white communities in South Africa, detached from apartheid’s atrocities and surrounded by anti-Black propaganda. He sees his takeover of Twitter as a free speech win but in his youth did not suffer the effects of misinformation.
The gatekeepers of the American press, aren’t taking the idea of free speech very well.
Last month it was Joe Rogan in their hit-pieces, for being more successful than they are while not playing by their rules. This month it’s Elon Musk.
Its one thing for idiots on twitter to be ranting about far right Musk, but the NYT is supposed to be paper of record. Its Fox News level stuff.
Oh indeed, it’s sad to see the once-respected journals down in the gutter.
Washington Post was in trouble last week too, for ‘doxing’ an anonymous blogger, complete with her home address for the harrasment mob to go round - which of course is exactly what happened. The story being from a ‘journalist’ who was complaining about harrasment herself, but appears fine with dishing it out to others.
You so know the NYT, WP, etc are currently trying to find any instance he ever used the wrong pronoun of somebody or didn't call somebody PoC etc, just so they can call him a racist transphobe.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
In the 2016 US presidential election, the three candidates with the highest net negative approval ratings were, as I recall, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz. And, sadly, I fear that for the supporters of each, that was a feature, not a bug.
(Someone quipped at the time that Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who didn't think she would benefit from Bill Clinton's political advice.)
A reminder that once the Met's idiotic "purdah" finishes at 10pm tonight, we may end up discovering more Downing Street criminality has been dealt with by the law in the last few days. And if that is what has happened, the question is how much traction that will get in amongst the results as they come through.
There's a rule of thumb that when testing one's position, one should "steelman" the other side of the debate. That is - make it as strong (according to the other side of the debate's logic) as it could be. Or, on the flip side, to investigate the weakest area of one's own position.
Accordingly, if anyone maintains the position that abortion after the moment of conception is wrong, then any argument where 30 weeks+ or "just before birth" is put forward is irrelevant and diversionary. If you maintain that position, then the key portion is "just after conception" and that's where the discussion should lie to test that position.
If anyone maintains the position that up until the moment of birth is acceptable, then that's where their examples should lie. Abortions shortly after conception, or very early on, are irrelevant to testing that position.
Which also implies that anyone maintaining "No abortions at any point"/"not after the moment of conception"/"life begins at conception" who points to late-term abortions for their own discussion isn't really confident in their own position.
Likewise anyone who maintains "abortions at any point"/"up to birth"/"life begins at first breath" who points to zygote status or very early term for their own examples and discussion is also not sufficiently confident in their own position.
It may be unfair, but that's always the instinct I get.
Yes. Arguments need to address your weakest points and the other side's strongest. When you don't do that it's called politics.
I doubt the Met will issue fines over the next day but wait till next week . There are also some suggestions that Johnson hadn’t even received questionnaires for some of the parties .
There's a rule of thumb that when testing one's position, one should "steelman" the other side of the debate. That is - make it as strong (according to the other side of the debate's logic) as it could be. Or, on the flip side, to investigate the weakest area of one's own position.
Accordingly, if anyone maintains the position that abortion after the moment of conception is wrong, then any argument where 30 weeks+ or "just before birth" is put forward is irrelevant and diversionary. If you maintain that position, then the key portion is "just after conception" and that's where the discussion should lie to test that position.
If anyone maintains the position that up until the moment of birth is acceptable, then that's where their examples should lie. Abortions shortly after conception, or very early on, are irrelevant to testing that position.
Which also implies that anyone maintaining "No abortions at any point"/"not after the moment of conception"/"life begins at conception" who points to late-term abortions for their own discussion isn't really confident in their own position.
Likewise anyone who maintains "abortions at any point"/"up to birth"/"life begins at first breath" who points to zygote status or very early term for their own examples and discussion is also not sufficiently confident in their own position.
It may be unfair, but that's always the instinct I get.
Yes. Arguments need to address your weakest points and the other side's strongest. When you don't do that it's called politics.
In the 2016 US presidential election, the three candidates with the highest net negative approval ratings were, as I recall, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz. And, sadly, I fear that for the supporters of each, that was a feature, not a bug.
(Someone quipped at the time that Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who didn't think she would benefit from Bill Clinton's political advice.)
PB Cliche Klaxon.
Off you go!
You think someone should be banned for using a PB Cliche?
I was very interested to read @viewcode’s header other day, and motivated to read more by Peter Zeihan the geo-strategist who predicted the Ukraine war.
Regarding Brexit, he seems to think the UK has no long term option other than a deal with the US which will see wholesale opening up of the UK to American agri exports, and “three quarters of the London finance industry moving to New York”.
I’m not very persuaded by this. I find him much more interesting on China, as he is very much a pessimist on Chinese power and quite persuasive in the way he runs through Chinese demography, reliance on energy and food imports, and vulnerable geographic position.
I think his views on Brexit make sense. Substantial absorption into the US is the logical consequence of rejecting being part of the alternative (and to my mind more palatable) option of the EU. The Australian deal started the process of dismantling European style protections for the agricultural sector, and the migration of finance to NY has already begun.
This is a bit of a specialist subject for me. IMO a US trade deal is not likely for several years, because the fast-track option has expired, so any deal will get stuck in Committee. Congress could grant a new fast-track authority to Biden if both houses has a comfortable pro-Biden majority (not all Dems would vote for it), but that's not true now and will probably be even less so after November. So it only becomes a prospect after the next Presidential election, and only then if the winner is strongly pro-trade (Trump?? ha!) and has a good majority in Congress. Thus, don't hold your breath.
Note that the numbers describing themselves as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have been quite close for years.
(Some years ago, Gallup looked at the voters who would vote on the abortion issue. The numbers were small on both sides, less than 10 percent, as I recall, but the pro-life voters outnumbered the pro-choice voters by about 3-2.)
I don't know that those figures hold if and when abortion gets banned. That would radically change the motivations.
Meanwhile, in "I'll put you down as a maybe" news,
Vote Tory = more... taxes regulation shit bureaucracy violent/sex crime neglect of security/armed forces A&E disasters / NHS neglect chance of nuclear war ... while idiots babbling about trans & other shite get promoted all over sw1
#RegimeChange
3/ Only point of 🛒 as PM was to act as spokesman for the Vote Leave agenda while we pushed everything in a different direction. Once this was 99% abandoned in 2020 the entire spectacle is pointless *for all except the 🛒 himself* who enjoys riding his bike at Chequers etc
In the 2016 US presidential election, the three candidates with the highest net negative approval ratings were, as I recall, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz. And, sadly, I fear that for the supporters of each, that was a feature, not a bug.
(Someone quipped at the time that Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who didn't think she would benefit from Bill Clinton's political advice.)
PB Cliche Klaxon.
Off you go!
You think someone should be banned for using a PB Cliche?
Meanwhile, in "I'll put you down as a maybe" news,
Vote Tory = more... taxes regulation shit bureaucracy violent/sex crime neglect of security/armed forces A&E disasters / NHS neglect chance of nuclear war ... while idiots babbling about trans & other shite get promoted all over sw1
#RegimeChange
3/ Only point of 🛒 as PM was to act as spokesman for the Vote Leave agenda while we pushed everything in a different direction. Once this was 99% abandoned in 2020 the entire spectacle is pointless *for all except the 🛒 himself* who enjoys riding his bike at Chequers etc
more "chance of nuclear war" - Interesting take from Big Dom. That is something Jezza would blame on Boris. I presume giga-brain wants us to step away from supporting Ukraine?
