Christ the average age of death chart between "flu and pneumonia" vs "covid" is staggering, even for me as someone who has been pouring over the numbers these last 2 years.
You want to see a shocking difference?
When people were going on about "Well, the health service is stressed by flu every year, what's the difference?" I went and plotted the weekly number of ICU visits from covid in England over time versus historical influenza ICU visits.
Had to change the scale a few times, mind you, and then it ended up looking just plain ridiculous.
(In green are admissions to ICU for influenza, in red are covid ones)
What's remarkably unremarked upon is that for all the voters exacerbation with Boris and the Tories they are totally unconvinced by Starmer.
Labour still haven't addressed the fundamentals of why they were booted out of office in 2010, IMHO. If they do win in 2024/25 it will only be by default and because someone has to win.
The main reasons they were booted out in 2010 were (i) they'd been in for 13 years and (ii) the global financial system imploded on their watch. (i) is addressed, boot's now on the other foot, and I think (ii) just about is too. The Cons were brilliant in framing the crash as Labour-induced, one of the great pieces of political propaganda of modern times, and it stuck for over a decade, but I sense it's finally faded now and lost its utility.
I think you're right about SKS and the voters though. There's something about him that doesn't cut through. It's not a lack of 'charisma' as such - in any case please save us from more of that - it's more that he seems on too tight a rein, kind of bottled up, so you don't as a casual observer (which is what the voters are) get a sense of knowing and relating to him. Of all the skills a politician needs for personal electoral appeal, creating that illusion (which it usually is) is imo the most important. SKS doesn't have it in his locker - which is a problem.
And unlike the Tories they have a few who seem to have that mysterious thing.
Including, IMHO, Figaro's very own Susanna the increasingly impressive Angela Rayner.
BTW as banks and the financial sector were supposed to be heavily regulated and under the controls of geniuses including G Brown, who had abolished boom and bust, Labour cannot wash their hands of 2008 following. Hubris.
I see Russia had said it has exited Snake Island as a "gesture of goodwill".
Obviously they couldn't hold it, given the arrival of MLRS / Harpoons etc but, on this logic, they realise that the arrival of such equipment - even in small numbers - is going to have a catastrophic impact on their resources.
Which makes me think that we may not be too far again from the Russians offering some sort of ceasefire proposal, especially if the Ukrainian army leaves / is defeated at Lysychansk and it therefore has control of Luhansk, if not the entire Donbas.
One other part - apparently at the well-publicised meeting between Shiogu and the Russian commanders was the head of the RU army's personnel department. Might be worth thinking about why he would be there.
This shows what happens when Russian artillery loses the advantage of range to the new systems coming into Ukraine's arsenal:
At a Rugby League World Cup press conference today. Nadine Dorries, sec of state for sport, is special guest. “I’ve always liked the idea of rugby league. That drop goal in 2003 was such a special moment.” That drop goal was actually in the Rugby Union World Cup.
At a Rugby League World Cup press conference today. Nadine Dorries, sec of state for sport, is special guest. “I’ve always liked the idea of rugby league. That drop goal in 2003 was such a special moment.” That drop goal was actually in the Rugby Union World Cup.
At a Rugby League World Cup press conference today. Nadine Dorries, sec of state for sport, is special guest. “I’ve always liked the idea of rugby league. That drop goal in 2003 was such a special moment.” That drop goal was actually in the Rugby Union World Cup.
I see Russia had said it has exited Snake Island as a "gesture of goodwill".
Obviously they couldn't hold it, given the arrival of MLRS / Harpoons etc but, on this logic, they realise that the arrival of such equipment - even in small numbers - is going to have a catastrophic impact on their resources.
Which makes me think that we may not be too far again from the Russians offering some sort of ceasefire proposal, especially if the Ukrainian army leaves / is defeated at Lysychansk and it therefore has control of Luhansk, if not the entire Donbas.
One other part - apparently at the well-publicised meeting between Shiogu and the Russian commanders was the head of the RU army's personnel department. Might be worth thinking about why he would be there.
This year's conscription season ends next month, and the early signs are that it might be way under quota, so there's also that.
Christ the average age of death chart between "flu and pneumonia" vs "covid" is staggering, even for me as someone who has been pouring over the numbers these last 2 years.
You want to see a shocking difference?
When people were going on about "Well, the health service is stressed by flu every year, what's the difference?" I went and plotted the weekly number of ICU visits from covid in England over time versus historical influenza ICU visits.
Had to change the scale a few times, mind you, and then it ended up looking just plain ridiculous.
(In green are admissions to ICU for influenza, in red are covid ones)
That's a dangerous comparison because even if the treat people for influenza they don't necessarily test people for influenza. So depending on the data set you are using (modeled vs confirmed lab test) the figures might be off by an order of magnitude.
The Scot Nats are cretins, they are Putin's little helpers.
Nicola Sturgeon's ministers have said no more of their money should be given to the Ukraine for weapons after being pressured by the Treasury to hand over £65 million.
Kate Forbes, the Scottish Finance Secretary, said she had agreed to provide the money "on this occasion" but lashed out at the Treasury, making clear "this must not be seen as any kind of precedent."
Her comments were echoed by Rebecca Evans, her Welsh counterpart, who complained she had been forced to donate £30 million of money earmarked for "devolved areas, like health and education."
But the Treasury "strongly disagreed" with her characterisation of the request, saying government departments across Whitehall had also been asked to make a contribution through their underspend.
I mean, I think it is reasonable to say "we as devolved governments don't have enough money to do what we want anyway, why should we ship it over there". If the country was well funded in other areas, I'd agree with you, but it isn't. Successive governments have cut services to the bone saying it had to be done, and are now flush with cash to hand out to war and to bungs to companies during Covid, at a time where a real cost of living crisis is hitting people, and the front line services that would help them through a hard period doesn't exist. I want Ukraine to win and Russia actively defeated, but I also understand the bristling at being told there is "no money magic tree" when you want minor social democratic social spending, but the printers go brrr for war.
Helping Ukraine now is an investment in the future; if we do not help Ukraine beat Russia now, we will have to spend lots more in a few years helping Poland. Or Lithuania. Or Finland. Or Estonia.
I agree. If only the government took that position on social spending as well. Spending now on the NHS, on education and higher education, on green energy and public housing would make the citizenry and the country richer, and increase private profits. But it doesn't. And the ideological case it makes for not doing that is - the money doesn't exist, sorry. So now their hypocrisy is exposed. So I agree in the funding for Ukraine. But I also understand why politicians with political priorities that would help people and their country say wait a sec, why do we have to pay for this when we are scraping the state to the bone as it is.
But that excuse can always be made; countries always need investment.
And the reason to do it now is as I wrote above: better now than much more later. And it is also the morally correct thing to do IMO.
The Scot Nats are cretins, they are Putin's little helpers.
Nicola Sturgeon's ministers have said no more of their money should be given to the Ukraine for weapons after being pressured by the Treasury to hand over £65 million.
Kate Forbes, the Scottish Finance Secretary, said she had agreed to provide the money "on this occasion" but lashed out at the Treasury, making clear "this must not be seen as any kind of precedent."
Her comments were echoed by Rebecca Evans, her Welsh counterpart, who complained she had been forced to donate £30 million of money earmarked for "devolved areas, like health and education."
But the Treasury "strongly disagreed" with her characterisation of the request, saying government departments across Whitehall had also been asked to make a contribution through their underspend.
I mean, I think it is reasonable to say "we as devolved governments don't have enough money to do what we want anyway, why should we ship it over there". If the country was well funded in other areas, I'd agree with you, but it isn't. Successive governments have cut services to the bone saying it had to be done, and are now flush with cash to hand out to war and to bungs to companies during Covid, at a time where a real cost of living crisis is hitting people, and the front line services that would help them through a hard period doesn't exist. I want Ukraine to win and Russia actively defeated, but I also understand the bristling at being told there is "no money magic tree" when you want minor social democratic social spending, but the printers go brrr for war.
Helping Ukraine now is an investment in the future; if we do not help Ukraine beat Russia now, we will have to spend lots more in a few years helping Poland. Or Lithuania. Or Finland. Or Estonia.
Agreed.
Though bear in mind that these protests also are being made to ensure that it doesn't become a precedent for central government to dip into devolved funding on a regular basis.
Basically, the US, the UK and the Eurozone are all heading towards economic contraction in Q3, while Japan has (so far) avoided it.
The Japanese have their own problems. The markets are testing the BoJ's policy that JGB yields cannot rise above 0.20% by sinking the yen. And sunk it indeed has....If the peg breaks, the consequences are profound.
Is the euro next? The ECB also thinks it has a consequence free pass to print as much money as it wants whenever it wants. The latest printing exercise is to support the debt markets of member economies that are so chronically weak they cannot even stand positive rates.
On the subject of Japan - half all Japanese government debt is already owned by the Japanese Central Bank, and the bulk of the rest is owned by Japanese banks who are legally obligated to own their own sovereign debt under Basel-II rules.
There's very little foreign ownership any more.
However, I guess the issue Japan has is that they are a massive energy importer, and that is driving a trade deficit.
At a Rugby League World Cup press conference today. Nadine Dorries, sec of state for sport, is special guest. “I’ve always liked the idea of rugby league. That drop goal in 2003 was such a special moment.” That drop goal was actually in the Rugby Union World Cup.
I see Russia had said it has exited Snake Island as a "gesture of goodwill".
