PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
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.
In any case neither could happen at state level as the Federal Voting Rights Act prohibits voters being denied the vote on racial grounds and the 5th Amendment gives a right to property which cannot be deprived without due process
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
I was just interested in your view not one of the politicians. Your post today seemed slightly different to a previous post you had made, although I appreciate it is difficult as I guess all pro choice people like myself also have conflicting views. It's a difficult subject.
In which case Badenoch goes out tonight and Mordaunt takes a more than 20 vote lead over Truss into the last round.
Where Badenoch's votes go then decisive
Telegraph describing KB as "the Kingmaker" this morning.
I guess she can choose her Cabinet post now. What do we think she will want? CoE or Home?
If Badenoch endorsed a candidate and the vast majority of her backers followed her that candidate would certainly top the final round, that is how pivotal her support will be to Mordaunt, Sunak and Truss
Interesting new video from PM. Much better than her original one. A welcome answer to what the the brief should have been. 'Who is Penny Mordaunt?'.
It does make you wonder where that first one came from and why she would have thought it wise to try to represent herself like that. I know someone will have written it for her but she'll have had input and final approval.
I did one for Pqddy Ashdown once (all shot -no library footage) which was written by a very experienced copywriter from JWT. All of us working pro bono. He was a passionate Lib Dem
'PM4PM. The Greatest Story Ever Told'' was I suspect put together by a website designer which is why there was no original photography or thought.
But as you only have one chance to make a first impression it was a bad decision. As Red Adair once said. 'If you think it's expensive to hire a professional wait till you hire an amateur'
The SNP have got to be careful with how strong they go after the Supreme Court if/when they refuse Indyref2. The comment by Johnson on Hale was disgraceful, hope they don't stoop to that level.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Achieved one of the top legal jobs in the country as a result of his own efforts, having been to a state school.
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.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Royal Navy reserves are part-time civilians, trained to be called up if needed, no? They're not actually full-time naval professionals. A bit like the TA. And there are a few of those in the Commons. And one Royal Navy Surgeon Commander. There are quite a few MPs with actual battle experience. So being a reservist - while admirable - is not exactly exceptional
22 MPs from Braverman were supposed to go to Truss. She only went up by 7. That's out by a whopping number.
Now, you might say that she did get all those 22 MPs, but lost 15 existing MPs elsewhere, but if that's the case there's a significant amount of churn going on. And she should have sewn up Braverman tight.
I maintain Kemi is value at 22/1. She beats Liz Truss she's basically favourite.
What is leaping out at me from these double digit leads, although Tory vote is 32 minus of late, the antipasti is only around 59, and Labour can barely break 40.
The “Starmer fans please explain” team are a bit right in that labour are not increasing their %.
Including SNP it's 63
Sir Keepit Soporific
The biggest story is not that the tories are a shower of shit, it's that they are a shower of shit AND SKS IS MAKING ZERO HEADWAY against them. Lab lead 43 points in 1995.
I concur. Labour ought to be doing a bit better. Consistent 45% +/-3.
Of course the big difference with 1995 is that the Lib Dems we’re doing much better then under Paddy Ashdown.
The really interesting thing about this contest is that whoever wins will have the support of barely 1/3 of their MPs. That makes them pretty weak right from the start. Add in the back-biting when hard decisions have to be made, Boris making trouble, directly or indirectly, and the difficulties the economy will face this winter and the likelihood is that whoever becomes PM will lead a weak government, even with its big majority.
I am not at all sure that Tory MPs will rally round, especially if the polls don't turn. Labour's lead has been pretty consistent and large for some time now.
The SNP have got to be careful with how strong they go after the Supreme Court if/when they refuse Indyref2. The comment by Johnson on Hale was disgraceful, hope they don't stoop to that level.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Achieved one of the top legal jobs in the country as a result of his own efforts, having been to a state school.
It was a private school for most of his time there and Mordaunt went to a comprehensive.
Heat-wise, I've noticed that in my Nan's lifetime, for almost all of her 81 years on Earth, the hottest day of her life was when she was 1 year old (36.7 degrees in 1911). This was exceeded one year before her death (hitting 37.1 degrees in 1990).
In my lifetime, I've experienced the country hitting 36.7 degrees or higher six times now (36.7 in 2015, 37.1 in 1990, 37.8 in 2020, 37.6 yesterday, 38.5 in 2003, and 37.8 in 2019). With the seventh time, near-certain to be higher still, coming up today.
Seems like I've been hogging the hot days in comparison. Never mind. My kids will beat me on this, I've no doubt (my youngest has already had five days where he's equalled or exceeded that 36.7 degrees and a sixth coming up, and he's only 18).
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Achieved one of the top legal jobs in the country as a result of his own efforts, having been to a state school.
It was a private school for most of his time there and Mordaunt went to a comprehensive.
Not when he began there. Are you blaming him and his parents for the school's governing body deciding to change?
In any case you've been telling us for years how important it is to have leaders for the Tory Party (and therefore thew UK, Empire and Galaxy) from posh schools and universities.
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.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
Going back to some of the recent decisions.
One of the biggest problems with defending Roe v Wade was most legal actors agreed it was fundamentally based on a poor legal decision. Even Ginsburg recognised that and wanted its basis changed. That's why the Justices were able to overturn it in such a way and it left the Democrats trying to defend R v W on the basis that previous Supreme Court decisions couldn't be overturned, completely oblivious to the fact on that basis slavery would still be legal.
The advocates for abortion were fundamentally lazy. Once they got the decision they wanted, they didn't care, they put jack shit effort into solidifying the foundations.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Royal Navy reserves are part-time civilians, trained to be called up if needed, no? They're not actually full-time naval professionals. A bit like the TA. And there are a few of those in the Commons. And one Royal Navy Surgeon Commander. There are quite a few MPs with actual battle experience. So being a reservist - while admirable - is not exactly exceptional
I would also query the "ex lawyer" jibe. Isn't SKS still a QC?
