On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
The govt advocates, encourages and celebrates higher wages. It’s a benefit of Brexit apparently.
The railways workers did not cause inflation.
The kicker (and partially explains this polling shift) is announcing the intention to give the pensioners a 10% increase.
They got one thing right, the poor pensioners need all the help they can get
The shortage of GPs in England is set to become worse, with more than one in four posts predicted to be vacant within a decade, an analysis suggests. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61986441
Why is it so difficult to get a place at medical school? If there's a shortage, there should be more places available.
It isn't particularly hard to get a place at Medical School, 75% that apply get in, albeit some at the second attempt.
There is a question over whether those with lower marks would do OK, but we will find out that with the new intake, as clearly their marks are inflated over earlier cohorts.
Expanding training capacity would require a lot of investment though probably worth it. Might be a good idea to have an NHS bursary to cover the fees and tie into the NHS post graduation.
The problem is the same as teaching though, one of retention. Why is it that so few want to do it for long? That is the question that needs addressing.
Is the retention issue related to the feminisation of these subjects in recent decades?
There’s now more lady doctors than before, they are marrying each other and are happy financially to take a decade out when they have children?
More training places is obviously important, but the current issue reminds me of the airline looking for A380 captains. They don’t just grow on trees, they take a decade or more of training and experience.
(I’ve shared before my idea of setting up a full NHS teaching hospital somewhere like Mumbai or Manila. Staffed by a combination of experienced local staff and UK retirees on short-term contracts, with long-term UK visas available to graduates)
Feminisation of medicine happened ages ago. My year was 50/50 when I started in 1983.
Taking a decade out is not the norm, a year is more typical.
The problem of retention is mostly one of other conditions of employment and training. Incompatible shift patterns are a nightmare for young couples juggling child care, training rotations that add 90 minute commutes to each end of the day, loss of team cohesion and peer support, lack of investment in training and supervision, disruption of training by years of covid redeployment etc.
We have some postgraduate trainees now who are not going to be fit for CCT (Certificate of Completion of Training) on time. They need a lot of remedial work before they can be released onto the great British public. We have always had the odd one on the rotation, but now it is half the trainees. The GMC just wants to push them out anyway as NHS cannon fodder, but they won't last long and will demotivate and flounder very quickly, then quit.
A FB friend shared this. I was shocked. The public are being gravely misinformed by the media.
“Just take a minute to read the post below, from a Rail Worker, that gives a different perspective to the hyperbole being flung out by HMG's client journalists...
Three years ago we accepted a 0% pay rise, two years ago we accepted a 0% pay rise. But this year they came to us with a 0% pay rise plus over 2500 redundancies, changes to terms and conditions. An increase from 28 weeks of nights to 39 weeks of nights. An increase from 32 weekends worked to 39 weekends worked. Currently for a night shift we get time and a quarter, for a weekend turn we get time and a half. They wish to cut both of these to time and a tenth. So that’s a 15% pay cut on every night shift and a 40% pay cut on every weekend turn. But they want us to work more of them. This is their modernisation they talk about. Not technology, we embrace technology and have seen more and more of it in recent years. They also wish to fire and re-hire the operative grades and bring them back under a new job title but on £9000 a year less. They also want them to use their own vehicles to get to work sites, this when fuel is at its highest. They will also be pooled when currently they are part of the team. The press are painting this to be about pay above all else. It is not. But now we’ve said sod them we are going to demand better. I wish everyone could see past the government controlled media smear.”
For comparison, Swedish train dispatchers and signallers got approx 2.5% last year. And the year before, and the year before. They only work every 3rd weekend, and much less than 1 night per week on average.
But the real killer is the fire and rehire. That is simply a scandal.
One of the best things that could happen for Labour before the next election would be if there is indeed another Scottish independence referendum and the no side wins again, because that would mean that in the event of a hung parliament the SNP wouldn't be able to use the idea of another referendum as a bargaining chip in order to support a progressive alliance.
One of the best things that could happen for Labour before the next election would be if there is indeed another Scottish independence referendum and the no side wins again, because that would mean that in the event of a hung parliament the SNP wouldn't be able to use the idea of another referendum as a bargaining chip in order to support a progressive alliance.
On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
The govt advocates, encourages and celebrates higher wages. It’s a benefit of Brexit apparently.
The railways workers did not cause inflation.
The kicker (and partially explains this polling shift) is announcing the intention to give the pensioners a 10% increase.
They got one thing right, the poor pensioners need all the help they can get
10% for pensioners is fine. Massive real terms pay cuts to workers is not.
A FB friend shared this. I was shocked. The public are being gravely misinformed by the media.
“Just take a minute to read the post below, from a Rail Worker, that gives a different perspective to the hyperbole being flung out by HMG's client journalists...
Three years ago we accepted a 0% pay rise, two years ago we accepted a 0% pay rise. But this year they came to us with a 0% pay rise plus over 2500 redundancies, changes to terms and conditions. An increase from 28 weeks of nights to 39 weeks of nights. An increase from 32 weekends worked to 39 weekends worked. Currently for a night shift we get time and a quarter, for a weekend turn we get time and a half. They wish to cut both of these to time and a tenth. So that’s a 15% pay cut on every night shift and a 40% pay cut on every weekend turn. But they want us to work more of them. This is their modernisation they talk about. Not technology, we embrace technology and have seen more and more of it in recent years. They also wish to fire and re-hire the operative grades and bring them back under a new job title but on £9000 a year less. They also want them to use their own vehicles to get to work sites, this when fuel is at its highest. They will also be pooled when currently they are part of the team. The press are painting this to be about pay above all else. It is not. But now we’ve said sod them we are going to demand better. I wish everyone could see past the government controlled media smear.”
For comparison, Swedish train dispatchers and signallers got approx 2.5% last year. And the year before, and the year before. They only work every 3rd weekend, and much less than 1 night per week on average.
But the real killer is the fire and rehire. That is simply a scandal.
The real killer - literally - is making exhausted staff work too hard in a safety dependent system. On the railways, the consequences of this have in past times been distinctly unfortunate.
One of the best things that could happen for Labour before the next election would be if there is indeed another Scottish independence referendum and the no side wins again, because that would mean that in the event of a hung parliament the SNP wouldn't be able to use the idea of another referendum as a bargaining chip in order to support a progressive alliance.
Dream on
They think they’ve got it in the bag.
Big mistake.
It is on a knife edge and could go either way. As an Englishman (albeit with heritage from all 4 countries of the UK) I think it up to Scots and as far as I am concerned the number and timing of independence referendums should be up to the Scottish Parliament, and no one else.
I would be sorry to see Scotland go, partly for sentimental reasons, partly the pragmatic one in that it aids Tory hegemony south of the border. If I were resident in Scotland though, I would vote for independence. Being electorally ignored and marginalised can only go on so long.
A FB friend shared this. I was shocked. The public are being gravely misinformed by the media.
“Just take a minute to read the post below, from a Rail Worker, that gives a different perspective to the hyperbole being flung out by HMG's client journalists...
Three years ago we accepted a 0% pay rise, two years ago we accepted a 0% pay rise. But this year they came to us with a 0% pay rise plus over 2500 redundancies, changes to terms and conditions. An increase from 28 weeks of nights to 39 weeks of nights. An increase from 32 weekends worked to 39 weekends worked. Currently for a night shift we get time and a quarter, for a weekend turn we get time and a half. They wish to cut both of these to time and a tenth. So that’s a 15% pay cut on every night shift and a 40% pay cut on every weekend turn. But they want us to work more of them. This is their modernisation they talk about. Not technology, we embrace technology and have seen more and more of it in recent years. They also wish to fire and re-hire the operative grades and bring them back under a new job title but on £9000 a year less. They also want them to use their own vehicles to get to work sites, this when fuel is at its highest. They will also be pooled when currently they are part of the team. The press are painting this to be about pay above all else. It is not. But now we’ve said sod them we are going to demand better. I wish everyone could see past the government controlled media smear.”
For comparison, Swedish train dispatchers and signallers got approx 2.5% last year. And the year before, and the year before. They only work every 3rd weekend, and much less than 1 night per week on average.