Obviously they couldn't hold it, given the arrival of MLRS / Harpoons etc but, on this logic, they realise that the arrival of such equipment - even in small numbers - is going to have a catastrophic impact on their resources.
Which makes me think that we may not be too far again from the Russians offering some sort of ceasefire proposal, especially if the Ukrainian army leaves / is defeated at Lysychansk and it therefore has control of Luhansk, if not the entire Donbas.
One other part - apparently at the well-publicised meeting between Shiogu and the Russian commanders was the head of the RU army's personnel department. Might be worth thinking about why he would be there.
This shows what happens when Russian artillery loses the advantage of range to the new systems coming into Ukraine's arsenal:
The Scot Nats are cretins, they are Putin's little helpers.
Nicola Sturgeon's ministers have said no more of their money should be given to the Ukraine for weapons after being pressured by the Treasury to hand over £65 million.
Kate Forbes, the Scottish Finance Secretary, said she had agreed to provide the money "on this occasion" but lashed out at the Treasury, making clear "this must not be seen as any kind of precedent."
Her comments were echoed by Rebecca Evans, her Welsh counterpart, who complained she had been forced to donate £30 million of money earmarked for "devolved areas, like health and education."
But the Treasury "strongly disagreed" with her characterisation of the request, saying government departments across Whitehall had also been asked to make a contribution through their underspend.
At a Rugby League World Cup press conference today. Nadine Dorries, sec of state for sport, is special guest. “I’ve always liked the idea of rugby league. That drop goal in 2003 was such a special moment.” That drop goal was actually in the Rugby Union World Cup.
Ah the Lib Dems are just errant socialists who will come to see the error of their ways as part of a progressive alliance when the time comes.
This myth is normally peddled by Labour folk, not normally by Lib Dems themselves.
I was thinking on this just yesterday, remembering my interactions with Labour councillors.
The biggest, overwhelming, difference isn’t one of policy but of attitude. Liberals put a value on independence of thought and action, socialists prize solidarity, loyalty and adherence to the party line. That’s a little glib, and I could have written a whole paragraph (but don’t feel like it). But the answer is in there somewhere.
Don't know about glib but it's a bit jaundiced! Stat of 1 - me - I have asked myself why I'm Lab not LD because it is an interesting thing to ponder. The main reason is my view that the government's top domestic priority, not the only one but the top one, should be to foster a more equal society.
Sorry @kinabula (don't like to disagree with you) but I am with @ianb2 on this one.
Well you can't disagree about MY reasons! But maybe I'm an atypical Labourite, this is possible. When I used to go to meetings - pandemic stopped that and I haven't yet regained the urge - I never exactly felt in tune with the room.
On topic... The Australian election showed that when a party has been in office for some time and the prime minister is unpopular, the electorate finds all sorts of ways to defeat them, including in constituencies that had long been considered safe https://spectator.co.uk/article/why-tactical-voting-is-so-dangerous-for-the-tories….
The Scot Nats are cretins, they are Putin's little helpers.
Nicola Sturgeon's ministers have said no more of their money should be given to the Ukraine for weapons after being pressured by the Treasury to hand over £65 million.
Kate Forbes, the Scottish Finance Secretary, said she had agreed to provide the money "on this occasion" but lashed out at the Treasury, making clear "this must not be seen as any kind of precedent."
Her comments were echoed by Rebecca Evans, her Welsh counterpart, who complained she had been forced to donate £30 million of money earmarked for "devolved areas, like health and education."
But the Treasury "strongly disagreed" with her characterisation of the request, saying government departments across Whitehall had also been asked to make a contribution through their underspend.
I mean, I think it is reasonable to say "we as devolved governments don't have enough money to do what we want anyway, why should we ship it over there". If the country was well funded in other areas, I'd agree with you, but it isn't. Successive governments have cut services to the bone saying it had to be done, and are now flush with cash to hand out to war and to bungs to companies during Covid, at a time where a real cost of living crisis is hitting people, and the front line services that would help them through a hard period doesn't exist. I want Ukraine to win and Russia actively defeated, but I also understand the bristling at being told there is "no money magic tree" when you want minor social democratic social spending, but the printers go brrr for war.
Helping Ukraine now is an investment in the future; if we do not help Ukraine beat Russia now, we will have to spend lots more in a few years helping Poland. Or Lithuania. Or Finland. Or Estonia.
I agree. If only the government took that position on social spending as well. Spending now on the NHS, on education and higher education, on green energy and public housing would make the citizenry and the country richer, and increase private profits. But it doesn't. And the ideological case it makes for not doing that is - the money doesn't exist, sorry. So now their hypocrisy is exposed. So I agree in the funding for Ukraine. But I also understand why politicians with political priorities that would help people and their country say wait a sec, why do we have to pay for this when we are scraping the state to the bone as it is.
But that excuse can always be made; countries always need investment.
And the reason to do it now is as I wrote above: better now than much more later. And it is also the morally correct thing to do IMO.
Government should walk and chew gum at the same time, as the saying goes. But this government isn't. And it should be reasonable to ask why and disagree with it not happening.
So I don't see the Nats saying "invest at home" as aiding and abetting Putin. Indeed, investment at home was specifically why this government was elected - the Levelling Up agenda was the thing that prised the Red Wall away from Labour after a decade of austerity.
Basically, the US, the UK and the Eurozone are all heading towards economic contraction in Q3, while Japan has (so far) avoided it.
The Japanese have their own problems. The markets are testing the BoJ's policy that JGB yields cannot rise above 0.20% by sinking the yen. And sunk it indeed has....If the peg breaks, the consequences are profound.
Is the euro next? The ECB also thinks it has a consequence free pass to print as much money as it wants whenever it wants. The latest printing exercise is to support the debt markets of member economies that are so chronically weak they cannot even stand positive rates.
Euro is already under $1.04, close to a 10-year low. It could well go under a dollar in the next few days, if the ECB keeps the printing presses on and doesn’t raise interest rates. It’s one hell of a risky strategy.
I wonder whether the living standards of people right across the Western world are about to undergo a downward adjustment in their living standards so swift and violent it could well be destabilising socially.
I think that’s probably overstating it. But not by much.
It’s going to be a tough next couple of years for most of the Western world, there will likely be close to a completely reversal of the asset price inflation we have seen since shortly after the start of the pandemic, as well as commodity-led inflation remaining high in the general economy.
Do you think assets - esp property - will fall outright or just not rise by as much as inflation?
It depends where the distribution of this vote share goes, though. If typical Labour voters in the South West have just seen a seat flip to the LDs despite Labour being second there last time, it could mean a huge local swing of people willing to vote tactically. If, instead, this is an evenly spread out movement, then it isn't useful.
At a Rugby League World Cup press conference today. Nadine Dorries, sec of state for sport, is special guest. “I’ve always liked the idea of rugby league. That drop goal in 2003 was such a special moment.” That drop goal was actually in the Rugby Union World Cup.
The Scot Nats are cretins, they are Putin's little helpers.
Nicola Sturgeon's ministers have said no more of their money should be given to the Ukraine for weapons after being pressured by the Treasury to hand over £65 million.
Kate Forbes, the Scottish Finance Secretary, said she had agreed to provide the money "on this occasion" but lashed out at the Treasury, making clear "this must not be seen as any kind of precedent."
Her comments were echoed by Rebecca Evans, her Welsh counterpart, who complained she had been forced to donate £30 million of money earmarked for "devolved areas, like health and education."
But the Treasury "strongly disagreed" with her characterisation of the request, saying government departments across Whitehall had also been asked to make a contribution through their underspend.
I mean, I think it is reasonable to say "we as devolved governments don't have enough money to do what we want anyway, why should we ship it over there". If the country was well funded in other areas, I'd agree with you, but it isn't. Successive governments have cut services to the bone saying it had to be done, and are now flush with cash to hand out to war and to bungs to companies during Covid, at a time where a real cost of living crisis is hitting people, and the front line services that would help them through a hard period doesn't exist. I want Ukraine to win and Russia actively defeated, but I also understand the bristling at being told there is "no money magic tree" when you want minor social democratic social spending, but the printers go brrr for war.
Helping Ukraine now is an investment in the future; if we do not help Ukraine beat Russia now, we will have to spend lots more in a few years helping Poland. Or Lithuania. Or Finland. Or Estonia.
I agree. If only the government took that position on social spending as well. Spending now on the NHS, on education and higher education, on green energy and public housing would make the citizenry and the country richer, and increase private profits. But it doesn't. And the ideological case it makes for not doing that is - the money doesn't exist, sorry. So now their hypocrisy is exposed. So I agree in the funding for Ukraine. But I also understand why politicians with political priorities that would help people and their country say wait a sec, why do we have to pay for this when we are scraping the state to the bone as it is.
But that excuse can always be made; countries always need investment.
And the reason to do it now is as I wrote above: better now than much more later. And it is also the morally correct thing to do IMO.
Government should walk and chew gum at the same time, as the saying goes. But this government isn't. And it should be reasonable to ask why and disagree with it not happening.
So I don't see the Nats saying "invest at home" as aiding and abetting Putin. Indeed, investment at home was specifically why this government was elected - the Levelling Up agenda was the thing that prised the Red Wall away from Labour after a decade of austerity.
To be clear, I have never said the SNP are aiding and abetting Putin; that was someone else. However this money may well be a wise 'investment' for them to make.
Ah the Lib Dems are just errant socialists who will come to see the error of their ways as part of a progressive alliance when the time comes.
