Boris Johnson interview with Mishal Husain turns arrogance and complacency into a new art form - an object lesson in utter self delusion @BBCr4today
Boris Johnson tells Mishal Husain: "If you're saying you want me to undergo some sort of psychological transformation, I think that our listeners would know that is not going to happen." https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1540595151244038145
BoZo's message to Tory MPS, "I will always be a ****. What are you going to do about it?"
They should volunteer to drive for the rail replacement bus services and take a small detour.
Here is an interesting question. If a bus hit Boris Johnson, would the inordinate amount of bone in his head mean the bus would be a write off while he wondered what all the noise was?
Large parts of Russia will be pretty badly affected by climate change. The Taiga is already seeing regular droughts, nasty heatwaves and huge forest fires. Continental landmasses are heating much faster than the oceans.
The most muted effects will continue to be along Western coastal fringes: Norway, Britain, Ireland, Portugal and Galicia, British Columbia, Southern Chile, NZ etc. Some Easteen coasts too.
Kamchatka and Sakhalin probably worth a look.
If looking for somewhere likely to find land more valuable following climate change then it is probably worth thinking of why it is more valuable. Is the value for agricultural purposes or for urban settlement?
For agriculture the land needs to be fairly flat, well watered, and have fertile soils as well as infrastructure, a history of the rule of law, and an employable population. I would have thought Northern Canada or Southern Argentina were better bets.
The Atlantic coast of Europe may well be battered by storms and flooding, but in terms of temperature will be amongst the most liveable places still. The Atlantic provinces of Canada and BC may be worth a look too.
Large parts of Africa, Middle East, India will become uninhabitable, so expect a couple of billion climate refugees by the early 2100's. Those channel crossings are stopping no time soon.
One safe bet is that the same people who attack net zero will be saying that climate refugees need to claim asylum somewhere else.
I think that one is nailed on.
A general principle: All self interest is ideologically flexible. True of anti net-zeros. True of everyone. Look at the carbon footprint of posh climate activists and their flying habits.
I think I’ve found the best front page today. It’s the Daily Star’s burned builder’s bums causing skin cancer story. I’m not actually joking. It’s a good piece of public interest journalism that highlights a serious health risk and is relevant to their readership. They’ve also couched it in quite a good joke which catches interest. I think they might have become one of the better tabloids…
Boris Johnson interview with Mishal Husain turns arrogance and complacency into a new art form - an object lesson in utter self delusion @BBCr4today
Boris Johnson tells Mishal Husain: "If you're saying you want me to undergo some sort of psychological transformation, I think that our listeners would know that is not going to happen." https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1540595151244038145
BoZo's message to Tory MPS, "I will always be a ****. What are you going to do about it?"
They should volunteer to drive for the rail replacement bus services and take a small detour.
Here is an interesting question. If a bus hit Boris Johnson, would the inordinate amount of bone in his head mean the bus would be a write off while he wondered what all the noise was?
That happens with kangaroos, a vehicle colliding with a kangaroo would be a write-off, while the kangaroo is most likely to just bounce off; but its the muscles that do it not the bones.
Boris Johnson interview with Mishal Husain turns arrogance and complacency into a new art form - an object lesson in utter self delusion @BBCr4today
Boris Johnson tells Mishal Husain: "If you're saying you want me to undergo some sort of psychological transformation, I think that our listeners would know that is not going to happen." https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1540595151244038145
BoZo's message to Tory MPS, "I will always be a ****. What are you going to do about it?"
They should volunteer to drive for the rail replacement bus services and take a small detour.
Here is an interesting question. If a bus hit Boris Johnson, would the inordinate amount of bone in his head mean the bus would be a write off while he wondered what all the noise was?
That happens with kangaroos, a vehicle colliding with a kangaroo would be a write-off, while the kangaroo is most likely to just bounce off; but its the muscles that do it not the bones.
We've been repeatedly told Johnson is all bulk muscle...
What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.
People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.
That's not quite true re the ECHR though, is it? My understanding is they can advise, but they cannot enforce, especially not now we've left the EU. Votes for prisoners being an example. And a court that cannot enforce its rulings is junket for old white men who want a cushy number and to feel important, while not being so.
Even the European Courts couldn't, or France would have had to pay us a stonking fine for illegal bans on our beef they were repeatedly ordered to lift and refused to.
You're the lawyer of course, not me, but that does seem a very clear difference between the ECHR and the SCOTUS.
That being said, I agree we don't want to end up with our own Supreme Court (and what a silly name that is, by the way) going down the same route. But the different appointments process makes that less likely.
Certainly whilst we were in the EU we were effectively bound to comply with the decisions of the ECtHR and its members still are. We are currently bound too as a consequence of the Human Rights Act but I agree that is our choice and that legislation can be repealed as the government are now proposing. Personally, I think that this is a culture war that we do not need right now but it is in the power of Parliament to do it.
I found some of the decisions in the Hale period of our Supreme Court troubling because it seemed to me that they were arrogating powers to themselves they were not supposed to have by a misapplication of the rule of law. The Court under Reed has stepped back from that considerably but there is no reason why a future president of the court might not go in a different direction.
Boris Johnson interview with Mishal Husain turns arrogance and complacency into a new art form - an object lesson in utter self delusion @BBCr4today
Boris Johnson tells Mishal Husain: "If you're saying you want me to undergo some sort of psychological transformation, I think that our listeners would know that is not going to happen." https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1540595151244038145
BoZo's message to Tory MPS, "I will always be a cunt. What are you going to do about it?"
Self improvement is for suckers. Good to see he's reflected on his shortcomings, which we all have, and decided, 'yeah, it's all good'.
What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly is the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.
People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.
The ECHR is very, very different to the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS invented a very strong power of judicial review for itself in 1803, ironically something not stated in the Constitution.
Boris Johnson interview with Mishal Husain turns arrogance and complacency into a new art form - an object lesson in utter self delusion @BBCr4today
Boris Johnson tells Mishal Husain: "If you're saying you want me to undergo some sort of psychological transformation, I think that our listeners would know that is not going to happen." https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1540595151244038145
BoZo's message to Tory MPS, "I will always be a cunt. What are you going to do about it?"
Self improvement is for suckers. Good to see he's reflected on his shortcomings, which we all have, and decided, 'yeah, it's all good'.
In his defence, it got him to be PM of one of the greatest nations on earth. Why would he change, even if he could? The fact that he is totally unsuitedvto the role is not his fault.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
Yes, there will be some but the polling indicates that she is very much in the minority of women. So that majority need to react and vote against those who want these laws. It is a large enough gap to be decisive.
Large parts of Russia will be pretty badly affected by climate change. The Taiga is already seeing regular droughts, nasty heatwaves and huge forest fires. Continental landmasses are heating much faster than the oceans.
The most muted effects will continue to be along Western coastal fringes: Norway, Britain, Ireland, Portugal and Galicia, British Columbia, Southern Chile, NZ etc. Some Easteen coasts too.
Kamchatka and Sakhalin probably worth a look.