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Achieved one of the top legal jobs in the country as a result of his own efforts, having been to a state school.
It was a private school for most of his time there and Mordaunt went to a comprehensive.
Not when he began there. Are you blaming him and his parents for the school's governing body deciding to change?
In any case you've been telling us for years how important it is to have leaders for the Tory Party (and therefore thew UK, Empire and Galaxy) from posh schools and universities.
So is that a black mark against Ms Mordaunt?
No it don't, I support choice in education and if Starmer's parents were happy to send him to a grammar and private school to give him the best start in life so he could go to a Russell Group university and get a postgraduate degree from Oxford and become a posh North London lawyer and Labour leader, good for them.
However it is clear that Labour cannot then play the class war card against Mordaunt, a Portsmouth comprehensive educated, Reading University educated, non Oxbridge, non lawyer and former Naval reservist in the way they have tried to do against our recent Old Etonian PMs and would do against Rishi, the Winchester and Oxford educated ex Goldman Sachs banker
What is leaping out at me from these double digit leads, although Tory vote is 32 minus of late, the antipasti is only around 59, and Labour can barely break 40.
The “Starmer fans please explain” team are a bit right in that labour are not increasing their %.
Including SNP it's 63
Sir Keepit Soporific
The biggest story is not that the tories are a shower of shit, it's that they are a shower of shit AND SKS IS MAKING ZERO HEADWAY against them. Lab lead 43 points in 1995.
I concur. Labour ought to be doing a bit better. Consistent 45% +/-3.
Of course the big difference with 1995 is that the Lib Dems we’re doing much better then under Paddy Ashdown.
Yes, although LibDem ratings in the low to mid teens were commonplace in 'the old days' between GEs, with the party picking up support when it got more attention during an election, and pushed 20% on the day. They're not far off being back at similar levels for the midterm (maybe not in Scotland tbf)
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Achieved one of the top legal jobs in the country as a result of his own efforts, having been to a state school.
It was a private school for most of his time there and Mordaunt went to a comprehensive.
Not when he began there. Are you blaming him and his parents for the school's governing body deciding to change?
In any case you've been telling us for years how important it is to have leaders for the Tory Party (and therefore thew UK, Empire and Galaxy) from posh schools and universities.
So is that a black mark against Ms Mordaunt?
No it isn't, I support choice and if Starmer's parents were happy to send him to a grammar and private school to give him the best start in life so he could go to a Russell Group university and get a postgraduate degree from Oxford and become a posh North London lawyer and Labour leader, good for them.
However it is clear that Labour cannot then play the class war card against Mordaunt, a Portsmouth comprehensive educated, Reading University educated, non Oxbridge, non lawyer and former Naval reservist in the way they have tried to do against our recent Old Etonian PMs and would do against Rishi, the Winchester and Oxford educated ex Goldman Sachs banker
But don't you play the class war all the time? I don't know anyone on PB or in real life who uses the word 'posh' in the way you do, entirely unironically, as a positive attribute to have. So you ought to be praising SKS to the skies.
Kevin Schofield @KevinASchofield · 19m Liz Truss promises massive tax cuts, a big increase in defence spending and no austerity.
Who knew it was that easy?
===
Labour would be slaughtered for this kind of ludicrous give away promising.
That tweet is telling because it tells us that Liz Truss is worried about her position.
As well she should be. In theory, she ought to be the best-placed candidate of the Conservative right. Rishi has been raising taxes, so is a heretic. Penny is Unsound On Woke. Kemi is absurdly undercooked for the top job.
Liz + Kemi ought to add up to enough votes to get one of them into the final round, and Liz has beaten Kemi in every round. And yet, it's easy to see it not happening.
So what happens then? If it is Penny vs Rishi in the final round, what do Liz, the Mail, and Conservatives who miss Maggie do?
Yes, looks about right to me, though when Badenoch goes out tommorow could be tight for second place.
If that is the split, then I think PM Is the value bet. KB's backers are not so much Brexiteers, more RWs / for change. I really don't see what attracts those people to Liz Truss.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Royal Navy reserves are part-time civilians, trained to be called up if needed, no? They're not actually full-time naval professionals. A bit like the TA. And there are a few of those in the Commons. And one Royal Navy Surgeon Commander. There are quite a few MPs with actual battle experience. So being a reservist - while admirable - is not exactly exceptional
I would also query the "ex lawyer" jibe. Isn't SKS still a QC?
QCs are appointed by the monarch by way of Letters Patent. I think it has to be something severe for you to lose that.
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.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
Going back to some of the recent decisions.
One of the biggest problems with defending Roe v Wade was most legal actors agreed it was fundamentally based on a poor legal decision. Even Ginsburg recognised that and wanted its basis changed. That's why the Justices were able to overturn it in such a way and it left the Democrats trying to defend R v W on the basis that previous Supreme Court decisions couldn't be overturned, completely oblivious to the fact on that basis slavery would still be legal.
The advocates for abortion were fundamentally lazy. Once they got the decision they wanted, they didn't care, they put jack shit effort into solidifying the foundations.
That's just Republican propaganda. And it's simply not true to say 'most legal actors' thought Roe a poor decision.
The really interesting thing about this contest is that whoever wins will have the support of barely 1/3 of their MPs. That makes them pretty weak right from the start. Add in the back-biting when hard decisions have to be made, Boris making trouble, directly or indirectly, and the difficulties the economy will face this winter and the likelihood is that whoever becomes PM will lead a weak government, even with its big majority.
I am not at all sure that Tory MPs will rally round, especially if the polls don't turn. Labour's lead has been pretty consistent and large for some time now.