This myth is normally peddled by Labour folk, not normally by Lib Dems themselves.
I was thinking on this just yesterday, remembering my interactions with Labour councillors.
The biggest, overwhelming, difference isn’t one of policy but of attitude. Liberals put a value on independence of thought and action, socialists prize solidarity, loyalty and adherence to the party line. That’s a little glib, and I could have written a whole paragraph (but don’t feel like it). But the answer is in there somewhere.
Don't know about glib but it's a bit jaundiced! Stat of 1 - me - I have asked myself why I'm Lab not LD because it is an interesting thing to ponder. The main reason is my view that the government's top domestic priority, not the only one but the top one, should be to foster a more equal society.
Labour has become too much of a conduit for daft ideologically driven ideas (not saying they are unique in that!) and given their attractiveness to activist puritans that can make them dangerous. Lots of good people in the party but some ghastly ideological fixations bubbling away. I think there might be a real chance for LDs if they can pitch things effectively. There is a massive disaffected centrist pragmatist vote to be won by someone.
There is a lot of dislike and distrust of LP only offset by utterly crap nature of current government. Danger for Labour is that Tory MPs might kick out BoJo and appoint a better alternative so even Tories losing next election is not a certainty.
Perhaps that 'break the mould' will finally happen. LDs take LOTS of Con seats, Lab take fewer than hoped but just enough. 2 party politics becomes 3 party politics.
Basically, the US, the UK and the Eurozone are all heading towards economic contraction in Q3, while Japan has (so far) avoided it.
The Japanese have their own problems. The markets are testing the BoJ's policy that JGB yields cannot rise above 0.20% by sinking the yen. And sunk it indeed has....If the peg breaks, the consequences are profound.
Is the euro next? The ECB also thinks it has a consequence free pass to print as much money as it wants whenever it wants. The latest printing exercise is to support the debt markets of member economies that are so chronically weak they cannot even stand positive rates.
Euro is already under $1.04, close to a 10-year low. It could well go under a dollar in the next few days, if the ECB keeps the printing presses on and doesn’t raise interest rates. It’s one hell of a risky strategy.
I wonder whether the living standards of people right across the Western world are about to undergo a downward adjustment in their living standards so swift and violent it could well be destabilising socially.
I think that’s probably overstating it. But not by much.
It’s going to be a tough next couple of years for most of the Western world, there will likely be close to a completely reversal of the asset price inflation we have seen since shortly after the start of the pandemic, as well as commodity-led inflation remaining high in the general economy.
Its a curious time because where I work we are finding it harder than ever to hold onto staff. Even long termers with a good track record behind them are getting poached with packages they just could not refuse.
Yes, the wierd bit at the moment is the lack of unemployment. Quite the opposite in fact, as your anecdote suggests. That’s the same everywhere too, as the labour market has been shrunk by the pandemic - plus of course, the ‘B-word’ in the UK, which has led to rising wages as predicted.
Real wages down more than 4% on a year ago, biggest ever fall.
Indeed, but that number hides a host of different outcomes, anecdotally.
Two people in our office who are dating are both leaving for much better paid jobs.
When property prices almost certainly fall in the autumn they won't only be able to afford a property. They'll be able to afford a good property. They used to wail about never being able to buy. Now? not so much.
Now, or if he 52 Dems in the senate after November? Because it is difficult to do it now if Manchin and Sinema are still saying they support the filibuster, but it is also hard to run on if you already have 2 Dem senators blocking you and you're proving you can't whip your party.
Basically, the US, the UK and the Eurozone are all heading towards economic contraction in Q3, while Japan has (so far) avoided it.
The Japanese have their own problems. The markets are testing the BoJ's policy that JGB yields cannot rise above 0.20% by sinking the yen. And sunk it indeed has....If the peg breaks, the consequences are profound.
Is the euro next? The ECB also thinks it has a consequence free pass to print as much money as it wants whenever it wants. The latest printing exercise is to support the debt markets of member economies that are so chronically weak they cannot even stand positive rates.
Euro is already under $1.04, close to a 10-year low. It could well go under a dollar in the next few days, if the ECB keeps the printing presses on and doesn’t raise interest rates. It’s one hell of a risky strategy.
I wonder whether the living standards of people right across the Western world are about to undergo a downward adjustment in their living standards so swift and violent it could well be destabilising socially.
I think that’s probably overstating it. But not by much.
It’s going to be a tough next couple of years for most of the Western world, there will likely be close to a completely reversal of the asset price inflation we have seen since shortly after the start of the pandemic, as well as commodity-led inflation remaining high in the general economy.
Its a curious time because where I work we are finding it harder than ever to hold onto staff. Even long termers with a good track record behind them are getting poached with packages they just could not refuse.
Yes, the wierd bit at the moment is the lack of unemployment. Quite the opposite in fact, as your anecdote suggests. That’s the same everywhere too, as the labour market has been shrunk by the pandemic - plus of course, the ‘B-word’ in the UK, which has led to rising wages as predicted.
Real wages down more than 4% on a year ago, biggest ever fall.
Indeed, but that number hides a host of different outcomes, anecdotally.
Two people in our office who are dating are both leaving for much better paid jobs.
When property prices almost certainly fall in the autumn they won't only be able to afford a property. They'll be able to afford a good property. They used to wail about never being able to buy. Now? not so much.
Are property prices going to fall? They're up yoy 10%. Why wouldn't the government prop them up if that looked likely?
Ah the Lib Dems are just errant socialists who will come to see the error of their ways as part of a progressive alliance when the time comes.
This myth is normally peddled by Labour folk, not normally by Lib Dems themselves.
I was thinking on this just yesterday, remembering my interactions with Labour councillors.
The biggest, overwhelming, difference isn’t one of policy but of attitude. Liberals put a value on independence of thought and action, socialists prize solidarity, loyalty and adherence to the party line. That’s a little glib, and I could have written a whole paragraph (but don’t feel like it). But the answer is in there somewhere.
Don't know about glib but it's a bit jaundiced! Stat of 1 - me - I have asked myself why I'm Lab not LD because it is an interesting thing to ponder. The main reason is my view that the government's top domestic priority, not the only one but the top one, should be to foster a more equal society.
Labour has become too much of a conduit for daft ideologically driven ideas (not saying they are unique in that!) and given their attractiveness to activist puritans that can make them dangerous. Lots of good people in the party but some ghastly ideological fixations bubbling away. I think there might be a real chance for LDs if they can pitch things effectively. There is a massive disaffected centrist pragmatist vote to be won by someone.
There is a lot of dislike and distrust of LP only offset by utterly crap nature of current government. Danger for Labour is that Tory MPs might kick out BoJo and appoint a better alternative so even Tories losing next election is not a certainty.
Perhaps that 'break the mould' will finally happen. LDs take LOTS of Con seats, Lab take fewer than hoped but just enough. 2 party politics becomes 3 party politics.
Unfortunately Lib Dem popularity is like blowing soap bubbles. It grows nicely through gentle exhalation but as soon as someone starts talking of breaking moulds and 3 party politics the party takes a big huff and pop, the bubble is burst for another few years.
Happened in 1983, 2010, 2019. Even a little in 2005.
Under FPTP Lib Dem seats are essentially almost perfectly negatively correlated with Tory vote share. Probably more so than Labour in fact.
Basically, the US, the UK and the Eurozone are all heading towards economic contraction in Q3, while Japan has (so far) avoided it.
The Japanese have their own problems. The markets are testing the BoJ's policy that JGB yields cannot rise above 0.20% by sinking the yen. And sunk it indeed has....If the peg breaks, the consequences are profound.
Is the euro next? The ECB also thinks it has a consequence free pass to print as much money as it wants whenever it wants. The latest printing exercise is to support the debt markets of member economies that are so chronically weak they cannot even stand positive rates.
Euro is already under $1.04, close to a 10-year low. It could well go under a dollar in the next few days, if the ECB keeps the printing presses on and doesn’t raise interest rates. It’s one hell of a risky strategy.
I wonder whether the living standards of people right across the Western world are about to undergo a downward adjustment in their living standards so swift and violent it could well be destabilising socially.
I think that’s probably overstating it. But not by much.
It’s going to be a tough next couple of years for most of the Western world, there will likely be close to a completely reversal of the asset price inflation we have seen since shortly after the start of the pandemic, as well as commodity-led inflation remaining high in the general economy.
Its a curious time because where I work we are finding it harder than ever to hold onto staff. Even long termers with a good track record behind them are getting poached with packages they just could not refuse.
Yes, the wierd bit at the moment is the lack of unemployment. Quite the opposite in fact, as your anecdote suggests. That’s the same everywhere too, as the labour market has been shrunk by the pandemic - plus of course, the ‘B-word’ in the UK, which has led to rising wages as predicted.
Real wages down more than 4% on a year ago, biggest ever fall.
Indeed, but that number hides a host of different outcomes, anecdotally.
Two people in our office who are dating are both leaving for much better paid jobs.
When property prices almost certainly fall in the autumn they won't only be able to afford a property. They'll be able to afford a good property. They used to wail about never being able to buy. Now? not so much.
Are property prices going to fall? They're up yoy 10%. Why wouldn't the government prop them up if that looked likely?
I reckon the market is already softening in some areas.
Now, or if he 52 Dems in the senate after November? Because it is difficult to do it now if Manchin and Sinema are still saying they support the filibuster, but it is also hard to run on if you already have 2 Dem senators blocking you and you're proving you can't whip your party.