In the 2016 US presidential election, the three candidates with the highest net negative approval ratings were, as I recall, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz. And, sadly, I fear that for the supporters of each, that was a feature, not a bug.
(Someone quipped at the time that Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who didn't think she would benefit from Bill Clinton's political advice.)
Meanwhile, in "I'll put you down as a maybe" news,
Vote Tory = more... taxes regulation shit bureaucracy violent/sex crime neglect of security/armed forces A&E disasters / NHS neglect chance of nuclear war ... while idiots babbling about trans & other shite get promoted all over sw1
#RegimeChange
3/ Only point of 🛒 as PM was to act as spokesman for the Vote Leave agenda while we pushed everything in a different direction. Once this was 99% abandoned in 2020 the entire spectacle is pointless *for all except the 🛒 himself* who enjoys riding his bike at Chequers etc
One of the less-mentioned benefits of getting rid of Boris would also be not having Mr Eyetest popping up every few days like some lawn-shitting moggy. May they both find their way into the bin of history this week.
I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.
Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.
And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.
In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.
The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.
IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
Well there is no need to be rude and it isn't demonstrably rubbish or untruthful. Some positions are appointed and dictatorships don't start without gaining support in the first place with propaganda. Yes it is the GOPs voters but the GOP have been changed (I even said he has destroyed the GOP). That change has been driven by the likes of Trump and QAnon.
The idea that Trump and Qanon hog the airways or are able to brainwash voters is also a fiction. The mainstream media in America is overwhelmingly democrat or Romneyite. Yes there is Fox but plenty of neo-cons get air time on there.
Trump rampers are routinely shadow banned by twitter and the like. Often these people are relegated to the likes of Locals or Rumble or whatever, sideshow outlets.
Trumpist politics is appealing to lots of Americans, and until his opponents realise that and try to find out why, they won't defeat him
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, I also think that a large part of Trump's appeal is that the establishment/MSM hate him and that it is this that is attractive to those who are generally disaffected with their current lot, either for economic reasons or because they feel demographics and societal norms are moving in directions that they don't like.
I do wonder whether Trump's support would be so robust if he was not so publicly hated by the good and educated.
PS And lest it is not clear, I have come to hate what he does and represents with a vengeance.
I wonder if the polarisation would have been quite as bad if he'd defeated a generic Democrat in 2016 instead of Hillary Clinton.
He wouldn't have defeated a generic Democrat. Hilary was uniquely positioned to be beaten by Trump.
Indeed. "Basket of deplorables" has to be a contender for the most significant gaffe in modern history.
I think that had basically zero impact.
Hilary's problem was she was loathed by America's centrist portion of society who felt it was either: safe to sit this one out because Trump was surely going to lose; or vote for Trump as Congress would rein him in.
Basically (with the massive benefit of hindsight) if zero campaigning had occurred after the Primaries then Clinton would have lost.
If she was "loathed by American Centrists" how did she get the majority of the popular vote?
Unless you believe the centre to be firmly on the right!
Plenty on centerists saw the clear and present danger of Trump and voted Hilary but a very significant block went with "Hating Clinton" over "Not Electing the Fascist".
But her emails....
I have zero time for those that decided hating Clinton was more important than not electing Trump . Trump ran the most disgusting hate filled campaign in US history .
I was very interested to read @viewcode’s header other day, and motivated to read more by Peter Zeihan the geo-strategist who predicted the Ukraine war.
Regarding Brexit, he seems to think the UK has no long term option other than a deal with the US which will see wholesale opening up of the UK to American agri exports, and “three quarters of the London finance industry moving to New York”.
I’m not very persuaded by this. I find him much more interesting on China, as he is very much a pessimist on Chinese power and quite persuasive in the way he runs through Chinese demography, reliance on energy and food imports, and vulnerable geographic position.
I think his views on Brexit make sense. Substantial absorption into the US is the logical consequence of rejecting being part of the alternative (and to my mind more palatable) option of the EU. The Australian deal started the process of dismantling European style protections for the agricultural sector, and the migration of finance to NY has already begun.
This is a bit of a specialist subject for me. IMO a US trade deal is not likely for several years, because the fast-track option has expired, so any deal will get stuck in Committee. Congress could grant a new fast-track authority to Biden if both houses has a comfortable pro-Biden majority (not all Dems would vote for it), but that's not true now and will probably be even less so after November. So it only becomes a prospect after the next Presidential election, and only then if the winner is strongly pro-trade (Trump?? ha!) and has a good majority in Congress. Thus, don't hold your breath.
This is one of the reasons I find the analysis doubtful: there seems to be no appetite from the US for a trade deal.
I guess where he has a point is that any trade deal is going to be terrible for UK farmers. Also, lost in the economic statistics, is that American food is just shite compared with what Britain has got used to since joining the then-EC. So terrible for consumers, too.
Note that the numbers describing themselves as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have been quite close for years.
(Some years ago, Gallup looked at the voters who would vote on the abortion issue. The numbers were small on both sides, less than 10 percent, as I recall, but the pro-life voters outnumbered the pro-choice voters by about 3-2.)
I don't know that those figures hold if and when abortion gets banned. That would radically change the motivations.
It won't get banned Federal wide, more likely the blue states remain pro choice and any bans are in the Southern and border states if Roe v Wade repealed
In the 2016 US presidential election, the three candidates with the highest net negative approval ratings were, as I recall, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz. And, sadly, I fear that for the supporters of each, that was a feature, not a bug.
(Someone quipped at the time that Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who didn't think she would benefit from Bill Clinton's political advice.)
You rewrite the rules, stagnation plus inflation is stagflation, where is there any reference to full employment?
Stagnation has always been defined as referencing high unemployment. We have full employment.
From Wiki: In economics, stagflation or recession-inflation is a situation in which the inflation rate is high, the economic growth rate slows, and unemployment remains steadily high. It presents a dilemma for economic policy, since actions intended to lower inflation may exacerbate unemployment.
The term, a portmanteau of stagnation and inflation, is generally attributed to Iain Macleod, a British Conservative Party politician who became Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1970. Macleod used the word in a 1965 speech to Parliament during a period of simultaneously high inflation and unemployment in the United Kingdom.[1][2][3][4] Warning the House of Commons of the gravity of the situation, he said:
"We now have the worst of both worlds—not just inflation on the one side or stagnation on the other, but both of them together. We have a sort of 'stagflation' situation. And history, in modern terms, is indeed being made."[3][5]
Although it's perfectly possible to have a stagnant economy and low unemployment: Japan.
In the 2016 US presidential election, the three candidates with the highest net negative approval ratings were, as I recall, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz. And, sadly, I fear that for the supporters of each, that was a feature, not a bug.
(Someone quipped at the time that Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who didn't think she would benefit from Bill Clinton's political advice.)
PB Cliche Klaxon.
Off you go!
You think someone should be banned for using a PB Cliche?
Well, it's a view...