But the real killer is the fire and rehire. That is simply a scandal.
The real killer - literally - is making exhausted staff work too hard in a safety dependent system. On the railways, the consequences of this have in past times been distinctly unfortunate.
Totally agree!
I don’t think the general public grasp just how much they are dependent on these staff to protect them from the horrific consequences of serious rail accidents. These jobs are comparable with air traffic control and merchant marine officers: absolutely vital for public safety and for the economy.
The next time you fly on holiday, would you be happy with an “agency” air traffic controller? Or a ferry captain whose last job was a pizza delivery guy?
On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
The govt advocates, encourages and celebrates higher wages. It’s a benefit of Brexit apparently.
The railways workers did not cause inflation.
The kicker (and partially explains this polling shift) is announcing the intention to give the pensioners a 10% increase.
They got one thing right, the poor pensioners need all the help they can get
10% for pensioners is fine. Massive real terms pay cuts to workers is not.
The key thing is that it's one of those things that's worse than a crime, it's a mistake.
Even if you want to argue that workers should feel the full brunt of the pain and pensioners none of it, the government simply isn't going to be able to pay its staff a token increase without consequences.
If they try, they won't be able to recruit or retain.
Someone yesterday - @Leon ? was complaining about the apocalyptic wastelands of Olympic London. So this might interest. For instance,
"Challenged in January 2015 to answer claims that the Olympic legacy was a waste of money, Boris Johnson said Olympicopolis would bring “world-class institutions to the area along with more than 3,000 jobs and £3bn of economic benefit”. But there are fears that the East Bank project could end up being as much of a financial black hole as the Olympic stadium. Built at a cost of £486m, it was later converted into a permanent football stadium for £274m, bringing the total to £760m. It remains a massive loss-maker, costing the public around £10m to operate each year. Unusually, the pandemic was a blessing, as the stadium’s closure led to savings. As a damning report by the London Assembly’s budget and performance committee noted last year: “It is ironic that by having fewer large-scale events, thanks to Covid-19, the park is haemorrhaging less money than if it were business as usual.” In the latest accounts, the stadium was listed with a value of zero."
One of the best things that could happen for Labour before the next election would be if there is indeed another Scottish independence referendum and the no side wins again, because that would mean that in the event of a hung parliament the SNP wouldn't be able to use the idea of another referendum as a bargaining chip in order to support a progressive alliance.
Dream on
They think they’ve got it in the bag.
Big mistake.
It is on a knife edge and could go either way. As an Englishman (albeit with heritage from all 4 countries of the UK) I think it up to Scots and as far as I am concerned the number and timing of independence referendums should be up to the Scottish Parliament, and no one else.
I would be sorry to see Scotland go, partly for sentimental reasons, partly the pragmatic one in that it aids Tory hegemony south of the border. If I were resident in Scotland though, I would vote for independence. Being electorally ignored and marginalised can only go on so long.
Thank you.
Hegemonies have limited shelf-lives. Sooner or later - probably sooner - the English electorate would get sick to the back teeth of the Tories. Heck, it might be happening as we speak.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
I was told at the Court yesterday that Scottish police are going on a work to rule on Friday. They have been offered 1.3%. Until 2008 police always got inflation as a quid pro quo for it being illegal for them to strike. This rule was broken, and the break was largely accepted, in the aftermath of the 2008 GFC but the government have failed to reinstate it.
Like most public service the police operate with substantial amounts of overtime to cover the lack of personnel actually on the ground. A work to rule is going to have a substantial impact on service and will rapidly impact on the operation of the courts.
Dr. Foxy, why do you think Scotland is electorally ignored?
Holyrood has a lot more power than the English Parliament.
Because neither Labour nor Conservatives are willing to engage with the SNP at Westminster. Arguably self-marginalisation by Scots, but these are their chosen representatives.
England is ruled by English politicians at Westminster, either of the left or of the right.
Someone yesterday - @Leon ? was complaining about the apocalyptic wastelands of Olympic London. So this might interest. For instance,
"Challenged in January 2015 to answer claims that the Olympic legacy was a waste of money, Boris Johnson said Olympicopolis would bring “world-class institutions to the area along with more than 3,000 jobs and £3bn of economic benefit”. But there are fears that the East Bank project could end up being as much of a financial black hole as the Olympic stadium. Built at a cost of £486m, it was later converted into a permanent football stadium for £274m, bringing the total to £760m. It remains a massive loss-maker, costing the public around £10m to operate each year. Unusually, the pandemic was a blessing, as the stadium’s closure led to savings. As a damning report by the London Assembly’s budget and performance committee noted last year: “It is ironic that by having fewer large-scale events, thanks to Covid-19, the park is haemorrhaging less money than if it were business as usual.” In the latest accounts, the stadium was listed with a value of zero."
The real killer - literally - is making exhausted staff work too hard in a safety dependent system. On the railways, the consequences of this have in past times been distinctly unfortunate.
If you read RAIB safety reports (which thankfully are almost always near-misses and no-injury minor incidents), "not enough staff to properly cover the work so maintenance backlogs build up and stuff gets missed" and "agency staff on zero-hours contracts" are a theme that seems to crop up again and again...
Someone yesterday - @Leon ? was complaining about the apocalyptic wastelands of Olympic London. So this might interest. For instance,
"Challenged in January 2015 to answer claims that the Olympic legacy was a waste of money, Boris Johnson said Olympicopolis would bring “world-class institutions to the area along with more than 3,000 jobs and £3bn of economic benefit”. But there are fears that the East Bank project could end up being as much of a financial black hole as the Olympic stadium. Built at a cost of £486m, it was later converted into a permanent football stadium for £274m, bringing the total to £760m. It remains a massive loss-maker, costing the public around £10m to operate each year. Unusually, the pandemic was a blessing, as the stadium’s closure led to savings. As a damning report by the London Assembly’s budget and performance committee noted last year: “It is ironic that by having fewer large-scale events, thanks to Covid-19, the park is haemorrhaging less money than if it were business as usual.” In the latest accounts, the stadium was listed with a value of zero."
Wasnt that the one where the local council and Mayor got involved and insisted on their pet scheme (with lashings of money) despite the fact everyone said it was stupid & they should just sell it to Tottenham instead?
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Leaving aside his fascistic tendencies for the moment, just note that “a third”. Yepp, he’s doing it again: adding all the DKs to his column. A weird habit.
Someone yesterday - @Leon ? was complaining about the apocalyptic wastelands of Olympic London. So this might interest. For instance,
"Challenged in January 2015 to answer claims that the Olympic legacy was a waste of money, Boris Johnson said Olympicopolis would bring “world-class institutions to the area along with more than 3,000 jobs and £3bn of economic benefit”. But there are fears that the East Bank project could end up being as much of a financial black hole as the Olympic stadium. Built at a cost of £486m, it was later converted into a permanent football stadium for £274m, bringing the total to £760m. It remains a massive loss-maker, costing the public around £10m to operate each year. Unusually, the pandemic was a blessing, as the stadium’s closure led to savings. As a damning report by the London Assembly’s budget and performance committee noted last year: “It is ironic that by having fewer large-scale events, thanks to Covid-19, the park is haemorrhaging less money than if it were business as usual.” In the latest accounts, the stadium was listed with a value of zero."
Wasnt that the one where the local council and Mayor got involved and insisted on their pet scheme (with lashings of money) despite the fact everyone said it was stupid & they should just sell it to Tottenham instead?
Don't know, sorry, THFC isn't mentioned and I don't have the local knowledge.
Dr. Foxy, the last time we had a non-Conservative PM both the top jobs were held by Scots. Nobody cared that this was the case, nor that we had Scottish Chancellors for 13 years. Because they're all British.
It's tomfoolery to create a geographically restricted party and then claim the right to dictate terms to the central government.
The SNP asking for a referendum every other day does not make it a justified request or something they should be guaranteed. For people who bang on about the will of the Scottish people they might want to try respecting the decision that was made in 2014 (I do have some sympathy with the view the situation has changed, however the 2014 bid was to leave the UK *and* EU at the same time. Current SNP claims regarding England, Wales, and Northern Ireland voluntarily funding Scottish pensions post-separation and backing up the Scottish financial sector are absolutely crackers).