Yeah, it actually means diddly squat at the moment because I don't even think they have 50 votes to codify Roe never mind Sinema/Manchin repealing the filibuster.
Ah the Lib Dems are just errant socialists who will come to see the error of their ways as part of a progressive alliance when the time comes.
This myth is normally peddled by Labour folk, not normally by Lib Dems themselves.
I was thinking on this just yesterday, remembering my interactions with Labour councillors.
The biggest, overwhelming, difference isn’t one of policy but of attitude. Liberals put a value on independence of thought and action, socialists prize solidarity, loyalty and adherence to the party line. That’s a little glib, and I could have written a whole paragraph (but don’t feel like it). But the answer is in there somewhere.
Don't know about glib but it's a bit jaundiced! Stat of 1 - me - I have asked myself why I'm Lab not LD because it is an interesting thing to ponder. The main reason is my view that the government's top domestic priority, not the only one but the top one, should be to foster a more equal society.
Sorry @kinabula (don't like to disagree with you) but I am with @ianb2 on this one.
Well you can't disagree about MY reasons! But maybe I'm an atypical Labourite, this is possible. When I used to go to meetings - pandemic stopped that and I haven't yet regained the urge - I never exactly felt in tune with the room.
For the average punter who hasn’t spent all that much time considering matters of political philosophy, whether you lean Labour or LibDem probably depends mostly on where you live, and its electoral history.
Fact remains, liberals will instinctively defend someone who speaks out against authority whereas socialists will stop to think about whether that person’s position is ‘politically sound’. Find someone defending the rights of a person they disagree with, and you are most unlikely to have chanced upon a socialist, who will always prize the end and the ‘greater good’ above the means and the rights of the individual.
Basically, the US, the UK and the Eurozone are all heading towards economic contraction in Q3, while Japan has (so far) avoided it.
The Japanese have their own problems. The markets are testing the BoJ's policy that JGB yields cannot rise above 0.20% by sinking the yen. And sunk it indeed has....If the peg breaks, the consequences are profound.
Is the euro next? The ECB also thinks it has a consequence free pass to print as much money as it wants whenever it wants. The latest printing exercise is to support the debt markets of member economies that are so chronically weak they cannot even stand positive rates.
Euro is already under $1.04, close to a 10-year low. It could well go under a dollar in the next few days, if the ECB keeps the printing presses on and doesn’t raise interest rates. It’s one hell of a risky strategy.
I wonder whether the living standards of people right across the Western world are about to undergo a downward adjustment in their living standards so swift and violent it could well be destabilising socially.
I think that’s probably overstating it. But not by much.
It’s going to be a tough next couple of years for most of the Western world, there will likely be close to a completely reversal of the asset price inflation we have seen since shortly after the start of the pandemic, as well as commodity-led inflation remaining high in the general economy.
Its a curious time because where I work we are finding it harder than ever to hold onto staff. Even long termers with a good track record behind them are getting poached with packages they just could not refuse.
Yes, the wierd bit at the moment is the lack of unemployment. Quite the opposite in fact, as your anecdote suggests. That’s the same everywhere too, as the labour market has been shrunk by the pandemic - plus of course, the ‘B-word’ in the UK, which has led to rising wages as predicted.
Real wages down more than 4% on a year ago, biggest ever fall.
Indeed, but that number hides a host of different outcomes, anecdotally.
Two people in our office who are dating are both leaving for much better paid jobs.
When property prices almost certainly fall in the autumn they won't only be able to afford a property. They'll be able to afford a good property. They used to wail about never being able to buy. Now? not so much.
Are property prices going to fall? They're up yoy 10%. Why wouldn't the government prop them up if that looked likely?
It appears to be a widespread belief. I have a friend who is putting off buying because he is convinced it will be 20% cheaper next year.
House prices stagnating and falling in real terms seems possible as mortgage costs rise. But a nominal fall of 20%? Seems unlikely to me.
I know Boris having sex with his own wife rather than someone else's may be out of character but didn't realise it was -gate levels of shocking.
Wasn't he married to someone else at the time?
I don't know anything about the story, I was just making a joke.
Yeah, he was still married to the other one when he gave Carrie the gob full of Cambodian toothpaste in his office. Absolutely unrelated to his efforts to make her his CoS.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
Ah the Lib Dems are just errant socialists who will come to see the error of their ways as part of a progressive alliance when the time comes.
This myth is normally peddled by Labour folk, not normally by Lib Dems themselves.
I would also add at the local level I find the Venn Diagram between potential LD voters and Green voters is almost a circle, and that it usually boils down to "who is going to beat the Tories who isn't Labour", but it does suggest a lack of ideological cohesion / depth and more of a vibe.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
My very primitive take on US politics is that the Dems don’t do long term strategy.
There’s no Kissinger, Rove, McConnell instinct.
It is the Republicans who understand the “long march through the institutions”.
I see Russia had said it has exited Snake Island as a "gesture of goodwill".
Obviously they couldn't hold it, given the arrival of MLRS / Harpoons etc but, on this logic, they realise that the arrival of such equipment - even in small numbers - is going to have a catastrophic impact on their resources.
Which makes me think that we may not be too far again from the Russians offering some sort of ceasefire proposal, especially if the Ukrainian army leaves / is defeated at Lysychansk and it therefore has control of Luhansk, if not the entire Donbas.
One other part - apparently at the well-publicised meeting between Shiogu and the Russian commanders was the head of the RU army's personnel department. Might be worth thinking about why he would be there.
This shows what happens when Russian artillery loses the advantage of range to the new systems coming into Ukraine's arsenal:
The '119 is a bit of a pop gun, though. Even with base bleed ammo, its range only gets to 20km.
Ukraine seems to be getting the extended range (155mm) ammunition: https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1542268934937870336 Whoa!! The projectile on this CAESAR's loading tray seems to be a LU 211 with an attached Base Bleed Unit. Range: 40 km
Ah the Lib Dems are just errant socialists who will come to see the error of their ways as part of a progressive alliance when the time comes.
This myth is normally peddled by Labour folk, not normally by Lib Dems themselves.
I was thinking on this just yesterday, remembering my interactions with Labour councillors.
The biggest, overwhelming, difference isn’t one of policy but of attitude. Liberals put a value on independence of thought and action, socialists prize solidarity, loyalty and adherence to the party line. That’s a little glib, and I could have written a whole paragraph (but don’t feel like it). But the answer is in there somewhere.
Don't know about glib but it's a bit jaundiced! Stat of 1 - me - I have asked myself why I'm Lab not LD because it is an interesting thing to ponder. The main reason is my view that the government's top domestic priority, not the only one but the top one, should be to foster a more equal society.
Labour has become too much of a conduit for daft ideologically driven ideas (not saying they are unique in that!) and given their attractiveness to activist puritans that can make them dangerous. Lots of good people in the party but some ghastly ideological fixations bubbling away. I think there might be a real chance for LDs if they can pitch things effectively. There is a massive disaffected centrist pragmatist vote to be won by someone.
There is a lot of dislike and distrust of LP only offset by utterly crap nature of current government. Danger for Labour is that Tory MPs might kick out BoJo and appoint a better alternative so even Tories losing next election is not a certainty.
Perhaps that 'break the mould' will finally happen. LDs take LOTS of Con seats, Lab take fewer than hoped but just enough. 2 party politics becomes 3 party politics.
Unfortunately Lib Dem popularity is like blowing soap bubbles. It grows nicely through gentle exhalation but as soon as someone starts talking of breaking moulds and 3 party politics the party takes a big huff and pop, the bubble is burst for another few years.
Happened in 1983, 2010, 2019. Even a little in 2005.
Under FPTP Lib Dem seats are essentially almost perfectly negatively correlated with Tory vote share. Probably more so than Labour in fact.
Yes but GE24 could be an odd one, esp if the Cons keep Johnson and enthusiasm for Starmer remains muted. It could be that the Cons defend the RW quite effectively but get a whacking in the BW and certain other places. Potentially great for the LDs. Transformational even.
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare to have a serious say in the progressive alliance."
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
My very primitive take on US politics is that the Dems don’t do long term strategy.
There’s no Kissinger, Rove, McConnell instinct.
It is the Republicans who understand the “long march through the institutions”.
This is a big complaint from the US left. The Dems play very short term, and seem to play defence. The GOP are always on the attack, always willing to find the smallest hold of veto power and always willing to leverage it. The Democrats are not.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
My very primitive take on US politics is that the Dems don’t do long term strategy.
There’s no Kissinger, Rove, McConnell instinct.
It is the Republicans who understand the “long march through the institutions”.
Yes. Trump is a diversion from a long-term GOP strategy. A lot of the anti-Trump Republicans had been stacking the lower courts and small town dog-wardens for decades.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
My very primitive take on US politics is that the Dems don’t do long term strategy.
There’s no Kissinger, Rove, McConnell instinct.
It is the Republicans who understand the “long march through the institutions”.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
My very primitive take on US politics is that the Dems don’t do long term strategy.
There’s no Kissinger, Rove, McConnell instinct.
It is the Republicans who understand the “long march through the institutions”.
LBJ did. But unfortunately was utterly clueless on military strategy, and thus Vietnam.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
My very primitive take on US politics is that the Dems don’t do long term strategy.
There’s no Kissinger, Rove, McConnell instinct.
It is the Republicans who understand the “long march through the institutions”.