It's one of those irregular verbs. I am taking a break, you have left, he has flounced.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
Meanwhile, in "I'll put you down as a maybe" news,
Vote Tory = more... taxes regulation shit bureaucracy violent/sex crime neglect of security/armed forces A&E disasters / NHS neglect chance of nuclear war ... while idiots babbling about trans & other shite get promoted all over sw1
#RegimeChange
3/ Only point of 🛒 as PM was to act as spokesman for the Vote Leave agenda while we pushed everything in a different direction. Once this was 99% abandoned in 2020 the entire spectacle is pointless *for all except the 🛒 himself* who enjoys riding his bike at Chequers etc
more "chance of nuclear war" - Interesting take from Big Dom. That is something Jezza would blame on Boris. I presume giga-brain wants us to step away from supporting Ukraine?
To be fair, I’m incredibly uncomfortable at British weapons being fired by British trained troops at russian troops and targets (especially inside russia).
I know, I know, someone will be along shortly to accuse me of being a pro-putin troll. I can live with that.
I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.
Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.
And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.
In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.
The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.
IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
Well there is no need to be rude and it isn't demonstrably rubbish or untruthful. Some positions are appointed and dictatorships don't start without gaining support in the first place with propaganda. Yes it is the GOPs voters but the GOP have been changed (I even said he has destroyed the GOP). That change has been driven by the likes of Trump and QAnon.
The idea that Trump and Qanon hog the airways or are able to brainwash voters is also a fiction. The mainstream media in America is overwhelmingly democrat or Romneyite. Yes there is Fox but plenty of neo-cons get air time on there.
Trump rampers are routinely shadow banned by twitter and the like. Often these people are relegated to the likes of Locals or Rumble or whatever, sideshow outlets.
Trumpist politics is appealing to lots of Americans, and until his opponents realise that and try to find out why, they won't defeat him
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, I also think that a large part of Trump's appeal is that the establishment/MSM hate him and that it is this that is attractive to those who are generally disaffected with their current lot, either for economic reasons or because they feel demographics and societal norms are moving in directions that they don't like.
I do wonder whether Trump's support would be so robust if he was not so publicly hated by the good and educated.
PS And lest it is not clear, I have come to hate what he does and represents with a vengeance.
I wonder if the polarisation would have been quite as bad if he'd defeated a generic Democrat in 2016 instead of Hillary Clinton.
He wouldn't have defeated a generic Democrat. Hilary was uniquely positioned to be beaten by Trump.
Indeed. "Basket of deplorables" has to be a contender for the most significant gaffe in modern history.
I think that had basically zero impact.
Hilary's problem was she was loathed by America's centrist portion of society who felt it was either: safe to sit this one out because Trump was surely going to lose; or vote for Trump as Congress would rein him in.
Basically (with the massive benefit of hindsight) if zero campaigning had occurred after the Primaries then Clinton would have lost.
If she was "loathed by American Centrists" how did she get the majority of the popular vote?
Unless you believe the centre to be firmly on the right!
Plenty on centerists saw the clear and present danger of Trump and voted Hilary but a very significant block went with "Hating Clinton" over "Not Electing the Fascist".
But her emails....
I have zero time for those that decided hating Clinton was more important than not electing Trump . Trump ran the most disgusting hate filled campaign in US history .
I agree with your general point, but possibly you need to add "since Andrew Jackson"?
Meanwhile, in "I'll put you down as a maybe" news,
Vote Tory = more... taxes regulation shit bureaucracy violent/sex crime neglect of security/armed forces A&E disasters / NHS neglect chance of nuclear war ... while idiots babbling about trans & other shite get promoted all over sw1
#RegimeChange
3/ Only point of 🛒 as PM was to act as spokesman for the Vote Leave agenda while we pushed everything in a different direction. Once this was 99% abandoned in 2020 the entire spectacle is pointless *for all except the 🛒 himself* who enjoys riding his bike at Chequers etc
more "chance of nuclear war" - Interesting take from Big Dom. That is something Jezza would blame on Boris. I presume giga-brain wants us to step away from supporting Ukraine?
I get the impression that, unless Cummings can claim credit for it, anything that Johnson does must now be wrong as far as he is concerned.
Of course, most of what Johnson does is wrong, so the position doesn't look bad most of the time.
Elon Musk grew up in elite white communities in South Africa, detached from apartheid’s atrocities and surrounded by anti-Black propaganda. He sees his takeover of Twitter as a free speech win but in his youth did not suffer the effects of misinformation.
The gatekeepers of the American press, aren’t taking the idea of free speech very well.
Last month it was Joe Rogan in their hit-pieces, for being more successful than they are while not playing by their rules. This month it’s Elon Musk.
Its one thing for idiots on twitter to be ranting about far right Musk, but the NYT is supposed to be paper of record. Its Fox News level stuff.
Oh indeed, it’s sad to see the once-respected journals down in the gutter.
Washington Post was in trouble last week too, for ‘doxing’ an anonymous blogger, complete with her home address for the harrasment mob to go round - which of course is exactly what happened. The story being from a ‘journalist’ who was complaining about harrasment herself, but appears fine with dishing it out to others.
You so know the NYT, WP, etc are currently trying to find any instance he ever used the wrong pronoun of somebody or didn't call somebody PoC etc, just so they can call him a racist transphobe.
Of course. Most of the video of Rogan saying n-words was from more than a decade ago, and IIRC were all either quotes that he was reading out or song lyrics.
Meanwhile, in "I'll put you down as a maybe" news,
Vote Tory = more... taxes regulation shit bureaucracy violent/sex crime neglect of security/armed forces A&E disasters / NHS neglect chance of nuclear war ... while idiots babbling about trans & other shite get promoted all over sw1
#RegimeChange
3/ Only point of 🛒 as PM was to act as spokesman for the Vote Leave agenda while we pushed everything in a different direction. Once this was 99% abandoned in 2020 the entire spectacle is pointless *for all except the 🛒 himself* who enjoys riding his bike at Chequers etc
more "chance of nuclear war" - Interesting take from Big Dom. That is something Jezza would blame on Boris. I presume giga-brain wants us to step away from supporting Ukraine?
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Leaving aside that issue, I'm more interested in the practicalities of the absolutist position of @BartholomewRoberts.
Practically just about the same as we operate now in the UK in practice.
Very few women want a late abortion and those that do can in practice typically get them. It is going to be very rare and far between that a woman wants a late term abortion and as such almost inevitably for a very good reason.
I don't believe that is necessarily true. A colleague of mine was pregnant with her husband - who to be fair was a complete shit - and when she fund out he was having an affair she decided to have an abortion purely to spite him. She persuaded the doctor that she was in danger of self harm or attempting suicide if she was forced to go through with the pregnancy whilst happily telling everyone else she was having the abortion because it was one of the few ways she had of hurting him.
Probably not a common situation and I accept that exceptional cases make bad laws, but it still seems wrong to me that she could get a late stage termination for reasons which, in the end, are not valid.
That's why I said its in practice the situation we have today.
We de facto have abortion on demand throughout the pregnancy already precisely because it is well known that "the risk of self harm" is a valid justification in the law for abortions to be done today under the principle that the health of the mother matters. I'd rather the de facto law be the de jure law on principle, but in practice I don't see a reason for a change.
