Ok seriously, wiki has an explanation why one MP (Williamson) did not vote in the first round, but since then 2 did not vote in the second and 1 did not vote in the third. Its surely not the same one missing each time, but who else is missing this?
If Gavin Williamson arrived too late to vote in the first ballot, is he really the best person to allegedly be running Sunak's tactical voting campaign?
Believe that Boris is not voting. Because he believes he's irreplaceable.
Just as 45 will only vote for himself for President forever more; if not on the ballot, he'll write himself in.
I think that's unlikely. Boris probably is voting IMO.
Note the last line with Labour putting the boot in.
Actually makes me more likely to vote Mordaunt and the same will certainly apply to evangelical and Roman Catholic socially conservative Conservative Party members given Mordaunt's generally pro choice voting record
Ok seriously, wiki has an explanation why one MP (Williamson) did not vote in the first round, but since then 2 did not vote in the second and 1 did not vote in the third. Its surely not the same one missing each time, but who else is missing this?
If Gavin Williamson arrived too late to vote in the first ballot, is he really the best person to allegedly be running Sunak's tactical voting campaign?
Believe that Boris is not voting. Because he believes he's irreplaceable.
Just as 45 will only vote for himself for President forever more; if not on the ballot, he'll write himself in.
Except we know he must have voted in the first round at the least. I like to think he voted Hunt, for a joke.
Ok seriously, wiki has an explanation why one MP (Williamson) did not vote in the first round, but since then 2 did not vote in the second and 1 did not vote in the third. Its surely not the same one missing each time, but who else is missing this?
If Gavin Williamson arrived too late to vote in the first ballot, is he really the best person to allegedly be running Sunak's tactical voting campaign?
Believe that Boris is not voting. Because he believes he's irreplaceable.
Just as 45 will only vote for himself for President forever more; if not on the ballot, he'll write himself in.
I think that's unlikely. Boris probably is voting IMO.
Bet you dollars to donuts (or quids to kumquats?) that in his upcoming memoirs, BJ will tell the world he nobly stood aloof and did not vote.
Certainly current record would back him up, or rather not contradict him. So far yours truly has heard only one name, Dominic Rudd, mentioned as a no-show, and for just the 2nd round. As you noted, there was 1 absention in round #1, 2 in #2 and 1 again in #3.
Ok seriously, wiki has an explanation why one MP (Williamson) did not vote in the first round, but since then 2 did not vote in the second and 1 did not vote in the third. Its surely not the same one missing each time, but who else is missing this?
If Gavin Williamson arrived too late to vote in the first ballot, is he really the best person to allegedly be running Sunak's tactical voting campaign?
Believe that Boris is not voting. Because he believes he's irreplaceable.
Just as 45 will only vote for himself for President forever more; if not on the ballot, he'll write himself in.
Except we know he must have voted in the first round at the least. I like to think he voted Hunt, for a joke.
How do we know that, there was one absention that round.
Ok seriously, wiki has an explanation why one MP (Williamson) did not vote in the first round, but since then 2 did not vote in the second and 1 did not vote in the third. Its surely not the same one missing each time, but who else is missing this?
If Gavin Williamson arrived too late to vote in the first ballot, is he really the best person to allegedly be running Sunak's tactical voting campaign?
Believe that Boris is not voting. Because he believes he's irreplaceable.
Just as 45 will only vote for himself for President forever more; if not on the ballot, he'll write himself in.
I think that's unlikely. Boris probably is voting IMO.
Bet you dollars to donuts (or quids to kumquats?) that in his upcoming memoirs, BJ will tell the world he nobly stood aloof and did not vote.
Certainly current record would back him up, or rather not contradict him. So far yours truly has heard only one name, Dominic Rudd, mentioned as a no-show, and for just the 2nd round. As you noted, there was 1 absention in round #1, 2 in #2 and 1 again in #3.
Ok seriously, wiki has an explanation why one MP (Williamson) did not vote in the first round, but since then 2 did not vote in the second and 1 did not vote in the third. Its surely not the same one missing each time, but who else is missing this?
If Gavin Williamson arrived too late to vote in the first ballot, is he really the best person to allegedly be running Sunak's tactical voting campaign?
Believe that Boris is not voting. Because he believes he's irreplaceable.