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
Here you go. The numbers are a little different to mine, but not much:
19% say abortion should be “legal in all cases” - ie on demand up to birth. No questions
I find that as disturbing as the other extreme, who want abortion made illegal even with rape and incest
Hideous polarisation
That's my view. I take it as read that the mother, who will be making the decision about their body and their baby, will be asking all the questions necessary. It's not necessary for me to make that situation any more difficult for them by creating extra hoops for them to jump through.
You think a live baby should be delivered and then starved or otherwise dispatched. How delightful.
The real killer - literally - is making exhausted staff work too hard in a safety dependent system. On the railways, the consequences of this have in past times been distinctly unfortunate.
If you read RAIB safety reports (which thankfully are almost always near-misses and no-injury minor incidents), "not enough staff to properly cover the work so maintenance backlogs build up and stuff gets missed" and "agency staff on zero-hours contracts" are a theme that seems to crop up again and again...
Someone yesterday - @Leon ? was complaining about the apocalyptic wastelands of Olympic London. So this might interest. For instance,
"Challenged in January 2015 to answer claims that the Olympic legacy was a waste of money, Boris Johnson said Olympicopolis would bring “world-class institutions to the area along with more than 3,000 jobs and £3bn of economic benefit”. But there are fears that the East Bank project could end up being as much of a financial black hole as the Olympic stadium. Built at a cost of £486m, it was later converted into a permanent football stadium for £274m, bringing the total to £760m. It remains a massive loss-maker, costing the public around £10m to operate each year. Unusually, the pandemic was a blessing, as the stadium’s closure led to savings. As a damning report by the London Assembly’s budget and performance committee noted last year: “It is ironic that by having fewer large-scale events, thanks to Covid-19, the park is haemorrhaging less money than if it were business as usual.” In the latest accounts, the stadium was listed with a value of zero."
Wasnt that the one where the local council and Mayor got involved and insisted on their pet scheme (with lashings of money) despite the fact everyone said it was stupid & they should just sell it to Tottenham instead?
Don't know, sorry, THFC isn't mentioned and I don't have the local knowledge.
It was West Ham and Newham Council. Perhaps @stodge would know more
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
Was it not you who alleged that the pollsters were deliberately suppressing a large increase in SNP support following their latest indyref announcements?
Dr. Foxy, the last time we had a non-Conservative PM both the top jobs were held by Scots. Nobody cared that this was the case, nor that we had Scottish Chancellors for 13 years. Because they're all British.
It's tomfoolery to create a geographically restricted party and then claim the right to dictate terms to the central government.
The SNP asking for a referendum every other day does not make it a justified request or something they should be guaranteed. For people who bang on about the will of the Scottish people they might want to try respecting the decision that was made in 2014 (I do have some sympathy with the view the situation has changed, however the 2014 bid was to leave the UK *and* EU at the same time. Current SNP claims regarding England, Wales, and Northern Ireland voluntarily funding Scottish pensions post-separation and backing up the Scottish financial sector are absolutely crackers).
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Someone yesterday - @Leon ? was complaining about the apocalyptic wastelands of Olympic London. So this might interest. For instance,
"Challenged in January 2015 to answer claims that the Olympic legacy was a waste of money, Boris Johnson said Olympicopolis would bring “world-class institutions to the area along with more than 3,000 jobs and £3bn of economic benefit”. But there are fears that the East Bank project could end up being as much of a financial black hole as the Olympic stadium. Built at a cost of £486m, it was later converted into a permanent football stadium for £274m, bringing the total to £760m. It remains a massive loss-maker, costing the public around £10m to operate each year. Unusually, the pandemic was a blessing, as the stadium’s closure led to savings. As a damning report by the London Assembly’s budget and performance committee noted last year: “It is ironic that by having fewer large-scale events, thanks to Covid-19, the park is haemorrhaging less money than if it were business as usual.” In the latest accounts, the stadium was listed with a value of zero."
Wasnt that the one where the local council and Mayor got involved and insisted on their pet scheme (with lashings of money) despite the fact everyone said it was stupid & they should just sell it to Tottenham instead?
Don't know, sorry, THFC isn't mentioned and I don't have the local knowledge.
It was West Ham and Newham Council. Perhaps @stodge would know more
'Newham Council said today that it had nothing to add to previous comments from Sir Robin who said in December: “It is regrettable that the finances of the stadium have not followed the expected course."'
Someone yesterday - @Leon ? was complaining about the apocalyptic wastelands of Olympic London. So this might interest. For instance,
"Challenged in January 2015 to answer claims that the Olympic legacy was a waste of money, Boris Johnson said Olympicopolis would bring “world-class institutions to the area along with more than 3,000 jobs and £3bn of economic benefit”. But there are fears that the East Bank project could end up being as much of a financial black hole as the Olympic stadium. Built at a cost of £486m, it was later converted into a permanent football stadium for £274m, bringing the total to £760m. It remains a massive loss-maker, costing the public around £10m to operate each year. Unusually, the pandemic was a blessing, as the stadium’s closure led to savings. As a damning report by the London Assembly’s budget and performance committee noted last year: “It is ironic that by having fewer large-scale events, thanks to Covid-19, the park is haemorrhaging less money than if it were business as usual.” In the latest accounts, the stadium was listed with a value of zero."
Wasnt that the one where the local council and Mayor got involved and insisted on their pet scheme (with lashings of money) despite the fact everyone said it was stupid & they should just sell it to Tottenham instead?
Don't know, sorry, THFC isn't mentioned and I don't have the local knowledge.
It was West Ham and Newham Council. Perhaps @stodge would know more
'Newham Council said today that it had nothing to add to previous comments from Sir Robin who said in December: “It is regrettable that the finances of the stadium have not followed the expected course."'
Is it just me, or does Liz Truss’s voice get more annoying every time you hear it? There is a nasal, constipated quality that is beginning to get on my nerves. Not helped by the fact she’s trying to portray it as her government beating off the Russians and not the Ukrainian people.
Someone yesterday - @Leon ? was complaining about the apocalyptic wastelands of Olympic London. So this might interest. For instance,
"Challenged in January 2015 to answer claims that the Olympic legacy was a waste of money, Boris Johnson said Olympicopolis would bring “world-class institutions to the area along with more than 3,000 jobs and £3bn of economic benefit”. But there are fears that the East Bank project could end up being as much of a financial black hole as the Olympic stadium. Built at a cost of £486m, it was later converted into a permanent football stadium for £274m, bringing the total to £760m. It remains a massive loss-maker, costing the public around £10m to operate each year. Unusually, the pandemic was a blessing, as the stadium’s closure led to savings. As a damning report by the London Assembly’s budget and performance committee noted last year: “It is ironic that by having fewer large-scale events, thanks to Covid-19, the park is haemorrhaging less money than if it were business as usual.” In the latest accounts, the stadium was listed with a value of zero."
Wasnt that the one where the local council and Mayor got involved and insisted on their pet scheme (with lashings of money) despite the fact everyone said it was stupid & they should just sell it to Tottenham instead?
Don't know, sorry, THFC isn't mentioned and I don't have the local knowledge.
It was West Ham and Newham Council. Perhaps @stodge would know more
'Newham Council said today that it had nothing to add to previous comments from Sir Robin who said in December: “It is regrettable that the finances of the stadium have not followed the expected course."'
1939 resonances.
1939? I was thinking of the Shōwa Emperor
" ...the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage."
Soaring inflation to hit Britain harder than any other major economy, BoE warns The energy crisis will last longer and cause more pain to British households
“I think the UK economy is probably weakening rather earlier and somewhat more than others.”
The real killer - literally - is making exhausted staff work too hard in a safety dependent system. On the railways, the consequences of this have in past times been distinctly unfortunate.
If you read RAIB safety reports (which thankfully are almost always near-misses and no-injury minor incidents), "not enough staff to properly cover the work so maintenance backlogs build up and stuff gets missed" and "agency staff on zero-hours contracts" are a theme that seems to crop up again and again...