This is what I was thinking last night. It is a hopeless situation for whoever gets elected. The ERG fundamentalists are banging on about wanting to leave the ECHR, but it isn't going to happen unless there is a massive majority for it within the PCP, which there probably isn't. Similarly on 'woke', clearly there is a part of the party which won't go along with the agenda. Some of them want tax cuts, others want massive increases in defence spending, no one wants to revisit issues to do with pensioner welfare after the adult social care debacle. It is a government in a death spiral. Johnson did predict that they would come to regret his removal and that may well turn out to be the case. A time in opposition looks like a near certainty, at the moment.
Yesterday I didn't close up the house until after 9am when it became warmer outside than in. Today I had to do it at just after 8am. I got up at 4am today to open up the entire house to get it cooled as much as possible. Still warmer than it was yesterday at the start of the day. At least the forecast is for it to cool rapidly tonight down to just 17c where we are.
Kevin Schofield @KevinASchofield · 19m Liz Truss promises massive tax cuts, a big increase in defence spending and no austerity.
Who knew it was that easy?
===
Labour would be slaughtered for this kind of ludicrous give away promising.
That tweet is telling because it tells us that Liz Truss is worried about her position.
Yes, I think that's a fair reason.
Again, it goes back to why people are backing Truss. Is it because they believe in her vision or because she is seen as the best vessel to get to their own goals?
If it is the former, then I'd agree it will be hard for KB To overtake her unless TT's vote switches massively to her. I think @rcs1000 is probably more in this camp. I'm of the latter view, in which case any doubts over whether she could deliver will lead to her backers looking for a better option, in this case KB.
One other thing why I don't believe the gap between LT and KB is necessary insurmountable. Up to now, the right has never had to make a hard choicer before. If you were ERG, you could vote for Braverman knowing that Truss and KB were still there. When Braverman left, you still had a reserve horse in either KB or LT if you needed to switch. Now is crunch time. You really do have to decide who will be the best person to represent the right in the leadership contest. That may focus minds a lot more.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Achieved one of the top legal jobs in the country as a result of his own efforts, having been to a state school.
It was a private school for most of his time there and Mordaunt went to a comprehensive.
Not when he began there. Are you blaming him and his parents for the school's governing body deciding to change?
In any case you've been telling us for years how important it is to have leaders for the Tory Party (and therefore thew UK, Empire and Galaxy) from posh schools and universities.
So is that a black mark against Ms Mordaunt?
No it don't, I support choice in education and if Starmer's parents were happy to send him to a grammar and private school to give him the best start in life so he could go to a Russell Group university and get a postgraduate degree from Oxford and become a posh North London lawyer and Labour leader, good for them.
However it is clear that Labour cannot then play the class war card against Mordaunt, a Portsmouth comprehensive educated, Reading University educated, non Oxbridge, non lawyer and former Naval reservist in the way they have tried to do against our recent Old Etonian PMs and would do against Rishi, the Winchester and Oxford educated ex Goldman Sachs banker
It's a long time since Labour played the class war card, not least as the class difference in voting preference has virtually disappeared (one can debate which is cause and which is effect, maybe). Labour still criticises massive wealth distortions, especially linked to tax avoidance, and wealth-based preferential opportunity (which is why the debate on private schools is still going), but the idea of even Jeremy Corbyn shouting "Let's squeeze the rich till the pips squeak!" as Denis Healey did is difficult to imagine. The world has moved on, and only people like Rees-Mogg still seem to be "acutely alive to the existence of class distinctions", as Jeeves used to put it.
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.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
I agree with both of us. The question is the robustness of the process when challenged by difficult circumstances.
Balances are fine as long as there is a single accountable democratic outfit at the top, as the House of Commons here.
The HoC has the power to overturn all delegated authority, and our SC does not have the power to overturn its legislation on a whim, while having the power to scrutinise government.
The USA lacks that single body at the top.
So in the USA we have a situation where a state can pass a barbaric law over guns or abortion, and no higher power can overturn it.
In the UK when we vote in GEs we know that we have that responsibility to elect a supreme body. In the USA there is no equivalent.
SNP 46% nc Lab 25% nc Con 18% nc LD 8% +1 oth 4% nc
We're all holding our breaths up here waiting to see which new tribal chief is to be imposed upon us, and who will undoubtedly bring back the Tories and the Union back into favour.
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.
Are you worried about privately educated brain surgeons who have no experience outside medicine?
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.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
Going back to some of the recent decisions.
One of the biggest problems with defending Roe v Wade was most legal actors agreed it was fundamentally based on a poor legal decision. Even Ginsburg recognised that and wanted its basis changed. That's why the Justices were able to overturn it in such a way and it left the Democrats trying to defend R v W on the basis that previous Supreme Court decisions couldn't be overturned, completely oblivious to the fact on that basis slavery would still be legal.
The advocates for abortion were fundamentally lazy. Once they got the decision they wanted, they didn't care, they put jack shit effort into solidifying the foundations.
That's just Republican propaganda. And it's simply not true to say 'most legal actors' thought Roe a poor decision.
Sigh.
Ginsburg's views on R v W from a legal standpoint are well documented. Even many of R v W's defenders knew this.
Tell you what though, why don't you come up with evidence for your view that the legal community generally thought R v W was fundamentally sound legally?
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Achieved one of the top legal jobs in the country as a result of his own efforts, having been to a state school.
It was a private school for most of his time there and Mordaunt went to a comprehensive.
AIUI he passed the 11+ to g et there and those boys who have done so remained in the 'private' school on a 'scholarship' basis. What anyone else did is irrelevant!