Just as 45 will only vote for himself for President forever more; if not on the ballot, he'll write himself in.
Except we know he must have voted in the first round at the least. I like to think he voted Hunt, for a joke.
How do we know that, there was one absention that round.
Because it has been widely reported that was Williamson, who ran late.
Note the last line with Labour putting the boot in.
Actually makes me more likely to vote Mordaunt and the same will certainly apply to evangelical and Roman Catholic socially conservative Conservative Party members given Mordaunt's generally pro choice voting record
It’s another beat-up.
Mordaunt critics need to decide whether she’s too social liberal, or not socially liberal enough.
Note the last line with Labour putting the boot in.
Actually makes me more likely to vote Mordaunt and the same will certainly apply to evangelical and Roman Catholic socially conservative Conservative Party members given Mordaunt's generally pro choice voting record
It’s another beat-up.
Mordaunt critics need to decide whether she’s too social liberal, or not socially liberal enough.
Native Americans made THEIR foes run the gauntlet. Daniel Boone was one who survived reasonably intact.
But Dan'l B was an above-average competitor. Not sure you can say that about Penny Mordaunt so far.
Ok seriously, wiki has an explanation why one MP (Williamson) did not vote in the first round, but since then 2 did not vote in the second and 1 did not vote in the third. Its surely not the same one missing each time, but who else is missing this?
If Gavin Williamson arrived too late to vote in the first ballot, is he really the best person to allegedly be running Sunak's tactical voting campaign?
Believe that Boris is not voting. Because he believes he's irreplaceable.
Just as 45 will only vote for himself for President forever more; if not on the ballot, he'll write himself in.
Except we know he must have voted in the first round at the least. I like to think he voted Hunt, for a joke.
How do we know that, there was one absention that round.
Because it has been widely reported that was Williamson, who ran late.
Wasn't that the 2nd round (I mixed him up with Dominic R below)?
Note the last line with Labour putting the boot in.
Actually makes me more likely to vote Mordaunt and the same will certainly apply to evangelical and Roman Catholic socially conservative Conservative Party members given Mordaunt's generally pro choice voting record
It’s another beat-up.
Mordaunt critics need to decide whether she’s too social liberal, or not socially liberal enough.
Or rather it has nothing to do with her views (it is not at all clear that she shares the views of this rather repellent organisation and she has generally voted pro-choice, AIUI) but that like others she is willing to make money from companies doing things that she personally disapproves of.
The interesting thing about that article - to me anyway - is that Labour have picked up on this and will use it or similar stuff, if there is any, against her.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
UK Offshore Wind Costs 4 Times Less Than Gas-Fired Thermal Generation
When the smoke cleared and all the final bids were tallied, more than 7 gigawatts of new offshore wind energy will be added to the nation’s grid over the next 5 years at £44 per MWh. That is one quarter of what electricity from gas fired thermal generation today, according to Carbon Brief. In addition, 2.2 gigawatts (GW) of new solar capacity also won contracts at an average £55 per MWh and 0.9 GW of new onshore wind was bid in at £50 per MWh. https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/17/uk-offshore-wind-costs-4-times-less-than-gas-fired-thermal-generation/
When I am benign and gentle dictator of the world, people who use expressions like "4 times less" will be torn apart with horses.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
That’s a rather unique notion of democracy you have. Democracy is more than just “majority rules”.
Its really interesting when you experience a hit piece regarding somebody you have some idea about....the general story seems to be that Igor is at best some pot smoking total wally gambler, who has no idea about charitable giving, at worst some sort of Russian agent.
When the reality is he is totally off the charts intelligent, was one of the very best poker players around, and co-founded an organisation years ago focused upon the idea of doing much better at effective charitable giving. Actually thinking about how you can best deploy and measure the return on your investment in charitable goals.
The idea he might be a Russian agent, well he is taken about the most roundabout possible way of ever getting himself into a situation where Russia could ever activate Comrade Igor.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
That’s a rather unique notion of democracy you have. Democracy is more than just “majority rules”.
I’m not sure it is. However a majoritarian rules system is unlikely to be sustainable.
For a start I’d expect the feds to withdraw all fiscal transfers from a state that implemented such laws
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
I thought that my first sentence "I suspect that would be unconstitutional" was a clear indication of my position on that aspect of the topic...