Yes. Trump is a diversion from a long-term GOP strategy. A lot of the anti-Trump Republicans had been stacking the lower courts and small town dog-wardens for decades.
I mean, that clinched Trump the presidency - he said he was willing to sign over judge appointments to the Federalist Society, so they backed him to the hilt.
If you're interested in such things "Know Your Enemy" is a good podcast from 2 Americans on the left (one life long lefty, the other grew up evangelical and within the right wing political sphere). They just did an episode talking about how Trump happily gave the courts to Fed Soc and what that meant at the time and now.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
My very primitive take on US politics is that the Dems don’t do long term strategy.
There’s no Kissinger, Rove, McConnell instinct.
It is the Republicans who understand the “long march through the institutions”.
This is a big complaint from the US left. The Dems play very short term, and seem to play defence. The GOP are always on the attack, always willing to find the smallest hold of veto power and always willing to leverage it. The Democrats are not.
The Democrats are democrats; the Republicans aren't.
Ah the Lib Dems are just errant socialists who will come to see the error of their ways as part of a progressive alliance when the time comes.
This myth is normally peddled by Labour folk, not normally by Lib Dems themselves.
I was thinking on this just yesterday, remembering my interactions with Labour councillors.
The biggest, overwhelming, difference isn’t one of policy but of attitude. Liberals put a value on independence of thought and action, socialists prize solidarity, loyalty and adherence to the party line. That’s a little glib, and I could have written a whole paragraph (but don’t feel like it). But the answer is in there somewhere.
Don't know about glib but it's a bit jaundiced! Stat of 1 - me - I have asked myself why I'm Lab not LD because it is an interesting thing to ponder. The main reason is my view that the government's top domestic priority, not the only one but the top one, should be to foster a more equal society.
Sorry @kinabula (don't like to disagree with you) but I am with @ianb2 on this one.
Well you can't disagree about MY reasons! But maybe I'm an atypical Labourite, this is possible. When I used to go to meetings - pandemic stopped that and I haven't yet regained the urge - I never exactly felt in tune with the room.
For the average punter who hasn’t spent all that much time considering matters of political philosophy, whether you lean Labour or LibDem probably depends mostly on where you live, and its electoral history.
Fact remains, liberals will instinctively defend someone who speaks out against authority whereas socialists will stop to think about whether that person’s position is ‘politically sound’. Find someone defending the rights of a person they disagree with, and you are most unlikely to have chanced upon a socialist, who will always prize the end and the ‘greater good’ above the means and the rights of the individual.
Perhaps socialists just have a more developed sense of who is "authority" and who isn't. Some people who appear to be speaking out against authority are actually imposing authority on those who are trying to challenge it. Liberals fundamentally don't believe that there are power relationships in society that leave some people oppressed. The Labour Party, born out of the labour struggles of the nineteenth century, isn't going to be that shortsighted. Of course if you don't believe that these power relationships exist, then socialists will simply appear doctrinaire and obtuse; if you do believe they exist then liberals will look ignorant and naive. By contrast, Tories know these power relationships exist, and either think that is a good thing, or hope to benefit from them regardless.
Ah the Lib Dems are just errant socialists who will come to see the error of their ways as part of a progressive alliance when the time comes.
This myth is normally peddled by Labour folk, not normally by Lib Dems themselves.
I was thinking on this just yesterday, remembering my interactions with Labour councillors.
The biggest, overwhelming, difference isn’t one of policy but of attitude. Liberals put a value on independence of thought and action, socialists prize solidarity, loyalty and adherence to the party line. That’s a little glib, and I could have written a whole paragraph (but don’t feel like it). But the answer is in there somewhere.
Don't know about glib but it's a bit jaundiced! Stat of 1 - me - I have asked myself why I'm Lab not LD because it is an interesting thing to ponder. The main reason is my view that the government's top domestic priority, not the only one but the top one, should be to foster a more equal society.
Labour has become too much of a conduit for daft ideologically driven ideas (not saying they are unique in that!) and given their attractiveness to activist puritans that can make them dangerous. Lots of good people in the party but some ghastly ideological fixations bubbling away. I think there might be a real chance for LDs if they can pitch things effectively. There is a massive disaffected centrist pragmatist vote to be won by someone.
There is a lot of dislike and distrust of LP only offset by utterly crap nature of current government. Danger for Labour is that Tory MPs might kick out BoJo and appoint a better alternative so even Tories losing next election is not a certainty.
Perhaps that 'break the mould' will finally happen. LDs take LOTS of Con seats, Lab take fewer than hoped but just enough. 2 party politics becomes 3 party politics.
Unfortunately Lib Dem popularity is like blowing soap bubbles. It grows nicely through gentle exhalation but as soon as someone starts talking of breaking moulds and 3 party politics the party takes a big huff and pop, the bubble is burst for another few years.
Happened in 1983, 2010, 2019. Even a little in 2005.
Under FPTP Lib Dem seats are essentially almost perfectly negatively correlated with Tory vote share. Probably more so than Labour in fact.
Yes but GE24 could be an odd one, esp if the Cons keep Johnson and enthusiasm for Starmer remains muted. It could be that the Cons defend the RW quite effectively but get a whacking in the BW and certain other places. Potentially great for the LDs. Transformational even.
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare to have a serious say in the progressive alliance."
Or they could decide the mathematics means they have to prop up the Conservatives. Can't think when that has happened before, and it seems unlikely they would ever sell their souls to Satan, but there's always a first time.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
My very primitive take on US politics is that the Dems don’t do long term strategy.
There’s no Kissinger, Rove, McConnell instinct.
It is the Republicans who understand the “long march through the institutions”.
This is a big complaint from the US left. The Dems play very short term, and seem to play defence. The GOP are always on the attack, always willing to find the smallest hold of veto power and always willing to leverage it. The Democrats are not.
The Democrats are democrats; the Republicans aren't.
But the Democrats are bad a defending democracy. Whether it's "belief in institutions" or pure fecklessness, who knows.
The problem with the institution approach is that every 4 - 12 years the GOP controls those institutions and either transforms them to their will or tears them down. So when Dems come in they end up defending institutions the GOP has already broken or destroyed. SCOTUS is proving to be that now, but in the past different parts of the administrative state have been the same. Look at the DOJ, hollowed out and actively cronyistic under Trump, now unable and seemingly unwilling to prosecute Trump for his crimes because, well, he was the President and punishing Presidents is a bad precedent to set. The GOP can get away with what they are doing now, essentially setting the stage to successfully steal the next Presidential election if they need to, without any pushback or punishment for the last crime. It demoralises the Democratic base and emboldens the GOPs most fanatic wing who never experience consequences.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
My very primitive take on US politics is that the Dems don’t do long term strategy.
There’s no Kissinger, Rove, McConnell instinct.
It is the Republicans who understand the “long march through the institutions”.
This is a big complaint from the US left. The Dems play very short term, and seem to play defence. The GOP are always on the attack, always willing to find the smallest hold of veto power and always willing to leverage it. The Democrats are not.
The Democrats are democrats; the Republicans aren't.
But the Democrats are bad a defending democracy. Whether it's "belief in institutions" or pure fecklessness, who knows.
The problem with the institution approach is that every 4 - 12 years the GOP controls those institutions and either transforms them to their will or tears them down. So when Dems come in they end up defending institutions the GOP has already broken or destroyed. SCOTUS is proving to be that now, but in the past different parts of the administrative state have been the same. Look at the DOJ, hollowed out and actively cronyistic under Trump, now unable and seemingly unwilling to prosecute Trump for his crimes because, well, he was the President and punishing Presidents is a bad precedent to set. The GOP can get away with what they are doing now, essentially setting the stage to successfully steal the next Presidential election if they need to, without any pushback or punishment for the last crime. It demoralises the Democratic base and emboldens the GOPs most fanatic wing who never experience consequences.
I share the frustration, and no doubt a harder headed approach would be a good one. But it's also important to recognise that there are limits. The current incarnation of the Republican movement - and its representatives on the Supreme Court - have blown past amy reasonable such limits.
Ah the Lib Dems are just errant socialists who will come to see the error of their ways as part of a progressive alliance when the time comes.
This myth is normally peddled by Labour folk, not normally by Lib Dems themselves.
I was thinking on this just yesterday, remembering my interactions with Labour councillors.
The biggest, overwhelming, difference isn’t one of policy but of attitude. Liberals put a value on independence of thought and action, socialists prize solidarity, loyalty and adherence to the party line. That’s a little glib, and I could have written a whole paragraph (but don’t feel like it). But the answer is in there somewhere.
Don't know about glib but it's a bit jaundiced! Stat of 1 - me - I have asked myself why I'm Lab not LD because it is an interesting thing to ponder. The main reason is my view that the government's top domestic priority, not the only one but the top one, should be to foster a more equal society.
Sorry @kinabula (don't like to disagree with you) but I am with @ianb2 on this one.
Well you can't disagree about MY reasons! But maybe I'm an atypical Labourite, this is possible. When I used to go to meetings - pandemic stopped that and I haven't yet regained the urge - I never exactly felt in tune with the room.
For the average punter who hasn’t spent all that much time considering matters of political philosophy, whether you lean Labour or LibDem probably depends mostly on where you live, and its electoral history.
Fact remains, liberals will instinctively defend someone who speaks out against authority whereas socialists will stop to think about whether that person’s position is ‘politically sound’. Find someone defending the rights of a person they disagree with, and you are most unlikely to have chanced upon a socialist, who will always prize the end and the ‘greater good’ above the means and the rights of the individual.