Very much so. Of course, it is also a theme in the accidents which do happen (you know this very well, but it does need to be stressed for those less familiar with the way trains and such sysyems work).
Dr. Foxy, the last time we had a non-Conservative PM both the top jobs were held by Scots. Nobody cared that this was the case, nor that we had Scottish Chancellors for 13 years. Because they're all British.
It's tomfoolery to create a geographically restricted party and then claim the right to dictate terms to the central government.
The SNP asking for a referendum every other day does not make it a justified request or something they should be guaranteed. For people who bang on about the will of the Scottish people they might want to try respecting the decision that was made in 2014 (I do have some sympathy with the view the situation has changed, however the 2014 bid was to leave the UK *and* EU at the same time. Current SNP claims regarding England, Wales, and Northern Ireland voluntarily funding Scottish pensions post-separation and backing up the Scottish financial sector are absolutely crackers).
Of the four citations in that wikipedia entry about the actual use of the phrase, one media article is a Scottish journalist describing the phenomenon (rather than being an actual example of it), Boris's article doesn't use it at all, and the two parliamentary references to the term are furnished by the Duke of Montrose and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Dr. Foxy, the last time we had a non-Conservative PM both the top jobs were held by Scots. Nobody cared that this was the case, nor that we had Scottish Chancellors for 13 years. Because they're all British.
It's tomfoolery to create a geographically restricted party and then claim the right to dictate terms to the central government.
The SNP asking for a referendum every other day does not make it a justified request or something they should be guaranteed. For people who bang on about the will of the Scottish people they might want to try respecting the decision that was made in 2014 (I do have some sympathy with the view the situation has changed, however the 2014 bid was to leave the UK *and* EU at the same time. Current SNP claims regarding England, Wales, and Northern Ireland voluntarily funding Scottish pensions post-separation and backing up the Scottish financial sector are absolutely crackers).
Of the four citations in that wikipedia entry about the actual use of the phrase, one media article is a Scottish journalist describing the phenomenon (rather than being an actual example of it), Boris's article doesn't use it at all, and the two parliamentary references to the term are furnished by the Duke of Montrose and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
It was common currency during the Blair and Brown years. Used daily on PB for example.
A crap Wikipedia article does not make a phenomenon disappear: some English folk hated the perception that they were being ruled by Scots.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Those who don't vote don't count. You should know that. It's how voting works.
This is true in "normal" elections.
The question is a bit silly tbh - if the SG can legally hold a referendum without a section 30 then it's fair game and Unionists should vote in it.
If not, then Sturgeon won't run one. She knows that international legitimacy is crucial. There are also interesting questions about whether the Electoral Commission/Local Authorities would play along anyway.
The defacto referendum plan B, using a GE, is really weak imo. Labour just need to do a GE campaign solely on reducing child poverty and it undermines the whole idea.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Someone yesterday - @Leon ? was complaining about the apocalyptic wastelands of Olympic London. So this might interest. For instance,
"Challenged in January 2015 to answer claims that the Olympic legacy was a waste of money, Boris Johnson said Olympicopolis would bring “world-class institutions to the area along with more than 3,000 jobs and £3bn of economic benefit”. But there are fears that the East Bank project could end up being as much of a financial black hole as the Olympic stadium. Built at a cost of £486m, it was later converted into a permanent football stadium for £274m, bringing the total to £760m. It remains a massive loss-maker, costing the public around £10m to operate each year. Unusually, the pandemic was a blessing, as the stadium’s closure led to savings. As a damning report by the London Assembly’s budget and performance committee noted last year: “It is ironic that by having fewer large-scale events, thanks to Covid-19, the park is haemorrhaging less money than if it were business as usual.” In the latest accounts, the stadium was listed with a value of zero."
Wasnt that the one where the local council and Mayor got involved and insisted on their pet scheme (with lashings of money) despite the fact everyone said it was stupid & they should just sell it to Tottenham instead?
Don't know, sorry, THFC isn't mentioned and I don't have the local knowledge.
It was West Ham and Newham Council. Perhaps @stodge would know more
'Newham Council said today that it had nothing to add to previous comments from Sir Robin who said in December: “It is regrettable that the finances of the stadium have not followed the expected course."'
1939 resonances.
1939? I was thinking of the Shōwa Emperor
" ...the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage."
covid LFT test positivity now above 10%. 14 in London
12% of the medical staff in my dept are off with it this week. Leicester schools break up on the 8th July, so will hit at peak holiday time here. Quite a lot of admissions too with respiratory symptoms.
Yeh gads. Will this ever end?
QTWAIN.
Shirkers with a line on a test but who aren't actually sick should get themselves into work. And stop being hypochondriacs taking tests in the first place.
I'm not for any legal restrictions, but wanting medical staff who knowingly have covid to head into hospitals is just daft. Would you want them in with the flu ? +ve test = wfh in our office, and we're all back in.
If they're fit and able to work, and the only reason you know they have the flu is due to a line on the test? Yes I would.
Abolish all Covid testing, unless its necessary for some reason for critical diagnostic purposes. Operate on symptoms only. If people are too sick to work then they shouldn't be working, whether that be due to Covid/Flu/Common Cold or A.N.Other bug. If people are carrying a virus that is widespread in the community anyway but are fit and able to work, then get to work.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
Per rcs graph that's 19%. 1 in 5. Which I'm skeptical of. I reckon most of those people haven't thought about it properly. They've just looked at the question and gone, "right I'm on the prog side here, I'm opposite to those loony tunes pro-lifers, so I answer THAT, abortion legal, end of".
Ah, OK. So you, @kinabalu have decided that what they say they think isn’t what they think, and you have instead worked out what they REALLY think, because they are too dumb to express it. I’m sure 19% of America will be grateful
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
Per rcs graph that's 19%. 1 in 5. Which I'm skeptical of. I reckon most of those people haven't thought about it properly. They've just looked at the question and gone, "right I'm on the prog side here, I'm opposite to those loony tunes pro-lifers, so I answer THAT, abortion legal, end of".
Ah, OK. So you, @kinabalu have decided that what they say they think isn’t what they think, and you have instead worked out what they REALLY think, because they are too dumb to express it. I’m sure 19% of America will be grateful
I agree with @kinabalu. That is a badly worded question. There is a big emotional difference between saying it is the mothers decision and aborting a baby within 10 min of birth. I suspect how you word the far extreme will get very different results and that worded differently that figure would be way way way lower. Or do you really think 19% of Americans really believe it is ok to murder babies?
Someone yesterday - @Leon ? was complaining about the apocalyptic wastelands of Olympic London. So this might interest. For instance,
"Challenged in January 2015 to answer claims that the Olympic legacy was a waste of money, Boris Johnson said Olympicopolis would bring “world-class institutions to the area along with more than 3,000 jobs and £3bn of economic benefit”. But there are fears that the East Bank project could end up being as much of a financial black hole as the Olympic stadium. Built at a cost of £486m, it was later converted into a permanent football stadium for £274m, bringing the total to £760m. It remains a massive loss-maker, costing the public around £10m to operate each year. Unusually, the pandemic was a blessing, as the stadium’s closure led to savings. As a damning report by the London Assembly’s budget and performance committee noted last year: “It is ironic that by having fewer large-scale events, thanks to Covid-19, the park is haemorrhaging less money than if it were business as usual.” In the latest accounts, the stadium was listed with a value of zero."
Sounds about right for a Boris legacy.
Or indeed the legacy of just about any Big Government white elephant.
Politicians love to have something big in concrete with their name on it. And voters never learn that what sounds good in a soundbite or looks good in an artist's impression is usually crap in practice. Our cities are scarred with tower blocks that we're demolishing when we can afford to for exactly those reasons.
covid LFT test positivity now above 10%. 14 in London
12% of the medical staff in my dept are off with it this week. Leicester schools break up on the 8th July, so will hit at peak holiday time here. Quite a lot of admissions too with respiratory symptoms.
Yeh gads. Will this ever end?
QTWAIN.
Shirkers with a line on a test but who aren't actually sick should get themselves into work. And stop being hypochondriacs taking tests in the first place.