If looking for somewhere likely to find land more valuable following climate change then it is probably worth thinking of why it is more valuable. Is the value for agricultural purposes or for urban settlement?
For agriculture the land needs to be fairly flat, well watered, and have fertile soils as well as infrastructure, a history of the rule of law, and an employable population. I would have thought Northern Canada or Southern Argentina were better bets.
The Atlantic coast of Europe may well be battered by storms and flooding, but in terms of temperature will be amongst the most liveable places still. The Atlantic provinces of Canada and BC may be worth a look too.
Large parts of Africa, Middle East, India will become uninhabitable, so expect a couple of billion climate refugees by the early 2100's. Those channel crossings are stopping no time soon.
One safe bet is that the same people who attack net zero will be saying that climate refugees need to claim asylum somewhere else.
I think that one is nailed on.
A general principle: All self interest is ideologically flexible. True of anti net-zeros. True of everyone. Look at the carbon footprint of posh climate activists and their flying habits.
An acquaintance of mine has been rabidly anti-war for decades. He is also very pro-immigration and pro-refugee, particularly from the Middle East (he, and his wife, are British).
Yet he is supporting Russia in the Ukrainian conflict (in the 'look at those Ukrainian Nazis' and 'I am anti-war. Ukraine should stop the war by giving Russia what it wants; that is better than all the deaths it is causing by fighting Russia') type of thinking.
He is also apparently anti-Ukrainian refugees: as there are all the refugees in northern France who deserve to get over here first. Why are Ukrainian refugees getting all the help?
I see his views as utterly inconsistent. He thinks he is being utterly consistent and deeply moral (naturally enough, he sometimes mentions that he is a Christian as though it is some appeal to a higher Authority...)
What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.
People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.
That's not quite true re the ECHR though, is it? My understanding is they can advise, but they cannot enforce, especially not now we've left the EU. Votes for prisoners being an example. And a court that cannot enforce its rulings is junket for old white men who want a cushy number and to feel important, while not being so.
Even the European Courts couldn't, or France would have had to pay us a stonking fine for illegal bans on our beef they were repeatedly ordered to lift and refused to.
You're the lawyer of course, not me, but that does seem a very clear difference between the ECHR and the SCOTUS.
That being said, I agree we don't want to end up with our own Supreme Court (and what a silly name that is, by the way) going down the same route. But the different appointments process makes that less likely.
Certainly whilst we were in the EU we were effectively bound to comply with the decisions of the ECtHR and its members still are. We are currently bound too as a consequence of the Human Rights Act but I agree that is our choice and that legislation can be repealed as the government are now proposing. Personally, I think that this is a culture war that we do not need right now but it is in the power of Parliament to do it.
I found some of the decisions in the Hale period of our Supreme Court troubling because it seemed to me that they were arrogating powers to themselves they were not supposed to have by a misapplication of the rule of law. The Court under Reed has stepped back from that considerably but there is no reason why a future president of the court might not go in a different direction.
I think there was a case involving northern ireland which Sumption criticised as Hale and co essentially stating parliament could not possibly have meant what they outright stated they meant when making a law. Joshua Rosenberg mentioned it in his book Enemies of the People as an example where he agreed IIRC, which was generally not the case with him viz a viz Sumption.
Boris Johnson interview with Mishal Husain turns arrogance and complacency into a new art form - an object lesson in utter self delusion @BBCr4today
Boris Johnson tells Mishal Husain: "If you're saying you want me to undergo some sort of psychological transformation, I think that our listeners would know that is not going to happen." https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1540595151244038145
BoZo's message to Tory MPS, "I will always be a cunt. What are you going to do about it?"
Self improvement is for suckers. Good to see he's reflected on his shortcomings, which we all have, and decided, 'yeah, it's all good'.
He should make sociopathy a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
Boris Johnson interview with Mishal Husain turns arrogance and complacency into a new art form - an object lesson in utter self delusion @BBCr4today
Boris Johnson tells Mishal Husain: "If you're saying you want me to undergo some sort of psychological transformation, I think that our listeners would know that is not going to happen." https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1540595151244038145
BoZo's message to Tory MPS, "I will always be a cunt. What are you going to do about it?"
Self improvement is for suckers. Good to see he's reflected on his shortcomings, which we all have, and decided, 'yeah, it's all good'.
In his defence, it got him to be PM of one of the greatest nations on earth. Why would he change, even if he could? The fact that he is totally unsuitedvto the role is not his fault.
It is as he's sought it out, but certainly it's more our fault, the public, and especially Tory MPs.
They were correct choosing him was needed to win, but that doesnt bind them forever.
What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly is the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.
People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.
The ECHR is very, very different to the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS invented a very strong power of judicial review for itself in 1803, ironically something not stated in the Constitution.
That is quite amusing. I imagine the sanctity if that decision is inviolable and for once something all the politicians in fancy dress agree on irrespective of it it ever went against a party line.
Abortion would be a free pill available at the 24/7 convenience store if men could get pregnant.
I remember a talk describing how slowly the oral contraceptive went through regulatory processes in various countries compared to how quickly viagra did, even though viagra is the more dangerous drug. It’s almost as if the middle-aged men on committees saw their right to an erection as being more important…
Oral contraceptives as a concept was new. Viagra, as part of a drug class, was longer established but I agree with you; I was very surprised at how quickly it went through the regulatory system. Although by that time the committee was not all male! IIRC!!
Viagra was first synthesised in 1989, and licensed for Erectile Dysfunction in 1998, so not especially quick. Initially it was investigated as a cardiovascular drug, before a novel side effect of interest stuck out (!).
What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly is the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.
People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.
Exactly right. Courts are a very good servant of democracy but a bad master. The SC case yesterday merely returns the USA states to the same position as UK administrations: this tricky matter is one for democratic decision.
The best use of courts is as a back stop in extremes (they should intervene to strike down the 'Torturing Children for Fun Legalisation Act') and in ensuring the robust health of the democratic process (I would be delighted if they intervened to stop mass postal voting in public elections as it subverts the rule of law with regard to democratic process).
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
That requires adequate provision of contraception, access to sex education, support services, child benefit, properly funded education systems and well resourced fostering and adoption routes. The US is such a patchy clusterfuck that most states now gleefully canning abortion can maybe scrounge up two of those, if they’re lucky.
What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.
People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.
That's not quite true re the ECHR though, is it? My understanding is they can advise, but they cannot enforce, especially not now we've left the EU. Votes for prisoners being an example. And a court that cannot enforce its rulings is junket for old white men who want a cushy number and to feel important, while not being so.
Even the European Courts couldn't, or France would have had to pay us a stonking fine for illegal bans on our beef they were repeatedly ordered to lift and refused to.
You're the lawyer of course, not me, but that does seem a very clear difference between the ECHR and the SCOTUS.
That being said, I agree we don't want to end up with our own Supreme Court (and what a silly name that is, by the way) going down the same route. But the different appointments process makes that less likely.
Though its worth noting that even SCOTUS executive branches have a history of nonacquiescence with SCOTUS.