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Royal Navy reserves are part-time civilians, trained to be called up if needed, no? They're not actually full-time naval professionals. A bit like the TA. And there are a few of those in the Commons. And one Royal Navy Surgeon Commander. There are quite a few MPs with actual battle experience. So being a reservist - while admirable - is not exactly exceptional
I heard a rumour that Tom Tugendhat had been in the Army.
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.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
Going back to some of the recent decisions.
One of the biggest problems with defending Roe v Wade was most legal actors agreed it was fundamentally based on a poor legal decision. Even Ginsburg recognised that and wanted its basis changed. That's why the Justices were able to overturn it in such a way and it left the Democrats trying to defend R v W on the basis that previous Supreme Court decisions couldn't be overturned, completely oblivious to the fact on that basis slavery would still be legal.
The advocates for abortion were fundamentally lazy. Once they got the decision they wanted, they didn't care, they put jack shit effort into solidifying the foundations.
That's just Republican propaganda. And it's simply not true to say 'most legal actors' thought Roe a poor decision.
Sigh.
Ginsburg's views on R v W from a legal standpoint are well documented. Even many of R v W's defenders knew this.
Tell you what though, why don't you come up with evidence for your view that the legal community generally thought R v W was fundamentally sound legally?
Well you could start by reading the dissents in Dobbs.
Your blithe assumption that Ginsburg represented all liberal jurisprudence, rather than being something of an outlier on this issue, is daft.
What is leaping out at me from these double digit leads, although Tory vote is 32 minus of late, the antipasti is only around 59, and Labour can barely break 40.
The “Starmer fans please explain” team are a bit right in that labour are not increasing their %.
Including SNP it's 63
Sir Keepit Soporific
The biggest story is not that the tories are a shower of shit, it's that they are a shower of shit AND SKS IS MAKING ZERO HEADWAY against them. Lab lead 43 points in 1995.
I concur. Labour ought to be doing a bit better. Consistent 45% +/-3.
Of course the big difference with 1995 is that the Lib Dems we’re doing much better then under Paddy Ashdown.
Yes, although LibDem ratings in the low to mid teens were commonplace in 'the old days' between GEs, with the party picking up support when it got more attention during an election, and pushed 20% on the day. They're not far off being back at similar levels for the midterm (maybe not in Scotland tbf)
Indeed. The SLDs have lost shedloads of voters to the Ruth Davidson Says No Party, especially in the south and the north east. But with that party now defunct their % should easily rise, however, not seat numbers. The new boundaries are viciously cruel to the SLDs.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Royal Navy reserves are part-time civilians, trained to be called up if needed, no? They're not actually full-time naval professionals. A bit like the TA. And there are a few of those in the Commons. And one Royal Navy Surgeon Commander. There are quite a few MPs with actual battle experience. So being a reservist - while admirable - is not exactly exceptional
I would also query the "ex lawyer" jibe. Isn't SKS still a QC?
QCs are appointed by the monarch by way of Letters Patent. I think it has to be something severe for you to lose that.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Royal Navy reserves are part-time civilians, trained to be called up if needed, no? They're not actually full-time naval professionals. A bit like the TA. And there are a few of those in the Commons. And one Royal Navy Surgeon Commander. There are quite a few MPs with actual battle experience. So being a reservist - while admirable - is not exactly exceptional
I would also query the "ex lawyer" jibe. Isn't SKS still a QC?
QCs are appointed by the monarch by way of Letters Patent. I think it has to be something severe for you to lose that.
One does sometimes have to wonder how they are appointed though. I really don't understand how Jolyon Maugham became a QC.
SNP 46% nc Lab 25% nc Con 18% nc LD 8% +1 oth 4% nc
We're all holding our breaths up here waiting to see which new tribal chief is to be imposed upon us, and who will undoubtedly bring back the Tories and the Union back into favour.
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.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
I agree with both of us. The question is the robustness of the process when challenged by difficult circumstances.
Balances are fine as long as there is a single accountable democratic outfit at the top, as the House of Commons here.
The HoC has the power to overturn all delegated authority, and our SC does not have the power to overturn its legislation on a whim, while having the power to scrutinise government.
The USA lacks that single body at the top.
So in the USA we have a situation where a state can pass a barbaric law over guns or abortion, and no higher power can overturn it.
In the UK when we vote in GEs we know that we have that responsibility to elect a supreme body. In the USA there is no equivalent.
But a competing balance of powers was the foundational conception of the the US constitution. The mistake of the founders was inadvertently to make it virtually impossible in modern times to amend the constitution democratically.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Royal Navy reserves are part-time civilians, trained to be called up if needed, no? They're not actually full-time naval professionals. A bit like the TA. And there are a few of those in the Commons. And one Royal Navy Surgeon Commander. There are quite a few MPs with actual battle experience. So being a reservist - while admirable - is not exactly exceptional
I read somewhere she has done just 29.5 days service in total. Seems crazy if true. Can someone confirm or refute that?
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Royal Navy reserves are part-time civilians, trained to be called up if needed, no? They're not actually full-time naval professionals. A bit like the TA. And there are a few of those in the Commons. And one Royal Navy Surgeon Commander. There are quite a few MPs with actual battle experience. So being a reservist - while admirable - is not exactly exceptional
I would also query the "ex lawyer" jibe. Isn't SKS still a QC?
QCs are appointed by the monarch by way of Letters Patent. I think it has to be something severe for you to lose that.
Joining the Labour Party?
Wasn’t Alistair Darling kicked out for fiddling his expenses?
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.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
Going back to some of the recent decisions.
One of the biggest problems with defending Roe v Wade was most legal actors agreed it was fundamentally based on a poor legal decision. Even Ginsburg recognised that and wanted its basis changed. That's why the Justices were able to overturn it in such a way and it left the Democrats trying to defend R v W on the basis that previous Supreme Court decisions couldn't be overturned, completely oblivious to the fact on that basis slavery would still be legal.