I'm not for any legal restrictions, but wanting medical staff who knowingly have covid to head into hospitals is just daft. Would you want them in with the flu ? +ve test = wfh in our office, and we're all back in.
If they're fit and able to work, and the only reason you know they have the flu is due to a line on the test? Yes I would.
Abolish all testing. Operate on symptoms only. If people are too sick to work then they shouldn't be working, whether that be due to Covid/Flu/Common Cold or A.N.Other bug. If people are carry a virus but are fit and able to work, then get to work.
And then other people get too sick to work.
There is this concept you ought to read up. It's called "contagion".
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Those who don't vote don't count. You should know that. It's how voting works.
This is true in "normal" elections.
The question is a bit silly tbh - if the SG can legally hold a referendum without a section 30 then it's fair game and Unionists should vote in it.
If not, then Sturgeon won't run one. She knows that international legitimacy is crucial. There are also interesting questions about whether the Electoral Commission/Local Authorities would play along anyway.
The defacto referendum plan B, using a GE, is really weak imo. Labour just need to do a GE campaign solely on reducing child poverty and it undermines the whole idea.
Blair and Brown had 13 years to reduce child poverty. Hot air has limited marketing shelf life.
Mr. Dickson, I could also find a Wikipedia article about Flat Earthers. That does not mean this is something that is true, or that the belief is widely held.
If you want to take a literal view of what I said then yes, it would be incorrect. I'm happy to amend it to "Very few people indeed cared that this [the PM and Chancellor being Scottish] was the case".
We've got at least 16 months of utterly tedious Sindyref chat now to look forward to, haven't we?
Yes. And if we venture to have an opinion we'll be dismissed as "Scotch experts".
Not from me. I think people who are personally invested in the question (like me) often get caught up on minor issues (see section 30 chat tbh), and we need others to step in.
covid LFT test positivity now above 10%. 14 in London
12% of the medical staff in my dept are off with it this week. Leicester schools break up on the 8th July, so will hit at peak holiday time here. Quite a lot of admissions too with respiratory symptoms.
Yeh gads. Will this ever end?
QTWAIN.
Shirkers with a line on a test but who aren't actually sick should get themselves into work. And stop being hypochondriacs taking tests in the first place.
I'm not for any legal restrictions, but wanting medical staff who knowingly have covid to head into hospitals is just daft. Would you want them in with the flu ? +ve test = wfh in our office, and we're all back in.
If they're fit and able to work, and the only reason you know they have the flu is due to a line on the test? Yes I would.
Abolish all testing. Operate on symptoms only. If people are too sick to work then they shouldn't be working, whether that be due to Covid/Flu/Common Cold or A.N.Other bug. If people are carry a virus but are fit and able to work, then get to work.
And then other people get too sick to work.
There is this concept you ought to read up. It's called "contagion".
The virus is widespread in the community anyway. People are going to get it.
Contagion doesn't matter. If 14% of the community has it anyway, then any healthy but virus-carrying colleagues not turning up to work just means you've lost the healthy colleague's assistance, not prevented contagion which is an impossibility.
covid LFT test positivity now above 10%. 14 in London
12% of the medical staff in my dept are off with it this week. Leicester schools break up on the 8th July, so will hit at peak holiday time here. Quite a lot of admissions too with respiratory symptoms.
Yeh gads. Will this ever end?
QTWAIN.
Shirkers with a line on a test but who aren't actually sick should get themselves into work. And stop being hypochondriacs taking tests in the first place.
I'm not for any legal restrictions, but wanting medical staff who knowingly have covid to head into hospitals is just daft. Would you want them in with the flu ? +ve test = wfh in our office, and we're all back in.
If they're fit and able to work, and the only reason you know they have the flu is due to a line on the test? Yes I would.
Abolish all testing. Operate on symptoms only. If people are too sick to work then they shouldn't be working, whether that be due to Covid/Flu/Common Cold or A.N.Other bug. If people are carry a virus but are fit and able to work, then get to work.
And then other people get too sick to work.
There is this concept you ought to read up. It's called "contagion".
The virus is widespread in the community anyway. People are going to get it.
Contagion doesn't matter. If 14% of the community has it anyway, then one healthy but virus-carrying colleague not turning up to work just means you've lost a healthy colleague's assistance, not prevented contagion.
There is a difference between the community and a workgroup. As a m anager I'd be very pissed if the carrier coming in meant I lost 50% rather than 5% of my workgroup. As would the colleagues. Especially if wfh was possible anyway.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
Here you go. The numbers are a little different to mine, but not much:
19% say abortion should be “legal in all cases” - ie on demand up to birth. No questions
I find that as disturbing as the other extreme, who want abortion made illegal even with rape and incest
Hideous polarisation
That's my view. I take it as read that the mother, who will be making the decision about their body and their baby, will be asking all the questions necessary. It's not necessary for me to make that situation any more difficult for them by creating extra hoops for them to jump through.
You think a live baby should be delivered and then starved or otherwise dispatched. How delightful.
It's not the choice I would make, no, but I think anyone making such a difficult choice will have a good reason for it.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Those who don't vote don't count. You should know that. It's how voting works.
This is true in "normal" elections.
The question is a bit silly tbh - if the SG can legally hold a referendum without a section 30 then it's fair game and Unionists should vote in it.
If not, then Sturgeon won't run one. She knows that international legitimacy is crucial. There are also interesting questions about whether the Electoral Commission/Local Authorities would play along anyway.
The defacto referendum plan B, using a GE, is really weak imo. Labour just need to do a GE campaign solely on reducing child poverty and it undermines the whole idea.
Blair and Brown had 13 years to reduce child poverty. Hot air has limited marketing shelf life.
They actually did a decent job of it in the opening few years of New Labour. Homelessness too.
People who are insisting on keeping these ridiculous zero covid protocols like testing or isolation of healthy but virus carrying people always love to harp on in the end about Typhoid Mary. Of course Typhoid Mary was carrying a relatively rare disease and was a pretty unique individual in the way she was able to spread it as she was doing.
Covid isn't a rare disease, its widespread in the community and preventing contagion isn't possible, so shouldn't be attempted. Healthy people with the virus should live normally, as contagion is happening either way.
If 14% of people are carrying a virus, and you're working in a building with hundreds or thousands of people in it, then any healthy colleagues not going into work is pissing in the ocean.
Mr. Dickson, I could also find a Wikipedia article about Flat Earthers. That does not mean this is something that is true, or that the belief is widely held.
If you want to take a literal view of what I said then yes, it would be incorrect. I'm happy to amend it to "Very few people indeed cared that this [the PM and Chancellor being Scottish] was the case".
Jeepers! A PB self-amendment! You don’t see those every day. My time spent on this daft blog was wisely invested 😉
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
At a recent away day for Tory MPs in marginal seats organised by CCHQ talk of an autumn general election, they were told to have general election plans ready for today, autumn 2023 also possible
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
Here you go. The numbers are a little different to mine, but not much:
19% say abortion should be “legal in all cases” - ie on demand up to birth. No questions
I find that as disturbing as the other extreme, who want abortion made illegal even with rape and incest
Hideous polarisation
That's my view. I take it as read that the mother, who will be making the decision about their body and their baby, will be asking all the questions necessary. It's not necessary for me to make that situation any more difficult for them by creating extra hoops for them to jump through.
You think a live baby should be delivered and then starved or otherwise dispatched. How delightful.
It's not the choice I would make, no, but I think anyone making such a difficult choice will have a good reason for it.
Just going back to the Pew findings somewhere in this long series of posts, could I boringly point out that "Illegal in all cases with exceptions" appears to have 2% of responders supporting it. However this, in legal terms, is precisely the state of law in England and remarkably we manage to get by.
In English law an abortion is never legal unless a specific statutory exception applies, and in 100% of cases illegal merely on the say so of the mother. No abortion without a professional medical judgement is our law.
People who are insisting on keeping these ridiculous zero covid protocols like testing or isolation of healthy but virus carrying people always love to harp on in the end about Typhoid Mary. Of course Typhoid Mary was carrying a relatively rare disease and was a pretty unique individual in the way she was able to spread it as she was doing.