Most infamously with Andrew Jackson and the probably apocryphal quote "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" . . . but the less commented upon example where it was done in a "good" way is that President Lincoln openly refused to follow SCOTUS rulings made by Justice Taney's court (Taney being the author of Dred Scott). Taney himself eventually gave up trying to use the Court to stop Lincoln saying "I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome."
Had "the rule of law" been strictly followed in the US Civil War then the slave states would have likely won the war, because the pro-slavery SCOTUS was actively trying to sabotage the elected Lincoln.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
Indeed. But Roe v Wade did not force women to have abortions against their will. Whereas the anti-abortionists will force women to have children against their will, even when it puts them at risk of death. And they will do nothing to help those women or their children after birth.
And since a lot of anti-abortionists dislike the idea of contraception or sensible sex education they seem to be less interested in making women independent and avoiding the need for abortion and more about controlling them and treating them as mere "uterus havers".
Abortion would be a free pill available at the 24/7 convenience store if men could get pregnant.
I remember a talk describing how slowly the oral contraceptive went through regulatory processes in various countries compared to how quickly viagra did, even though viagra is the more dangerous drug. It’s almost as if the middle-aged men on committees saw their right to an erection as being more important…
Oral contraceptives as a concept was new. Viagra, as part of a drug class, was longer established but I agree with you; I was very surprised at how quickly it went through the regulatory system. Although by that time the committee was not all male! IIRC!!
Viagra was first synthesised in 1989, and licensed for Erectile Dysfunction in 1998, so not especially quick. Initially it was investigated as a cardiovascular drug, before a novel side effect of interest stuck out (!).
A friend was on some of the initial drug tests. Said it was ‘interesting’ as a healthy early twenties male...
The thing is, if 61% of the electorate consistently voted Democrat in the Generals and in the mid-terms, then the Dems would have the numbers. But they don't, unfortunately.
You need 66% of the House and Senate to vote for a constitutional amendment and 3/4 of state legislatures to make it become law and the Senate has a filibuster on Federal legislation too.
US wide polling anyway is not really relevant as the Supreme Court did not impose a US wide abortion ban to replace the US wide right to an abortion given by Roe v Wade but left it to the states. Polling in Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Alabama, Indiana, West Virginia, South Carolina, Arizona etc is more relevant as that is where the GOP governors and GOP state legislatures have the votes to make abortion mostly illegal
If the Dems had 61% of votes, they would certainly have more than 61% of seats. That's FPTP for you.
In the Wisconsin state Assembly election in 2018 the Dems got 53% of the vote to 45% for the GOP.
A margin of 8 points.
There are 99 seats in the Assembly - the GOP won 63 of them for a 27 seat majority. Despite being 8 points behind. As of 2018 It was estimated that the Dems would need to win statewide by 14 points to get a bare majority of 1 seat (my own calculation has it needing to be higher but I defer to the experts on this). The districts have been further gerrymandered since then making the 2022 figure they need to hit some absurd target.
Democracy needs defending. There are always corrupt people manipulating power. Are there enough people in the USA to vote in such a way that an electoral commission can be created so that gerrymandering is nullified by its neutrality? Somehow we manage it reasonably well here.
If the SC can get Americans to learn that if you want something you have to turn up and vote about it, there will be benefits.
In a sense the votes of 2014 and 2016 in Scotland the UK sharpened this awareness here.
One of the reasons that gerrymandering is getting stronger in the US is that there's a degree of self-gerrymandering occurring as liberals concentrate in the cities.
They probably need to switch to a system of STV, with multi-member seats, to overcome the effects of that, and STV would also help to ensure minority representation without encouraging the creation of minority-majority districts.
What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly is the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.
People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.
The ECHR is very, very different to the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS invented a very strong power of judicial review for itself in 1803, ironically something not stated in the Constitution.
It's really not. Both are based on fundamental documents given some magical status. Both have taken upon themselves the right to apply those fundamental documents well beyond the original text. Both claim the right to overrule legislation or declare it incompatible with their interpretation of that original document. Both have a situation where they expect states to comply with their rulings. I would accept that there is a difference of degree here with SCOTUS but it is not a difference of nature.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
Abortion would be a free pill available at the 24/7 convenience store if men could get pregnant.
I remember a talk describing how slowly the oral contraceptive went through regulatory processes in various countries compared to how quickly viagra did, even though viagra is the more dangerous drug. It’s almost as if the middle-aged men on committees saw their right to an erection as being more important…
Oral contraceptives as a concept was new. Viagra, as part of a drug class, was longer established but I agree with you; I was very surprised at how quickly it went through the regulatory system. Although by that time the committee was not all male! IIRC!!
Viagra was first synthesised in 1989, and licensed for Erectile Dysfunction in 1998, so not especially quick. Initially it was investigated as a cardiovascular drug, before a novel side effect of interest stuck out (!).
What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly is the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.
People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.
The ECHR is very, very different to the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS invented a very strong power of judicial review for itself in 1803, ironically something not stated in the Constitution.
That is quite amusing. I imagine the sanctity if that decision is inviolable and for once something all the politicians in fancy dress agree on irrespective of it it ever went against a party line.
You imagine wrong, its inviolable so long as its convenient. Democrats (Jackson) and Republicans (Lincoln) both have a history of refusing to follow SCOTUS when it went against a line they adamantly wanted to follow. Though of course modern Democrats and Republicans are the opposite parties, Jackson would be in Trump's GOP while Lincoln would be a Democrat today.
Just woken up to Boris on the Today programme. He makes Trump sound like an orator. Just a random collection of words. No sentences. No content.
Would love to see a transcript.
Graun feed has some fairly long quotes, but I imagine the more meaningful bits. For instance,
'Husain asks how it’s fair or right that the top civil servant in the country, Simon Case, asked about job opportunities for Carrie Johnson.
“I think that the worst thing I could possibly do is get into conversations about my family, my private life.
“It’s also about a choice, which is, do we focus on personalities, do we focus on Johnson leadership, or do we focus on the things that we are doing for the country, and BBC, I humbly submit to you that this is the time, where I think lots and lots of people, fascinated as they may be by the personal questions you raise, actually they want us as a government and want me to focus on our agenda and get it done,” Johnson says.'
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
Yes, there will be some but the polling indicates that she is very much in the minority of women. So that majority need to react and vote against those who want these laws. It is a large enough gap to be decisive.
It could be that swing voter women may be crucial in key senate elections this autumn. Maybe help Dems keep hold of Senate?
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
Because she is Caligula's horse, with no other qualification to be in the cabinet. Rather harsh to hold it against the horse though.
What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly is the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.
People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.
The ECHR is very, very different to the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS invented a very strong power of judicial review for itself in 1803, ironically something not stated in the Constitution.
Its worth being clear whether you mean ECHR (Convention) or Court, while I'll call ECtHR.
The ECtHR is evolving in a similar way to SCOTUS. That is not a good thing.