The advocates for abortion were fundamentally lazy. Once they got the decision they wanted, they didn't care, they put jack shit effort into solidifying the foundations.
That's just Republican propaganda. And it's simply not true to say 'most legal actors' thought Roe a poor decision.
Sigh.
Ginsburg's views on R v W from a legal standpoint are well documented. Even many of R v W's defenders knew this.
Tell you what though, why don't you come up with evidence for your view that the legal community generally thought R v W was fundamentally sound legally?
Well you could start by reading the dissents in Dobbs.
Your blithe assumption that Ginsburg represented all liberal jurisprudence, rather than being something of an outlier on this issue, is daft.
The problem with judicial legislation is that politicians then appoint judges on the basis of their political opinions.
In which case Badenoch goes out tonight and Mordaunt takes a more than 20 vote lead over Truss into the last round.
Where Badenoch's votes go then decisive
Telegraph describing KB as "the Kingmaker" this morning.
I guess she can choose her Cabinet post now. What do we think she will want? CoE or Home?
How much of a kingmaker is she really? Her supporters will make up their own minds, and will go to Truss more than Mordaunt, and Sunak will be through anyway.
But, yes, she did all this to get a Cabinet position and will be rewarded thusly. So expect more culture war nonsense.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Oh, I am so wounded. Surely all lawyers are by definition and position charismatice, witty, intelligent and just overflowing with bonhomine? Except Raab and Suella of course.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Achieved one of the top legal jobs in the country as a result of his own efforts, having been to a state school.
It was a private school for most of his time there and Mordaunt went to a comprehensive.
AIUI he passed the 11+ to g et there and those boys who have done so remained in the 'private' school on a 'scholarship' basis. What anyone else did is irrelevant!
He still went to a grammar school and private school and Oxford for postgraduate, so still had a posher education than comp and Reading educated Penny
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.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
Going back to some of the recent decisions.
One of the biggest problems with defending Roe v Wade was most legal actors agreed it was fundamentally based on a poor legal decision. Even Ginsburg recognised that and wanted its basis changed. That's why the Justices were able to overturn it in such a way and it left the Democrats trying to defend R v W on the basis that previous Supreme Court decisions couldn't be overturned, completely oblivious to the fact on that basis slavery would still be legal.
The advocates for abortion were fundamentally lazy. Once they got the decision they wanted, they didn't care, they put jack shit effort into solidifying the foundations.
That's just Republican propaganda. And it's simply not true to say 'most legal actors' thought Roe a poor decision.
Sigh.
Ginsburg's views on R v W from a legal standpoint are well documented. Even many of R v W's defenders knew this.
Tell you what though, why don't you come up with evidence for your view that the legal community generally thought R v W was fundamentally sound legally?
Well you could start by reading the dissents in Dobbs.
Your blithe assumption that Ginsburg represented all liberal jurisprudence, rather than being something of an outlier on this issue, is daft.
The problem with judicial legislation is that politicians then appoint judges on the basis of their political opinions.
Judicial lawmaking is the ultimate quis custodiet ipsos custodes problem.
People claim that undemocratic judicial lawmaking is a good idea because it prevents "majoritarian" democratic abuses, but the problem is that it does no such thing. Instead it simply means a majority stacks the court in a way that suits it, at which point then you have lost both the protection you valued and the ability to change it via the ballot box since now you need to not just win the next election but win it sufficiently often enough to stack the court in your own favour.
At which point the court has degenerated into nothing other than a political football.
The UK has done this right by resolving our disputes at the ballot box, via our Parliament, and its why I'd be in favour of returning back to the Churchill days of the ECHR being a convention we've signed up to, to be implemented via our own Parliament and not by the undemocratic ECtHR.
As Churchill himself said “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”
How many of the votes in Sunak’s column last night are soft supporters I wonder? That is to say, they care far more about it NOT being candidate X (most likely Truss) than they do whether Sunak or Mordaunt ends up winning? All this talk about Sunak “lending” votes is I think a misnomer, it assumes far more control of that voting coalition than the reality.
If today’s split of TT votes is anything like Peston’s forecast, then I think Penny is favourite.
As for Kemi being able to carry her supporters in a similar way, it would require Sunak to make her Chancellor, which I suspect has been the Gove / Sunak plan all along, given how much Kemi has needled Penny in the campaign but been fairly soft and deferential on Sunak. But will it work? It assumes the members prefer the Sunak / Kemi ticket to whoever Truss or Penny have lined up. And they may well not.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Oh, I am so wounded. Surely all lawyers are by definition and position charismatice, witty, intelligent and just overflowing with bonhomine? Except Raab and Suella of course.
Generally speaking, lawyers are arseholes. The exceptions are notable.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Achieved one of the top legal jobs in the country as a result of his own efforts, having been to a state school.
It was a private school for most of his time there and Mordaunt went to a comprehensive.
Not when he began there. Are you blaming him and his parents for the school's governing body deciding to change?
In any case you've been telling us for years how important it is to have leaders for the Tory Party (and therefore thew UK, Empire and Galaxy) from posh schools and universities.
So is that a black mark against Ms Mordaunt?
No it don't, I support choice in education and if Starmer's parents were happy to send him to a grammar and private school to give him the best start in life so he could go to a Russell Group university and get a postgraduate degree from Oxford and become a posh North London lawyer and Labour leader, good for them.
However it is clear that Labour cannot then play the class war card against Mordaunt, a Portsmouth comprehensive educated, Reading University educated, non Oxbridge, non lawyer and former Naval reservist in the way they have tried to do against our recent Old Etonian PMs and would do against Rishi, the Winchester and Oxford educated ex Goldman Sachs banker
It's a long time since Labour played the class war card, not least as the class difference in voting preference has virtually disappeared (one can debate which is cause and which is effect, maybe). Labour still criticises massive wealth distortions, especially linked to tax avoidance, and wealth-based preferential opportunity (which is why the debate on private schools is still going), but the idea of even Jeremy Corbyn shouting "Let's squeeze the rich till the pips squeak!" as Denis Healey did is difficult to imagine. The world has moved on, and only people like Rees-Mogg still seem to be "acutely alive to the existence of class distinctions", as Jeeves used to put it.