Covid isn't a rare disease, its widespread in the community and preventing contagion isn't possible, so shouldn't be attempted. Healthy people with the virus should live normally, as contagion is happening either way.
If 14% of people are carrying a virus, and you're working in a building with hundreds or thousands of people in it, then any healthy colleagues not going into work is pissing in the ocean.
You're just desperate to pretend it doesn't justify a single change to your libertarian principles.
Even postponing a significant outbreak in a workgroup from flu is a useful thing to do, at the cost of having the carrier wfh for a few days.
And Mary Mallon was not 'unique' as far as her disease went. 2-5% is the figure for long term carriers.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
Per rcs graph that's 19%. 1 in 5. Which I'm skeptical of. I reckon most of those people haven't thought about it properly. They've just looked at the question and gone, "right I'm on the prog side here, I'm opposite to those loony tunes pro-lifers, so I answer THAT, abortion legal, end of".
Ah, OK. So you, @kinabalu have decided that what they say they think isn’t what they think, and you have instead worked out what they REALLY think, because they are too dumb to express it. I’m sure 19% of America will be grateful
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
Per rcs graph that's 19%. 1 in 5. Which I'm skeptical of. I reckon most of those people haven't thought about it properly. They've just looked at the question and gone, "right I'm on the prog side here, I'm opposite to those loony tunes pro-lifers, so I answer THAT, abortion legal, end of".
Ah, OK. So you, @kinabalu have decided that what they say they think isn’t what they think, and you have instead worked out what they REALLY think, because they are too dumb to express it. I’m sure 19% of America will be grateful
I agree with @kinabalu. That is a badly worded question. There is a big emotional difference between saying it is the mothers decision and aborting a baby within 10 min of birth. I suspect how you word the far extreme will get very different results and that worded differently that figure would be way way way lower. Or do you really think 19% of Americans really believe it is ok to murder babies?
Framing it like that certainly doesn't describe the reality. How many women ever have, or are ever going to carry a pregnancy for nine months and decide to abort it "within 10 minutes of birth" on some kind of whim ? And how many physicians would carry out such a procedure, even if it were legal ?
The reality if that third trimester abortions are pretty rare - a bit over 1% of all cases. And they are often pretty hard cases - serious threats to the mother's life; lethal fatal abnormalities, etc.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
At a recent away day for Tory MPs in marginal seats organised by CCHQ talk of an autumn general election, they were told to have general election plans ready for today, autumn 2023 also possible
covid LFT test positivity now above 10%. 14 in London
12% of the medical staff in my dept are off with it this week. Leicester schools break up on the 8th July, so will hit at peak holiday time here. Quite a lot of admissions too with respiratory symptoms.
Yeh gads. Will this ever end?
QTWAIN.
Shirkers with a line on a test but who aren't actually sick should get themselves into work. And stop being hypochondriacs taking tests in the first place.
I'm not for any legal restrictions, but wanting medical staff who knowingly have covid to head into hospitals is just daft. Would you want them in with the flu ? +ve test = wfh in our office, and we're all back in.
If they're fit and able to work, and the only reason you know they have the flu is due to a line on the test? Yes I would.
Abolish all testing. Operate on symptoms only. If people are too sick to work then they shouldn't be working, whether that be due to Covid/Flu/Common Cold or A.N.Other bug. If people are carry a virus but are fit and able to work, then get to work.
And then other people get too sick to work.
There is this concept you ought to read up. It's called "contagion".
The virus is widespread in the community anyway. People are going to get it.
Contagion doesn't matter. If 14% of the community has it anyway, then any healthy but virus-carrying colleagues not turning up to work just means you've lost the healthy colleague's assistance, not prevented contagion which is an impossibility.
Who said my colleagues off with it are healthy? It is a miserable thing to have, and they are all strongly symptomatic.
Hospital acquired covid is a big killer of vulnerable patients.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
Per rcs graph that's 19%. 1 in 5. Which I'm skeptical of. I reckon most of those people haven't thought about it properly. They've just looked at the question and gone, "right I'm on the prog side here, I'm opposite to those loony tunes pro-lifers, so I answer THAT, abortion legal, end of".
Ah, OK. So you, @kinabalu have decided that what they say they think isn’t what they think, and you have instead worked out what they REALLY think, because they are too dumb to express it. I’m sure 19% of America will be grateful
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
Per rcs graph that's 19%. 1 in 5. Which I'm skeptical of. I reckon most of those people haven't thought about it properly. They've just looked at the question and gone, "right I'm on the prog side here, I'm opposite to those loony tunes pro-lifers, so I answer THAT, abortion legal, end of".
Ah, OK. So you, @kinabalu have decided that what they say they think isn’t what they think, and you have instead worked out what they REALLY think, because they are too dumb to express it. I’m sure 19% of America will be grateful
I agree with @kinabalu. That is a badly worded question. There is a big emotional difference between saying it is the mothers decision and aborting a baby within 10 min of birth. I suspect how you word the far extreme will get very different results and that worded differently that figure would be way way way lower. Or do you really think 19% of Americans really believe it is ok to murder babies?
Framing it like that certainly doesn't describe the reality. How many women ever have, to are ever going to carry a pregnancy for none months and decide to abort it "within 10 minutes of birth" on some kind of whim ? And how many physicians would carry out such a procedure, even if it were legal ?
The reality if that third trimester abortions are pretty rare - a bit over 1% of all cases. And they are often pretty hard cases - serious threats to the mother's life; lethal fatal abnormalities, etc.
Actually, a great many women did have full pregnancies and went on to 'abort within 10 minutes' in the old days. Infanticide of the newborn was very common in the good old Victorian era, when contraception, abortion and advice were illegal or as good as.
Edit: But that reflects the situation they were put in, then. Not really a justification for today.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
You missed the question. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. My question was where did the 1/3 come from and what turnout is acceptable?
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
But HMtQ can, if advised that Mr J would not have the support of hios party.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
There is no good reason to have a GE before late 2023 at the earliest.
The Government has a majority of about 75 and the voters want it to sort out CPI. An early election would not be appreciated by the electorate!
(And by late 2023 presumably the new boundaries will be in place?)
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
You missed the question. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. My question was where did the 1/3 come from and what turnout is acceptable?
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
That isn't quite what HYUFD said. Autumn 2022 and spring 2023 are an epoch away in politics.
I don't know what I would predict. But the principle (betting wise) I would adopt is that there are only 2 considerations to take into account until the facts change. One is the statutory last date of the next GE (January 2025), and the other is that as long as Boris is PM the only factor to consider about an election before Jan 2025 is the preservation of Boris as PM.
In particular, if calling one early, even though high risk, gives a Boris survival probability higher than not doing so (eg because calling a high risk election prevents a foreseeable ejection by the party) the high risk election will be called. Bet accordingly.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
But HMtQ can, if advised that Mr J would not have the support of hios party.
She can't assuming at least 40+ Johnson loyalists back Johnson in an early general election as combined with the opposition parties that would also be a majority in Parliament for an early general election and no alternative Tory leader would command a majority in Parliament
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
You missed the question. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. My question was where did the 1/3 come from and what turnout is acceptable?
No turnout is acceptable as the Union is reserved to Westminster and the UK government would ignore the result whatever the turnout
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
But HMtQ can, if advised that Mr J would not have the support of hios party.
She can't assuming at least 40+ Johnson loyalists back Johnson in an early general election as combined with the opposition parties that would also be a majority in Parliament for an early general election and no alternative Tory leader would command a majority in Parliament
But to have that manifest, that would mean that the idea had been put around and discussed within the parliamentary Tory party, which would therefore move to intervene. 40 or so is far too low to prevent an emergency 1922 Cttee organised vote.
On topic - this doesn't surprise me. My work environment is far from a hot bed of trade unionism, and the strikes have been inconvenient for a lot of people, but the prevailing attitude has been good luck to them. Including from people who I really wouldn't have expected to say that.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Those who don't vote don't count. You should know that. It's how voting works.
This is true in "normal" elections.