What do you make of the linked article, @rcs1000 ?
https://mobile.twitter.com/FedGuy12/status/1549051802389454848 A declining labor force from aging may imply secular inflation and change the policy reaction function to inflation and recession. This post reviews the theory behind aging and inflation, looks at pandemic retirements, and notes the policy implications.
Mr. JohnL, hedging nibbled away at just under half of my potential profits, but one great advantage of 251 is that it gives a lot of room to be hither and thither.
16/1 was the each way bet I think I offered on Rosberg for the title in 2014. Was quite nice.
Suella Braverman's supporters moved to Rishi as well as Liz and Kemi, so ideology is not the only factor in play. Experience might be another, since she is a Cabinet Minister like Rishi (-ish) and Liz Truss, and MPs might feel this is no time for a novice.
But Tom's backers are presumably looking for a clean pair of hands, so Kemi or Penny. Those prioritising ideology might also look to Rishi.
The question for betting purposes is, will enough of Tom's 31 backers go to Kemi to take her past Liz Truss for third place later today? Kemi was 13 votes behind.
Suella Braverman's supporters moved to Rishi as well as Liz and Kemi, so ideology is not the only factor in play. Experience might be another, since she is a Cabinet Minister like Rishi (-ish) and Liz Truss, and MPs might feel this is no time for a novice.
But Tom's backers are presumably looking for a clean pair of hands, so Kemi or Penny. Those prioritising ideology might also look to Rishi.
The question for betting purposes is, will enough of Tom's 31 backers go to Kemi to take her past Liz Truss for third place later today? Kemi was 13 votes behind.
Suella Braverman's supporters moved to Rishi as well as Liz and Kemi, so ideology is not the only factor in play. Experience might be another, since she is a Cabinet Minister like Rishi (-ish) and Liz Truss, and MPs might feel this is no time for a novice.
But Tom's backers are presumably looking for a clean pair of hands, so Kemi or Penny. Those prioritising ideology might also look to Rishi.
The question for betting purposes is, will enough of Tom's 31 backers go to Kemi to take her past Liz Truss for third place later today? Kemi was 13 votes behind.
Suella Braverman's supporters moved to Rishi as well as Liz and Kemi, so ideology is not the only factor in play. Experience might be another, since she is a Cabinet Minister like Rishi (-ish) and Liz Truss, and MPs might feel this is no time for a novice.
But Tom's backers are presumably looking for a clean pair of hands, so Kemi or Penny. Those prioritising ideology might also look to Rishi.
The question for betting purposes is, will enough of Tom's 31 backers go to Kemi to take her past Liz Truss for third place later today? Kemi was 13 votes behind.
Attorney General isn't a cabinet post.
It is for the purposes of my analysis.
I can't imagine anyone voting for somebody outside the cabinet, who has repeatedly provided manifestly wrong legal advice to the government, and who has AFAICS never actually held any sort of executive post, on the grounds 'this is no time for a novice.'
The generally uninspiring nature of the candidates is evidently bringing on a very early case of buyers remorse among the Tory membership and even the MPs as they start to rehabilitate Boris’s reputation - for no good reason - faced with the consequences of ditching him.
I think this is going to be a theme for years. He’ll become the prince across the water, like Maggie. Totally undeserving of such a status. The unknown is whether after a while the voting public will buy this too, and forget the failings of his office from the NIP to GCSEs to the collapsing NHS.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
They don't exclude people from voting - but there is no limit such as maximum number of voters per a voting center or voting booth so Texas and co spend a lot of time making voting virtually impossible in areas unlikely to vote Republican.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
They don't exclude people from voting - but there is no limit such as maximum number of voters per a voting center or voting booth so Texas and co spend a lot of time making voting virtually impossible in areas unlikely to vote Republican.
Which is, I have to say, an absolute fucking disgrace.
Although we peak at 34 degrees in Merseyside today, Boston is forecast for 40 degrees, and the newspapers claim there will be few survivors. Oh, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles.
The generally uninspiring nature of the candidates is evidently bringing on a very early case of buyers remorse among the Tory membership and even the MPs as they start to rehabilitate Boris’s reputation - for no good reason - faced with the consequences of ditching him.