The thing is, if 61% of the electorate consistently voted Democrat in the Generals and in the mid-terms, then the Dems would have the numbers. But they don't, unfortunately.
You need 66% of the House and Senate to vote for a constitutional amendment and 3/4 of state legislatures to make it become law and the Senate has a filibuster on Federal legislation too.
US wide polling anyway is not really relevant as the Supreme Court did not impose a US wide abortion ban to replace the US wide right to an abortion given by Roe v Wade but left it to the states. Polling in Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Alabama, Indiana, West Virginia, South Carolina, Arizona etc is more relevant as that is where the GOP governors and GOP state legislatures have the votes to make abortion mostly illegal
If the Dems had 61% of votes, they would certainly have more than 61% of seats. That's FPTP for you.
In the Wisconsin state Assembly election in 2018 the Dems got 53% of the vote to 45% for the GOP.
A margin of 8 points.
There are 99 seats in the Assembly - the GOP won 63 of them for a 27 seat majority. Despite being 8 points behind. As of 2018 It was estimated that the Dems would need to win statewide by 14 points to get a bare majority of 1 seat (my own calculation has it needing to be higher but I defer to the experts on this). The districts have been further gerrymandered since then making the 2022 figure they need to hit some absurd target.
Democracy needs defending. There are always corrupt people manipulating power. Are there enough people in the USA to vote in such a way that an electoral commission can be created so that gerrymandering is nullified by its neutrality? Somehow we manage it reasonably well here.
If the SC can get Americans to learn that if you want something you have to turn up and vote about it, there will be benefits.
In a sense the votes of 2014 and 2016 in Scotland the UK sharpened this awareness here.
One of the reasons that gerrymandering is getting stronger in the US is that there's a degree of self-gerrymandering occurring as liberals concentrate in the cities.
They probably need to switch to a system of STV, with multi-member seats, to overcome the effects of that, and STV would also help to ensure minority representation without encouraging the creation of minority-majority districts.
Well Alaska just plumped for AV, it's a start?
Nebraska is presumably an interesting one for gerrymandering if it is a state where redistricting is so partisan. As the legislative is officially by law non partisan (surprised that is deemed constitutional) even though in reality it is not.
Boris Johnson interview with Mishal Husain turns arrogance and complacency into a new art form - an object lesson in utter self delusion @BBCr4today
Boris Johnson tells Mishal Husain: "If you're saying you want me to undergo some sort of psychological transformation, I think that our listeners would know that is not going to happen." https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1540595151244038145
BoZo's message to Tory MPS, "I will always be a cunt. What are you going to do about it?"
Self improvement is for suckers. Good to see he's reflected on his shortcomings, which we all have, and decided, 'yeah, it's all good'.
"If you're saying you want me to undergo some sort of psychological transformation, I think that our listeners would know that is not going to happen."
Is that originally the line he was using with the marriage guidance counsellor?
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
Because she is Caligula's horse, with no other qualification to be in the cabinet. Rather harsh to hold it against the horse though.
Incintatus would have made a fine Senator I am sure.
But people dont react to her merely as a fool or your standard malevolent minister.
Holy god, hearing an vox-pop onR4 with a pro-lifer.
Apparently human beings are born with an inalienable right to life and to bear arms.
Now I get that the right to life is a nice idea but nature has been known to step in and remove that “right” and no court can overrule that.
I’m somewhat surprised at the idea that humans are born with the right to bear arms as well - I think it’s culture that makes them choose that not a birth right or biological instinct.
Maybe she meant the right to “bare arms” and is pro extreme limb waxing?
She also confused the “don’t tread on me” snake flag - she thought it was a flag for gun rights and not a revolutionary flag telling would-be oppressive rulers applying laws that interfere with personal freedom. A bit awkward.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
Indeed. But Roe v Wade did not force women to have abortions against their will. Whereas the anti-abortionists will force women to have children against their will, even when it puts them at risk of death. And they will do nothing to help those women or their children after birth.
And since a lot of anti-abortionists dislike the idea of contraception or sensible sex education they seem to be less interested in making women independent and avoiding the need for abortion and more about controlling them and treating them as mere "uterus havers".
Spot on.
It's the middling, abortion accepting, Clintonish voice that is ignored.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
For all their faults most politicians aren't obviously stupid. Dorries comes over as very stupid yet she has managed to become a cabinet minister. There are probably a lot of emotions going on: Anger, envy, disbelief, worry of what she may do, etc, etc.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
That certainly sounds reasonable. I might even argue this is a good thing, if we are learning lessons from the Ukrainian and Azerbaijan/Armenia conflicts.
What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.
People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.
That's not quite true re the ECHR though, is it? My understanding is they can advise, but they cannot enforce, especially not now we've left the EU. Votes for prisoners being an example. And a court that cannot enforce its rulings is junket for old white men who want a cushy number and to feel important, while not being so.
Even the European Courts couldn't, or France would have had to pay us a stonking fine for illegal bans on our beef they were repeatedly ordered to lift and refused to.
You're the lawyer of course, not me, but that does seem a very clear difference between the ECHR and the SCOTUS.
That being said, I agree we don't want to end up with our own Supreme Court (and what a silly name that is, by the way) going down the same route. But the different appointments process makes that less likely.
Certainly whilst we were in the EU we were effectively bound to comply with the decisions of the ECtHR and its members still are. We are currently bound too as a consequence of the Human Rights Act but I agree that is our choice and that legislation can be repealed as the government are now proposing. Personally, I think that this is a culture war that we do not need right now but it is in the power of Parliament to do it.
I found some of the decisions in the Hale period of our Supreme Court troubling because it seemed to me that they were arrogating powers to themselves they were not supposed to have by a misapplication of the rule of law. The Court under Reed has stepped back from that considerably but there is no reason why a future president of the court might not go in a different direction.
I think there was a case involving northern ireland which Sumption criticised as Hale and co essentially stating parliament could not possibly have meant what they outright stated they meant when making a law. Joshua Rosenberg mentioned it in his book Enemies of the People as an example where he agreed IIRC, which was generally not the case with him viz a viz Sumption.
There have been a few but I think the one that came to mind was the decision which quashed Gerry Adam's convictions for attempting to escape the Maze on the basis that his original detention was unlawful.
Soldiers dying per day are remarkably high especially for the modern era it seems. When you consider civilian deaths being lower than many historical examples despite the brutality not a good time to be in the armed forces.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
Just woken up to Boris on the Today programme. He makes Trump sound like an orator. Just a random collection of words. No sentences. No content.
Would love to see a transcript.
Graun feed has some fairly long quotes, but I imagine the more meaningful bits. For instance,
'Husain asks how it’s fair or right that the top civil servant in the country, Simon Case, asked about job opportunities for Carrie Johnson.
“I think that the worst thing I could possibly do is get into conversations about my family, my private life.
“It’s also about a choice, which is, do we focus on personalities, do we focus on Johnson leadership, or do we focus on the things that we are doing for the country, and BBC, I humbly submit to you that this is the time, where I think lots and lots of people, fascinated as they may be by the personal questions you raise, actually they want us as a government and want me to focus on our agenda and get it done,” Johnson says.'