The question is a bit silly tbh - if the SG can legally hold a referendum without a section 30 then it's fair game and Unionists should vote in it.
If not, then Sturgeon won't run one. She knows that international legitimacy is crucial. There are also interesting questions about whether the Electoral Commission/Local Authorities would play along anyway.
The defacto referendum plan B, using a GE, is really weak imo. Labour just need to do a GE campaign solely on reducing child poverty and it undermines the whole idea.
Blair and Brown had 13 years to reduce child poverty. Hot air has limited marketing shelf life.
When you redefine poverty to mean inequality, there will always be millions of children living in “poverty”.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
That isn't quite what HYUFD said. Autumn 2022 and spring 2023 are an epoch away in politics.
I don't know what I would predict. But the principle (betting wise) I would adopt is that there are only 2 considerations to take into account until the facts change. One is the statutory last date of the next GE (January 2025), and the other is that as long as Boris is PM the only factor to consider about an election before Jan 2025 is the preservation of Boris as PM.
In particular, if calling one early, even though high risk, gives a Boris survival probability higher than not doing so (eg because calling a high risk election prevents a foreseeable ejection by the party) the high risk election will be called. Bet accordingly.
Not sure Jan 2025 would be that popular. Voters going to the polls in the ice and snow and nasty dark days wearing the four layers of clothing which they will also be wearing at home cos they can't afford to heat their houses!
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
But HMtQ can, if advised that Mr J would not have the support of hios party.
She can't assuming at least 40+ Johnson loyalists back Johnson in an early general election as combined with the opposition parties that would also be a majority in Parliament for an early general election and no alternative Tory leader would command a majority in Parliament
You just said it was in Johnson’s perogative and there is nothing his mps can do about it, but now you have introduced 40+ of his mps would be needed
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
There is no good reason to have a GE before late 2023 at the earliest.
The Government has a majority of about 75 and the voters want it to sort out CPI. An early election would not be appreciated by the electorate!
(And by late 2023 presumably the new boundaries will be in place?)
The new boundaries are expected to be in place in time for an autumn 2023 election. It's possible that Sturgeon's IndyRef2 date will end up being the next GE date.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
With the repeal of the FTPA the first the MPs would know about an early election is when they see it announced on their twitter feed, same time as the pbi. Only the PM and Crown need to be in the know until too late.
One of the best things that could happen for Labour before the next election would be if there is indeed another Scottish independence referendum and the no side wins again, because that would mean that in the event of a hung parliament the SNP wouldn't be able to use the idea of another referendum as a bargaining chip in order to support a progressive alliance.
Dream on
They think they’ve got it in the bag.
Big mistake.
It is on a knife edge and could go either way. As an Englishman (albeit with heritage from all 4 countries of the UK) I think it up to Scots and as far as I am concerned the number and timing of independence referendums should be up to the Scottish Parliament, and no one else.
I would be sorry to see Scotland go, partly for sentimental reasons, partly the pragmatic one in that it aids Tory hegemony south of the border. If I were resident in Scotland though, I would vote for independence. Being electorally ignored and marginalised can only go on so long.
I doubt they'd leave. Like the Northern Irish, they like English money too much.
And the SNP has no answers to most of the serious questions: currency, the English border, etc.
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
Really sorry to hear that. It is really important to find some downtime away from work. And I am sure with so many people feeling the pinch you will be able to find takers for some cut price socialising - beers in the park when the weather is nice, or just a cup of tea and a chat. And you can always argue with Tories on here! Take care.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
That isn't quite what HYUFD said. Autumn 2022 and spring 2023 are an epoch away in politics.
I don't know what I would predict. But the principle (betting wise) I would adopt is that there are only 2 considerations to take into account until the facts change. One is the statutory last date of the next GE (January 2025), and the other is that as long as Boris is PM the only factor to consider about an election before Jan 2025 is the preservation of Boris as PM.
In particular, if calling one early, even though high risk, gives a Boris survival probability higher than not doing so (eg because calling a high risk election prevents a foreseeable ejection by the party) the high risk election will be called. Bet accordingly.
Yes plus even if the Tories lost inflation, indyref2, NIP etc would then be PM Starmer's problem
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
Sorry to hear that. If you want to talk I'm happy to do so, although no idea if I will be of any use.
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
I confess to a certain amusement in the way Johnson manages to get out of the most forbidding-looking traps, but it will require a PhD in breezy rhetoric to call an election with just 40+ Tory MPs in support and claim that Starmer would be leading a "coalition of chaos". I'd genuinely like to see him try, just for the fun of it. (If it actually worked I would probably be less entertained.)
At what point do Lab eat into SNP seats on that latest VI? Nice to see them +6 at least (though does sort of show Ross is doing an awful job for the tories)
covid LFT test positivity now above 10%. 14 in London
12% of the medical staff in my dept are off with it this week. Leicester schools break up on the 8th July, so will hit at peak holiday time here. Quite a lot of admissions too with respiratory symptoms.
Yeh gads. Will this ever end?
QTWAIN.
Shirkers with a line on a test but who aren't actually sick should get themselves into work. And stop being hypochondriacs taking tests in the first place.
I'm not for any legal restrictions, but wanting medical staff who knowingly have covid to head into hospitals is just daft. Would you want them in with the flu ? +ve test = wfh in our office, and we're all back in.
If they're fit and able to work, and the only reason you know they have the flu is due to a line on the test? Yes I would.
Abolish all testing. Operate on symptoms only. If people are too sick to work then they shouldn't be working, whether that be due to Covid/Flu/Common Cold or A.N.Other bug. If people are carry a virus but are fit and able to work, then get to work.
And then other people get too sick to work.
There is this concept you ought to read up. It's called "contagion".
The virus is widespread in the community anyway. People are going to get it.
Contagion doesn't matter. If 14% of the community has it anyway, then any healthy but virus-carrying colleagues not turning up to work just means you've lost the healthy colleague's assistance, not prevented contagion which is an impossibility.
Who said my colleagues off with it are healthy? It is a miserable thing to have, and they are all strongly symptomatic.
Hospital acquired covid is a big killer of vulnerable patients.
Indeed. Barty is weirdly absolutist on this, to the point of ignoring practical realities.
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
That’s grim. Sympathies. Can you really not afford to go out and have a pint or two?
What about free things?
The cursed British weather does not help. So much stuff is free and lovely here in Montenegro. You can walk to a beach and dive in the sea; cost: zero.
I appreciate that doesn’t help, but maybe try and think of your local equivalent
Comments
Are you a Scottish independence fan BJO?
Taking a decade out is not the norm, a year is more typical.
The problem of retention is mostly one of other conditions of employment and training. Incompatible shift patterns are a nightmare for young couples juggling child care, training rotations that add 90 minute commutes to each end of the day, loss of team cohesion and peer support, lack of investment in training and supervision, disruption of training by years of covid redeployment etc.
We have some postgraduate trainees now who are not going to be fit for CCT (Certificate of Completion of Training) on time. They need a lot of remedial work before they can be released onto the great British public. We have always had the odd one on the rotation, but now it is half the trainees. The GMC just wants to push them out anyway as NHS cannon fodder, but they won't last long and will demotivate and flounder very quickly, then quit.
“Just take a minute to read the post below, from a Rail Worker, that gives a different perspective to the hyperbole being flung out by HMG's client journalists...
Three years ago we accepted a 0% pay rise, two years ago we accepted a 0% pay rise. But this year they came to us with a 0% pay rise plus over 2500 redundancies, changes to terms and conditions. An increase from 28 weeks of nights to 39 weeks of nights. An increase from 32 weekends worked to 39 weekends worked. Currently for a night shift we get time and a quarter, for a weekend turn we get time and a half. They wish to cut both of these to time and a tenth. So that’s a 15% pay cut on every night shift and a 40% pay cut on every weekend turn. But they want us to work more of them. This is their modernisation they talk about. Not technology, we embrace technology and have seen more and more of it in recent years. They also wish to fire and re-hire the operative grades and bring them back under a new job title but on £9000 a year less. They also want them to use their own vehicles to get to work sites, this when fuel is at its highest. They will also be pooled when currently they are part of the team. The press are painting this to be about pay above all else. It is not. But now we’ve said sod them we are going to demand better. I wish everyone could see past the government controlled media smear.”