I think this is going to be a theme for years. He’ll become the prince across the water, like Maggie. Totally undeserving of such a status. The unknown is whether after a while the voting public will buy this too, and forget the failings of his office from the NIP to GCSEs to the collapsing NHS.
Boris had genuine star quality and an inspiring programme (if you like that sort of thing). Trouble is, he is lazy and corrupt. His potential replacements are not so inspiring and have no obvious great ambition for the country, even if they are hardworking and honest.
Suella Braverman's supporters moved to Rishi as well as Liz and Kemi, so ideology is not the only factor in play. Experience might be another, since she is a Cabinet Minister like Rishi (-ish) and Liz Truss, and MPs might feel this is no time for a novice.
But Tom's backers are presumably looking for a clean pair of hands, so Kemi or Penny. Those prioritising ideology might also look to Rishi.
The question for betting purposes is, will enough of Tom's 31 backers go to Kemi to take her past Liz Truss for third place later today? Kemi was 13 votes behind.
Attorney General isn't a cabinet post.
Nor, in this case, is it anything close to a 'clean pair of hands'.
Morning all! 24.4°C at time of writing. Actually wasn't too bad overnight, here anyway. On Mr TimS' point I think he's right; I think our current PM is likely to be a thorn in his successors side. Until he finds something more interesting to do!
More seriously, everyone keep well today, stay out of the sun and find air conditioning somewhere if you can.
A busy day of work beckons.
A 34 week pregnant friend has booked into a hotel for three nights (starting two nights back) in her home town, simply because it has air conditioning. Been working from there. Very sensible
Suella Braverman's supporters moved to Rishi as well as Liz and Kemi, so ideology is not the only factor in play. Experience might be another, since she is a Cabinet Minister like Rishi (-ish) and Liz Truss, and MPs might feel this is no time for a novice.
But Tom's backers are presumably looking for a clean pair of hands, so Kemi or Penny. Those prioritising ideology might also look to Rishi.
The question for betting purposes is, will enough of Tom's 31 backers go to Kemi to take her past Liz Truss for third place later today? Kemi was 13 votes behind.
Attorney General isn't a cabinet post.
Nor, in this case, is it anything close to a 'clean pair of hands'.
That's right, it isn't. That's the point. I'm trying to explain why Braverman's voters switched to Rishi and am hypothesising it is because they favour experience over ideology.
On the other hand, Tom Tugendhat's backers might not prioritise experience since Tom himself had none, so they might be more open to transferring to Kemi or Penny.
Morning all! 24.4°C at time of writing. Actually wasn't too bad overnight, here anyway. On Mr TimS' point I think he's right; I think our current PM is likely to be a thorn in his successors side. Until he finds something more interesting to do!
Currently he is working though his bucket list of dressing up and goofing around while people who know what they are doing try to keep him away from the controls.
Another exceptionally hot and sunny day for most areas. Western areas will see cloud building through the afternoon with outbreaks of rain in places, which will be heavy and thundery at times.
Tonight Tonight, the band of heavy, showery rain will progress eastwards across England, falling thundery in places. Clear spells developing elsewhere, but rain will move into the far south-west later on. https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather
Trouble is, it looks like as the temperature falls, humidity rises, on both BBC and Met Office.
Morning all! 24.4°C at time of writing. Actually wasn't too bad overnight, here anyway. On Mr TimS' point I think he's right; I think our current PM is likely to be a thorn in his successors side. Until he finds something more interesting to do!
Currently he is working though his bucket list of dressing up and goofing around while people who know what they are doing try to keep him away from the controls.
Another exceptionally hot and sunny day for most areas. Western areas will see cloud building through the afternoon with outbreaks of rain in places, which will be heavy and thundery at times.
Tonight Tonight, the band of heavy, showery rain will progress eastwards across England, falling thundery in places. Clear spells developing elsewhere, but rain will move into the far south-west later on. https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather
Trouble is, it looks like as the temperature falls, humidity rises, on both BBC and Met Office.
Note the last line with Labour putting the boot in.
Actually makes me more likely to vote Mordaunt and the same will certainly apply to evangelical and Roman Catholic socially conservative Conservative Party members given Mordaunt's generally pro choice voting record
It’s another beat-up.