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
That requires adequate provision of contraception, access to sex education, support services, child benefit, properly funded education systems and well resourced fostering and adoption routes. The US is such a patchy clusterfuck that most states now gleefully canning abortion can maybe scrounge up two of those, if they’re lucky.
Maybe. Is that a bit generalised about the USA? You make it sound like Afghanistan on a wet Wednesday following an earthquake when it is a leading rich nation with a great democratic tradition. Is it really the case that women and girls in Wyoming or Montana find themselves so oppressed?
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
That requires adequate provision of contraception, access to sex education, support services, child benefit, properly funded education systems and well resourced fostering and adoption routes. The US is such a patchy clusterfuck that most states now gleefully canning abortion can maybe scrounge up two of those, if they’re lucky.
Maybe. Is that a bit generalised about the USA? You make it sound like Afghanistan on a wet Wednesday following an earthquake when it is a leading rich nation with a great democratic tradition. Is it really the case that women and girls in Wyoming or Montana find themselves so oppressed?
And crucially, they all have a vote.
They don't. Not in reality, the way access to voting is being systematically suppressed, particularly in poor areas.
Just woken up to Boris on the Today programme. He makes Trump sound like an orator. Just a random collection of words. No sentences. No content.
Would love to see a transcript.
Graun feed has some fairly long quotes, but I imagine the more meaningful bits. For instance,
'Husain asks how it’s fair or right that the top civil servant in the country, Simon Case, asked about job opportunities for Carrie Johnson.
“I think that the worst thing I could possibly do is get into conversations about my family, my private life.
“It’s also about a choice, which is, do we focus on personalities, do we focus on Johnson leadership, or do we focus on the things that we are doing for the country, and BBC, I humbly submit to you that this is the time, where I think lots and lots of people, fascinated as they may be by the personal questions you raise, actually they want us as a government and want me to focus on our agenda and get it done,” Johnson says.'
The standard 'I dont like your question' dodge.
I agree with Johnson actually, for once.
The very worst thing he could do is get into conversations about his family life. If he does, given the state of it and the things he's done to advance his sex life he's totally buggered.
Abortion would be a free pill available at the 24/7 convenience store if men could get pregnant.
I remember a talk describing how slowly the oral contraceptive went through regulatory processes in various countries compared to how quickly viagra did, even though viagra is the more dangerous drug. It’s almost as if the middle-aged men on committees saw their right to an erection as being more important…
Oral contraceptives as a concept was new. Viagra, as part of a drug class, was longer established but I agree with you; I was very surprised at how quickly it went through the regulatory system. Although by that time the committee was not all male! IIRC!!
Viagra was first synthesised in 1989, and licensed for Erectile Dysfunction in 1998, so not especially quick. Initially it was investigated as a cardiovascular drug, before a novel side effect of interest stuck out (!).
Oestrogens and progesterones were first synthesised in the 1930s. First US license as a contraceptive was 1960. The oral contraceptive was first licensed in Japan in 1999.
If this is true it won't survive the voters' scrutiny for long. I shall take leave to doubt it for now. It will only take a matter of months for the statisticians to demonstrate it. And at least we can be sure the Guardian and BBC will be all over it.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
Rees Mogg seems determined to cause strikes throughout the public sector with his bullying and attitude over office working.
It may be a plan, of course, to see how many we can do without, before making mass redundancies.
But I don't think he's intelligent enough to have thought it through to that endpoint.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
That requires adequate provision of contraception, access to sex education, support services, child benefit, properly funded education systems and well resourced fostering and adoption routes. The US is such a patchy clusterfuck that most states now gleefully canning abortion can maybe scrounge up two of those, if they’re lucky.
Maybe. Is that a bit generalised about the USA? You make it sound like Afghanistan on a wet Wednesday following an earthquake when it is a leading rich nation with a great democratic tradition. Is it really the case that women and girls in Wyoming or Montana find themselves so oppressed?
And crucially, they all have a vote.
They don't. Not in reality, the way access to voting is being systematically suppressed, particularly in poor areas.
F1: backed, with tiny stakes, Perez at 10.5 (with boost) and Sainz at 14 (likewise, both each way, third the odds top 2) to win in the UK.
Both cars have had quite a few reliability problems this year, and if that happens or one car is clearly dominant at the circuit they're a long way faster than third-placed Mercedes. Bizarre that Russell has odds shorter than Sainz to win.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
That requires adequate provision of contraception, access to sex education, support services, child benefit, properly funded education systems and well resourced fostering and adoption routes. The US is such a patchy clusterfuck that most states now gleefully canning abortion can maybe scrounge up two of those, if they’re lucky.
Maybe. Is that a bit generalised about the USA? You make it sound like Afghanistan on a wet Wednesday following an earthquake when it is a leading rich nation with a great democratic tradition. Is it really the case that women and girls in Wyoming or Montana find themselves so oppressed?
And crucially, they all have a vote.
They don't. Not in reality, the way access to voting is being systematically suppressed, particularly in poor areas.
Big claims require decent evidence.
Widely reported. IANAE but shutting down polling stations, for instance, makes it harder to vote - and race and wealth interact too. For instance:
To be a cabinet minister you really ought to have a reasonable amount of intelligence, even if intelligence is measured in multiple ways.
Sycophancy and blind love should not be a qualification for high office. In fact, they should disbar you. It's a measure of Johnson's personal weakness that he has to surround himself with people like Dorries.
Holy god, hearing an vox-pop onR4 with a pro-lifer.
Apparently human beings are born with an inalienable right to life and to bear arms.
Now I get that the right to life is a nice idea but nature has been known to step in and remove that “right” and no court can overrule that.
I’m somewhat surprised at the idea that humans are born with the right to bear arms as well - I think it’s culture that makes them choose that not a birth right or biological instinct.
Maybe she meant the right to “bare arms” and is pro extreme limb waxing?
She also confused the “don’t tread on me” snake flag - she thought it was a flag for gun rights and not a revolutionary flag telling would-be oppressive rulers applying laws that interfere with personal freedom. A bit awkward.
A standard way of doing quiet bias is to interview intelligent person X with opinion A, and dim person with opinion not-A. Over abortion the BBC makes no attempt at all to be neutral, in many ways, including this one. (BTW I am not anti abortion).
Just woken up to Boris on the Today programme. He makes Trump sound like an orator. Just a random collection of words. No sentences. No content.
Would love to see a transcript.
Graun feed has some fairly long quotes, but I imagine the more meaningful bits. For instance,
'Husain asks how it’s fair or right that the top civil servant in the country, Simon Case, asked about job opportunities for Carrie Johnson.
“I think that the worst thing I could possibly do is get into conversations about my family, my private life.
“It’s also about a choice, which is, do we focus on personalities, do we focus on Johnson leadership, or do we focus on the things that we are doing for the country, and BBC, I humbly submit to you that this is the time, where I think lots and lots of people, fascinated as they may be by the personal questions you raise, actually they want us as a government and want me to focus on our agenda and get it done,” Johnson says.'