Labour certainly played the class war card against Etonian Cameron, remember the Crewe by election where Labour activists dressed up in top hats and tails and they have also frequently attacked Boris' Eton education too
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Oh, I am so wounded. Surely all lawyers are by definition and position charismatice, witty, intelligent and just overflowing with bonhomine? Except Raab and Suella of course.
Generally speaking, lawyers are arseholes. The exceptions are notable.
A cynic might say that generally speaking, people are arseholes.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Oh, I am so wounded. Surely all lawyers are by definition and position charismatice, witty, intelligent and just overflowing with bonhomine? Except Raab and Suella of course.
Generally speaking, lawyers are arseholes. The exceptions are notable.
Generally speaking, sweeping generalisations are bad.
Yes, looks about right to me, though when Badenoch goes out tommorow could be tight for second place.
If that is the split, then I think PM Is the value bet. KB's backers are not so much Brexiteers, more RWs / for change. I really don't see what attracts those people to Liz Truss.
Indeed not even impossible PM wins more Badenoch voters than Truss and Sunak
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Royal Navy reserves are part-time civilians, trained to be called up if needed, no? They're not actually full-time naval professionals. A bit like the TA. And there are a few of those in the Commons. And one Royal Navy Surgeon Commander. There are quite a few MPs with actual battle experience. So being a reservist - while admirable - is not exactly exceptional
I would also query the "ex lawyer" jibe. Isn't SKS still a QC?
QCs are appointed by the monarch by way of Letters Patent. I think it has to be something severe for you to lose that.
Joining the Labour Party?
Wasn’t Alistair Darling kicked out for fiddling his expenses?
I wasn't aware. But finance was never his strongest hand.
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.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
I agree with both of us. The question is the robustness of the process when challenged by difficult circumstances.
Balances are fine as long as there is a single accountable democratic outfit at the top, as the House of Commons here.
The HoC has the power to overturn all delegated authority, and our SC does not have the power to overturn its legislation on a whim, while having the power to scrutinise government.
The USA lacks that single body at the top.
So in the USA we have a situation where a state can pass a barbaric law over guns or abortion, and no higher power can overturn it.
In the UK when we vote in GEs we know that we have that responsibility to elect a supreme body. In the USA there is no equivalent.
But a competing balance of powers was the foundational conception of the the US constitution. The mistake of the founders was inadvertently to make it virtually impossible in modern times to amend the constitution democratically.
Yes and yes.
The flaws are being discovered. Now the mistake of relying on courts and constitutions to do things that are the job of the supreme elected body (the HoC in the UK) is becoming clearer.
At one time I put 6th formers through practice interviews for various things including Oxbridge. Slightly to my surprise quite a few of them (wanting to read law or PPE) were unable to offer anything at all in answer to the question: What is the difference between parliament and government.
In the UK we keep it simple. But bright people still don't get it. The USA is intractably confused by comparison.
Well the good news, and I know you were all worrying, is that my case today settled about 8.40pm last night so although I will have a brief appearance this morning I will not be spending my entire day somewhat overdressed for this occasion. Not the only reason for settlement of course, but something of a relief.
Having said that it is no more than pleasantly warm in Edinburgh at the moment and somewhat overcast.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Oh, I am so wounded. Surely all lawyers are by definition and position charismatice, witty, intelligent and just overflowing with bonhomine? Except Raab and Suella of course.
Generally speaking, lawyers are arseholes. The exceptions are notable.
And now it’s 35C so it’s rising 1C every half hour, at the moment
Cheers. I expect it is accurate (if not 'official'). It can get very hot next to buildings.
We have just reached 30°C in Dorset. And at the risk of sounding like a pompous arse that's on our Davis Vantage Pro2 weather station which is quite well sited (if not Met Office standard).
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Oh, I am so wounded. Surely all lawyers are by definition and position charismatice, witty, intelligent and just overflowing with bonhomine? Except Raab and Suella of course.
Generally speaking, lawyers are arseholes. The exceptions are notable.
A cynic might say that generally speaking, people are arseholes.
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.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
Going back to some of the recent decisions.
One of the biggest problems with defending Roe v Wade was most legal actors agreed it was fundamentally based on a poor legal decision. Even Ginsburg recognised that and wanted its basis changed. That's why the Justices were able to overturn it in such a way and it left the Democrats trying to defend R v W on the basis that previous Supreme Court decisions couldn't be overturned, completely oblivious to the fact on that basis slavery would still be legal.
The advocates for abortion were fundamentally lazy. Once they got the decision they wanted, they didn't care, they put jack shit effort into solidifying the foundations.
That's just Republican propaganda. And it's simply not true to say 'most legal actors' thought Roe a poor decision.
Sigh.
Ginsburg's views on R v W from a legal standpoint are well documented. Even many of R v W's defenders knew this.
Tell you what though, why don't you come up with evidence for your view that the legal community generally thought R v W was fundamentally sound legally?
Well you could start by reading the dissents in Dobbs.
Your blithe assumption that Ginsburg represented all liberal jurisprudence, rather than being something of an outlier on this issue, is daft.
The problem with judicial legislation is that politicians then appoint judges on the basis of their political opinions.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Oh, I am so wounded. Surely all lawyers are by definition and position charismatice, witty, intelligent and just overflowing with bonhomine? Except Raab and Suella of course.