Mordaunt critics need to decide whether she’s too social liberal, or not socially liberal enough.
The Tories seem mostly to be wondering how they allowed a real person to slip through their selection process?
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
That's part of the current Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage in America, forcing states to acknowledge a gay marriage from another state
When GOP politicians are talking about sending gay marriage back to the States they are talking about ripping up the full faith and credit clause to allow states to ignore marriages from other states.
Suella Braverman's supporters moved to Rishi as well as Liz and Kemi, so ideology is not the only factor in play. Experience might be another, since she is a Cabinet Minister like Rishi (-ish) and Liz Truss, and MPs might feel this is no time for a novice.
But Tom's backers are presumably looking for a clean pair of hands, so Kemi or Penny. Those prioritising ideology might also look to Rishi.
The question for betting purposes is, will enough of Tom's 31 backers go to Kemi to take her past Liz Truss for third place later today? Kemi was 13 votes behind.
In their shoes, I'd want my vote to 'count' and impact the outcome.
Adding to Rishi's pile today doesn't really do that - he's not so far ahead that he can seal the deal without a members' ballot, and there's no doubt he will now make it to the final two.
Note the last line with Labour putting the boot in.
Actually makes me more likely to vote Mordaunt and the same will certainly apply to evangelical and Roman Catholic socially conservative Conservative Party members given Mordaunt's generally pro choice voting record
It’s another beat-up.
Mordaunt critics need to decide whether she’s too social liberal, or not socially liberal enough.
The Tories seem mostly to be wondering how they allowed a real person to slip through their selection process?
Plenty of grey suits not going to be pleased that a non-Oxbridge candidate from a working class background has made it this far in the ballot. So deeply has the party been captured by the Etonian/Oxford group since Thatcher and Major.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
They don't exclude people from voting - but there is no limit such as maximum number of voters per a voting center or voting booth so Texas and co spend a lot of time making voting virtually impossible in areas unlikely to vote Republican.
Which is, I have to say, an absolute fucking disgrace.
And is surely something that could be dealt with at federal level, at least for federal elections?
BBC and Met Office are forecasting two totally different days her in Edinburgh today and I hope the MetOffice wins (thunder and rain by 5pm)
Bloomin' awful overnight here in the Midlands. Hot as an oven in the bedrooms and we are looking at 40c says Met by 3pm.
Still quite pleasant in my bit. The hospital was surprisingly cool yesterday. I suppose it takes some time for such a big building to warm up to ambient temperatures.
Should be hot enough to make even Andrew sweat a bit later on.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
They don't exclude people from voting - but there is no limit such as maximum number of voters per a voting center or voting booth so Texas and co spend a lot of time making voting virtually impossible in areas unlikely to vote Republican.
Which is, I have to say, an absolute fucking disgrace.
And is surely something that could be dealt with at federal level, at least for federal elections?
I don't understand all the fuss. America isn't civilisation any more, not universally. Shitkicker states voting to turn themselves into Gilead where guns have more rights than women - if that's what they vote for then what is it to me? Refugees can flee to non-shitkicker states or Canada.
Whilst there is still time - remember that the ban on potentially pregnant people potentially going for a baby murder out of state is brewing. Which is a ban on womenfolk of child-rearing age following Satan to leave Gilead. yes I am dressing this up in dramatic language, but its less dramatic than what Shitkicker GOPpers are saying in their state legislatures...
Suella Braverman's supporters moved to Rishi as well as Liz and Kemi, so ideology is not the only factor in play. Experience might be another, since she is a Cabinet Minister like Rishi (-ish) and Liz Truss, and MPs might feel this is no time for a novice.
But Tom's backers are presumably looking for a clean pair of hands, so Kemi or Penny. Those prioritising ideology might also look to Rishi.
The question for betting purposes is, will enough of Tom's 31 backers go to Kemi to take her past Liz Truss for third place later today? Kemi was 13 votes behind.
Attorney General isn't a cabinet post.
Nor, in this case, is it anything close to a 'clean pair of hands'.
That's right, it isn't. That's the point. I'm trying to explain why Braverman's voters switched to Rishi and am hypothesising it is because they favour experience over ideology.