That's a horrible situation you described, but unless you remove health of the mother as an exception, realistically its going to work that way - and I don't see many people saying health of the mother shouldn't be a valid exception.
But presumably they wouldn't even consider it after 30 weeks. At that point, the child is simply born.
I don't think so. I don't think voluntary inductions are an option at 30 weeks are they? I know when we had our second, we had to wait until 42 weeks before my wife was induced.
Okay, I didn't want to spell it out like this, but there comes a point where something very horrible has to happen for an abortion to take place. The level of that horribleness gets higher the further the pregnancy goes. At 30 weeks, the medical staff would be able to keep the child alive. What are you suggesting should happen in such cases?
In the extremely rare cases a mother want an abortion at 30 weeks?
If its viable to have a delivery and put the child into care or whatever then possibly do that, I've not really given it much thought, but I don't think voluntary deliveries are allowed so early.
If delivery isn't an option, then abortion must be.
So deliver the child and if it dies, that's a shame, but they should basically treat it like a premature birth (incubator etc etc)?
That would not be my preference but if you're denying an abortion then that's the logical alternative.
Personally, I'd think in that tragic situation an abortion would be a better alternative.
But until the moment of birth it should be up to the woman as far as I'm concerned.
I am not as confidently angry as Max about the very modest interest rate increase.
I would note though that analysts generally believe that inflation will come down at some point as the Covid supply shock abates, and the war in Ukraine comes to an end.
Except in Britain, where the IMF were suggesting last week that inflation will ge more persistent, perhaps because of Brexit induced import costs and labour issues.
In the circumstances you would, I think, expect a more aggressive response from the BoE, but among the various ways Britain decided to self-immolate from around 2016 was the appointment of duffer Bailey, who may well be technically excellent (I don’t know) but can’t provide guidance to save himself.
The reality is that if inflation goes from 4% to 10% and interest rates go from 0.5% to 2% real interest rates have been cut by 4.5%. If anyone in this country can borrow at anything near base rate they would be crazy not to because they will be paying back significantly less in real terms. Those who have savings are being robbed blind and tax rates are climbing rapidly as increases in allowances are overtaken by increases in nominal wages.
To put it another way, prior to 2008 it would have been normal to have real interest rates of something like 2%, sometimes more. Now we have negative rates of approaching 7% and we are still talking about a collapse in demand and a recession. Something has gone seriously wrong.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
In the 2016 US presidential election, the three candidates with the highest net negative approval ratings were, as I recall, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz. And, sadly, I fear that for the supporters of each, that was a feature, not a bug.
(Someone quipped at the time that Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who didn't think she would benefit from Bill Clinton's political advice.)
PB Cliche Klaxon.
Off you go!
Isn’t the klaxon a cliché?
It is indeed.
Colour me unconvinced; "indeed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Well Elizabeth Warren will tell you 1/1,024 is enough....
Meanwhile, in "I'll put you down as a maybe" news,
Vote Tory = more... taxes regulation shit bureaucracy violent/sex crime neglect of security/armed forces A&E disasters / NHS neglect chance of nuclear war ... while idiots babbling about trans & other shite get promoted all over sw1
#RegimeChange
3/ Only point of 🛒 as PM was to act as spokesman for the Vote Leave agenda while we pushed everything in a different direction. Once this was 99% abandoned in 2020 the entire spectacle is pointless *for all except the 🛒 himself* who enjoys riding his bike at Chequers etc
more "chance of nuclear war" - Interesting take from Big Dom. That is something Jezza would blame on Boris. I presume giga-brain wants us to step away from supporting Ukraine?
To be fair, I’m incredibly uncomfortable at British weapons being fired by British trained troops at russian troops and targets (especially inside russia).
I know, I know, someone will be along shortly to accuse me of being a pro-putin troll. I can live with that.
Seriously, we’re taking one hell of a gamble.
It's less of a gamble than doing nothing.
Your discomfort is created by the evidence that Putin is much more aggressive than previously assumed.
It's comforting to imagine that it's because of our reaction, because then it's under our control. Unfortunately that is not the case.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
You can self-identify.
NZ has long had “Māori seats”. There are now 7 (out of 72). You can choose whether to enrol in them or not, if you do so you cannot enrol in the general seats.
In practice about 1/3 of Māori vote in the general seats.
When NZ moved to PR it was recommended that the Māori seats be scrapped, but they have stayed and are pretty much a permanent fixture. There are more Māori in Parliament as a percentage than in the general population.
The above is pretty uncontroversial.
It has started to be reproduced at a local government level, which is more controversial.
What Ardern tried to do in Rotorua goes further. It proposed that 3 Māori seats be elected by 22,000 Māori voters, and 3 general seats be elected by 56,000 voters.
It has been found to contravene the Bill of Rights Act and Ardern/Labour have now withdrawn support.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Well Elizabeth Warren will tell you 1/1,024 is enough....
What Elizabeth Warren showed was that if you are in a political car crash, entering a demolition derby makes it worse.
You rewrite the rules, stagnation plus inflation is stagflation, where is there any reference to full employment?
Stagnation has always been defined as referencing high unemployment. We have full employment.
From Wiki: In economics, stagflation or recession-inflation is a situation in which the inflation rate is high, the economic growth rate slows, and unemployment remains steadily high. It presents a dilemma for economic policy, since actions intended to lower inflation may exacerbate unemployment.
The term, a portmanteau of stagnation and inflation, is generally attributed to Iain Macleod, a British Conservative Party politician who became Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1970. Macleod used the word in a 1965 speech to Parliament during a period of simultaneously high inflation and unemployment in the United Kingdom.[1][2][3][4] Warning the House of Commons of the gravity of the situation, he said:
"We now have the worst of both worlds—not just inflation on the one side or stagnation on the other, but both of them together. We have a sort of 'stagflation' situation. And history, in modern terms, is indeed being made."[3][5]
Although it's perfectly possible to have a stagnant economy and low unemployment: Japan.
Indeed, but I don't think anyone would remotely consider Japan a country suffering stagflation, would they?
The problem with stagflation is that you end up with two serious problems, the solution for one making the other worse. Traditional anti-inflationary measures risk making the unemployment crisis worse, whereas traditional measures to reduce unemployment can make the inflation worse, so you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
We don't have that problem. We don't have the unemployment, so while growth may be stagnant, we're not facing that situation. The Bank can tackle inflation without wondering how that's going to affect the 3 million people on the dole and how much worse its going to make that.
Durham’s former police chief has condemned attempts to get his former force to investigate Keir Starmer over allegations of Covid rule-breaking as “hypocritical” and “dangerous” and said there is no evidence the Labour leader flouted the law
In the 2016 US presidential election, the three candidates with the highest net negative approval ratings were, as I recall, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz. And, sadly, I fear that for the supporters of each, that was a feature, not a bug.
(Someone quipped at the time that Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who didn't think she would benefit from Bill Clinton's political advice.)
PB Cliche Klaxon.
Off you go!
Isn’t the klaxon a cliché?
It is indeed.