Generally speaking, lawyers are arseholes. The exceptions are notable.
A cynic might say that generally speaking, people are arseholes.
Well, I wouldn't. Everyone is capable of acting like an arsehole sometimes, but most people mostly aren't. Obviously when people are arseholes it's more noticeable and so there's an observation bias effect.
Most people want to do good and want to be recognised for doing good. It's a very small minority who don't.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Achieved one of the top legal jobs in the country as a result of his own efforts, having been to a state school.
It was a private school for most of his time there and Mordaunt went to a comprehensive.
Not when he began there. Are you blaming him and his parents for the school's governing body deciding to change?
In any case you've been telling us for years how important it is to have leaders for the Tory Party (and therefore thew UK, Empire and Galaxy) from posh schools and universities.
So is that a black mark against Ms Mordaunt?
No it don't, I support choice in education and if Starmer's parents were happy to send him to a grammar and private school to give him the best start in life so he could go to a Russell Group university and get a postgraduate degree from Oxford and become a posh North London lawyer and Labour leader, good for them.
However it is clear that Labour cannot then play the class war card against Mordaunt, a Portsmouth comprehensive educated, Reading University educated, non Oxbridge, non lawyer and former Naval reservist in the way they have tried to do against our recent Old Etonian PMs and would do against Rishi, the Winchester and Oxford educated ex Goldman Sachs banker
It's a long time since Labour played the class war card, not least as the class difference in voting preference has virtually disappeared (one can debate which is cause and which is effect, maybe). Labour still criticises massive wealth distortions, especially linked to tax avoidance, and wealth-based preferential opportunity (which is why the debate on private schools is still going), but the idea of even Jeremy Corbyn shouting "Let's squeeze the rich till the pips squeak!" as Denis Healey did is difficult to imagine. The world has moved on, and only people like Rees-Mogg still seem to be "acutely alive to the existence of class distinctions", as Jeeves used to put it.
Labour certainly played the class war card against Etonian Cameron, remember the Crewe by election where Labour activists dressed up in top hats and tails and they have also frequently attacked Boris' Eton education too
The attack on Eton is merely a case of a shit school having too much influence on our political system
Well Helsingin Sanomat is leading with a story about a walrus.
Hamina's walrus was found in the backyard of a man from Kotka, near a worn-out clothes rack: "It was a pretty little walrus frolicking under the spruce fence"
Nothing else really of note. Lovely summer weather though.
Well Helsingin Sanomat is leading with a story about a walrus.
Hamina's walrus was found in the backyard of a man from Kotka, near a worn-out clothes rack: "It was a pretty little walrus frolicking under the spruce fence"
Nothing else really of note. Lovely summer weather though.
Has the walrus been spotted with any Conservative Cabinet ministers?
Comments
https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/daily-top-20/maxt
There's no official met office station anywhere near Doncaster.
I guess she can choose her Cabinet post now. What do we think she will want? CoE or Home?
It does make you wonder where that first one came from and why she would have thought it wise to try to represent herself like that. I know someone will have written it for her but she'll have had input and final approval.
I did one for Pqddy Ashdown once (all shot -no library footage) which was written by a very experienced copywriter from JWT. All of us working pro bono. He was a passionate Lib Dem
'PM4PM. The Greatest Story Ever Told'' was I suspect put together by a website designer which is why there was no original photography or thought.
But as you only have one chance to make a first impression it was a bad decision. As Red Adair once said. 'If you think it's expensive to hire a professional wait till you hire an amateur'
Nonsense like this has me concerned: https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1549269553422557185?t=M5NtbauiK_k5nID7Bqb8dA&s=19
@KevinASchofield
·
19m
Liz Truss promises massive tax cuts, a big increase in defence spending and no austerity.
Who knew it was that easy?
===
Labour would be slaughtered for this kind of ludicrous give away promising.
Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
22 MPs from Braverman were supposed to go to Truss. She only went up by 7. That's out by a whopping number.
Now, you might say that she did get all those 22 MPs, but lost 15 existing MPs elsewhere, but if that's the case there's a significant amount of churn going on. And she should have sewn up Braverman tight.
I maintain Kemi is value at 22/1. She beats Liz Truss she's basically favourite.
Of course the big difference with 1995 is that the Lib Dems we’re doing much better then under Paddy Ashdown.
I am not at all sure that Tory MPs will rally round, especially if the polls don't turn. Labour's lead has been pretty consistent and large for some time now.
This was exceeded one year before her death (hitting 37.1 degrees in 1990).
In my lifetime, I've experienced the country hitting 36.7 degrees or higher six times now (36.7 in 2015, 37.1 in 1990, 37.8 in 2020, 37.6 yesterday, 38.5 in 2003, and 37.8 in 2019). With the seventh time, near-certain to be higher still, coming up today.
Seems like I've been hogging the hot days in comparison. Never mind. My kids will beat me on this, I've no doubt (my youngest has already had five days where he's equalled or exceeded that 36.7 degrees and a sixth coming up, and he's only 18).
In any case you've been telling us for years how important it is to have leaders for the Tory Party (and therefore thew UK, Empire and Galaxy) from posh schools and universities.
So is that a black mark against Ms Mordaunt?
One of the biggest problems with defending Roe v Wade was most legal actors agreed it was fundamentally based on a poor legal decision. Even Ginsburg recognised that and wanted its basis changed. That's why the Justices were able to overturn it in such a way and it left the Democrats trying to defend R v W on the basis that previous Supreme Court decisions couldn't be overturned, completely oblivious to the fact on that basis slavery would still be legal.
The advocates for abortion were fundamentally lazy. Once they got the decision they wanted, they didn't care, they put jack shit effort into solidifying the foundations.