On the other hand, Tom Tugendhat's backers might not prioritise experience since Tom himself had none, so they might be more open to transferring to Kemi or Penny.
The real takeway from this - looking to the next round - is that a big stack of votes will nevertheless split sufficient ways to make only a marginal impact on the net result
BBC and Met Office are forecasting two totally different days her in Edinburgh today and I hope the MetOffice wins (thunder and rain by 5pm)
Bloomin' awful overnight here in the Midlands. Hot as an oven in the bedrooms and we are looking at 40c says Met by 3pm.
Still quite pleasant in my bit. The hospital was surprisingly cool yesterday. I suppose it takes some time for such a big building to warm up to ambient temperatures.
Should be hot enough to make even Andrew sweat a bit later on.
Yes, I think because this is only two days, followed by a steep drop in temperature, the negative consequences will be quite limited.
Is Gatwick security in July one of the most dismal places in Britain? Delhi and Mumbai far more efficient.
I'm still shocked that my crutch (a thing of the past now) went through security at Gatwick without any checks whatsoever. Passed around every scanner and no personal check. I could have been travelling with a gun. Was checked on the return trip at Faro.
When it comes to the members vote, what pairing would give the biggest split in positioning within the party, or the greatest range of views? Sunak vs Badenoch? Truss vs Mordaunt?
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
That's part of the current Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage in America, forcing states to acknowledge a gay marriage from another state
When GOP politicians are talking about sending gay marriage back to the States they are talking about ripping up the full faith and credit clause to allow states to ignore marriages from other states.
Everything would then be on the table.
Given the majority in the Supreme Court have already evidenced in their recent decisions that, wilfully or not, they don't understand the Constitution, everything already is.
Note the last line with Labour putting the boot in.
Actually makes me more likely to vote Mordaunt and the same will certainly apply to evangelical and Roman Catholic socially conservative Conservative Party members given Mordaunt's generally pro choice voting record
It’s another beat-up.
Mordaunt critics need to decide whether she’s too social liberal, or not socially liberal enough.
The Tories seem mostly to be wondering how they allowed a real person to slip through their selection process?
Plenty of grey suits not going to be pleased that a non-Oxbridge candidate from a working class background has made it this far in the ballot. So deeply has the party been captured by the Etonian/Oxford group since Thatcher and Major.
Not just the party, the media too, which makes me fear for the reception the new leader will get if it is not one of the Oxford graduates, Rishi or Liz Truss.
Note the last line with Labour putting the boot in.
Actually makes me more likely to vote Mordaunt and the same will certainly apply to evangelical and Roman Catholic socially conservative Conservative Party members given Mordaunt's generally pro choice voting record
I thought you were pro choice albeit with a decrease in the time limit to 22 weeks.
Note the last line with Labour putting the boot in.
Actually makes me more likely to vote Mordaunt and the same will certainly apply to evangelical and Roman Catholic socially conservative Conservative Party members given Mordaunt's generally pro choice voting record
It’s another beat-up.
Mordaunt critics need to decide whether she’s too social liberal, or not socially liberal enough.
The Tories seem mostly to be wondering how they allowed a real person to slip through their selection process?
Plenty of grey suits not going to be pleased that a non-Oxbridge candidate from a working class background has made it this far in the ballot. So deeply has the party been captured by the Etonian/Oxford group since Thatcher and Major.
Not just the party, the media too, which makes me fear for the reception the new leader will get if it is not one of the Oxford graduates, Rishi or Liz Truss.
Never been fussed about Oxbridge types getting into No10. We want the best.
I think the real issue is they are often privately educated and/or did PPE, then had no career outside of politics.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
They don't exclude people from voting - but there is no limit such as maximum number of voters per a voting center or voting booth so Texas and co spend a lot of time making voting virtually impossible in areas unlikely to vote Republican.
Which is, I have to say, an absolute fucking disgrace.
And is surely something that could be dealt with at federal level, at least for federal elections?
I don't understand all the fuss. America isn't civilisation any more, not universally. Shitkicker states voting to turn themselves into Gilead where guns have more rights than women - if that's what they vote for then what is it to me? Refugees can flee to non-shitkicker states or Canada.