Perhaps socialists just have a more developed sense of who is "authority" and who isn't. Some people who appear to be speaking out against authority are actually imposing authority on those who are trying to challenge it. Liberals fundamentally don't believe that there are power relationships in society that leave some people oppressed. The Labour Party, born out of the labour struggles of the nineteenth century, isn't going to be that shortsighted. Of course if you don't believe that these power relationships exist, then socialists will simply appear doctrinaire and obtuse; if you do believe they exist then liberals will look ignorant and naive. By contrast, Tories know these power relationships exist, and either think that is a good thing, or hope to benefit from them regardless.
A post not without insight.
Personally, I’d rather strive toward my vision of how the world might be, rather than descend into the ‘them and us’, ‘our people against theirs’ world in which I know from personal experience that so many Tory and Labour politicians live. You may say that I’m a dreamer…but I’m not the only one.
Ah the Lib Dems are just errant socialists who will come to see the error of their ways as part of a progressive alliance when the time comes.
This myth is normally peddled by Labour folk, not normally by Lib Dems themselves.
I was thinking on this just yesterday, remembering my interactions with Labour councillors.
The biggest, overwhelming, difference isn’t one of policy but of attitude. Liberals put a value on independence of thought and action, socialists prize solidarity, loyalty and adherence to the party line. That’s a little glib, and I could have written a whole paragraph (but don’t feel like it). But the answer is in there somewhere.
Don't know about glib but it's a bit jaundiced! Stat of 1 - me - I have asked myself why I'm Lab not LD because it is an interesting thing to ponder. The main reason is my view that the government's top domestic priority, not the only one but the top one, should be to foster a more equal society.
Labour has become too much of a conduit for daft ideologically driven ideas (not saying they are unique in that!) and given their attractiveness to activist puritans that can make them dangerous. Lots of good people in the party but some ghastly ideological fixations bubbling away. I think there might be a real chance for LDs if they can pitch things effectively. There is a massive disaffected centrist pragmatist vote to be won by someone.
There is a lot of dislike and distrust of LP only offset by utterly crap nature of current government. Danger for Labour is that Tory MPs might kick out BoJo and appoint a better alternative so even Tories losing next election is not a certainty.
Perhaps that 'break the mould' will finally happen. LDs take LOTS of Con seats, Lab take fewer than hoped but just enough. 2 party politics becomes 3 party politics.
Unfortunately Lib Dem popularity is like blowing soap bubbles. It grows nicely through gentle exhalation but as soon as someone starts talking of breaking moulds and 3 party politics the party takes a big huff and pop, the bubble is burst for another few years.
Happened in 1983, 2010, 2019. Even a little in 2005.
Under FPTP Lib Dem seats are essentially almost perfectly negatively correlated with Tory vote share. Probably more so than Labour in fact.
Yes but GE24 could be an odd one, esp if the Cons keep Johnson and enthusiasm for Starmer remains muted. It could be that the Cons defend the RW quite effectively but get a whacking in the BW and certain other places. Potentially great for the LDs. Transformational even.
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare to have a serious say in the progressive alliance."
Or they could decide the mathematics means they have to prop up the Conservatives. Can't think when that has happened before, and it seems unlikely they would ever sell their souls to Satan, but there's always a first time.
Ah the Lib Dems are just errant socialists who will come to see the error of their ways as part of a progressive alliance when the time comes.
This myth is normally peddled by Labour folk, not normally by Lib Dems themselves.
No, Lib Dems are just Tories who think they're too nice to be Tories.
No, Lib Dems are just socialists who've realised socialism doesn't work.
Citation needed.
It seems clear to me that most LDs are, as a class, not suited to being Labour voters but disagree too much with the Tories to be conservatives. Most either agree with or don't question the economic system we're under, but want more public spending. They tend to be a bit less material in their politics - by which I mean their concerns are more about "elite politics", electoral and media reform and the EU being the most prominent, rather than bread and butter politics, where I think they are more distant from due simply to being the more PMC class.
Green voters are similar in that they tend towards being PMC, but also do tend to believe in socialism.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
My very primitive take on US politics is that the Dems don’t do long term strategy.
There’s no Kissinger, Rove, McConnell instinct.
It is the Republicans who understand the “long march through the institutions”.
This is a big complaint from the US left. The Dems play very short term, and seem to play defence. The GOP are always on the attack, always willing to find the smallest hold of veto power and always willing to leverage it. The Democrats are not.
The Democrats are democrats; the Republicans aren't.
The Democratic base are also idiots. They perpetually fail to turn up for the minor races and primaries and then complain that the people at the top are ineffective/don't represent them.
Meanwhile the theocratic fascists on the extreme right make sure they install ideologically pure extremists from the dog catcher up pushing the party further snd further right over decades.
Puerto Rico is actually not that much of a Democrat slam dunk, especially given the shifting allegiances of Hispanic voters. Washington DC obviously is but there's also another obviously simple solution which is to allow the capital to join either Virginia or Maryland (or split it), thus rectifying the issue of non- rights.
In any event, it would be certainly subject to legal challenges and Republican states would claim that their rights had been infringed by the extra states. By the time it went through, the GOP would control the Senate as well.
Oh, and you'd obviously be doing it not because you think it's the right thing to do but because it helps your political position.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
Ah the Lib Dems are just errant socialists who will come to see the error of their ways as part of a progressive alliance when the time comes.
This myth is normally peddled by Labour folk, not normally by Lib Dems themselves.
I was thinking on this just yesterday, remembering my interactions with Labour councillors.
The biggest, overwhelming, difference isn’t one of policy but of attitude. Liberals put a value on independence of thought and action, socialists prize solidarity, loyalty and adherence to the party line. That’s a little glib, and I could have written a whole paragraph (but don’t feel like it). But the answer is in there somewhere.
Don't know about glib but it's a bit jaundiced! Stat of 1 - me - I have asked myself why I'm Lab not LD because it is an interesting thing to ponder. The main reason is my view that the government's top domestic priority, not the only one but the top one, should be to foster a more equal society.
Labour has become too much of a conduit for daft ideologically driven ideas (not saying they are unique in that!) and given their attractiveness to activist puritans that can make them dangerous. Lots of good people in the party but some ghastly ideological fixations bubbling away. I think there might be a real chance for LDs if they can pitch things effectively. There is a massive disaffected centrist pragmatist vote to be won by someone.
There is a lot of dislike and distrust of LP only offset by utterly crap nature of current government. Danger for Labour is that Tory MPs might kick out BoJo and appoint a better alternative so even Tories losing next election is not a certainty.
Perhaps that 'break the mould' will finally happen. LDs take LOTS of Con seats, Lab take fewer than hoped but just enough. 2 party politics becomes 3 party politics.
Unfortunately Lib Dem popularity is like blowing soap bubbles. It grows nicely through gentle exhalation but as soon as someone starts talking of breaking moulds and 3 party politics the party takes a big huff and pop, the bubble is burst for another few years.
Happened in 1983, 2010, 2019. Even a little in 2005.
Under FPTP Lib Dem seats are essentially almost perfectly negatively correlated with Tory vote share. Probably more so than Labour in fact.
Yes but GE24 could be an odd one, esp if the Cons keep Johnson and enthusiasm for Starmer remains muted. It could be that the Cons defend the RW quite effectively but get a whacking in the BW and certain other places. Potentially great for the LDs. Transformational even.
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare to have a serious say in the progressive alliance."
Or they could decide the mathematics means they have to prop up the Conservatives. Can't think when that has happened before, and it seems unlikely they would ever sell their souls to Satan, but there's always a first time.
What am I missing? I was here in the UK in 2010. Unless the Tory Party then was so different as for the Coalition not to count here.
Ah the Lib Dems are just errant socialists who will come to see the error of their ways as part of a progressive alliance when the time comes.
This myth is normally peddled by Labour folk, not normally by Lib Dems themselves.
I was thinking on this just yesterday, remembering my interactions with Labour councillors.
The biggest, overwhelming, difference isn’t one of policy but of attitude. Liberals put a value on independence of thought and action, socialists prize solidarity, loyalty and adherence to the party line. That’s a little glib, and I could have written a whole paragraph (but don’t feel like it). But the answer is in there somewhere.
Don't know about glib but it's a bit jaundiced! Stat of 1 - me - I have asked myself why I'm Lab not LD because it is an interesting thing to ponder. The main reason is my view that the government's top domestic priority, not the only one but the top one, should be to foster a more equal society.
Labour has become too much of a conduit for daft ideologically driven ideas (not saying they are unique in that!) and given their attractiveness to activist puritans that can make them dangerous. Lots of good people in the party but some ghastly ideological fixations bubbling away. I think there might be a real chance for LDs if they can pitch things effectively. There is a massive disaffected centrist pragmatist vote to be won by someone.
There is a lot of dislike and distrust of LP only offset by utterly crap nature of current government. Danger for Labour is that Tory MPs might kick out BoJo and appoint a better alternative so even Tories losing next election is not a certainty.
Perhaps that 'break the mould' will finally happen. LDs take LOTS of Con seats, Lab take fewer than hoped but just enough. 2 party politics becomes 3 party politics.
Unfortunately Lib Dem popularity is like blowing soap bubbles. It grows nicely through gentle exhalation but as soon as someone starts talking of breaking moulds and 3 party politics the party takes a big huff and pop, the bubble is burst for another few years.