Holyrood VI
Constituency
SNP 46% nc
Lab 25% nc
Con 18% nc
LD 8% +1
oth 4% nc
However it is clear that Labour cannot then play the class war card against Mordaunt, a Portsmouth comprehensive educated, Reading University educated, non Oxbridge, non lawyer and former Naval reservist in the way they have tried to do against our recent Old Etonian PMs and would do against Rishi, the
Winchester and Oxford educated ex Goldman Sachs banker
I was right. Bow down before LEON THE PREDICTOR
Liz + Kemi ought to add up to enough votes to get one of them into the final round, and Liz has beaten Kemi in every round. And yet, it's easy to see it not happening.
So what happens then? If it is Penny vs Rishi in the final round, what do Liz, the Mail, and Conservatives who miss Maggie do?
And it's simply not true to say 'most legal actors' thought Roe a poor decision.
Delicious cloud cover and even a few seconds of rain so far.
Again, it goes back to why people are backing Truss. Is it because they believe in her vision or because she is seen as the best vessel to get to their own goals?
If it is the former, then I'd agree it will be hard for KB To overtake her unless TT's vote switches massively to her. I think @rcs1000 is probably more in this camp. I'm of the latter view, in which case any doubts over whether she could deliver will lead to her backers looking for a better option, in this case KB.
One other thing why I don't believe the gap between LT and KB is necessary insurmountable. Up to now, the right has never had to make a hard choicer before. If you were ERG, you could vote for Braverman knowing that Truss and KB were still there. When Braverman left, you still had a reserve horse in either KB or LT if you needed to switch. Now is crunch time. You really do have to decide who will be the best person to represent the right in the leadership contest. That may focus minds a lot more.
Can God's Own Country achieve the double with the highest daytime max this afternoon?
I thought I was acceptably rude; the mods thought otherwise; hey ho - it’s their site
Balances are fine as long as there is a single accountable democratic outfit at the top, as the House of Commons here.
The HoC has the power to overturn all delegated authority, and our SC does not have the power to overturn its legislation on a whim, while having the power to scrutinise government.
The USA lacks that single body at the top.
So in the USA we have a situation where a state can pass a barbaric law over guns or abortion, and no higher power can overturn it.
In the UK when we vote in GEs we know that we have that responsibility to elect a supreme body. In the USA there is no equivalent.
Penny will be the new Ruth Davidson I believe.
Ginsburg's views on R v W from a legal standpoint are well documented. Even many of R v W's defenders knew this.
Tell you what though, why don't you come up with evidence for your view that the legal community generally thought R v W was fundamentally sound legally?
Unprecedented, obvs
Your blithe assumption that Ginsburg represented all liberal jurisprudence, rather than being something of an outlier on this issue, is daft.
Bound to end well.
The mistake of the founders was inadvertently to make it virtually impossible in modern times to amend the constitution democratically.
Of course, so obvious.
https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1549304128425410562
Kay: Why has Liz Truss not done a single broadcast interview during the campaign?
Supporter James Heappey: “You’d have to ask her that…”
Kay: “But she’s not here!”
But, yes, she did all this to get a Cabinet position and will be rewarded thusly. So expect more culture war nonsense.
James Heale
@JAHeale
·
1h
Key timings today:
💥12:00pm MPs’ ballot opens
💥2:00pm MPs’ ballot closes
💥3:00pm Ballot result declared
Are other SNP, PC, Green, Labour, Lib Dem and NI PBers also experiencing warm schadenfreude glows?
People claim that undemocratic judicial lawmaking is a good idea because it prevents "majoritarian" democratic abuses, but the problem is that it does no such thing. Instead it simply means a majority stacks the court in a way that suits it, at which point then you have lost both the protection you valued and the ability to change it via the ballot box since now you need to not just win the next election but win it sufficiently often enough to stack the court in your own favour.
At which point the court has degenerated into nothing other than a political football.
The UK has done this right by resolving our disputes at the ballot box, via our Parliament, and its why I'd be in favour of returning back to the Churchill days of the ECHR being a convention we've signed up to, to be implemented via our own Parliament and not by the undemocratic ECtHR.
As Churchill himself said “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”
If today’s split of TT votes is anything like Peston’s forecast, then I think Penny is favourite.
As for Kemi being able to carry her supporters in a similar way, it would require Sunak to make her Chancellor, which I suspect has been the Gove / Sunak plan all along, given how much Kemi has needled Penny in the campaign but been fairly soft and deferential on Sunak. But will it work? It assumes the members prefer the Sunak / Kemi ticket to whoever Truss or Penny have lined up. And they may well not.
However it’s in the shade and quite accurate
And now it’s 35C so it’s rising 1C every half hour, at the moment
The flaws are being discovered. Now the mistake of relying on courts and constitutions to do things that are the job of the supreme elected body (the HoC in the UK) is becoming clearer.
At one time I put 6th formers through practice interviews for various things including Oxbridge. Slightly to my surprise quite a few of them (wanting to read law or PPE) were unable to offer anything at all in answer to the question: What is the difference between parliament and government.
In the UK we keep it simple. But bright people still don't get it. The USA is intractably confused by comparison.
Having said that it is no more than pleasantly warm in Edinburgh at the moment and somewhat overcast.
We have just reached 30°C in Dorset. And at the risk of sounding like a pompous arse that's on our Davis Vantage Pro2 weather station which is quite well sited (if not Met Office standard).
We broke our record yesterday with 34.1°C.
Most people want to do good and want to be recognised for doing good. It's a very small minority who don't.
Hamina's walrus was found in the backyard of a man from Kotka, near a worn-out clothes rack: "It was a pretty little walrus frolicking under the spruce fence"
Nothing else really of note. Lovely summer weather though.
Add in a dyson fan and it’s all quite tolerable. So thanks to anyone and everyone - eg @Sandpit - who gave advice on keeping cool in the furnace