Colour me unconvinced; "indeed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
Andrew Bailey will be remembered as the governor who impoverished a nation to please his Tory masters in the treasury. Rates should have gone up to 1.25% today with forwards guidance that they will rise to at least 2% by the end of the summer. We're now in an inflationary spiral and with sterling in freefall against the dollar I don't see how things get better.
Is a 0.25% difference in the base rate, for one month (seems quite likely rates will go up next month), really that consequential?
If things are as bad as you say, then rates should be going up much faster than half a percent compared to a quarter.
I suspect Max's problem is that by not doing 0.5pp today suggests that there isn't much appetite for doing much more. I do think a bit of forward guidance would be helpful. I don't mind them putting up rates slowly, but they should tell people that they are going to get to 2% or even 3% by a certain date.
The BOE probably don't think they're going to have to raise rates that much though. They think the economy will be weak enough to put a lid on domestically generated inflation without doing much more on the hiking front.
In reality they don't want to put up interest rates before an election because it may cause a housing crash and Bailey is a Tory party toady.
Don't think so. RTÉ are expecting to have the first results to discuss (presumably first preference counts) during a special extended 1 o'clock radio news programme tomorrow.
I have been trying to avoid the abortion debate because like @Foxy, I think the current UK legislation (which is based broadly around viability) is probably about right.
But one thing I would say to the likes of @SandyRentool , who is notionally towards the pro-life end of the scale, is this: once you introduce the mental health of the mother as a determinator you effectively replicate what we have currently.
After all, few if any mothers would choose to terminate were they perfectly happy to bear the child. So the 'change' you suggest is de facto little or no change at all.
What we have currently is a law that isn't enforced, and as a result there is essentially abortion on demand up to a certain point in the pregnancy. (Unless you say "I don't want it coz it's a girl"). The point for debate in my position is the degree of physical or mental harm to the woman that is considered to be sufficient to be grounds for an abortion. I realise that this creates a different grey area (A month in a padded cell, well is that OK?), but I think we can all agree that this is not a black and white issue.
BTW the gender selection thing shows that the 'abortion on demand' crowd do not believe their own rhetoric. If they did they would have no interest in inquiring into reasons. What it shows is that their real belief is for absolute female autonomy on any of the grounds they happen to find acceptable but not others.
Which means that those of us who accept abortion but not unconditionally are in their company.
Meanwhile, this is a strong candidate for most parochial take on the NI general election: Corkwoman set to become first minister North set to be 'under Cork rule'.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
I have been trying to avoid the abortion debate because like @Foxy, I think the current UK legislation (which is based broadly around viability) is probably about right.
But one thing I would say to the likes of @SandyRentool , who is notionally towards the pro-life end of the scale, is this: once you introduce the mental health of the mother as a determinator you effectively replicate what we have currently.
After all, few if any mothers would choose to terminate were they perfectly happy to bear the child. So the 'change' you suggest is de facto little or no change at all.
What we have currently is a law that isn't enforced, and as a result there is essentially abortion on demand up to a certain point in the pregnancy. (Unless you say "I don't want it coz it's a girl"). The point for debate in my position is the degree of physical or mental harm to the woman that is considered to be sufficient to be grounds for an abortion. I realise that this creates a different grey area (A month in a padded cell, well is that OK?), but I think we can all agree that this is not a black and white issue.
BTW the gender selection thing shows that the 'abortion on demand' crowd do not believe their own rhetoric. If they did they would have no interest in inquiring into reasons. What it shows is that their real belief is for absolute female autonomy on any of the grounds they happen to find acceptable but not others.
Which means that those of us who accept abortion but not unconditionally are in their company.
I wouldn't stand in someone's way if they wanted to have an abortion based on the projected sex of the foetus. Just because I don't like people's decisions doesn't make it my business.
Don't think so. RTÉ are expecting to have the first results to discuss (presumably first preference counts) during a special extended 1 o'clock radio news programme tomorrow.
Rubbish. Not much to talk about tonight then, with all this crappy Friday counting nonsense.
I have been trying to avoid the abortion debate because like @Foxy, I think the current UK legislation (which is based broadly around viability) is probably about right.
But one thing I would say to the likes of @SandyRentool , who is notionally towards the pro-life end of the scale, is this: once you introduce the mental health of the mother as a determinator you effectively replicate what we have currently.
After all, few if any mothers would choose to terminate were they perfectly happy to bear the child. So the 'change' you suggest is de facto little or no change at all.
What we have currently is a law that isn't enforced, and as a result there is essentially abortion on demand up to a certain point in the pregnancy. (Unless you say "I don't want it coz it's a girl"). The point for debate in my position is the degree of physical or mental harm to the woman that is considered to be sufficient to be grounds for an abortion. I realise that this creates a different grey area (A month in a padded cell, well is that OK?), but I think we can all agree that this is not a black and white issue.
BTW the gender selection thing shows that the 'abortion on demand' crowd do not believe their own rhetoric. If they did they would have no interest in inquiring into reasons. What it shows is that their real belief is for absolute female autonomy on any of the grounds they happen to find acceptable but not others.
Which means that those of us who accept abortion but not unconditionally are in their company.
If sex-selective abortion is a problem then it's easier to ban expectant parents from finding out the sex of the foetus then it is to ban sex-selective abortion.
Interesting trends in Russian equipment losses (Ukraine claims thereof). Looks like Manpads, counter-battery radar and longer range artillery deliveries are now at the front line and beginning to make an impact:
A reminder that once the Met's idiotic "purdah" finishes at 10pm tonight, we may end up discovering more Downing Street criminality has been dealt with by the law in the last few days. And if that is what has happened, the question is how much traction that will get in amongst the results as they come through.
Bit weird that the BoE can raise interest rates on election day but the Met won't issue fines weeks in advance.
Andrew Bailey will be remembered as the governor who impoverished a nation to please his Tory masters in the treasury. Rates should have gone up to 1.25% today with forwards guidance that they will rise to at least 2% by the end of the summer. We're now in an inflationary spiral and with sterling in freefall against the dollar I don't see how things get better.
Is a 0.25% difference in the base rate, for one month (seems quite likely rates will go up next month), really that consequential?
If things are as bad as you say, then rates should be going up much faster than half a percent compared to a quarter.
I suspect Max's problem is that by not doing 0.5pp today suggests that there isn't much appetite for doing much more. I do think a bit of forward guidance would be helpful. I don't mind them putting up rates slowly, but they should tell people that they are going to get to 2% or even 3% by a certain date.
The BOE probably don't think they're going to have to raise rates that much though. They think the economy will be weak enough to put a lid on domestically generated inflation without doing much more on the hiking front.
In reality they don't want to put up interest rates before an election because it may cause a housing crash and Bailey is a Tory party toady.
I think it is more that the establishment are all housing asset rich and Bailey is part of the establishment, rather than specifically a Tory party link, but that is effectively the same.
No-one cared that the asset poor got shafted by QE, but it would be sacrilege to have normal interest rate policy now, as most of the unearned wealth that was gained by QE would disappear.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
Andrew Bailey will be remembered as the governor who impoverished a nation to please his Tory masters in the treasury. Rates should have gone up to 1.25% today with forwards guidance that they will rise to at least 2% by the end of the summer. We're now in an inflationary spiral and with sterling in freefall against the dollar I don't see how things get better.