For comparison, Swedish train dispatchers and signallers got approx 2.5% last year. And the year before, and the year before. They only work every 3rd weekend, and much less than 1 night per week on average.
But the real killer is the fire and rehire. That is simply a scandal.
Big mistake.
I would be sorry to see Scotland go, partly for sentimental reasons, partly the pragmatic one in that it aids Tory hegemony south of the border. If I were resident in Scotland though, I would vote for independence. Being electorally ignored and marginalised can only go on so long.
Holyrood has a lot more power than the English Parliament.
I don’t think the general public grasp just how much they are dependent on these staff to protect them from the horrific consequences of serious rail accidents. These jobs are comparable with air traffic control and merchant marine officers: absolutely vital for public safety and for the economy.
The next time you fly on holiday, would you be happy with an “agency” air traffic controller? Or a ferry captain whose last job was a pizza delivery guy?
Even if you want to argue that workers should feel the full brunt of the pain and pensioners none of it, the government simply isn't going to be able to pay its staff a token increase without consequences.
If they try, they won't be able to recruit or retain.
Someone yesterday - @Leon ? was complaining about the apocalyptic wastelands of Olympic London. So this might interest. For instance,
"Challenged in January 2015 to answer claims that the Olympic legacy was a waste of money, Boris Johnson said Olympicopolis would bring “world-class institutions to the area along with more than 3,000 jobs and £3bn of economic benefit”. But there are fears that the East Bank project could end up being as much of a financial black hole as the Olympic stadium. Built at a cost of £486m, it was later converted into a permanent football stadium for £274m, bringing the total to £760m. It remains a massive loss-maker, costing the public around £10m to operate each year. Unusually, the pandemic was a blessing, as the stadium’s closure led to savings. As a damning report by the London Assembly’s budget and performance committee noted last year: “It is ironic that by having fewer large-scale events, thanks to Covid-19, the park is haemorrhaging less money than if it were business as usual.” In the latest accounts, the stadium was listed with a value of zero."
Hegemonies have limited shelf-lives. Sooner or later - probably sooner - the English electorate would get sick to the back teeth of the Tories. Heck, it might be happening as we speak.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1542289245498490884?s=20&t=dLQC0ZHFvu84Y9DUgiRR9A
Like most public service the police operate with substantial amounts of overtime to cover the lack of personnel actually on the ground. A work to rule is going to have a substantial impact on service and will rapidly impact on the operation of the courts.
England is ruled by English politicians at Westminster, either of the left or of the right.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/29/canadian-radio-station-rage-against-the-machine-song-nonstop
It's tomfoolery to create a geographically restricted party and then claim the right to dictate terms to the central government.
The SNP asking for a referendum every other day does not make it a justified request or something they should be guaranteed. For people who bang on about the will of the Scottish people they might want to try respecting the decision that was made in 2014 (I do have some sympathy with the view the situation has changed, however the 2014 bid was to leave the UK *and* EU at the same time. Current SNP claims regarding England, Wales, and Northern Ireland voluntarily funding Scottish pensions post-separation and backing up the Scottish financial sector are absolutely crackers).
https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/local-council/olympic-stadium-deal-with-west-ham-cost-newham-council-40m-3176138
Perhaps we all need a wee rethink.
Ho ho.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_mafia
'Newham Council said today that it had nothing to add to previous comments from Sir Robin who said in December: “It is regrettable that the finances of the stadium have not followed the expected course."'
" ...the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage."
The energy crisis will last longer and cause more pain to British households
“I think the UK economy is probably weakening rather earlier and somewhat more than others.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bank-of-england-andrew-bailey-britain-ecb-european-b1009304.html
What a jolly jape Brexit was.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
A crap Wikipedia article does not make a phenomenon disappear: some English folk hated the perception that they were being ruled by Scots.
The question is a bit silly tbh - if the SG can legally hold a referendum without a section 30 then it's fair game and Unionists should vote in it.
If not, then Sturgeon won't run one. She knows that international legitimacy is crucial. There are also interesting questions about whether the Electoral Commission/Local Authorities would play along anyway.
The defacto referendum plan B, using a GE, is really weak imo. Labour just need to do a GE campaign solely on reducing child poverty and it undermines the whole idea.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=xcSnKArKz8E
Abolish all Covid testing, unless its necessary for some reason for critical diagnostic purposes. Operate on symptoms only. If people are too sick to work then they shouldn't be working, whether that be due to Covid/Flu/Common Cold or A.N.Other bug. If people are carrying a virus that is widespread in the community anyway but are fit and able to work, then get to work.
Politicians love to have something big in concrete with their name on it. And voters never learn that what sounds good in a soundbite or looks good in an artist's impression is usually crap in practice. Our cities are scarred with tower blocks that we're demolishing when we can afford to for exactly those reasons.
There is this concept you ought to read up. It's called "contagion".
If you want to take a literal view of what I said then yes, it would be incorrect. I'm happy to amend it to "Very few people indeed cared that this [the PM and Chancellor being Scottish] was the case".
Otherwise, see you in 16 months
Contagion doesn't matter. If 14% of the community has it anyway, then any healthy but virus-carrying colleagues not turning up to work just means you've lost the healthy colleague's assistance, not prevented contagion which is an impossibility.
(But that wasn't the point I was making).
Covid isn't a rare disease, its widespread in the community and preventing contagion isn't possible, so shouldn't be attempted. Healthy people with the virus should live normally, as contagion is happening either way.
If 14% of people are carrying a virus, and you're working in a building with hundreds or thousands of people in it, then any healthy colleagues not going into work is pissing in the ocean.
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1542398806016368640?s=20&t=dLQC0ZHFvu84Y9DUgiRR9A
[On Vanilla, of course. There were more beforehand.]
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
In English law an abortion is never legal unless a specific statutory exception applies, and in 100% of cases illegal merely on the say so of the mother. No abortion without a professional medical judgement is our law.
Even postponing a significant outbreak in a workgroup from flu is a useful thing to do, at the cost of having the carrier wfh for a few days.
And Mary Mallon was not 'unique' as far as her disease went. 2-5% is the figure for long term carriers.
a) Not up to me. It's up to the Scots
b) Don't have enough knowledge to make an informed judgement
c) Now we have Brexited, and done so badly, independence is far more problematic for both Scotland and the rest of the UK.
How many women ever have, or are ever going to carry a pregnancy for nine months and decide to abort it "within 10 minutes of birth" on some kind of whim ? And how many physicians would carry out such a procedure, even if it were legal ?
The reality if that third trimester abortions are pretty rare - a bit over 1% of all cases. And they are often pretty hard cases - serious threats to the mother's life; lethal fatal abnormalities, etc.
Hospital acquired covid is a big killer of vulnerable patients.
Edit: But that reflects the situation they were put in, then. Not really a justification for today.
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
The Government has a majority of about 75 and the voters want it to sort out CPI. An early election would not be appreciated by the electorate!
(And by late 2023 presumably the new boundaries will be in place?)
SNP: 45% (=)
LAB: 25% (+6)
CON: 18% (-7)
LDM: 8% (-2)
Via @SavantaComRes, 23-28 Jun.
Changes w/ GE2019.
I don't know what I would predict. But the principle (betting wise) I would adopt is that there are only 2 considerations to take into account until the facts change. One is the statutory last date of the next GE (January 2025), and the other is that as long as Boris is PM the only factor to consider about an election before Jan 2025 is the preservation of Boris as PM.
In particular, if calling one early, even though high risk, gives a Boris survival probability higher than not doing so (eg because calling a high risk election prevents a foreseeable ejection by the party) the high risk election will be called. Bet accordingly.
You are just so inconsistent
And the SNP has no answers to most of the serious questions: currency, the English border, etc.
What about free things?
The cursed British weather does not help. So much stuff is free and lovely here in Montenegro. You can walk to a beach and dive in the sea; cost: zero.
I appreciate that doesn’t help, but maybe try and think of your local equivalent