The standard 'I dont like your question' dodge.
Well, there's a very simple way for Johnson to stop being asked those questions.
I'm sure that HMQ would be happy to find a window in her diary to accept Johnson's resignation.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
Indeed. But Roe v Wade did not force women to have abortions against their will. Whereas the anti-abortionists will force women to have children against their will, even when it puts them at risk of death. And they will do nothing to help those women or their children after birth.
And since a lot of anti-abortionists dislike the idea of contraception or sensible sex education they seem to be less interested in making women independent and avoiding the need for abortion and more about controlling them and treating them as mere "uterus havers".
Indeed. We know how to reduce the number of abortions: good sex education, free and easy access to contraception. These may even reduce abortion more effectively than banning it. Banning abortion has certainly never come close to stopping abortion.
Yet Republicans have never been interested in actually reducing abortion or reducing foetal “death”. They’ve never been interested in improving maternal health or reducing child deaths. They are interested in controlling women and “culture wars”.
What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly is the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.
People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.
The ECHR judges get far more scrutiny, since they are term limited to nine years. And note that any case involving the UK will have a UK judge sitting.
Were the court to change dramatically for the worse, it’s always open for us to leave as a last resort.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
I also think her role makes her a bit of a focus for media and luvvie types on social media. Her progressive plans on the license fee and channel 4 have gone down so poorly within this group.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
What does any of that have to do whether or not abortion should be illegal, though ? You’re basically saying that you’re above all this argument. Which is a view, I suppose.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
Rees Mogg seems determined to cause strikes throughout the public sector with his bullying and attitude over office working.
It may be a plan, of course, to see how many we can do without, before making mass redundancies.
But I don't think he's intelligent enough to have thought it through to that endpoint.
Both are a waste of the fundamental forces of the universe in their immediate proximity but Dories has, at least, done some work that is of benefit to the average person in her life. I can’t stand her Mills and Boonery but my Nan likes them and anything harmless that brings some joy into a 93 year old’s life is fine by me. JRM is of the parasitic middleman class who benefit no one but they and theirs.
Just woken up to Boris on the Today programme. He makes Trump sound like an orator. Just a random collection of words. No sentences. No content.
Would love to see a transcript.
Graun feed has some fairly long quotes, but I imagine the more meaningful bits. For instance,
'Husain asks how it’s fair or right that the top civil servant in the country, Simon Case, asked about job opportunities for Carrie Johnson.
“I think that the worst thing I could possibly do is get into conversations about my family, my private life.
“It’s also about a choice, which is, do we focus on personalities, do we focus on Johnson leadership, or do we focus on the things that we are doing for the country, and BBC, I humbly submit to you that this is the time, where I think lots and lots of people, fascinated as they may be by the personal questions you raise, actually they want us as a government and want me to focus on our agenda and get it done,” Johnson says.'
The standard 'I dont like your question' dodge.
I agree with Johnson actually, for once.
The very worst thing he could do is get into conversations about his family life. If he does, given the state of it and the things he's done to advance his sex life he's totally buggered.
Carrie wasn't his family at the time he was trying to get her a sinecure, she was his mistress.
Somebody's throwing Big Dog a bone today when he can truly needs something nice to chew on.
You think he has such goodwill abroad that leaders from Kyiv to Delhi want to prop him up?
Indian FTA will involve more free movement of Indians with visas to UK I suspect.
Farage on standby.
The older I get, the more I suspect that I'm not into the EU per se, but I think I just like political unions. I think the EU is great, but I'd take CANZUK as a consolation. I'd also be keen for free movement with India. The idea of having the opportunity to live in India sounds pretty cool.
The way I see it, the world is forming into big blocs. The USA, China and even Russia are lucky enough to be nation states and big blocs at the same time. The rest must either form part of a bloc or be left behind. In my opinion the future is continent-sized polities. As a good patriot, I thin we need to be part of one, or accept irrelevance.
I dont see Russia as a big bloc, rapidly falling population, language in decline, a lot of hydrocarbons etc and landmass but apart from nuclear weapons not much else going for it,
Au contraire.
Climate change is a boon to Russia. If and when Russia becomes accepted back into civilised society, and foreign investment is welcomed and safe from unjust state or legal actions, I am sorely tempted to invest in Russian land/forest.
In the not too distant future, the entire Mediterranean region is going to become an unpleasant place to be, while large parts of northern Europe are going to become more pleasant. The further east you go, into less Atlantic and more continental climate zones, the more stable the weather. The Tundra will thaw and the Taiga and Steppe will drift north. Compared to Scotland, Canada and Scandinavia, Russian land is cheap as chips. Reasonably empty too. That land is a future goldmine.
BiB: IMO a risky investment for several reasons: *) Climate change is an average; when temperatures rise and fall, some places rise more, others less. It is possible that parts of Siberia will remain very cold. *) "The Tundra will thaw' leads to lots of other issues with the ground and ground conditions; these may take several generations to stabilise. *) What will the political situation in Russia be? Will it still be an authoritarian would-be empire, or s series of small states? Wil it be a modern democracy? *) The fact it is so remote means that vast investment will be required in infrastructure. This will take years/decades to come into fruition.
Basically: if you do invest in Russian land in the hope climate change will increase land values, expect it to benefit your grandchildren, not you. And also accept you might lose all your investment.
If investments didn’t carry risks, there would be no returns 😉 How much fun is that?
You are borderline building up a Straw Man. If you look carefully at what I wrote you will see caution not recklessness.
I didn’t mention Siberia. There’s an awful lot of Russia that isn’t Siberia. I was actually thinking more about the bits west of the Urals, between the Urals and Finland/Baltics/Belarus.
I’m not advocating buying Tundra, but southern Taiga and northern Steppe looks interesting.
“Remote”?? Ha ha. English exceptionalism par excellence. Daft wee country on the edge of the planet thinks that the middle of Eurasia is “remote”. Fog cuts off continent…
I was thinking of my grandchildren. Climate catastrophe is not going to affect me nor you (much). It is going to be a living hell for billions of people in the coming centuries. But maybe not for Russians so much…
Of course, the most realistic scenario is not decadent westerners buying Russian land, but hostile Chinese simply appropriating it.
Perhaps. Big story of the 21st century will be the demographic transition. We have a glimpse of this in countries like Italy and Japan, but to date the impact has been masked by immigration into many developed countries undergoing the transition.
When the whole world experiences the demographic transition it becomes harder to hide the effects with immigration, and China will be front and centre. They aren't simply going to be able to flood Siberia with Han Chinese in the way they could Tibet decades ago.
Oh, I dunno. I saw a truly terrifying documentary about the Manchurian/Russian Far East borderlands a couple of years ago. The Han invasion is *well* underway already. It is just that it is very, very cautious and under the radar. The Russians are, rightly, terrified.
Imagine if nearly all the enterprises in Kent and Sussex gradually came into French ownership over a few decades. And nearly all the workers were French. One day, English folk would wake up and wonder if Kent and Sussex were still part of England? Legally, yes. But culturally?