Is a 0.25% difference in the base rate, for one month (seems quite likely rates will go up next month), really that consequential?
If things are as bad as you say, then rates should be going up much faster than half a percent compared to a quarter.
I suspect Max's problem is that by not doing 0.5pp today suggests that there isn't much appetite for doing much more. I do think a bit of forward guidance would be helpful. I don't mind them putting up rates slowly, but they should tell people that they are going to get to 2% or even 3% by a certain date.
The BOE probably don't think they're going to have to raise rates that much though. They think the economy will be weak enough to put a lid on domestically generated inflation without doing much more on the hiking front.
In reality they don't want to put up interest rates before an election because it may cause a housing crash and Bailey is a Tory party toady.
Unless I misheard the announcement he gave forward guidance that rates are expected to go up to 2.5% by next year.
That's quite a change compared to what we've had for the past decade. I wonder how many are ready for it?
Durham’s former police chief has condemned attempts to get his former force to investigate Keir Starmer over allegations of Covid rule-breaking as “hypocritical” and “dangerous” and said there is no evidence the Labour leader flouted the law
Andrew Bailey will be remembered as the governor who impoverished a nation to please his Tory masters in the treasury. Rates should have gone up to 1.25% today with forwards guidance that they will rise to at least 2% by the end of the summer. We're now in an inflationary spiral and with sterling in freefall against the dollar I don't see how things get better.
Is a 0.25% difference in the base rate, for one month (seems quite likely rates will go up next month), really that consequential?
If things are as bad as you say, then rates should be going up much faster than half a percent compared to a quarter.
I suspect Max's problem is that by not doing 0.5pp today suggests that there isn't much appetite for doing much more. I do think a bit of forward guidance would be helpful. I don't mind them putting up rates slowly, but they should tell people that they are going to get to 2% or even 3% by a certain date.
The BOE probably don't think they're going to have to raise rates that much though. They think the economy will be weak enough to put a lid on domestically generated inflation without doing much more on the hiking front.
In reality they don't want to put up interest rates before an election because it may cause a housing crash and Bailey is a Tory party toady.
I think it is more that the establishment are all housing asset rich and Bailey is part of the establishment, rather than specifically a Tory party link, but that is effectively the same.
No-one cared that the asset poor got shafted by QE, but it would be sacrilege to have normal interest rate policy now, as most of the unearned wealth that was gained by QE would disappear.
As a UK mortgage holder it certainly puts a smile on my dial.
A reminder that once the Met's idiotic "purdah" finishes at 10pm tonight, we may end up discovering more Downing Street criminality has been dealt with by the law in the last few days. And if that is what has happened, the question is how much traction that will get in amongst the results as they come through.
Bit weird that the BoE can raise interest rates on election day but the Met won't issue fines weeks in advance.
It probably is a bit early to fine Keir and Ange, before they’ve even been sent their questionnaires.
I am not as confidently angry as Max about the very modest interest rate increase.
I would note though that analysts generally believe that inflation will come down at some point as the Covid supply shock abates, and the war in Ukraine comes to an end.
Except in Britain, where the IMF were suggesting last week that inflation will ge more persistent, perhaps because of Brexit induced import costs and labour issues.
In the circumstances you would, I think, expect a more aggressive response from the BoE, but among the various ways Britain decided to self-immolate from around 2016 was the appointment of duffer Bailey, who may well be technically excellent (I don’t know) but can’t provide guidance to save himself.
The reality is that if inflation goes from 4% to 10% and interest rates go from 0.5% to 2% real interest rates have been cut by 4.5%. If anyone in this country can borrow at anything near base rate they would be crazy not to because they will be paying back significantly less in real terms. Those who have savings are being robbed blind and tax rates are climbing rapidly as increases in allowances are overtaken by increases in nominal wages.
To put it another way, prior to 2008 it would have been normal to have real interest rates of something like 2%, sometimes more. Now we have negative rates of approaching 7% and we are still talking about a collapse in demand and a recession. Something has gone seriously wrong.
"Something has gone seriously wrong."
Yep. It's called Capitalism. Good to have you on board, Comrade!
A reminder that once the Met's idiotic "purdah" finishes at 10pm tonight, we may end up discovering more Downing Street criminality has been dealt with by the law in the last few days. And if that is what has happened, the question is how much traction that will get in amongst the results as they come through.
Bit weird that the BoE can raise interest rates on election day but the Met won't issue fines weeks in advance.
Bizarre that the Met took the view that keeping something normally that's normally public a secret is the way to NOT interfere. But then the Met is not fit for purpose and can get in the bin anyway.
Andrew Bailey will be remembered as the governor who impoverished a nation to please his Tory masters in the treasury. Rates should have gone up to 1.25% today with forwards guidance that they will rise to at least 2% by the end of the summer. We're now in an inflationary spiral and with sterling in freefall against the dollar I don't see how things get better.
Is a 0.25% difference in the base rate, for one month (seems quite likely rates will go up next month), really that consequential?
If things are as bad as you say, then rates should be going up much faster than half a percent compared to a quarter.
I suspect Max's problem is that by not doing 0.5pp today suggests that there isn't much appetite for doing much more. I do think a bit of forward guidance would be helpful. I don't mind them putting up rates slowly, but they should tell people that they are going to get to 2% or even 3% by a certain date.
The BOE probably don't think they're going to have to raise rates that much though. They think the economy will be weak enough to put a lid on domestically generated inflation without doing much more on the hiking front.
In reality they don't want to put up interest rates before an election because it may cause a housing crash and Bailey is a Tory party toady.
I think it is more that the establishment are all housing asset rich and Bailey is part of the establishment, rather than specifically a Tory party link, but that is effectively the same.
No-one cared that the asset poor got shafted by QE, but it would be sacrilege to have normal interest rate policy now, as most of the unearned wealth that was gained by QE would disappear.
Its like all the self-righteous indignation about inflation, by people who celebrated house price inflation for the past couple of decades.
I have been trying to avoid the abortion debate because like @Foxy, I think the current UK legislation (which is based broadly around viability) is probably about right.
But one thing I would say to the likes of @SandyRentool , who is notionally towards the pro-life end of the scale, is this: once you introduce the mental health of the mother as a determinator you effectively replicate what we have currently.
After all, few if any mothers would choose to terminate were they perfectly happy to bear the child. So the 'change' you suggest is de facto little or no change at all.
What we have currently is a law that isn't enforced, and as a result there is essentially abortion on demand up to a certain point in the pregnancy. (Unless you say "I don't want it coz it's a girl"). The point for debate in my position is the degree of physical or mental harm to the woman that is considered to be sufficient to be grounds for an abortion. I realise that this creates a different grey area (A month in a padded cell, well is that OK?), but I think we can all agree that this is not a black and white issue.
BTW the gender selection thing shows that the 'abortion on demand' crowd do not believe their own rhetoric. If they did they would have no interest in inquiring into reasons. What it shows is that their real belief is for absolute female autonomy on any of the grounds they happen to find acceptable but not others.
Which means that those of us who accept abortion but not unconditionally are in their company.
If sex-selective abortion is a problem then it's easier to ban expectant parents from finding out the sex of the foetus then it is to ban sex-selective abortion.