Whilst there is still time - remember that the ban on potentially pregnant people potentially going for a baby murder out of state is brewing. Which is a ban on womenfolk of child-rearing age following Satan to leave Gilead. yes I am dressing this up in dramatic language, but its less dramatic than what Shitkicker GOPpers are saying in their state legislatures...
Democracy is what it is. There are faint parallels with us. The USA suffers from having a number of levels of interlocking and competing levels of authority. Senate, Congress, elected president, SC, State legislatures, Governors.
There are lots of democracies available, but at the heart of those that work are:
OPOV Multi party organisation Free press No power without accountability A constitution which protects democracy, and doesn't otherwise prohibit or compel things and crucially A single overriding supreme authority, democratically elected. Ours is the House of Commons.
The USA lacks this. Brexit happened in part because we looked as if we were starting to lack it.
What is wrong with Roe v Wade and its successor is not the decision, but where it was made.
Note the last line with Labour putting the boot in.
Actually makes me more likely to vote Mordaunt and the same will certainly apply to evangelical and Roman Catholic socially conservative Conservative Party members given Mordaunt's generally pro choice voting record
I thought you were pro choice albeit with a decrease in the time limit to 22 weeks.
Mordaunt has not even voted for a reduction in the abortion time limit before
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
I know you're just warming us up with some gentle trolling, but to give a serious response: the idea of a written constitution is to constrain the ability of democratically-elected governments and other powerful bodies to do whatever they like to individuals. Declining to recognise a mixed-race marriage seems a prima facie case of a state (democratically) interfering with individuals to an intolerable extent, in much the same way as if a democratically-elected far-left government decided to seize all property.
Comments
Certainly current record would back him up, or rather not contradict him. So far yours truly has heard only one name, Dominic Rudd, mentioned as a no-show, and for just the 2nd round. As you noted, there was 1 absention in round #1, 2 in #2 and 1 again in #3.
He voted for Amber Raab
Mordaunt critics need to decide whether she’s too social liberal, or not socially liberal enough.
But Dan'l B was an above-average competitor. Not sure you can say that about Penny Mordaunt so far.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/gcruk9x9k#?date=2022-07-19
The interesting thing about that article - to me anyway - is that Labour have picked up on this and will use it or similar stuff, if there is any, against her.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Its really interesting when you experience a hit piece regarding somebody you have some idea about....the general story seems to be that Igor is at best some pot smoking total wally gambler, who has no idea about charitable giving, at worst some sort of Russian agent.
When the reality is he is totally off the charts intelligent, was one of the very best poker players around, and co-founded an organisation years ago focused upon the idea of doing much better at effective charitable giving. Actually thinking about how you can best deploy and measure the return on your investment in charitable goals.
The idea he might be a Russian agent, well he is taken about the most roundabout possible way of ever getting himself into a situation where Russia could ever activate Comrade Igor.
"Czar" Putin would love that, as would "Emperor" Xi, the Iranian corrupt theocracy, North Korean "King" Kim, and many other miscreants.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
For a start I’d expect the feds to withdraw all fiscal transfers from a state that implemented such laws
2.02 Rishi Sunak 50%
3.5 Liz Truss 29%
5.8 Penny Mordaunt 17%
20 Kemi Badenoch 5%
310 Dominic Raab
Next Conservative leader
2.04 Rishi Sunak 49%
3.5 Liz Truss 29%
5.8 Penny Mordaunt 17%
19 Kemi Badenoch 5%
To be in final two
1.01 Rishi Sunak 99%
1.61 Liz Truss 62%
2.8 Penny Mordaunt 36%
8.6 Kemi Badenoch 12%
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
Perhaps not
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/a11845d2-5a03-40c3-b34c-f73cb1564132?in=18:12:02
A 250/1 winner? Surely only the most lace-clad of heroes could ever offer such a tip?
As you may have guessed, it's hot here so I won't be on too long (even hot now).
Looks like the top two are decided and, if so, Sunak's likeliest to get it. Big red for me on Betfair but very green on Ladbrokes.
They just can't handle the hard stuff.
https://mobile.twitter.com/FedGuy12/status/1549051802389454848
A declining labor force from aging may imply secular inflation and change the policy reaction function to inflation and recession. This post reviews the theory behind aging and inflation, looks at pandemic retirements, and notes the policy implications.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1549169061715591168
16/1 was the each way bet I think I offered on Rosberg for the title in 2014. Was quite nice.
https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2022/roll364.xml
Suella Braverman's supporters moved to Rishi as well as Liz and Kemi, so ideology is not the only factor in play. Experience might be another, since she is a Cabinet Minister like Rishi (-ish) and Liz Truss, and MPs might feel this is no time for a novice.