You’re talking about Chatham.
I very, very briefly lived in the Medway area. Can’t recall hearing any French.
Canterbury in the days of school parties coming over from northern France?
And Good Morning everyone! Bright morning here, a busy day for the Cole's. I did wonder, given the news from America, if today might be an example of Boris the greased piglet but it appears that it isn't!
Good morning. Mini heatwave here, which is not helping my Midsommar hangover. Luckily I restricted myself to one, yes one, “nubbe” (strict spouse’s orders). Followed by a lengthy evening swim and tons of food to soak up the booze. Still, I’d prefer it if it was 5 degrees cooler.
Do French schoolchildren no longer visit Canterbury? Why not?
Never been myself. I must get round to the great cathedrals of England. I’ve done most of the French and Italian biggies.
It is, I understand, much more difficult to arrange school trips nowadays.
Each child must have its own passport; when we were in the EU ID cards would have been adequate! It's particularly difficult if there are refugee children in the class.
We always had to have their own passports, so I'm not sure what your point is there.
Overseas visits involving students that are non-British nationals might be trickier. You used to be able to get a visa waiver form from the British Council listing them and their passports and just get it stamped on entry and exit. I'm not sure if that still holds good.
AIUI it's day trips where there's the problem.
Well, the same rules applied before Brexit on passports and visas. I remember endless trouble trying to get a non-EU National a Schengen visa so he could go on an educational day visit to Auschwitz (because there were no staff from the school on the trip) and that was in 2015!
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
I also think her role makes her a bit of a focus for media and luvvie types on social media. Her progressive plans on the license fee and channel 4 have gone down so poorly within this group.
That’s because there is no logic behind her plans.
At the moment all of C4’s profits go back to creating more and better how does an owner extracting a profit from C4 result in more programs when the pot of money is consistent.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Indeed. But my point still stands.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
Just woken up to Boris on the Today programme. He makes Trump sound like an orator. Just a random collection of words. No sentences. No content.
Would love to see a transcript.
Graun feed has some fairly long quotes, but I imagine the more meaningful bits. For instance,
'Husain asks how it’s fair or right that the top civil servant in the country, Simon Case, asked about job opportunities for Carrie Johnson.
“I think that the worst thing I could possibly do is get into conversations about my family, my private life.
“It’s also about a choice, which is, do we focus on personalities, do we focus on Johnson leadership, or do we focus on the things that we are doing for the country, and BBC, I humbly submit to you that this is the time, where I think lots and lots of people, fascinated as they may be by the personal questions you raise, actually they want us as a government and want me to focus on our agenda and get it done,” Johnson says.'
The standard 'I dont like your question' dodge.
I agree with Johnson actually, for once.
The very worst thing he could do is get into conversations about his family life. If he does, given the state of it and the things he's done to advance his sex life he's totally buggered.
Carrie wasn't his family at the time he was trying to get her a sinecure, she was his mistress.
Too right. And anyway, him trying to swing her a public-funded job is not his private family life.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Bayraktars ? The statement is a load of meaningless waffle, but possibly they’ve cancelled an aerial Ajax ?
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Bayraktars ? The statement is a load of meaningless waffle, but possibly they’ve cancelled an aerial Ajax ?
Aeralis is going to be the aerial Ajax if it ever manages to siphon enough money out of the MoD to get to too-big-to-fail status.
Just woken up to Boris on the Today programme. He makes Trump sound like an orator. Just a random collection of words. No sentences. No content.
Would love to see a transcript.
Graun feed has some fairly long quotes, but I imagine the more meaningful bits. For instance,
'Husain asks how it’s fair or right that the top civil servant in the country, Simon Case, asked about job opportunities for Carrie Johnson.
“I think that the worst thing I could possibly do is get into conversations about my family, my private life.
“It’s also about a choice, which is, do we focus on personalities, do we focus on Johnson leadership, or do we focus on the things that we are doing for the country, and BBC, I humbly submit to you that this is the time, where I think lots and lots of people, fascinated as they may be by the personal questions you raise, actually they want us as a government and want me to focus on our agenda and get it done,” Johnson says.'
The standard 'I dont like your question' dodge.
I agree with Johnson actually, for once.
The very worst thing he could do is get into conversations about his family life. If he does, given the state of it and the things he's done to advance his sex life he's totally buggered.
Carrie wasn't his family at the time he was trying to get her a sinecure, she was his mistress.
What is a mistress but an opportunity to expand one's sense of family?
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
What does any of that have to do whether or not abortion should be illegal, though ? You’re basically saying that you’re above all this argument. Which is a view, I suppose.
Not quite. Your misreading is total. I am one of those who, as I indicated, 'hate the idea of outlawing abortion'. I don't think Clinton could be any clearer when he says 'Safe, legal, rare.'
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
I also think her role makes her a bit of a focus for media and luvvie types on social media. Her progressive plans on the license fee and channel 4 have gone down so poorly within this group.
I don't think there's much support for the licenCe fee across the board. I think you're pegging your hellbent desire to have the licence fee abolished, on which I agree with you, to the wrong taliswoman.
She really is very stupid I'm afraid. And so poor on detail. Her 'progressive' plans extend to not even knowing that Channel 4 is publicly owned. She's the minister and she went before a select committee discussing BBC / Channel 4 and didn't even know the most basic, simple, fact of the lot.
Let's not defend the indefensible please. She's crap.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h Main focus of Thursday's results has obviously been on Boris and Starmer. But one of the biggest stories is the way Ed Davey has successfully completed the detoxification of the Lib Dem brand. That will have major political implications going forward.
I was going to use this tweet to headline a piece on Sunday entitled
'The Tories are really going to regret opposing AV, they should champion electoral reform now'
The question is not whether we should have a form of AV - it’s which version of AV will give you the result you want.
Full Single Transferable Vote in Multi-Member Constituencies.
Multi member yes, but with d'Hondt.
I want to know the result by Friday breakfast, not Sunday dinner!
d'Hondt (a curse in Klingon?) is fab. But serves a specific purpose in Scotland. It isn't needed in the whole UK for GEs. Yes it would remove the joy of walking up and down the tables at a count. But so what.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
What does any of that have to do whether or not abortion should be illegal, though ? You’re basically saying that you’re above all this argument. Which is a view, I suppose.
Not quite. Your misreading is total. I am one of those who, as I indicated, 'hate the idea of outlawing abortion'. I don't think Clinton could be any clearer when he says 'Safe, legal, rare.'
Only the first two of those words had or has any meaning in policy terms as far as either Clinton or the US is concerned, which is why I’m unimpressed with it.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Bayraktars ? The statement is a load of meaningless waffle, but possibly they’ve cancelled an aerial Ajax ?
Aeralis is going to be the aerial Ajax if it ever manages to siphon enough money out of the MoD to get to too-big-to-fail status.