Fair enough, but if you think it's a problem then you don't believe in abortion on demand. You think some grounds are OK and some not OK. Which places you in the same big group as (for example) me, who think that the rights of the unborn should be balanced against the autonomy of the mother. (And that this is a matter for politics and legislators, not courts).
BTW as the technology exists to determine sex of a foetus, then whether banned or not it is going to happen. It can't be uninvented and we live in a big and immoral world.
I have been trying to avoid the abortion debate because like @Foxy, I think the current UK legislation (which is based broadly around viability) is probably about right.
But one thing I would say to the likes of @SandyRentool , who is notionally towards the pro-life end of the scale, is this: once you introduce the mental health of the mother as a determinator you effectively replicate what we have currently.
After all, few if any mothers would choose to terminate were they perfectly happy to bear the child. So the 'change' you suggest is de facto little or no change at all.
What we have currently is a law that isn't enforced, and as a result there is essentially abortion on demand up to a certain point in the pregnancy. (Unless you say "I don't want it coz it's a girl"). The point for debate in my position is the degree of physical or mental harm to the woman that is considered to be sufficient to be grounds for an abortion. I realise that this creates a different grey area (A month in a padded cell, well is that OK?), but I think we can all agree that this is not a black and white issue.
BTW the gender selection thing shows that the 'abortion on demand' crowd do not believe their own rhetoric. If they did they would have no interest in inquiring into reasons. What it shows is that their real belief is for absolute female autonomy on any of the grounds they happen to find acceptable but not others.
Which means that those of us who accept abortion but not unconditionally are in their company.
Speak for yourself.
If someone says they want an abortion because their foetus is female I'd find that morally repugnant and disgusting, but I don't think it should be illegal.
Freedom means respecting others have the liberty to make choices I find disgusting.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
Interesting trends in Russian equipment losses (Ukraine claims thereof). Looks like Manpads, counter-battery radar and longer range artillery deliveries are now at the front line and beginning to make an impact:
Another 15 tanks, a hundred other vehicles and a couple of aircraft today.
This must be something of a modern-era record for equipment losses in a war? 70 days in, and the Russian forces are already 20-30% depleted, more in some areas. Also a huge number of senior officers and the better-trained men.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
A reminder that once the Met's idiotic "purdah" finishes at 10pm tonight, we may end up discovering more Downing Street criminality has been dealt with by the law in the last few days. And if that is what has happened, the question is how much traction that will get in amongst the results as they come through.
Bit weird that the BoE can raise interest rates on election day but the Met won't issue fines weeks in advance.
Bizarre that the Met took the view that keeping something normally that's normally public a secret is the way to NOT interfere. But then the Met is not fit for purpose and can get in the bin anyway.
They looked at Comey and the emails and equated a US Presidential Election with a few local elections.
I have been trying to avoid the abortion debate because like @Foxy, I think the current UK legislation (which is based broadly around viability) is probably about right.
But one thing I would say to the likes of @SandyRentool , who is notionally towards the pro-life end of the scale, is this: once you introduce the mental health of the mother as a determinator you effectively replicate what we have currently.
After all, few if any mothers would choose to terminate were they perfectly happy to bear the child. So the 'change' you suggest is de facto little or no change at all.
What we have currently is a law that isn't enforced, and as a result there is essentially abortion on demand up to a certain point in the pregnancy. (Unless you say "I don't want it coz it's a girl"). The point for debate in my position is the degree of physical or mental harm to the woman that is considered to be sufficient to be grounds for an abortion. I realise that this creates a different grey area (A month in a padded cell, well is that OK?), but I think we can all agree that this is not a black and white issue.
BTW the gender selection thing shows that the 'abortion on demand' crowd do not believe their own rhetoric. If they did they would have no interest in inquiring into reasons. What it shows is that their real belief is for absolute female autonomy on any of the grounds they happen to find acceptable but not others.
Which means that those of us who accept abortion but not unconditionally are in their company.
Speak for yourself.
If someone says they want an abortion because their foetus is female I'd find that morally repugnant and disgusting, but I don't think it should be illegal.
Freedom means respecting others have the liberty to make choices I find disgusting.
I think it should definitely be illegal on the grounds that if enough parents make the same choice, it fucks up societys male/female ratio with significant social consequences.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
A reminder that once the Met's idiotic "purdah" finishes at 10pm tonight, we may end up discovering more Downing Street criminality has been dealt with by the law in the last few days. And if that is what has happened, the question is how much traction that will get in amongst the results as they come through.
Bit weird that the BoE can raise interest rates on election day but the Met won't issue fines weeks in advance.
Bizarre that the Met took the view that keeping something normally that's normally public a secret is the way to NOT interfere. But then the Met is not fit for purpose and can get in the bin anyway.
The unusual bit is the whole thing being public in the first place, and the amount of police time being spent on such minor alleged historic offences, for political reasons.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
Outrageous, you massive racist....or something like that.
Elon Musk grew up in elite white communities in South Africa, detached from apartheid’s atrocities and surrounded by anti-Black propaganda. He sees his takeover of Twitter as a free speech win but in his youth did not suffer the effects of misinformation. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1522191917135638529
What is interesting is that they couldn't find stuff on Elon Musk himself as being anything other than being against Apartheid as a teenager. So resorted to "his environment was terrible".
That noise you hear....scraping of the barrel...This attempt to pin him as some far right (adjacent) extremist is absolutely mental.
He’s annoyingly fratboy-ish and occasionally says stupid things on Twitter. That’s about all you can get on him.
Personally I find him much less baleful than Zuckerberg, Thiel, and Bezos.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
I have been trying to avoid the abortion debate because like @Foxy, I think the current UK legislation (which is based broadly around viability) is probably about right.
But one thing I would say to the likes of @SandyRentool , who is notionally towards the pro-life end of the scale, is this: once you introduce the mental health of the mother as a determinator you effectively replicate what we have currently.
After all, few if any mothers would choose to terminate were they perfectly happy to bear the child. So the 'change' you suggest is de facto little or no change at all.
What we have currently is a law that isn't enforced, and as a result there is essentially abortion on demand up to a certain point in the pregnancy. (Unless you say "I don't want it coz it's a girl"). The point for debate in my position is the degree of physical or mental harm to the woman that is considered to be sufficient to be grounds for an abortion. I realise that this creates a different grey area (A month in a padded cell, well is that OK?), but I think we can all agree that this is not a black and white issue.
BTW the gender selection thing shows that the 'abortion on demand' crowd do not believe their own rhetoric. If they did they would have no interest in inquiring into reasons. What it shows is that their real belief is for absolute female autonomy on any of the grounds they happen to find acceptable but not others.
Which means that those of us who accept abortion but not unconditionally are in their company.
Speak for yourself.
If someone says they want an abortion because their foetus is female I'd find that morally repugnant and disgusting, but I don't think it should be illegal.
Freedom means respecting others have the liberty to make choices I find disgusting.
I think it should definitely be illegal on the grounds that if enough parents make the same choice, it fucks up societys male/female ratio with significant social consequences.
I don't. That's a solution in search for a problem, people aren't doing that at a scale that would make any difference at all.