But Tom's backers are presumably looking for a clean pair of hands, so Kemi or Penny. Those prioritising ideology might also look to Rishi.
The question for betting purposes is, will enough of Tom's 31 backers go to Kemi to take her past Liz Truss for third place later today? Kemi was 13 votes behind.
Mordaunt's video is rather good, don't count her out just yet.
The link to the CMF on lobbying looks pretty tenuous to me. It doesn't seem she was personally involved in lobbying for that client.
Her brother seems to be quite the tattoo enthusiast, but such is life now. Lots of unappealing tats on show with the current weather.
More seriously, everyone keep well today, stay out of the sun and find air conditioning somewhere if you can.
A busy day of work beckons.
I think this is going to be a theme for years. He’ll become the prince across the water, like Maggie. Totally undeserving of such a status. The unknown is whether after a while the voting public will buy this too, and forget the failings of his office from the NIP to GCSEs to the collapsing NHS.
The Papua New Guinea Courier's London correspondent reports on the heatwave. https://t.co/auS2oevVYr
On the other hand, Tom Tugendhat's backers might not prioritise experience since Tom himself had none, so they might be more open to transferring to Kemi or Penny.
Met office: thunderstorms
Going to be an interesting day!
https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1548983845734625281?t=AgP4A_dAXTgMMZTlkynykQ&s=19
It is indeed a brilliant metaphor of Johnson's premiership and political career.
All the focus is on him - despite him only being a passenger.... doing nothing
Another exceptionally hot and sunny day for most areas. Western areas will see cloud building through the afternoon with outbreaks of rain in places, which will be heavy and thundery at times.
Tonight
Tonight, the band of heavy, showery rain will progress eastwards across England, falling thundery in places. Clear spells developing elsewhere, but rain will move into the far south-west later on.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather
Trouble is, it looks like as the temperature falls, humidity rises, on both BBC and Met Office.
At least I hope you'd not start trying to fly the plane and grabbing the controls...
My second favourite website is this: https://www.lightningmaps.org/
Warmest overnight looks to have been the west Wales coast, closely followed by South London and the south coast
My air is drifting your way....
BBC and Met Office are forecasting two totally different days her in Edinburgh today and I hope the MetOffice wins (thunder and rain by 5pm)
When GOP politicians are talking about sending gay marriage back to the States they are talking about ripping up the full faith and credit clause to allow states to ignore marriages from other states.
Everything would then be on the table.
Adding to Rishi's pile today doesn't really do that - he's not so far ahead that he can seal the deal without a members' ballot, and there's no doubt he will now make it to the final two.
Tugendhat Vote Split :
Mordaunt 15 .. Sunak 7 .. Truss/Badenoch 3-4 each.
Should be hot enough to make even Andrew sweat a bit later on.
Whilst there is still time - remember that the ban on potentially pregnant people potentially going for a baby murder out of state is brewing. Which is a ban on womenfolk of child-rearing age following Satan to leave Gilead. yes I am dressing this up in dramatic language, but its less dramatic than what Shitkicker GOPpers are saying in their state legislatures...
A week or more could have been quite unpleasant.
BBC says Doncaster is one of the places where the all-time heat record might be broken today...
I think the real issue is they are often privately educated and/or did PPE, then had no career outside of politics.
There are lots of democracies available, but at the heart of those that work are:
OPOV
Multi party organisation
Free press
No power without accountability
A constitution which protects democracy, and doesn't otherwise prohibit or compel things
and crucially
A single overriding supreme authority, democratically elected. Ours is the House of Commons.
The USA lacks this. Brexit happened in part because we looked as if we were starting to lack it.
What is wrong with Roe v Wade and its successor is not the decision, but where it was made.
than 20 vote lead over Truss into the last round.
Where Badenoch's votes go then decisive
https://wow.metoffice.gov.uk
PS Pembrey Sands in south Wales was 27.7°C at 7:00am!