Happened in 1983, 2010, 2019. Even a little in 2005.
Under FPTP Lib Dem seats are essentially almost perfectly negatively correlated with Tory vote share. Probably more so than Labour in fact.
Yes but GE24 could be an odd one, esp if the Cons keep Johnson and enthusiasm for Starmer remains muted. It could be that the Cons defend the RW quite effectively but get a whacking in the BW and certain other places. Potentially great for the LDs. Transformational even.
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare to have a serious say in the progressive alliance."
Or they could decide the mathematics means they have to prop up the Conservatives. Can't think when that has happened before, and it seems unlikely they would ever sell their souls to Satan, but there's always a first time.
But not - surely to goodness - if it's Johnson.
Cast your mind back to Spring 2010. Never say never!
Re: the mini debate on the previous thread, I can't see how @Richard_Tyndall has misunderstood them.
Flu and pneumonia were a cause of contributory factor in more deaths than covid was since the start of the pandemic, which I must admit really surprised me... however that is indeed what the data say.
So Richard is quite right I think.
I'd have to check but there could be double counting going on there. Covid can lead to pneumonia. Which would mean you would appear in both buckets.
Isn’t pneumonia a symptom of illness rather than an illness itself?
Yes it's an inflammation of the lungs as a result of infection, often bacterial in origin. Colds can lead to pneumonia via bacteria getting established during the initial stages of the viral disease. I am prone to chest infections after colds which are related to my asthma.
That’s what I thought - so listing it with Flu and COVID is mixing categories.
Isn’t pneumonia also associated with a lot of other diseases?
Yes, what is missing from the ONS stats to contextualise them is "Deaths certificates with Covid & Pneumonia on them".
Puerto Rico is actually not that much of a Democrat slam dunk, especially given the shifting allegiances of Hispanic voters. Washington DC obviously is but there's also another obviously simple solution which is to allow the capital to join either Virginia or Maryland (or split it), thus rectifying the issue of non- rights.
In any event, it would be certainly subject to legal challenges and Republican states would claim that their rights had been infringed by the extra states. By the time it went through, the GOP would control the Senate as well.
Oh, and you'd obviously be doing it not because you think it's the right thing to do but because it helps your political position.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
Yes: the correct and logical solution to DC is to split it between Virginia and Maryland. It would be a small net positive to the Democrats, as it would mean an additional (Democratic) CD in each, and would probably make Virginia a slightly blue-er State.
Justice Kagan: "Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change."
It looks like the less extreme version of what it could be. The alternative the entire destruction of federal executive authority via delegated agencies.
Ah the Lib Dems are just errant socialists who will come to see the error of their ways as part of a progressive alliance when the time comes.
This myth is normally peddled by Labour folk, not normally by Lib Dems themselves.
I was thinking on this just yesterday, remembering my interactions with Labour councillors.
The biggest, overwhelming, difference isn’t one of policy but of attitude. Liberals put a value on independence of thought and action, socialists prize solidarity, loyalty and adherence to the party line. That’s a little glib, and I could have written a whole paragraph (but don’t feel like it). But the answer is in there somewhere.
Don't know about glib but it's a bit jaundiced! Stat of 1 - me - I have asked myself why I'm Lab not LD because it is an interesting thing to ponder. The main reason is my view that the government's top domestic priority, not the only one but the top one, should be to foster a more equal society.
Labour has become too much of a conduit for daft ideologically driven ideas (not saying they are unique in that!) and given their attractiveness to activist puritans that can make them dangerous. Lots of good people in the party but some ghastly ideological fixations bubbling away. I think there might be a real chance for LDs if they can pitch things effectively. There is a massive disaffected centrist pragmatist vote to be won by someone.
There is a lot of dislike and distrust of LP only offset by utterly crap nature of current government. Danger for Labour is that Tory MPs might kick out BoJo and appoint a better alternative so even Tories losing next election is not a certainty.
Perhaps that 'break the mould' will finally happen. LDs take LOTS of Con seats, Lab take fewer than hoped but just enough. 2 party politics becomes 3 party politics.
Unfortunately Lib Dem popularity is like blowing soap bubbles. It grows nicely through gentle exhalation but as soon as someone starts talking of breaking moulds and 3 party politics the party takes a big huff and pop, the bubble is burst for another few years.
Happened in 1983, 2010, 2019. Even a little in 2005.
Under FPTP Lib Dem seats are essentially almost perfectly negatively correlated with Tory vote share. Probably more so than Labour in fact.
Yes but GE24 could be an odd one, esp if the Cons keep Johnson and enthusiasm for Starmer remains muted. It could be that the Cons defend the RW quite effectively but get a whacking in the BW and certain other places. Potentially great for the LDs. Transformational even.
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare to have a serious say in the progressive alliance."
Or they could decide the mathematics means they have to prop up the Conservatives. Can't think when that has happened before, and it seems unlikely they would ever sell their souls to Satan, but there's always a first time.
What am I missing? I was here in the UK in 2010. Unless the Tory Party then was so different as for the Coalition not to count here.
At a Rugby League World Cup press conference today. Nadine Dorries, sec of state for sport, is special guest. “I’ve always liked the idea of rugby league. That drop goal in 2003 was such a special moment.” That drop goal was actually in the Rugby Union World Cup.
Justice Kagan: "Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change."
Jeez. This is heading towards a major constitutional crisis for the US. An overactive SC stuffed full of Trump's mad picks now taking a sledge hammer to federal power? Crazy.
And this is the warm for Trump's return. We 'aint seen anything yet unless they stop him running.
Puerto Rico is actually not that much of a Democrat slam dunk, especially given the shifting allegiances of Hispanic voters. Washington DC obviously is but there's also another obviously simple solution which is to allow the capital to join either Virginia or Maryland (or split it), thus rectifying the issue of non- rights.
In any event, it would be certainly subject to legal challenges and Republican states would claim that their rights had been infringed by the extra states. By the time it went through, the GOP would control the Senate as well.
Oh, and you'd obviously be doing it not because you think it's the right thing to do but because it helps your political position.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
Puerto Rico has only small majorities in favour of Statehood. They probably need to have a proper referendum (not the 2020 one), and - if it passes - they should formally apply to the US Government.
Justice Kagan: "Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change."
Jeez. This is heading towards a major constitutional crisis for the US. An overactive SC stuffed full of Trump's mad picks now taking a sledge hammer to federal power? Crazy.
And this is the warm for Trump's return. We 'aint seen anything yet unless they stop him running.
It's 5d chess. Trump can't run if they abolish the federal government before the next election.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
My very primitive take on US politics is that the Dems don’t do long term strategy.
There’s no Kissinger, Rove, McConnell instinct.
It is the Republicans who understand the “long march through the institutions”.
This is a big complaint from the US left. The Dems play very short term, and seem to play defence. The GOP are always on the attack, always willing to find the smallest hold of veto power and always willing to leverage it. The Democrats are not.
The Democrats are democrats; the Republicans aren't.
But the Democrats are bad a defending democracy. Whether it's "belief in institutions" or pure fecklessness, who knows.
The problem with the institution approach is that every 4 - 12 years the GOP controls those institutions and either transforms them to their will or tears them down. So when Dems come in they end up defending institutions the GOP has already broken or destroyed. SCOTUS is proving to be that now, but in the past different parts of the administrative state have been the same. Look at the DOJ, hollowed out and actively cronyistic under Trump, now unable and seemingly unwilling to prosecute Trump for his crimes because, well, he was the President and punishing Presidents is a bad precedent to set. The GOP can get away with what they are doing now, essentially setting the stage to successfully steal the next Presidential election if they need to, without any pushback or punishment for the last crime. It demoralises the Democratic base and emboldens the GOPs most fanatic wing who never experience consequences.
It is now democracy vs authoritarianism in the USA now.
Nothing else matters.
When will the Dems properly wake up to the crisis?
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
DC is simple.
PR has the issue that there isn’t a clear consensus on the island about statehood - without some substantial investment/transition, the economy could be knocked all over the place
Justice Kagan: "Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change."
It looks like the less extreme version of what it could be. The alternative the entire destruction of federal executive authority via delegated agencies.
This way is just death by a thousand cuts.
No, no, no.
When the Republicans are next in power, the SC (certainly Alito and Thomas) will suddenly decide that the Federal Government *does* have the power to direct the agencies.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Yeah, the failure to make DC and PR states has been really baffling to me. If the current GOP had the kind of inbuilt disadvantage in the Senate that Dems do, they would almost certainly take in a super red state and a purplish red state, so why the Dems haven't even squeaked on it is insane.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
Puerto Rico has only small majorities in favour of Statehood. They probably need to have a proper referendum (not the 2020 one), and - if it passes - they should formally apply to the US Government.
Why wasn't the 2020 one proper?
If we can't respect a 52/48 result as decisive then what can we?
Justice Kagan: "Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change."
Jeez. This is heading towards a major constitutional crisis for the US. An overactive SC stuffed full of Trump's mad picks now taking a sledge hammer to federal power? Crazy.
And this is the warm for Trump's return. We 'aint seen anything yet unless they stop him running.
It’s fascinating that the SC seems to pull a shocker out pretty much weekly at the moment.
I haven’t read the logic on this one but the US has no hope of controlling carbon emissions if it is left to individual States.
Comments
When people were going on about "Well, the health service is stressed by flu every year, what's the difference?" I went and plotted the weekly number of ICU visits from covid in England over time versus historical influenza ICU visits.