PS in societies where people have really wanted to do that, you can find them doing it even without abortion. Before gender screening existed, it wasn't unusual in some societies for baby girls to have some sort of fatal accident or get lost in the woods . . . that's far worse for me.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
Personally I think the Met’s purdah is appropriate. Comey was indeed an example of spectactular incompetence.
Rushing to announce something before time because there's an election on = wrong Delaying an announcement because there's an election on = wrong Not taking the election into account and acting normally = right
Comments
In areas of England where there are local council elections in May 2022, our polling for Good Morning Britain has Labour on 47% of the vote, with the Conservatives at 34%: https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1522224147362992129/photo/1
Where as TikTok, with very close ties to Chinese state, free pass and when Trump tried to go after them, racist, xenophobia yadda yadda yadda.
There's a rule of thumb that when testing one's position, one should "steelman" the other side of the debate. That is - make it as strong (according to the other side of the debate's logic) as it could be. Or, on the flip side, to investigate the weakest area of one's own position.
Accordingly, if anyone maintains the position that abortion after the moment of conception is wrong, then any argument where 30 weeks+ or "just before birth" is put forward is irrelevant and diversionary. If you maintain that position, then the key portion is "just after conception" and that's where the discussion should lie to test that position.
If anyone maintains the position that up until the moment of birth is acceptable, then that's where their examples should lie. Abortions shortly after conception, or very early on, are irrelevant to testing that position.
Which also implies that anyone maintaining "No abortions at any point"/"not after the moment of conception"/"life begins at conception" who points to late-term abortions for their own discussion isn't really confident in their own position.
Likewise anyone who maintains "abortions at any point"/"up to birth"/"life begins at first breath" who points to zygote status or very early term for their own examples and discussion is also not sufficiently confident in their own position.
It may be unfair, but that's always the instinct I get.
(Someone quipped at the time that Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who didn't think she would benefit from Bill Clinton's political advice.)
But her emails....
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
Off you go!
Well, it's a view...
That would radically change the motivations.
Vote Tory = more...
taxes
regulation
shit bureaucracy
violent/sex crime
neglect of security/armed forces
A&E disasters / NHS neglect
chance of nuclear war
... while idiots babbling about trans & other shite get promoted all over sw1
#RegimeChange
3/ Only point of 🛒 as PM was to act as spokesman for the Vote Leave agenda while we pushed everything in a different direction. Once this was 99% abandoned in 2020 the entire spectacle is pointless *for all except the 🛒 himself* who enjoys riding his bike at Chequers etc
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1522193044086398977
More on that here:
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/boris-johnson-really-levelling-up-power-money-local-councils-1612534
They’ve just fully reversed.
I guess where he has a point is that any trade deal is going to be terrible for UK farmers.
Also, lost in the economic statistics, is that American food is just shite compared with what Britain has got used to since joining the then-EC. So terrible for consumers, too.
I know, I know, someone will be along shortly to accuse me of being a pro-putin troll. I can live with that.
Seriously, we’re taking one hell of a gamble.
Of course, most of what Johnson does is wrong, so the position doesn't look bad most of the time.
"Only point of 🛒 as PM was to act as spokesman for the Vote Leave agenda while we pushed everything in a different direction"
In other words
We did everything we could to ensure BoZo would be PM, on the basis that he wouldn't do anything as PM.
That seems stupid. Really, really, really stupid.
Personally, I'd think in that tragic situation an abortion would be a better alternative.
But until the moment of birth it should be up to the woman as far as I'm concerned.
To put it another way, prior to 2008 it would have been normal to have real interest rates of something like 2%, sometimes more. Now we have negative rates of approaching 7% and we are still talking about a collapse in demand and a recession. Something has gone seriously wrong.
The Boles tendency versus the Harper/Baker massive.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
This Government couldn't be any more Brexity, and it's delivered a shitshow.
Anybody standing on a "more Brexit" ticket deserves to appear on TSE's favourite website...
Your discomfort is created by the evidence that Putin is much more aggressive than previously assumed.
It's comforting to imagine that it's because of our reaction, because then it's under our control. Unfortunately that is not the case.
From 1am you can play along with Election Bingo on @TimesRadio
We’ll have different cards in the studio, so it’s presenters against the listeners
Let us know when you have got all yours ticked off
@patrickkmaguire @adamboultonTABB @CalumAM https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1522232559337418753/photo/1
NZ has long had “Māori seats”.
There are now 7 (out of 72).
You can choose whether to enrol in them or not, if you do so you cannot enrol in the general seats.
In practice about 1/3 of Māori vote in the general seats.
When NZ moved to PR it was recommended that the Māori seats be scrapped, but they have stayed and are pretty much a permanent fixture. There are more Māori in Parliament as a percentage than in the general population.
The above is pretty uncontroversial.
It has started to be reproduced at a local government level, which is more controversial.
What Ardern tried to do in Rotorua goes further. It proposed that 3 Māori seats be elected by 22,000 Māori voters, and 3 general seats be elected by 56,000 voters.
It has been found to contravene the Bill of Rights Act and Ardern/Labour have now withdrawn support.
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1522130462239563776?s=20&t=dPqpaEYAmSwleWYkldWSNQ
The problem with stagflation is that you end up with two serious problems, the solution for one making the other worse. Traditional anti-inflationary measures risk making the unemployment crisis worse, whereas traditional measures to reduce unemployment can make the inflation worse, so you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
We don't have that problem. We don't have the unemployment, so while growth may be stagnant, we're not facing that situation. The Bank can tackle inflation without wondering how that's going to affect the 3 million people on the dole and how much worse its going to make that.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/05/keir-starmer-lockdown-takeaway-former-police-chief?CMP=share_btn_tw
Cranial measurement?
borderexit poll?Which means that those of us who accept abortion but not unconditionally are in their company.
Corkwoman set to become first ministerNorth set to be 'under Cork rule'.https://www.independent.ie/regionals/corkman/news/ireland-could-be-under-cork-rule-if-michelle-oneill-and-sinn-fein-triumph-in-northern-elections-41614836.html
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
Just because I don't like people's decisions doesn't make it my business.
https://twitter.com/Villager1244/status/1522230180894457857/photo/1
No-one cared that the asset poor got shafted by QE, but it would be sacrilege to have normal interest rate policy now, as most of the unearned wealth that was gained by QE would disappear.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
That's quite a change compared to what we've had for the past decade. I wonder how many are ready for it?
Yep. It's called Capitalism. Good to have you on board, Comrade!
BTW as the technology exists to determine sex of a foetus, then whether banned or not it is going to happen. It can't be uninvented and we live in a big and immoral world.
If someone says they want an abortion because their foetus is female I'd find that morally repugnant and disgusting, but I don't think it should be illegal.
Freedom means respecting others have the liberty to make choices I find disgusting.
This must be something of a modern-era record for equipment losses in a war? 70 days in, and the Russian forces are already 20-30% depleted, more in some areas. Also a huge number of senior officers and the better-trained men.
Mad.
Bezos is a harder call.
PS in societies where people have really wanted to do that, you can find them doing it even without abortion. Before gender screening existed, it wasn't unusual in some societies for baby girls to have some sort of fatal accident or get lost in the woods . . . that's far worse for me.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
Delaying an announcement because there's an election on = wrong
Not taking the election into account and acting normally = right