If the people who push ahead with the big stuff ever discover the sunk cost fallacy it'll blow their minds.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Indeed. But my point still stands.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
We have had so many decades of fighting asymmetric wars, or preparing for a theoretical war, that our defence industry is in no shape for a sustained war with a near-peer competitor. Everything is far too slow.
Comments
Here is an interesting question. If a bus hit Boris Johnson, would the inordinate amount of bone in his head mean the bus would be a write off while he wondered what all the noise was?
https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1540599121312088065
Totally detached from reality
I found some of the decisions in the Hale period of our Supreme Court troubling because it seemed to me that they were arrogating powers to themselves they were not supposed to have by a misapplication of the rule of law. The Court under Reed has stepped back from that considerably but there is no reason why a future president of the court might not go in a different direction.
The fact that he is totally unsuitedvto the role is not his fault.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
We've Brexited, we're out, and we're post-Brexit now.
Would love to see a transcript.
Would love to see a transcript.
Yet he is supporting Russia in the Ukrainian conflict (in the 'look at those Ukrainian Nazis' and 'I am anti-war. Ukraine should stop the war by giving Russia what it wants; that is better than all the deaths it is causing by fighting Russia') type of thinking.
He is also apparently anti-Ukrainian refugees: as there are all the refugees in northern France who deserve to get over here first. Why are Ukrainian refugees getting all the help?
I see his views as utterly inconsistent. He thinks he is being utterly consistent and deeply moral (naturally enough, he sometimes mentions that he is a Christian as though it is some appeal to a higher Authority...)
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
They were correct choosing him was needed to win, but that doesnt bind them forever.
The best use of courts is as a back stop in extremes (they should intervene to strike down the 'Torturing Children for Fun Legalisation Act') and in ensuring the robust health of the democratic process (I would be delighted if they intervened to stop mass postal voting in public elections as it subverts the rule of law with regard to democratic process).
Most infamously with Andrew Jackson and the probably apocryphal quote "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" . . . but the less commented upon example where it was done in a "good" way is that President Lincoln openly refused to follow SCOTUS rulings made by Justice Taney's court (Taney being the author of Dred Scott). Taney himself eventually gave up trying to use the Court to stop Lincoln saying "I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome."
Had "the rule of law" been strictly followed in the US Civil War then the slave states would have likely won the war, because the pro-slavery SCOTUS was actively trying to sabotage the elected Lincoln.
And since a lot of anti-abortionists dislike the idea of contraception or sensible sex education they seem to be less interested in making women independent and avoiding the need for abortion and more about controlling them and treating them as mere "uterus havers".
They probably need to switch to a system of STV, with multi-member seats, to overcome the effects of that, and STV would also help to ensure minority representation without encouraging the creation of minority-majority districts.
'Husain asks how it’s fair or right that the top civil servant in the country, Simon Case, asked about job opportunities for Carrie Johnson.
“I think that the worst thing I could possibly do is get into conversations about my family, my private life.
“It’s also about a choice, which is, do we focus on personalities, do we focus on Johnson leadership, or do we focus on the things that we are doing for the country, and BBC, I humbly submit to you that this is the time, where I think lots and lots of people, fascinated as they may be by the personal questions you raise, actually they want us as a government and want me to focus on our agenda and get it done,” Johnson says.'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/23/ukraine-war-deaths-soldiers-history/
The ECtHR is evolving in a similar way to SCOTUS. That is not a good thing.
Telegraph reckons this is the 4th.
Nebraska is presumably an interesting one for gerrymandering if it is a state where redistricting is so partisan. As the legislative is officially by law non partisan (surprised that is deemed constitutional) even though in reality it is not.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mosquito-drone-project-swatted/
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
Is that originally the line he was using with the marriage guidance counsellor?
But people dont react to her merely as a fool or your standard malevolent minister.
Apparently human beings are born with an inalienable right to life and to bear arms.
Now I get that the right to life is a nice idea but nature has been known to step in and remove that “right” and no court can overrule that.
I’m somewhat surprised at the idea that humans are born with the right to bear arms as well - I think it’s culture that makes them choose that not a birth right or biological instinct.
Maybe she meant the right to “bare arms” and is pro extreme limb waxing?
She also confused the “don’t tread on me” snake flag - she thought it was a flag for gun rights and not a revolutionary flag telling would-be oppressive rulers applying laws that interfere with personal freedom. A bit awkward.
It's the middling, abortion accepting, Clintonish voice that is ignored.
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
That certainly sounds reasonable. I might even argue this is a good thing, if we are learning lessons from the Ukrainian and Azerbaijan/Armenia conflicts.
Some US states have passed total bans.
In those states 1 in 50 pregnant women will die.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
And crucially, they all have a vote.
The very worst thing he could do is get into conversations about his family life. If he does, given the state of it and the things he's done to advance his sex life he's totally buggered.
I'm afraid she really is very, very, stupid. And awestruck by Johnson. Which is also a sign of stupidity.
People do love to defend.
The indefensible.
It may be a plan, of course, to see how many we can do without, before making mass redundancies.
But I don't think he's intelligent enough to have thought it through to that endpoint.
Both cars have had quite a few reliability problems this year, and if that happens or one car is clearly dominant at the circuit they're a long way faster than third-placed Mercedes. Bizarre that Russell has odds shorter than Sainz to win.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/impact-voter-suppression-communities-color
Sycophancy and blind love should not be a qualification for high office. In fact, they should disbar you. It's a measure of Johnson's personal weakness that he has to surround himself with people like Dorries.
I'm sure that HMQ would be happy to find a window in her diary to accept Johnson's resignation.
Yet Republicans have never been interested in actually reducing abortion or reducing foetal “death”. They’ve never been interested in improving maternal health or reducing child deaths. They are interested in controlling women and “culture wars”.
Disappointing - the only solution to the problem ruled out.
Were the court to change dramatically for the worse, it’s always open for us to leave as a last resort.
Your comparison is a very poor one.
You’re basically saying that you’re above all this argument. Which is a view, I suppose.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jun/04/school-trips-to-uk-from-eu-could-halve-brexit-hits-cultural-exchanges
At the moment all of C4’s profits go back to creating more and better how does an owner extracting a profit from C4 result in more programs when the pot of money is consistent.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
The statement is a load of meaningless waffle, but possibly they’ve cancelled an aerial Ajax ?
Just going on what BBC website says he said.
They employ a translator from Borish to English.
I don't think there's much support for the licenCe fee across the board. I think you're pegging your hellbent desire to have the licence fee abolished, on which I agree with you, to the wrong taliswoman.
She really is very stupid I'm afraid. And so poor on detail. Her 'progressive' plans extend to not even knowing that Channel 4 is publicly owned. She's the minister and she went before a select committee discussing BBC / Channel 4 and didn't even know the most basic, simple, fact of the lot.
Let's not defend the indefensible please. She's crap.
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Main focus of Thursday's results has obviously been on Boris and Starmer. But one of the biggest stories is the way Ed Davey has successfully completed the detoxification of the Lib Dem brand. That will have major political implications going forward.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1540584116567085056
===
Is there a book on when LibDems will next hit 20% in a poll?