Had to change the scale a few times, mind you, and then it ended up looking just plain ridiculous.
(In green are admissions to ICU for influenza, in red are covid ones)
Including, IMHO, Figaro's very own Susanna the increasingly impressive Angela Rayner.
BTW as banks and the financial sector were supposed to be heavily regulated and under the controls of geniuses including G Brown, who had abolished boom and bust, Labour cannot wash their hands of 2008 following. Hubris.
https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/1542087101956689921
Still a record ?
But I doubt it
Lab 48% -6
Con 22% nc
LD 16% +5
Grn 8% +2
Ref 3% nc
Rest of South
Con 38% -3
Lab 31% +2
LD 19% +5
Grn 6% -3
Ref 3% -2
Midlands and Wales
Con 40% -2
Lab 34% -4
LD 10% +2
Ref 6% +4
Grn 4% -1
PC 4% +1
North
Lab 47% +2
Con 31% nc
LD 9% +3
Grn 8% -1
Ref 3% -1
Scotland
SNP 49% -2
Con 19% +1
Lab 16% nc
LD 9% +1
Grn 5% -1
- “How well or badly do you think the government are doing at handling Britain's exit from the European Union?” (net badly)
18-24 -47
25-49 -54
50-64 -31
65+ -5
Scotland -70
London -60
North -39
Midlands & Wales -26
Rest of South -26
GB -37
- “In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?” (net wrong)
18-24 -57
25-49 -37
50-64 +3
65+ +33
Scotland -49
London -31
Rest of South -9
North -9
Midlands & Wales 0
GB -14
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1664; 28-29 June 2022.
+/- change from YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1707; Fieldwork: 5-6 May 2022)
And the reason to do it now is as I wrote above: better now than much more later. And it is also the morally correct thing to do IMO.
Though bear in mind that these protests also are being made to ensure that it doesn't become a precedent for central government to dip into devolved funding on a regular basis.
There's very little foreign ownership any more.
However, I guess the issue Japan has is that they are a massive energy importer, and that is driving a trade deficit.
"@BritainElects
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 36% (-3)
CON: 33% (-1)
LDEM: 13% (+4)
GRN: 6% (-2)
via @YouGov, 28 - 29 Jun
Chgs. w/ 23 Jun"
The Telegraph got a trip to Salisbury Plain, to watch the Ukranians training on the M270 MLRS and L119 gun. The MLRS will rain Hell down on the enemy from 50 miles away. They can’t get to the front lines soon enough.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/30/ukrainian-soldiers-sharpen-aim-salisbury-plain/
#Carriegate https://twitter.com/Parody_PM/status/1542491771573338113/photo/1
A memorable event at the start of the Rugby League Premier League
Macron as unpopular as Scholz. Would have been nice to see them asked about Polish and Baltic leaders too.
The Australian election showed that when a party has been in office for some time and the prime minister is unpopular, the electorate finds all sorts of ways to defeat them, including in constituencies that had long been considered safe
https://spectator.co.uk/article/why-tactical-voting-is-so-dangerous-for-the-tories….
So I don't see the Nats saying "invest at home" as aiding and abetting Putin. Indeed, investment at home was specifically why this government was elected - the Levelling Up agenda was the thing that prised the Red Wall away from Labour after a decade of austerity.
I know Boris having sex with his own wife rather than someone else's may be out of character but didn't realise it was -gate levels of shocking.
If this poll was Lab 40%, Con 33%, LD 10%, Grn 5% it would look very bad for the Tories.
There is of course a loss from tactical voting inefficiency. The question is how big a loss.
Incidentally the 4 nationwide main parties are -2% from last time so presumably a combo of RefUK, SNP and the rounding party makes up the difference.
It’ll be fascinating watching FUDHY disowning Boris and Brexit for the next two decades. Oh Lord, I’ve wasted my life…
Two people in our office who are dating are both leaving for much better paid jobs.
When property prices almost certainly fall in the autumn they won't only be able to afford a property. They'll be able to afford a good property. They used to wail about never being able to buy. Now? not so much.
They're up yoy 10%.
Why wouldn't the government prop them up if that looked likely?
if true
Happened in 1983, 2010, 2019. Even a little in 2005.
Under FPTP Lib Dem seats are essentially almost perfectly negatively correlated with Tory vote share. Probably more so than Labour in fact.
He should have changed the filibuster to stack the Supreme Court reversing the GOPs stacking last term. And made Puerto Rico and DC states.
Passing Roe v Wade legislation in Congress is too little, too late. Would be reversed by SCOTUS and/or Congress after the GOP regain power.
Fact remains, liberals will instinctively defend someone who speaks out against authority whereas socialists will stop to think about whether that person’s position is ‘politically sound’. Find someone defending the rights of a person they disagree with, and you are most unlikely to have chanced upon a socialist, who will always prize the end and the ‘greater good’ above the means and the rights of the individual.
House prices stagnating and falling in real terms seems possible as mortgage costs rise. But a nominal fall of 20%? Seems unlikely to me.
https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1542077435193204736
In unrelated and probably unreliable news, Gavin Williamson's knighthood is trending on twitter.
It's also maddening that this was signalled 2 months ago, and the Dems didn't have legislation ready to go, as the GOP would. (Not to mention the maddening aspect of the Federalist Society existing for 40 years and working hand in glove with the GOP to get to this point and the Dems doing diddly around courts and in 2008 Rahm Emmanuel saying the courts were "not a priority")
There’s no Kissinger, Rove, McConnell instinct.
It is the Republicans who understand the “long march through the institutions”.
SKS Party down to 36
Corrupt sleazy cost of living crisis Party 33
SKS fans please explain
Edit: Ah, I see, rendering the service of keeping his gob shut about Carrie keeping her gob open.
Even with base bleed ammo, its range only gets to 20km.
Ukraine seems to be getting the extended range (155mm) ammunition:
https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1542268934937870336
Whoa!!
The projectile on this CAESAR's loading tray seems to be a LU 211 with an attached Base Bleed Unit.
Range: 40 km
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare to have a serious say in the progressive alliance."
https://twitter.com/elienyc/status/1542505166645039111?s=21&t=_OobxIB7d5gyAmG89YVLOA&fbclid=IwAR2t0nIulrp2yUJTKLKyxLPJD15n-QHIIY_GIRn8MtOyYH5Ko5hdeHvGa7o
But unfortunately was utterly clueless on military strategy, and thus Vietnam.
If you're interested in such things "Know Your Enemy" is a good podcast from 2 Americans on the left (one life long lefty, the other grew up evangelical and within the right wing political sphere). They just did an episode talking about how Trump happily gave the courts to Fed Soc and what that meant at the time and now.
Of course if you don't believe that these power relationships exist, then socialists will simply appear doctrinaire and obtuse; if you do believe they exist then liberals will look ignorant and naive. By contrast, Tories know these power relationships exist, and either think that is a good thing, or hope to benefit from them regardless.
The problem with the institution approach is that every 4 - 12 years the GOP controls those institutions and either transforms them to their will or tears them down. So when Dems come in they end up defending institutions the GOP has already broken or destroyed. SCOTUS is proving to be that now, but in the past different parts of the administrative state have been the same. Look at the DOJ, hollowed out and actively cronyistic under Trump, now unable and seemingly unwilling to prosecute Trump for his crimes because, well, he was the President and punishing Presidents is a bad precedent to set. The GOP can get away with what they are doing now, essentially setting the stage to successfully steal the next Presidential election if they need to, without any pushback or punishment for the last crime. It demoralises the Democratic base and emboldens the GOPs most fanatic wing who never experience consequences.
But it's also important to recognise that there are limits. The current incarnation of the Republican movement - and its representatives on the Supreme Court - have blown past amy reasonable such limits.
Personally, I’d rather strive toward my vision of how the world might be, rather than descend into the ‘them and us’, ‘our people against theirs’ world in which I know from personal experience that so many Tory and Labour politicians live. You may say that I’m a dreamer…but I’m not the only one.
Green voters are similar in that they tend towards being PMC, but also do tend to believe in socialism.
Meanwhile the theocratic fascists on the extreme right make sure they install ideologically pure extremists from the dog catcher up pushing the party further snd further right over decades.
In any event, it would be certainly subject to legal challenges and Republican states would claim that their rights had been infringed by the extra states. By the time it went through, the GOP would control the Senate as well.
Oh, and you'd obviously be doing it not because you think it's the right thing to do but because it helps your political position.
https://twitter.com/cristianafarias/status/1542511549188673537
The Supreme Court just stripped the federal government of the power to regulate carbon emissions under Clean Air Act.
Justice Kagan: "Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change."
Pneumonia is a red herring in this, I think.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-61950964
Another politician off the telly, following Trump, Boris, Zelensky and others.
This way is just death by a thousand cuts.
And this is the warm for Trump's return. We 'aint seen anything yet unless they stop him running.
Nothing else matters.
When will the Dems properly wake up to the crisis?
PR has the issue that there isn’t a clear consensus on the island about statehood - without some substantial investment/transition, the economy could be knocked all over the place
When the Republicans are next in power, the SC (certainly Alito and Thomas) will suddenly decide that the Federal Government *does* have the power to direct the agencies.
If we can't respect a 52/48 result as decisive then what can we?
I haven’t read the logic on this one but the US has no hope of controlling carbon emissions if it is left to individual States.